182RG versus 210

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Morne, Apr 11, 2012.

?

182RG versus 210

  1. 182RG

    11 vote(s)
    31.4%
  2. 210

    21 vote(s)
    60.0%
  3. Other (explain)

    3 vote(s)
    8.6%
  1. Morne

    Morne Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    698
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Morne
    Aside from the extra (tiny) rear seats in the 210, is there really anything that differentiates these two in terms of performance and operating cost?

    I understand the history fine. Back in the early 60s the 210 was the step up from a straight leg 182. But in the late 70s the 182RG seemed to fill almost exactly the same role (unless you wanted pressurization). So looking at the used market today it would seem that either could work.

    Not that I am in the market for a plane right now, but if someone were looking to incrementally upgrade from a straight leg 182 which route would you take and why?
     
  2. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    210 has a bunch more power. That means more payload and speed along with the extra room inside. Thus, not an "either/or" comparison. If one will do, the other either won't or is overkill.
     
  3. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,233
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    More performance, more payload, more space, higher operating cost.

    Also, the 210 offers more options for de-ice and weather avoidance equipment. While some people scoff at the little pod-mounted radars and boots on singles, others love them.
     
  4. Morne

    Morne Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    698
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Morne
    Looking at what2fly.com it seems that they are remarkably close. I compared a 1965 210E versus a 1979 R182RG and got costs per nautical mile of $0.85 and $0.74, respectively. Going to the same model year of 1979 for the 210N, now strutless, you get $0.75 per nm.
     
  5. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,233
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    You are feeding a 300hp fuel injected continental engine with all its gear-driven accessories vs. a 235hp Lycoming with a belt driven alternator and a ring-gear starter.

    Maybe it is just that the 182RG owners whine less, but that engine is about as straightforward as they were ever made. The only weakness that I can see is that it uses the 'D-mag' which is not available new anymore and creates a single point of failure (the mechanical side). I have been assured that there are plenty of cores around to last 182, TB20 and Navajo owners for a long time to come, chances are by the time we run out of cores, there will be an electronic replacement.
     
  6. Tom-D

    Tom-D Taxi to Parking PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    29,821
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    The 210 varies over its production run so how can you compare with out selecting one model ?
     
  7. wabower

    wabower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,017
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Wayne
    Alternators on 210's were belt-driven until 82 when they adopted a dual-alternator setup with one belt-driven and one gear-driven.

     
  8. Skylane81E

    Skylane81E Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    8,060
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Duncan
    Younger 210s also have a different airfoil, lower lift higher speed. If I were to step up from my skylane it would be into a 210
     
  9. Threefingeredjack

    Threefingeredjack En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,173
    Location:
    Central Oregon/Hawaii
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Threefingeredjack
    I voted "other", thinking of the Turbo 182RG I used to fly. With internal O2 I could cruise in the low teens and get great speed for low operating costs. I'd still have it if I hadn't been sent to that hellhole known as Barbers Point. :D If she'd had the range to ferry there I'd still own it.
     
  10. Morne

    Morne Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    698
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Morne
    I intentionally left turbo out of the equation. Being an Ohio boy turbo is something I really do not need.
     
  11. Threefingeredjack

    Threefingeredjack En-Route

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,173
    Location:
    Central Oregon/Hawaii
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Threefingeredjack
    Understandable. Where I live my home field is at 3400, and summers often see 90 degree days, and the MEAs across the hills to the coast are all in excess of 10k.
     
  12. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    Which should I buy? A 1/4-drive socket set or a 3/8-drive socket set?

    :dunno:

    No way to say, since I haven't specified the job requirement.
     
  13. There are differences in handling, too. I'm speaking of airplanes, but that's true with socket sets as well. :)
     
  14. Morne

    Morne Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    698
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Morne
    Presume that it will perform the same role as the straight leg 182 (non-LR tanks) but with a bit more speed and style.
     
  15. zaitcev

    zaitcev En-Route

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    2,955
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pete Zaitcev
    The flaw in this analogy is that one can afford two sets (heck, I have 4), but I do not see Morne buying two airplanes. Also, 1/4 ratchets are junk, always. Stopped using them completely and went to 3/8 with adapters after breaking two 1/4s. So sets are not even equivalent.

    BTW, just buy a Cirrus SR-20. Good 210s are kinds similar in price. I see the old 210s for much cheaper, in the $50k area, but ewwww. Do you want an airplane to fly or an antique to restore?
     
  16. gil_mor

    gil_mor Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    248
    Location:
    Sedona, Az
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    gil_mor
    I have about 50 hours in a 1964(?) 210.
    Great plane, terrible gear problems.
    Older 210s are known to have issues with them. I wont fly that plane, I bet DavidWhite probably feels the same.
    No experience with the 182RG.
     
  17. Morne

    Morne Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    698
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Morne
    I understand that getting the gear door mod is a must.
     
  18. Fearless Tower

    Fearless Tower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    14,909
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fearless Tower
    To me, the question would come down to the load that you would need to carry.

    The 210 will haul considerably more than a 182, but why pay for the capability if you don't need it?
     
  19. gil_mor

    gil_mor Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    248
    Location:
    Sedona, Az
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    gil_mor
    Don't know, not A&P nor knowledgeable about mechanics. I know that we had issues with gear doors, and had a hydraulic fluid leak, neither were "uncommon" to my CFI's opinion.
     
  20. wabower

    wabower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,017
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Wayne
    And I have 26+ years of ownership of two of them with more than 5,000 hours logged with zero problems. Who are you going to believe? You and David or me?

     
  21. EdFred

    EdFred Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    21,128
    Location:
    Michigan
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ed Frederick
    There's never been a 210 gear issue, ever?
     
  22. Morne

    Morne Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    698
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Morne
    As I mentioned above, I am not convinced that a 210 is really much more to procure and operate than a 182RG. Even if it is, it is certainly not the same percentage more as the useful load increase. That is to say, the 210 hauls for less dollars on a per pound of useful load basis.

    It might be that even though 75% of the mission could fit within the 182RG envelope it is fairly inexpensive to have the extra capacity of the 210 for the whole enchilada. Just musing...
     
  23. Skylane81E

    Skylane81E Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    8,060
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Duncan
    Like any retract you need a mechanic to stay ahead of the issues.
     
  24. DouglasBader

    DouglasBader Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    896
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Doug
    I've got lots of time in 210's instructing, flying them privately, in charter, and for the USFS doing fire patrol and point to point. I've flown cargo in them, and even done rough field work in them; they're surprisingly versatile. I really like 210's.

    I don't have much experience in retract 182's. A couple hundred hours maybe, but the ones I flew were fine airplanes. Five passengers in a 210 vs. 3 in a 182.

    Depending on what you intend to do and how you intend to run it, either airplane can be flown relatively economically. If you want to run it wide open and rich, you'll burn a lot of fuel, but that's not necessarily desirable or advisable.

    If your mission is such that you're deciding between the 182 or 210, is it possible that you'd be just as well off with a fixed gear airplane? Your costs, especially in the long run and with regard to insurance, will be lower with the fixed gear.

    210s give the best ride, I think. There's more flex in the airplane; they do turbulence better, and just seem to ride better. I always felt when transitioning between a 206 and a 210 that the 210 rode better. In the mountains, I felt more tired after flying the 206, especially on a bouncy day. Then again, it's really hard to beat a 206 or 207 for a single engine family truck. It follows, then, that the 210 is the same way.

    Save yourself a lot of grief, however, and skip the older models.
     
  25. wabower

    wabower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,017
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Wayne
    My partner and I operated one of each during the time after we bought the T-210N and while he was trying to sell the 182RG. For many trips, the differences are neglible. For others, they are signficant, mostly for load and performance vs block speed. We found the 210 cabin to be much more comfortable and the engine to be smoother. Also liked the strutless wing for convenience and visibility, but not a deal-breaker.

     
  26. wabower

    wabower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,017
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Wayne
    Nope, and never any AD's on the tail of a Comanche.

     
  27. Fearless Tower

    Fearless Tower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    14,909
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Fearless Tower
    Strutless wings are great....until you find yourself away from home at the self serve pump.....and there is no ladder.
     
  28. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    Then there's no need for the 210, and the 182RG will leave more money in your pocket at the end of the year.
     
  29. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    Sorry -- didn't see him say he could afford two planes. ;) Point is, you don't know which is the better choice unless you know what he wants to do with it.

    Bad choice -- won't haul the load of the 182 which he says is what he wants to replace with similar capability but more "speed and style." SR-22, maybe, but even those have comparatively small payloads for their size and cost.
     
  30. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    20% more fuel burn and 50% more seats for the liability insurance (which is driven to a great extent by the number of seats). Those alone make it cost significantly more to own and operate.

    Even though they cost less per pound, I don't buy those giant boxes of cereal at Sam's because it will go stale before all of it gets eaten (empty nest). Same here -- if your current 182 is hauling all you want, then why waste the money? And if you do need the extra payload, the 182RG just won't do at all.

    So, as I see it, unless the money doesn't matter to you, the only question is whether the 182RG will do the job or not. If it will, buy it. If not, buy the 210 that will.
     
  31. wabower

    wabower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,017
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Wayne
    Did you look in the bag compartment where should always ride?
     
  32. 150Mike

    150Mike Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Guzman
    I spent 10 years as the lead A&P at a CRS that included both engine and prop overhaul shops. I installed a lot of freshly overhauled engines and usually "test" flew the airplanes afterward. The owners almost always appreciated having someone else put the first couple of hours on a new engine even if they were billed for the gas. During that time, I got opportunities to fly many different aircraft, including a full range of Cessna 182, 182RG, TR182, and 210 (including T210 and P210) series aircraft.

    The 182 FG Skylane is one of the best all-around airplanes ever built in my opinion. I also generally prefer Lycoming gray engines to TCM gold ones, but the O-540 on the 182RG is not one of my favorites. Aside from the dual mag, it also has an HA-6 side draft carb which I am not fond of. The turbo version is even worse. The stupid throttle mechanism that controls the turbo wastegate is one of the biggest clusterF&@$! that I have ever seen. When you push the throttle control into the panel, it hits the maximum wide open throttle plate (butterfly) in the carb itself at only half travel. All of the rest of the throttle travel is used to actuate the turbo wastegate via a convoluted cam plate and a pull cable. Rigging it is a nightmare. It violates the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) and all for only 235 horsepower (turbo normalized, not boosted!)

    On the other hand, I've flown a full range of Cessna 210s from an IO-470 powered 210A with struts up to a P210. I was not impressed with the 210A at all, the P210 flew like a living room - VERY (almost too) stable and it seemed like it took minutes for it to respond to aileron imputs and roll! It was also very heavy and didn't feel anything at all like any other 210. Some of the most fun I've ever had was in the T210, but probably the absolute most fun I have ever had was in a 1976 210L with a STOL kit, an IO-550 conversion with a Scimitar prop, and a radar pod under the right wing. That darn thing would climb like a homesick angel even though according to the airspeed indicator, it shouldn't have been flying at all.

    As far as the n/a 210 models are concerned, I always preferred the 210L or later because up through the 210K model, they had engine-driven hydraulic pumps that ran all the time. I liked the electro-hydraulic powerpacks better because they shut off when not in use. It's easy to tell the difference on the ground; the full-time engine-driven hydraulic pump models cycle the aux NLG doors closed after the gear is extended, but the electro-hydraulic powerpack models do not - the aux NLG doors are closed only when the NLG itself retracts and pulls the doors closed with it.

    One other piece of "wisdom" once shared with me by one of the first guys I ever flew with - he had a Cessna 177 Cardinal (N888VM) that he bought from his brother when the brother "upgraded" to a 177RG. He told me that the 177RG was a 15% increase in cost for a 10% increase in performance. In other words, bigger and/or more complex is not necessarily "better."

    The bottom line is that any airplane is a compromise - you really have to find something that suits your typical mission (and you had better know just what exactly your typical mission will be before you buy the airplane!)

    My last two cents, in contrast to someone else's opinion here, my 1/4 inch drive ratchet was the one tool that I used more than any other. Very little on a GA airplane requires more torque than that and space and access are frequently an issue. Sometimes, I wondered why I had 3/8 inch drive tools at all. I'm not saying that I'm more "right" or that he's necessarily "wrong" - just that experiences and opinions vary.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2012
    UngaWunga likes this.
  33. Morne

    Morne Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    698
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Morne
    The early 210s just had 4 seats, right? At which point, it really WAS a 182RG.

    Regardless, no way I would put 6 adults in a 210.
     
  34. RyanShort1

    RyanShort1 En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,562
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    RyanShort1
    Hey, I flew that bird this past weekend on a long cross-country to an airport with a 6900' elevation and over mountain ridges with no serious issues...

    [​IMG]

    Stop hatin' on it already!

    http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N5948F/history/20120406/2204Z/T94/2E5 - this was the trip out there the day before.

    Ryan
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2012
  35. wabower

    wabower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,017
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Wayne
    Why? Would it surprise you to know that many people are thrilled to be offered a ride in a 210, especially when faced with a 3-hour flight vs a 12-hour drive? Have you ever ridden in a 210?



     
  36. Morne

    Morne Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    698
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Morne
    No, I have not. I have been told that the back 2 seats are not really sized for adults.

    Besides which, if I am one of the adults there is no way we'd stay under gross with full fuel. I like taking off with full fuel...
     
  37. wabower

    wabower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,017
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Wayne
    The cabin will carry more than 1,200# with 60 gal fuel (3 hours plus 1 hour reserve). We put the big-un's in the front and middle seats. College-age kids will sit anywhere and love it. I have been in the back seats a couple of times with one of the middle seats removed. It's adequate for 6-3 X 235 under such circumstances but not to be confused with sumptious.

     
  38. Skylane81E

    Skylane81E Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    8,060
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Duncan
    Angie wants three kids, I've told her buying me a T210 is my price for more tha two rugrats.:D
     
  39. DouglasBader

    DouglasBader Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    896
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Doug
    You're passing opinion when you have no basis for the opinion. You're passing as statements of fact what you only think you know from second hand sources. That's not very responsible.

    I've spent a lot of time in Cessna 206's, 207's, and 210's flying people and gear on tours, charters, cargo flights, and government flights, often with a full airplane. Complaining about the room has never been an issue.

    If you're going to do a trip around the pattern, do you take off with full fuel?

    It's very hard to get much utility out of an aircraft if you use no common sense, but instead apply a mindless policy such as always taking off with full fuel. It's not a bad policy, until you need the payload. It's also an unnecessary policy, carrying the extra weight, when it's not needed.

    Interesting. I would. I've done it many times. Then again, you've already said that you've never been in a 210.

    Most folks are smart enough to include ensuring a collapsible 3-legged stool is available in the baggage compartment before departing, along with a tow bar. Perhaps you might have said that strutless wings are great until you don't do your part and ensure that the airplane is ready for flight.
     
  40. Morne

    Morne Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    698
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Morne
    Doug, please accept my most humble apologies. I started this thread because I wanted to hear the input of others with more experience.

    Now back to my last question - the early 210s only had 4 seats, right? That basically IS a 182RG with a bit more oomph.