Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by Utah-Jay, Mar 18, 2013.
I think it was the Capri pants that first got my attention, and after that I was transfixed.
Seriously, do I only have to purchase but not maintain it?
If that is the case, I suppose the 210 just because of usefull load. Next is the Ciruis.
Not being a hater but....
Nope, I have not, and I hope you did not take that the wrong way. An early 80's was just an example, a later model with a G-panel would work too, but that might preclude me from making the engine upgrade in my budget
If I can ever afford one, a T210N or T210M will be my last airplane.
You could do a lot worse. My N was an incredible ride for 19 years. All the crap about the gear (from non-owners who just repeat what they heard at the airport) is much like all the crap about wings and tail on Bonanzas. The early designs weren't all that great, but they became much better over time. All of the airplanes in that class (or any class for that matter) are simply packages of tradeoffs. Pick the package you like best and you'll be happy.
You probably know by now, but I fit the definition of "disabled". High winged Cessnas are my favorite with the 205 being the biggest I've flown so far. I have no 210 time... yet.
I've donated many Challenge Air flights over the years. The 177's seem to be the favorite plane for those with mobility issues, but the other Cessnas are close behind. If you fly the 210, don't be surprised if you get hooked.
When I was shopping for my first and only airplane with a similar budget, a 210 was a dream plane of mine for decades prior, and the purchase price was within range. I looked at a P210 and got a quote for insurance on that and asked around regarding expected maintenance. The insurance came back at near $10K per year. That, along with the additional maintenance of RG, and pressurization, I nixed that idea. I eventually opted for the 182 with insurance at near $2K instead, and lower maintenance.
I don't know how much difference the pressurized version made for the insurance...
Your Total Time and hull value would put that into perspective.
I had 300TT 0 Complex, 0 retract and 75K hull on my Bonanza was 1600 for the first year. I had some "we don't want your business" quotes (which I have saved to a file, and won't be using in the future). $2K on a 182? You're either really low time or fly a nice 182.
The OP gave us his three, so I won't put another vote in for a fairly modern Bo, and restrict myself to voting.
I chose the Cirrus. I've got very few hours in the Cessna planes, and none in the Cirrus. I think of the three, it is the best use case unless one wants to haul a moose carcass(210) or something. I discounted the 182 simply because they are so darn pedestrian.
The SR22 is just in a different category completely. You can go faster, or go the same speed as most of the 210s on the same HP and use less gas.
You can buy an 80's 182, put in NICE avionics (garmin/aspen), and still have a good chunk of 250K left over. And if you decide to step up to a twin or turboprop later, you'll have good resale opportunities.
Other options for the 182 would include a STOL Kit, Engine upgrades, Floats?
I like the Cirrus, but it's not as versatile as the 182... and the extra speed is not THAT much extra.
I think that the 182 is the DC-3 of singles - does nearly everything "pretty well".
Oh, one other option if you really don't like the Cessnas, consider a DA-40.
I have no time in any of them. Couldn't you get similar performance and more utility with a 210 for quite a bit less dough? Seems like one could pick up a real nice strutless 210 non-turbo for 100K, or a turbo model for 150K. Something like that. You can buy a lot of gas with the money saved. Unless, of course, you're into all that fancy schmancy electronic stuff on the dash, then it's not really much of a choice.
Reasoning behind the 210, it is a good short field performer for its class, and can be made even better with a STOL kit. In another thread the OP mentioned a desire to visit strips as short as 1200'. That alone kills the cirrus products for me, having flown Currus I wouldn't want to even think about trying to shove one in and out of such a place. I also like the idea of a retract for flight over water, less chance of catching the gear if forced to ditch. The speed is also a big bonus, late model 210s are fast, especially the turbo models, but for the OP's mission I would skip the turbo, I don't think that it will be worth it.
The only fellow I know doing what the OP has mentioned for a mission (flying around the Caribbean) has a P210 and loves it. He opted for the P because he is a diver and likes to hop between islands without waiting to fully decompress from the dive, so he stays low and keeps a sea level cabin. His procedure for a loss of pressurization on such a flight is to dive for the water and skim the waves.
For the OP I might also consider an R182, but would probably skip it myself and jump to the 210.
Has anybody noticed that eye-popping MX costs are seldom mentioned when Cirri are discussed? FYI, that doesn't hold true when owners are discussing them, especially after the warranty expires.
Anybody who wants to test the theory can visit the service center at the end of our taxiway and conduct their own research.
These are all great planes and it really does come down to mission. The 182 will be the cheapest and will be a very versatile plane. At the price you might find a used Peterson 260SE and that is a great plane for small strips while still being nice to fly on more regular trips. Peterson owners are the most loyal out there.
The 210 still has some reasonable grass strip capability and you get more speed. My concerns would be maintenance expense and strength of airframe. I want to be careful here. I am not saying those are issues. What I am saying is that those are items I would want to research more.
I would personally pick the SR22 (and in reality did) but that's based on my mission which is cross country in comfort with nice avionics. I like the strength of the airframe too. Visibility is also great. The power of the SR22 is very nice when in the mountains and makes for very efficient flying at high altitudes. On the downside the SR22 is poor for grass strips and STOL it is not. Also a lot of 182's and 210's have better useful loads. At $250K you are in the range of a 2006 with R9 avionics which is what I fly. That's an awesome package. If you haven't flown R9 with a DFC100 AP then you don't know how intuitive avionics can be. Garmin should take lessons. Since one poster mentioned a retract for over water flight I'll say I prefer a chute and that includes flight at night and over mountains in addition to over water flight.
There are a lot of great planes not in this list of 3. You can have a great BE35 with lots left over but the CG issues can be a pain. The A36 might be better and has more room. The Carbon Cub is at the top of my fun list but not a cross country plane.
Besides eating right brake pads ours has been good to us, however one does have to budget for the repack, a very big deal on the G1 planes
I too wouldn't mind the cute for SE over water, but had already dismissed the Cirrus for other reasons,
Now if you will excuse me I need to go fly a 2006 SR22...
Some people have all the fun!
If you're considering flying over water often, and are considering either a 182 or 210, get yourself a 337 skymaster. Added safety over the water, flies similar to a 210 with the in-line thrust, same goofy retractable rear, and if you lose an engine, bingo, you got yourself a 182.
The one on my local field has a factory Robertson STOL, and will get off the ground in a hurry.
I didn't know that, prolly cause it's seldom discussed in polite company. That might sway my vote for a rather plush 210 or one with a turbo and just live with the slower speed.
Here's my choice a 2003 C182T for $175,000
Sweet, have fun.
I test the theory all the time since I own one. My best friend has a well equipped V-tail Bonanza and I would say we are in line with each other. This year he won for most money spent but I think I won last year - if you call that winning. Both cost a lot more to maintain than a 172. Also there is a huge difference between different generations of Cirrus aircraft. I say that having owned a 2002 prior to my 2006.