Dick Collins reminisces about N40RC

Great article, Troy, thanks for sharing.

Without a doubt, the P210 is a MX hog. We had a frequent visitor at Williamsport who owned a P210 and a 414. He said they cost about the same to operate.
 
Always liked reading Collins ,he always gave you the truth about owning and maintaining the 210. Found it interesting that he parted out the airplane when he was finished with it.
 
frfly172 said:
Always liked reading Collins ,he always gave you the truth about owning and maintaining the 210. Found it interesting that he parted out the airplane when he was finished with it.
Click to expand...

Why? I did similar with the Aztec. I also suspect that when I'm done with the 310, it'll be done.

Sometimes, it's nice to be the last one to drive/fly/ride something.
 
I suspect he knew how many times he had overstressed the main spar punching through fronts.
 
Parting it out lowers potential liability. Were I to build an experimental, that's precisely what I would do when I stopped flying.
 
Way back when I was instructing an attorney who had just purchased a P210, and he allowed me to "borrow" it just for the cost of gas.

Great concept for a plane, when new and with everything working and owned by someone else!

I believe this was preflighting on a trip to visit friends in Lock Haven, PA:

15157300128_387001336c_z.jpg


I think I later heard this particular plane was destroyed in South or Central America - something to do with drugs, I think.
 
wsuffa said:
Parting it out lowers potential liability. Were I to build an experimental, that's precisely what I would do when I stopped flying.
Click to expand...


On a certified model, I wouldn't think liability would be a huge issue after the sale...

Can anyone name a lawsuit based on this scenario?
 
wsuffa said:
Parting it out lowers potential liability. Were I to build an experimental, that's precisely what I would do when I stopped flying.
Click to expand...

This is an old wives tale. This scenario was presented to several legal beagles in aviation. They determined it would actually increase your liability exposure. The best protection against liability claims would be to sell the whole plane using the paperwork for experimentals provided by the EAA.
 
Last edited:
Often, economics and ease of sale dictate scrap vs. sell.

A cursory look at the P210s on Controller shows most of them at roughly 3k TTAF. The cheapest list price for one with over 6k and a mid time engine is $145k.

A scrap yard was likely willing to pay him equal or more as what he could sell his plane for to an individual, without the scrutiny of all the work he did to it over the years, haggling, etc.

When I sold the Aztec to the A&P school, they offered me more money than any person. But the scrap yards were #2 behind the A&P school, and they were just going to hand me a check when I delivered the plane to them. Also, when you've had such grand adventures with a plane (as I did with my venerable F-350 of the skies) and you know a future pilot wouldn't do the same, there is some comfort to letting your friend retire on a high note.

I like the P210 as a concept, but it definitely needs some help with the engine and accessories. Piper did a much better job with the Malibu.

It rather surprises me that Cirrus hasn't come out with an SR22TP (lettering intentional), but who knows - maybe that'll be the G6 or G7? They already advertise flying in the mid teens or low flight levels, where even a modest 4 psi would allow comfortable removal of the cannulas.
 
Really cool article - thanks for sharing. I had no idea that the P210 had all the issues that it did.
 
Nice article.

Is a Malibu cheaper per NM than a P210?
 
Hmmmmm.... I have been looking at and pretty much decided to buy a C-210P. I might have to study the 210P a little more now.

Thanks for sharing that article.
 
He should have just bought a P337. I'm sure he would have been much happier.

:D
 
dans2992 said:
On a certified model, I wouldn't think liability would be a huge issue after the sale...

Can anyone name a lawsuit based on this scenario?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think it was legal liability he was concerned with, more a moral liability, he likely knew things about the plane's condition and history that made him feel that he would bear moral responsibility in the death of the next owner. I always hear that comment that "he shouldn't have done that to the plane" blah blah blech. It's his property to dispose of as he wishes, if he feels the plane is no longer safe, then it's well within his prerogative, if not moral duty, to take it out of service. There are some people that put conscience before money, besides, many planes are worth more as salvage than flying.
 
dans2992 said:
Nice article.

Is a Malibu cheaper per NM than a P210?
Click to expand...

These days? Most likely, you are also much less likely to run into a problem with a part made of 'unobtainium' with a PA-46 series since it is still in production and the P-210 hasn't been in decades, and there weren't that many to begin with.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Often, economics and ease of sale dictate scrap vs. sell.

A cursory look at the P210s on Controller shows most of them at roughly 3k TTAF. The cheapest list price for one with over 6k and a mid time engine is $145k.

A scrap yard was likely willing to pay him equal or more as what he could sell his plane for to an individual, without the scrutiny of all the work he did to it over the years, haggling, etc.

When I sold the Aztec to the A&P school, they offered me more money than any person. But the scrap yards were #2 behind the A&P school, and they were just going to hand me a check when I delivered the plane to them. Also, when you've had such grand adventures with a plane (as I did with my venerable F-350 of the skies) and you know a future pilot wouldn't do the same, there is some comfort to letting your friend retire on a high note.

I like the P210 as a concept, but it definitely needs some help with the engine and accessories. Piper did a much better job with the Malibu.

It rather surprises me that Cirrus hasn't come out with an SR22TP (lettering intentional), but who knows - maybe that'll be the G6 or G7? They already advertise flying in the mid teens or low flight levels, where even a modest 4 psi would allow comfortable removal of the cannulas.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt Cirrus will introduce pressure in the 22 series plane, the weight and performance penalties would be too high, plus that would reduce the incentive to step up to the Cirrus Jet when released. Now that Cirrus is under Chinese control, we'll see what happens. I expect to see the next gen of SR-22 to be a SR-22TDi with a Continental CD-330 in it.
 
Henning said:
I seriously doubt Cirrus will introduce pressure in the 22 series plane, the weight and performance penalties would be too high, plus that would reduce the incentive to step up to the Cirrus Jet when released. Now that Cirrus is under Chinese control, we'll see what happens. I expect to see the next gen of SR-22 to be a SR-22TDi with a Continental CD-330 in it.
Click to expand...

I doubt if they'll do it, I just said it surprises me. Lancair IV-P owners seem to love the pressurization.

For the record, I tend to believe that pressurized piston singles ask a great deal of their engines, and pressurization is best left to turbines or piston twins. But, the market and I don't always agree. Pressurization is also something that, until you've lived with it, you don't really miss.
 
Is Collins still flying and if so, what does he fly?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Great article, Troy, thanks for sharing.

Without a doubt, the P210 is a MX hog. We had a frequent visitor at Williamsport who owned a P210 and a 414. He said they cost about the same to operate.
Click to expand...

That kind of capability does come at a cost. But 9,000 hours through all types of weather speaks for itself.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I doubt if they'll do it, I just said it surprises me. Lancair IV-P owners seem to love the pressurization.

For the record, I tend to believe that pressurized piston singles ask a great deal of their engines, and pressurization is best left to turbines or piston twins. But, the market and I don't always agree. Pressurization is also something that, until you've lived with it, you don't really miss.
Click to expand...

If I wanted a $300k+ traveling single, there is only one choice I would make and that is the Lancair IVP and I'd power it with the CD-330 and hang the 'drop tanks' on a detachable system for storage when not needed. That would give me swift personal transport, comfortable at altitude (gotta love liquid cooling for providing cabin heat) with global range.
 
Is the CD-330 the engine they announced at OSH? I believe they are not making it available to the experimental market. (I asked)
 
Marauder said:
Missed that. Must have been tough to give it up cold turkey.
Click to expand...

If my business plan goes as we planned it, I will be away from line flying by next spring. I will still stay on a current 135 check ride and take flights that I want to do and do repositioning/maintanence flights as needed.

When I retire, I will take my certificates, frame them and put them on the wall, never to be used again.

Then buy a new RV and never stay in hotels again...:rofl:


I know, I know, never say never....
 
9,000 hours in a single Cessna sounds like torture to me. Did Flying pay journalists well enough to run these airplanes or is there another income stream and the Flying gig a hobby job?
 
Geico266 said:
This is an old wives tale. This scenario was presented to several legal beagles in aviation. They determined it would actually increase your liability exposure. The best protection against liability claims would be to sell the whole plane using the paperwork for experimentals provided by the EAA.
Click to expand...

Either you're much more trusting than I or you have less to lose. Not a worry for me as I likely won't build an aircraft at this point.
 
Henning said:
If I wanted a $300k+ traveling single, there is only one choice I would make and that is the Lancair IVP and I'd power it with the CD-330 and hang the 'drop tanks' on a detachable system for storage when not needed. That would give me swift personal transport, comfortable at altitude (gotta love liquid cooling for providing cabin heat) with global range.
Click to expand...

While I like that idea for a lot of reasons (or at least I like having a diesel in a IV-P), the pressurization and altitude capability has yet to be seen. Plus, I doubt if Continental will want these in the experimental market.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
While I like that idea for a lot of reasons (or at least I like having a diesel in a IV-P), the pressurization and altitude capability has yet to be seen. Plus, I doubt if Continental will want these in the experimental market.
Click to expand...


They'd probably sell a hell of a lot more of them if they did allow them to be in the EAB market! I'm guessing at least 2x the certified market.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
While I like that idea for a lot of reasons (or at least I like having a diesel in a IV-P), the pressurization and altitude capability has yet to be seen. Plus, I doubt if Continental will want these in the experimental market.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what Continental wants, once they hit the salvage market, they'll end up in Ex-ABs.
 
dans2992 said:
They'd probably sell a hell of a lot more of them if they did allow them to be in the EAB market! I'm guessing at least 2x the certified market.
Click to expand...
The biggest market for that engine I see is the Twin Cessnas, Navajos, and even Queen Airs in commercial operation.
 
I can't remember which engine vendor is was at OSH with a new diesel, but after talking to their people, they were not interested in doing experimentals or retrofits. Only the "new aircraft" market. Seems pretty stupid to me.

I have a Comanche and I'd love to have a diesel option at some point. Doesn't look like it will ever happen though.

I'm also thinking that higher horsepower versions of these engines would be good in a PA46. Cheaper to run than the turbine, and hopefully a little more bulletproof than the current piston engines.
 
ClimbnSink said:
9,000 hours in a single Cessna sounds like torture to me. Did Flying pay journalists well enough to run these airplanes or is there another income stream and the Flying gig a hobby job?
Click to expand...
Torture? Are you kidding?

If you can afford or have the opportunity to fly something more substantial than sure. But if you can afford a personal high performance single and you love to fly, e.g. flying single engine/single pilot IFR in a Tripacer or whatever the heck Collins started out in, it sounds like heaven.

I've been flying a single for 18 years now - first a dog slow Maule and now a personally constructed and maintained RV10. Loved them both and loving the lifestyle. Not only do I love personal aircraft travel, but I love flying the same airplane for a long time.

I think I've read every article Collins has written at Flying. He's always struck me as the kind of taciturn, dyed in the wool old school pilot who when he does talk, it's just the facts ma'm, just the facts. I was orginally a Cessna high wing guy but I have to admit that I never dreamed of a P210, not after reading his experience with that MX intensive ship. Obviously his flying was mainly for Flying business but there are other benefits to being in the GA industry and flying a GA plane.

My only regret over the years was not picking up a personal airplane when I was actively traveling for work. I worked for one of the few Fortune 100 companies that allowed employees to travel by personal plane. The policy ended just as I moved my focus from soaring back to airplanes. Did I say regret? Nix that, the soaring was the funnest thing I ever did or will ever do in aviation.

Ironically I'm sitting in a bagel shop 120 miles from home waiting for some adjustments on a car I recently bought - my first new car since 1994. Then I'm driving off to the mountains to do some fishing. In the end, it will be the longest car trip I've taken in 20 years. The new car is a real novelty and a lot of fun... but cars, their drivers and the roads they use are overrated. Just a means to get to and from an airport.

Anyway, let me go see if my car is ready...
 
dans2992 said:
They'd probably sell a hell of a lot more of them if they did allow them to be in the EAB market! I'm guessing at least 2x the certified market.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but they also, for now anyway, want to have some control over who buys it. Build a reputation and initial development over a more known customer base who will take the plane to authorized service centers (most likely). I can't blame them.

Henning said:
It doesn't matter what Continental wants, once they hit the salvage market, they'll end up in Ex-ABs.
Click to expand...

True, but expect high prices.

Henning said:
The biggest market for that engine I see is the Twin Cessnas, Navajos, and even Queen Airs in commercial operation.
Click to expand...

I wrote an article on that very subject that was just published. My summary was don't expect to see them in a 310 (or 421) near you anytime soon.

dans2992 said:
I can't remember which engine vendor is was at OSH with a new diesel, but after talking to their people, they were not interested in doing experimentals or retrofits. Only the "new aircraft" market. Seems pretty stupid to me.

I have a Comanche and I'd love to have a diesel option at some point. Doesn't look like it will ever happen though.

I'm also thinking that higher horsepower versions of these engines would be good in a PA46. Cheaper to run than the turbine, and hopefully a little more bulletproof than the current piston engines.
Click to expand...

What do you think a diesel STC would cost in your Comanche? I'd bet more than it's worth.

The Malibu I do suspect will be a market.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Perhaps, but they also, for now anyway, want to have some control over who buys it. Build a reputation and initial development over a more known customer base who will take the plane to authorized service centers (most likely). I can't blame them.







True, but expect high prices.







I wrote an article on that very subject that was just published. My summary was don't expect to see them in a 310 (or 421) near you anytime soon.







What do you think a diesel STC would cost in your Comanche? I'd bet more than it's worth.
Click to expand...


If a new/overhauled IO-540 is going to run me $45k, maybe the diesel would run $60-$90k? Don't know.

At that point, yes it's probably not financially justifiable, but if it adds performance, range and lower operational costs (fuel). It could be on the cusp.. Like everyone says, owning an aircraft is not financially justifiable either.
 
dans2992 said:
If a new/overhauled IO-540 is going to run me $45k, maybe the diesel would run $60-$90k? Don't know.

At that point, yes it's probably not financially justifiable, but if it adds performance, range and lower operational costs (fuel). It could be on the cusp.. Like everyone says, owning an aircraft is not financially justifiable either.
Click to expand...

You should be able to do a good overhaul or factory reman on your 540 for under $30k all in. I would expect a diesel STC to be in that $60-90k number you came up with. For that, you'll get less useful load (heavier engine), no more horsepower (the FAA makes it harder to add power these days), probably a bit better speed, better fuel economy, and an unproven engine design on an airplane you'll be able to sell for maybe $60-70k after it's all done.

You and I might look at it and agree we'd do it because it's cool and we like the positives, but few others in the Comanche world would. Thus, an STC producer will not want to do it in the first place.

I'm not trying to be cynical as I love the technology and wish we'd see the FAA try to make such STCs easier to help advance the technology. But Cessna doesn't want an STC for a diesel 1x2 as it would complete with their new planes. Same goes for Cirrus.

Our best bet is owner experimental, and a diesel that will get sold to the experimental market. I could develop such an engine, but I lack the time or money. I suspect most with the capability and interest to do so are in the same boat as me.
 
Totally agree... Once the engines are proven, it might change things a little bit, but it's probably honestly not practical.

I'd just like to get it's something non-turbine that burns Jet A. There are powerful forces that would not want to see Jet A costs rise too much (and there's a ton of volume). Very few people care about 100LL prices, so I could easily see European 100LL prices coming here.
 
I agree that I'd like to see diesels and have the option to burn Jet-A without a turbine.

My real question is regarding the 100LL replacement. I'd also be happy burning MoGas. I could adjust my engines to do it just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top