Looking at a 210b now

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by zbrown5, Mar 6, 2019.

  1. zbrown5

    zbrown5 Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2019
    Messages:
    56
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Zach
    Happened upon a nice, clean, 1962 210B for sale, mid time engine, decent panel that doesn’t look like something from the Flinstones, etc. I look at the airplane like a 182 more than a 210 capability wise since it’s an older one. The power packs have been OH’d in the last year.

    https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/28380691/

    What else should I know about this bird? Why are they so cheap compared to 70’s 182’s? I find it interesting that Garmin and Aspen glass STC’s don’t include the 210 family.

    I know to look for the gear mods and Saddle maintenance, and am familiar with the 470 series engines.

    Is this a bad idea for $60k? Could it be that much worse MX wise than a bonanza of similar vintage? Definitely more room in it.
     
  2. pigpenracing

    pigpenracing En-Route

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,615
    Location:
    Brenham Tx
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    pigpen
    Early 210's have a really bad landing gear setup. That is why you can buy them so cheap. I almost bought one a few years back. You better off with a $60,000 early Bonanza.
     
    Polarisguy likes this.
  3. hindsight2020

    hindsight2020 En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,975
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    hindsight2020
    A '62 210 is gonna be the first year of the "wide" cabin (42-44" depending on the height), hydraulic flaps, engine driven hydro gear. There's an AD on the saddles that requires dye penetrant every annual. It's not a big deal. The rest is the perception that the gear system is overtly complicated and prone to malfunction. The reality is that it's probably more of a mx upkeep than anything else.

    I prefer Lycoming engines, but I would actually take a "4 seat 210" over a R182 to be honest. The R182 has certain more expensive gear components, even in the absence of engine driven hydro or hydro flaps. And then you add the acquisition delta between the two these days, which really is the real inflection point imo.

    As to opting for an early Bonanza, I don't like its flight characteristics (tail wag), others without a backseat centric mission don't care about it. Re-skinning a ruddervator is a $$$$ job; no such concern in the early 210 airframes. Even the foam trim tab is peanuts compared to a ruddervator job. So I'm not persuaded by the argument that an early 210 gear system will yield a more treacherous ownership experience than an early V-tail. Then you have the ingress/egress, and cabin room. Again, I would prefer the cessna ingress/egress for a family affair.

    I was looking into them, but I couldn't get over my aversion for Continental cylinders, so I gave up. Otherwise, I actually think you're getting a better deal on an early 210 versus R182s in today's market. The gear on the early 210s does not scare me away, though I am not a first time airplane owner. I think they're undervalued. If you're ok with a conti engine, I say go for it. The delta in capital cost over a R182 buys a lot of 100LL. Good luck!
     
    Mtns2Skies and flyingcheesehead like this.
  4. T210doc

    T210doc Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    T210doc
    Cessna Pilot Association sells a very comprehensive book on the 210 series by the late John Frank that would be a worthwhile read before buying an early model 210. Another reason for the low prices on the early models is the availability and cost of parts and requires more complex maintenance than the 182. IIRC, Cessna built less than 300 of the 210B models.
    A decent 60k bo might also be hard to find. The ‘62 Bo is ~ a P model and decently equipped will likely be ~50% more than a 60k budget allows. Buy plenty of sick sacks for the back seat. Only plane I’ve ever come close to hurling was a 30 min ride in the back seat of a V tail.
    I have flown a turbo 210M since ‘78 and personally would want an L or later model if looking at 210s. By then, most of the birthing pains were gone. The L model started in about 1970 and remained the designator through 1976. The M in 77 had a HP increase from 285 to 310 for takeoff. RAM has an STC for the 310hp upgrade on L models.
     
    flyingcheesehead likes this.
  5. Briar Rabbit

    Briar Rabbit Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Location:
    Albion, Nebraska
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rob
    The 1970 & 71 version Centurions are the K model. Both have the improved tubular gear. These were followed by the L model from 1972 to 76 with 24 volt systems and electrical hydraulic pumps instead of engine driven pumps, two lights in the nose instead of the left wing and a bit better aerodynamics. I owned a C model (1963) before the K model I now have and liked it, basically a super 182 with an injected 260 hp engine. I know the L model has some advantages over the K but the K model incorporates most of the improvements over its predecessors. In addition to the better gear the K has more horsepower at 300 hp, 400 lbs greater useful load, better seating for the 5 th & 6th seat but still tight and it is nice being able to jump the 14 volt system with a car battery when necessary. So yes 1970 and newer is desirable and they do cost more. I agree with T210doc that the early Bo’s have a tailwag I do not like. I would prefer a conventional tail Bo if I was looking for a Beech (but I still prefer high wing singles).

    Here is a list of changes in the 210 progression:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_210
     
  6. zbrown5

    zbrown5 Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2019
    Messages:
    56
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Zach
  7. hindsight2020

    hindsight2020 En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,975
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    hindsight2020
    I assume you were being sarcastic about the astronomically expensive comment. :D We should make a new thread about unobtanium parts in some of these spam cans that would really knock your socks back and make you wonder why don't you just keep the stupid kid(s) home and just go fly an RV with the wife and leave this blasted cert airplane business behind forever.

    At any rate. Remember there's two categories of saddles. Those for the 210 and 210A, which have to be replaced every 1000 hours of the component service, no matter what, and the 210B and beyond ( I think up to the J, I can't remember, it's in the AD), which required an initial replacement into an improved model of the saddle (all described in the service bulletin), but then merely requiring dye penetrant every annual, not a hour limit replacement. So you're not looking at replacing these things with any regularity at all for the post 62 models being discussed here. I would personally not own a 60 or 61 210, the narrow cabins are basically an inch over 172 width, and there's no way I'm cramming my family into that kind of space unless it went 200 knots LOL and I digress.

    At any rate, all that to say no need to stock up on spares for the models being discussed imo. There are airplanes I would tell you to stock up parts for, this particular issue is not one of them imo. Do remember they would have to get inspected in order to get tagged as serviceable. It's logistics mostly, but recognize it's a gamble if they don't pass inspection.
     
  8. zbrown5

    zbrown5 Pre-Flight

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2019
    Messages:
    56
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Zach


    Wasn’t really being sarcastic, some folks are saying hey if you buy a 210B model, more power to ya. But be ready for that $30,000 bill that comes when a saddle needs replaced or an actuator fails.
     
  9. AA5Bman

    AA5Bman Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    473
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MB
    What kind of realistic cruise speeds can you get on these (I assume) slowest, strut-braced 210s? Anyone have real-world operating data? I assume we're talking NA here.

    Also, there's another 210 thread I asked the same question on, but if it's actually the actuators that are so expensive (not the saddles, per se), why isn't there a third-party option for parts? Is there anything prohibiting someone from making a PMA'ed or STC'ed actuator? Or is it not really the parts cost that's the issue - maybe it's the labor? Anyone actually had to replace saddles and actuators on a 210? Was it as bad as the legend?
     
  10. hindsight2020

    hindsight2020 En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,975
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    hindsight2020
    Saddles don't cost 30k to replace. Actuators carry the same risk as those on the R182, so you might as well tell 182rg owners to watch out for a 30k bill. I'm being facetious of course, because 30k is hyperbole.

    Yes, Cessna charges go away pricing on actuators, and that would be a 30k bill. But if you're gonna argue that point then add modern 210s to the mix, and r182 as well like i said. Saddles otoh are actually cheaper to replace than the oft cited cracking pivots on 182s for instance.

    No dog in the fight, but I have to push back on the 30k figure for saddles, as that is simply inaccurate.
     
  11. Polarisguy

    Polarisguy Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    May 30, 2018
    Messages:
    122
    Location:
    Davie County, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Polarisguy
    The ‘tail wag’ issue is easily addressed with the Air Skeg, a simple easy fix that was very cost effective when we did it in 1980. So that should settle any arguments against a VTail BO. They are great machines


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
    acluffpoa likes this.
  12. Briar Rabbit

    Briar Rabbit Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Location:
    Albion, Nebraska
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rob
    I used to file at 145 knots on the C model (1963). For the actuator experience see my earlier post, it is the part cost.
     
  13. JOhnH

    JOhnH Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,590
    Location:
    Florida
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Right Seater
    How well does your A&P know the early model 210s? That might make a difference. Even if he is a great mechanic, if he is not familiar with the quirks of the early 210s I wouldn't want him learning on my airplane.

    I love my Bo, but sometimes I think I would like to have the useful load and roominess of a 210. I just can't pull the trigger because I think the Bo is a better built airplane with fewer trade-offs.
     
  14. AA5Bman

    AA5Bman Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    473
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MB
    Hmmm... I take it that to get to the 170 knots you sometimes hear about for 210s, you really need to be in a later model, cantilevered wing, turbo version running way up high. That 145 knots is only about 10 (ROP) or 20 (LOP) knots faster than what I get in my 205, i.e. not worth the maintenance delta/risk. That said, you might actually get an older 210 cheaper - a lot cheaper - than the equivalent 205 (and certainly cheaper than a 206) and that might make up the difference.
     
  15. MD11Pilot

    MD11Pilot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Round Rock TX
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MD11Pilot
    As with aircraft purchase, a comprehensive pre-buy by a mechanic that KNOWS the type is beyond essential. I wanted a 210 bad. Couldn’t afford the year models that I wanted and found a mid 60’s with a beautiful paint, interior and panel. Lots of work making it look good. Had the owner bring it to my mechanic and he services a lot of 210’s and he got started. When I walked to to go through it with him, he had been looking for thirty minutes, he said “I am up to 15K in repairs minimum and I haven’t checked the gear yet. Foam in the tail was causing corrosion (9k), brand new carpet (non-fireproof aka not FAA approved), engine compartment had so many cracks in structure that the engine would have to be pulled to really repair, many bushings worn out and waves in the belly. We had records of one nose collapse but he said he found damage showing at least one more and no record of an engine tear down. I called the owner and said no deal and he exploded that I had said I was taking the plane no matter what...he made the comment that “I am not taking the plane back home because it will pass with flying colors”. Lots more ensued but he came and got it.

    I still love the 210 but I found a 1975 Bonanza F33A and am so happy.

    Tail wag! Some Bonanzas have yaw dampers installed but I use my feet and it is rock solid. Look at your mission and don’t discount a Bonanza. They are worth it.
     
    GRG55 likes this.
  16. Lowflynjack

    Lowflynjack En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    2,873
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jack Fleetwood
    If you have tail wag on an F33A, I would get it checked out! The tail wag people talk about is on the V-tail Bonanzas.
     
    hindsight2020, pigpenracing and JOhnH like this.
  17. MD11Pilot

    MD11Pilot Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    558
    Location:
    Round Rock TX
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MD11Pilot
    The wag I am talking about is just small yaws when I hit a bump.
    It is a straight tail thing also on the short body
     
    acluffpoa and Lowflynjack like this.
  18. Jim Rosenow

    Jim Rosenow Line Up and Wait PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    805
    Location:
    Smithville, Ohio
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jim Rosenow
    Just for frame of reference....we flight plan 147 knots @ 14 gph @ 8-10K on an '86 R182....usually spot on. That's with 235 horses.... :)

    Jim

    Edit- We're carbed, so we don't do LOP.... 1000 pounds useful
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2019
  19. SoCalPilot88

    SoCalPilot88 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    117
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    SoCalPilot88
    My R182 cruises at 156 KTAS per the POH. The only speed mod is flap gap seals. It has a two blade prop.

    I understand the concern about the high price of landing gear components. My R182 is an early model with steel pivots. The later ones have aluminum, which are likely more prone to cracking. I have no idea why Cessna switched to aluminum.

    I love the Lycoming engine in the R182. I rationalized that the Lycoming reliability would offset the price difference over the fixed gear 182 which has a Continental. Time will tell if I was correct.
     
  20. James331

    James331 Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    20,310
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    James331
    I’d get a Bo or Pa24 or pay up and get a real strutless 210.

    About the continental vs lyc thing, it’s silly, both are good engines if operated and kept up properly, many trainers do just fine with lycs and many bigger working planes do just fine with continentals.
    I’ve flown both and think the biggest difference is in average size, most of the simple non complex, slower sub 250hp planes are lycomings, most of the larger more complex higher power planes are continentals, I think that makes more difference than just the make
     
    Mtns2Skies likes this.
  21. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    23,813
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    This. Contis last just fine if you treat them right, so do Lycs. And either one will have infant mortality if you beat the hell out of it.
     
    Mtns2Skies likes this.
  22. AKBill

    AKBill En-Route

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,989
    Location:
    Juneau, AK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    AKBill
    I'm jealous with all this talk of C-182, C-210 and Bo. My Sport is slow, but fairly cheap to maintain. 30kt to 40kt increase in speed is a dream for me. Call me cheap or frugal but I paid the Sport off 23 years ago.....:biggrin:
     
    MIFlyer and Cruzinchris like this.
  23. Briar Rabbit

    Briar Rabbit Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Location:
    Albion, Nebraska
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rob
    That is about the same speed I get in my 1970 naturally aspirated 210 with a STOL kit installed on it at 75% power. The 1973 210 I used to fly was about 7 knots faster. The 63 model that I had when flying at 145 knots was more economical though. The current 210K burns about 14.7 gph at 60% power. I have some time in a T210 but it has been so many years ago that I do not remember the figures.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2019
  24. James331

    James331 Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    20,310
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    James331
    So they are only like a 150kt airplane?
     
  25. Polarisguy

    Polarisguy Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    May 30, 2018
    Messages:
    122
    Location:
    Davie County, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Polarisguy
    There’s a lot to be said for that


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  26. Briar Rabbit

    Briar Rabbit Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Location:
    Albion, Nebraska
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rob
    The 70 model with the STOL kit 155 knots or a bit more, the 73 I used to fly 163 knots, the 63 would do 150+ Knots but I usually flew it slower for a substantial increase in fuel economy. Ten knot reduction in speed makes a big difference in gph! The turbo that I flew years ago quite a bit faster at altitude but as stated above don’t recall the numbers. Flew the T210 when I worked at the Wichita Cessna factory in the mid 70’s.
     
    AKBill likes this.
  27. James331

    James331 Ejection Handle Pulled

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    20,310
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    James331
    Gotcha, always thought they were more in the 170kt range
     
  28. Clip4

    Clip4 Final Approach

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    Absolute plumbers nightmare is the best description.