Which P210?

jfrye01

jfrye01

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
150
Location
El Dorado, KS
Display Name
Display name:
Jacob Frye
Well, we've decided on a P210...I have my eye on nice '78 model in Tulsa...Our budget is around $175K. Speed and useful load are my primary concerns, so that puts the '81 and '82 models out of the question....the R model is a little beyond our budget. That being said, which P210 would the experts here recommend? ;)
Thanks everyone!
 
jfrye01 said:
Well, we've decided on a P210...I have my eye on nice '78 model in Tulsa...Our budget is around $175K. Speed and useful load are my primary concerns, so that puts the '81 and '82 models out of the question....the R model is a little beyond our budget. That being said, which P210 would the experts here recommend? ;)
Thanks everyone!
Click to expand...

www.cessna.org is the largest group of 210 and P210 owners I know of. Extremely knowledgeable level headed folks there.
 
bnt83 said:
www.cessna.org is the largest group of 210 and P210 owners I know of. Extremely knowledgeable level headed folks there.
Click to expand...

You'll get more info on that site,worth joining if the 210 is of interest to you. Members have access to inside info.
 
Henning said:
Which is a waste of money when you can have a 421B.
Click to expand...

Disagree. 340 will do the same speed on a good bit less fuel and without the complexity of the GTSIOs and is less challenging on one engine. Operating costs are noticeably lower. If you don't need the space, a 340 makes more sense.

But I'd need a 414 or 421 as a 340 wouldn't work for me.
 
jfrye01 said:
340 was my first choice, but then I realized I could barely afford to feed ONE TSIO-520 :goofy:
Click to expand...

The P210 ain't exactly known for its low maintenance costs... ;)

You're better off starting in a single for now, though. In a few years your dad will want to upgrade, which will time better with your experience.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Disagree. 340 will do the same speed on a good bit less fuel and without the complexity of the GTSIOs and is less challenging on one engine. Operating costs are noticeably lower. If you don't need the space, a 340 makes more sense.

But I'd need a 414 or 421 as a 340 wouldn't work for me.
Click to expand...

The GTSIOs are not a complexity, they are a relief. Airframe complexity and cost across all three platforms is the same. 340 you don't have the Wide Oval drag but run high stress direct drive engines. 414s are slower than either and have the high cost of operation engines.

The Operate the 421 at 414 speed and it will operate as cheap as a 340 and cheaper than a 414.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The P210 ain't exactly known for its low maintenance costs... ;)

You're better off starting in a single for now, though. In a few years your dad will want to upgrade, which will time better with your experience.
Click to expand...

Yep...he's already talking about a 421;)
 
jfrye01 said:
Yep...he's already talking about a 421;)
Click to expand...

It really doesn't make sense to play the upgrade mission/plane game then. The market on a good 421B is as good as it's ever been, and there is some nice upgrade panels out there now.

The P-210 has always been a plane that was under high stress by its capabilities. To buy a P-210 to just figure out you want a upgrade in a year is just a waste of time and money.

Get the 421, hire an insurance approved pro MEI to right seat for you for 100hrs. At that point you qualify for the same insurance rates they did. Between the upgrade and insurance savings, you can pay a pro $40k for a year's retainer and still come out ahead; especially if they qualify for all in aircraft training. If they keep you out of the sim, that's worth another $15k.

It does not make a difference how much P-210 time you have, your initial requirements in the 421 will not change.
 
I know of a 421C for sale in the Topeka area. PM me if interested I can give you the contact info for the owner. Mx is pretty high on a P210.
 
How many of those here who claim high maintenance costs on P210s have ever owned or flown one? I have, it wasn't bad at all - that is to say it wasn't any higher than you'd expect for any single-engine airplane with those capabilities. Turbocharging and pressurizing just aren't huge expenses. As far as which one to buy, look for one that someone else has upgraded with whatever upgrades you are looking for. Hold back about 10% of your budget to cover post-purchase surprises. I'd look for as new a one as you can find, that had been flown consistently and has had good maintenance. Personally, I'd rather have an R model, but a good N would work too. (Mine was an N) I understand that there's a STC of a turbo-normalized IO-550 that really performs well. I love the P210, they're great airplanes.
 
Last edited:
Dead Stick said:
How many of those here who claim high maintenance costs on P210s have ever owned or flown one? I have, it wasn't bad at all - that is to say it wasn't any higher than you'd expect for any single-engine airplane with those capabilities. Turbocharging and pressurizing just aren't huge expenses. As far as which one to buy, look for one that someone else has upgraded with whatever upgrades you are looking for. Hold back about 10% of your budget to cover post-purchase surprises. I'd look for as new a one as you can find, that had been flown consistently and has had good maintenance. Personally, I'd rather have an R model, but a good N would work too. (Mine was an N) I understand that there's a STC of a turbo-normalized IO-550 that really performs well. I love the P210, they're great airplanes.
Click to expand...

We had one on the ramp we maintained along side a couple 421s, 414s, and 340s. The P-210 was seeing maint, especially exhaust related issues, as frequently as any other and more than Chooch's 421B.
 
jfrye01 said:
Yep...he's already talking about a 421;)
Click to expand...

I used to be a 421 fanboy, but my experience watching the Twin Cessna group has convinced me otherwise. 414 is my preference instead. Henning's claims on the GTSIO are not, at least these days, shown in reality.

But that's a ways off. Build some experience in the P210, then upgrade. It's a better path to go in my opinion.
 
I'm still a fan of the 421. The GTSIO engine is nothing to be afraid of. I started flying them on a C411 (2000 hours) and have a couple thousand more hours (at least) on a couple of 421Bs and a 421C. I am not a fan of the 414. That 421 airframe could use more hp (C425) not less (C414). When it comes to "Bang for the Buck", it's pretty tough to beat a good clean C421. You've just got to fly them right. Geared engines don't like to be "babied".

For most of us, the difference in comfort and increased utility that a FIKI P210 provides is well worth the small difference in maintenance costs that you'll run into when you compare it to it's direct competition - the A36, Saratoga, Big Bore Mooneys, and Cirri. Guys who have flown pressurized airplanes find it quite hard to go back if they don't have to. Even if the P210 is 20 minutes slower on a longer trip than a new Mooney Acclaim, the fact that you're not sucking on a nose hose makes a huge difference in how happy the wifey is going to be at the end of the trip and you know what they say about wives and happiness. :D
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
We had one on the ramp we maintained along side a couple 421s, 414s, and 340s. The P-210 was seeing maint, especially exhaust related issues, as frequently as any other and more than Chooch's 421B.
Click to expand...
That might just be one particular airframe. On ours, the maintenance was pretty much routine and nothing related to the turbocharger or pressurization systems. Actually, our biggest maintenance nightmare back then was the old ARC boat anchors. If you get behind or try to put off any required or recommended maintenance catching up will be expensive and the reliability will go down. Unfortunately, that's what many guys are running into now. When you're shopping for something like a P210 or any of the pressurized Cessna twins, their maintenance pedigree is as important as any other factor.
 
Henning said:
It really doesn't make sense to play the upgrade mission/plane game then. The market on a good 421B is as good as it's ever been, and there is some nice upgrade panels out there now.

The P-210 has always been a plane that was under high stress by its capabilities. To buy a P-210 to just figure out you want a upgrade in a year is just a waste of time and money.

Get the 421, hire an insurance approved pro MEI to right seat for you for 100hrs. At that point you qualify for the same insurance rates they did. Between the upgrade and insurance savings, you can pay a pro $40k for a year's retainer and still come out ahead; especially if they qualify for all in aircraft training. If they keep you out of the sim, that's worth another $15k.

It does not make a difference how much P-210 time you have, your initial requirements in the 421 will not change.
Click to expand...

We're talking >5 years down the road here....For now, we don't really have a need for a larger airplane...nor do we have a place to hangar it...:p
 
I struggled thinking about an upgrade for a few years before I pulled the trigger. I love the concept of a P210, but high altitude, FIKI, and a blown cabin are a lot to ask of that engine and accessories. I also had an in depth conversation with my broker and the insurance was going to be steep. More initial requirements and a higher % of hull required.

That is why I'm in a 310 and will be in a 400 series or a twin turbine in a few years. After three months in the 310 and 100 hours this was the commo from my broker this week -

"Regarding getting insured in a 414/421 or Conquest – you are insurable. Especially if you continue to fly the wheels off of your 310. You can probably expect some amount of dual along with your initial training and the biggest difference in premium will most likely be in part due to the increased hull value of the aircraft."

I'm the low man on the experience totem pole in this discussion, but if I were in your shoes and your mission the P210 would be nice as long as you get one you can load with your expected pax. The deal changer for me is the desire to be in a big twin in a few years. That would push me in another direction.

In any case, hire someone to be with you for 20-30 hours. Have a training and acclimitazion plan. Expect that your first year costs will be obscene. If you're thinking less than $300/hr to run a P210 you're kidding yourself.

Eggman
Who just bought a new vac pump, magneto, and 12 spark plugs.
 
James_Dean said:
I struggled thinking about an upgrade for a few years before I pulled the trigger. I love the concept of a P210, but high altitude, FIKI, and a blown cabin are a lot to ask of that engine and accessories. I also had an in depth conversation with my broker and the insurance was going to be steep. More initial requirements and a higher % of hull required.

That is why I'm in a 310 and will be in a 400 series or a twin turbine in a few years. After three months in the 310 and 100 hours this was the commo from my broker this week -

"Regarding getting insured in a 414/421 or Conquest – you are insurable. Especially if you continue to fly the wheels off of your 310. You can probably expect some amount of dual along with your initial training and the biggest difference in premium will most likely be in part due to the increased hull value of the aircraft."

I'm the low man on the experience totem pole in this discussion, but if I were in your shoes and your mission the P210 would be nice as long as you get one you can load with your expected pax. The deal changer for me is the desire to be in a big twin in a few years. That would push me in another direction.

In any case, hire someone to be with you for 20-30 hours. Have a training and acclimitazion plan. Expect that your first year costs will be obscene. If you're thinking less than $300/hr to run a P210 you're kidding yourself.

Eggman
Who just bought a new vac pump, magneto, and 12 spark plugs.
Click to expand...

I'll definitely pass this information on to my dad. He seems to think a P210 can be flown for ~$200/hr...Fuel maybe, but obviously, that doesn't factor in mx costs. However, he is the one paying the bill, and I, being nothing more than the "family pilot", can't really change his mind on the airplane he wants...he simply asked me to find the best P210. Being a naive 270 hour private pilot, I honestly rely on information like this...thanks for passing this along, as it could be a game changer...it seems to me that non-pilot aircraft owners (or potential owners) are sometimes unsure of what they want or expect ($$$ wise) from an airplane...
 
I fly my T206H in the teens and low 20's (where you will be operating) all the time including a lot of time in the rockies. You will certainly encounter weather in the teens and 20's that is much more severe than down lower. I can recall many times looking down at 20,000 feet of boiling black clouds, ice, and turbulence when ATC says, "descend and maintain 5,000…". Moments of maximum pucker. I promise a P210 will take you there.

I hate when people say someone can't or shouldn't do something, but please proceed with extreme caution until you get a good sense of the conditions you will be operating in.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I hate when people say someone can't or shouldn't do something, but please proceed with extreme caution until you get a good sense of the conditions you will be operating in.
Click to expand...

I second that.

I would definitely budget a pilot experienced in P210's for the right seat for at least the first 100 hours, if not more - that's a lot of plane and capability for a relatively low time pilot.

Be safe out there, and don't get in over your head!
 
"Yeah, I think you probably need more expertise on the individual models than I have seen here."
Wow Henning, the understatement of the century :yes:

Jacob, make your dad happy
Ignore the deranged and deluded who hang out on here
Do join the Cessna group
Do get some hours with an experienced CFI (or old airline guy, etc.) until you get the hang-of (and the skills-of) jumping across weather fronts in 600 mile bites.
 
I would go with the experienced piston guy over the airline guy for training, personally.
 
jfrye01 said:
I'll definitely pass this information on to my dad. He seems to think a P210 can be flown for ~$200/hr...Fuel maybe, but obviously, that doesn't factor in mx costs. However, he is the one paying the bill, and I, being nothing more than the "family pilot", can't really change his mind on the airplane he wants...he simply asked me to find the best P210. Being a naive 270 hour private pilot, I honestly rely on information like this...thanks for passing this along, as it could be a game changer...it seems to me that non-pilot aircraft owners (or potential owners) are sometimes unsure of what they want or expect ($$$ wise) from an airplane...
Click to expand...

There is a T210N driver on Cessna.org that has documented every cost incurred over about 30 years of ownership thousands of hours and several engines. A P210 will be higher than that but it should be similar.

P210 got a horrible name right off the bat because they were. What the P210 accomplished when it was put into production had never been done before. The Piper Malibu was build afterwards and avoided some of the growing paynes that the P210 had.

Are they perfect? Nope. But everything has issues. I saw the entire fleet of Falcon 7X ($52m each) get grounded worldwide after one experienced a horizontal stabilizer runaway. No special flight permits were issued and it took months to get them all flying again.
 
James_Dean said:
I struggled thinking about an upgrade for a few years before I pulled the trigger. I love the concept of a P210, but high altitude, FIKI, and a blown cabin are a lot to ask of that engine and accessories. I also had an in depth conversation with my broker and the insurance was going to be steep. More initial requirements and a higher % of hull required.

That is why I'm in a 310 and will be in a 400 series or a twin turbine in a few years. After three months in the 310 and 100 hours this was the commo from my broker this week -

"Regarding getting insured in a 414/421 or Conquest – you are insurable. Especially if you continue to fly the wheels off of your 310. You can probably expect some amount of dual along with your initial training and the biggest difference in premium will most likely be in part due to the increased hull value of the aircraft."

I'm the low man on the experience totem pole in this discussion, but if I were in your shoes and your mission the P210 would be nice as long as you get one you can load with your expected pax. The deal changer for me is the desire to be in a big twin in a few years. That would push me in another direction.

In any case, hire someone to be with you for 20-30 hours. Have a training and acclimitazion plan. Expect that your first year costs will be obscene. If you're thinking less than $300/hr to run a P210 you're kidding yourself.

Eggman
Who just bought a new vac pump, magneto, and 12 spark plugs.
Click to expand...

310 time counts for insurability in all the Twin Cessnas, that's a nice perk.
 
bnt83 said:
There is a T210N driver on Cessna.org that has documented every cost incurred over about 30 years of ownership thousands of hours and several engines. A P210 will be higher than that but it should be similar.

P210 got a horrible name right off the bat because they were. What the P210 accomplished when it was put into production had never been done before. The Piper Malibu was build afterwards and avoided some of the growing paynes that the P210 had.

Are they perfect? Nope. But everything has issues. I saw the entire fleet of Falcon 7X ($52m each) get grounded worldwide after one experienced a horizontal stabilizer runaway. No special flight permits were issued and it took months to get them all flying again.
Click to expand...

Mooney built the M22 Mustang in the mid '60's, although it wasn't a success and only 36 were built.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Mooney built the M22 Mustang in the mid '60's, although it wasn't a success and only 36 were built.
Click to expand...

I always thought that was an interesting plane, too bad it used the TIO-541, that probably hurt it as much as anything.:( I wonder if it would have done better with a GTSIO-520.
 
Henning said:
I always thought that was an interesting plane, too bad it used the TIO-541, that probably hurt it as much as anything.:( I wonder if it would have done better with a GTSIO-520.
Click to expand...

It only made 310 HP. A straight TSIO-520 or TIO-540 would have been fine. These days, a high compression TSIO-550.
 
Henning said:
Then why use the 541?:confused: Doesn't make a ton of sense.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind the 541 was "!!! NEW !!!" in the 60s, and Lycoming pushed that on new planes. The straight TIO-541 was really just an integral crankcase. The reason it made 380 HP in the Duke was the 2900 RPM redline, which also caused it to have extra counterweights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top