Lately I've been seeing a lot of Cessna 210's for sale at a really afforsable prices. Most all of them have lower than usual hours so I don't think that they been used commercially or abused. Does anyone know why these planes are so cheap lately or has anyone else noticed this as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Early C210s are really decent and honest airplanes. They are pretty fast, can carry a load and takeoff and land reasonably short. They are not rough field airplanes though.

I don't have details, but I've heard that they have a history of landing gear issues.

When I see a complex and capable aircraft that seems undervalued, I usually suspect that there is some costly maintenance item that is necessary in the near future.

They are probably relatively expensive to maintain and insure.

If you aren't attached to RG, the Cessna 210-5 or C205 seem like a pretty good value as well.

I have probably 50 hours in an early 210. I loved the plane.

It is the only plane that I almost had a not-a-simulation gear up landing in. I was giving a guy a checkout and when we got back to the pattern the gear didn't go down. Twice.

So we left the pattern to burn up some gas and see if our luck improved. We finally got a gear light and elected to not touch the gear lever again. The early 210 used a engine driven hydraulic pump (the Cardinal used a electro-hydraulic "power pack" located in the back). Not sure if/when that ever changed.

The pump in the plane we were flying was full of metal on inspection. Mechanic told us it probably would not have cycled again.

Many people focus on the gear doors, and the STC to remove the doors has been popular. The same mechanic as above waves aside door issues, insisting that if you set them up properly they work fine. That plane is still flying around with gear doors on it today. I'm pretty sure it's owned by the guy I was giving the check out to. It has had some serious cash thrown at it over the years, including paint and panel. It's a great aircraft to put some butts in and get somewhere.

I would have to agree that it's not a short/rough field plane. I remember my first impression of it taking off being how damn hard the tiny tires seemed - like they were solid rubber shopping cart wheels.

Scolopax wrote:I don't have details, but I've heard that they have a history of landing gear issues.

According to AvWeb, 20% of all gear up landings are Cessna 210's, mostly due to mechanical gear problems.

Hmm... that would be a fun airplane and being 6'6" I would have plenty of room


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An early 210 would accept a 180 tail and with some engineering conventinal gear. OR use 182 main gear brackets and make a 260hp 182. Has any one ever turned
a 210 into a 205, I know about the 210 tail dragger that is a member here.

This is the big reason they're cheap:

"1960 through 1969 210s have flat spring steel landing gear legs held in "saddles". Service history indicates that these saddles can crack over time, creating the possibility of a landing gear failure. The FAA issued AD XX-XX-XX which requires annual dye-penetrant inspection of these saddles after a certain number of hours. The Cessna Pilots Association reccomends the saddles be checked every 100 hours or at annual inspection no matter how many hours are on them."

Thanks for all the great info. It such a bummer about the saddle inspections. i wonder what those cost.

Buddy of mine has an early C1210 with the IO-470.
Great airplane- fast, roomy, flies nice.
Had some gear issues- no gear up landing required, thank goodness.
But something wasn't right and it took some $$ to figure it out.
New engine driven pump....nope, not the problem. $$
Multiple gear swings at the mechanic's shop....$$.
Finally overhauled the hydraulic accumulator ....$$.
Along with spending a lot of time getting the gear mechanism(s) all properly adjusted and in synch, that fixed it.

Jeff M wrote: It such a bummer about the saddle inspections. i wonder what those cost.

Not really, most of those gear saddles have been replaced and require normal inspections like all other retractable aircraft. 210's are a great deal because the flying public has been told the gear is horrible and the insurance is horrific. Neither is true

Are replacement saddles available? Can they be fabricated? I recall reading a few years ago about a replacement that someone paid $14,000. No idea if that was true. I've always been down and welded anyway.

CAVU

So if I find one with the saddles replaced and also has had a complete history of thorough gear inspections during yearly annuals, its safe to say I could have a really nice plane.


Also, do the replacement saddles need to be inspected or are they somehow waived? Does anyone know the avg fuel burn on these planes. I'm also curious about the welded gear idea. what kind of airspeed is achieved and how much is fuel burn affected.

Jeff M wrote: I'm also curious about the welded gear idea. what kind of airspeed is achieved and how much is fuel burn affected.

Sorry, that was my attempt at an old joke, "down and welded" being the response when a military controller asks the pilot of a fixed gear airplane to check wheels down. Maybe there's an STC for fixing early 210 gears in the down position and flying around with them hanging out the in breeze? If you can make a taildragger out of 210, then it ought to be possible.

CAVU

Could always just leave the handle down and zip tie the fuse open . Might be hard at annual to just leave it like that and not spend the $$ swinging it back and forth though.Anyone know what the gear speed is on the 210?

The 1960 model I have time in does about 135mph with the gear down. And about 150mph with it up. My 180 did about 145 mph and was a lot more fun to fly!
The little 5.00 tires make the plane hard to push around on the grass. Nit bad planes though, especially if flying paved to paved.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

Info from a similar thread about landing gear repair costs:

Re: Cessna INSANITY

That is nothing, I just did some machine work to part on a 182 RG I believe. Main Landing Gear Pivot Assembly is what it is described as.
It had a crack and was determined that it could be welded and re-machined. The Assembly was 32K new from Cessna, this is just what I was told and did not confirm it.

I could have built this part out of a raw chunk of 7075, making only one proto-type for probably 6K. Cessna starts with some type of casting which makes it a lot easier to produce, not a lot of machine work required, maybe two days if I was walking the dog.... Someone is proud of what they do

Greg

Maule parts are cheap!

I owned a 1974 T210L for nine years, 800 hours. Had a Robertson STOL kit. Not a rough field airplane, but had it on grass lots. Short and high airstrips? It kicked butt! Landing gear problems? Nearly none. Just maintain it. If something doesn't feel or seem right, it probably isn't. Investigate.

I owned the rigging tools for the gear. Most shops don't have them. Owned and read the maintenance and parts manuals. Did a lot of the work under supervision. That's how you get to know an airplane and nip problems before they get expensive.

The gear saddles are a tough one. If you stay away from the early flat gear models, there is no issue. If you buy 1973 or newer, the gear pump is electrically driven. If you buy an older model, start shopping for used gear saddles that have worthwhile significant life left in them. Cessna parts prices aren't going down. It will probably not be economically viable to replace them with new, unless you buy one with timed out saddles at scrap price.

No regrets owning and caring for one, no regrets selling it. I wanted a float plane. Got it.

1983-1997=14 yrs owned/maintained/flew 1962 210: topped engine, replaced gear saddles (less than $3K each in 1990). No other major issues. Very little down time with what I considered average maintenance- 50 hr oil changes/with screen and fix any/all problems as they come up. Very good airplane.

1997-current=20 yrs owned/maintained/fly 1981 T210N. Completely rebuilt in 1998-1999 included empennage structure from previous wreck. Twenty years later and annuals still average under $4K with insurance average $2,500/yr. Flight plan 160 kts @ 14.7-15 GPM-3/4 ton pickup weight carrying= full fuel 600 lbs and 900 lbs passengers and cargo. Lots of room-two doors and solid AC.

Most gear problem stories are just that. Do the maintenance that should be done on any AC and they'll treat you right.

Both tough to beat for the $$.

If you want to get a lot of insight into owning a 210 and about the issues, costs, and maintenance, read the writings of Richard Collins of Flying Magazine. He owned several of them and flew a lot more of them.

Also, there are mechanics and shops that know more about the 210 than other places. Paul New in Jackson, TN is a good example of a Cessna Idiot Savant and is one of the better choices in the southeastern US. For example:

http://www.tennesseeaircraft.net/210-fuel-shortage/


I'd rather own a normally aspirated 210 than a turbocharged one, and would rather own one with a Conti 550 than the old 520. The O/IO 520 had some cooling issues and Cessna worked with Conti on mods for the last 2-3 model years before production ceased in 1986. The O 550 has proven itself to be a pretty good recip engine, and makes the 210 a better airplane in many respects. A number of owners have de-turbo'd their aircraft with the IO-550 and the Atlantic Aero's STC. I am acquainted with a guy that has one and it has worked out really well for him. (A number of people can install a 550 in a 210 but I cannot remember them all.)

P. Ponk in WA may have more affordable options for the O-520 series to make it the best engine it can be. The upgrade is fairly expensive.

The 210 is a useful airplane and I like it, but even owning one with 3 other people can mean some hefty maintenance and repair bills.

https://www.flyingmag.com/gear/mods/ref ... onversions

https://www.aerospaceonline.com/doc/550 ... turbo-0001

BushTrimmer wrote:If you want to get a lot of insight into owning a 210 and about the issues, costs, and maintenance, read the writings of Richard Collins of Flying Magazine. He owned several of them and flew a lot more of them.

Also, there are mechanics and shops that know more about the 210 than other places. Paul New in Jackson, TN is a good example of a Cessna Idiot Savant and is one of the better choices in the southeastern US. For example:

http://www.tennesseeaircraft.net/210-fuel-shortage/


I'd rather own a normally aspirated 210 than a turbocharged one, and would rather own one with a Conti 550 than the old 520. The O/IO 520 had some cooling issues and Cessna worked with Conti on mods for the last 2-3 model years before production ceased in 1986. The O 550 has proven itself to be a pretty good recip engine, and makes the 210 a better airplane in many respects. A number of owners have de-turbo'd their aircraft with the IO-550 and the Atlantic Aero's STC. I am acquainted with a guy that has one and it has worked out really well for him. (A number of people can install a 550 in a 210 but I cannot remember them all.)

P. Ponk in WA may have more affordable options for the O-520 series to make it the best engine it can be. The upgrade is fairly expensive.

The 210 is a useful airplane and I like it, but even owning one with 3 other people can mean some hefty maintenance and repair bills.

https://www.flyingmag.com/gear/mods/ref ... onversions

https://www.aerospaceonline.com/doc/550 ... turbo-0001

Do you actually own a C-210?