Lowflybye,

Thanks for the information. Interesting to know the model changes. I know my budget will be under 90K, so that's where I'll have to look.

375H&H, Silver Eagle would be cool without a doubt. 1Mil is just a tad more than I could afford.

I wouldn't use the kiddie seats for the most part, so it would be a four place airplane. However I sure could use 6 seats over Labor Day.

I have 5 for a wedding in Carson City, and only 4 seats in the 182. Unfortunately everyone wants to go. May have to take the 500.

Thanks everyone for the info, I appreciate it. Bub

You can find good 210s below 100K...they will be late 60's - early 70's models, but great aircraft.

We sold our '69 model 3 years ago for $110,000 and it was loaded...Garmin 530, S-Tec 55, Stormscope, etc. with relatively new paint and had only 500 on a factory reman. That was 3 years ago and the prices have dropped a bit since then.

Check out Dan Howard aircraft sales...he always has a pretty good selection of 210's.

http://www.howardaircraft.com/Inventory.htm

He has a fairly nice '67 model on the list right now.

http://www.howardaircraft.com/n67eC-specs.htm

In any case be sure to get a good 210 A&P to check out the aircraft before buying...particularly the gear saddles and the hydraulic system.

Cold Duck wrote:


Another thing, check out how many Beach singles advertise xxsince top overhaul!! There are a lot of nice Bo's around here and rarely do I hear of them getting anything close to TBO out of a set of cylinders. This is not the case with 210's, if Turboed, add the intercooler and expect TBO if the throttle is handled properly.

Without even trying the only two T210's I found in the latest issue of Aircraft Owner, in the picture ad section, both T210's had been topped. One managed to get nearly 600 hours before meltdown and the second went 900. It's a pilot issue not an aircraft issue.

John, I'll swing by your store if we drive down, I'll bring a towl so I don't slobber on anything in the store.

Wedding is on the 1st, BBQ/reception in Lovelock on the 2nd, probably stay at Sturgeons there, and then back to MFR and then BNO, that 210 would come in nice now.

I would agree with Bonanza Man, that Mixture/throttle/fuel flow control would be the issue with Top end problems. My train of thought here is both run the big bore Continentals. I'm no A/P so could be all wet in that assumption, and I know what it means to ass-u-me.

Lowflybye, I have Dan's web site bookmarked. I keep eyeing that "65" 310 he has listed. Hey might as well dream. What's that Ron White says about 2 engines, "Heck ya, fly us to the scene of the crash, probably beat the ambulance there." That guy is funny!

See ya, Bub

Skylane,
You can't compare turbo to N/A for top end life as was attempted, it's apples and oranges.
There is more to top end life on a Bonanza than the pilot unfortunately. It has to do with Cyl head temp due to inefficient baffling. It's pretty common practice among some Bonanza pilots to turn the boost pump on in a climb to get a super rich mixture to cool the cylinders. The smart ones anyway. Of course you are restricted to a shallow climb angle for cooling . In their defence, I cruise climb everything to keep heat down, but that's me.
I think that GAMI has a baffling system that cures the Bonanza overheating. Think, but not sure. If they actually do, then I expect you will see Bonanza's top ends lasting as long as they do in a Cessna.
I'm surprised no one has brought up the 210's gear. In my opinion it's the 210's Achilles' heel. I believe an old 210 that has not had a gear up is pretty rare, so rare in fact that I would not be put off one as long as the repair was done well. If you get a 210, keep up with the gear maintenance.

a64pilot wrote: the 210's Achilles' heel. I believe an old 210 that has not had a gear up is pretty rare, so rare in fact that I would not be put off one as long as the repair was done well. If you get a 210, keep up with the gear maintenance.

I mentioned the gear saddles as these are a common problem on older models if they have not been maintained. Good point about the gear up history though...I would venture to guess that 80% or better have had this issue at some point in their life. All of the ones that I have flown were geared up at some point in their history. This is usually attributed to one of 2 categories...poor maintenance causing a failure or just plain forgetting to put the rollers down. The 210 gear design is not a bad one, just more complex than most general aviation aircraft in its class therefore the maintenance on them often does not get done in the proper way. A well maintained 210 gear system works great WITH THE DOORS ON if maintained properly. As a matter of fact if you remove the doors as is the popular option you actually cause carbon monoxide problems in the cabin as the gear buckets are not sealed and suck in the exhaust as it runs down the belly. The gear doors were designed to seal the main gear buckets and prevent the carbon monoxide from entering the cabin.

Often times a gear up could have been prevented if the pilot would have kept his cool and spent the time to pump the gear down until it locked. One notorious problem if the gear is not maintained properly is that the gear handle will not return to neutral and will burn the pump out..in this case the pump handle is very hot to the touch and tends to lead to the partial gear pumping as the pilot does not want to hold the handle.

Often times pilots simply forget to put the gear down in the 210 since it is the natural progression in the Cessna line and often the first Cessna that a pilot will fly with retracts. It looks and feels the same except that they have to lower the rollers.

Insurance on the 210 will be considerably higher than the fixed gear cousins and maintainance will be higher as well due to the complex gear. If you want to know about insurance I will be glad to help you with it or answer your questions...if you want to know about maintainance I will be glad to give you the number to a good friend of mine who I would consider an expert on the 210. He was awarded the A&P of the year at Oshkosh this year and deserves every bit of it.

Bottom line is if you buy a big horse, be prepared to spend a lot to keep it fed.

hey bub,sorry to here you are going to a 210 you got a sweet bird just come over here to steve's aircraft and we will make a nice 180 for you lol it would be a better backcoutry plane then a 210 i will pray for you lol the muckey flats flyin was a good flyin marc n43643

Skylane your welcome to fly into our place here in Fallon. You can use one of my vehicles to get to Lovelock or Carson. Or you can fly into FLX and we can pick you up. Either way you can use a set of wheels.

Floyd

Beagle wrote:hey bub,sorry to here you are going to a 210 you got a sweet bird just come over here to steve's aircraft and we will make a nice 180 for you lol it would be a better backcoutry plane then a 210 i will pray for you lol the muckey flats flyin was a good flyin marc n43643

Marc,
It's not that bad yet, I was just giving thought to a faster bird if my little girl goes to ASU. After reading Lows' last post, I think the Pponk-50 coversion in the 182 and call it good. Still fixed gear, less maintenance, insurance. I'm not sure the time savings would be that great, to warrent the cost of ownership of a 210, and the 182 is a decent backcountry bird, even if the little wheel is on the wrong end.

A64, Yep me too, I cruise climb the 182, 99% of the time, around 110 indicated. Keep things cool. Once in a while I'll use Vx or Vy for a 1000 feet or so then in cruise/climb. With 1414 on the O-470-L, I'm going to nurse her along for as long as I can.

Floyd, Thanks for the offer, mighty nice of you. I'll probably use a car from the FBO in Carson, and Cousins live in LOL. My Aunt and Uncle and Cousins all lived in Fallon at one time for a number of years. Then some moved to Lovelock and the others moved to Southern Oregon. However I will keep it in mind. Still a bunch of family in the Reno area too.

See ya, Bub

As far as the IO-550 in a 182, I parked beside one at Sun-N-Fun this year. He said that the biggest difference he saw was increased fuel burn and decreased range. Said that if he had to do it again he would have done the STC with the canard for the same money.
Isn't it called a Katmai or something? He said it increased cruise speed as well as made the 182 even better at STOL. Now I've never seen one, but from the hype it becomes almost as good as a Helio.
If it's six seats you need don't rule out the old Cherokee Six. I think for the money they are a real workhorse machine.
You know where this is going don't you? You will end up re-affirming your decision to get the 182. If it's an older airplane in good shape and you don't have to have something unusual, like bushwheels or something, then a 182 is real hard to beat. In my mind as far as the nose wheel Cessna's go the 182 is the first real useable airplane.
From what you said you could spend on a 210, I would think you could afford to buy one, but it would sit a lot more than the 182 does just from what it costs to operate a 210. I keep wishing I had a 170 or something that is cheaper to fly than my Maule. Maybe after it is paid for, I will start looking for a 120 or 140 for a second airplane. I've got about six months more to go, and then it's mine!

I know the thread is in here somewhere, since I questioned the forum on the conversion.

I believe they take an IO-520 and carburate it, or an O-470 and change the crank, rods, pistons, and cylinders, to make a 50 cubic inch bigger O-470, hence the -50. Rate it with a 265-275 horse power, so 35 to 45 more hp than a standard O-470. It also has a 2000 hour TBO vs the 470's 1500 tbo. The addition of a three blade prop also helps the performance. Or so the web site says.

As far as ownership, I own the 182 outright, no payments, insurance is about 900 a year, hanger is 320 a year. So doing the conversion would not be out of line. I just hate oweing money!

See ya, Bub

lowflybye wrote: I only about 10 or so in an A-36 but that was all I needed to know. Apples to apples a 210 will out run, out haul, and out range a Bonanza on any given day. They are cheaper to maintain, easier to fly, and they don't wag their tail all over the sky like the Bonanza.

You must be careful in the Beech products as it is very easy to get AFT of CC long before you reach MGTOW

If you are looking for an airplane that is ready to work hard and go fast then you are looking for the 210, but if you want luxury and status then you are looking for the Bonanza.

Just my .02 worth.

Your memory is awfully fuzzy. The useful loads of the Turbo A36 and the T210 are the same very close, favoring the Bo but in reality will have more to do with what you've equipped it with. The A36 has no CG problems that any other plane doesn't have. You can be at max gross with the max allowed in the rear most portion of the plane and be within CG the entire flight. Perhaps you're thinking of the 35 series. The A36 gets 210 kts true at 17,500, the 210 is known to be a 190-195 knot airplane. The real downside to the whole deal is the insurance on a 210 right now is twice what the Bonanza is. The simple fact of the matter is it is raining C210 parts from the sky. For this year as well as the past decade the accident rate of the 210's is double that of the Bo. This year alone there have been 26 accidents and 13 fatal accident in 210's vs 12 and 5 for the Bo. It is such an alarming trend that the Cessna Pilots Assoc has an article about it in this months magazine. No matter what the type of mishap the 210 comes to grief twice as often as the Bo and they have similar fleet sizes. You Cessna guys have a serious pilot training problem.
Here's a quote from Walter Atkinson of GAMI and LOP reknown....

The TN Bo will carry a litte bit more at a little bit higher TAS, BUT
that is only part of the story. The engine management of a TN Bo is
dead simple whereas many T210s are not able to run LOP without
spending a ton of time and money trying to get their marginal set-up
right.

Short answer? Get the TN Bo and forget about it.

Walter


And you want to talk about the turbine 210? Really nice plane. A friend has one. Tried to sell it when he bought his Caravan. Lots of interested buyers. Then they called their insurance company. You think a T210 is expensive to insure take a look at the turbine.

Skylane wrote:I know the thread is in here somewhere, since I questioned the forum on the conversion.

I believe they take an IO-520 and carburate it, or an O-470 and change the crank, rods, pistons, and cylinders, to make a 50 cubic inch bigger O-470, hence the -50. Rate it with a 265-275 horse power, so 35 to 45 more hp than a standard O-470. It also has a 2000 hour TBO vs the 470's 1500 tbo. The addition of a three blade prop also helps the performance. Or so the web site says.

As far as ownership, I own the 182 outright, no payments, insurance is about 900 a year, hanger is 320 a year. So doing the conversion would not be out of line. I just hate oweing money!

See ya, Bub

After you brought it up, I know what you are talking about. I think I would go that route if I was at TBO. I don't think you will gain performance out of a three blade prop, but it will run as smooth as silk and a three blade is worth it for that. Probably don't have any option on which prop to use anyway.
I had gotten a case of the dumb butt and confused the IO-550 conversion into a 210 for the PPonk.

Check this out for info.

Not a lot of diffeence, but some. Bub

http://www.pponk.com/HTML%20PAGES/propellers.html

Skylane wrote:I know the thread is in here somewhere, since I questioned the forum on the conversion.

I believe they take an IO-520 and carburate it, or an O-470 and change the crank, rods, pistons, and cylinders, to make a 50 cubic inch bigger O-470, hence the -50. Rate it with a 265-275 horse power, so 35 to 45 more hp than a standard O-470. It also has a 2000 hour TBO vs the 470's 1500 tbo. The addition of a three blade prop also helps the performance. Or so the web site says.

As far as ownership, I own the 182 outright, no payments, insurance is about 900 a year, hanger is 320 a year. So doing the conversion would not be out of line. I just hate oweing money!

See ya, Bub

The Pponk IS a 520, despite what the type certificate says. You can start with a 470 case but you then put in a 520 crank and cylinders. Usually cheaper to just start with a 520 in the first place. If you do the valve work you get 275 hp, if not it's supposed to be 265 hp. You have a choice of two 2 blades and two 3 blades. The only benefit to the three blade is it is a smaller diameter. When I checked into the price it was within a couple thousand of a field overhaul here at home. There are some real good shops that the guys on the CPA web board will point you to. Winchester, VA and I think in the Spokane area also. A couple years ago I got a quote from the shop in Washington for $14,500 for the engine, all parts new. He would meet me halfway and I would give him my 470 and I would get the new engine. I then would have my mechanic install it.

Bonanza man,
You are back to turbo again. I think the discussion was mostly N/A to N/A. As far as insuring a turbine, I think that's pretty much true for any turbine airplane, especially if it has the little T-63 Allison in it like the 210 or the Maule or turbo Bonanza. They are easy to hot start, or at least they are in a helicopter. I have no idea about insurance rates for those turbines anymore than I do for for say a GV and for the same reasons.
Now LOP is an entirely different subject, but I wouldn't run a boosted engine LOP no matter what airframe it's in. Remember it's the turbine inlet temp you are most concerned with and not the exh temp. You know I want to think there is an upcoming AD on turbocharged Conti's, I think, but it may be just the 550's.
I have the Gami's in both the 210 I fly and my Maule. The Conti in the 210 runs great LOP whereas the Lyc. in the Maule runs smooth LOP, but the Lyc. looses so much power LOP, it's just not worth it. I've played with LOP in the 210, it increases range to something ridiclious and have basically decided not to run LOP even though the MPG goes from 10 to almost 14. I don't know about Continental, but Lycoming is strongly against it. It may be stupid, but they are 60+ year old engine designs and I think I will stick to the old way of running them. Specifically it's the exhaust valve and seat that I think won't like LOP.
The Bonanza is a wonderful airplane I'm sure, and as I said in the beginning, I don't think the 210 and the Bonanza compare well, there are more differences than similarities to me. But, realize this is a back country forum. Which means that there is a lot of Cessna fans here. Actually I think that is at the heart of the differences of the two airplanes. Cessna's are kind of an average Joe's Chevrolet pick up truck kind of airplane and the 210 reflects it's heritage. Beechcraft's have always been marketed and sold as an upscale airplane. Automobile wise like a Cadillac for example and the Bonanza reflects it's heritage. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact I would think that belief would help value wise. I'm surprised to see one used off airport, I had never considered it. It may well perform exceptionally well in that role. I have never seen one used that way. You see the stereotypical Bonanza pilot doesn't sleep in a tent, they are at the Hilton, or at least that is what they would have you believe.

a64pilot wrote:Bonanza man,
You are back to turbo again. I think the discussion was mostly N/A to N/A. As far as insuring a turbine, I think that's pretty much true for any turbine airplane, especially if it has the little T-63 Allison in it like the 210 or the Maule or turbo Bonanza. They are easy to hot start, or at least they are in a helicopter. I have no idea about insurance rates for those turbines anymore than I do for for say a GV and for the same reasons.
Now LOP is an entirely different subject, but I wouldn't run a boosted engine LOP no matter what airframe it's in. Remember it's the turbine inlet temp you are most concerned with and not the exh temp. You know I want to think there is an upcoming AD on turbocharged Conti's, I think, but it may be just the 550's.
I have the Gami's in both the 210 I fly and my Maule. The Conti in the 210 runs great LOP whereas the Lyc. in the Maule runs smooth LOP, but the Lyc. looses so much power LOP, it's just not worth it. I've played with LOP in the 210, it increases range to something ridiclious and have basically decided not to run LOP even though the MPG goes from 10 to almost 14. I don't know about Continental, but Lycoming is strongly against it. It may be stupid, but they are 60+ year old engine designs and I think I will stick to the old way of running them. Specifically it's the exhaust valve and seat that I think won't like LOP.
The Bonanza is a wonderful airplane I'm sure, and as I said in the beginning, I don't think the 210 and the Bonanza compare well, there are more differences than similarities to me. But, realize this is a back country forum. Which means that there is a lot of Cessna fans here. Actually I think that is at the heart of the differences of the two airplanes. Cessna's are kind of an average Joe's Chevrolet pick up truck kind of airplane and the 210 reflects it's heritage. Beechcraft's have always been marketed and sold as an upscale airplane. Automobile wise like a Cadillac for example and the Bonanza reflects it's heritage. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact I would think that belief would help value wise. I'm surprised to see one used off airport, I had never considered it. It may well perform exceptionally well in that role. I have never seen one used that way. You see the stereotypical Bonanza pilot doesn't sleep in a tent, they are at the Hilton, or at least that is what they would have you believe.

You brought up the T210 so that's what I compared. As for LOP the Turbo 520's and 550's(as well as N/A) run very well LOP as the GAMI guys will tell you. The 550 has LOP ops in the manual. Just stay out of the red box and you'll be fine. For mileage I normally see mid teens, 14-15 mpg. As for off road the reason I bought it is because the gear is so much stronger than a Cessna RG. You set the clearances one time, check them each annual and then you can beat the snot out of it and never worry about the gear. The Cessna gear has so many failure modes compared to my gear. With my 182 all you ever heard was how weak the nose gear was. It's not mounted as well as it could have, another advantage I have. If only I could put a 6.00x6 on there. The downside to the low wing is if you need to run your wing thru some bushes close to the road your landing on. On the up side I have three feet less wing than the Cessna's. Take one off road, it's a lot more capable than you realize.

Bonanza Man wrote:
The A36 gets 210 kts true at 17,500, the 210 is known to be a 190-195 knot airplane. The real downside to the whole deal is the insurance on a 210 right now is twice what the Bonanza is. The simple fact of the matter is it is raining C210 parts from the sky. For this year as well as the past decade the accident rate of the 210's is double that of the Bo. This year alone there have been 26 accidents and 13 fatal accident in 210's vs 12 and 5 for the Bo. It is such an alarming trend that the Cessna Pilots Assoc has an article about it in this months magazine. No matter what the type of mishap the 210 comes to grief twice as often as the Bo and they have similar fleet sizes. You Cessna guys have a serious pilot training problem.

I am not sure where you are getting any of your numbers and you are comparing apples to oranges on your speeds. Lets look at the numbers on a side by side comparison...I will use the numbers published in the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest to keep the playing field level as it seems to have to most exhaustive references.

The fastest NON TURBO model of the A-36 is the 300 hp with a max speed of 184 kts. and recommended cruise of 169 kts. The Bo also has a MGTOW of 3,650 lbs and a useful of 1,430 lbs dry.

Apples to apples the fastest NON TURBO 300 hp C-210 is the R model with a max speed of 175 kts. and recommended cruise of 170 kts. The 210 has a MGTOW of 3,850 lbs and a useful of 1,630 lbs dry.

Based on that information the Bo has a higher max speed, but a lower recommended cruise and a lower useful load by 200 lbs.

Now lets compare your favorites...the Turbo models

The fastest model of the A-36 Turbo is the B model with 300 hp...is has a max speed of 213 kts. and recommended cruise of 190 kts. The Bo also has a MGTOW of 3,850 lbs and a useful of 1,512 lbs dry.

The fastest model of the T-210 is the R model. To be completely fair the T-210 does not come in 300 hp like to Bo, the only options are 285, 310, & 325; but we are wanting to compare the fastest of each manufacture in their category. The T-210 R has a max speed of 224 kts. and recommended cruise of 207 kts. The T-210 has a MGTOW of 4,100 lbs. and a useful of 1,780 lbs dry.

If you would like to compare the lower horsepower (slowest) T-210 with the highest horsepower (fastest) Bo then your numbers are a little more accurate. The 285 hp T-210 is the F model and it still has a max speed of 200 kts and a recommended cruise of 191 kts. The T-210 has a MGTOW of 3,300 lbs. and a useful of 1,333 lbs dry.

As I stated in a previous post...the 210 will outrun and out haul any Bonanza in the same class. Oh I did not mention that the C-210 is also offered in a Pressurized model, but that would not make an apples to apples comparison.

Not sure where you get your accident numbers either...according to the NTSB report in the US between 1/1/07 and 8/8/07 there have only been 18 total accidents reported on the 210 of which only 4 were fatal meaning the survivability rate on these accidents was 78%. The Bo on the other hand for the same parameters had only 6 total accidents of which 3 were fatal meaning the survivability rate for the Bo was only 50%. Now obviously this is only covering 8 months worth of time frame, but it is apples to apples and the picture is not near as bleak as you make it sound.

To keep the accidents in perspective we must also get an accurate picture of the fleet sizes and the total fleet hours of each aircraft...they are not as close as you seem to portray. According to the FAA registry currently in the US there are 2,815 registered various models of the Beech 36 as compared to 5,772 registered various models of the 210. The size of the currently registered 210 fleet is more than double that of the Bonanzas so we would expect a higher accident number although it is actually a lower per aircraft rate than that of the Bo.

By the way...apples to apples the insurance rates are not double on a 210 than they are on a Bonanza...more: yes but nowhere near double. Only part of the higher cost comes from the accident rates, but a major factor is that they are not longer factory supported so new parts are hard to come by and repairs can become costly.

1975 Beech A-36 valued at $150,000 with PVT / INST / 1000 PIC / 500 M&M would in the $2,000 - $2,400 ballpark annually.

1975 Cessna 210 valued at $150,000 with PVT / INST / 1000 PIC / 500 M&M would in the $2,800 - $3,200 ballpark annually.


Either aircraft is a good choice depending on your mission profile...for my mission profile the C-210 win hands down, but for others the Bo is the blue ribbon winner. It all comes down to needs and wants...what do you need and what do you want from your investment. Each has pro's and each has con's, but choose the one that best fits YOUR needs and not the needs of your buddies or you will not be happy.

jmtgt wrote:Oh how amazing this same argument has been going on for over 20 years and still has no chance of being settled.

It's probably been 40 years and lowflybye is currently the reigning champion I only hope it is still going on 40 years from now.

Easy there Jody...I am not trying to start a fight or win necessarily, just set the facts straight. Being that I deal with this subject on a semi daily basis I have had a lot of time to collect the facts and figures...especially when it pertains to accidents and insurance.

"Stereotypically", the Bonanza owners do not like to admit that an airplane half the price and not nearly as sexy will meet or exceed the performance of their baby...the 210 owners on the other hand love the idea that their half priced hot rod pickup will compete with the Cadillac. The Bonanza was designed to be a fast, luxury airplane while the 210 was designed to be a high speed workhorse and both aircraft are about as good as it gets when operated in the arenas that they were designed for.

I like both aircraft and each one has it's place and niche, but for my wants, needs, & budget the 210 is my airplane of choice between these two. I would not trade you the Maule for either of them when it comes to fun, but that is a different plane designed for a different purpose.