C-210/P-210

J

JamesA320

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
63
Display Name
Display name:
JamesA320
So I am doing tons of research. Trying to find the perfect plane. One week it is a Mooney, the next week it is a Cherokee 6, then a Bonanza. The latest plane on my radar is a Cessna 210. Looking for more info from those who have flown or owned one!

I would like to buy a plane one day. I assume I will be in the $150k-200k neighborhood once all is said and done. I have a family of 4 and want to be able to take them with me. And some baggage. I live in the Southwest and there are mountains all over the place. It sounds like a Cessna 210 can haul everyone comfortably and get above the mountains/weather. Please let me know your thoughts. Any better years/models to look for or stay away from?

Thank you
 
You can put a STOL kit on a 210 and have the speed, altitude and unimproved field performance not available with other six place airplanes for under $250.000.
 
Split the difference and consider a Cessna 206. About the same physical size as 182, but with a 260hp fuel injected engine. Hauls over 200lbs more than a 182. 210's have a larger wing span and usually require a the next size up T hangar which on my area is very hard to find and are much more expensive.

Hauls 4 adults and 2 kids. Slightly slower than a 210 and faster than a 182.
 
I don’t think that the 210 costs more for maintenance than a Bonanza or other high performance plane. You do need to make sure the gear is well taken care of. Annuals do take more time mostly because there are about 75 inspection plates that need to be opened and closed. The two mechanics on our field budget 36 hours for the annual. We do most of the teardown, lubrication, and greasing the bearings ourselves so the annual takes the IA about 10 hours.
 
NordicDave said:
Split the difference and consider a Cessna 206. About the same physical size as 182, but with a 260hp fuel injected engine. Hauls over 200lbs more than a 182. 210's have a larger wing span and usually require a the next size up T hangar which on my area is very hard to find and are much more expensive.

Hauls 4 adults and 2 kids. Slightly slower than a 210 and faster than a 182.
Click to expand...

You described a 205.
 
I like the idea of a 206 (or 205) as I just saw a photo and its gear is fixed. I think that is a bonus. No forgetting the gear. Assume it saves a significant amount on mtx too. I shall look more into these options!
 
If four people and stuff is your jam I feel like the Saratoga / Six / Lance options are solid choices..

The 210 with the gear, spar AD, etc can become a headache

205/206/182 can haul a ton but the Piper options feel like a Suburban inside.. so roomy
 
NordicDave said:
Split the difference and consider a Cessna 206. About the same physical size as 182, but with a 260hp fuel injected engine. 210's have a larger wing span and usually require a the next size up T hangar which on my area is very hard to find and are much more expensive.
Click to expand...
The 260 hp IO-470 version (1963-64) was the Model 205 (also known as the Model 210-5 because it was a fixed-gear derivation of the 210B/C). The 206 (1964-85) had the IO-520 (285 or 300 hp depending on year).

205s, like the contemporary 210s, had the standard forward cabin doors on both sides, and a baggage door on the left rear, but somewhat larger than the 210's baggage door. Most 206s have the big double cargo doors on the right side, and no forward door on the co-pilot side. But there was another model, the P206 Super Skylane (1965-1970), that combined the 285 hp engine (turbo optional), wings and tail group of the 206 with the cabin and door arrangement of the 205.

The 205 and 206 have almost exactly the same exterior dimensions as a 210, and believe it or not, a 1970s-era 210 is only one inch longer than a 182 of similar vintage. Unless equipped with aftermarket wingtip fuel tanks, all strut-braced, high-wing Cessna piston singles, from 170 through 210F, have the same wingspan, varying only a few inches (35' 10" to 36 '7") depending on which style of wingtips and lights are installed. The strutless 210s (1967 210G and later) have a little more span, at 36' 9".

JamesA320 said:
I like the idea of a 206 (or 205) as I just saw a photo and its gear is fixed. I think that is a bonus. No forgetting the gear. Assume it saves a significant amount on mtx too. I shall look more into these options!
Click to expand...

Folksinger-songwriter Livingston Taylor, brother of pop star James Taylor, is an enthusiastic 205 owner.


A 1964 Model 205A, with a couple of 182Gs in the background:

cessna_205a.jpg

A 1967 Model TP206B Turbo Super Skylane:

cessna_tp206b.jpg
 
^that 205A looks real nice
 
Piper Sixes and Saratogas sound like good options too! Are they available with a turbo and fixed gear?
 
JamesA320 said:
Piper Sixes and Saratogas sound like good options too! Are they available with a turbo and fixed gear?
Click to expand...
The PA-32 Cherokee Six was fixed-gear, available with 260 hp (PA-32-260, 1965-78) or 300 hp (PA-32-300, 1966-79), normally-aspirated only. These all had the rectangular "Hershey-Bar" wing planform, 32' 9" span.

Through the 1978 model year, all had four fuel tanks with a total of 84 gallons usable fuel (same wings and fuel system as the PA-28-235 Cherokee 235). For 1979 only, though the wings looked the same externally as the previous models, the increased 98-gallon fuel capacity was in two interconnected fuel tanks in each wing, requiring only a "left/right" fuel selector, instead of the four-position selector of the earlier models. The model number (PA-32-300) was the same, but the 1979 model was renamed "Six 300".

For the 1980 model year, all PA-32s became "Saratogas", with longer, tapered wings of 36' 5" span, with 102 gallon usable fuel capacity. There were four versions:

-- PA-32-301 Saratoga (1980-1991), fixed gear, normally aspirated.
-- PA-32-301T Turbo Saratoga (1980-1984), fixed gear, turbocharged.
-- PA-32R-301 Saratoga SP (1980-1996), retractable, normally aspirated.
-- PA-32R-301T Turbo Saratoga SP (1980-1996), retractable, turbocharged.
 
Thanks everyone for all of this information!
Playing around on controller, I see quite a few Saratogas with prop strikes! Is there a Kelly Blue Book or similar book for airplanes? It seems like the prices vary quite a bit.
 
JamesA320 said:
Yet another prop strike!
Click to expand...
Yep, and some wrinkled skin it seems, must have been a fairly hard porpoise on landing.. I also found it interesting that the listing notes that the plane is hangared yet it has a couple light hail strike marks..

thing is, when you're buying an airplane 30 or 40 years old it is unfortunately going to have been ridden hard and put away wet at least a couple times.. or you can buy something new and spend five times as much money
 
Yes it is not new but it seems like pilots are getting an awful lot of prop strikes. Bad luck? Poor design? Or more common than I ever thought?

Is there a big difference between a Lance and a Cherokee or Saratoga? It seems like they are quite a bit cheaper
 
JamesA320 said:
Yes it is not new but it seems like pilots are getting an awful lot of prop strikes. Bad luck? Poor design? Or more common than I ever thought?

Is there a big difference between a Lance and a Cherokee or Saratoga? It seems like they are quite a bit cheaper
Click to expand...
Every case is different but typically 6 seat airplanes are heavy in pitch with no cargo or passengers in the back. They also have a nose high attitude on the ground. Combine the two and you have a recipe for not getting the flare correct and bouncing off the nose gear.
 
JamesA320 said:
Is there a big difference between a Lance and a Cherokee or Saratoga? It seems like they are quite a bit cheaper
Click to expand...
The retractable Cherokee Lance* (1976-79) has the "Hershey-Bar" wing similar to the fixed-gear '79 Six 300; otherwise it similar to the 1980 Saratoga SP. The 1978-79 version had a T-tail and was called the Lance II.
Turbocharger was optional on the Lance II; not the earlier models.

The longer, tapered wing of the Saratoga is a desirable feature. Also, some don't care for the handling on takeoff and landing with the T-tail, which accounts for the lower prices on the Lance II. Piper responded by returning to the low-tail configuration for the 1980 Saratogas. But many (and a buenos días to you, @Rgbeard :) ) don't have a problem with the T-tail, and enjoy flying a big, roomy, comfortable airplane at a relatively bargain price.

1979 PA-32-300 Six 300:

pa-32-300_1979_1204.jpg

1981 PA-32-301 Saratoga:

pa-32-301_1981.jpg

1976 PA-32R-300 Cherokee Lance:

pa-32r-300_1977_1710.jpeg

1978 PA-32RT-300T Turbo Lance II:

pa-32rt-300t_1978.jpg

1984 PA-32R-301 Saratoga SP (I logged about 150 hours in N4337K back in the early '90s. Loved it. My wife still says that if money were no object, this is what we would have):

Screen shot 2013-11-16 at 3.16.36 PM.jpg

*Through the end of the 1977 model year, all PA-28s and PA-32s were "Cherokee" something-or-other. Piper dropped the Cherokee name in 1978, except for the Cherokee Six, which then became just "Six 300" in 1979.
 
Thank you everyone. You are a wealth of information!
 
There are only 181 C-210-5/5A in the US registry and those that are still airworthy are highly cherished.

The carry-through spar AD does not apply to the strutted 200- series Cessnas.

That probably keeps their value and price high...
 
Concerning the spar AD on the 210, once the inspection and compliance is completed there shouldnt be further issue. So far the current 'fail' rate for the inspection, it has been about 8%. At least what Ive heard on the model specific discussions.

Yes maintenance can be expensive as can other retract, big bore engine airplanes. It still goes faster and carries more than most of the other options out there.
 
The early 210 had four seats and struts and 260 HP. The 205 was a fixed-gear version of that airframe. It even has the bulged lower cowl where the nosegear doors would have been.

Edit: I see that Pilawt beat me to that in Post #10.

The P210 is a different animal. The fuselage is a pressure vessel and is a much heavier and more complex structure, to take the pressure. Parts can be especially expensive.
 
Here's Textron's website comparing the 182 to the 206. See the wing spans and length. They are the same. 182/206 wing span is 36' and 210's wing span is 37'. On our field and my last field the 210 won't fit the standard T hangar.

Both these plane have a great availability of new and used parts. The 206 has 331 lbs of additional full fuel useful load. It's a truck!

Comparison: https://txtav.com/en/products/compa...8D732189DEFE,690796F8B03E4DC9B071D3894B6F38D5
 
I feel like retractable gear couldn’t possibly add significant speed/efficiency to most of these airplanes we are discussing. I think the extra inspections/mtx/chance of forgetting/ or gear issues (I have had one in a rental - on a checkride no less!) just can’t offset the gain in speed or efficiency. Although it is cool to sling the gear... I think if these planes are in the same ballpark, fixed gear is the way to go
 
210s are great performers, kinda meh in turbulence, but watch out - they can be cult priced. You may well be able to find an A36 cheaper.
 
I’ve been doing a ton of research and no plane seems to be the perfect one. I have also been studying a lot of buy vs rent opinions and I think what I will do is get checked out in a Cirrus (local flight school is a Cirrus shop) and see how many hours per month/yr I actually end up flying. Again I’d like to thank everyone for their thoughful opinions!
 
Every plane is about compromises. That doesn't mean a compromise plane can't be perfect for the owner.
 
JamesA320 said:
I’ve been doing a ton of research and no plane seems to be the perfect one. I have also been studying a lot of buy vs rent opinions and I think what I will do is get checked out in a Cirrus (local flight school is a Cirrus shop) and see how many hours per month/yr I actually end up flying. Again I’d like to thank everyone for their thoughful opinions!
Click to expand...
Most sensible!

Many or most of us started off wanting to buy a plane, take family trips, and really make our outlay for the PPL prove its worth.

Most of us ended up having things, like oh I dunno, life maybe... interfere with our grand schemes.

We end up renting when we can afford to. And maybe letting months, years, even decades pass between actively flying.

Look around most airports, waiting lists for hangars... Yet, you see hangars that haven't even been opened in 10years... There's a plane in there, probably. With mouse droppings inside and out, a stuck engine, flat tires.... And 2 inches of dust on it ...

The promise of personal aviation is freedom. But it comes at a price few are willing to bear....

That said... I'm right there with you .. I just don't dare write a check on the lottery tickets I'm holding... But, boy if I ever hit, watch out!
 
A 1964 210D has one of the highest service ceilings of any non-turbo retract airplane. The only formula that I can think that adds up to that is it it has a lower gross weight than the 205 and another 25 horsepower to boot. 210D gross is 3100 pounds & 285 horse

1964 210D = Service Ceiling is 21,000 feet, no turbo.

1982 T210N = Service Ceiling 27,000 feet, turbo (4000 pound takeoff weight)
 
Last edited:
I have had a 1964 C-210D since 1971 and flown it probably over 4000 hours. Your main problem is that a really clean one like mine should cost about $60k so you will need to get rid of $100k some how. I have done all the maintenance on my plane and it is not expensive to maintain and the gear is not complicated. It has a single hinge set at 45 degrees about which it swings up and down. If you are serious I can give you lots of details. This is an amazing plane and does not have that spar AD. I would not want pressurization for many reasons including much higher costs.
 
For me I rarely have the need or desire to travel much, especially with more than 2 people. Renting when I do makes the most sense, true I would probably do a few more trips than I do if I had my own airplane. At times have had access to planes that even fuel was provided, and still I rarely went anywhere. That probably explains why the airplane I fly the most is a single place and doesn't have an engine. Cheap to operate and challenging fun is a big factor for me. YMMV.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Tantalum said:
e gear, spar AD, etc can become a headache
Click to expand...
bnt83 said:
A 1964 210D has one of the highest service ceilings of any non-turbo retract airplane. The only formula that I can think that adds up to that is it it has a lower gross weight than the 205 and another 25 horsepower to boot. 210D gross is 3100 pounds & 285 horse

1964 210D = Service Ceiling is 21,000 feet, no turbo.

1982 T210N = Service Ceiling 27,000 feet, turbo (4000 pound takeoff weight)
Click to expand...
Nice, didn't know the strutted 210 could fly that high NA. The max approved altitude in the POH for my PA24-250 is FL220 with FL200 being the service ceiling. Pretty impressive on only 250hp. One of these days I'm going to try it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top