Looking at a 210b now

Z

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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
T210doc said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
zbrown5 said:
Regarding the astronomically expensive landing gear saddles, could a feller just stock up on a pair like this for when the time comes?

https://www.ebay.com/p/Cessna-210-Left-Main-Landing-Gear-Saddle/778089369?iid=272252273728&chn=ps
Click to expand...

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.
 
hindsight2020 said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.
 
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?
 
zbrown5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
hindsight2020 said:
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!
Click to expand...

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
 
AA5Bman said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Briar Rabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
MD11Pilot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
AA5Bman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
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
 
James331 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
 
SoCalPilot88 said:
My R182 cruises at 156 KTAS per the POH. The only speed mod is flap gap seals. It has a two blade .
Click to expand...
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:
Briar Rabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

So they are only like a 150kt airplane?
 
AKBill said:
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:
Click to expand...

There’s a lot to be said for that


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
James331 said:
So they are only like a 150kt airplane?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Briar Rabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, always thought they were more in the 170kt range
 
pigpenracing said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolute plumbers nightmare is the best description.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top