Money not being a deciding factor...210 vs Cherokee 6/toga

Later versions of the 'toga lost the ability to haul any weight at all, glorified 4 seater. Got to stick to the 80's.

If you could find a T210R (rare bird) then that would be my vote. For the same acquisition price, however, there are better birds.
 
JEB said:
For me, the A36 is the absolute best choice. My useful load is around 1300 Lbs. If I want to pay for the paper STC, I could increase that to over 1700.
Click to expand...

Paper STC, meaning no actual modifications done to the aircraft?
 
midcap said:
oh not really from a money stand point, I just don't want to deal with two engines, I have two engines on my boat as it is.lol
Click to expand...
What's the single-engine service ceiling on your current twin? How much of a "cross-country beast" is it? Do you feel comfortable crossing the Rockies, or loading the family up to visit Dollywood? Get a boat with one engine and a plane with two.

Between the 210 and PA-32, I'd choose based on how often the rear seats get used. I think the 210 is easier for the pilot and copilot to get in and out but the PA-32 is easier for the rest of the family to load up.
 
JEB said:
I've flown the Six, 210 and my A36.
For sheer volume, the Six wins - but it's like flying an old school bus. It's a lumbering beast. Not fast, but very stable. The fixed gear version is SLOW.
For speed, the 210 and the A36 are very close. Things like engine upgrades and turbo choices will be deciding factors when comparing the Cessna and the Beech for speed. In the end, they are very close.
The A36 will burn less fuel than the 210 and it's MUCH nicer to hand fly. Controls are crisp on the Beech.
Cabin space = as I said above, the Piper wins here overall. The Cessna feels a bit wider up front than the Beech, but the last row of seats on the Cessna is for little people. You can sit an adult in the last row of an A36.
The Cessna has two doors up front, The Beech and the Piper have one door up front.
Both the Beech and more modern versions of the Six have club seating with nice wide barn doors for passenger entry.
If you care about fit and finish, the Beech wins - hands down. The Beech is also built to Utility standards whereas the other two are Normal category.

For me, the A36 is the absolute best choice. My useful load is around 1300 Lbs. If I want to pay for the paper STC, I could increase that to over 1700. If I needed more cargo volume (actual space, not weight), I'd consider a Saratoga.

Join Beechtalk.com - It's free to join. There is a WEALTH of knowledge available. You can easily find an owner who's listed as a Mentor in your area. They will be happy to meet with you and show you their plane. I've done it for people in SoCal. Always happy to go flying with someone who wants to see what an A36 is like.
Click to expand...

I am definately going to check that site out.

The club seating is a huge plus, probably the only way my wife is gonna fly with me, she said a 172 was waaaaaaay too small
 
midcap said:
I am definately going to check that site out.

The club seating is a huge plus, probably the only way my wife is gonna fly with me, she said a 172 was waaaaaaay too small
Click to expand...
THis site, POA is an awesome collection of people with amazingly varied experiences, and is a great place to get perspectives across brands/types of flying/economic means/etc. Beechtalk is all about promoting the Beech products and they are VERY VERY deep on their knowledge and experience with those products, it's a fantastic community and you'll get additional perspectives from here that you won't find there and vice versa. Go post a "considering an A36/210/PA32 and you'll get a lot of good info. There are similar (though very different) communities for Piper as well, though I'm not sure how active they are. I'm unaware of a similar Cessna "big singles" club, but there probably is something.
 
midcap said:
I keep seeing Bonanza...is it that great of a plane?
Click to expand...
Yes.

The A36 Bonanza and the Saratoga look somewhat similar at first glance - same general seating arrangements, doors, etc. Fly both, and you'll probably see quickly why most pilots prefer the A36 and most passengers prefer the Saratoga. The Toga offers more space, but in my opinion the A36 wins in every other category.

(Of course I'm a little biased as I own an A36, but I was a Piper pilot for many years until I got a six seater, and after comparing Pipers and Bonanzas, I picked the A36 and have never looked back.)

- Martin
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEB
Martin Pauly said:
Yes.

The A36 Bonanza and the Saratoga look somewhat similar at first glance - same general seating arrangements, doors, etc. Fly both, and you'll probably see quickly why most pilots prefer the A36 and most passengers prefer the Saratoga. The Toga offers more space, but in my opinion the A36 wins in every other category.

(Of course I'm a little biased as I own an A36, but I was a Piper pilot for many years until I got a six seater, and after comparing Pipers and Bonanzas, I picked the A36 and have never looked back.)

- Martin
Click to expand...
Kind of like comparing a Cayenne to a Yukon. Plus you have the wealth of knowledge that is BeechTalk
 
My wife and I are empty nesters, yet we are surprised how often we have made full use of our Six 300's spacious cabin and 1,300 lb + useful load. It may be slow (~ 140 KTAS), but those missions would still have taken a lot longer with a four-seat retractable ... because multiple trips would have been necessary. :D
 
a572mike said:
As far as I know, there isn't one.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. The P210 earned a TC before under a prior set of rules where life limits weren't part of the equation.
 
The A36 vs Cherokee Six comparison above is pretty valid! I don't know what the cost comparison is if they're similarly priced. The Six w/fixed gear seems to demand a premium. For us, we went the Six (300) route because being a lower hour pilot with zero retract time was going to kill in insurance. No regrets and getting 12gph with 1,400 useful has worked well and I'm a LOT faster than I was in the Club's 172 I was flying.
 
Rich Holt said:
Anybody: If you had to choose between A or B, which would go with?
PoA: Have you considered a triangle?
Click to expand...

Well, the wings fall off the P brand a lot and also off of the non strut based cessnas. The 210 in addition to that also has a gear system that was designed by Wallace & Gromit.

Besides, they both fly like crap compared to a Bonanza.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEB
I'd take the 210. Its only me and my bride, no need for all those seats. Now if the 210 only had better gear then those little mosquito legs. ;)
 
Rich Holt said:
Anybody: If you had to choose between A or B, which would go with?
PoA: Have you considered a triangle?
Click to expand...

87defab3f565b9fc07924b7818f03a3d.jpg
 
1000RR said:
For us, we went the Six (300) route because being a lower hour pilot with zero retract time was going to kill in insurance.
Click to expand...
Insurance can be a deciding issue for us geezers, too.

When I was shopping for a PA-32 I called my broker and asked her to price out the premiums on a '78 fixed-gear Six and a '78 Lance, assuming equal hull values. I have 5,000 hours, all relevant ratings, and prior PA-32R time. But I was about to turn 70, so for most companies the premium for the retractable was about double that for the fixed-gear Six. And some companies wouldn't quote me in the retractable at all.
 
Pilawt said:
Insurance can be a deciding issue for us geezers, too.

When I was shopping for a PA-32 I called my broker and asked her to price out the premiums on a '78 fixed-gear Six and a '78 Lance, assuming equal hull values. I have 5,000 hours, all relevant ratings, and prior PA-32R time. But I was about to turn 70, so for most companies the premium for the retractable was about double that for the fixed-gear Six. And some companies wouldn't quote me in the retractable at all.
Click to expand...
I'm not there age wise, but the pricing was similar with my lack of time... about double for the retract.
 
kyleb said:
Paper STC, meaning no actual modifications done to the aircraft?
Click to expand...
I upgraded my engine to an IO550 from an IO520 (300 HP vs 285HP) and I added D'Shannon Engine baffles for cooling. Those things qualify me to purchase the gross weight STC from D'Shannon.
 
I think to clarify. Importance of mission
Speed
Speed
Speed
Carrying stuff
only 4 people.
 
I don't think a PA32 is gonna meet the important parts of that mission. :cool:
 
Turbo normalized A36 if you're willing to wear oxygen.
If you want to avoid oxygen, then get a normally aspirated A36 with an IO-550 upgrade. Early models are fastest because they are lighter. -
 
midcap said:
I think to clarify. Importance of mission
Speed
Speed
Speed
Carrying stuff
only 4 people.
Click to expand...

I hesitate to respond because it is outside the original question. If speed and spousal approval are paramount AND money isn't a factor....

SR22 Cirrus

I had one. I didn't particularly like it (although it was very nice). My wife loved it. Wingspan makes for a tight fit in smaller hangars.
 
midcap said:
I think to clarify. Importance of mission
Speed
Speed
Speed
Carrying stuff
only 4 people.
Click to expand...
You could get an A36, face the middle row of seats forward, and remove the rear seats. Tons of space for luggage in the back, four people sitting in comfort, good speed on decent fuel burn, wonderful handling qualities, and the support network of ABS and BeechTalk.

- Martin
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEB
Martin Pauly said:
You could get an A36, face the middle row of seats forward, and remove the rear seats. Tons of space for luggage in the back, four people sitting in comfort, good speed on decent fuel burn, wonderful handling qualities, and the support network of ABS and BeechTalk.

- Martin
Click to expand...

Yes, but you are biased! :p Aren’t you suppose to have a disclaimer or something?
 
Rcmutz said:
Yes, but you are biased! :p Aren’t you suppose to have a disclaimer or something?
Click to expand...
In this case he's right. An A36 is superior to a PA32R in everything except comfort and acquisition cost. And you could argue also the engine manufacturer. Useful load is generally a tie. I've never run W&B on an A36 so I don't know if the balance part is harder on an A36.

Signed,
PA32R driver
 
midcap said:
So how fast does an A36 cruise?
Click to expand...

Cross country trips in my A36 are usually with me, my wife and a Golden Retriever named Sky McFly. We don't come anywhere close to maxing out the plane's capacity, so we get the added benefit of being light and that means we get a few knots extra speed. I also upgraded my engine to an IO-550, so I get a few extra horses and the benefit of a fresh engine with engine mounts that aren't sagging after 20 years.

Between 7500 and 9500, flying Rich of Peak, (what my dad calls full renter power) I can see cruise speeds between 180 and 184 KTAS and fuel burn in the 18 to 20 GPH range. If I go Lean of Peak, I can bring the fuel flow down to about 12.8 GPH and I see 172 KTAS.

I have Gamis on my engine, which makes LOP ops easy, new Continental engines come with balanced injectors, but general opinion seems to be that the Gamijectors are better. My understanding is that Lycoming engines aren't typically run LOP, so that might also be something to consider because PA32s have Lycoming engines.
 
JEB said:
My understanding is that Lycoming engines aren't typically run LOP, so that might also be something to consider because PA32s have Lycoming engines.
Click to expand...
My experience has been that while my io-540 is perfectly happy to run LOP, doing so is less efficient than running a lower "power setting" right at or just on the rich side of peak egt. 75% power LOP results in about the same speed as 65% power at peak, which makes sense because the fuel flow is the same. Fuel flow is really the measure of power being produced so long as you aren't significantly ROP.

The lance and six are significantly over cooled and essentially impossible to get the cht's too hot. Lopresti used to make a cowl to reduce the air inlet and boost speed substantially, but last I checked it was over 50k and may be out of production now.

At 75% rop 18gph and fairly light I see 160-165 knots in my Lance
I usually run 65% near peak egt 14.5 gph and get 150-155.
At 55% 11.5gph 135 <-the "I'm in no hurry" setting

She's kind of a brick and only goes so fast no matter how much money you shovel into the thrust generator. Also, you can never be too high or too fast on an approach, pulling the throttle back is the express elevator to the ground floor. Drop the gear for even more ninja descent action!

One thing I'm super jealous of the bonanza people is the availability of stc's. Want 8 hours of fuel? There's an stc for that. 500lbs more useful load? Yep. Bigger engine? No problem. Turbo? Why not?!

That shoulder room though....
 
JEB said:
Cross country trips in my A36 are usually with me, my wife and a Golden Retriever named Sky McFly. We don't come anywhere close to maxing out the plane's capacity, so we get the added benefit of being light and that means we get a few knots extra speed. I also upgraded my engine to an IO-550, so I get a few extra horses and the benefit of a fresh engine with engine mounts that aren't sagging after 20 years.

Between 7500 and 9500, flying Rich of Peak, (what my dad calls full renter power) I can see cruise speeds between 180 and 184 KTAS and fuel burn in the 18 to 20 GPH range. If I go Lean of Peak, I can bring the fuel flow down to about 12.8 GPH and I see 172 KTAS.

I have Gamis on my engine, which makes LOP ops easy, new Continental engines come with balanced injectors, but general opinion seems to be that the Gamijectors are better. My understanding is that Lycoming engines aren't typically run LOP, so that might also be something to consider because PA32s have Lycoming engines.
Click to expand...

dang, that's some nice fuel flow doing 172.

cockpit room wise, more than a 172? Im fine in a 172, I find it snuggly :D

the way I am built, I thought I was gonna get stuck in a PA 46 trying to make it to the pilot seat :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top