PA32, 210 or Bonanza

SmashTime said:
I'm considering a move to the Tuttle/Mustang area. Maybe I could check out the pa32 you get?
Click to expand...

Well, that's just about 40 miles from here, so that would work. You better not be in a hurry though, because I don't have any money at the moment ;)
 
OkieFlyer said:
Well, that's just about 40 miles from here, so that would work. You better not be in a hurry though, because I don't have any money at the moment ;)
Click to expand...

Lol I won't move till next august.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
the PA-32 has vertical seat adjustment....
Click to expand...


so? :dunno:

The metal can is height restricted. Any option you throw out about adjusting the seat, changing cushions, etc, can also be done in the other plane.
 
bikert said:
so? :dunno:

The metal can is height restricted. Any option you throw out about adjusting the seat, changing cushions, etc, can also be done in the other plane.
Click to expand...
your mileage may vary....depending on the installed seats and the foam selection.

So....it depends. :yes: ....the PA 32 I owned had more head room and shoulder room than my Bonanza.
 
SmashTime said:
How do you come to that number?

25 gph x 5$=125$

So add 125$ for engines, prop & annual?
Click to expand...

21 GPH was what I ran, so $105/hr.

I base my numbers on 1000 hours of Aztec ownership, and looking at total costs from the first day to the last, divided by costs. That included sale price at the end, which was effectively identical to purchase price. I don't include reserves for props and engines in that because they don't necessarily mean much. You can have an engine go out at 1,000 hours or at 4,000 hours.

retailguy said:
Neither will you. But it sounds so good.:lol:

You will fly just like me most likely... WOT, as fast as the thing will go. Maybe LOP, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

In the planes you're talking about, that's pretty much true. They're all slow enough that there's no reason to pull back and there's not a huge savings. The savings is all in running LOP.

In the 310, I have two settings, both LOP - 2350 RPM and 2500 RPM, both WOT. The 2350 RPM saves 17% on fuel for 7% on speed. If I have a long day (in the range of 10 hours or so) I'll run 2500 RPM because the speed difference will actually be noticeable. Otherwise, I'll run 2350 RPM because the cost savings is worth it, and the speed difference isn't noticeable.

But I won't pull the throttles back, other than to land.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
2I don't include reserves for props and engines in that because they don't necessarily mean much. You can have an engine go out at 1,000 hours or at 4,000 hours.
Click to expand...

Yes but that is what can make you cry owning a twin. That number over a long term average is double that of a single because, you know, it has double the number of engines and props. ;) Somebody is going to cry at some point. Maybe if you're smart enough to get it at the right time, then unload it for somebody else's misery then all is well. It's a bit of a roll of the dice.
 
bikert said:
Yes but that is what can make you cry owning a twin. That number over a long term average is double that of a single because, you know, it has double the number of engines and props. ;) Somebody is going to cry at some point. Maybe if you're smart enough to get it at the right time, then unload it for somebody else's misery then all is well. It's a bit of a roll of the dice.
Click to expand...

That math only works if you can treat the entire plane as consumable. Sadly, that is what most of the twins you see on the ramp these days are. Once they are done with their engines, they get chopped up for spare parts.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Does the 210 have the large rear door like a 206?
Click to expand...

No.....

And we should also add....your not going to find a 206 within the OP budget that is worth a sheet.

There is a reason why 206 command a high price.

You won't ever lose on a 206....just got to step up to buy one.

It fits OP mission perfectly except for price.
 
Last edited:
Katamarino said:
Fair enough. Maybe it was a flap issue. Can't think of a landing gear issue that would have someone so shaken.
Click to expand...

From 2/20/12

DavidWhite said:
Had my first real emergency in a plane today. I was flying to Houston to meet Jesse and Ted in a rented Cessna 210 when the cockpit started filling up with smoke. I opened up all the windows and vents to get the smoke out, and then I declared an emergency and went to San Marcos (the closest airport) I lined up to land with the runway and tried to bring the gear down, but the gear wouldn't come down. I started pumping on the hand pump to get the gear down (which I realized was hot) and managed to get the gear down and land safetly. All the firetrucks and stuff met me and I was happy to be on the ground, I didn't realize until all the adrenaline wore off that I burned my hand trying to get the gear down because the handle was so hot. Turns out a hydraulic line busted and there was hydraulic fluid all over the place (cause of the smoke and why I couldnt get the gear down)

399825_2720496692109_1247804014_32082460_163659111_n.jpg
Click to expand...
 
bikert said:
Yes but that is what can make you cry owning a twin. That number over a long term average is double that of a single because, you know, it has double the number of engines and props. ;) Somebody is going to cry at some point. Maybe if you're smart enough to get it at the right time, then unload it for somebody else's misery then all is well. It's a bit of a roll of the dice.
Click to expand...

The same is true for any airplane. Nobody wants to hang an engine on their plane, it's always expensive and you never get the money back. I hung two on the 310, but even then the $/hr isn't as horrific as you'd figure given that I've flown it 900 hours. When you amortize it out and assume I'll fly this set off (which is the plan), it's also not bad.

You have to look at your use needs and figure out the business model and budget accordingly. Sometimes, disposable is the right way to go. That's effectively what I did with the Aztec, as I sold it to an A&P school. They also paid me what I paid for it.
 
This is a great post, because I myself am looking at these exact planes. I'm not nearly as tall or big as OP, but I expect to be taking four PAX fairly frequently. Many have suggested the 201 for him; however, the useful load numbers I'm finding on the 201 are 900 lbs. With full fuel that's like OP and half his buddy, and getting 2 other passengers in the back seems like a stretch even if you go half tanks. Are my 201 numbers wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I keep thinking this is an ancient thread getting resurrected, but no. Just another horse to beat to death. We seem to have a 210 vs Bo vs PA32 thread once a month here.

Nothing new to add other than search function works well.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I keep thinking this is an ancient thread getting resurrected, but no. Just another horse to beat to death. We seem to have a 210 vs Bo vs PA32 thread once a month here.

Nothing new to add other than search function works well.
Click to expand...

Yea it definitely is, but thankfully it's a discussion a lot of people love talking about.

I always enjoy reading the "what plane for me" threads. Because it always brings new and useful information.
 
I dont think anyone offered a yearly op budget for the 210. So the question is, is a 210 a twin in cost without the second engine ?

:stirpot:
 
hindsight2020 said:
I dont think anyone offered a yearly op budget for the 210. So the question is, is a 210 a twin in cost without the second engine ?
Click to expand...
This discussion would make a lot more sense if it were taking place 35-40 years ago, when you could go to a Beech, Cessna or Piper dealer and buy a new, corrosion-free airplane, with factory-installed options packages, and with something that passed in the aviation industry for a warranty. Those days are gone as to the types under discussion here, unless you want to pay a king's ransom for a new G36 Bonanza.

In the old days we could compare airplane types in a vacuum; now each individual example of each type must be scrutinized on its own merits. "All else being equal" is a meaningless phrase in this market of decades-old, complex machines. For example, there are 3,846 210s on the US civil register. No two are exactly alike. 3,846 different levels of use, damage, disrepair and neglect; 3,846 different panels full of jerry-rigged, aftermarket avionics and equipment.

Will a 210 cost less than a twin to operate? Serial number x might; serial number x+1 might not. All you can do is narrow down your search to the types (plural) that fit your mission, then find the very best example you can ... and hope for the best.
 
Pilawt said:
This discussion would make a lot more sense if it were taking place 35-40 years ago, when you could go to a Beech, Cessna or Piper dealer and buy a new, corrosion-free airplane, with factory-installed options packages, and with something that passed in the aviation industry for a warranty. Those days are gone as to the types under discussion here, unless you want to pay a king's ransom for a new G36 Bonanza.

In the old days we could compare airplane types in a vacuum; now each individual example of each type must be scrutinized on its own merits. "All else being equal" is a meaningless phrase in this market of decades-old, complex machines. For example, there are 3,846 210s on the US civil register. No two are exactly alike. 3,846 different levels of use, damage, disrepair and neglect; 3,846 different panels full of jerry-rigged, aftermarket avionics and equipment.

Will a 210 cost less than a twin to operate? Serial number x might; serial number x+1 might not. All you can do is narrow down your search to the types (plural) that fit your mission, then find the very best example you can ... and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

Probably the best observation made.
 
Meh, that sounds like a euphemism for 210s do indeed cost light twin ongoing money. Medians are not cosmic. Arrows cost less than Aztecs and lances cost less than 210s. The problem for the 210 is that the lance doesn't pretend to act like a twin substitute product like the 210 lovers purport.

Of course I'm still waiting for the part of this thread where the rv-10 gets factored as the solution. Lol at that point we know the thread has evolved.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Meh, that sounds like a euphemism for 210s do indeed cost light twin ongoing money. Medians are not cosmic. Arrows cost less than Aztecs and lances cost less than 210s. The problem for the 210 is that the lance doesn't pretend to act like a twin substitute product like the 210 lovers purport.

Of course I'm still waiting for the part of this thread where the rv-10 gets factored as the solution. Lol at that point we know the thread has evolved.
Click to expand...

Again, there just are too many variables to make such an assumption.

lances cost less than 210s
Click to expand...

So a Lance that has received typical owner maintenance over the past 35 years will be cheaper to maintain and operate versus a C210 that has had excellent maintenance and owner care?

Really?
 
RotorAndWing said:
Again, there just are too many variables to make such an assumption.



So a Lance that has received typical owner maintenance over the past 35 years will be cheaper to maintain and operate versus a C210 that has had excellent maintenance and owner care?

Really?
Click to expand...
have you owned and "paid" for maintenance for any of those models the OP is considering?:rolleyes2:
 
RotorAndWing said:
Again, there just are too many variables to make such an assumption.



So a Lance that has received typical owner maintenance over the past 35 years will be cheaper to maintain and operate versus a C210 that has had excellent maintenance and owner care?

Really?
Click to expand...

Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sure you can compare one crappy Lance to an excellently maintained C210 but ON AVERAGE over a large number of owners the C210 is more expensive to operate. For a new owner, he needs to look at his expected expenditure and that will be need to be based on not just one weird situation you have dreamed up but a whole range of experiences from multiple owners.

So I'd would say... Yes, really.

Now I wouldn't get a Lance over a 210 but don't tell me it costs less to operate.
 
Ive already disclosed im not a 210 owner. You got year to year ledgers of 210 ownership costs? Throw them in and bid an hourly figure and let the gallery debate it, instead of taking umbrage to everything everybody ever says on here. It's just a QA for the OP, lets all do like Rodney and get along :)

I'm not a lance owner either, but I am a piper owner, and I am familiar with the systems on the 32 along with the engine because they're part and parcel with the 28 and 44 series. If what I've seen from my ownership experience translates to the lance and six,then I'm willing to say its cheaper than a 210. But hey if its not true then the OP can put that plane back on the list! :)
 
bikert said:
Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Sure you can compare one crappy Lance to an excellently maintained C210 but ON AVERAGE over a large number of owners the C210 is more expensive to operate. For a new owner, he needs to look at his expected expenditure and that will be need to be based on not just one weird situation you have dreamed up but a whole range of experiences from multiple owners.

So I'd would say... Yes, really.

Now I wouldn't get a Lance over a 210 but don't tell me it costs less to operate.
Click to expand...

What are you basing this on? :dunno:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
thank you....so you never had to pay the bills. ;)
Click to expand...

I paid the bills (out of my pocket) for my 210. The PA32R was paid by the company, but I was in charge of the maintenance and writing the checks.

No matter what I write on this board Richard, you aren't going to like it and try to play your childish "gotcha" games.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I paid the bills (out of my pocket) for my 210. The PA32R was paid by the company, but I was in charge of the maintenance and writing the checks.

No matter what I write on this board Richard, you aren't going to like it and try to play your childish "gotcha" games.
Click to expand...

Why such salt?
 

Attachments

  • 98f.png
    98f.png
    641.1 KB · Views: 26
hindsight2020 said:
Ive already disclosed im not a 210 owner. You got year to year ledgers of 210 ownership costs? Throw them in and bid an hourly figure and let the gallery debate it, instead of taking umbrage to everything everybody ever says on here. It's just a QA for the OP, lets all do like Rodney and get along :)

I'm not a lance owner either, but I am a piper owner, and I am familiar with the systems on the 32 along with the engine because they're part and parcel with the 28 and 44 series. If what I've seen from my ownership experience translates to the lance and six,then I'm willing to say its cheaper than a 210. But hey if its not true then the OP can put that plane back on the list! :)
Click to expand...

If you guys would go back and try reading what was written, you will notice this post:

Pilawt said:
This discussion would make a lot more sense if it were taking place 35-40 years ago, when you could go to a Beech, Cessna or Piper dealer and buy a new, corrosion-free airplane, with factory-installed options packages, and with something that passed in the aviation industry for a warranty. Those days are gone as to the types under discussion here, unless you want to pay a king's ransom for a new G36 Bonanza.

In the old days we could compare airplane types in a vacuum; now each individual example of each type must be scrutinized on its own merits. "All else being equal" is a meaningless phrase in this market of decades-old, complex machines. For example, there are 3,846 210s on the US civil register. No two are exactly alike. 3,846 different levels of use, damage, disrepair and neglect; 3,846 different panels full of jerry-rigged, aftermarket avionics and equipment.

Will a 210 cost less than a twin to operate? Serial number x might; serial number x+1 might not. All you can do is narrow down your search to the types (plural) that fit your mission, then find the very best example you can ... and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

To which I replied:

RotorAndWing said:
Probably the best observation made.
Click to expand...

Yet, a few of you are attacking me for agreeing with what another poster wrote. :dunno:

I've yet to see one of you question Pilawt for his post, which really shows what your real intentions are. :rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
When in the hell did the 210 become this big mythical maintenance pig?????

The 210 might not be my first choice of the three, but it isn't because of maintenance reasons.
 
Fearless Tower said:
When in the hell did the 210 become this big mythical maintenance pig?????

The 210 might not be my first choice of the three, but it isn't because of maintenance reasons.
Click to expand...
+1, Thank you.

I just found this thread and read the whole thing. I'll add my .02 and try to stay out of the Shizz. I've flow all 3 and owned a Cherokee and Cessna.

1- The Bonanza's are the best built and best handling of the bunch, by a huge margin in both categories. But they don't really match your mission and the loads you want to haul for your budget.. and thats okay- no harm no foul.

2- The PA-32 Cherokees are nice but I don't find them roomy up front (legroom, not elbow) and (forward facing) seats 3 & 4 have limited legroom (wing box) and you enter and exit through the CP's front door. Seat 5 & 6 are roomier and have a big door to enter but its goofy to sit people back there and stuff your crap between you and 2 up front. I'm not sure if this scenario has serious weight and balance concerns as the PA-32's are generous that way. Club seating PA-32's are better and work nice for a small family but most of your economy priced Cherokee Sixes won't have club seats. A lot of these planes haul Fishermen up in Alask even though most people think its all 206's up there. Your Cherokee 6's will be slow too.

3- Cessna 210's are great values IMHO. The Forum boards are full of knuckleheads telling everyone horror stories about the gear. When you actually research the gear, it all comes down to 3 or 4 items that need to be maintained. Our shop has maintained 8 or 10 of them and no one has had issues that weren't related to a short between the headsets. Yes, an old one that hasn't been maintained will take all of your money :eek: but so will other planes if your just buying the cheapest thing out there.

210's (wide-body) are also very comfortable. Pilot and co-pilot have their own doors, tons of shoulder, leg and elbow room. Great for big guys (I'm similar to the OP's size) Seats 3 & 4 are some of the best, sit up straight-bocoup legroom-look out the window seats in all of GA. Don't listen to the Naysayers- go try them out. Seats 5 & 6 are tight but work fine for kids. I know a few owners who remove these 2 seats and insure their planes as 4 seaters to save money and don't listen to all the stories about huge premiums.

I'd buy this plane below if I had the scratch and kids without braces :eek:: You can't buy a more sturdy, comfortable 4 seater with option for 6 with big useful at 165 knots for the money. IMHO

http://www.sandiegoaircraftsales.com/aircraft/airplanes1215/n777wl/index.htm

https://disciplesofflight.com/cessna-210-centurion/
Good luck!

Full disclosure: I have a fixed gear 210 (205) which I love but I will own a V-tail Bonanza someday ;););)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top