going from a 182rg to a t210.....

[~^ beancounter ~^]

any tips and / or observations to
"watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?

i am think of "up grading".........

thanx!!

[The Visitor]

I have seen a few people pass over the 210 for a 206. But I forget why.

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:

> any tips and / or observations to
> "watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>
> i am think of "up grading".........
>
> thanx!!

[~^ beancounter ~^]

it l@@ks like "just more airplane" in general....>>

-----snip------------------------------------

Specifications (206H Stationair)


General characteristics
Crew: one, pilot
Capacity: 5 passengers
Length: 28 ft 3 in (8.62 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 10 in (10.92 m)
Height: 9 ft 7 in (2.92 m)
Wing area: 174 ft² (16.2 m²)
Empty weight: 2,146 lb (974 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 3,614 lb (1,640 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Lycoming IO-540-AC1A5, 300 bhp (224 kW)

Performance
Maximum speed: 151 kt (285 km/h)
Cruise speed: 142 kt (263 km/h)
Range: 721 nm (1,335 km)
Service ceiling 15,700 ft (4,785 m)
Rate of climb: 988 ft/min (301 m/min)








On Mar 27, 1:53*pm, The Visitor >
wrote:
> I have seen a few people pass over the 210 for a 206. But I forget why.
>
>
>
> ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> > any tips and / or observations to
> > "watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>
> > i am think of "up grading".........
>
> > thanx!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[~^ beancounter ~^]

I have aprox 20 hrs turbo time...
SEL / Priv Pilot / no IFR...yet....I fig I would
get an IFR ticket if flying a T210...


thanx





On Mar 27, 2:33*pm, john smith > wrote:
> ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> > any tips and / or observations to
> > "watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>
> > i am think of "up grading".........
>
> How much turbocharger experience do you have?
>
> With the turbocharger, flight planning and knowledge in all aspects of
> the flight plays a bigger role, from startup to shutdown.

[The Visitor]

Well it is probably a slower airplane. Thinking about it, it may have
been too slick and not a stable. I can ask around. I myself looked at
210's. It seems to be a very nice machine. I got the seneca at the time
because they were still being built. It all started looking at 172's.
And things sort of grew. I hear it happens with boats also.

John

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> it l@@ks like "just more airplane" in general....>>
>
> -----snip------------------------------------
>
> Specifications (206H Stationair)
>
>
> General characteristics
> Crew: one, pilot
> Capacity: 5 passengers
> Length: 28 ft 3 in (8.62 m)
> Wingspan: 35 ft 10 in (10.92 m)
> Height: 9 ft 7 in (2.92 m)
> Wing area: 174 ft² (16.2 m²)
> Empty weight: 2,146 lb (974 kg)
> Max takeoff weight: 3,614 lb (1,640 kg)
> Powerplant: 1× Lycoming IO-540-AC1A5, 300 bhp (224 kW)
>
> Performance
> Maximum speed: 151 kt (285 km/h)
> Cruise speed: 142 kt (263 km/h)
> Range: 721 nm (1,335 km)
> Service ceiling 15,700 ft (4,785 m)
> Rate of climb: 988 ft/min (301 m/min)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 27, 1:53 pm, The Visitor >
> wrote:
>
>>I have seen a few people pass over the 210 for a 206. But I forget why.
>>
>>
>>
>>~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
>>
>>>any tips and / or observations to
>>>"watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>>
>>>i am think of "up grading".........
>>
>>>thanx!!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>

[~^ beancounter ~^]

" It all started looking at 172's. And things sort of grew.
I hear it happens with boats also "

roger on that....... ‹(•¿•)›





On Mar 27, 3:36*pm, The Visitor >
wrote:
> Well it is probably a slower airplane. Thinking about it, it may have
> been too slick and not a stable. I can ask around. I myself looked at
> 210's. It seems to be a very nice machine. I got the seneca at the time
> because they were still being built. It all started looking at 172's.
> And things sort of grew. I hear it happens with boats also.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> > it l@@ks like "just more airplane" in general....>>
>
> > -----snip------------------------------------
>
> > Specifications (206H Stationair)
>
> > General characteristics
> > Crew: one, pilot
> > Capacity: 5 passengers
> > Length: 28 ft 3 in (8.62 m)
> > Wingspan: 35 ft 10 in (10.92 m)
> > Height: 9 ft 7 in (2.92 m)
> > Wing area: 174 ft² (16.2 m²)
> > Empty weight: 2,146 lb (974 kg)
> > Max takeoff weight: 3,614 lb (1,640 kg)
> > Powerplant: 1× Lycoming IO-540-AC1A5, 300 bhp (224 kW)
>
> > Performance
> > Maximum speed: 151 kt (285 km/h)
> > Cruise speed: 142 kt (263 km/h)
> > Range: 721 nm (1,335 km)
> > Service ceiling 15,700 ft (4,785 m)
> > Rate of climb: 988 ft/min (301 m/min)
>
> > On Mar 27, 1:53 pm, The Visitor >
> > wrote:
>
> >>I have seen a few people pass over the 210 for a 206. But I forget why.
>
> >>~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
>
> >>>any tips and / or observations to
> >>>"watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>
> >>>i am think of "up grading".........
>
> >>>thanx!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:

According to owners I know, expect the 210 to cost more per hour to operate.

Do you belong to CPA?


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[[email protected]]

On Mar 27, 5:45*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote:
> " *It all started looking at 172's. And things sort of grew.
> I hear it happens with boats also "
>
> roger on that....... * * *‹(•¿•)›
>
> On Mar 27, 3:36*pm, The Visitor >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well it is probably a slower airplane. Thinking about it, it may have
> > been too slick and not a stable. I can ask around. I myself looked at
> > 210's. It seems to be a very nice machine. I got the seneca at the time
> > because they were still being built. It all started looking at 172's.
> > And things sort of grew. I hear it happens with boats also.
>
> > John
>
> > ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> > > it l@@ks like "just more airplane" in general....>>
>
> > > -----snip------------------------------------
>
> > > Specifications (206H Stationair)
>
> > > General characteristics
> > > Crew: one, pilot
> > > Capacity: 5 passengers
> > > Length: 28 ft 3 in (8.62 m)
> > > Wingspan: 35 ft 10 in (10.92 m)
> > > Height: 9 ft 7 in (2.92 m)
> > > Wing area: 174 ft² (16.2 m²)
> > > Empty weight: 2,146 lb (974 kg)
> > > Max takeoff weight: 3,614 lb (1,640 kg)
> > > Powerplant: 1× Lycoming IO-540-AC1A5, 300 bhp (224 kW)
>
> > > Performance
> > > Maximum speed: 151 kt (285 km/h)
> > > Cruise speed: 142 kt (263 km/h)
> > > Range: 721 nm (1,335 km)
> > > Service ceiling 15,700 ft (4,785 m)
> > > Rate of climb: 988 ft/min (301 m/min)
>
> > > On Mar 27, 1:53 pm, The Visitor >
> > > wrote:
>
> > >>I have seen a few people pass over the 210 for a 206. But I forget why..
>
> > >>~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
>
> > >>>any tips and / or observations to
> > >>>"watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>
> > >>>i am think of "up grading".........
>
> > >>>thanx!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ok.. How did ya get that upside down question mark thingie ???

[Margy Natalie]

wrote:
> On Mar 27, 5:45 pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote:
>
>>" It all started looking at 172's. And things sort of grew.
>>I hear it happens with boats also "
>>
>>roger on that....... ‹(•¿•)›
>>
>>On Mar 27, 3:36 pm, The Visitor >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Well it is probably a slower airplane. Thinking about it, it may have
>>>been too slick and not a stable. I can ask around. I myself looked at
>>>210's. It seems to be a very nice machine. I got the seneca at the time
>>>because they were still being built. It all started looking at 172's.
>>>And things sort of grew. I hear it happens with boats also.
>>
>>>John
>>
>>>~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
>>>
>>>>it l@@ks like "just more airplane" in general....>>
>>
>>>>-----snip------------------------------------
>>
>>>>Specifications (206H Stationair)
>>
>>>>General characteristics
>>>>Crew: one, pilot
>>>>Capacity: 5 passengers
>>>>Length: 28 ft 3 in (8.62 m)
>>>>Wingspan: 35 ft 10 in (10.92 m)
>>>>Height: 9 ft 7 in (2.92 m)
>>>>Wing area: 174 ft² (16.2 m²)
>>>>Empty weight: 2,146 lb (974 kg)
>>>>Max takeoff weight: 3,614 lb (1,640 kg)
>>>>Powerplant: 1× Lycoming IO-540-AC1A5, 300 bhp (224 kW)
>>
>>>>Performance
>>>>Maximum speed: 151 kt (285 km/h)
>>>>Cruise speed: 142 kt (263 km/h)
>>>>Range: 721 nm (1,335 km)
>>>>Service ceiling 15,700 ft (4,785 m)
>>>>Rate of climb: 988 ft/min (301 m/min)
>>
>>>>On Mar 27, 1:53 pm, The Visitor >
>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>I have seen a few people pass over the 210 for a 206. But I forget why.
>>
>>>>>~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
>>
>>>>>>any tips and / or observations to
>>>>>>"watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>>
>>>>>>i am think of "up grading".........
>>
>>>>>>thanx!!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Ok.. How did ya get that upside down question mark thingie ???
Spanish language keys?

[~^ beancounter ~^]

" Do you belong to CPA? "



yes I do...





On Mar 27, 7:16*pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
>
> According to owners I know, expect the 210 to cost more per hour to operate.
>
> Do you belong to CPA?
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T *at BFM

[~^ beancounter ~^]

Speed & Range.......







On Mar 27, 8:37*pm, john smith > wrote:
> john smith wrote:
> > ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> >> any tips and / or observations to
> >> "watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>
> What advantage are you gaining with the T210?
> Seats?
> Speed?
> Range?
>
> Maintenance and operating costs are going to be considerably higher.
>
> TAB Books used to have a book FLYING TURBOCHARGED AIRCRAFT (or something
> to that effect). I compared the turbo Saratoga, Money 231, turbo 182RG,
> and B36TC Bonanza. It covered all aspects of flight. I got alot out of
> it and purchased it before I began flying a turbo 182RG that was in the
> flying club I am a member of.

[~^ beancounter ~^]

" Ok.. How did ya get that upside down question mark thingie ???
"

highlight, copy, and paste.... ;-)









On Mar 28, 7:30*am, " > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 5:45*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > " *It all started looking at 172's. And things sort of grew.
> > I hear it happens with boats also "
>
> > roger on that....... * * *‹(•¿•)›
>
> > On Mar 27, 3:36*pm, The Visitor >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Well it is probably a slower airplane. Thinking about it, it may have
> > > been too slick and not a stable. I can ask around. I myself looked at
> > > 210's. It seems to be a very nice machine. I got the seneca at the time
> > > because they were still being built. It all started looking at 172's.
> > > And things sort of grew. I hear it happens with boats also.
>
> > > John
>
> > > ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> > > > it l@@ks like "just more airplane" in general....>>
>
> > > > -----snip------------------------------------
>
> > > > Specifications (206H Stationair)
>
> > > > General characteristics
> > > > Crew: one, pilot
> > > > Capacity: 5 passengers
> > > > Length: 28 ft 3 in (8.62 m)
> > > > Wingspan: 35 ft 10 in (10.92 m)
> > > > Height: 9 ft 7 in (2.92 m)
> > > > Wing area: 174 ft² (16.2 m²)
> > > > Empty weight: 2,146 lb (974 kg)
> > > > Max takeoff weight: 3,614 lb (1,640 kg)
> > > > Powerplant: 1× Lycoming IO-540-AC1A5, 300 bhp (224 kW)
>
> > > > Performance
> > > > Maximum speed: 151 kt (285 km/h)
> > > > Cruise speed: 142 kt (263 km/h)
> > > > Range: 721 nm (1,335 km)
> > > > Service ceiling 15,700 ft (4,785 m)
> > > > Rate of climb: 988 ft/min (301 m/min)
>
> > > > On Mar 27, 1:53 pm, The Visitor >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >>I have seen a few people pass over the 210 for a 206. But I forget why.
>
> > > >>~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
>
> > > >>>any tips and / or observations to
> > > >>>"watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>
> > > >>>i am think of "up grading".........
>
> > > >>>thanx!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ok.. How did ya get that upside down question mark thingie ???- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Newps]

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> any tips and / or observations to
> "watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>
> i am think of "up grading".........
>
> thanx!!


Call your insurance agent. 210's have a terrible accident rate and as
such have very high premiums. On average you are looking at
double-triple the cost compared to a similar Bonanza such as the one I
have. Six seat, RG, etc. The same phenomenon affects Maules. On
average the pilots who buy Maules cannot for the life of them keep them
on the runway. For that reason the insurance premium on a Maule is much
higher than on similar aircraft. Call your agent and compare similar
aircraft with similar hull values.

[Newps]

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> Speed & Range.......

These won't be a factor until you get in the high teens.



>>
>> Maintenance and operating costs are going to be considerably higher.
>>
>> TAB Books used to have a book FLYING TURBOCHARGED AIRCRAFT (or something
>> to that effect). I compared the turbo Saratoga, Money 231, turbo 182RG,
>> and B36TC Bonanza. It covered all aspects of flight. I got alot out of
>> it and purchased it before I began flying a turbo 182RG that was in the
>> flying club I am a member of.

The Mooney 231 was very poorly executed from the factory. That's why it
got dumped for the 252, it's what the 231 should have been in the first
place.

[~^ beancounter ~^]

" Call your insurance agent. 210's have a terrible accident rate and
as
such have very high premiums "

wow...really?..thanx for the heads up...I will do that......




On Mar 29, 1:45*pm, Newps > wrote:
> ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> > any tips and / or observations to
> > "watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>
> > i am think of "up grading".........
>
> > thanx!!
>
> Call your insurance agent. *210's have a terrible accident rate and as
> such have very high premiums. *On average you are looking at
> double-triple the cost compared to a similar Bonanza such as the one I
> have. *Six seat, RG, etc. *The same phenomenon affects Maules. *On
> average the pilots who buy Maules cannot for the life of them keep them
> on the runway. *For that reason the insurance premium on a Maule is much
> higher than on similar aircraft. *Call your agent and compare similar
> aircraft with similar hull values.

[~^ beancounter ~^]

so, "bang for the buck" avg mileage costs and
staying w/in the "cessna family", what is gained
by moving from a 182rg to a t210? not much, ea?

a few miles per hour and a lot of $$.....







On Mar 29, 2:59*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote:
> " Call your insurance agent. *210's have a terrible accident rate and
> as
> such have very high premiums "
>
> wow...really?..thanx for the heads up...I will do that......
>
> On Mar 29, 1:45*pm, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>
> > ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> > > any tips and / or observations to
> > > "watch for" in moving from a 182rg to a t210?
>
> > > i am think of "up grading".........
>
> > > thanx!!
>
> > Call your insurance agent. *210's have a terrible accident rate and as
> > such have very high premiums. *On average you are looking at
> > double-triple the cost compared to a similar Bonanza such as the one I
> > have. *Six seat, RG, etc. *The same phenomenon affects Maules. *On
> > average the pilots who buy Maules cannot for the life of them keep them
> > on the runway. *For that reason the insurance premium on a Maule is much
> > higher than on similar aircraft. *Call your agent and compare similar
> > aircraft with similar hull values.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote in message
...
" Do you belong to CPA? "



> yes I do...




Check the forums.

[~^ beancounter ~^]

"Check the forums"


thanx







On Mar 30, 9:16*am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote in ...
> " Do you belong to CPA? "
>
> > yes I do...
>
> Check the forums.

[Newps]

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
> so, "bang for the buck" avg mileage costs and
> staying w/in the "cessna family", what is gained
> by moving from a 182rg to a t210? not much, ea?
>
> a few miles per hour and a lot of $$.....


At this level of airplane why do you want to stay in the Cessna family?
I owned a 182 for seven years and on a whim decided to sell to buy my
Bonanza. The difference in build quality is huge. The Cessna's were
designed to be as light as possible for their given mission. And it
shows. Things break on Cessna's that don't on Beech products, simply
because they rattle apart. Go find any Bonanza or Debonair and get a
ride. You'll notice how solid it feels right away. You pay for that in
a higher empty weight. My Bo, a 1964 S35, 6 seat, weighs 2000 pounds
empty. I would think similar Bo's and 210's have pretty close to the
same mileage as they are pretty close in speed. Mine is not turbo and I
get 178 kts true at 14.5 gph. If you're looking for mileage I get
135-140 knots true on 8.5 gph. Maintenence has been different than the
182. A lot less breaks, very rarely do I have something break, been
into this for 2 1/2 years now. Annuals a little higher. The gear on a
Bo will always cost less to maintain than a comparable Cessna, it's just
built better. The gear on my plane is the same as on a Baron weighing
2000 pounds more. Plus the Cessna gear is way more complex, much more
can go wrong.

[skym]

On Mar 30, 11:22*am, Newps > wrote:
> At this level of airplane why do you want to stay in the Cessna family?

High wing vs low wing?

[~^ beancounter ~^]

I want to stay w/a high wing... and, I am pining for a
CT210M - 1979


thanx everyone for the thoughts and ideas....






On Mar 31, 7:28*pm, skym > wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:22*am, Newps > wrote:
>
> > At this level of airplane why do you want to stay in the Cessna family?
>
> High wing vs low wing?