Insurance requirements out of hand? - AOPA high perf retractable for Flying Clubs

Robert,
I think that is a pretty harsh assesment of the Cessna T210. My
partner and I have owned ours for about 8 months now, and the
requirements we had to get insurance were similar to those being quoted
above. We were both +100 hr Private pilots, with all but a few hours
being in 172s. We looked at a "gap" plane such as a 182 or an Arrow,
but decided that neither of these would meet our mission requirements
(4 adult passengers), and would be more of a compromise in performance
than we were willing to make. After some serious soul searching, we
decided to jump straight to the 210, which would immediately meet our
mission requirements and be a "keeper" for a long time to come.

Insurance Requirements:
30 hours dual, of which 20 hrs. had to be instrument training.
10 hours solo before carrying passengers.

Outrageous? Depends on what you want to do. We both plowed through our
training hours in about 2 months. It seemed to take forever and be
expensive at the time, but now it is just a distant and fond memory.
Now we fly the plane we want, and are looking forward to a 25%
reduction in our insurance rate at the end of this first year.

That being said, the plane itself is not all that different from a 172.
(no, really!) The flight characteristics are similar, as long as you
remember your GUMPS check before landing.

Engine and turbocharger management are critical for longevity, and a
knowledgable mechanic and the help of an excellent support group at the
Cessna Pilot's Association (http://www.cessna.org/) makes it a pleasure
to learn about and operate our plane.

We are both getting very close to our instrument checkrides, and have
each put about 70-80 hrs. on the plane in the time we've owned it.

I had (have) a VERY healthy respect for the plane when we went for the
deal, and we both spent a lot of time learning as much as we could
about it before we bought it, mostly because of all the horror stories.
If you get a good one (full-on annual for a pre-buy inspection by a
mechanic who knows the 210), and keep up with the maintenance with the
help of a mechanic knowledgable on the 210 systems, I don't think it is
any more of a maintenance hog than any other airplane. Parts costs are
inline with others (probably less than Beech, more than Piper) and
still readily available, and nothing is more or less prone to wear out
than normal.

I guess I've rambled about my baby for long enough. Shouldn't have let
the cat out of the bag; now everyone is going to want one!

Definitely not great as a "rental". I think in a "club", however, with
other like-minded, safety-conscious pilots who are willing to learn
about the plane and how to fly it the right way, it is a very good
plane.

WW



Robert M. Gary wrote:
Dear God, get rid of that 210 right away. Get a more reasonable
retract
like an Arrow or a 172RG or 182RG (even a Mooney). The accident rate
and repair costs on a 210 are outrageous. Its no wonder you can buy
them cheap, they are unreasonable to keep running. They have an
enormous accident rate as a result of the gear forgetting to come
down
and pilots thinking they are flying 172s. When anything in the gear
is
damaged its going to cost an arm and a leg. Insurance co's would
really, really like the 210 to just go away. Call your agent and talk
about requirements for a more typical retract rental.