182rg vs. C/P210

[TDTURBO]

I am debating the pros and cons on keeping my 182 or buying a P210 or even the C210.

I heard that the 550's are faster and cost more but have weaker engines since they are basically a punched out 520. My mechanic hates the 550's and strongly recommends I look at the 520. I fly allot of hard IFR on international flights and love my 182, but for less money, I can have a 50% share in a P210.

It has radar and is known icing and everything else you can put in it. The 182 has a run-out 540 Lycoming in it but it's last annual was almost perfect.

The main reason I am considering the switch are high altitude transcontinental missions in less time. The 182 feels like an extension of my body, is the 210 much different? What would you guys take since the 210 is faster and the useful load and range is about the same?

 

[belladonna]

Keep the 182, you'll have allot less headaches with maintanance.

 

[avbug]

You have a 520 Lycoming? Keep it. It's worth a fortune. It's the only one ever built.

The standard engine on the Cessna 210 was the Continental 0520. If you have a 210 with a 550 installation, it's an aftermarket STC installation.

The 520 is a good engine, but not a saint as far as engines go; you can reasonably expect to pay your fair share for maintenance even with a normally aspirated 520 that's not run hard.

The 210 is a good airplane, as is the 182. Before you buy, look at the insurance requirements, and then decide.

 

[TDTURBO]

Avbug,

I have looked into the insurance, I used to pay 2300 with only a private for the 182 but now I have a commercial-instrument and a few hundered more hrs so I will pay 1900/yr for the 210 and 1600/yr for the 182. Insurance isn't a top issue, reliability is, I like the 200kts vs. 160 that I get, but is it worth it?

 

[avbug]

160 or 170 is more realistic with the 210. You can probably push it a big harder with the 550, or run at high manifold pressures in the T210 0520 powered airplane, but why bother? The faster you go, it takes bigger and bigger power increases to effect smaller and smaller increases.

The 210 is a comfortable airplane, well balanced, that rides quite nicely. Personally, either would be just fine. The 210 isn't a whole lot faster than the TR182. Go with your wallet and your instinct.

 

[jetdriven]

the IO-550 is a 520 with 1/4" more stroke. The IO-550 is a better engine than the 520, it gets the same GPH at the same % power setting as the 520. (550-300 hp and 520-285hp). its more efficient. also it runs smoother.

 

[BluesClues]

I've gotta chime in with my 2 cents. The 182 will definately save you a bundle in maintenace costs. If memory serves, I believe that most of the Cessna S/E Retractables had numerous A/D's concerning cracks in the landing gear attach points. (don't remember what there actually called) Anyways, they were some big time cash to comply with. The 210 is a very nice flying airplane though. I would take a T210 over a P210 any day. The P210 takes a very big hit in the useful load because of the beefier airframe required for pressurization. It also has such a low differential pressure, that if you do fly it high enough, you've still gotta suck on O2. The two that I've flown were certified POS's so I won't even get started on the pressure controllers. They were very nice flying airplanes, but I could see how the P210 would just be a maintanance nightmare. A T210 on the other hand, would be a nice ride as long as you don't go shock cooling the thing. (No flight idle descents from FL180)

 

[TDTURBO]

It seem s the more I research this, the more the 182RG is the best over all plane ever built. With the gaps and soon to be STC'ed exhuast, 165kt cruise at 13gph is common. My mind is made up, i'll keep this beautiful bird 'till I can afford a Lancair IVP. Even then I might still keep it. If I want to fly 6, the 182 will even do that with the third seat, albiet a bit tight. It really is one of the best GA planes ever built.

Thanks for all the replys!


Oh, the landing gear AD does not apply to the 182 RG..........YET