Advice: C210N Which one would you buy ? (Low Airframe vs. high Airframe time)

The leading designer and manufacturer of light and midsize business jets, utility turboprops and single engine aircraft

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
IamGlobal
Forgot to remove the chocks!
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:17 pm
Closest Airfield: UUWW
Location: Москва
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Advice: C210N Which one would you buy ? (Low Airframe vs. high Airframe time)

Unread post by IamGlobal » Fri Sep 02, 2016 9:05 pm

Hi,

The choice is between two C210Ns both planes are manufactured in 1980, have the had the same AMO and have a similar pricetag. Both planes have been checked to be corrosion free.

Aircraft 1: The airframe has 3500 hrs.
Engine is a TSIO 520 turbocharged, GAMInjectors, with 1250hrs TBO left, however the 12 year engine limitation will force an overhaul in 4 years (Namibian rules apply...). Prop needs to be overhauled in 2 years´or 1900 hrs. The autopilot is one that is working well. The panel is basic IF Bendix King with GPS unit.
Has had the same owner for the last 20 years and the plane was hangered on a farm within a dry semi arid climate zone. Some birds also occupied the hangar and made a few droppings on the plane, causing the paint those spots to thin down so much, that the base metal is starting to shimmer through - so it will need a bit of a touch up in this regard. Oxygen Bottles etc are working. Interior is about a 6/10 looking a little bit old stylish.

Aircraft 2: The airframe has an unatractive 12500 hrs.
Engine is a brand new factory IO-550 (Bonaire Conversion) with 1750 TBO left. The 12 year limitation TBO will only be in 2027. The new Prop needs to be overhauled in 4 years or 2000hrs. No autopilot. Panel is in immaculate condition with almost the same instrumentation as Plane 1. It has the Flint tip tank conversion, increasing endurance by 1.5 hrs.
The plane had a few owners, the one with the longest ownership being the manager of the AMO who claims the high airframe hours are not such a great factor as the plane has also been maintained without compromises. The plane did a lot of charter but also a lot of survey flying, which boosted the time on the frame. The Interior, seats etc. are in a 10/10 mint condition and representable for further charter flights.

Now the issue is, that some people claim, that they would never go for the high houred plane, others say the opposite and feel, that as the age of both planes is the same, the high houred plane would not be a worse purchase as it was in continued service (averaging 33 hrs a month on plane 2 vs. the 8 hrs a month on plane 1), more regular maintainance and the TBO's due to the new engine's life and Prop life are far are more favourable. Another owner of three 210's, of which 2 are already grounded, the only one which is still doing the job is the one with more hrs ie. 10000hrs plus a figure that the others never ever reached. Some existing C210 have 20000 hrs on the frame.

If it were not for the hours, it would of course be a no brainer and plane 2 would be the obvious choice, as it would cause far less sceduled maintainance.
How would one weigh out the factors on the airframe ? Which one would be the better chioce ?

Thanks in advance ! :wink:
User avatar
Rotor kop
Seven Thousand
Seven Thousand
Posts: 7700
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:43 pm
Closest Airfield: OR Thambo
Location: Wherever there is good diamond gravels...
Has liked: 868 times
Been liked: 105 times

Re: Advice: C210N Which one would you buy ? (Low Airframe vs. high Airframe time)

Unread post by Rotor kop » Fri Sep 02, 2016 9:25 pm

Will be interesting to hear what the engineers have to say! I would say that your second plane should be fine but why where the other 2 grounded? In what grounds? And what does your CAA have to say about high hour airframes?
To fly is Heavenly, but to HOVER is Divine
I'm not driving fast - i'm flying low
User avatar
IamGlobal
Forgot to remove the chocks!
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:17 pm
Closest Airfield: UUWW
Location: Москва
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Advice: C210N Which one would you buy ? (Low Airframe vs. high Airframe time)

Unread post by IamGlobal » Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:55 am

Rotor kop wrote:Will be interesting to hear what the engineers have to say! I would say that your second plane should be fine but why where the other 2 grounded? In what grounds? And what does your CAA have to say about high hour airframes?
That is a good point, I would have to find out exactly why they were grounded except that cost of parts replacements worked out being too costly - but those have nothing to do with the two planes in question, I only mentioned it due to the fact, that some high houred aeries that proved reliable stay reliable.

In this case it is not the SACAA but the Namibian DCA - as long as the sceduled maintainance checks are found positive, the plane can fly. There are no limitations by the manufacturer given and that is usually what the authority go by. A big problem with this particular aircraft arises when there is corrosion or hairline cracks detected in the main spar, resulting in instant grounding.
User avatar
SaraLima
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2572
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:39 pm
Closest Airfield: FASH and Morningstar
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 9 times

Re: Advice: C210N Which one would you buy ? (Low Airframe vs. high Airframe time)

Unread post by SaraLima » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:53 pm

IamGlobal wrote:Hi,

The choice is between two C210Ns both planes are manufactured in 1980, have the had the same AMO and have a similar pricetag. Both planes have been checked to be corrosion free.

Aircraft 1: The airframe has 3500 hrs.
Engine is a TSIO 520 turbocharged, GAMInjectors, with 1250hrs TBO left, however the 12 year engine limitation will force an overhaul in 4 years (Namibian rules apply...). Prop needs to be overhauled in 2 years´or 1900 hrs. The autopilot is one that is working well. The panel is basic IF Bendix King with GPS unit.
Has had the same owner for the last 20 years and the plane was hangered on a farm within a dry semi arid climate zone. Some birds also occupied the hangar and made a few droppings on the plane, causing the paint those spots to thin down so much, that the base metal is starting to shimmer through - so it will need a bit of a touch up in this regard. Oxygen Bottles etc are working. Interior is about a 6/10 looking a little bit old stylish.

Aircraft 2: The airframe has an unatractive 12500 hrs.
Engine is a brand new factory IO-550 (Bonaire Conversion) with 1750 TBO left. The 12 year limitation TBO will only be in 2027. The new Prop needs to be overhauled in 4 years or 2000hrs. No autopilot. Panel is in immaculate condition with almost the same instrumentation as Plane 1. It has the Flint tip tank conversion, increasing endurance by 1.5 hrs.
The plane had a few owners, the one with the longest ownership being the manager of the AMO who claims the high airframe hours are not such a great factor as the plane has also been maintained without compromises. The plane did a lot of charter but also a lot of survey flying, which boosted the time on the frame. The Interior, seats etc. are in a 10/10 mint condition and representable for further charter flights.

Now the issue is, that some people claim, that they would never go for the high houred plane, others say the opposite and feel, that as the age of both planes is the same, the high houred plane would not be a worse purchase as it was in continued service (averaging 33 hrs a month on plane 2 vs. the 8 hrs a month on plane 1), more regular maintainance and the TBO's due to the new engine's life and Prop life are far are more favourable. Another owner of three 210's, of which 2 are already grounded, the only one which is still doing the job is the one with more hrs ie. 10000hrs plus a figure that the others never ever reached. Some existing C210 have 20000 hrs on the frame.

If it were not for the hours, it would of course be a no brainer and plane 2 would be the obvious choice, as it would cause far less sceduled maintainance.
How would one weigh out the factors on the airframe ? Which one would be the better chioce ?

Thanks in advance ! :wink:
Im no maintenance expert, but all the advice I seem to get in bar and hangar chat is that an aircraft that has "stood" as a hangar queen is likely to have more "hidden" issues than one which has been regularly flown.. Planes like to fly, if they stand, they rot. Airframe hours are not really an issue as I have flown aircraft with 20000 hours+ and still lived to tell the tale... its Cycles that count and what the Aircraft did during those hours.. (Training is generally a no-no [-X ) But its highly unlikely that a C210 was used much for training...
I would be interested to see which way your choice went in the end.
There are three simple rules for making a perfect landing. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.
I was flying in uniform when you were still in liquid form :wink:

Return to “Cessna”