Charged up and inspected (a post-buy I guess you could call it), I enjoyed flying this airplane for five years. I cruised at 110 knots and I got to fly fast eastbound and slow westbound. One flight from Chicago’s Meigs Field to St. Louis took over three hours at an average ground speed of 78 knots. At some point traffic on the interstate below appeared to outrun us. 

Time led to a succession of airplanes, each a little faster than its predecessor. A Piper Arrow gave way to a Cessna 210, which in turn was followed by a P210. The P210 could get up to the lower flight levels but was no faster, and maybe even a little slower, than the unpressurized 210.

This airplane was the winner for low flight. After a good tail wind on the east side of a cold front, I ran into furious headwinds out of the northwest after crossing the front. En route to Chicago, I descended to 10, then six, and then four thousand feet, watching the fuel reserves evaporate. Whew.

I flew that P210 for 13 years before buying a Cessna 340. Pressurized and faster, the 340 was flight planned for 190 knots true airspeed. It had the benefit of performing well at lower altitudes when we wanted to stay below strong headwinds and with turbocharged engines could climb into the lower FL 200s to take advantage of a strong tailwind. 

• READ MORE: That Sound of Music in the Air

It was when fortune shined upon me and I moved up to turbine-powered airplanes that altitude, speed and, for that matter, reliability became predictable. A Piper Cheyenne was arguably the best airplane for our needs. With a true airspeed of 230 knots and a penchant for lower flight levels (it was most comfortable at 23,000 feet), this airplane allowed nonstop flights from Tampa, Florida, to Lebanon, New Hampshire. Occasionally, though, that meant that a healthy boost from a quartering tailwind was required, but we did it more than once.

Over 17 happy years that airplane took us to Vancouver, San Francisco, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Miami, Key West, Marsh Harbor in the Bahamas and, of course, to our summer cottage in New Hampshire. The engines never hiccupped once. They were so reliable that flights across the Gulf of Mexico from Tampa to New Orleans were done without anxiety. 

All this turbine time allowed me to change careers at age 67 and be hired by a Part 135 operation where I flew Cessna CJ3s. Taught by some of the best and most patient captains, I became comfortable with true airspeeds of just over 400 knots and altitudes as high as FL 450. These weren’t my airplanes, though, so even though I was at the controls and became a captain, the special feeling you get from your airplane just wasn’t there.

The CJ3 experience gave me confidence to buy a single pilot jet when I retired. The Beechcraft Premier 1 was a real airplane, with sophisticated systems. MMO was .80. Two things about this airplane were really remarkable. As the sole occupant of the airplane, I occasionally found myself, alone, at FL 410—and the feeling was magnificent. And, yes, as a safety precaution, I always kept the oxygen mask nestled in my lap. 

• READ MORE: Riding in the Back of Some Nice Private Jets

The other remarkable thing about this Premier was its speed. My highest ground speed was 577 knots. A true airspeed of 450 and a quartering tailwind of 170 knots provided the push. These true airspeeds made headwinds less of a nuisance and made tailwinds a thrill. I have a picture of my daughter reading a magazine while the cabin information sign showed a ground speed of 629 mph. 

My fastest travel was, regrettably, as a passenger. Well, not too regrettably. In the 1990s you could cash in US Airways frequent-flyer points and book a Concorde flight. We didn’t have enough points for my wife, Cathy, and me to both fly Concorde, so she volunteered to fly to London the night before. I flew to New York, had dinner with a friend, and arrived the next morning at John F. Kennedy International Airport (KJFK) about an hour before British Airways was to launch a supersonic flight to London.

Stuffed with croissants and coffee, I got in line to board. When I got to the cabin door, I said to the flight attendant, “I would love to see the cockpit.” With a look of practiced disdain and a clipped British accent, she said, “Most of the children do.” Ouch.

I sulked to my seat and ordered a cognac. About half way across the ocean, the same flight attendant said that the captain would see me now. Armed with all sorts of Concorde trivia, including the facts that the airplane is longer at Mach 2 than on the ground as a consequence of friction-induced heat, that the airplane was trimmed by moving fuel backward and forward, and that, speaking of fuel, there would be very little left when we got London. 

• READ MORE: Taking the Grand Tour at Gulfstream Aerospace

As I entered the flight deck, the engineer greeted me. I knew if I was to stay there very long, I had to make a friend. The flight engineer was great. He told me of a time when he kissed his wife goodbye and reported for a New York morning flight. When he reached New York, the engineer on the return flight had “taken ill,” so he was assigned to head back to London. “When I got home, my wife had gone out with some friends. I was having a pipe when she walked in and said, ‘I thought you were going to New York?’ I answered, ‘Well, I did.’”

As he was telling this story, I noticed an altitude of 56,000-plus feet. “We float around up here. There isn’t any other traffic.” That is the highest and fastest I ever flew.

The flight attendant reappeared to drag me away. I pleaded to the flight engineer to return. He said he’d try.

Sure enough, a different flight attendant came back during descent and ushered me forward. I had scored the jumpseat for landing. ATC cleared us into a hold. The engineer said this was just for show: “We don’t have the fuel to hold, but other airlines complain that we get special treatment, so we have this little dance.”

We were then cleared direct to Heathrow (EGLL). After landing we were momentarily told to hold short of a runway from which a new (then) 747-400 was departing.

As Air China rotated just in front of us, the captain turned to the first officer and said, “It must be like flying a bloody brick.”

This column first appeared in the September Issue 950 of the FLYING print edition.

The post Half Century of Flight Has Included Some Altitude and Ground Speed appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1967 Cessna 210G Centurion.

Pilots who trained in Cessna 172 Skyhawks often say they would be happy to own one as a personal aircraft—if only it could fly a bit faster. Fortunately there are several possible solutions for fulfilling the need for speed in the climb and cruise while boosting load carrying capacity.

A 180 hp engine swap would help a lot. Upgrading to a brawny Skylane would be even better. You could also go all the way and buy 210 Centurion with a big-bore engine, retractable gear, and cantilever wing that place it in a league with Beechcraft Bonanzas and Piper Saratogas.

This 1967 210G Centurion could convince many pilots to step beyond basic four-seaters and into larger, more family-friendly models with large cabins and a smooth, stable ride to make long trips more comfortable. The 210 is known for its impressive speed that keeps passengers happy by cutting travel time on those cross-country stints. It has an upgraded panel, freshened interior, and a record of regular use that make it a rare catch.

The aircraft has 2,685 hours on the airframe and 1,108 hours on its 285 hp Continental IO-520A engine. The engine is equipped with a Reiff engine heater and GAMI fuel injectors.

Recent servicing includes completion of the wing spar carry-through AD in 2020, new brake pads in 2024, a new Lord shimmy damper in 2023, new door seals in 2021, new ElectroAire EA-15000 ignition switch panel installed this year and a new windshield in 2021.

The IFR panel features a Dynon Skyview HDX PFD, synthetic vision, Garmin GNS 530W, SL 30 VHF nav/comGTX 345 transponder with ADS-B In and Out, primary engine monitor, PS Engineering 8000BT audio panel, six-place intercom, MidContinent digital clock, and dual USB charging outlets.

Pilots who want the familiarity of a high-wing Cessna single with a significant boost in climb and cruise speeds should consider this 1967 Cessna 210G Centurion, which is available for $190,000 on AircraftForSale.

If you’re interested in financing, you can do so with FLYING Finance. Use its airplane loan calculator to calculate your estimated monthly payments. Or, to speak with an aviation finance specialist, visit flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: FLYING’s Air Compare: Cessna 206 vs. Cessna 210
• FLYING Magazine: Panel Planner 101 Live: Cessna T210 Avionics Upgrade
• FLYING Magazine: FAA Calls for Cessna 210 Wing Spar Inspections
• Plane & Pilot: Cessna 210
• Plane & Pilot: Big Approvals for Garmin GFC 500 Autopilot: Cessna 210s, Mooney M20s and Beech Bonanza Vee Tails!
• The Aviation Consumer: Used Aircraft Guide: The Cessna 210 Centurion

The post This 1967 Cessna 210G Centurion Is a Glass-Panel ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1998 Piper PA-32R-301 Saratoga SP

Piper’s Saratoga often winds up on the shopping lists of pilots looking for a piston single with room for six and typically competes with the Beechcraft A36 Bonanza and Cessna 210 Centurion. For families with more than two children or a combination of children and relatives, friends, dogs or cargo, the extended cabin can offer an extra measure of payload and flexibility over four-place models.

The Saratoga is a hit with most passengers for many of the same reasons that large, three-row SUVs are popular. People love a little extra space in which to stretch out and the Saratoga’s club seating arrangement forms a living-room-like conversation pit that many find comfortable.

This 1998 Saratoga has 1,960 hours on the airframe, and 91 hours on its engine following an overhaul in 2018. The panel includes a Garmin G500 touchscreen PFD and MFD with traffic and weather displays, Garmin GTN 750 with Intellivoice Command, King KFC 150 autopilot, and JPI-700 engine monitor.

Pilots looking for a family or utility aircraft with a roomy cabin that can accommodate up to six people or lots of cargo should consider this 1998 Piper PA-32R-301 Saratoga SP, which is available for $473,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: Piper Saratoga Avionics Install: Part 1
• FLYING Magazine: The Practical Endurance of the Piper Cherokee Six
• Plane & Pilot: Piper Pillán: A Saratoga With Top Gun Dreams
• Plane & Pilot: Piper Saratoga II TC: It‘s All About Comfort
• The Aviation Consumer: Used Aircraft Guide: Piper Saratoga/Lance

The post This 1998 Piper PA-32R-301 Saratoga SP Is a Roomy, SUV-Like ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Editor’s Note: This video was produced by Aviation Consumer magazine.

The post Panel Planner 101 Live: Cessna T210 Avionics Upgrade appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1963 Cessna 210C Centurion.

There are many features that make the Cessna 210 Centurion attractive, including a blend of speed, useful load, and short-field performance that few in its category can match. For pilots who trained on smaller fixed-gear Cessna 150s and 172s,   the roomy, powerful Centurion can be the ideal step-up airplane. Indeed, if you prefer flying a high-wing, there are not many choices in the high-performance retractable category.

Cessna built several versions of the 210 over its long production run from 1960 to 1986. The earliest models essentially were 182s with retractable gear. This 1963 model has the wider fuselage and enlarged cabin that later characterized the 210. Last year I came close to buying a 1966 T210F, which was the last year for the strut-braced wing. After many years of flying 172s, I immediately felt comfortable in the 210, which flies much like the smaller Cessna but a whole lot faster.

This Cessna 210 has 5,249 hours on the airframe, 544 hours on its Continental IO-470-S engine, and 1,217 hours on the McCauley three-blade propeller. The airplane’s maximum takeoff weight is 3,000 pounds and useful load is 1,085.75 pounds. Fuel capacity is 65 gallons, giving a range of 700 nm.

The panel includes a King MA 24 audio panel with Garmin GNS 430W and King KX 155 Nav/Comms, a Garmin GTX 330ES transponder, an engine monitor, and InterVOX intercom.

Pilots looking for high-horsepower performance in a high-wing package that can keep up with Beechcraft Bonanzas and other fast piston singles should consider this 1963 Cessna 210 Centurion, which is available for $90,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Financial Group. For more information, email info@flyingfinancial.com.

• FLYING Magazine: FLYING’s Air Compare: Cessna 206 vs. Cessna 210
• FLYING Magazine: FAA Calls for Cessna 210 Wing Spar Inspections
• Plane & Pilot: Cessna 210 “Centurion”
• Plane & Pilot: Big Approvals For Garmin GFC 500 Autopilot: Cessna 210s
• The Aviation Consumer: Used Aircraft Guide: Cessna 210

The post Today’s Top Aircraft For Sale Pick: 1963 Cessna 210C Centurion appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

After Cessna discontinued production of the big radial-powered 190 and 195 taildraggers in 1954, the company was left with the 180 and 185 to fill that category and saw there would be a market for large, capable piston singles with tricycle gear. Their solution? The retractable-gear 210, introduced in 1960, and the fixed-gear 206, introduced as the 205 in 1962, and in earnest as the 206 in 1964.

Over the course of their production runs, both the 206 and the 210 went through several evolutions. The 206 primarily saw minor changes, whereas the 210 saw significant revamps during its run. Production of both types was suspended in 1986, and only the 206 would be resurrected in more recent years. Today, the pre-1986 family of 206 and 210 series of aircraft provides a compelling blend of capability, comfort, and familiar, predictable flight characteristics.

As with any types of the vintage, each comes with a smattering of pitfalls and ownership challenges. As Cessna added features like turbocharging and pressurization, the airplanes became more challenging to own and maintain. Here, we explore the legacy 206 and the 210 and evaluate the capability of each while considering their respective pros and cons.

Design and Evolution

The earliest models of the 206 and 210 had significant overlap, visually and in terms of their capabilities. The two types diverged over time, but they share several fundamental similarities. Both used Cessna’s familiar high-wing, all-metal airframe design from the beginning. Both also offered similar dimensions and load-carrying capabilities, and both utilized six-cylinder Continental engines, with a “T” prefix indicating the presence of a turbocharger on models like the T206 and T210. The two types differed primarily in their landing gear, wings, and doors.

The 210 was introduced first as a 1960 model. The 1960 and 1961 models had four seats and were essentially 182s with retractable gear and 30 additional horsepower. 1962 brought rear windows and a 4 inches wider cabin. The 1962 to 1966 210s are essentially retractable-gear 206s with less available space in the back because of the main gear wells in the aft cabin. 

In 1964, a third row of seats became available as an option. These initial seats were diminutive affairs with backrests that unfolded out of the raised baggage area floor. Most owners consider these to be most suitable for small adults and children. Performance-wise, Cessna upgraded the engine from the 260 hp IO-470 to the 285 hp IO-520, and the horizontal stabilizer was increased in span by 8 inches, improving pitch authority when landing with a forward CG.

The 210 lost its wing struts in 1967 when the strutless cantilever wing made its first appearance. Three years later, a switch to more compact tubular steel landing gear provided more space in the aft cabin, enabling full-sized seats to be used in the third row.

The most significant change during the cantilever-wing era was the addition of the P210, with “P” denoting cabin pressurization. Easily the most complex version of the 210, the pressurization provided comfort and capability during longer trips. With a relatively low 3.35 psi differential, however, the cabin altitude can easily exceed 10,000 feet, so many owners still utilize oxygen. Nevertheless, the pressurization provides a notably quieter, more comfortable cabin.

The Cessna 205, produced during the 1963 and 1964 model years, is essentially a fixed-gear 210. Because there was no need for bays to house the retracted main gear, the aft floor was flat and sported full-sized seats in the third row. The bulge in the cowl remains, however, making the 205 difficult to distinguish from a 210 visually.

With fixed landing gear, the 206 is simpler to operate, insure, and maintain than the 210. It was introduced in 1964 and took over the fixed-gear duties from the 205. As it was optimized for transporting people and cargo, cruise speed took a backseat to basic economy and reliability. Floats, skis, and belly pods for additional cargo capacity were available options. Legacy 206s are available in two versions: passenger, indicated by a “P” prefix, and utility, indicated by a “U” prefix.

The passenger-biased P206 models provide three separate entry points to the cabin. Each front seat has its own door, and a third smaller door provides access to the left-side back seat. Opinions vary based on spryness and flexibility, but one P206 owner with whom we spoke describes this rear door as somewhat more difficult to utilize than that of a Cessna 150. The door lacks a footrest to assist ingress and egress, and the door opening is relatively small. For many, it’s a feature best utilized for children and baggage. 

For owners interested in hauling larger cargo or simply desiring easier access to the aft half of the cabin, the U206 provides large double “clamshell” doors on the right side of the fuselage. So massive are these doors that passengers can easily board both the second and third row of seats.

The ease of entry and egress of the U206’s double doors strongly appeals to owners who regularly transport elderly or disabled passengers, and thanks to the low sill height, outsized cargo is easily loaded and unloaded. A supplemental type certificate (STC)available from Wipaire allows for the installation of a right-side front door.

Compared to the 210, the 206 line saw far fewer changes during its production, the design remaining relatively consistent from year to year. One notable change came in 1968 when the horizontal stabilizer was increased in span for additional pitch authority at forward CGs. The P206 was discontinued in 1971,leaving the U206 as the sole version in production.

Market Snapshot

A recent survey of 206 and 210 variants listed for sale on six of the most popular online classified sites at the time of this writing provides some interesting takeaways.

Most notable is the scarcity of 205s and 206s on the market. This supports the chatter among owners that charter operators—particularly those in Alaska—snatch up many examples for their fleets. With only 14 listed for sale at the time of this writing, the fixed-gear variants appear to be in far higher demand than the 210s.

Additionally, the median number of airframe hours among the 206s represented is notably higher than the 210s, further bolstering the claims that the type sees heavy use in commercial operations. While regular use can be a good thing for the health of an airplane and especially an engine, owners advise using caution when considering a 206 that has been used commercially. The life of a cargo airplane can be harsh. Many have led hard lives and have been kept outdoors for decades, whereas their privately-owned counterparts are more likely to have been babied by doting owners and kept in climate-controlled hangars.

The higher median price of the 206 also suggests an overall preference in the market for fixed landing gear. The cost to maintain the retractable gear of the 210 family is not inconsequential. Neither is the amount of time and effort required to develop a thorough understanding of the components involved and closely monitor the entire system’s health. Add increased insurance premiums to the list of retractable gear concerns, and for most, it would take a significant pay-off to absorb the costs involved.

Fortunately, there are indeed some payoffs at play.From the very beginning, cruise speed has been one of them. At the same power setting, an earlier 210 with wing struts cruises approximately 25 mph faster than an equivalent fixed-gear 206. Alternatively, one can select a lower power setting and enjoy lower fuel burn due to decreased drag.

However, reduced drag isn’t enough to make up for the aforementioned higher cost of ownership, and this is evident in pricing. With asking prices of normally-aspirated 210s hovering at less than half the price of comparable 206s, buyers in the current market seem to place higher value on the simplicity, reliability, and lower operational cost of the 206 versus the speed and performance of the 210. For potential buyers regularly hauling people and cargo, the improved cabin access likely plays a part, as well.

With fewer than 600 examples built, Cessna 205s are relatively scarce and can go unnoticed. Like the Cessna 175, fewer people know what they are, so fewer people think to search for them on classified sites. For this reason, it’s not uncommon to find a 205 lurking deep in the listings that others have yet to discover. Presently, only 172 examples remain active on the FAA registry, and only two were listed among the major aircraft classified sites surveyed at the time of this writing.

Flight Characteristics

Speak with 206 and 210 owners, and their most noteworthy takeaway is just how unnoteworthy they found their transitions into the types. With relatively consistent operation and handling qualities across the Cessna model line, owners reported virtually no red flags or concerns involved in the transition.

One owner progressed from a 172 to a 182 modified with a 285 horsepower upgrade, and finally into his turbo 206. He felt that the transition from the 172 to the 182 was far more demanding than the transition from the 182 to the 206. Other owners echo this sentiment, describing the 206 as nothing more than a slightly larger 182.

Both the 206 and 210 provide excellent IFR platforms. The overall stability requires little effort on the part of the pilot to maintain headings and altitudes, and eases approaches as well. Handling and stability remain relatively consistent, whether light or heavy. A light, unloaded example can be something of a hot rod when it comes to acceleration and climb performance. But even loaded to maximum takeoff weight, the books indicate a 210B requires only 1,210 feet to clear a 50-foot obstacle on takeoff, and a P206E requires only 1,800 feet.

In cruise, 206 owners report cruise speeds of around140 to 150 mph while burning around 13 to 14 gallons per hour. The 210s vary based on the wing and presence of main landing gear doors, which can be removed to simplify maintenance, but a strutted 210 will cruise in the neighborhood of 180 mph, with turbocharged versions capable of more. 

When it comes to approaches and landings, a 206 or 210 owner will again invariably describe their airplane as “a big 182.’’ Those we surveyed reported final approach speeds of 85 to 90 mph and honestlanding characteristics, with only one caveat—elevator authority at light weights. With only one or two individuals on board, especially with full flaps, it can be difficult to flare. Using trim can alleviate the need for back pressure on the yoke, but one must be prepared to retrim quickly in the event of a go-around.

While this is generally just a nuisance for most 206s and 210s, it’s a more serious concern with models that came from the factory with smaller horizontal stabilizers—pre-1964 for the 210, and pre-1968 for the 206. Owners of these models will commonly keep weight in the aft baggage area to alleviate the issue and prevent running out of elevator authority in the flare.

Overall, owners cherish the predictable, familiar flight characteristics of both models. They enjoy the rock-solid stability in cruise, particularly for instrument work. With the exception of the forward CG when light, they report no red flags or items of concern,describing the airplanes as honest and straightforward.

“When the Super Skywagon Debuted…

In the December 1964 issue of FLYING, we compared the new Cessna Super Skywagon 206 to the then- current Cessna Centurion 210B, noting what the company had leveraged to make the new sibling a real change from its older sister.

“This new Super Skywagon shares its wing with the Model 210D Centurion, but is approved for an allowable gross weight of 3,300 pounds, fully 200 pounds more than its faster sister, and as a floatplane it goes to a whopping 3,500-pound gross. It is a new wing, more gull-shaped in its planform. The flaps extend a full 18.9 feet, and are electrically operated Fowler type and contribute to a marked increase to lift when extended. Shortening the ailerons was made necessary by the broad span of the flaps, but this has been offset by increasing their chord. They are Frise type with hinges at one -third chord position for reduced control forces. The wings are manufactured to accept Cessna Nav-O-Matic autopilots.

“The tail group, similar to that used on the 210D, is of adequate size to control the forces created by the oversized flaps. At no time during our flight was a lack of elevator control evidenced…”

Ownership

As the legacy 206 and 210 fleet consists of aircraft now at least 37 and up to 63 years old, the primary concern of ownership is the age of the airframe and its components. Corrosion is a concern with most aircraft of this age, and it pays to do some digging to determine where it has spent its life. An airplane that has spent decades on the coast will likely present more airframe issues than one that has lived in the Arizona desert.

Beyond airframe corrosion, much of the discussion around owning and maintaining a 206 or a 210 will revolve around the retractable landing gear of the 210. While it isn’t something to be scared of, and while there are many very happy 210 owners, the system and its components demand respect. To ensure the gear will operate reliably, an owner must become something of a landing gear enthusiast, eagerly learning the intricacies and only permitting mechanics who are intimately familiar with 210 gear to work on it.

In general, the newer the 210, the more reliable the landing gear and easier to maintain. The first examples in 1960 and 1961 incorporated a complex hydraulic system with components that, should they fail, maybe impossible to source for significant lengths of time.Additionally, these early models are subject to an airworthiness directive (AD) that can require an owner to seek out equally scarce replacement parts. 

Subsequent generations of the 210 incorporated better landing gear designs, such as the simplified 1970 model year and the 1972 model year that tran-sitioned to a far superior electro-hydraulic system. Best of all is the 1979 and newer gear design, which has proven remarkably reliable and trouble-free.

More than one owner has cautioned that the turbo engines have a habit of heating the engine compartment enough to significantly reduce the lifespan of cylinders and engine accessories, even when carefully monitoring the engine and using recommended power settings. While they appreciate the capability of the turbo, they question whether it’s worth the headache.

Some of the most significant concerns of the 210 are wing spar ADs that affect cantilever-winged (i.e.strutless) wings. These are one-time ADs that require an inspection of the spars and carry-through assembly. Should these components require replacement, the cost is steep at $20,000 or more for the necessary parts, excluding labor. But whether the components pass inspection or are ultimately replaced, you can forget these ADs once completed and documented.

Except for the spar ADs, both the 206 and 210 are generally unburdened with recurring ADs that plague other types, and maintenance comes down to routine annuals and the replacement of parts that wearout. The 206 owners with whom we spoke plan for a baseline figure of $2,000 to $3,000 for a typical, uneventful annual inspection with no surprises. Predictably, 210 owners report a higher baseline of around $3,000 to $5,000 for a similar annual. 

The Cessna Pilot ’s Association is the go-to owner’s group for the 206 and 210, offering systems and procedures courses both online and in-person to educate owners. Those who have taken these courses rave about them, particularly one taught by Paul New at Tennessee Aircraft Services in Jackson, Tennessee, a de facto 210 expert. For around $1,000, owners are brought up to speed on the most recent issues encountered by others around the country.

Insurance expense can be a significant concern for the owner of any six-place airplane. For a few points of reference, a P206 owner with 146 hours total time and a hull value of $150,000 reported annual premiums of $3,800. On the other end of the spectrum, a P210 owner with thousands of hours of tactical fighter experience and a hull value of $327,000 reported an annual premium of $4,600 per year. Some owners have found a creative way to reduce their premiums. By removing the aft two seats, they can insure their airplanes asfour-place aircraft. By doing so, some saw reductions in insurance premiums as high as 30 to 40 percent.

Our Take

When it comes to six-place piston singles without a new-aircraft price tag, there are only a handful of alternatives to the 206 and 210. The most direct competitors, both in terms of cost and capability, would be Piper Cherokee Six, Saratoga, and Lance. The Beechcraft Bonanza A36 is a well-loved option that comes with a premium price. And if useful load is less of a concern, certain Beechcraft Musketeers and Sierras are equipped with a third row of small seats primarily suitable for children.

Overall, the 206 and 210 offer a balanced set of strengths, including payload, speed, and range. Less quantifiable but perhaps equally important are the familiar handling and ease when transitioning from 172s and 182s. One of the more interesting aspects of the two types is the flexibility to shift the expense from acquisition to operation or vice-versa. The 206 commands a higher purchase price but costs less to maintain, while 210s can be had at a relative bargain provided the maintenance budget is increased. 

Whichever model is selected, a buyer will undoubtedly appreciate the strengths of the type, and will enjoy a level of real-world capability matched by few other aircraft on the market.

This article was originally published in the February 2023 Issue 934 of FLYING.

The post <i>FLYING’s</i> Air Compare: Cessna 206 vs. Cessna 210 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I thought I might look for a 185 like the one he flew in his spare time. That model had the interior space, load carrying capacity and short-field performance I felt my family of four needed for traveling to northern Maine and other remote destinations. I also figured I could easily mount skis when the snow got deep. We were destined for backcountry adventures, after all.

But my friend suggested a Cessna 206 instead. He felt that people like me, who might push ourselves by flying for hours to reach a vacation spot with a short runway after a long day of work, simply do not need the added complication of a tailwheel. The 185 can be squirrely, especially during crosswind landings, he warned. A 206 would perform the same missions and is relatively easy to fly, he said.

I almost felt insulted but quickly realized he was right. My family typically got late starts on trips to Maine in the car, and we often arrived in the wee hours, tired and less alert than we should have been. That’s bad on the road, worse in the air. I placed “easy to fly” near the top of the list of qualities I would seek in an aircraft.

Years passed before my wife and I were ready to buy, but we did a lot of shopping, and I kept my friend’s advice in mind. I strayed a couple of times when tempted by Stinson 108s but only briefly.

We considered a number of sensible Cessnas, including 206s, 210s, and 182s, a Piper PA-24 and several Beechcraft Bonanzas. Then, quite by surprise, we found Annie, our 1992 Commander 114B that checked most of the boxes for us, including being easy to fly. 

Certainly my previous training in another Commander helped ease the transition to a complex, high-performance airplane after years of flying a docile 172. But Annie has been an especially gentle flier so far. The airplane handles well on the ground and its wide, trailing link gear have made straight, stable  landings the norm. Those links are famous for making rough landings feel smooth.

It is still early, we have had the Commander just a few months, but I have yet to elicit an unpleasant reaction from it in the air. The airplane seemingly has no desire to stall unless the pilot ignores the buffeting and forces the issue. While it does not lead the four-seat-retractable category in performance measurements like cruise speed, climb rate, short-field operations, or fuel economy, it has an all-around feeling of comfort that my passengers appreciate. The roomy cabin is part of that, but so is the airplane’s forgiving, no-surprises behavior.

I believe the Commander’s smooth handling, more than its cushy seats, is the reason my wife can fall asleep before we reach cruising altitude.

The post Your Ideal Aircraft Might Be the One That’s Easy To Fly appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Our flying lives tend to revolve around missions. How far are you traveling on average? How many people and how much cargo are you planning to take? What are the length, surface, and conditions of the runways at your expected destinations? And of course, how quickly do you want to get there?

• READ MORE: Finding Your Ideal Aircraft: Advantages of a Drawn-Out Transaction

When I began seriously shopping for an airplane a little more than a year ago, these questions seemed to cover all of the important details. Ideally, I wanted an aircraft with good short-field performance and a cruising speed above 160 knots. It would have to carry my family of four, our two 50-pound dogs and a modest duffle bag for each of us.

I narrowed my sights to a Cessna 210 or a Beechcraft A36 Bonanza. They had enough power and capacity to replace the family car on our next summer vacation trip. Soon, though, numerous other factors came into play–from affordability and reliability to reality checks about how we would use the aircraft. For starters, how often will our two sons, 19 and 15, travel with us on major excursions?

Soon we were considering other things, like cabin comfort, the advantages of shopping locally, and how the machine would present on the ramp. The last detail might sound vain, but we all want an airplane that looks good.

• READ MORE: Finding Your Ideal Aircraft: Keep Your Passengers Informed

After adding these elements to our search, we quickly found “Annie,” our 1992 Commander 114B. She was for sale at an airport close to home, had a roomy cabin that my wife loves, and we both think she looks great. But we still quietly wondered how she would perform.

Commanders are somewhat rare, so any time we arrive at an airport, we receive compliments and field questions about our airplane. Commanders also have a reputation as slowpokes among high-performance four-seat retractables. But most people don’t know that and just assume she’s fast because she looks that way. Believe it or not, we recently parked at an FBO where the manager was certain Annie was a turboprop. I had to assure him of her piston status.

A friend who owns a beautiful Piper PA-24, one of my favorite models and one we considered buying, often mentions that Annie’s tall, substantial trailing-link landing gear is more attractive than his Piper’s short struts. I have to admit that hearing another pilot covet my aircraft is gratifying.

• READ MORE: Finding Your Ideal Aircraft: Bringing the New Baby Home

But looks get you only so far. Performance is still an important consideration, just not as significant as I first thought. During a recent solo flight, I conducted speed trials to see just how fast Annie would go. The overcast kept us under 3,000 feet, where I figured I could expect 150 knots true with a decent job of trimming.

Flying along a ridge that separates New Jersey from Pennsylvania, I flew numerous circuits, northbound and southbound, experimenting with power settings and trim. Cruising at 145 knots with power at 24 squared, I figured 25 squared would make the difference at my low altitude, which is not included in the published performance charts.

I increased the rpm to 2,500 and manifold pressure to 25 inches. Airspeed began to creep upward but eventually stopped at 149 knots. I made more trim tweaks, getting Annie to fly essentially hands-off, but the speed did not budge. Then I remembered the single, large cowl flap was open. That had to be worth a knot or two. I closed it, and 150 knots appeared on the Garmin G5.

I was overjoyed at this triumph, and knowing that a few thousand feet higher, we should be able to reach 155. I had also nearly forgotten about the 160-knot requirement I earlier had in mind. And like most pilots I know, I soon reduced power to get back to a fuel flow between 12 and 13 gallons per hour instead of the 14-plus I was burning at the higher speed. What’s the rush?

During more than 20 hours flying Annie so far, I have come to value her smooth handling, comfort, and forgiving flight characteristics (and great looks) far more than the raw speed I once craved. In my mind, cruising at 150 has gone from pretty slow to fast enough.

The post Overcoming the Speed Obsession appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

That sentiment is echoed around the industry—piston-powered, high-performance airplanes with good utility hold their value over decades. What does this mean for pilots wanting to invest in a new Bonanza—or the like? You may pay what feels like a premium price, but your investment will remain secure, even as you fly the pants off that bird.

Jim Blessing, president of AirFleet Capital, concurs. “Our experience has been that aircraft that provide good utility have held their values well over time,” he says. Those types include the Cessna 210 and 206, Piper PA-32-series aircraft and, yes, Bonanzas, in his estimation. The numbers don’t lie—a Cessna 206 purchased new in 2004 still commands between $450,000 and $650,000, which is more than what the pilot paid for it, with a 2023 206H Stationair flying out of Wichita next year for about $775,000. The new buyer can still take advantage of attractive financing and depreciation to offset the higher purchase price. And their investment will offer more in return than just the joy of flying it.

There’s other excitement in the single-engine piston market that taps into a different kind of utility: backcountry- and STOL-focused aircraft, such as the CubCrafters XCub and NXCub, the Maule MX-7 series, and the Aviat Husky. While no company churns out tailwheel airplanes in huge numbers, CubCrafters launched its first investment offering at EAA AirVenture this summer towards expanding its manufacturing facilities to meet demand. 

And what if you want your airplane to do more than land short and haul gear? A series of just-for-serious-fun aerobatic airplanes entices pilots, beginning with the Gamebird GB-1, which hit more than 50 units delivered earlier this summer. It’s joined by the latest Extra,the NG, and the Aviat Pitts S-2C.

As for piston twins—with both normally aspirated and turbocharged engines—the persistence of solid value also holds, if the airplane has seen improvements over the years. “When it comes to older twins, for example,” Blessing says, “from the finance perspective, we are often looking to see current technologies, such as panel upgrades, engine conversions, and even other airframe modifications. These [updates] coupled with [a strong history of value retention] help give us comfort in lending for 15 years or longer on some of these assets.” One reason why a Cessna 414 or 421 still commands a decent price is that there’s no real high-powered, pressurized piston twin on the new aircraft market to compete directly. Instead, piston twins come in a different guise altogether—such as the Diamond DA62 with two Austro Engine AE330s, sipping diesel while carrying up to seven passengers.

New buyers shopping for personal transportation look to this sustainable, technologically savvy prospect—or trade up to a single- or twin-engine turboprop. Another venue for light piston twins: the training market. For this segment, Diamond offers its DA42, and for Piper Aircraft, the tested-and-true Seminole. Also, Tecnam has delivered the P2006T into flight schools around the globe for more than 10 years—and the economics work out similarly to other modern jet-A-burning pistons. At 9 gph, that’s a lot of trips around the pattern towards a multiengine rating.

Tecnam also began delivering its turbocharged twin—the P2012 Traveller—to Cape Air in 2019, and the airline continues to add 10 aircraft each year towards the 100 units it will take to fully replace its workhorse Cessna 402s.

The post Pistons: Enduring Investments for Capable Mounts appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Of the dozen or so owners I interviewed, one stood out when he said, “Every Stinson costs $50,000.” I glanced over at my market survey spreadsheet. It listed every Stinson for sale among six classified sites, and indicated the median asking price was half that amount. Confused, I asked him to explain.

He explained that a Stinson buyer has two options. They could pay top dollar for a perfect example, pristine and devoid of any issues. Or alternatively, they could spend less to acquire a rougher example but will then inevitably spend the remainder to bring it fully up to speed until that $50,000 figure has been reached… at which point the airplane would be pristine or nearly so. There were some examples listed in the low to mid $20k range, and he was of the opinion that these would likely be basketcases in need of costly maintenance, and a lot of it.

His point was entirely valid. Engine overhauls, for example, don’t come cheap. A full overhaul could easily double the price of many of the airplanes I found, and even a relatively minor top overhaul could increase the total expenditure by 30 percent. A new propeller could add several thousands of dollars to the price, and should the entire airplane require new fabric, the total bill for that service alone could approach or even exceed $50,000.

Initially, I interpreted this phenomenon as a downside to the Stinson. Who would want to buy a type that will inevitably require such significant maintenance expense after the initial purchase? Why should it be so cost-prohibitive to obtain a nice, well-sorted example? 

After some reflection, however, I decided this is a feature and not a bug. Provided the airplane is safe and mechanically sound, the option to obtain a decent example that’s a bit shabby around the edges and could use some TLC at some point in the future opens it up to buyers of more modest financial means. Sure, the initial purchase price is only the price of entry, and there will be more spending on the horizon, but this enables a buyer to sort the airplane out as their finances allow.

My own airplane fits this category. With paint that looks like it flew through a meteor shower, an interior that resembles that of a high-mileage Trabant, and the presence of a second altimeter that even the previous owner of 50 years cannot explain, my Cessna 170 is, by any definition, an airplane with plenty of room for improvement. But while it’s a bit rough around the edges, it is mechanically sound. 

Such an airplane is something of a blank canvas. A buyer may not have $50,000 to spend, but there’s nothing wrong with spending $30,000 and anticipating spending another $20,000 over the subsequent five years. While things like an engine overhaul or a full repaint are quite pricey, a headliner here or a radio there can gradually bring a shabby airplane up to speed while keeping expenditures to four figures or less.

The “buy now, pay later” philosophy can unlock more capable airplanes, as well. If you’re willing to incur higher ongoing maintenance and operating expenses, certain less-desirable models can be had at relative bargains. I learned about this recently while researching the Cessna 206 and 210.

In the early years, when all Cessna 210s had the older wing with struts, the 210 was essentially a 206RG. Until 1966, the two airplanes shared many components including the wing and tail, essentially differing only in landing gear. But a look at my market survey spreadsheet indicated that the median price of 210s is nearly half that of similar vintage 206s. The price difference was massive.

Interviews with several owners explained why. Depending on the year, 210 landing gear requires very careful and attentive maintenance. Unforgiving of new, unfamiliar mechanics and costly to maintain, the 210’s retractable gear make the type less desirable than the otherwise similar 206. But while a 210 owner will have to budget an additional few thousand dollars per year between maintenance and insurance, it will take a long time to bridge the $150,000 gap in acquisition price.

Similarly, a prospective owner longing for an older Cessna 172 but discouraged by the pricing might consider seeking out a Cessna 175. Essentially identical to the 172 but with a geared version of the engine, the 175 provides an additional 30 horsepower. The downside? An engine TBO that’s only 1,200 hours rather than the standard 1,800 hours. But the simple presence of the geared engine makes most 175s notably less desirable… and thus, less expensive… than their 172 counterparts. And because they’re listed separately, they tend to go unnoticed in the classified listings.

Once again, it’s an opportunity to juggle tradeoffs, unlocking additional capability for a lower acquisition price but perhaps spending more elsewhere in the equation. So whether you opt for a shabby-looking but mechanically sound airplane, or whether you opt for a model that’s less expensive to obtain but more expensive to insure and/or maintain, there are indeed ways to stretch your dollar ever further. All that’s needed is some research and creativity.

The post The Blank Canvas Tradeoffs of a Fixer Upper appeared first on FLYING Magazine.