Yes, actually owner’s program shows a 25h interval checks. I don’t know if it’s a cessna’s requirement but it makes maintenance definitely pricier then.
greg_mp wrote:
I reckon my difficulties with german documentation….
If you men translating them, we have a lot of German speakers in this forum. PM me if necessary.
RobertL18C wrote:
Wouldn’t an early strutted 210 be quite similar to a 182RG which is a popular type?
That is what most documentations about the 210 say, that the early models are pretty much of the day 182’s with retracable gear, so a predecessor of the 182RG.
greg_mp wrote:
Yes, actually owner’s program shows a 25h interval checks. I don’t know if it’s a cessna’s requirement but it makes maintenance definitely pricier then.
25 hours?? Woha. That is really something which needs to be condisered. 25 hours means you won’t go on a longer trip without having to do this at some stage. At the very least this bit should be owner doable, otherwise it’s a massve restriction. What does this check involve?
From my point of view, the big practical difference between the early 210’s and the much later 182RG is the landing gear mechanism. Specifically engine-driven hydraulic pump (EDP) vs electro hydraulic pack. You will be doing gear swings at least yearly and it is a pain with the EDP. You need to have a maintenance arrangement that supports it.
Agree with Antonio and have said that further up the thread. The early gear system is ridiculously complex and prone to malfunction. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I would NOT buy this or any early C210.
@172driver what passion over a 60 year old timer :)
I do think any complex old timer requires a willingness to learn about the maintenance challenge. The E-Series early Bonanzas have a host of technical peculiarities but have a devoted following, and I sometimes wonder (probably due to Lew Gage’s and ABS expertise on these) whether they are a more satisfying airplane than the later muscle car versions.
On an early 210 it is the condition of the saddles, hydraulic packs are not beyond the wit of man to overhaul and maintain.
172driver wrote:
I would NOT buy this or any early C210
Me neither. With the Comanche it’s the same. Lots and lots of things have been improved over the decades, and the last one (6 seats 260 hp) just comes with lots of initial problems fixed. There’s a lot less to consider. It’s less hassle.
However, flying is not always about arriving at the destination, or not alone. There are even planes from the 1930ies that are amazing travelling machines that – if I had the time for all maintenance involved – would be tempting 
I find that gear door system amazing. And it really looks good without the open wheel wells.
Well, that plane is for sale the 2nd time in a few years, and actually has risen in price from the first attempt. I hope someone will buy it who knows how to deal with it. For the price it is a lot of airplane and it is very decently equipped too.
Sometimes you have to jump over these things in order to get something extraordinary. I missed out on a M22 Mustang a few years back because it was sold VERY quickly. And while a lot of what has to be said about this old plane would have applied to it even more brutally (by now there is less than 10 of them flying or so I reckon) it still is tempting to buy such a capable airplane for comparatively few money.
I find that gear door system amazing. And it really looks good without the open wheel wells.
Yes, and that system is the crux of the issue. It’s extremely complicated, prone to malfunction and difficult to repair or adjust properly. AFAIK, there also is no STC for the removal of the doors on the early models. There is one for the later models and almost all later C210s have the doors removed. It costs a couple of knots but makes mx one hell of a lot easier and thus cheaper.
172driver wrote:
AFAIK, there also is no STC for the removal of the doors on the early models.
Correct, only from 1970 on.
Quite a good primer on Mx on the type
https://www.avweb.com/ownership/a-letter-to-cessna-210-owners/
