What's the all-in on a single gear saddle replacement these days?

I found an F model (last of the strutted 210s) with a good useful, 2-axis ap, and the gear door STC (gear up 30yrs ago), but only one of the saddles has been replaced with the new p/n. I'd be the bag-holder so I'd like to know how painful the replacement is.

Tail AD c/w with two holes drilled out and a new rear bulkhead installed. Is this a red flag or SOP for these planes?

I have a trusted IA going to take a look, of course.

Any other comments/gotchas on the older models are welcome.

Is it the complete gear saddle that needs replacement or just the plastic wear surface? I would have thought probably the latter, but I might be wrong.

On my 177 I had to replace the plastic wear surface but a replacement was very difficult or impossible to source. I got an engineering order (I think your equivalent is a 337) to replace it with aluminium. It’s very similar to a bearing shell.

I have replaced the gear saddle in a 1960 210. The 1960 and 1961 models require replacement every 1000 hours, but the other models just require a one time change to the new style. I didn’t consider it that bad of a job on mine, but the later models are a different design. There is a special reamer kit that is required for the early models. I would check with Paul New at Tennessee Aircraft. He is THE 210 expert. You would be money ahead by taking it to him instead of paying someone to learn.

I don't know about the later models, but the saddles for my 210, which used to be priced reasonably, have gotten extremely expensive!

The early models require replacement of the saddle which is a very costly and near unobtanium part. Later models require on condition replacement of a saddle 'shell' that the MG leg nests in when extended. The shell is a stamped steel part lined with a thin urethane? pad that is the wear item and has caused down-lock failures when the urethane liner partly detaches and folds 'double' in the slipstream. The early model saddles are prone to cracking over time which is the reason for the 1000hr replacement requirement.

I also second getting Paul New in on the prebuy. When shopping for a later model 210, I took the online CPA 210 maintenance course to learn what should be looked at on a prebuy and also determine the model I wanted. I have since attended the multi day course with Paul in person. Definitely go in to a 210 purchase with guidance and eyes wide open.

I seem to remember that saddle replacements, not just for the 210, but other models as well, could financially turn your airplane into a planter. Then someone got an STC/PMA for a replacement, but market forces made those also very expensive as well.

What's the current status?

IIRC, the saddle was re-designed for the 1970 and up models to have the replaceable saddle shells that are much cheaper than the original saddle that has the AD and time out at 1000hrs. Currently, the shells are around $2,700 for the left one and $3,200 for the right. They should last at least 10yrs...if adjusted to where the leg makes contact in the center/depth of the shell and does not 'rub' up one side while the gear leg is seating in the down-locked position. Proper rigging eliminates the rubbing but premature failure of the urethane liner is the result if not set up as designed (easy to do with the proper go/no go gauges from Textron and following the effin manual). Hutch aviation makes 'overhauled' liners available for around $800 ea with return of a useable core...however, I have experienced premature debonding of the liner on a set and so has Paul New. On the earlier models that are affected by the AD, I have heard of saddle costs in the mid teens for a new unit...per side...OUCH!

My experience is only with the saddles in the 1960 and 1961 models. I replaced a set at the end of 2024.

These saddles appear to be a forged aluminum part subsequently machined. Replacements come with the hole where the cone bolt will live undersized. The hole is enlarged by reamers to match the centerline of the threaded bushing pressed into the airframe.

The toolkit to perform the reverse reaming operation is pretty much unobtanium. I was fortunate enough to find someone who knew someone with the toolkit as OSH '24. Paul New does not have toolkit for what it's worth.

My hunch is that Cessna ordered the main body forgings, where the threaded bushing will live, in batches from Alcoa, who also drilled/reamed the hole for the bushing. Cessna thought they knew the location of the center of the bushing hole (it's about 1" in diameter for reference), and so drilled the saddles appropriately. However, the hole drilled in the main forging actually wandered a tiny bit and so the centers of some aircraft did not align. Eventually some saddles cracked.

Theory is support by the fact that the original toolkit to ream virgin saddles was released about six months after the aircraft was introduced (1960). Who was needing to fit saddles at that point? The unfortunates whose holes did not line up. Notwithstanding the AD, if a saddle hasn't cracked by now, it's probably not going to.

100% engineering conjecture.

Later models' saddles (≥ 1962 I think) come in regular and heavy duty versions, and the latter can be retained if they pass certain inspections.

Two attachments:

The first shows the threaded busing in place; since it's threaded the toolkit threads into it to determine its vertical axis. Also shown is after removal of the bushing for replacement - this was a hairy moment, since damage to the drilled ear = aircraft is totaled.

Second attachment shows how the saddle sits on the cone bolt when the landing gear is down.

I have one of the reaming toolkits for the 1960 and 1961 models. This is a picture of a 1960 saddle being used as a paperweight on my desk.

I love 172RGs/177RGs/182RGs, especially the T182RG. They're just cool airplanes, and they were strongly in my crosscheck when looking for a plane.

This was back in the day of the CPA forum. The saddle discussion, along with the carry-through spar issue of the 177 scared me off.

Best,
Rich

Right now the 177/182/210 retracts are supportable, but there are limited suppliers and parts aren’t cheap. The hydraulic power pack is only available overhauled and is like $11,000. Actuators are around $12,000.

My club got a hard lesson with our 182RG this year and spent a lot of money catching up on some deferred maintenance. It was around $30k all in and did not include saddles or pivots. (Those were done 20 years ago.) I probably could have saved us around $7k by sending parts out to be overhauled and suffering down time instead of purchasing overhauled exchange parts and sending cores back. (I chose that route because our fleet was not at full strength and I prioritized getting it back in the air quickly over saving money. Had I known how the bill was going to add up, I might not have made the same decision, but we were chasing gremlins.)

I love the plane too, but cost of operating it has gotten high enough that I think we’re going to sell it and replace it with a fixed gear plane in a year or two.

If you don't mind (and I apologize for the thread drift), could you share what you estimate the real world operating cost savings would be for a 182RG vs 182? I'm seeing if the time saving of the RG is worth the cost saving.

If you don't mind (and I apologize for the thread drift), could you share what you estimate the real world operating cost savings would be for a 182RG vs 182? I'm seeing if the time saving of the RG is worth the cost saving.

Thank you for the insight. I'm trying to decide between a TR182 (faster, less expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain) and a T182 (more versatile, more expensive to buy, cheaper to maintain). Restart T182Ts are out of my price range. Or go airline for the longer trips and be happy hauling rescue dogs in a P206. Choices, choices...

I'm trying to make the case that we should replace the R182 with a 1984-86 206, mostly because I'm worried about the cost of powerpacks and actuators in 10 years. People have the impression that the 206 is an expensive plane to operate, but I think that it's only marginally more expensive than a straight leg 182. It burns about 10% more fuel and engine overhaul costs about 10% more than an O-470.

Some in the club keep arguing that insurance will be prohibitive, but we haven't gotten a quote so I don't know if that's accurate.

I would think the operating cost of the 206 is wholly focused in the engine, while on the 182RG, it is more distributed through the airframe. Engine, gear mechanicals, gear hydraulics, etc, any one of which can cause more downtime or OH expense. Your increased operating costs for the 206 is just really the marginal increase in fuel and OH reserve costs.

The 206 is just a big 182. In fact, I think when they introduced it, Cessna called it the "Super Skylane" or some such.

Best,
Rich