Zzz wrote:

BushTrimmer wrote:If you want to get a lot of insight into owning a 210 and about the issues, costs, and maintenance, read the writings of Richard Collins of Flying Magazine. He owned several of them and flew a lot more of them.

Also, there are mechanics and shops that know more about the 210 than other places. Paul New in Jackson, TN is a good example of a Cessna Idiot Savant and is one of the better choices in the southeastern US. For example:

http://www.tennesseeaircraft.net/210-fuel-shortage/


I'd rather own a normally aspirated 210 than a turbocharged one, and would rather own one with a Conti 550 than the old 520. The O/IO 520 had some cooling issues and Cessna worked with Conti on mods for the last 2-3 model years before production ceased in 1986. The O 550 has proven itself to be a pretty good recip engine, and makes the 210 a better airplane in many respects. A number of owners have de-turbo'd their aircraft with the IO-550 and the Atlantic Aero's STC. I am acquainted with a guy that has one and it has worked out really well for him. (A number of people can install a 550 in a 210 but I cannot remember them all.)

P. Ponk in WA may have more affordable options for the O-520 series to make it the best engine it can be. The upgrade is fairly expensive.

The 210 is a useful airplane and I like it, but even owning one with 3 other people can mean some hefty maintenance and repair bills.

https://www.flyingmag.com/gear/mods/ref ... onversions

https://www.aerospaceonline.com/doc/550 ... turbo-0001

Do you actually own a C-210?

Or are you actually a pilot?

It may be cheap on the front end but the on going costs will eat you alive. Unless you are in love with the 210 just buy a 182 or 205 and you will be way ahead. My folks had a 66 210 back in the day. They had all kinds of gear problems which adds up to $$$$.

A friend of mine owns an early (first year?) 210, strutted, IO-470 powered. Its his first airplane, talk about jumping in with both feet!
Had some RG issues, took a while and a fair amount of $ to sort out.
Then a crack was discovered in the engine case, more $.
Otherwise, no more expenskve than any other similarly high performance retractible-gear airplane.

Pertinent to the topic:
http://juneauempire.com/local/news/2018 ... land-belly

Zzz wrote:Do you actually own a C-210?

I do not like your tone.

Not anymore, but I still fly one with regularity and another on a very occasional basis.

Do you actually own one and have the experience of paying the bills that would allow you to contradict what I have said?

Hammer wrote:Or are you actually a pilot?

Are you?

What is it with this shitty, attack dog attitude?

I have checked in on this site over the years because I am not particularly active on the internet. The activity has tapered off and the quality of the posting is not as good as it once was. I have a pretty good idea why by just reading the last two posts attempting to stir the pot.

hotrod180 wrote:A friend of mine owns an early (first year?) 210, strutted, IO-470 powered. Its his first airplane, talk about jumping in with both feet!
Had some RG issues, took a while and a fair amount of $ to sort out.
Then a crack was discovered in the engine case, more $.
Otherwise, no more expenskve than any other similarly high performance retractible-gear airplane.

Those early 210s are a lot of airplane for the money,
but my friend found out the hard way about how true bcp2012's "cheap on the front end, but..." comment is.

BushTrimmer wrote:

Hammer wrote:Or are you actually a pilot?

Are you?

What is it with this shitty, attack dog attitude?

I have checked in on this site over the years because I am not particularly active on the internet. The activity has tapered off and the quality of the posting is not as good as it once was. I have a pretty good idea why by just reading the last two posts attempting to stir the pot.

Yeah - that didn't seem super justified to me. You had a helpful and informative post. :shrug:

BushTrimmer wrote:

Zzz wrote:Do you actually own a C-210?

I do not like your tone.

Not anymore, but I still fly one with regularity and another on a very occasional basis.

Do you actually own one and have the experience of paying the bills that would allow you to contradict what I have said?

I was just curious. I find your tone odd as well. I do not own a 210, but have found that the Internet is full of parrots who will answer questions with no actual experience on a matter. Many dreamers and bullshitters find their way into the "expert" role somehow behind the keyboard. You've thus far provided several unsolicited dissertations on topics spanning the board, from helicopters to graphic design, many of which seem like you curated them from Wikipedia.

In a small community it can sometimes feel odd to have someone jump in like this with such an air of authority, not backed up anecdotally. But then again, no one is handing out awards around here for supreme social adjustment under such circumstances. Excuse us for being a little protective. I'm always suspicious of a man who never asks a question in a forum. That's the trouble with using intuition more than brains I suppose. So if I've misread you, I apologize.

The first post, or one of my first, was a question about who offered a kit that resembled a Cessna 210. To my recollection, I've posted probably fewer than 10 times since registration.

Air of authority?

Relax, I am an attorney and do not dodge books, evade knowledge, shirk from learning, or write or speak with the usual imprecision, sloppiness, dotardliness, and sloven qualities of a layman.

BushTrimmer wrote:The first post, or one of my first, was a question about who offered a kit that resembled a Cessna 210. To my recollection, I've posted probably fewer than 10 times since registration.

Air of authority?

Relax, I am an attorney and do not dodge books, evade knowledge, shirk from learning, or write or speak with the usual imprecision, sloppiness, dotardliness, and sloven qualities of a layman.

My intuition serves me well.

Zzz wrote:

BushTrimmer wrote:The first post, or one of my first, was a question about who offered a kit that resembled a Cessna 210. To my recollection, I've posted probably fewer than 10 times since registration.

Air of authority?

Relax, I am an attorney and do not dodge books, evade knowledge, shirk from learning, or write or speak with the usual imprecision, sloppiness, dotardliness, and sloven qualities of a layman.

My intuition serves me well.

I'm still unsure if bushtrimmer is actually a pilot. Apologies if my reply is resplendent with dotardliness...as a 16 year old poser, I see a lot of myself in his posts.

Maybe stick with "innocent until proven guilty"?
And I admit to gleaning info from Wiki...
but I generally say so if I post it.

Gawrsh, I used to be an attorney! I do love retirement, however.

As for 210s, I was partnered in a 1986 for awhile. We'd traded the TR182 for a brand spanking new T210. I was already checked out in one, the 1973 that the FBO had on the line when I was doing SE charters, though I never flew it on any charters myself. I got out of the partnership mostly because of a series of tiffs with my partner, but also the cost of ownership was more than I could handle at the time.

Neither of these airplanes were particularly maintenance hogs. They were fast, reliable, drank lots of gas, flew very high, carried a pickup worth of load--all the things you want in an airplane except rough field capability (well, maybe you'd rather it sipped than guzzled gas)--and even then, they could handle most grass/gravel strips without any difficulty.

One thing to be aware of, for a potential buyer who might like short field capability. The usual "barn door" flaps of Cessnas is not what is on later 210s. They offer plenty of drag, but not a whole lot of extra lift (except maybe the Robertson-equipped versions, but there aren't many of those). So approach speeds are a little higher than they might be if they had the semi-Fowler flaps that most high-winged Cessnas are equipped with. Similarly, the take off roll isn't helped much by using 10 or 20 flaps, like other high-winged Cessnas. Loaded, it rolls a ways, and lowering the flaps doesn't help much.

Higher approach speeds means having to nail the touchdown every time on a short field (which ought to be done, anyway). The two shortish strips that I regularly flew ours into were 2100' at 5000' elevation, Sundance Schloredt, and Painesville (OH) Concord at near 2200' long at 1000' elevation. Schloredt was only slightly tricky because it was very narrow and uphill landing, downhill taking off. Concord had big trees at the south end, which effectively shortened the available runway unless you really scraped the leaves. But nail the approach speed (I used 70 knots loaded) and the touchdown spot, and neither was difficult.

Longer take off rolls means that sometimes it seems like the trees at the end have grown. But at least it's very predictable, and once in the air accelerated to between Vx and Vy, it climbs very well right up to the flight levels.

I guess the biggest issue I have with 210s is their truck-like handling, both on the ground and in the air. For an A to B, get-there-quick, airplane, they're hard to beat. But they're not much fun to fly. It's much like comparing the handling of a 182/180 to a 172/170, then comparing the 210 to a 182/180. Earlier models are less truck-like (the 73 was less like that compared to the 86), but still pretty heavy and ponderous.

Cary

I see the statement about 210's that they are not good rough field airplanes. What actually defines a rough field? My strip is turf and if I roll it a couple of times in the spring it gets really smooth (10 ton roller). I flew a 57 Cessna 182 with stock tires out of here for years before I bought the strip, never seemed to rough. My Dad had the small tires on his 180 here also and it never was an issue. Is a smooth turf runway satisfactory for a 210's retractable gear?

cliff wrote:I see the statement about 210's that they are not good rough field airplanes. What actually defines a rough field? My strip is turf and if I roll it a couple of times in the spring it gets really smooth (10 ton roller). I flew a 57 Cessna 182 with stock tires out of here for years before I bought the strip, never seemed to rough. My Dad had the small tires on his 180 here also and it never was an issue. Is a smooth turf runway satisfactory for a 210's retractable gear?

Yes. I fly a straight 210 on 5.00s off of grass and it works fine.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

BushTrimmer wrote:
Air of authority?

:

Yes, he is the AUTHORITY of this site. I would think a Lawyer would have more SA about whom he is talking to.

Jughead

A1Skinner wrote:..... I fly a straight 210 on 5.00s off of grass and it works fine.

My buddy's early 210 probably has a 500x5 on the nose, but I do know the mains are 15/600x6's.

Cary wrote:....One thing to be aware of, for a potential buyer who might like short field capability. The usual "barn door" flaps of Cessnas is not what is on later 210s. They offer plenty of drag, but not a whole lot of extra lift (except maybe the Robertson-equipped versions, but there aren't many of those). So approach speeds are a little higher than they might be if they had the semi-Fowler flaps that most high-winged Cessnas are equipped with......

Just what sort of flaps do they have?
Maybe you can elaborate or post a pic.

My buddy's early 210 has barn door flaps, I believe they're the same dimensions as those on my 53 C180.
I don't think I've ever seen a post-1951 piston powered Cessna single that didn't have barndoors.
I do seem to recall that either the 206 or the 210 is configured a bit differently than the others--
I think with longer-span flaps and shorter span (but maybe deeper chord?) ailerons.
??

hotrod180 wrote:

Cary wrote:....One thing to be aware of, for a potential buyer who might like short field capability. The usual "barn door" flaps of Cessnas is not what is on later 210s. They offer plenty of drag, but not a whole lot of extra lift (except maybe the Robertson-equipped versions, but there aren't many of those). So approach speeds are a little higher than they might be if they had the semi-Fowler flaps that most high-winged Cessnas are equipped with......

Just what sort of flaps do they have?
Maybe you can elaborate or post a pic.

My buddy's early 210 has barn door flaps, I believe they're the same dimensions as those on my 53 C180.
I don't think I've ever seen a post-1951 piston powered Cessna single that didn't have barndoors.
I do seem to recall that either the 206 or the 210 is configured a bit differently than the others--
I think with longer-span flaps and shorter span (but maybe deeper chord?) ailerons.
??

The 5.00s are the only option on the very first 210s. A couple years after the 15/6.00x6 became an option.
The 206 has a longer flap and deeper frise aileron. Early 210s have barn door flaps, essentially the same wing as a 182.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk