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 later cantilever wing had flaps and ailerons more like the Cardinal: Very long, narrow chord flaps accompanied by short(er) span but deep chord ailerons. I only flew the strutted "omni-vision" 210 but I've always loved the later 210. Somewhere along the line I have been told that the wings of the early razor back 210 were straight off a 182 but I've never checked wikipedia to see if that's true (can't say it keeps me up at night).

As for rough field operations I did it quite commonly in a 182RG (rough being subjective of course). Then I was told they make terrible rough field planes because the mains were flimsy.

I found the performance in and out of less than ideal airports to be excellent, but I did happen to look at a main gear leg on take off one afternoon and can see why some people think it shouldn't look so blurry.

Tacking this onto an aging thread --

I owned a '76 T210L for six years and about 600 hours. Fast, comfortable, and huge useful load. I flew the family on trips to both coasts and Alaska (that Airnav.com picture of Anaktuvuk Pass airport -- yeah, I took that). We routinely flew six-hour, 900nm legs and had it to the low-20s a few times. That helps keep you out of the weather. I've gotten more actual IMC in my 170 than I got in the 210. Every design involves compromises, but it's hard to see where Cessna compromised. It just does everything well. Sometimes it was hard to believe I could own a machine that was capable of what that 210 would do.

I rarely flew it onto grass or dirt, other than in Alaska, so I can't say much about that, but I did get a big expensive nick in the propeller somewhere up in Alaska. The 210 is stable, heavy on the controls, lands like a Cessna, but it's not "fun" to fly.

The gear system is complicated, but no big deal once you understand it. Almost all problems are electrical or caused by poor rigging. You absolutely must have a mechanic that understands how it works. No, actually, YOU absolutely must understand how it works. I made a flowchart of the gear operation for the '72-'77 models, if anyone's interested.

The 210 is expensive to operate, even after you take care of the standard upgrades, like the tail beef-up kits, gear hoses, non-foam-filled trim tab, Knisley exhaust, GAMIjectors, engine monitor. Everything on it is complicated and made of a jillion parts. You'll never get the squawk list down to zero, which isn't to say it's dangerous, but there's always something that doesn't work quite right or is wearing out. And of course the Continental engine needs a new cylinder every few hundred hours. Since I owned the 210, Cessna has gone nuts with parts pricing, so it's probably worse now than ten years ago.

I don't miss the cost or the maintenance, but still, there are so many days I think of someplace I could go, if I only still had the T210. I probably would, but for one partner getting cancer and the other building an F-1 Rocket. Yeah, that means I was only paying 1/3 of the costs ...

Just ran across this thread and enjoyed all the feedback to the OP.

I have a friend that has a mid 60's 210 that is very well equipped and we enjoy flying it.
There has been issues like when he first got it. The speed was rather slow like 145-150mph at 24sq. Finally figured it was the doors were not closing. The baffling is in excellent condition but you have to climb at 130 or so to keep one jug (think its #5 but not sure) below 380. It is the one that the analog temp gauge is on also.
That makes for slow climbs. The FF is setup fine with slightly over redline on TO and it corresponds to the digital FF gauge.
Just wondering if that is normal.
Tom

I looked very hard at 210’s. They are great airplanes and as we all know airplanes are all about the mission you need it to fill. Our mission was 360NM to our cabin. We had been flying a 182P for quite some time. Truly a great plane and may be one of the best GA planes ever. But the go faster bug bit. After a lot of research it was between a 210 later model non-turbo, an A-36, B-55. I kind of figured wherever I found the best plane for the money I would buy it as all seemed to fill our mission.

The right B-55 came along and now we are twin owners. However we still own a 180 and am having serious thoughts of just putting s speed kit and big motor in the 180. With all the experience I have had the 182 is really amazing however a 180 will get you along faster but you will have to deal with the tailwheel. The reality of cost/time is something to consider. At this point the B-55 now has an all glass panel, new props and one new motor. The panel was the only planned part. The rest just became a lot of work and money and I am really not sure it is worth it. There is a reason my 182 sold in three days for more than I thought I could ever get for it.