Buck, I'm curious to know more about how you got ur bird in the experimental category. I fly a 59' 182B converted to tailwheel and would really like to go experimental.

Since your down in SA you oughta cruise up to the Llano (AQO) grass strip fly-in this Saturday, its listed under the events section on here. I'd love to check out your ride!

buck_justice wrote:Two adults, full tanks equals 350’(manual flaps) of runway used.

You have manual flaps in a 210? How'd you get that approved? Cessna could NEVER get their manual flaps approved today on the 182.

EZFlap wrote:

buck_justice wrote:Two adults, full tanks equals 350’(manual flaps) of runway used.

You have manual flaps in a 210? How'd you get that approved? Cessna could NEVER get their manual flaps approved today on the 182.

He's experimental!!

Zzz wrote:

SE6601KF wrote:Stinson also has a round gear!

Don't they also have a reputation for being a really docile taildragger?

They are pretty docile on the ground, but have a huge vertical and relatively small rudder, which kind of limits the crosswind capability. They don't have a simple cantilevered spring steel gear like the RVs or some retractable Cessnas. Their gear is a weldment that pivots about the lower longeron and the upper end attaches to a pair of oleo struts. This is a very good arrangement when braced properly. It does not have the same flexural tendencies as a spring gear due to aft load components.

buck_justice wrote:....With the dollar count aside, all pilots want to know about performance. The early model 210s take off performance was not shabby to begin with. I gained 150 lbs of useful load (1700 empty) after this modification.....

Wow, that seems pretty light for a plane of that size. Performance figures look pretty sharp.
I don't know much about the 210's, but I have been surprised to learn they didn't all come stock-standard with the IO-550 300hp. I wonder how much more bang-for-buck you'd get with that setup.

Battson wrote:

buck_justice wrote:....With the dollar count aside, all pilots want to know about performance. The early model 210s take off performance was not shabby to begin with. I gained 150 lbs of useful load (1700 empty) after this modification.....

Wow, that seems pretty light for a plane of that size. Performance figures look pretty sharp.
I don't know much about the 210's, but I have been surprised to learn they didn't all come stock-standard with the IO-550 300hp. I wonder how much more bang-for-buck you'd get with that setup.

I don't think there was a IO550 in 1962. I think that engine was the result of Continental's quest to eliminate case cracking on their big engine series.

EB

Here you go PiperPainter.... you can have a '61 210A for only $11,000.
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/fo ... 36142.html

This one has about the same fuselage as a 185 with the 3 windows down the side. That means my gear box parts should fit. When I get all my gear box parts certified I'll be glad to sell you a set so you can do a one-shot 337. You'd actually have a fair shot at it, because if you can show that this year 210 and 185 used the same fuselage structure, and my parts are certified as PMA replacements for 185's...

Forum Admin, this might otherwise be a PSA posting, but I put the link here because it is relevant to a posting he made about picking up an early 210 to make a Bush Centurion.

In the air the C285 (because it is a 200 series Cessna on 185 gear, hence the 285) fly’s just like any other C210 I have ever flown, even all the way down through final approach. Landing is the same as a C185. “Oh, but what about that slant tail” vs. Straight, "it is all about looks". Some people like the straight tail look on tail draggers because that is what we are used to. Maybe? I have always liked the 185 look! But in a 30 knot crosswind neither straight or slant is any fun (I've done it). You better be on your toes no matter what you are in. Weather veining is all about square inches of side area. A 30 knot wind exerts a set force per square inch, it does not care about slant or straight. They are actually pretty close. Being fair, the slant is slightly further aft but the 185 fuselage is taller/thicker. I can’t tell the difference, and it sure isn’t worth changing the tail over. Did I mention that the C210 is 4 inches wider than the 185, and with the leveled baggage floor, like the 206, it makes for a lot of room. With an entry door on “both sides” and fair sized baggage door, I have never had trouble getting stuff in it. Doors hinged at the top, like used on drop zone planes would be perfect. And 206 doors on the R/H side could happen with the right amount of cash. One thing at a time though.
The plane is licensed in experimental “research and development” and I have been working on getting a onetime field approval/STC for quite some time. My first thought was to use the heavy duty PPonk gear fittings. No reason to reinvent the wheel. They even sent me a set (good people) but they did not work unfortunately. The fwd part of the fitting was two inches above the floor board. Machined fittings, built up gear box, and C185 main gear and year later, she was on her own legs.
My 285, as I call it, has barely been used, with less than 2500 hours total time. I’ve put 500 of those on it. Hanger kept it’s whole life, it’s been pampered and polished. And many C210s have been upgraded over the years with primo avionics packages by owners that only want the best for their baby. Mine was upgraded with a full stack of King silver crown radios (old school now) but better than the old Cessna radios. The Cessna 185 has been the work horse of the bush industry for more than half a century. Millions of hours have been flown in the C185 they are one tough plane. They have proven themselves in the bush no doubt. The Cessna 210 on the other hand, has been, and still is, an asphalt only, executive cruiser. Most have never even seen a dirt runway. Reckon you could find a C185 with less than 5000 hours on it? The actual mod is a bit more that gear fittings. my biggest struggle was with the manual flaps/AKA Johnson bar. but consider belly skins, tail stinger, flight control cables, header tanks, ect.

Did that 210 have the fuel sumps like the 206s? I would love the looks of that mod on my PT6-20 U206. I always wondered about the strength of the tail section to support the impact forces of the tailwheel.

The latest posts are making me dream of hitting the big Lotto!

If you don't mind, Buck. Do you have some quality pictures share and post?

The 206 and the Cessna 210 are basically the same airframe. The biggest problem I would have with the 206 (I considered this as a future venture) is the relocation of the header tanks. The 206 baggage floor is already leveled out and control cables are lowered, that part would be easier. And the flaps are electric, the older 210s were hydraulic (big pain). One thing I always thought about was installing floats. Since I still have the structural main gear fittings installed, it seems that I could install C185 main gear leg stubs fwd. and use 206 main gear leg stubs aft for float attachment? (just a thought I have had)
As far as the tail is concerned I used all stock Cessna185/188 parts on everything except the skins and I stepped up one gauge greater than the C185. (I have the Cessna drawings) I also used the heavy duty stinger. After 500 hours I have not had any problems. But those have not been Alaska Gravel bar landings. The C185 holds up well and I would expect the C285 to do just as well.
The fuel strainer stays in the nose wheel well, and a fiberglass insert is installed in place of the nose gear doors. I had to install an access door to get to the fuel strainer. This is a pretty big void in the nose and I have often used it for a storage area. Jumper cables, tie downs, and such, it frees up clutter in the cabin. When I get back home I will round up some current photos and post them.

Rob wrote:I think it's really cool. I seriously doubt it's a case of more sense than dollars, as two of these probably wouldn't come close to the price of a Found... Without people who explored all avenues of flight like this, there would be no airplanes for those of us who choose to buy the "standard plain vanilla"...
Thank you Mr. Bush 210, 206, or whatever you are....

MTV, I have a question, I have no ski experience to speak of, an zero nose wheeled ski experience. How do you think this would fair compared to a ski'd 206 / 210 ?

I'm sure moving the tail around could suck, but surely no worse than a helio...

IMHO I think it could only be cooler if the following were added:
Standard AW Cert (STC approval)
Soloy conversion
C185 tail
B-wheels

I think you could do all that (minus the standard AW) and still be under the price of a new Found... and that would be something!

Actually, the stock U-206 makes a decent ski plane, as long as you keep some weight in the back. They're easier to turn around than a taildragger, in fact, because you don't have that tailwheel/anchor back there preventing you from turning....a LITTLE power gets the nose light, and a bunch of rudder brings the tail around nicely. Takes a little practice. By comparison, with a taildragger, especially a heavy in the tail taildragger, to turn you have to add enough power to get the tail light or REALLY light, and rudder the thing around. That can be tough at times.

As to the model of airplane shown on the registration....the FAA gets those wrong all the time...

MTV

As I posted on another thread, I recently looked over a "Bush Centurion" that had been ground-looped at KCLM. I'd like to read this thread through from the beginning, but for some reason when I click the thread I can only get this current post. "No posts within the specified time frame" or something like that comes up on the screen when I try googling it. ??

hotrod150 wrote:As I posted on another thread, I recently looked over a "Bush Centurion" that had been ground-looped at KCLM. I'd like to read this thread through from the beginning, but for some reason when I click the thread I can only get this current post. "No posts within the specified time frame" or something like that comes up on the screen when I try googling it. ??

Just click the "1" in the paginator down below 74 posts [ Page 4 of 4 ] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ]

No good. Not sure what the paginator is, but on the top & bottom of my screen, to the right of "post a reply", it says: "3 posts" and "page 1 of 1".
Strangely enough, however, when I do hit reply, below the area where you type in your post, I get a "topic review" which in this case takes me back as far as BRD's post of Oct 17, 2013. Don't know how much is before that, but I don't get all 74 posts.

hotrod150 wrote:No good. Not sure what the paginator is, but on the top & bottom of my screen, to the right of "post a reply", it says: "3 posts" and "page 1 of 1".
Strangely enough, however, when I do hit reply, below the area where you type in your post, I get a "topic review" which in this case takes me back as far as BRD's post of Oct 17, 2003. Don't know how much is before that, but I don't get all 74 posts.

I suspect you may have your display options set to only show posts within a recent time frame.

When you click this link, it should begin with a post from June 21, 2009 if your display options are using the default of "All posts"

“Oh, but what about that slant tail” vs. Straight, "it is all about looks". Some people like the straight tail look on tail draggers because that is what we are used to.

My principles of flight may be wrong on this, but a slant tail has a lower aspect ratio, a longer moment for the rudder, and therefore should be more effective for cross wind? The lower aspect ratio means it stalls at a higher critical angle, the longer rudder moment making the rudder more effective?

A tail wheel 182C with the variable incidence elevator trim and a slant tail may be the best of all?

The straight tail might come in useful in spin recovery where it may suffer from less blanking, but not your everyday occurence I hope.

Yup, "display options" was set wrong-- 3 months instead of all posts. Thanks Zane.

Does anyone know if a 1960 Cesna 210 has ever been modified into a taildragger?

There is a guy east of Denver in the middle of an experimental 182 build. He already built a wing and tested it to failure. I believe he has started building a set of actual wings. Square wing, slightly deeper and wider slotted Cessna style flaps, and deeper ailerons with a droop mixer. Same basic wing area.

He also has a design for the interior of the tail with a tubular structure for a tailwheel of some sort. It looked to be about 4' long and is intended to attach to some new sheet metal longerons. He has not decided whether to use a tailwheel with some dedicated rough country mains or simply design a more sensible nosewheel.

The fuselage is still fairly intact as far as mods go, but he has designed a turtle deck that will open wide open on one half to allow a lot of access. He said he wanted to get rid of the side baggage door completely to carry through the structure for strength and stiffness purposes.

He says the numbers for the new wing would have it landing at 43 at full gross. He says the top end will suffer a bit, probably around 5mph if he does well with fairings. He is designing for a 1200 lb useful with 90 gal tanks (his test wing has room for more than that). He is concerned about the vertical stab area hauling around so much fuel at aft CG.

He only has about 15k into the entire material cost at the moment, including a 182 that had wing damage and a bit of fuselage bending, with a full deck in the panel and the materials for the first test wing and the final set of wings to be built. He has a lot of hours into it, and has an enviable amount of free time. Pretty impressive for an retired rail engineer who had zero experience in sheet metal before this.