Given that a early 210 models are generally considered great planes aside from landing gear issues and the related expenses, and that a similar condition 210 can be had much cheaper than a 206 or even a 205, and that the existence of the 205 (210-5, to be exact) proves it’s possible, why has nobody come up with a conversion to fix the gear on a Cessna 210?

Maybe I’m just being naive, but it looks like it should be a relatively simple modification to eliminate all of the gear swing mechanisms and make a 210 a fixed gear airplane. It certainly can’t be any more complicated than making a 175 into a taildragger, and people do that regularly. Watching the market lately, there appears to be about $30-50,000 of financial incentive in purchase price difference to make a 210 more like a 205, and that’s before you consider ongoing expense differences like insurance and landing gear maintenance.

What pitfalls am I missing here? Obviously FAA approval is the big one, but as mentioned before, fairly significant modifications to other models have gained stc status, even without the original manufacturer essentially demonstrating how it can be done with a production model. A 210 wing is not a 206 wing, but its evidently possible to make a 205 a capable enough bush plane, would a gear-fixed 210 be any different?

There sure seem to be a lot of reasonably priced old 210 planes out there. They certainly aren’t as rare as a 205, nor do as many appear to have been run hard and put away wet to the extent a lot of the 206 fleet has.

There is fixed gear 210…Cessna built them in 63-65…called them a 205…I had one for about 10 years…great airplane…if you could improve a 182 and simplify a 210 this was it…six seats…small rear door on the left side and the hauling capacity of the 210….and an IO 470…go find one if you can

Airdave100 wrote:There is fixed gear 210…Cessna built them in 63-65…called them a 205…I had one for about 10 years…great airplane…if you could improve a 182 and simplify a 210 this was it…six seats…small rear door on the left side and the hauling capacity of the 210….and an IO 470…go find one if you can

There are two listed on trade-a-plane right now for an average asking price of $212k(!) vs 25 listings in the 210 section (excluding the pressurized and turbo listings) with six asking $100k or less.

If a fixed gear 210 would be equivalent to a 205, there seems to be room in the market to purchase an STC.

Just buy a 210, pop the circuit breaker and leave the gear down . Guessing that the gear not as robust as a fixed gear though …. I really don’t know . …..

There might be a market for an STC…the nose fork is what’s on a 206 and the gear box could come from one as well….the 205 had the nose wheel well panel and gear mount…I think they may have built the fuselages together and pulled the 205 out for finishing…the main gear is also 206 like…sorry is old mine …

Wasn’t the whole post it of the 210 to be a fast and slick ship?

Seems if you want a fixed gear 210 just buying a 206 or 205 would be better

NineThreeKilo wrote:Wasn’t the whole post it of the 210 to be a fast and slick ship?

Seems if you want a fixed gear 210 just buying a 206 or 205 would be better

Yes, their point originally was to be a fast and slick ship. The people who want that now buy a Cirrus. I guess if you need six seats the later 210 still fits that mission, but there are so many other choices for slicker faster four seat planes now that the strut braced 210 with a reputation for landing accidents just doesn’t have the appeal it once did. The early ones have kind of become a mission orphan, IMO, and their prices seem to verify that.

It would indeed be easier to just buy a 205 or 206, for twice the money. A fixed gear STC would essentially allow the mission orphan older 210 fleet to help fulfill some of the robust demand that there is for the fixed gear descendants now.

As an owner of a 205, I've wondered about that too. The 210 changed a lot in the first decade. It went from a strut braced airplane with hydraulics all over the place (including the flaps) to a cantilever wing. I wouldn't be too surprised if the number of 210s that compare directly with a 205 is pretty small. I'm curious what a Bonanza would do if it was fixed gear and cleaned up. Half the insurance, half the annual, 80% of the speed, and more useful load? And why aren't there STCs to put the Rotax on every old taildragger. A Cessna 140 with a Rotax 914 would be great, and with a 960 would be incredible...

jcadwell wrote:As an owner of a 205, I've wondered about that too. The 210 changed a lot in the first decade. It went from a strut braced airplane with hydraulics all over the place (including the flaps) to a cantilever wing. I wouldn't be too surprised if the number of 210s that compare directly with a 205 is pretty small. I'm curious what a Bonanza would do if it was fixed gear and cleaned up. Half the insurance, half the annual, 80% of the speed, and more useful load? And why aren't there STCs to put the Rotax on every old taildragger. A Cessna 140 with a Rotax 914 would be great, and with a 960 would be incredible...

Which 210 models would compare most directly with a 205? C models? Which had hydraulic flaps?

I know very little about the small old Cessna taildraggers, or pretty much anything Rotax powered. At 6’8” and 310#, I can’t fit in any of them anyway.

Always thought the turbine conversion 210 was the man’s version of a new SR22

https://www.cessnaflyer.org/cessna-sing ... a-210.html

Lifting from this article, the 210A-C (1960-1963) had hydraulic flaps, with significant redesigns of major things (wider fuselage in 1962 on the C modeul) during that time. The 210's of that era also have significantly smaller baggage areas than a 205, as the gear swings into the rear fuselage. By 1967 struts were gone, and it was a totally different airplane in practical terms.

BigBen; actually, a valid question. We owned two 210s: 62-14 yrs, IO470 with struts and then an 81 turbo- 22 yrs, TSIO520 165-170 kt heavy hauler (1400 lb useful). Spent way too much money totally rebuilding 81 but both were very low maintenance after initial work ($$$) was completed. Lots of horror stories from others; but, wife and I flew both regularly, maintained faithfully and had very, very little AOG. Both wonderful airplanes. Strutted 210s, 62-66; could be refitted by changing out gear with fixed stronger and lighter and gear wheel wells removed to give back 205ish storage although access a little limited. Pretty sure there is one of the 206 models with two front cabin doors and only a smaller baggage door in back. I think strutted 210s had same wing as 205/206. Later models were definitely not STOL aircraft; although, I did see a P210 compete in Llano, TX STOL competition and did quite well.

1960-61 210s actually had a slightly different cabin- a little smaller I think; never flew one or sat in one.

Our latest- 81 turbo was reluctantly sold due to 250 past TBO engine and prop and now that we're retired we didn't want to spend the $80-100K and we don't have schedules anymore-love being retired. Therefore, our Husky and 56 backcountry 182 work well for us.

I agree, when I look at the older 210 prices; lots of airplane for the money.

I just remembered; I'm old, fat and cripple- give me a break. There was a mechanic SW of Austin, San Geronimo Airpark, that actually converted a strutted 210 (don't remember the year-had the IO520) to a taildragger. He flew it quite a bit, skiing trips to CO and family trips. I saw this airplane in 2014 or 2015 as he worked on our Champ and as a current (at the time) T210 owner, I was interested. He did a good job as far as I could tell. He stated he couldn't afford a 185 so he built his own-quite a guy.

jcadwell wrote: I'm curious what a Bonanza would do if it was fixed gear and cleaned up. half the annual,

Checking the gear at annual is about an hour so about 2% of the cost.

BigBen wrote:

jcadwell wrote:As an owner of a 205, I've wondered about that too. The 210 changed a lot in the first decade. It went from a strut braced airplane with hydraulics all over the place (including the flaps) to a cantilever wing. I wouldn't be too surprised if the number of 210s that compare directly with a 205 is pretty small. I'm curious what a Bonanza would do if it was fixed gear and cleaned up. Half the insurance, half the annual, 80% of the speed, and more useful load? And why aren't there STCs to put the Rotax on every old taildragger. A Cessna 140 with a Rotax 914 would be great, and with a 960 would be incredible...

Which 210 models would compare most directly with a 205? C models? Which had hydraulic flaps?

I know very little about the small old Cessna taildraggers, or pretty much anything Rotax powered. At 6’8” and 310#, I can’t fit in any of them anyway.

https://backcountrypilot.org/knowledge- ... cessna-205

Grassstrippilot made a nice writeup about 8 years ago.

No STC, but there is a discussion on this site in June 2009 of a fixed gear taildragger 210B
"Bush Centuion".

"N285BH, a 1962 Cessna 210B"


Bill

The 210 had hydraulic flaps through the C. Electric started with the D model, which is also when they switched to the 206 style wing with the bigger flaps and the 206 style horizontal stab and elevators. The early 210s all have less gross then the 205. The 210 and 210 A are still narrow bodies and only 4 place aircraft. Even the later ones through the 1970 model when they switched to the tube style gear legs, the rear seats arent suitable for any much more then kids and the baggage area leaves a lot to be desired over the 206. STCs available for the 205 are already limited, and a fixed gear STC'd 210 would limit those even more. For example there is no extended baggage STC available for the 205. In the US you have more freedom with the 337s, but in Canada its very limited. And changing the gear saddles out to fixed gear would not be cheap I don't think. Doable for sure, but not sure how economical it would be.

The 205 was built on the original 210 type certificate. Could a guy just use that to convert a 210 to a 210-5 (205)?

Chris

DUSTERMAN wrote:The 205 was built on the original 210 type certificate. Could a guy just use that to convert a 210 to a 210-5 (205)?

Chris

You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

The more I learn about them, I think the best candidates for fixed gear conversion would be the D, E, and F models. One of them, after conversion, would probably be more aptly described as a 210-6.