lowflybye wrote:

mr scout wrote:

Blu wrote:I have gone on fly outs with strutless 210 and the cirrus will out climb them and out cruise them and burn less fuel doing it.

Sure, put 310 ponies under the hood of 3400 lb takeoff and it will out climb a 285 hp with the same MGTOW any day. Equal the HP and see how well they compete...plus the 210 can do it with 2 extra people on board. The Cirrus will not burn less fuel at the same speed nor outrun a 210 at equal HP ratings nor does it have the load or range of the 210. To get 310 hp in a 210 it would be a turbo model and will cruise in the mid 190 kt range as opposed to the 310 hp SR22 which will cruise in the mid 180 range. Just like with comparing a 210 to a Bonanza you must compare the same HP. The 210 has a very wide range of HP options available in the different years.

I have to disagree with you on this. The cirrus is a slicker air frame than the 210. Take a turbo 210 and compare it to a turbo cirrus. Both have 310 horse power but the cirrus will be 15-20 knots faster at any given altutude. The 210 I flew with only had 285 horses but he was running 75% power (213 HP) and burning 15-16 gallons per hour while i was running 65% power (201 HP) and burning 12.5 gallons per hour and I was still 5-7 knots faster.

I agree that horse power probably explains most of the climb differance

Blu wrote:Your pocket book will thank you at annual time too.

Don't forget to mention that $10,000 CAPS re-pack that currently must be done every 10 years. If you have a 2001 model you are on the short list.

Good Point!!

mtv wrote:
If twas me, I'd look for a solid 210 with a turbo. Don't be scared by the gear--find a mechanic who understands the gear and knows how to make it work. It's really reliable. With one exception: If it still has gear doors, get rid of them. A large percentage of the gear problems on these airplanes were caused by the gear doors. There is an stc to remove them, and later airplanes didn't have them.

MTV

Blu wrote:The 210 I flew with only had 285 horses but he was running 75% power (213 HP) and burning 15-16 gallons per hour while i was running 65% power (201 HP) and burning 12.5 gallons per hour and I was still 5-7 knots faster.

Blu wrote:Take a turbo 210 and compare it to a turbo cirrus. Both have 310 horse power but the cirrus will be 15-20 knots faster at any given altitude.

lowflybye wrote:The difference in this case (I would assume) is that he did not have GAMIjectors or an engine monitor and you have both which would explain the fuel difference. We have both in our 210 and routinely run 50 LOP and match the fuel burn you are claiming while clipping along at around 150 - 155 kts. I can run 50 ROP and burn around 16 gph and cruise at 160 - 165 kts.

Blu wrote:
That sounds about right. I get 170-172 kts on 12.5-12.9 gallons per hour running 50 LOP and he was running ROP. But i still think that proves my point that the cirrus is a slicker airframe than a 210.

lowflybye wrote:Actually Blu, the Cirrus TAT (which is slightly faster than the factory turbo) has 315 hp and trues out right at 195 kts cruise at 16,000. The T210 can have 285 hp and true out around 190 kts in cruise, 310 hp and true out at 195 kts in cruise, or it may have 325 hp (R model) and true out at about 205 kts cruise.

As I said before...hard to compare these two because there are so many different variables.

Blu wrote:Interesting numbers, are you going off experiance or off cessna's book numbers?

My experience with cessnas book numbers is that they represent wishful thinking from the marketing department And are almost never achieved in real life. Well except the fuel flow numbers i always seemed to get all the fuel burn they said i would.

Conversley I have found the book numbers for my cirrus to be right on or even a little conservative.

But like you say it is hard to get fair apples to apples test.

lowflybye wrote:The numbers in the 285 and 310 models are from experience. I have not flown the 325 hp model and pulled it from the Blue Book Price Digest performance charts. Keep in mind that these speeds are in aircraft with the gear doors still on the aircraft. Often times pilots will fly the 210 with a gear mod and wonder why they are not making the book numbers. The gear mod does cost you a some speed.

As I said, I like the Cirrus and think it's a great aircraft. I fly one on occasion when I just need 2 or 3 seats, but I usually need more seats and/or baggage so for my mission the 210 usually fills the bill a bit better.

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:Hey Bonanza Man are there STOL mods for the Bonanza, besides VGs?

58Skylane wrote:Thanks for the info so far guys!!

I should mention that this will be a commuter plane between Boise/southwest Idaho and SoCal. If this deal goes through (and this may be a long process. Long story to get into at this point), I'll more than likely commute as little as once a month to every other week (depending on the budget). I'm not IFR rated now, but I won't rule that out later (if that time comes). Personally, I don't really care to fly into IFR/Known Icing in a single engine aircraft. I'm pretty sure my schedule will be very flexible to avoid any crappy weather flying. But, doesn't hurt to be prepared.

I would plan to keep my 182 in Idaho for backcountry flying. Or since my income may triple , I may even be able to afford to get a Scout along with the commuter plane.

The reason why I asked about landing on gravel/dirt, is that the business my brother in law may try to acquire is in the desert and has a gravel strip about a mile down the road. Or may be able to use part of a dry lake adjacent to the business when it's "DRY".

I really dig the 210's. But after reading the comments about the gear, I may want to shy away from that model.

After chattin with Mr Scout today, I'm really digging the Commander. I like the idea of the "Spring Loaded Gear" in case of gear extension problems. But not really the speed I would want. I really would want to keep the commute under 3 hours if at all possible (on a good/fair day).

My airliner friend Joe has a straight tail Lance and I feel very comfy in it and happy with it performance. So, so far the Lance and Bonanza is going head to head here.

Blu wrote:Ok, I have been thinking on the cirrus- 210 issue.
Since I don't have a turbo'd plane I'd like to look at NA planes for comparison. The numbers I posted for my cirrus in still air making the trip from VCV to BOI are very accurate and if anything high.
VCV-BOI in 3:13 burning 43 gallons carrying 820lbs of payload with a 1 hour reserve. Does anyone have a accurate flight planning model for a NA 210? What kind of time fuel burn can a NA 210 do on the same trip? Also what can a BO do the same trip in? Be interested to compare.

Also be interested in what kind of payload the 210 and BO can haul on the same trip with a 1 hour reserve.

gbflyer wrote:

58Skylane wrote:
What I really want to know, is what the hell are you going to be hauling out of the desert that pays so well?

gb

FloatFlyer wrote:Ok, here is my $.02. I owned a T-210 from '90 till March '04 when a damn Mexican stole it from me. If I still had it and could put it on floats, I would be a happy camper. A very good friend of mine had a '78 T-210 and was asked to fly a friend's A 36 while the guy was working out of the country. My buddy hated the Bonanza, period. I know that Beech owners are a very loyal and passionate group. I just know what I hauled in my 210 and still was fast. I can't believe that a Beech could equal the combination of speed, load, and affordability. I acknowledge that a Bonanza might be a TAD faster, but not with a huge load, cg problems arise quickly in a Beech, I think!

I have owned a 182, 206, T-210, and a 185, and have about 2,000 hrs in the 210. For ME, the 210 was light years ahead of any of the others. Faster by almost 50 kts, can carry as much as the 206 ( a little harder to load), and much easier on the ground than the 185(and wider). IF you just want to go from one point to the other, I guess the Cirrus would be good. I can't believe you can find a better plane for the $$ than a 210. I had the gear doors and John Frank told me when I asked about removing the gear doors, "don't do it". Just make sure you lower the gear doors Below gear extension speed. He was right. If you want to haul a load, go fast, and have reasonable (for a plane) parts, a Cessna is for you. Composite materials, glass panels are all great IF you have the money, I don't. When I stop flying floats, I pray that I have enough money and life left to go back to a T-210!