There have been a lot of threads about the 210 and the Bonanza on here, and I have read all of them, but there are still some unanswered questions.

My main mission will be a 500 nautical mile back and forth every other week from WA into CA, so I need speed and 6 seats...so the 210 and A36 jump out, and although I love the idea of a 206, they seem really slow in the real world...

I have also been flying a lot into grass/dirt strips in the Washington and Idaho and Oregon backcountry as well. My current 182 has a stol kit, 8.5 tires, pponk, three blade etc and I can fly an approach at gross at 55 mph, so I am spoiled... For instance lost river W12 in wa, tieton 4s6, stehekin 6s9, mckenzie bridge 00S, 29OR sunrise valley lodge, or minam 7OR0...those we're all easy in n easy out, where I didn't really have to work hard to safely land or take off even in the evening, given the 182...and those are all pretty long (2000 ft) strips with relatively smooth surfaces. But it cruises at 125kts over the ground at 8-14k feet.. That's 5 hours for the trip...real world.

While I know that I would have to be more careful with either the Bonanza or the 210, could I keep safely flying into places like these?

And there are still some unanswered questions:
* Prop clearance is great in the Bonanza, but will the 210 with a 3 blade be ok? Esp if the yoke is in my lap all the time?
* Are 210 concerns with small tires really about soft ground?
* Anybody used a stol cuff or vgs on a 210 and can give me real world approach speeds? Take-off stats?
* People talk about the v tail bo in the backcountry, but what about the a36? The A36 is heavier and takes longer to get off the ground, and has a higher stall speed, so I'm favoring the 210, especially in taller grass or landing on highways... Like in oregon's field station...

A 206 is also an option, but it's hard to find data on cruise speeds with big tires except for one thread here that says 150 mph over the ground, unless it's a turbo, flown high. But turbos have lower real world tbo and higher fuel burn than a NA. That means for 500 miles, 3.5 vs 5 hours, which is kind of a big deal if you do it every weekend...

What i really want to hear it's that I could get a 210 into the backcountry if I'm careful, esp if I had a stol kit on it...

Thx

My 206 cruises 130kts, thats on 8.50 mains and 7.00 nose, 3 blade 403 Macauley, 12GPH. On a 500nm trip non stop that puts it at 3.8hrs. Your 182 at 125 kts puts it at 4 hrs. Really not a lot of difference there. Granted, I haven't had my 206 up to 10k to see how fast it is there.
AFAIK, horton is the only one who makes a STOL kit for the 210. The later models can accept a 6.00 on the nose which will help on grass strips. We have one locally that flies off a grass strip and it works good. I would aim for a later model with 300hp and the full size six seats. Also, there is a gap in the J range where B.A.S. does not make a shoulder harness for them with the spar design. Which reminds me, be careful with the new spar carry thru AD. Its scrapping a few 210s these days.
Overall, for smooth grass you should be fine with the 210.

206 and deal with the slower cruises speeds. 210 gear would concern me and why would you want to ruin a great 210 wing by putting a cuff on it? That is not the kind of wing you would want to put a cuff on. The A-36 would be my second choice behind the 206, much stronger gear.

Kurt

No experience with either one, but based on what I have seen, I would be inclined to think the 210 is more than capable of 2000ft strips and smoother grass. Look at what the bush operators in Namibia fly. Lots of 210s in use and I never saw an a36. They fly into dry lake beds, bush strips, sand and dirt runways. If they are able to make the 210 into a safe, reliable, and economical platform in the Namibian bush I would think manicured grass would be fine.

Again, no direct experience just observation.

15 years ago I and a group of friends had the pleasure of visiting with Ray Arnold, owner of Arnold Aviation in Cascade, for an hour after he taxied over to the south side of Camberlin Basin to say hi after dropping off his passengers at the ranger station. During the conversation he told of flying gold from the Stibnite (?) mine to the Denver mint in a T210. He was flying his 185 the day we talked. You might call him and get his opinion.

Tim

The key word is “SMOOTH “ grass. I’ve seen a P-210 with a Robertson kit flown on grass up in the Rockies above Denver. Granted it was probably half tanks fuel and not max gross, but did it fairly often in the summer.

A few A36's have been doing 135 work in Alaska for quite awhile, at Lake Clark Air and Iliamna Air Taxi. That Beech gear is tough stuff. I'd go A36 all day if you had to have the speed, otherwise a 206.

Flew a T210L with Robertson STOL. Awesome on grass, short runways and high density altitudes. There are a fair number of RSTOL equipped 210s out there. Can’t remember all the numbers for performance, but it’s all documented in the RSTOL FMS if you can get your hands on a copy. Not like more recently certified STOL kits that only claim to be no worse than stock. RSTOL claims their performance improvement on paper.

How big are passengers 5 and 6?
A short body bonanza with a 550 almost has the useful load to be a decent 5-6pax airplane with no luggage space and CG limitations may not be prohibitive. A 33 or 35 does considerably better than a 36 at low speed and short field and faster. 170kt
You are also well into 185 budget territory which also has minimalist 5th-6th seats but then opens up the rest of the backcountry and will not make you bummed you switched from a stol 182. 140+ kt not bad.

Everything about the A36 seems better, especially the maintenance and gear. But then when I look at takeoff distances and approach speeds, the fact that the 210 has a stol kit available, with 60 mph approach speeds, makes all the difference in the world.

The A36, even with an IO 550, looks to have about 2,000 ft take off distance to clear a 50-ft obstacle. that just makes me nervous, because in summer time with any DA at all, I'm not going to be able to do any backcountry flying without being extremely nervous that I'm going to smash into some trees at the far end of a runway. And this doesn't take into consideration any kind of rolling resistance like grass or gravel.

I guess the answer is going to be a 210, or maybe finding a turbo normalized 206 that I can cruise in the mid teens to gain some speed?

Thanks all for your help!

A few years back one of the big airplane rags did a shoot out between the 210 and A36. The planes they used were both in the same flying club, which my brother was a member of (and he commonly flew both planes).
They evaluated several flight aspects from take off performance, climb, cruise, stall, etc. The 210 was a turbo so it might not have been a fair fight, but it edged out the A36 in almost every category.

He has since gone on to buy his own aircraft and it was an A36 (with turbo). I asked him one day why he bought the A36 when the article made it clear the 210 outperformed the A36 in so many categories. He said "because my wife liked it better".

He considers seats 5 and 6 as decoration. I sat right seat recently for a 300NM out and back XC (weird that it was only the second time we've ever been in a plane together). I've got about 60 hours in a 210 and love them, but his wife made the right choice.

People who brag about low and slow have never done 175kts in a bonanza a few feet off a river. It is likely as close as i will feel to fighter jets running down canyons.

I fly a couple A36's for work in Alaska. They never see pavement except when we run to Anchorage. They can handle a lot. The cargo door is amazing, it fits a full size pallet. They are incredible airplanes.

I would take one anywhere I would take any other airplane on the same size tires. We ran Baron main tires on ours which was nice. Also VG's and gap seals. All IO550. Ours also have extended baggage that goes back an extra 3 ft.

Apart from utility, the handling/manuevering alone would never allow me to consider a retract cessna if I had A36 money available.

ASA, what mods have you done to your A36s? I see the tips tanks, but that’s the only change I can see. Is the nose sitting a little high, or is it camera optics/angle that makes it look that way?

Interesting discussion. First thing I’d say is that none of the planes the OP is discussing are true six place aircraft. That is, 6 adults, even if two are midgets. A 500 mile trip, cramped up in the far aft baggage compartment, which is also a black hole with only the view of the guy ahead’s noggin? Oh yeah....great way to learn to love Greyhound buses.

So, since the OP didn’t specify, let’s assume the fifth and sixth seats will be occupied by kids....very young kids. That implies more “stuff” to keep them entertained. But my concern is you’re very apt to absolutely RUIN them for ever wanting to fly again. Seriously, have you ever sat in the far aft seat of anything flying in turbulence? Barf-Ho!!! And that’ll put ANYone off flying.

Not only that, but do the W and B for these planes and loads. What’s the CG going to be? Do you propose to make one or more stops for fuel? How about cargo on those 500 mile trips?

Oh, and kids do grow, generally like weeds. You going to own this thing for two years?

Seriously, folks?

MTV

PA12_Pilot wrote:ASA, what mods have you done to your A36s? I see the tips tanks, but that’s the only change I can see. Is the nose sitting a little high, or is it camera optics/angle that makes it look that way?

Tip tanks, IO550, gap seals, VG's, extended baggage. I think that's it.

mtv wrote:Interesting discussion. First thing I’d say is that none of the planes the OP is discussing are true six place aircraft. That is, 6 adults, even if two are midgets. A 500 mile trip, cramped up in the far aft baggage compartment, which is also a black hole with only the view of the guy ahead’s noggin? Oh yeah....great way to learn to love Greyhound buses.

So, since the OP didn’t specify, let’s assume the fifth and sixth seats will be occupied by kids....very young kids. That implies more “stuff” to keep them entertained. But my concern is you’re very apt to absolutely RUIN them for ever wanting to fly again. Seriously, have you ever sat in the far aft seat of anything flying in turbulence? Barf-Ho!!! And that’ll put ANYone off flying.

Not only that, but do the W and B for these planes and loads. What’s the CG going to be? Do you propose to make one or more stops for fuel? How about cargo on those 500 mile trips?

Oh, and kids do grow, generally like weeds. You going to own this thing for two years?

Seriously, folks?

MTV

Since when is an A36 not a 6 place airplane? As far as I can tell he's not talking about a 6 place camping plane, but for a 500nm XC. If everyone just has light bags, I don't see the issue. Yeah, Check your weight and balance but I mean what's the next best thing, a navajo? Seems like the A36 is perfect for what he's asking.

You already have badass slow 182. Don't get another Cessna....

MTV,

I have little experience with larger than 182 and Comanche and Pawnee on short, unimproved strips. These fairly heavy airplanes decelerate well into ground effect on short final the same as smaller airplanes. Do the larger six seat airplanes also approach well power pitch to decelerate below book approach airspeed on short final?

Contact

I've done quite a few long trips around the western U.S. with 5-6 seats full in the NA 206 over the last 15 years with light bags (daypacks for everyone). It's maybe a knot or 2 faster than the 182, but hauls a lot more and more roomy. Still, three plus hours in the rear seats is a real long time. It's not very fast, and when you add significant headwinds to the picture, it's downright ugly. Nothing like seeing your groundspeed drop to double digits approaching the Sierra westbound after you're already been in the air for 3 hours.

It's important that his mission is between Washington and California. While it can be done low, most of the time it's going to be in the low teens, probably with oxygen. If I were looking at this with a clean slate, I'd go for a turbo 206 to get the higher TAS at altitude that's within spitting distance of the NA 210 or A36. The fuel costs will net out because of better speed. I figure the maintenance expense of the turbos probably nets out against retractable gear, and the 206 is really sweet for camping and backcountry strips.

Since I already have the airframe I want, I'd like to see if I can add a supercharger to the IO520F. That might get me the altitude performance I want up to, say, 12k, perhaps without the heat and complexity of the turbos. That would be the best of all worlds for me. There's no STC, though, and I need paint, interior and windows first. So, dreaming . . .

CAVU

I am interested in this topic and have considered the same as I’m sick of going 125 knots but don’t want to give up backcountry access.

A couple things to add: some of the Idaho bush operators run 210s. Also, a friend just bought a IO550 powered A36 and it seems to be a real runway hog. I really had to scale back my recommendations of backcountry destinations for him because I was really so surprised when he told me how much pavement he was using at relatively low DA (2000’ or more? I’m not an expert here, could be just a gaining familiarity with a new plane kind of thing.).

I think either would work for the more nicely maintained strips. Johnson creek - fine if not wet. Soldier Bar - probably not under any circumstance. So I think it really just depends on how much access you’re willing to give up. My guess is you can still get a 210 into 60-80% of the commonly flown-to Idaho strips, but I also expect a lot of people to disagree on that number. I don’t baby my toys...

When I get to dreaming, I think about a later model Turbo 210. Nice bird...

skiermanmike wrote:Also, a friend just bought a IO550 powered A36 and it seems to be a real runway hog..

Ask him what his empty weight is. A36's vary widely. My S35 is 2000 pounds empty with the same wing, gear and engine he has. Light A36's tend to be around 2300 empty and the fat ones can be 2500-2800 pounds. If he's got a heavy one then forget about him.

CAVU wrote: Since I already have the airframe I want, I'd like to see if I can add a supercharger to the IO520F. That might get me the altitude performance I want up to, say, 12k, perhaps without the heat and complexity of the turbos. That would be the best of all worlds for me. There's no STC, though, and I need paint, interior and windows first. So, dreaming . . .

CAVU

It would probably be worth a call to Forced Airmotive when you are ready to look. I know a guy that put a FAT supercharger on his C185. Maybe they have things figured out to get easy one off approvals.