Well the title says it all...what do you guys think of the 210..post 1970 non turbo. My friend and i shuttle a lot of people around the state of Ca. give me your thoughts on the type if anyone has experience with them in here, i know its not a backcountry rig... Weve got a stellar 182 with a sweet pponk in it, and a fuel thirsty baron 56TC TSIO-541 gas guzzler rig. Looking for a nice useful load that will do 160-165kt on 15-17gph looks like a 210 might be the rig??

Mike

I have a friend with one. If I could afford one I think there a great plane.

Cheers..Rob

In a past life I flew an early 1970s T210. Nice stable airplane, good IFR platform. The back seats are reserved for kids or 2 small adults or 1 larger adult though. Pretty decent fuel/payload combination, I did one trip with 4 adult males and a bunch of bags from San luis Obispo to Sun Valley with only 1 fuel stop. Legal too, it was 135 after all......

Out in the western mountains the turbo was real nice to have, but you do pay a small price in maintenance costs.

You're right, it is not a good back country rig.
It is fun to take a new passenger and have them look out the window at the landing gear on takeoff. They usually have to change their underwear when you retract the gear.

The other good one is the straight tail Lance or Saratoga especially if you fill the seats with adults. I didn't think much of the T-tail Lance at slow speeds.

porterjet wrote:
The other good one is the straight tail Lance or Saratoga especially if you fill the seats with adults. I didn't think much of the T-tail Lance at slow speeds.

I don't know anything about 210's except horror story's about the landing gear and expensive annuals. But Porterjet has mentioned what came to my mind as well. A Piper Lance (non-T-tail) or a Cherokee.

I owned a '77 T-210 for 14 yrs and 2,000+ hrs till it went missing in Baja in '04. It was a great plane with no issues. Early in my ownership John Frank of CPA told me not to remove the gear doors unless I had problems. He also said DO NOT lower the gear above gear extension speed. I made a habit of lowering the first notch of flaps first then lowering the gear. Never had a problem.

The wide cabin makes me cry when squeezing into the 185. I permanently removed the rear most seats, uselss except for tiny kids and who wants those in your nice plane!! The middle seats are fine for normal sized people but with them removed you have a ton of room for stuff. I had a 206 before the 210 and except for not having double cargo doors the 210 just swallowed loads of stuff. I even took a RV fridge to Baja in the plane.

I easily flight planned for 170 kts and if I could afford it I would buy another in a heartbeat. Lean of peak operations was not common back then so I burned around 17 gph. I would speculate that 15 gph an hour LOP would be possible. Annuals were never unfairly expensive unless you added things like a Horton Stol kit (waste of money, IMO) or a baggage compartment aux fuel tank which was a great option. All in all, the best cross country plane I could afford to own.

Having owned and operated 4 Turbo and 6 Non Turbo 210's (we still have 2 non -will be for sale in Feb-March next) I can say that Non Turbo 210 is one hell of a machine -slightly more expensive to operate than a 182 but worth it if you need that performance.Rear most seats are suitable for small people or kids only -getting back there is a problem unless you remove the center seats.Some people remove on of the center seats for better access.Use full load is great but it's taken up by fuel weight 90 gallons don't come light or cheap. Cessna twins -310 would be a 6 place machine comparable in operating cost and performance. B-55 Baron is another good machine. Cherokee 6 with retracts is good but slower than the 160 knot speed your looking for. Even Beech A36 is great and comfortable for 6.Depends on your mission -all can do that . Gear door mod on 210 has pluses and minus-.

182 STOL driver wrote:Having owned and operated 4 Turbo and 6 Non Turbo 210's (we still have 2 non -will be for sale in Feb-March next) I can say that Non Turbo 210 is one hell of a machine -slightly more expensive to operate than a 182 but worth it if you need that performance.Rear most seats are suitable for small people or kids only -getting back there is a problem unless you remove the center seats.Some people remove on of the center seats for better access.Use full load is great but it's taken up by fuel weight 90 gallons don't come light or cheap. Cessna twins -310 would be a 6 place machine comparable in operating cost and performance. B-55 Baron is another good machine. Cherokee 6 with retracts is good but slower than the 160 knot speed your looking for. Even Beech A36 is great and comfortable for 6.Depends on your mission -all can do that . Gear door mod on 210 has pluses and minus-.

Bill, he wants to get away from the "gas guzzling" twin he already has

How about a 206?? Don't they have speeds close or over 160? I believe that's what the CHP uses all over CA for patrol and high exec transport.

A friend has one, older one though with a strut and 470 engine. It cruises along at 150 kts. The gear system is hydraulic, so it's heavy and a little busy.

I like it, good ride in the turbulence. It does quite well on a short strip too.

I think you'd be happy with one, and you can buy them for a song.

Got about 1,000 hours in 210s, mostly non-turbo. Fast, hauls a load, goes a long way, and no more expensive to maintain than any other airplane of similar complexity. Early models suffered from cracking main gear saddles. Get a 72 or later and you should not have this problems. Can't put big tires on it, but I've had them off airport many times. Just be smart about the conditions. Some are STOL equipped. I prefer the ones with gear doors because they're quieter, probably a bit faster, look better, and keep the exhaust out of the cabin. Never had an issue with the doors. Biggest negative is crappy Cessna radios, but many have been upgraded. While the rear seats are snug, you can put full size adults in them - it does help if they're friends!

Best,
O-2

I ended up doing a little trading with Bill and ended up with an old-1961 210A with a IO470 in it. It is an old girl, but the engine is just a peach!Thanks Bill, Have put about 75 hours on it this summer, has long range fuel so for me that is a big thing.
Flew from Omak to Ketchican and fueled up, From there to Anchorage then fueld up again. I average about 12 GPH at 23 Square at 6000 ft. doing 150 knts true.
Other than an old Bo this is the best certified economy plane Ive had.
I had a 56 Thunder Chicken!! Loved it, it just used as much fuel as my Beech 18 did, but it was a 100 knts faster!!?? That and an engine rebuild is 50K
GT
My mission might change this winter, I might be interested in getting rid of this 210 if anyone is interested. Rough ol girl, but has 430 and a good engine and prop, gizmo mount for a 696 in it.
I have to get rid of a couple of birds, this could be one of them.

Okay, I've read all the posts. What would be the plus and minus of a turbo 210 over a non-turbo? Just better high altitude operations?

SFC Mike wrote:Okay, I've read all the posts. What would be the plus and minus of a turbo 210 over a non-turbo? Just better high altitude operations?

Pretty much a non-issue 90% of the time. However when you are over Gorman at 9000' collecting ice the ability to climb at 800 FPM vs. 300 FPM or trying to climb out of the Tahoe valley anytime the turbo is invaluable.

I haven't flown a non-turbo'd 210, but was part owner of a T-210, bought new just as Cessna shut down the singles lines. Because we flew out of Laramie, we didn't even consider a non-turbo version.

We also had an earlier T-210 on the line when I was doing SE charter, although I was the official 182 pilot on that operation, so I didn't fly it much. The earlier models with gear doors had numerous maintenance problems, largely caused by the pilots extending the gear at the published 140 knots Vle, so we were required to get the speed down well below that before dropping the gear. Our line T-210 never had any substantial gear door problems because of that.

When Uvalde came out with the gear mod for older 210s after Cessna had already done away with the gear doors, that's when exhaust issues started occurring, as the mod didn't include sealing the wells as Cessna did. With the Cessna version, there is no exhaust problem.

Engine maintenance is an issue with turbo'd versions, especially if you are ham-handed with the throttle. The engine needs to be warm for the oil to adequately lube the turbo before spinning it up, and there needs to be adequate idle time before shutting down for the turbo to spin down. It spins at some ungodly speed like 20,000 rpm, and it'll toast quickly if it's not properly cared for. It's obviously a much more complicated system with the automatic waste gate, as well as higher cylinder pressures, so the TBO is shorter for a turbo'd engine than for a non-turbo'd but otherwise nearly identical version.

Overall, a 210 is a great airplane, very fast, heavy hauler, easy to fly (although very heavy taxiing), very stable, superb on instruments. If I were in the market, I'd be hard pressed to vote for a turbo unless I regularly planned to fly near the flight levels, as the turbo'd version doesn't give that much more normal altitude performance for the additional maintenance. I did a lot of high altitude flying on 02 (16,000, 17,000, once at FL230), mostly to say I'd done it rather than because of need, but that was when I was younger and foolisher.

Cary

Cary wrote:Overall, a 210 is a great airplane, very fast, heavy hauler, easy to fly (although very heavy taxiing), very stable, superb on instruments. If I were in the market, I'd be hard pressed to vote for a turbo unless I regularly planned to fly near the flight levels, as the turbo'd version doesn't give that much more normal altitude performance for the additional maintenance. I did a lot of high altitude flying on 02 (16,000, 17,000, once at FL230), mostly to say I'd done it rather than because of need, but that was when I was younger and foolisher.

Cary

Yeah, the secret that turbo drivers wont tell you is that the N/A 210 are slightly faster than T210 up to about 8,000ft DA. And N/A 210's love altitude too, they just don't climb as well. A friend owns a '64 210D which has cruise tables in the POH @ 20,000ft! He has been to 24,000ft in the winter as well. Tons of performance for the money. There are nice 210's out there for 40-55k. And like 182's..early 210's can outperform later ones in many regards. My favorite model is the 1966 210/T210F which is almost identical to a 206 of the same year. It can get on and off like a 206 but cruise @ 165kts. Maintain the gear well and you'll have a nice traveler for low $$.