Scolopax,

My only interest in accident data is to help other pilots consider techniques that might help them survive similar situations. Unlike the FAA, I have no interest in making the FAA look good and in assigning fault like David Soucie says they do.

You know the area. If he had stayed in low ground effect, perhaps even leaving the gear down, all the way to the fence, would he have ended up where he did?

Contact

contactflying wrote: If he had stayed in low ground effect, perhaps even leaving the gear down, all the way to the fence, would he have ended up where he did?

We don't know if he didn't, and we never will.

contactflying wrote:Scolopax,

My only interest in accident data is to help other pilots consider techniques that might help them survive similar situations. Unlike the FAA, I have no interest in making the FAA look good and in assigning fault like David Soucie says they do.

You know the area. If he had stayed in low ground effect, perhaps even leaving the gear down, all the way to the fence, would he have ended up where he did?

Contact

Covering 100 per feet per second and climbing at 1000 feet per minute, if he were in ground effect at the fence the trees would be snapped at 25 feet instead of 50.

oops, delete

I think you are saying it looks like he stayed in ground effect until maneuvering speed was developed.

contactflying wrote:I think you are saying it looks like he stayed in ground effect until maneuvering speed was developed.

I'm just saying the fence is 170 feet from the tree he hit.

According to my math, assuming 300 pounds under gross, he flew the plane pretty well, beat the book. and made the "over fifty foot obstacle." Unfortunately, obstacles were 80 feet and if you could estimate that accurately, It just never penciled out prior to takeoff, once you factor in turf and some density altitude. ,

Thanks nosedragger. Fast airplanes are tough. It is nice to get off the turf and into low ground effect soon enough to have time to decide whether to go or not.

all good points guys...cary brought up an overlooked one...210 wings at least the RG models have kind of a thin speed wing...requiring more speed to fly...so quite a bit of weight...maybe a little tail wind...maybe a little slow on liftoff....all a kind of bad combo...as said before, dont much matter now...but maybe we can learn a little here.....thanks for all the input...jo

Aren't all 210s retractable gear?

Well..............

A C205 is technically a C210(5). A fixed gear C210.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:Well..............

A C205 is technically a C210(5). A fixed gear C210.

Gump

Damn, you got me there but I think they have the same wing as the 60-66 C-210.

This one was a 77 (maybe sold as a 78). Unless it was modified, it had gear doors. Normal procedure with almost all 210s when departing a short strip is to leave the gear down until well into the air, as the cycling gear (and gear doors if so equipped) adds substantial drag until the gear is in the wells. Since one of the main gear appears to have been ripped off and hit the horizontal stabilizer, it was likely down at the moment of collision with the trees.

It's been a long time ago, but one of the things I remember about both the 73 T210 I first flew and the newer 1986 versiion my pard and I owned until I bailed from the partnership, is the dramatic difference in the way that they flew lightly loaded vs. heavily loaded. While that's true of any airplane with a significant W&B envelope, I recall that it was more dramatic than, for instance, a 205 or 206, or for that matter a 182. I don't have a lot of time in any of the 200 series Cessnas, so my memory may be a bit off. But my recollection is that although it was really nose heavy when lightly loaded, it leaped off the runway very quickly, using not a lot of runway. But load it down, and it rolled a long, long way. I think due largely to its more laminar flow wing compared to the others' high lift wings, it just doesn't develop a lot of lift until it's motating pretty quick, well above its lift off speed. It's a great high speed cruiser, but it wouldn't be my choice for a back country airplane, at all.

Cary

edit

A heavy 210 is apparently not that great, even on a longer runway.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A86.JyXE ... AKCDFjghE-

It is worthy of note that performance data, as provided in the POH is an important marketing tool. As such, that data is derived using a brand new, perfectly rigged aircraft, with a brand new, optimized engine and prop. That airplane is flown by a test pilot who doubtless got his or her job partly because they're a really good stick. Oh, and that test pilot has a good bit of experience with that airplane, and is current in it.

Now add to that the fact that this data was derived over the course of a test program, so the pilot had a number of "trials" to eke out the best data set, whereas we only get one shot at coming out of a challenging strip.

So, my point is that if you think you should be able to reliably duplicate that performance criteria in a thirty or forty or???? Year old airplane, maybe with a tired engine and worn prop, you might want to re-think that strategy.

In fact, you'd best add a substantial cushion to those numbers if the "challenge" is a tree, cliff or anything else fairly solid.

Just a thought.

MTV

MTV,

Now that the PTS calls for acceleration in ground effect to Vx or Vy as appropriate, I wonder if the test pilot establishing new POH data will use liftoff into ground effect or the Vx or Vy point as the takeoff distance? Also, might it not be wise to come up with a POH distance for abort, if not in ground effect.

I realize that they are not ready for low ground effect, but I always use low ground effect by a comfortable point to determine comfort with continuing. I realize this T-210 may have burned up a lot of turf just getting into ground effect and that ground effect may have been too high to be effective.

Contact

Horton setup?

contactflying wrote:MTV,

Now that the PTS calls for acceleration in ground effect to Vx or Vy as appropriate, I wonder if the test pilot establishing new POH data will use liftoff into ground effect or the Vx or Vy point as the takeoff distance? Also, might it not be wise to come up with a POH distance for abort, if not in ground effect.

I realize that they are not ready for low ground effect, but I always use low ground effect by a comfortable point to determine comfort with continuing. I realize this T-210 may have burned up a lot of turf just getting into ground effect and that ground effect may have been too high to be effective.

Contact

Jim,

At least in the newer aircraft, the POH generally includes data for takeoff distance and takeoff distance over a 50 foot obstacle both.

I also think at Upper Loon (been a while since I was there, so someone correct me), but once you depart the confines of the strip itself, it's going to be really hard to stay in ground effect.

Maybe.

MTV

Cary wrote:
It's been a long time ago, but one of the things I remember about both the 73 T210 I first flew and the newer 1986 versiion my pard and I owned until I bailed from the partnership, is the dramatic difference in the way that they flew lightly loaded vs. heavily loaded. While that's true of any airplane with a significant W&B envelope, I recall that it was more dramatic than, for instance, a 205 or 206, or for that matter a 182. I don't have a lot of time in any of the 200 series Cessnas, so my memory may be a bit off. But my recollection is that although it was really nose heavy when lightly loaded, it leaped off the runway very quickly, using not a lot of runway. But load it down, and it rolled a long, long way. I think due largely to its more laminar flow wing compared to the others' high lift wings, it just doesn't develop a lot of lift until it's motating pretty quick, well above its lift off speed. It's a great high speed cruiser, but it wouldn't be my choice for a back country airplane, at all.

Cary

Interesting. Since my 205 is my first experience with 200 series aircraft, I'd like to know more about the wing. I'd venture a guess that there were some design changes from the early 210s to the later 210s. Trent or Rich...or anyone else, what do you know about this. My 205 seems to do pretty well getting off, even with a heavy load.

My first airplane was a '61 210, with struts and the standard Cessna wing. The '61 was a great short field performer. I test flew a '79 T210 that I was considering as my second airplane. I was not impressed with its take off performance, even with it lightly loaded, only myself and 1 passenger and full fuel. At my home airport at 2500msl the '79 T210 would use up over 1500ft of runway. I was used to about 900' with the '61 210. The newer 210s are made to go fast, not to fly slow. The one I flew had a Robertson STOL,
I decided a P-Ponk 180 was a better choice for me. I have not been disappointed in that decision.