zero.one.victor wrote:I'll chime in here. I'm thinking of selling my 48 170 also. Not "mint" but a damn good flier (1500 hours in the last 10 years!) and only asking $32K.

Eric

Eric,

What will you replace it with? Everytime I get to thinking about selling the 182, I can't come up with anything to replace it with that will do the job it does. But my little girl is thinking of going to ASU, so maybe a 210 in the future. For traveling fast.

See ya, Bub

Skylane,
Will it be Centurion then? You'll like a 210. I fly one often. Keep it light and it's STOL capability is surprising, not soft or rough of course, but it does short pretty well. The thing that surprised me is that the fuel burn for distance traveled or MPG is exactly the same as my Maule, it just carries a lot more stuff 25 kts faster.

A64,

I have never flown a 210, but imagine it would handle kind of like a 206?

I have a lot of cessna time, and a little piper time, and a bit of Gruman Tiger time. Some T34 time, (acro). So basicly would be looking for speed if my daughter goes to ASU. Maybe a L-39?

See ya, Bub

Now I've never flown a 206 but I bet it flies a lot like a Cessna .
I've always considered that remark to be one of the greatest compliments for a Cessna. A 210 is heavy in pitch, you learn to use the trim. It really shines in the hand flown IFR dept, nice and stable, doesn't wallow around in turbelence like a Bonanza. A lot of room and seems to not mind being loaded aft CG.
Zane, I don't mean to thread jack. Is it worth moving?

a64pilot wrote:Skylane,
Will it be Centurion then? You'll like a 210. I fly one often. Keep it light and it's STOL capability is surprising, not soft or rough of course, but it does short pretty well. The thing that surprised me is that the fuel burn for distance traveled or MPG is exactly the same as my Maule, it just carries a lot more stuff 25 kts faster.

That's why I never considered a 210. Can't take it off road. Tires are too small. Retraction mechanism not designed for anything but pavement. The gear on my Bo is the same as on the Baron that grosses at least 1500 pounds more. Plus mine is faster at 175 kts true so by definition I get better MPG.

I have flown in a V tail Bonanza. Seemed like a good airplane to me. The throw over yoke kind of a different deal the first time we did the switch.

I've flown in a Travel Air too. Kind of liked it with the 180 HP engines. Pretty good on fuel. Given some thought to one, or early baron.

Lot of options out there for speed. RV 7 or 8 maybe? Or just keep the 182 and do the 270 HP PPonk -50 conversion. But then again I saw an ad for a 1450HP Carbon Fiber P-51 replica On e-bay I think?

Hey after painting the house today and watching AT802s fly by every 20 minutes to a fire, and my wife going "Are you going to watch those d*** airplanes or paint"? Before I thought I said "watch" I suppose I'm lucky to be alive Much less thinking of turbines.

Fly safe, and say "paint dear" Next time

See ya, Bub

This will guarantee a response from the Beachkraft(sic) owners. I owned a '77 T-210 from '94 to '04 and 2,000+ hrs in it and over 100 trips to Baja on dirt strips. Had the gear doors and NEVER had a problem with them. Yes, the tires are not tundra tires but I would gladly land anywhere a Bonanza would. At 63 yrs old, I do not like crawling across a wing to get in. I also like some shade on me when the sun is boiling hot. I also like to look down at the ground while cruising.

As far as speed is concerned, I flight planned for 170-175 kts. Virtually every Bonanza owner I know flies at higher mp settings than I did and usually put cylinders on early in the game. The double doors on the B-kraft are a plus, however, the envelope that I can load a 210 with anything that will fit in it would be virtually impossible with a B-kraft due to cg concerns.

For my wallet, I can't imagine a better cross country plane. I would still have one IF some f---g thief hadn't wanted it worse than I did while in Baja. When my float flying is done, if I still have any money left, I would buy another T-210 in a hear beat. I miss my turbo and O2. Ford

Ford Wilson wrote:This will guarantee a response from the Beachkraft(sic) owners. I owned a '77 T-210 from '94 to '04 and 2,000+ hrs in it and over 100 trips to Baja on dirt strips. Had the gear doors and NEVER had a problem with them. Yes, the tires are not tundra tires but I would gladly land anywhere a Bonanza would. At 63 yrs old, I do not like crawling across a wing to get in. I also like some shade on me when the sun is boiling hot. I also like to look down at the ground while cruising.

As far as speed is concerned, I flight planned for 170-175 kts. Virtually every Bonanza owner I know flies at higher mp settings than I did and usually put cylinders on early in the game. The double doors on the B-kraft are a plus, however, the envelope that I can load a 210 with anything that will fit in it would be virtually impossible with a B-kraft due to cg concerns.

For my wallet, I can't imagine a better cross country plane. I would still have one IF some f---g thief hadn't wanted it worse than I did while in Baja. When my float flying is done, if I still have any money left, I would buy another T-210 in a hear beat. I miss my turbo and O2. Ford

I wasn't comparing the turbo models, different animal. I have the S35 with an IO-520. I get 175 kts at 75%. I do not have the large baggage doors, that would be nice. I get plenty of shade from either side of the V tail. As for CG it's a bad rap really. I have 250 pounds more useful than the 182 I used to have. We are a family of four, two teenagers, and can fill the tanks(84 gallons, all usable), add 75 pounds of crap in the back, fly for four hours, have 28 gallons remaining after cruising at 75% and still be within CG. Fours hours is too long anyways. The A36's with the double doors have no CG concerns that anybody else doesn't have.

Two great airplanes:

The Silver Eagle, a Cessna P210 with a Rolls-Royce turbine. I've flown in one of these to Moose Creek.

The Epic LT. I want one. Saw several at Oshkosh. Nice machines.

375HandH

Though to beat a T-210 Centurion for general utility and they go off road just fine.

Question to Bonanzaman. Did you mean to say that the Barron has the same gear as the B35 since the 35 was first in production.

All the different models that are mentioned here have the good, bad and ugly built into each and every one. For me my favorite plane is the one that I am currently flying and that may change tonight.

I am real keen on T210's. I owned a '79 N model. The empty weight was 2500#'s, the gross on N models is 4000#, with full fuel you still have nearly 1000#'s payload. Mine had an intercooler, otherwise it was stock. I flew top of the green @2350, this was typically 200 KTAS at 10-12K'. I flew mine from Fort Worth to Kotzebue in 2001, I went up the highway going and came home through the trench. Each leg was nearly the same time, about 23 hours each way. I think I averaged something around 170 knots for the entire trip. It burned around 15-16 GPH at these power settings. The engine had 300 SMOH when I purchased the plane, I sold it with 1200 and never had any trouble at all. The cylinders were factory new steel when I got it.

I also flew mine to Baja quite a few times. Hotel Serenidad strip and Punta San Fransquito were just fine as were some others that I cannot recall. I flew it to McGehee's Catfish Restaurant and Gaston's Resort. Not exactly back country strips but no pavement either.

It does not fly like a 206 though. The wing is completely different, much slimmer airfoil, much less planform too. The balance is probably better when flown solo or with one in the Co-seat. I have flown numerous 206's from real old to real new, they are very nose heavy with just a Pilot and maybe a Co-. A 210 will spoil you in a hurry if you want the wheels to fold up. The inside width of the cockpit is probably the widest out there. In a Beach or Piper most men will have a shoulder against the door and touching shoulders in the middle. The 206 and 210 will rarely find this happening.

Another thing, check out how many Beach singles advertise xxsince top overhaul!! There are a lot of nice Bo's around here and rarely do I hear of them getting anything close to TBO out of a set of cylinders. This is not the case with 210's, if Turboed, add the intercooler and expect TBO if the throttle is handled properly.

Didn't mean to start a debate over 210s and Bonanzas, but I find it interesting though.

As far as affording a 210, I would be in the mid to late 60s models or early 70s. Getting into the mid 70s and up gets out of my price range.

Something like this maybe,
http://www.howardaircraft.com/N3393S-specs.htm

Seems doable, but as everything else I've worked on I'll look for a year and compare performance, ADs, maintenance issues, plus and minus of different models. Turbo models will probably be out of my price range too, but you never can tell. Might find the cheating spouse "AIDS" aviation induced divorce syndrome candidate with a turbo 210 with 2500 hours with 100 smoh for $50K

Anyway keep up the chat. I keep looking for a ride in a 210 just to see how she feels. Hey my AME flys a 210. I'll bug him.

See ya, Bub

375handh wrote:Two great airplanes:

The Silver Eagle, a Cessna P210 with a Rolls-Royce turbine. I've flown in one of these to Moose Creek.

The Epic LT. I want one. Saw several at Oshkosh. Nice machines.

375HandH

How did the Silver Eagle fly? My father happens to be looking at both the Eagle and the Epic. The epic just has two many question marks in its future so the turbine 210 is at the top of his list.

Usually these kind of comparisons are a Ford or Chevrolet kind of thing. Actually, I thought it started out as a C-210 discussion, but anytime you start either a Bonanza or 210 discussion it turns into a comparison.
Really they are more different than alike. Any Cessna is more at home off airport than any Beechcraft, Just like any Beechcraft is considered to be more refined and luxurious. Now that's my opinion, whatever it's worth. I wouldn't take either one of them where I take my Maule.
The 210 that I fly has flint tanks, it carries 120 gallons which gives it 8 hours endurance and 1200 NM legs. With 4 adults, full fuel and luggage it climbs like a 152 and is a real ground loving airplane. It has a tall instrument panel that is hard to see over, but you can put enormous amounts of avionics in it, the panel is huge. You can't appreciate a 210 unless you are flying long cross country in hard IFR. That's what it's made for, and that is what it does better than it does anything else. I have flown it from south Georgia to northern Wisconsin at the same time a Colemill conversion B55 left on the same route. The B55 Colemill is a 200 kt. airplane, but I got there first because he had to stop and I had the legs to do it without stopping.
Some will tell you that's a stupid amount of fuel, but these are IFR machines and it's nice to have a bunch of fuel when you get to where you are going and it's 100&1/4.
I don't think either one can be considered back country airplanes.

Good to wake up to a discussion about 210's and Bonanzas. To imply that you can get shade from a V-tail is like saying you can get shade by crawling under a fuselage, give me a high wing. Also, Cessna owners appreciate low wing owners "mowing" the grass with their wings.

A Bonanza generally has a nicer interior than a Cessna, remember the Doctor Killer label. Cessna had a bit more of a utilitarian role for their planes,h owever, if you compare parts replacement costs, Cessna wins hands down.

I put an 18 gal aux fuel tank in my 210 and it was the best mod I did. It enabled me to clear customs in Mexicali, and fly to southern Baja and return to La Paz or Loreto before fueling. I could also fuel in La Paz and make it to Calexico without fueling. Notice I am saying "without fueliing", not without stopping.

A buddy of mine owned a '78 T-210 and was asked to fly his friend's A36 while the owner was out of the country on extented business trips. He absolutely hated the A-36 compared to the 210, lack of rudder trim as an example.

For my final argument, just look around non paved strips and notice what others are flying. There is a reason for this. I do agree that to be flying anything is better than nothing, even a Beeeechkraft. Ford

N18NV wrote:Though to beat a T-210 Centurion for general utility and they go off road just fine.

Question to Bonanzaman. Did you mean to say that the Barron has the same gear as the B35 since the 35 was first in production.

Beech changed the gear on the Bonanzas from time to time, usually as the weight went up. The first Bo started out with 165 HP and a wooden prop, very light airplane. It's now in the Bonanza/Baron museum in Kansas, I believe it was also at OSH this year. My year Bonanza(64) was the first year of stronger gear than the previous year. It was the same gear that was also used on the Baron, which weighs 1700-2000 pounds more.

Cold Duck wrote:I am real keen on T210's. I owned a '79 N model. The empty weight was 2500#'s,

Ouch, that's terrible. The turbo is probably a little heavier than the non-turbo. Any idea what those weighed empty? My Bo is 1985.

Skylane-

If memory serves me correctly the 210 began production in late 1960 and was basically an RG 182 with an IO-470 (260hp) and a "chin" on the nose gear doors. In '64 the engine was changed to an IO-520 (285hp) along with the addition of 3rd row folding "kiddie" seats. In '67 the strutted wing was replaced with the cantilever wing, in '68 the hydraulic flaps were replaced with electric, and in '69 the "chin" was removed from the nose gear doors.

1970 showed some of the most notable changes: the gear was changed from spring steel to tubular steel giving the gear a wider stance thus allowing the gear buckets to be further aft which allows for 3rd row "full" seats. The gross weight was increased by 400lbs and the engine was upgraded to the IO-520-L (300hp). I cannot remember for sure when the final wing change was made but I want to say it was in '72 when they took some of the dihedral out of the wing to make it faster, but it sacrificed some of the ground roll. Other changes were made throughout the lifespan of the aircraft, but these are some of the most notable. It is hard to compare apples to apples on different year models of the 210 for this reason.

We had a '69 Cessna 210 and I would not trade it for any other 6 place piston single on the market (except for an newer model or maybe a T-210) when it comes to long cross country or hard IFR. The 210 is rock steady and handles very well even in rough conditions and you will be hard pressed to load any others the same way and get it off the ground without the controls feeling a little mushy. I have a few hundred hours in the 210 including a '62, '64, '69, and '72 model. I only about 10 or so in an A-36 but that was all I needed to know. Apples to apples a 210 will out run, out haul, and out range a Bonanza on any given day. They are cheaper to maintain, easier to fly, and they don't wag their tail all over the sky like the Bonanza.

The Bonanza does have it's place in aviation, they are the stereotypical status symbol for the more "well to do" and Beech continues to market it's aircraft in that way. It has 6 seats in a club seating arrangement as well as a "business desk" for those who actually work in the back while flying and it always has the highest quality interior that can be installed in an aircraft. You must be careful in the Beech products as it is very easy to get AFT of CC long before you reach MGTOW

If you are looking for an airplane that is ready to work hard and go fast then you are looking for the 210, but if you want luxury and status then you are looking for the Bonanza.

Just my .02 worth.

oops...sorry so large fellows...I will try to edit those pics and make them smaller..

There...that is much better.

Renegade:

The Silver Eagle conversion of the Cessna P-210 is a truly great airplane. Of course it should be for $1MM. That is a lot of money - more than I want to spend - but I am unaware of any certified aircraft that will do what the Silver Eagle will do for anywhere near that money. The entire aircraft is for all intents and purposes new. You get a glass panel and a completely reliable turbine engine. It climbs and descends like no one's business. Much easier to fly and manage than a piston. It can land very short since you can put the prop into beta. With 500+ horses it takes off quick also. [You gotta watch the engine start on grass strips, though, what with the turbine stacks pointing straight down; forget where I learned that ].

Good as the Silver Eagle is, you still have to use basic piloting skills. The Silver Eagle I was fortunate enough to be able to use belonged to a business partner of mine. He sold it in 2005 (downsized to a Super Cub) to a competent pilot who got good instruction in the airplane. He promptly crashed it after an elk hunt at the Flying B Ranch near Salmon, Idaho, killing himself and his passenger.

375HandH