Cessna 210 or not. I need six seats

[stuartforrest]

Has anyone got any experience of a Cessna 210. I am a very happy 182 owner at the moment but need 6 seats (and would like the extra speed) so I am just about to buy a 1977 C210m Normally aspirated. Has anyone got any advice or experience.

I tried a Bonanza A36 but it felt cramped and from what I have read the weight and balance is a serious problem in those types. The Cessa is more forgiving.

I am going to use it to go from Blackpool to Glasgow and Blackpool to.....well anywhere that I can get an excuse to go.

[54.98N]

If you want a single with good load carrying capability then the 210 is your best bet. I'm assuming you've checked your mission requirements and dont need to go zipping over the alps too regularly (i.e. T or P versions).

One thing to ask yourself how often you will require all 6 seats. If it's not too often, maybe keeping your 182 and renting a six seater occasionally might be more economically sensible (although who said sensible and GA ever went hand in hand!).

Regards,

[Flyin'Dutch']

I have no experience with the 210.

Have you considered any of Piper's offerings in this department i.e. Cherokee 6 or Lance/Saratoga.

Both are excellent loadhaulers and have comfortable cabins.

FD

[javelin]

Saratoga, Lance, or Cherokee 6 !

Having flown all of the above and the Cessna 172, 180, 182, 185, 205, 206 and 207, if you want a fast comfy cruiser then go Piper - don't even think about a T tail one, they are true garbage. A basic Cherokee 6 will surprise you, a Lance will astound you, a Sarotoga will amaze you !

Try Guernsey, Biarritz, Guernsey with 4 adults, 3 kids, light bags. just under gross, there and back on 1 tank of gas and still had IFR reserves for Southampton.

Try same aircraft, 6 skydivers up to 12,000' and back in 30 minutes - very good indeed !

[Sir George Cayley]

the 210 has an Achillies Heel heretofore never discussed on pPrune!

Fuel.

Look at the accidents that have befallen the UK based 210 fleet. (I include foreign registered ie American) in this

There seems to be a problem with some pilots arriving at destination with sufficient fuel to land safely.

The classic being a certain Barton based chap who ran out of fuel on finals and forced landed in true Magnificent Men tradition in the local sewerage farm.

He actually got away with it unscathered and with a not too badly damaged a/c. Unfortunately the rotating efflugient dispersing boom smote the tail an almighty blow and wrote the poor thing orf.

It seems that several machines have been lost to fuel starvation which is a pity as they are quite tool. Especially the C210P.

What about a C337 push u pull me?

Sir George Cayley

[Flyboy-F33]

What you have heard about weight & balance in the Beech A36 isnt true....the shorter F33 and V35 suffers but not the A36.

The Beech has vastly superior build quality and will go a fair bit faster on lower fuel burn, also the landing gear on Cessna singles (retracts) has a terrible reputation, whereas A36 landing gear is built like the proverbial brick sh*t-house. I'd choose the Beech every time if you can afford it.

[411A]

Just to add,
If you decide on the Cessna 210, be sure to have the landing gear saddles inspected very carefully.
Many have fatigue cracks...expensive to fix.
If they fail, you are on the deck, pronto...ker plonk!

[jbqc]

If you like Cessna a/c, You might find the 206 just as useful and better for short fields

[Johnm]

Cherokee 6 everytime. Lifts more than saratoga so it really is a full six seater with luggage and fuel goes nearly as fast as saratoga and its relatively cheap to maintain.

It's just that I can't find a used one and can't afford a new one.....

[Flyin'Dutch']

If you want to fly 6 up most of the time you would do better getting a Cherokee 6 as they do have the bigger load capacity and book states only 5 or so knots slower.

Some would argue you can not see the folding wheels anyway when you are driving the machine so who cares!

However the Lance with some go faster mods (on the 'N') will do 160KTAS @ 8000ft so that is quite nice.

FD

[owenlars]

Just been to Copenhagen and back from Wycombe in the Cherokee 6 300. 2 adults 4 kids + luggage with 65 gallons in the tank or about 4.75 hours. Round trip used about 120 gallons (or about a full fuel load and a half.) One stop each way at Gronningen. Its the PA32 everytime for me

[locksmith]

I also would look at the accident stats for the C210, the old PA32 / 300, with the welded down wheels would be my choice.

Ken

[stuartforrest]

That goes against just about everything I have read and heard. Is there anyone who has a good word for a 210. Incidentally I would like the A36 but I have been very spooked about weight and balance stories and also the one I tried didnt seem to have a luggage bay other than a tiny little space behind the seats. Where do the 6 people put their luggage. Obviously in a 210 there is plenty of weight and balance to carry my mission and also a hell of a lot of space. This is what I need.

I would like to be 170kts ish.

[TonyR]

I have some time in a couple of 210s and P210s, they are great aircraft and if you are up to speed they are safe.

The accident reports seem to suggest that they have more crashes than most light singles, but most crashes are down to the drivers not being trained properly.

If you move from a 182 you are moving from just over 2 miles per min to 3 miles per min in a 210 and they also require a lot more time to slow down.

If you do buy one go to the states and learn to fly it properly with high time 210 instructors not with your local PA 28 instructor in the UK (no offence meant to our instructors)

R L Collins of Flying mag in the US has had a 210 for over 20 years so read some of his thoughts on the Flyingmag.com site.

Also read this (http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9302.html?PF)

Tony R

[Flyin'Dutch']

I am an avid reader of 'Flying' and am very much a fan of Mr Collins.

The points he raises are

1. That there were some technical issues with these birds when they first came out. These seem to have all been sorted out.

2.The difference in accident stats of the 210 and the 182 is more likely related to the difference in mission profile than inherent problems with the 210.

I have never flown one (would not mind having a go of course) so can not offer advice in that respect.

Have you had a look on this forum (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/index.php) as there are some folks on there that I believe have flown them.

And there is the Cessna pilot association which not only allows you to tap into a font of knowledge but also helpful with technical advice once you have acquired one.

Their website is http://www.cessna.org/

FD

[Tinstaafl]

I love them. C210, I mean. My favourite piston single. My comparison between C210, A36, PA32, PA32R based on having flown these types (albeit some years ago):

C210: High wing is great for shade in the tropics. Also great for shelter while loading/standing around in the rain. Also handy for taxiing through gates.

C210 & PA32 + 32R: Has a baggage compartment! A36 is useless for this apart from what can be stuffed between R1 & R2 if the seats are in club config (hint: make damn sure club is used for CG reasons...). PA32s have the advantage of the nose locker. Great for CG. C210 is has quite broad CG limits.

C210 & A36: 160kts x 60 lph.
PA32: 125kts x 60 lph
PA32R: 145-150kts x 60 lph.

...all approx.

C210 & PA32s: Lots of useable panel space. A36 has an abysmal panel layout until the newer ones with the revise panel. Don't forget the reversed gear/flap switches on the older A36s!

C210: R3 a bit squeezy.
A36: Lacks shoulder room. R3 has your bum damn near on the floor.
PA32: Lots of shoulder room. Possible R2 mid seat option. Bit squeezy but can be workable.

A36 & PA32: Rear door! Very handy, but then the C210 has L & R doors.

C210 & A36: Handling quite nice. C210 feels 'solid' but still has quite reasonable response. A36 feels nicely harnonised. PA32 more 'spongy'. I think there's a bloody aileron/rudder interconnect on the PA32. yech.

C210 & PA32: Good engine access. Cowls completely removable. A36: Not as good access to the engine due stressed chin skin design.

A36 & PA32: No ladder needed to dip fuel.

C210: Can open the large door windows.



All the above just my quickly scrawled thoughts.

[Flyin'Dutch']

T,

No interconnection between aileron and rudder on the PA32 series.

FD

[dirkdj]

Having owned a PA32 (4 years) previously and still owning a BE36 (31 years and 4000 hours) I feel qualified to comment.

The BE36 is one of the nicest handling GA airframes around, first hours after the PA32 were quite a shock in the positive sense. Visibility is unequalled. Parts are expensive but very few are needed. I have not bought a Beech part in the last 5 years that I remember. Weight and balance is not a problem on the BE36, the fuselage was moved forward 10 inches compared to the V35, this solved the aft CG problem if loaded from front to back (put the lightest persons in the rear seats)

Every type has its character, if you want to move 6 full size adults all the time with plenty of luggage, you better get something like a Cessna Caravan. A BE36 should be considered as a sports car rather than a truck like the PA32. The 210 probably fits in between these two but I have never flown a 210.

My BE36 spent most of its life with the last two seats in the hangar, some of the time with the middle seats removed as well. I carried around an enormous amount of equipment up to 6ft 19" racks with electronic equipment, a Clark forklift was needed to load it. The double door in the back really helps.

Try putting your 90 year-old grandmother in the rear seats of the C210.


On a recent trip to Waterford, Ireland, we were six POB, all adults, two of them more than full size males. 210 litres of fuel, LOP operation at 24"/2200 RPM, battling a 45 KT headwind, through a cold front over the south coast of England, landed with more than one hour reserve. Only the overnight luggage was on board, the rest was sent by UPS to the hotel. Worked perfectly.


The BE36 is also one of the most 'extensible' airframes around.

Example: my hangarmate has an identical BE36, end of June he will be installing an IO550 engine to replace his current IO520, adding a turbo-normalizer to give additional altitude and speed range, installing an 110CuFt O2 bottle behind the rear bulkhead, will get approval for gross weight increase from 3600 to 4000lbs making it a full six-seater with almost full fuel. This plane will cruise at about 200kts in the low teens. He will gain 10000ft of operating altitude and more than 30 Kts of speed.

As always, there are several articles in aviationconsumer dot com about six-seaters, comparing the strengths and weaknesses of each. A subsciption is money well spent when looking at major investments.

[Tinstaafl]

Ah. Maybe it's the Seneca I'm remembering? I know there was *something* Piper in that size range I flew that had the interconnect.

[Flyin'Dutch']

T,

Tripacers have this 'luxury' device fitted :yuk:

Not sure of any of the Piper spam cans have.

Some Cessna twins have it (C421) and of course the Ercoupe. If I am reliable informed that was one of the reasons the Ercoupe was not certified in France.

FD

[dirkdj]

The BE36 has rudder/aileron interconnect (with springs); Now that you remind me, it has never bothered me.

What is the problem?

[Flyin'Dutch']

No problem but neither is there with exerting the requisite amount of pressure on the appropriate pedal.

These interconnecting controls are certainly no issue for any of the spam cans (Cirrus has it too I know remember).

But in something like the Tripacers/Ercoupes/Maules that can benefit greatly from sideslipping into a tight spot it can be a nuisance.

I know of no glider (which typically have a lot of adverse yaw) that has this device but glider pilots are obviously a better breed of pilots anyway!

;)

FD

[flyingfemme]

Another vote for the 210 - a most underappreciated aircraft IMHO. Had one two summers ago and liked it a lot. It was a 60s vintage and great value for money.

The 3rd row of seats were fold-down items that wouldn't have been any use for anything but small children. But the fold-down provided a nice luggage area.

A nice, big door each side - easy to get in and out.
Good performance with four lardy adults, bags and fuel.

Just as many 4-seaters are 2+2, so many 6-seaters are 4+2......if you really need to haul 6 grownups and bags that often then you probably need something a bit bigger.

Beechcraft are all lovely but cost a fair bit more than most Piper/Cessna options like-for-like.

[Tinstaafl]

Was it a J or earlier model? The Ks & up had more useable room for R3.

[M14P]

I would like the A36 but I have been very spooked about weight and balance stories

Why listen to stories? The A36 (as previously mentioned has very few real mass/balance issues - the wing is 12" further aft for a start)

I have flown just about every aircraft in this 'class' fairly extensively. The 'straight' 210 is not a bad machine at all but the turbo is less nice (fiddly for very little gain) and I thought that the P210 was an utter hound.

Problem with 'em is that they are Cessnas - rather plasticky and naff in many places, particularly in the build quality. I also think that they are somewhat unrewarding to fly. I personally like the 182 MUCH more than the 210. Just from the running cost point of view it is a far more practical proposition. A look at the current Cessnas in production will reveal the 182 going strong but not a 210 in sight.

For my money (particularly if you are moving from a 182) it's the Beech every time. Those last two seats are a bit 'occasional' but at least you have the option of club seating or forward facing (as the day dictates), you have an aircraft that flies really nicely, that lands sweetly, that goes quickly. You have the option to add/modify/primp or jazz up your Bonanza until you run out of money or ideas thanks to the huge following (Beryl D'Shannon Tip Tanks would be my first addition). You also have a really huge door which is genuinely useful - rather than a hatch for bags or lobbing stuff over the back seats.

You're quite simply mad if you fail to properly consider the Beech. I think that this...

Having owned a PA32 (4 years) previously and still owning a BE36 (31 years and 4000 hours)

...says it all.

Go for a post '84 model (post '89 if poss) and set to it with some tasty mods.

As far as mass/balance goes the main issue is that the fuel is all forwards of the CG so as you fly the CG gently migrates aft. Ergo you should at least check the ZFMCG to establish a max CG range for your flight.

Whatever you get - enjoy it.

[dirkdj]

M14P,

I agree with most of what you say. I would recommend looking at the early 1970'ies A36 as well. There is very little structural difference, they are lighter and the old panel is very nice if you are used to it. My hangarmate has an A36 that is 5 years younger than mine, it is also more than 50 lbs heavier.

Except for the extender rear baggage area the earlier A36 offer exactly the same functionality.

Several shops can now convert your run-out IO-520 (285hp) to a full IO-550 (300hp). This really makes a big difference, much better climb, 4000ft more altitude to play with, better cruise speed for no fuel penalty.

I always compare the Bonanza to a Stradivarius, it has room for expansion of capabilities (of the pilot).

Life is too short to drink bad wine, go for it!

[flyingfemme]

Was it a J or earlier model? The Ks & up had more useable room for R3

It was a G - plain and simple!