Is a C210 a dangerous plane?
Is a C210 a dangerous plane?
Doing some research into getting type familiar on the C210 and I'm seeing that there have been a few crashes caused by an in-flight breakup (wings broken off???) in the C210 of late?
Is it something to do with the design of the wing and lack of struts? I don't see C172's breaking up in flight!
Also, why do people say that if you can fly a C206, you can fly a C210? I thought the latter was more complex (and faster?)
https://www.google.com/search?q=c210...hrome&ie=UTF-8
Is it something to do with the design of the wing and lack of struts? I don't see C172's breaking up in flight!
Also, why do people say that if you can fly a C206, you can fly a C210? I thought the latter was more complex (and faster?)
https://www.google.com/search?q=c210...hrome&ie=UTF-8
Top Answer
23rd Jan 2024, 01:44
No but it demands respect (sure as do most aircraft).
At ten hours on type I thought I was getting the hang of it.
At 100 hours I looked back at how poorly I flew at 10 hours.
At 500 hours on type I looked back at how much more comfortable and precise in my flying than I was than with 100 hours on type.
After 1000 hours in type, I progressed to twins. (such was the progression then). Soon after, I had to fill in for a day on the 210.
That’s when it bit me. . Fortunately nothing more than a bruised ego, a good amount of extra heart beats and a lesson very well learned the hard way.
At ten hours on type I thought I was getting the hang of it.
At 100 hours I looked back at how poorly I flew at 10 hours.
At 500 hours on type I looked back at how much more comfortable and precise in my flying than I was than with 100 hours on type.
After 1000 hours in type, I progressed to twins. (such was the progression then). Soon after, I had to fill in for a day on the 210.
That’s when it bit me. . Fortunately nothing more than a bruised ego, a good amount of extra heart beats and a lesson very well learned the hard way.
There has been a heap written on this subject before and I'm sure you're going to get some great answers here too but I would preface by comparing it's overall accident rate to other aircraft.
Also consider the nature of the hours flown by this particular workhorse machine. 4 different 210s I flew have been destroyed...none of them happened because it was a 210.
(It has one of the strongest wings but ADs need to be carried out to ensure it stays that way)
Also consider the nature of the hours flown by this particular workhorse machine. 4 different 210s I flew have been destroyed...none of them happened because it was a 210.
(It has one of the strongest wings but ADs need to be carried out to ensure it stays that way)
No but it demands respect (sure as do most aircraft).
At ten hours on type I thought I was getting the hang of it.
At 100 hours I looked back at how poorly I flew at 10 hours.
At 500 hours on type I looked back at how much more comfortable and precise in my flying than I was than with 100 hours on type.
After 1000 hours in type, I progressed to twins. (such was the progression then). Soon after, I had to fill in for a day on the 210.
That’s when it bit me. . Fortunately nothing more than a bruised ego, a good amount of extra heart beats and a lesson very well learned the hard way.
At ten hours on type I thought I was getting the hang of it.
At 100 hours I looked back at how poorly I flew at 10 hours.
At 500 hours on type I looked back at how much more comfortable and precise in my flying than I was than with 100 hours on type.
After 1000 hours in type, I progressed to twins. (such was the progression then). Soon after, I had to fill in for a day on the 210.
That’s when it bit me. . Fortunately nothing more than a bruised ego, a good amount of extra heart beats and a lesson very well learned the hard way.
The following 11 users liked this post by compressor stall:
Engine handling the 210 & 206 are the same. Speeds and general handling they are not the same.
210 wing failure - Yes one crashed here which started a lot of world wide checking requirements. For the good.
Wings fall off any plane if handled incorrectly.
I have done 1200 odd hours in mine and consider it far from dangerous.Might be biased but what can do what a 210 does for similar $$?
210 wing failure - Yes one crashed here which started a lot of world wide checking requirements. For the good.
Wings fall off any plane if handled incorrectly.
I have done 1200 odd hours in mine and consider it far from dangerous.Might be biased but what can do what a 210 does for similar $$?
The following users liked this post:
The following 3 users liked this post by Capt Fathom:
short flights long nights
I have about 900 hours on the 210..( just checked the logbook…857.25). They are a great aircraft….but need to be flown as designed. Speeds need to be respected…..but I always thought it was a lovely aircraft.
From the 'Snag Book' of a certain VH-***, which I flew ex KAL a 'few' times,
'Windscreen creaks on descent - frightens passengers...
F****ing TERRIFIES Pilot!' (To those who knew him, a rather English Gentleman.)
Windscreen eventually replaced.
Watch the IAS / Manoeuvring speed.......
'Windscreen creaks on descent - frightens passengers...
F****ing TERRIFIES Pilot!' (To those who knew him, a rather English Gentleman.)
Windscreen eventually replaced.
Watch the IAS / Manoeuvring speed.......
I was flying already weary C210s in the mid 70s. 50 years later they’re still tooling around (mainly) desert Australia with its strong thermals and subsequent heavy turbulence.
I’ll bet Mr. Cessna never designed the C210 to have so many hours and cycles put on it.
To answer the question… the C210 type is no more or less dangerous than any of its peers. However, certain, examples maybe because of too many airframe hours, poor maintenance and pilot abuse.
I’ll bet Mr. Cessna never designed the C210 to have so many hours and cycles put on it.
To answer the question… the C210 type is no more or less dangerous than any of its peers. However, certain, examples maybe because of too many airframe hours, poor maintenance and pilot abuse.
The following users liked this post:
Very forgiving if you forget to dangle the Dunlops!
Jack her up, wheels down, new prop and off ya go.
Great aircraft, one of the toughest assignments I’ve seen a 210 on was the ole Air North paper run, every night 365 days a year.
Jack her up, wheels down, new prop and off ya go.
Great aircraft, one of the toughest assignments I’ve seen a 210 on was the ole Air North paper run, every night 365 days a year.
Any aircraft can kill you (or at the very least, embarrass you) if handled incorrectly.
things specifically to watch for on a 210:
turbulence penetration speed - do not exceed in any sort of turbulence.
forgetting to dangle the dunlops.
speeds not under control in the circuit, resulting in landing too fast and braking too hard after landing (big brakes, little tyres, very easy to blow out a main tyre or two on landing).
Remember, as aircraft age, it might not be you who is doing the incorrect handling but you might very well be the PIC who is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
However, careful pilot handling and consistently good maintenance means the well cared for 210 is a joy to fly.
(got a couple thousand hours in 210s).
to the poster who said that only the prop needs to be replaced after a prop strike - be aware the engine needs to be bulk stripped after any sort of prop strike to ensure no internal damage.
things specifically to watch for on a 210:
turbulence penetration speed - do not exceed in any sort of turbulence.
forgetting to dangle the dunlops.
speeds not under control in the circuit, resulting in landing too fast and braking too hard after landing (big brakes, little tyres, very easy to blow out a main tyre or two on landing).
Remember, as aircraft age, it might not be you who is doing the incorrect handling but you might very well be the PIC who is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
However, careful pilot handling and consistently good maintenance means the well cared for 210 is a joy to fly.
(got a couple thousand hours in 210s).
to the poster who said that only the prop needs to be replaced after a prop strike - be aware the engine needs to be bulk stripped after any sort of prop strike to ensure no internal damage.
Any aircraft can kill you (or at the very least, embarrass you) if handled incorrectly.
to the poster who said that only the prop needs to be replaced after a prop strike - be aware the engine needs to be bulk stripped after any sort of prop strike to ensure no internal damage.
to the poster who said that only the prop needs to be replaced after a prop strike - be aware the engine needs to be bulk stripped after any sort of prop strike to ensure no internal damage.
I have seen similar with other aircraft types, 1 flight back to base with new prop, engine then inspected. Similar, 20+ years ago.
The following users liked this post:
Also do not forget modified aircraft have been in the "clap group" crashes. I have seen a number of crashed for various reasons C210 including controlled flight into terrain & hitting power pole on forced landing - the old wings are still very strong.
The C210 is a fairly high performance aircraft but being single engined it's something that new CPLs get onto early in their career so inexperience may be a factor. A bit like a "P" plate licence holder driving a V8. The landing gear system isn't the best design and there are numerous issues with it. IIRC the C210 is on BHPs avoid list for charters.
The C206 is a tradie's ute and the C210 is an HSV Commodore, whilst you can drive both on the same licence you need to know the differences.
The C206 is a tradie's ute and the C210 is an HSV Commodore, whilst you can drive both on the same licence you need to know the differences.
The following 2 users liked this post by krismiler:
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,971
Received 97 Likes
on
56 Posts
Perhaps the Mods could consider merging this thread with the C210 vs C206.
The C210 is a fairly high performance aircraft but being single engined it's something that new CPLs get onto early in their career so inexperience may be a factor. A bit like a "P" plate licence holder driving a V8. The landing gear system isn't the best design and there are numerous issues with it. IIRC the C210 is on BHPs avoid list for charters.
The following 2 users liked this post by Capt Fathom:
I’ve flown both and know the difference, they were the first two types I flew when I got my CPL, give me a C206 over a C210 for bush work any day. As these are aircraft that are likely to be flown in commercial operations by those at the lower end of the experience spectrum, this may be reflected in the accident rate. Also they are very common types so they are likely to feature more often in accidents and incidents.
Both are decent aircraft and should present no problem if correctly maintained and operated. However, being typical first job aircraft they are the ones new CPL holders are learning from their mistakes on.
Both are decent aircraft and should present no problem if correctly maintained and operated. However, being typical first job aircraft they are the ones new CPL holders are learning from their mistakes on.
I did the Private Pilot Training for the son of a friend of mine. As soon as he was licensed I trained him to fly his fathers 210. Not a big deal, with training mostly concentrated on engine handling and staying ahead of the airplane due to its greater speed.
Insurance company wanted 10 hours of dual but I would have been happy to kick him out of the nest after 5. The 210 isn’t the space shuttle, it’s a Cessna and flies like all the other Cessna SEP’s
Insurance company wanted 10 hours of dual but I would have been happy to kick him out of the nest after 5. The 210 isn’t the space shuttle, it’s a Cessna and flies like all the other Cessna SEP’s
The following 2 users liked this post by Big Pistons Forever:
I lost a friend and colleague in his 210 west of Darwin several years back. He got overtaken by a storm and apparently discovered too late that turbulence penetration speed is definitely an issue.