C210 general flying procedures
Hey everyone,
I'm doing some C210 flying and need some advice. I've heard the 210 is a rather slippery aircraft - just wanting to know some tips and tricks with regards to flying the 210. Also a specific question, when joining for midfield X-wind at a remote aerodrome/base/downwind, when should I aim to have the landing gear down/begin descent etc?
Thanks in advance!
I'm doing some C210 flying and need some advice. I've heard the 210 is a rather slippery aircraft - just wanting to know some tips and tricks with regards to flying the 210. Also a specific question, when joining for midfield X-wind at a remote aerodrome/base/downwind, when should I aim to have the landing gear down/begin descent etc?
Thanks in advance!
Eg midfield crosswind join: descend early enough to have a brief level segment at circuit height to bleed off speed, joining midfield reduce power to 21" or so, one stage of flaps. Gear down abeam the threshold, power back to 15-17", flaps 20, descend on base, prop full fine, full flap on final unless very gusty, dummy checks. It's very easy to bust flap speeds on the L so watch your ASI. Fly your approach speeds accurately as you'll float if too fast and stop like a rock if too slow. You might need to fly a wider circuit than you're used to due to the speed.
Trim properly too. You have rudder trim, so you use it.
Also review your emergency procedures well. Expect to experience an alternator failure, a gear system failure, or both at some point.
The following users liked this post:
Tell me though is the Cherokee 6 anything like a C210? Or is it chalk and cheese? I am so intrigued now!!!
The following users liked this post:
For example in cherokees, I get people turning off the electric fuel pump at 300' after take off "Because my instructor told me to". POH states "When reaching the desired cruising level the electric fuel pump may be turned off". Why would you turn off the redundancy system at the most critical time for a failure of the engine fuel pump??? BEcause it has been drummed into them by someone who has never read the POH.
In these days when POHs are readily available online there is absolutely no excuse for someone to be "clueless" when going into a new aircraft type.
I agree with that, 30 years ago you'd have the Australian Flight manual on board with some torn pages from the AOM/POH scattered around, probably covered in mold and water damage. You had to buy your own copies if you wanted to have a POH copy that's readable. Now it's mandatory for it to be in the aircraft, so there's no real excuse not to read it.
The following users liked this post:
What is interesting about this thread is that the OP has done, I assume, some sort of endorsement and the instructor has not passed on any worthwhile information about how to fly the 210. Is the system that broken that young CPL's are just pointed towards the plane and told go fly? Maybe I was just spoiled that when I was on that step of the ladder, there were sufficiently experienced pilots in GA who could pass on those nuggets of golden information.
We always had the candidate do an engineering paper, as we called it, before someone moved onto a new type. It was designed so that they looked up key information, limitations, did some p-charts and load sheets, all before jumping in for an hour or two to make sure they could handle it. It forced the pilots to at least seek out the library copy of the POH/AFM and look through it, then the instructor would go through it with them and correct any errors. And it wasn't multiple choice, so they had to write out answers, which was much easier to see if they understood what they were reading.
The following 3 users liked this post by 43Inches:
We always had the candidate do an engineering paper, as we called it, before someone moved onto a new type. It was designed so that they looked up key information, limitations, did some p-charts and load sheets, all before jumping in for an hour or two to make sure they could handle it. It forced the pilots to at least seek out the library copy of the POH/AFM and look through it, then the instructor would go through it with them and correct any errors. And it wasn't multiple choice, so they had to write out answers, which was much easier to see if they understood what they were reading.
True that a lot of the myths and legends, including the "never fly over square" nonsense were from the days of the reinvented wheel AFMs which contained almost no actual information from Mr Piper, Cessna, Beech or Lycoming on how to operate the aircraft. Coming from overseas where we used the POH as a bible, to be told "Oh no we have a . better system here" and seeing what was used as an alternative was extraordinary! But there are still some remnants from those days, eg the so-called "Cessna performance chart" with the little boxes that offers no gross error checking, and is still in the PPL exam and text books, even though Cessnas use numerical tables is one example. It really is high time someone fixed the PPL exams and divided it into three or four separate exams. That's another rant for another day!
The following 4 users liked this post by Clare Prop:
Most CPL fresh ticket holders have not flown much outside of a 172 or Diamond. I am fairly sure under the current regs one needs to do a flight test in a CSU prop also, so perhaps they might have a few hours in a 182. Essentially they haven’t experienced much in the way of a heavier 6 cylinder.
Your second part of that comment is quite disturbing. That is another gripe some owners have, trying to find people that are competent in steam gauges, but multiple types. You walk in the door with 100 hours on a 182 or 200 series with steam gauges only, well you are likely going to get an interview. Buzzing around in a Diamond to 172RG around Melbourne or Sydney, is just like the other 200 resumes that landed on the desk.
The following 2 users liked this post by nomess:
many who have got their CPL in the C172RG and find the C182 to be a bit of a handful to fly at first
The 182 VH-RHL was my first constant speed endorsement as a private pilot in 1965, coming from the 172, my previous mount, the 182 was just a 172 with an extra knob, oh, and cowl flaps.
Some people can just go from one type to another with no issues and whilst the 182 is very simple and easy to fly, it does handle more like a 206 than a 172. I'd argue that the 172RG is the 172 with an extra knob and the 182 is a 206 with one less row.
Last edited by mikewil; 18th Feb 2024 at 06:21. Reason: spelling
I’ve scared the sh*t out of myself in new types a few times so appreciate where this question comes from.
😳 30 years ago we had no ‘social media’ to rely on to ask questions, we asked our peers, expected training, however a lot of times we were just thrown the keys and we survived.
I guess the point of my comments are, enjoy the C210, don’t over complicate things it’s an aircraft. Where I used to work the C210 was the entry level (just like now), it was a check flight some ICUS and off ya go, we never lost anyone. Pity same can’t be said for some still current C210 operators.
Yes treat it with respect, but above all try to stay within your limits.
My guess is the biggest struggle you are going to find ain’t gunna be the might C210, more likely the owners of said beast!
😳 30 years ago we had no ‘social media’ to rely on to ask questions, we asked our peers, expected training, however a lot of times we were just thrown the keys and we survived.
I guess the point of my comments are, enjoy the C210, don’t over complicate things it’s an aircraft. Where I used to work the C210 was the entry level (just like now), it was a check flight some ICUS and off ya go, we never lost anyone. Pity same can’t be said for some still current C210 operators.
Yes treat it with respect, but above all try to stay within your limits.
My guess is the biggest struggle you are going to find ain’t gunna be the might C210, more likely the owners of said beast!
The following 2 users liked this post by Global Aviator:
