hey where you guys going? Fancy having a choice for the ride of the day. if the wx is fine take the Cessna, if the wx is crap take the Bo, hmmm, better make that a double Bo Dr:E ''
yeah '185' the C177 (150 hp) was a disgrace, flew one once down at YPID, thank God the 'flat earth society' are lying otherwise I'd still be trying to get airborne!:E Even the C177rg was a joke, got my retract endors on VH IQQ & was lucky to stay aloft wiht max pwr !

Careful 'Beech' don't let the C185 go to yr head just cause it can land on a dime, you pay for that by way of 'kingswood' quality!:E


F

Have flown a C210 with IO520 back to back with a 550 and there is sod-all difference, apart from a little more 'willingness' at higher altitudes; noticable particularly on taking off from high DALT locales (TWB in this case).

One had a very nice panel.....
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...hotos/C210.jpg

the other had factory aircon and a leather interior.

BUT Chucks 'new' Bonza with the EFD1000 panel is gunna be a real winner IMHO....new IO550, new interior, new panel, new paint....mmmmmmm!!!!

Ahhh....the IO550 in it next time you fly it will be the same IO550 was in it last time you flew it...doubt you'll recognise anything else but:ok:

Garnnn....bring the 185:E

We already got piccies of the drugstore Bo.:}

C177....and there I was thinking I'd flown everything single Clyde had built since 1961 and now realise there is a hole in my experience...that will remain the case, given my druthers:rolleyes:

The 200HP version was o'right. Still not a rocket but all things are relative. :8

Those of us that have been around for a while would know that back in the 70's and 80's there was a lot of emphasis on efficiency. No one would have considered a 4 place aircraft with 300 hp like a Cirrus or a 4 place that burns 24 gph such as a Columbia 400. But now it seems all that has gone out the window, thanks to Cirrus and Columbia.

I often wonder what could be done with some older clean designs if efficiency wasn't a factor.

C210 or Bonanza with a 375 hp GTSIO-520 anyone?

C177RG with a 210 engine perhaps,

Anyone elses imagination running wild?

To put a 'gitso' in a C210 or Bo would be 'adding' to their woe's. The conty in any form is a stressed engine, fancy making it more so! And to think that all that could be in the hands of a low time pvt pilot!:bored:

Remember also it takes a huge amount of extra horsepower to gain a little more outright speed due drag, it's usually the climb etc that benifits more.
The idea of a turbine such as the C20 (Allison) would be perfect but oh the cost!

F

Well assuming money is not the issue and we're not talking about planes for the masses, just for fun.
Personally I think the Gitso is a fine engine as long as you know how to operate it correctly, and lets be honest there's a lot of low time pilots around who have been trained by instructors I wouldn't trust with a Honda Z.
Also was struck this afternoon by the thought of an Aero Commander 500S with a pair of Allisons. Big exhausts out the top of the cowling.
Couple of Nomad engines upside down would do it. That's probably about the size of airframe that SHOULD have had those Nomad engines in the first place.

Nope!

Turbo-normalised IO550 for me!

Dr :8

Beachy

you should slip by here with the long feller and have a beer with me and the chinese airforce.
CC is right ...SKYWAGON..

Shanty
Am planning to do just that, when it cools down a bit up there.

Hopefully we won't get stuck on the reef 25 nm from home this time:uhoh:

Io470-550
 

As regards dry hire it is just not worth it. I have a C185 but most big block Continental Cessnas are about the same to run. I had three goes, the first bloke was good but did not get his AOC for scenic flights, so did not do the hours. The second damaged the elevator while I was overseas and did nothing about having it fixed. The third had the work and was a good PiIot but did want to pay the real cost of using one of these machines. I worked it out at $250 Hr minimum dry rate, and that is subsidising their flying if you count all the fixed costs and allow for refurbishment. Since then I have inhibited the engine while away and have not had any worries at all. Plus the Aircraft remains in as new condition as it was after rebuild. There are very few C210 or Bonanzas in NZ by the way, the country is too small for the extra speed to make much difference. But about 40 185s and 40 or so 180s. Horses for courses and all that.

I will now drift off and point out the best big block Conti- The IO 470. Below is a cut and paste from a mob who convert the 182 to a Stol machine (Peterson 260SE/STOL) with their comments which may be of interest.

2) Range and Endurance Our customers were often times flying into back country areas where fuel was not available, and many more flew in instrument conditions. An unwanted by-product of going to a larger cubic inch engine is higher fuel consumption which in turn reduces the aircraft range and endurance.
We wanted an engine whose fuel consumption at an equal percent of power had about the same fuel consumption as the Skylane’s original engine. The IO-520 or IO-550 at an equal percent of power would have consumed enough additional fuel to reduce the Skylane’s range and endurance by 1.5 hours. This was not acceptable. The IO-470 engine is the same cubic inch engine as the original Skylane engine, but with a much more efficient fuel injection system. Due to this, the fuel consumption at an equal percent of power is the same as the unmodified Skylane. More continuous power with no reduction in range or endurance. An added benefit is a $10,000 savings in fuel costs through TBO over the IO-520 or IO-550.
3) Reliability Due to the conditions our customers flew under, maximum reliability was a very important feature. When looking at the various engines we had to choose from, some facts were obvious. While the IO-520 is not a bad engine, it likewise has not been a great engine either. The IO-550 has had a very poor history. The IO-470, on the other hand, has had an excellent service record since the early 1960’s. Without question, the IO-470 engine is the best, most reliable, big engine manufactured by Continental. End quote.


Full specs are on the Continental website but the 470 has a bore and stroke of 5 and 4 inches respectively. The 520 has ¼ inch more bore and the 550 ¼ inch more stroke as well. The 520 turns at 2850 Max, the 550 2700 and the 470 2650. IO 470 compression is 8.6:1 against 8.5:1 for the others. Turbos are 7.5:1. Given these fairly minor differences it is surprising the changes in fuel consumption and reliability, for what is essentially the same engine. Cannot see how they are stressed at all. They can crack Pots because the factory cranked out some very inferior cylinders over the years. Sadly the 185 is sulking in the hanger as the mighty IO 470 will only run for 20 minutes before backfiring and running rough, chasing up weak valve springs or fuel control issues.

As for a 210 against a Bonanza well a Bo is just a work of art while the 210 is still a Cessna flung together for a price!

Ah, the holden V ford thread is still kicking along.
FTDK........ your pic looks like that airplane was designed by committee........ sort of like a camel....... and as for sexy??????. my god!!! I guess we all have different tastes....... otherwise fat sheila's couoldnt get laid. :E
I reckon your all wrong.......... stick the pistons in your...ear. gimme a van for work flying any day. (ducks for cover)
Oh, where is Mr. Beech's competitor for the van?.

So whats wrong with fat chicks?

What about an early 210 (not sure on the model designation) with the io470 and struted wings.

Sure it's not a true 210, more like a 182rg really, but you will get about 145kts at a reasonable fuel burn and still seat 6 (maybe not 6 adults).

Probably not ideal for charter but if you are only looking to cart the family about and need the seats it may not be a bad comprimise. Purchase cost would be considerably lower than a later model machine which, depending on your finances may negate the need to line hire it.

I have never operated one so I am not claiming any expertise here, but it may be worth researching. Maybe some on here might be in the know.

PW

PS as for SIDS on single cessnas, my local casa engineering guy (who, believe it or not is a most helpful gentleman) has heard not even a whisper about SIDS coming for any cessna singles but he did suggest talking to cessna direct or any of the cessna owners associations

God is this thread still going. Look all intell people that have had anything to do with aviation know that buying/hiring a plane such as the C210 is tantamount to being certifable ! Amazing how a simple dumb question resluted in a zillion responses ! I've said elsewhere here in another thread don't do it, drugs & sex are cheaper ask any AFL player !:E Those guys are the biggest loosers of all time, don't try to out do them by buying a plane !:E !



F

You are right their flyitboy, be an AFL player and do drugs and sex and then get caught you can always sell and tell your story to New Idea or Home Ideas magazine.
But if you are a law abiding citizen and you buy a dodgy C210, even Today Tonight will hard pressed to buy your story.

Early 210
 

The first ones in the early 60's did indeed have struts and used the 182/180/185 Fuse which at that time were all pretty much the same. No idea where they found room to fold up the wheels. Later they used essentially the 205/206 Fuse with struts and only later went to a clean wing and modern Body. But if they only did 145 Kts then only a few knots (if any) more than a good clean 185 without all the expense of fold up wheels. A 182 RG must be faster than that though, I once flew the mighty 172RG and it did 140kts in spite of being a very limited aircraft in all other respects.

The 205 came from the 210, not the other way around as was suggested. When the 205 was intially certified, it was done on the 210 type certificate as the 210-5. In fact the 205 was originally built on the 210 tooling. The 206 was simply a 205 with an IO-520 in place of the IO-470.

The 182RG I fly does 160/161 ktas with 2 POB and 200lts in the tanks. It drops back to 156 ktas with a full load. Fuel flow is 52 lt/hr. I had an oppotunity to fly another RG recently and it wound out to 163 ktas in the cruise with a light load. Some of the above have suggested that 182RG's are good for about 145 kts and not much more. If that's all your getting, your might want to locate and use the gear retract handle.

It was the other way around. 182RG production ran to 2042 units (plus another 170 aircraft from the frogs). 80% of the RG fleet was manufactured in the first three years of production. After that, 182RG sales tapered off dramatically. Over the same period of time Cessna manufactured 2727 210's (not including the P210). The 210 outsold the RG in every year except 1979. Twice as many 210's were rolled out of the factory doors from '81 through '86 than the 182RG. In the last year of production (for both aircraft) for every one RG, there were six 210's. The RG became known as the poor man's 210. For not a lot more money, you could get yourself into a 210 instead of a 182RG and this was certianly reflected in the sales figures.
But, if your in the market for a true 4 seat retracable nothing else can touch them.

GB - you either have your hands on a particularly quick one, or you take a big stick to it.

The C182RGs I have flown (4 ?) were honest 155 kt machines!

Dr :8

Well I've put the covers on the V-tail, updated my will, kissed the Mrs, and patted the little Forks on the head!

Tomorrow's the day I put the spurs to the IO550 C210!

Either I'll post a report or you'll read about it on the news.

Dr :cool: