Cessna 210 or not. I need six seats
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like the A36 but I have been very spooked about weight and balance stories
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)
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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
