Comparison Chart? turbo saratoga--beech B36tc---cessna turbo 210

imwithtuxedo

imwithtuxedo

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
165
Location
OKC
Display Name
Display name:
J
Has anyone seen or have a chart handy that shows the relative speeds, fuel burn, and TBO of turbo saratoga's--beech B36tc (or A36tc/tn)--- and the cessna turbo 210? If the wheel has already been created, I'd prefer not to duplicate the effort.
 
imwithtuxedo said:
Has anyone seen or have a chart handy that shows the relative speeds, fuel burn, and TBO of turbo saratoga's--beech B36tc (or A36tc/tn)--- and the cessna turbo 210? If the wheel has already been created, I'd prefer not to duplicate the effort.
Click to expand...

If only it was as easy as comparing numbers to make a decision.

There’s more that goes into this one, imo.
 
what anyone writes here doesnt really matter - you probably need to go fly/ride in them to see. The Beech one is the "sturdiest" feeling of the 3. The saratoga is a club seat arrangement while the 210 is all seats facing forward. The T210 is probably the fastest of them, but only by a little bit. Maintenance wise it probably isnt too fair to compare as two are still in production while one hasnt been produced since 1986 - so acquisition costs will factor in there.
 
Like others have said, the T210 will usually beat the A36TC/B36TC by a few knots. The Piper is significantly slower. The Beech most agree handles the best and has the better build quality. I went with the T210 because it has the best useful load and will fit in my 40' hangar. The B36 has the Barron wing and is too big.
 
Rgbeard said:
If only it was as easy as comparing numbers to make a decision.

There’s more that goes into this one, imo.
Click to expand...

Comparison of numbers is how we usually make airplane decisions. Have a family of 6, you can't buy a Cirrus SR-22. Only you and the wife but have a 700-800nm flight you regularly do but want to do it without stops, then the early Comanche 250's with 60 gallons of fuel won't satisfy the mission.

Anthem said:
what anyone writes here doesnt really matter - you probably need to go fly/ride in them to see. The Beech one is the "sturdiest" feeling of the 3. The saratoga is a club seat arrangement while the 210 is all seats facing forward. The T210 is probably the fastest of them, but only by a little bit. Maintenance wise it probably isnt too fair to compare as two are still in production while one hasnt been produced since 1986 - so acquisition costs will factor in there.
Click to expand...

I have seen and flown in all of the models I was inquiring about. The Beech B36TC was by far the best handling and flying aircraft.

camorton said:
Like others have said, the T210 will usually beat the A36TC/B36TC by a few knots. The Piper is significantly slower. The Beech most agree handles the best and has the better build quality. I went with the T210 because it has the best useful load and will fit in my 40' hangar. The B36 has the Barron wing and is too big.
Click to expand...

Is the T210 able to fly without the rear bench seat (or a single middle row seat) with an updated W&B like you can do with the Lance/Saratoga models? If so, that would be ideal.
 
imwithtuxedo said:
Is the T210 able to fly without the rear bench seat (or a single middle row seat) with an updated W&B like you can do with the Lance/Saratoga models? If so, that would be ideal.
Click to expand...

You can remove the back bench or the middle row. If you want to generate a new W&B for it, you can. I dont have the T210 but did fly the P210 for several years (much more limited in space than a T), but we never flew without the middle seat OUT. The back bench is smaller and lower, and essentially only a good fit for small kids (or adults). But eventhough everyone says if it fits, it flies - I would classify the 210 as more of a 4 with some overflow plane and not a full 6 place plane. If you need/want to regular get to 6, you're going to have to move to a twin (or a SETP)
 
Another popular option is to remove just one of the middle row seats. Makes it way easier to access the back row and luggage area especially in flight. Also, some insurance companies will give you a break on the premium if you opt to remove one row of seats. I guess there's significantly less liability exposure for a 4-seater.
 
imwithtuxedo said:
Comparison of numbers is how we usually make airplane decisions. Have a family of 6, you can't buy a Cirrus SR-22. Only you and the wife but have a 700-800nm flight you regularly do but want to do it without stops, then the early Comanche 250's with 60 gallons of fuel won't satisfy the mission.



I have seen and flown in all of the models I was inquiring about. The Beech B36TC was by far the best handling and flying aircraft.



Is the T210 able to fly without the rear bench seat (or a single middle row seat) with an updated W&B like you can do with the Lance/Saratoga models? If so, that would be ideal.
Click to expand...
I am simply stating that a comparison of numbers, while meaningful and measurable is a substantial part of the equation, but not the whole answer.

You don’t see Cessna loading an upright piano in a 210.

Loading a semi-ambulatory person in a PA-32 gives you a new appreciation for the rear door, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top