1966 Cessna 210 5th/6th Seats

jheyen

jheyen

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
89
Location
Springfield, IL
Display Name
Display name:
heyen
Went to look at a nice 210 tonight exploring the option of purchasing. My question pertains to the usability of the 5th/6th seats in this plane. Does anyone have any pictures of someone (I'd imagine only small adults or children could fit back there) sitting in the back of the 1960's era 210's? Or does anyone know of a 210 expert that would know?

The middle row could slide but we couldn't seem to get them to slide all the way forward. It looked like we could go another 1.5 inches which would make them plausible, albeit for short flights. The track seemed to stop but there was one more hole for the pin to slide in to.

Just curious as on the way home the boss (wife) kept saying how nice a plane that was.

And with most of our missions really only needing 4 seats, this may be a good trade off if she can see our kids could sit back there. She's requesting the six seats by the way.

I've also read the threads saying just to rent a six seater when necessary but there's not really those options in my area.
 
I don't have much experience with the 210, got time in a 207, 206 and my 185, those miget seats, well you really already know the answer to your own question.

I have a nice little midget seat, even have a headset Jack, but I don't use it for anything other than a duffle bag with some survival stuff in it.
 
According to the John Frank "Purchasing a 210" guide, the 5/6 the seats are usable for people under 4' 7"
We want a 210 bad but it will take a 74 or newer to get the larger size seats.
Trying to justify the larger plane but in negotiations for a 79 182RG. For our realistic needs, it will fill the bill 90% of the time.

We did get as far as a pre-buy on a 65 210 but my mechanic found over 10K of airworthiness items in less than an hour. It did have a pretty paint job but the interior was auto and not fire resistant. Foam in the elevators was allowing a lot of corrosion and the list went on and on. 182RG looking at now is a tired paint job but low time engine and a good solid avionics package and my mechanic has maintained this aircraft for eleven years.
 
Zeldman said:
Did you try getting into the 5th and 6th seat?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Zeldman said:
Did you try getting into the 5th and 6th seat?
Click to expand...

Yes I had both kids back there but we couldn't get the seats all the way forward. And I didn't want to pull too hard with the owner. It seemed tight but the extra couple inches may have helped.
 
I've actually loaded up a 210 with six adults myself included. It is tight, but doable and I had to go with partial tanks and I had two skinny girls in the rear seats.
 
The early 210 is a great 4 people plus bags aircraft, but suxed as a 6 place.
 
Go find a Cherokee 6-300 see how you like them.
 
The third-row seats in the 1964-69 210s (210D-210J) were merely padded cutouts in the wheel well housing. The brochures candidly referred to them as "children's seats":

IMG_0968.JPG

The landing gear was redesigned for the 1970 210K, resulting in the wheel wells being moved further aft, allowing larger (but hardly full-size) seats in the third row.
 
Pilawt said:
The third-row seats in the 1964-69 210s (210D-210J) were merely padded cutouts in the wheel well housing. The brochures candidly referred to them as "children's seats":

View attachment 49558

The landing gear was redesigned for the 1970 210K, resulting in the wheel wells being moved further aft, allowing larger (but hardly full-size) seats in the third row.
Click to expand...
The lack of ashtrays was a dead giveaway that it was intended for small children.
 
Brad Z said:
The lack of ashtrays was a dead giveaway that it was intended for small children.
Click to expand...
I was going to say that the picture must be a fake because children's seats in 1964 would have had ashtrays. At least there aren't any nanny-state seat belts visible!
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
Or get a Cherokee 6-300 and carry 6 adults in comfort.
Click to expand...

We've been in a Cherokee six and my wife likes the interior room. Doesn't like the look of the six from outside. She said she likes the look of the Cessna better and the access into the Cessna better. Makes shopping easier with her narrowing it down like that and you gotta keep momma happy.

Thanks for the pics and looks like it's a 205/206 or post 70's 210.
 
jheyen said:
We've been in a Cherokee six and my wife likes the interior room. Doesn't like the look of the six from outside. She said she likes the look of the Cessna better and the access into the Cessna better. Makes shopping easier with her narrowing it down like that and you gotta keep momma happy.

Thanks for the pics and looks like it's a 205/206 or post 70's 210.
Click to expand...
That's too bad. Of course, everyone has their own taste, but picking something based on what you'll see for a few minutes as you walk up vs what you'll have to sit in for hours at a time is....unique.
 
Necro-revival:

@Pilawt @JCranford et al or others in the know. Looking at widened fuselage -470 powered 210s for my mission, for a multitude of reasons. Basically '62 B and ' 63 C models. Looks like they both came with bench rear seating. Does this bench slide, or is it fixed? I'd love the sliding seats of the D and beyond, but the IO-520 is not my cup of tea. Looking at pictures of several online it looks like the bench is positioned differently in different pictures, but can't tell if it's a function of the bench being reclinable, or does it actually slide aft for more leg room? Lastly, any economic bolt-on STCs for post-D sliding rear seats on these bench models? Thanks!
 
jheyen said:
Went to look at a nice 210 tonight exploring the option of purchasing. My question pertains to the usability of the 5th/6th seats in this plane. Does anyone have any pictures of someone (I'd imagine only small adults or children could fit back there) sitting in the back of the 1960's era 210's? Or does anyone know of a 210 expert that would know?

The middle row could slide but we couldn't seem to get them to slide all the way forward. It looked like we could go another 1.5 inches which would make them plausible, albeit for short flights. The track seemed to stop but there was one more hole for the pin to slide in to.

Just curious as on the way home the boss (wife) kept saying how nice a plane that was.

And with most of our missions really only needing 4 seats, this may be a good trade off if she can see our kids could sit back there. She's requesting the six seats by the way.

I've also read the threads saying just to rent a six seater when necessary but there's not really those options in my area.
Click to expand...
I have experience in a 63 (C model), a 1970 (K) and a 1973 with over 100 hours in each. I love 210’s. The pre 70 models are great 4 place airplanes. Maybe you could put a couple of 10 year olds in the late 60 versions but that’s all I would try. My current 70 model would probably be OK for a couple of young high schoolers or a couple of 130 pound women. I would not put a pair of full 170 pound adults back there. It was about 40 years ago when I flew the 73 and did take it on a 500 mile trip with 6 adults. The ladies we stuck in the back were both in that 130/140 size range. I don’t remember that they complained. Keep in mind there are 1,000 hour gear saddle AD’s on the flat gear leg 210’s, lower doorpost-strut area AD prior to 67, and on 67 and up with airframes over 5,000 hours a carrythru inspection requirement. Some cantilever wing carrythru areas had issues at 10,000+ hours when used in the outback of Australia. The airplane is great at hauling the weight though and fairly easy for weight and balance concerns. The 69 and later have very nice roll handling characteristics similar to a Cardinal RG (in my opinion the nicest of all single engine airplanes), earlier ones are like flying a heavy 182 but very stable. They trim out very comfortably and are great to fly an ILS glide slope. If you get one I will share a few tips with you.
 
Briar Rabbit said:
I have experience in a 63 (C model), a 1970 (K) and a 1973 with over 100 hours in each. I love 210’s. The pre 70 models are great 4 place airplanes. Maybe you could put a couple of 10 year olds in the late 60 versions but that’s all I would try. My current 70 model would probably be OK for a couple of young high schoolers or a couple of 130 pound women. I would not put a pair of full 170 pound adults back there. It was about 40 years ago when I flew the 73 and did take it on a 500 mile trip with 6 adults. The ladies we stuck in the back were both in that 130/140 size range. I don’t remember that they complained. Keep in mind there are 1,000 hour gear saddle AD’s on the flat gear leg 210’s, lower doorpost-strut area AD prior to 67, and on 67 and up with airframes over 5,000 hours a carrythru inspection requirement. Some cantilever wing carrythru areas had issues at 10,000+ hours when used in the outback of Australia. The airplane is great at hauling the weight though and fairly easy for weight and balance concerns. The 69 and later have very nice roll handling characteristics similar to a Cardinal RG (in my opinion the nicest of all single engine airplanes), earlier ones are like flying a heavy 182 but very stable. They trim out very comfortably and are great to fly an ILS glide slope. If you get one I will share a few tips with you.
Click to expand...

Did the bench seat on your 63 C model slide fore and aft or was it fixed?

ETA: NVM, @Pilawt already showed me a brochure of the bench seat. Self-explanatory.

---break break---

To clarify, the mandatory 1,000 hour saddle component replacement only applies to the ' 61 and earlier models 210 and 210As. Basically the narrow body 210s. The Bs and beyond were also flat spring gear with saddles, but their saddles merely required replacement with an improved saddle by april 1977, and that improved part merely requires dye inspection every annual, it's paragraph B of the AD in question. The 1,000 hour mandatory replacement of the component does not apply to them.
 
Last edited:
Photo from the 1962 210B brochure:

Screen Shot 2018-11-19 at 6.07.28 AM.png

As to the '63 210C, I can only find a vague reference to "minor interior changes."

Hope this helps.

Briar Rabbit said:
The 69 and later have very nice roll handling characteristics similar to a Cardinal RG (in my opinion the nicest of all single engine airplanes)
Click to expand...
Not surprising; aerodynamically the 210J has the same wing as the Cardinal, though the 177B and 177RG have the modified leading edge.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Necro-revival:

@Pilawt @JCranford et al or others in the know. Looking at widened fuselage -470 powered 210s for my mission, for a multitude of reasons. Basically '62 B and ' 63 C models. Looks like they both came with bench rear seating. Does this bench slide, or is it fixed? I'd love the sliding seats of the D and beyond, but the IO-520 is not my cup of tea. Looking at pictures of several online it looks like the bench is positioned differently in different pictures, but can't tell if it's a function of the bench being reclinable, or does it actually slide aft for more leg room? Lastly, any economic bolt-on STCs for post-D sliding rear seats on these bench models? Thanks!
Click to expand...
Wait just one minute... What happened to this?
hindsight2020 said:
...I'd totally buy and operate a Duchess privately for a mission my Arrow currently does, over going over to the captive audience of conti big bore singles. Absolutely amazing cabin and 150knots with cheap to keep Lyco engines. Hella more comfortable than the Seminole, which suffers from similar lopsided pricing dynamics.
Click to expand...
Coming to the darkside of big bore singles?
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Wait just one minute... What happened to this?

Coming to the darkside of big bore singles?
Click to expand...

Not yet, just doing some cursory research in case I throw my hands up. The airframes I can tolerate are mated to engines I can't. Engines I can tolerate are mated to airframes I can't. Captive audience here until I can go exab so that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I'm absolutely underwhelmed by clownish quality control and cylinder life expectancy of the continental ecosystem after a gazillion years they've had to get their crap together, but for a lot of reasons I'm not gonna go on in detail about, the io470 series is the only one I'm willing to entertain, so that's why this limited 2 year run of 210s are being looked at.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Not yet, just doing some cursory research in case I throw my hands up. The airframes I can tolerate are mated to engines I can't. Engines I can tolerate are mated to airframes I can't. Captive audience here until I can go exab so that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I'm absolutely underwhelmed by clownish quality control and cylinder life expectancy of the continental ecosystem after a gazillion years they've had to get their cheap together, but for a lot of reasons I'm not gonna go on in detail about, the io470 series is the only one in willing to entertain, so that's why this limited 2 year run of 210s are being looked at.
Click to expand...
I think aircraft engine longevity is far more dependent on the user than it is the manufacturer. I see a LOT of bad engine practices out there. I think limiting yourself away from "common" NA aircraft engines is a mistake. Sure a IO-720 is just ridiculous, I wouldn't buy a plane with that, nor geared engines, nor several turbo'd engines. But for natural aspiration? even the big blocks will be okay if cared for well. IMO (obviously biased since I have one) the Conti O-470 is one of the most bullet-proof engines out there.
 
The 550 and 470 are hard to beat. Probably the best big bores on the market. Really none of the Conti 6 engines are terrible short of the IO-360. I have had much worse luck out of lycoming engines over the years. The 0-200 and smaller engines are bullet proof as well.
 
Pilawt said:
Maybe the ones built before about 1995, or later ones that have been reworked by a reputable outside shop after leaving the factory. I learned my lesson about newer O-200-As the hard way.
Click to expand...

Didn't even know they still made new ones. I'm talking exclusively what came on a 150. The Lycoming 0-235 is the biggest turd of an engine I have ever flown behind.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I think aircraft engine longevity is far more dependent on the user than it is the manufacturer. I see a LOT of bad engine practices out there. I think limiting yourself away from "common" NA aircraft engines is a mistake. Sure a IO-720 is just ridiculous, I wouldn't buy a plane with that, nor geared engines, nor several turbo'd engines. But for natural aspiration? even the big blocks will be okay if cared for well. IMO (obviously biased since I have one) the Conti O-470 is one of the most bullet-proof engines out there.
Click to expand...

No worries. That was my long winded way of saying I don't want to own the io520. I don't need the expense of the 550, so by default the 470 is the sweet spot for my mission. I do not agree all NA engines fall in the same std deviation of reliability, I feel that is particularly the case for the 520, especially when juxtaposed to the lycoming 540 and 360 series.

But I know this is religion basically, and I don't want to derail the thread. Just trying to gather info on the 62 and 63 210s. Btw does anybody have a good reference for a book on these pre 69 210 s?
 
Pilawt said:
Photo from the 1962 210B brochure:

View attachment 69302

As to the '63 210C, I can only find a vague reference to "minor interior changes."

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Thank you sir! It absolutely helps. Solid gold. That graphic really helps put into perspective the dimensions and cabin specifics of the model without having to go scour the airports. :thumbsup:
 
Man I don’t know much about the early 60’s ones. I think Briar Rabbit probably hit the high points. I was of the opinion that the early ones were basically a mildly stretched 182.
 
JCranford said:
Man I don’t know much about the early 60’s ones. I think Briar Rabbit probably hit the high points. I was of the opinion that the early ones were basically a mildly stretched 182.
Click to expand...

Agreed, which is exactly what I need, especially at the deep discount I can get for one compared to a 182RG.
 
Pilawt said:
If you want to cram six people into a pre-1970 210 airframe, leave the landing gear outside and get a fixed-gear Model 205 (1963-64, 260 hp) or P206 Super Skylane (1965-70, 285 hp, turbo available).

View attachment 49559
Click to expand...

The seat size and pitch in the photo make that 206 look like it has the interior room of a midsize bizjet when compared to today's airline economy class seating. :confused::D
 
Briar Rabbit said:
The 210C that I used to own did not have the rear child’s bench seat, lot of baggage space.
Click to expand...

The foldaway third-row seats, nestled into recesses in the the wheel well in the baggage area, first appeared on the 1964 210D. That model, the first to be called "Centurion", switched to the 285 hp IO-520 and the 206-style wing with longer-span flaps.

Screen Shot 2018-11-22 at 9.11.08 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-11-22 at 9.10.28 PM.png
 
I'm in the same boat as the OP, and have looked at 210s off and on for a while. I have a family of 5 and my 182 ain't gonna cut it for long. I have come to the conclusion that the '73 or 74' models (whichever year they went to the bench seat in the back row) and later are the only ones that will really work as a family hauler for very long. Sure, a kid will fit in one of the midget seats for awhile, but I'm trying to think long term. Just as important as the seats is the useful load that increased when they went to the strutless models. The early models don't have that much more useful load than the 182, but it is better. Once you bump up to the mid 70s models, the price takes a jump beyond what I can handle personally.

To get what I need and what I can afford, the 205 fits the bill. Great useful load and more back seat room than early 210s. The drawback is speed, or lack therof. It's about the same speed as the 182 we're used to flying so I'm good with that if I can get the whole family in comfortably.

The natural choice for interior room and useful load is a Cherokee 6, however, I feel the 205 has better short field and climb performance, as well as a much higher service ceiling than the 6-260 while having similar useful load and comparable enough interior room. The 6-300 is as expensive as a later model 210, so it's out as well.
 
I am struggling to find information about converting my 4-seat T210F into a 6-seat. I heard it's possible, but no luck with internet searches. Is there any specialized shop that performs those upgrades?

Interestingly, my 210F has 6 Oxy ports, so someone at some point must have planned for it.
 
Sergio Mello said:
I am struggling to find information about converting my 4-seat T210F into a 6-seat. I heard it's possible, but no luck with internet searches. Is there any specialized shop that performs those upgrades?

Interestingly, my 210F has 6 Oxy ports, so someone at some point must have planned for it.
Click to expand...
I would ping Beegles. https://www.beeglesaircraft.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top