Cessna 210N- educate a bonanza guy

zbrown5

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
56
Display Name

Display name:
Zach
Shopping for a new 6 seater and just had a pre buy fall through on an A36. Any 210N owners on here? I know about the scary spar AD, what else can you learn me? Normally aspirated 520-L?

cargo space issues, quirks, etc. can you take the third row seats out?

Thanks
 
Buy the A36. Better quality airframe. Go to a maint shop and look at both models when torn down for annual. Parts expensive for both. Rear seats come out, not that you would ever put adults in them.
 
Why are you only considering an N? I like 210s. I technically own one (205), but not really. I think a later model turbo 210 or P210 would be such a cool traveling plane. I don’t really know if the back seats of a 210N are like the back seats of a 205, but the whole “wouldn’t want to put a real adult back there” stuff is overblown. They are low to the floor, but they are not uncomfortable because they have their own little foot wells. It’s a little hard to describe, but sit in one yourself and decide before you discard the entire line over the hype. Speaking of hype, no CG issues with a 210 that I am aware of - mine starts out super nose heavy, and becomes only somewhat less so the more you load it. There is literally no way I could realistically get out of the range to rear, unless maaaaaybe I was flying a pallet full of anvils. But even then, I kinda doubt it.
 
From Wikipedia:

The Cessna 210 was manufactured in 26 model variants. The C210, C210A-D, the Centurion C210E-H&J, Turbo Centurion T210F-H&J, the Centurion II C210K-N&R, the Turbo Centurion II T210K-N&R and the P210N&R. The 210N, T210N (turbocharged), and P210N (pressurized) versions were produced in the greatest quantity. The rarest and most expensive models were the T210R and P210R, which were produced only in small quantities in 1985-86.

Several modifications and optional fittings are also available including different engine installations, wingtip tanks, speed brakes, STOL kits and gear door modifications.

The early strut-winged Cessna 210B was developed into a fixed-gear aircraft known as the Cessna 205. This spawned an entirely new family of Cessna aircraft including the 206 and the eight-seat 207.[13]

210
Four-seat production variant with a Continental IO-470-E engine, 40 degree hydraulic flaps, gear doors, introduced in 1960.,[14] first flown in 1957, 575 built.[2]
210A
A 210 with a third cabin window on each side, introduced in 1961, 265 built.[2]
210B
A 210A with a cut-down rear fuselage, a rear-vision window and a Continental IO-470-S engine, introduced in 1962, 245 built.[2]
210C
A 210B with some minor changes, introduced in 1963, 135 built.[2]
210D Centurion
A 210C fitted with a 285 hp (213 kW) Continental IO-520-A engine and increased takeoff weight to 3,100 lb (1,406 kg),[14] introduced in 1964, 290 built.[2]
210E Centurion
A 210D with some minor changes, introduced in 1965, 205 built.[2]
210F Centurion / Turbo Centurion
A 210E with some minor changes and optional 285 hp (213 kW) turbocharged Continental TSIO-520-C engine, introduced in 1966, 300 built.[2]
210G Centurion / Turbo Centurion
A 210F with a strutless cantilever wing and modified rear window, increased takeoff weight to 3,400 lb (1,542 kg),[14] introduced in 1967, 228 built.[2]
210H Centurion / Turbo Centurion
A 210G with a new flap system and instrument panel, 210 built.[2] Flap range decreased to 30 degrees, fuel capacity increased from 65 to 90 US gal (246 to 341 l). Introduced in 1968.[14]
210J Centurion / Turbo Centurion
A 210H with reduced wing dihederal, different nose profile and a Continental IO-520-J (or TSIO-520H) engine, introduced in 1969, 200 built.[2]
210K Centurion / Turbo Centurion
A 210J with rear changed to full seat to provide six seats, an IO-520-L engine with 300 hp (224 kW) limited to five minutes, landing gear changed, enlarged cabin with a single rear side window, weight increased to 3,800 lb (1,724 kg), produced 1970-71, 303 built.[2][14]
210L Centurion / Turbo Centurion
A 210K with nose-mounted landing lights, the electrical system changed to 24 volt, the engine-driven hydraulic pump replaced with an electrical pump and a three-bladed prop fitted. Improved aerodynamics led to an increase in approximately 8 kn (15 km/h) in cruise speed.[14] Produced 1972-76, 2070 built.[2]
210M Centurion / Turbo Centurion
A 210L with an optional 310 hp (231 kW) TSIO-520-R engine and minor changes, produced 1977-80, 1381 built.[2]
210N Centurion / Turbo Centurion
A 210M with open wheel wells for main landing gear and minor changes.[2] Although this change appeared only on the C210N, most early models have had gear doors removed due to extensive maintenance and handling problems, leaving them similar to the "N".[14] Produced 1981-84, 1943 built.
210R Centurion / Turbo Centurion
A 210N with longer-span stabilizers and minor changes, produced 1985-86, 112 built.[2]
P210N Pressurized Centurion
A Turbo 210N with pressurized cabin, four windows each side, with a 310 hp (231 kW) Continental TSIO-520-AF engine, produced 1978-83, 834 built.[2]
P210R Pressurized Centurion
A P210N with longer-span stabilizers, increased takeoff weight and a 325 hp (242 kW) Continental TSIO-520-CE engine, produced 1985-86, 40 built.[2][13]
Riley Turbine P-210
Conversion of pressurized Cessna 210P Centurion aircraft, fitted with a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-112, flat rated at 500 shp (373 kW).[15]
 
Maintenance concerns that come to mind:

AD on the Spar cap as a result of wing failure on a 10,000+ hour airplane in Australia doing pipeline inspections as I recall. AD applies to airplanes exceeding 5,000 hours. 1967 and newer models.

AD on the strutless carrythru as a result of air duct tubes getting old and moisture accumulating on the structure in the top of the cabin and wing root area. Requires inspection and maybe non destructive testing (eddy current), removal of any corrosion and painting. I have been told this can cost about $5,000 if light corrosion is found and is typical on airplanes from coastal areas. Also 1967 and newer models.

Nose gear actuator cylinder, if they leak or are cracked the original styles are replaced and they are expensive (over $10,000 just for the cylinder). Almost impossible to find one from the used parts suppliers.

Retractable gear saddles on the flat leaf spring gear models, 1969 and older. Does not apply to our airplane so I am not as familiar with this AD.

Foam filled elevators/trim tab may require replacement when the foam gets old and rotten.

I am sure there are others but this is the quick list.
 
Shopping for a new 6 seater and just had a pre buy fall through on an A36. Any 210N owners on here? I know about the scary spar AD, what else can you learn me? Normally aspirated 520-L?

cargo space issues, quirks, etc. can you take the third row seats out?

Thanks
Both are good airplanes. Both are really 4 person planes. Neither has nose baggage, so you use empty seats to accommodate. My preferred configuration for the 210 was to slide the middle row all the way after and use the 3rd row seat bench for baggage. Seemed to work out well.

Passengers will probably prefer the 210. Cabin of the Bo is cramped and with lots of windows it gets hot back there. As a pilot, I'd prefer the Bo.
 
So 1966 or older escapes two of these items? I heard the saddles were 10-15k if you can get them, but that was years ago.
 
Having not flown either, this would be my take on the comparison between them.

210 out of production since 1986, 36 Bo's still in production, sort of.
Cessna's retract gear system, has a little bit of a history although if properly maintained should work.
Both 6 seat airplanes, only the Bo has a back door.

All that being said I've always thought the 210 would make a nice platform. A little bigger and faster than a 182RG.
 
I have never owned a 210, but flew cancelled checks in 210s years ago. This was the lowest bid company so no A/P.

One time, and only one time I ended up in embedded level 4 thunderstorms for one heck of a ride, and survived. It is a pretty solid IFR platform in my opinion. For a single engine.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure the 210N is already on the STC AML for the Garmin GFC-500 autopilot.

My copilot hurt her knee back in July, and due to COVID cant get it fixed, she would not fly in a Bo due accessibility. She wouldn't sit in the back either lol.
 
Who did you fly for?

I flew them for flight express out of CRG on my 9/11 furlough - my line was scheduled to 135 hours a month, legal in that world, 9 at night til 8am six days a week. The maintainers did their best, but that’s hard flying for a 210. A dozen vacuum failures, and 4 full electrical failures, pumping down the gear, in just under 5 months. After flying a 1900D w/ 2 pilots, I learned a ton flying single pilot night IFR with no radar, no tcas, no gpws....
I can’t comment about an a36, but I trusted the 210 on the hardest line I ever flew. And yes- it’ll carry anything you can put in it... except maybe those radiation proof medical boxes. Those were heavier than anvils.

I have never owned a 210, but flew cancelled checks in 210s years ago. This was the lowest bid company so no A/P.

One time, and only one time I ended up in embedded level 4 thunderstorms for one heck of a ride, and survived. It is a pretty solid IFR platform in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Who did you fly for?

I had to get my log book and look it up. It was a company called Air Carriers out of Bessemer Alabama. (now defunct) I flew from Bessemer to Longview, TX to Alexandria, Louisiana back to Bessemer for a week, then the next week from Bessemer to Sanford, FL to Brooksville, FL to Mobile, AL then back to Bessemer. I did that for about 3 months in 2000.

I did talk to Flight Express. They offered me 75 bucks a day to fly for them, but I took a job in Alaska at 105 bucks a day plus tips plus room and board instead. I lost 20 pounds that summer.

According to my logbook I had 2 vacuum failures, one in VMC right after the first departure of the night, the other in IMC on my last leg of the night.
 
....., but I took a job in Alaska at 105 bucks a day plus tips plus room and board instead. I lost 20 pounds that summer.

Single pilot part 135 flying in Alaska always = Summer weight loss for me. Then the winter "coat" just sorta grows back when the tourists leave and the weather turns. :eek:
 
Air carriers - I remember them-
When I was in flight school I dreamed about heading up to Alaska
 
Compared to a V-tail Bonanza, the A-36 and especially the 210 fly like tanks. They work pretty well, tho. Like a poster above I used to fly checks in a T210N. More capable than lots of twins, it will carry most anything loaded in it, zip along at Navajo speed and, in a pinch, claw its way to 25000ft., lending flexibility for steering clear of ice. Had to monitor engine temps closely in the climb.
 
The Bonanza has a meaningfully bigger rear cabin and the club seating. The 210 will nearly always lift more and has fewer CG issues (36 Bos have much less of a CG issue that 35 or 33 Bos). They are basically equally fast, just depends how you fly them. I usually hear Bonanza owners getting better fuel economy, for whatever reason. There are some absolute hot rod 210s out there though.

Both are well built, though the straight tail Bonanzas are not just solid, but handle turbulence ridiculously well.

Bonanzas handle better and are just stupidly easy to land well. The Bonanza gear is infinitely better in design and reliability.

210s may be even more cult priced than Tigers and 182s. I never see them cheap, but maybe the fairly overstated AD will push them down.

Any mechanic can work on either one. Fueling high wings sucks.
 
^^^ Well it's not very often we get a Bonanza guy on this forum looking for advice on alternatives. It's almost like somebody reaching out for help to escape a cult.:eek: :D
 
^^^ Well it's not very often we get a Bonanza guy on this forum looking for advice on alternatives. It's almost like somebody reaching out for help to escape a cult.:eek: :D


Mainly driven by the bonanza guy not having $300k for a nice specimen a36 in this market...
 
Mainly driven by the bonanza guy not having $300k for a nice specimen a36 in this market...

They are not inexpensive, for sure. Even a late 1970's/early '80s vintage seems minimum $150,000+ entry fee. But they seem to have always been that way.

When I came back from overseas and started to look for a 6-place airplane in 2010 I'd always lusted after an A36 Bo. But the prices then seemed expensive, even in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Now the planes are a decade older and even more expensive.
 
I like the 210 based on that it is designed for full size humans versus the scaled down humans from back in 1948 when the Bonanza was designed.
 
I like the 210 based on that it is designed for full size humans versus the scaled down humans from back in 1948 when the Bonanza was designed.

id agree. The rear cabin in the bo is not overly comfy.
 
I fly a Turbo 210L if I can help. Can remove the middle row seats but not the back. I’ve had 6 in my plane but two were kids. If you can load it and close the doors, you can pretty much fly with it. And best of all, you don’t have that ridiculous looking tail following you around...
 
Since this is PoA, we need to derail the thread with “Fly what I fly.”

thus: PA-32. Fits your mission exactly.

even if it doesn’t. :)
Lol came here to say this.
What about price comparisons??
The 210 has more useful then a retract pa32 doesn’t it? Plus the pa32 is the slowest kid on the line I think as well
 
The rear seat comes out in the T210L. It’s easy to take out but kind of a pain to put back in since the nuts for the anchors are in the wheel wells. We had the IA make up another W&B so we are legal either way.

Ours will hold 950 lbs and you’d have to put really heavy people in the back to get it out of CG. I think the most we ever had in the back seats was two girls around five an a half feet tall.

We plan on 160kts at 8,000’ an 20 gph.
 
We plan on 160kts at 8,000’ an 20 gph.

Oof is it really that bad? Does it get better way up high - you’re not getting much benefit from the turbo at 8.

Something about this doesn’t compute to me. I figure I fly the slowest, most inefficient single possible (a 205, okay a 206 is worse), and even I get better gas mileage than what you quoted. I typically fly at about 120 knots, 10.5gph LOP (just shy of 12 mpg) or 130 knots, 13.5 gph ROP for roughly 10 mpg, but you’re talking 160/20 = 8 mpg. In lots of ways the 210 should be way less draggy and therefore overall more efficient (no struts, retractable gear). Even though it’s going faster it seems like it should be at least as efficient, if not more.
 
Most of my trips were to LA or the Bay Area so not much point in going high for an hour flight. 20 gph keeps the CHT at 350 and TIT below 1350. The nice thing about the turbo is that you can take off in the Central Valley when it’s 110 and the plane barely notices the high DA. It also comes in handy to fly over smoke.

I’m not paying for the engine so I fly it the way my brother wants. Lots of people fly LOP and get better fuel flows.
 
Lol came here to say this.
What about price comparisons??
The 210 has more useful then a retract pa32 doesn’t it? Plus the pa32 is the slowest kid on the line I think as well

Not sure about this

We plan on 160kts at 8,000’ an 20 gph.

Now I know the statement above was wrong. I get 160 at 17g/hr.

Only the first two rows. Back row of a 210 is not for adults.

someone find the famous pa32 vs a36 vs 210 side cutout photo please. :)
 
Back
Top