What can you tell me about the Cessna 210?

JCranford said:
Man o man, I'll defer to Briar Rabbit on 210 knowledge. We have had some great discussion via PM. I *have* been looking pretty hard at them and in fact have a pre-buy scheduled on a T210L for next week. We will see how THAT goes. I looked at a buncha planes comparing speed, UL, room, mission, blah blah and the 210 fits what I think I'll be doing. Actually it will fit everything I will be doing and some things Im pretty sure I'll be doing. Might be more than I need, but we will see.

Huge useful load on the later models, most of the ones I see list around 160kts and upwards of 175kts at altitude with a turbo. The '72 and later seem to be the sweet spot for gear issues. I think thats when they went to the tubular legs. The gear door were removed from the production models in the N model.

Lots to consider and get a good pre-buy, or not if youre some people on this board...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

When you typed "Huge UL on later models" were you referring to 1980 and up?
 
It has a Continental 470E engine. 6 Cylinders 260HP 65 Gallons (14.2gph) 1061 useful. 152 cruise. (Not bad)
 
Are there other airplanes out there with better useful load?
 
What you really need to know about 210s is what can kill you. My father owned one for about 30 years (a T210M), great plane, most of the virtues have already been discussed. I think one of the highest compliments it can be paid is that is was/is an ideal smuggler's single.

On top of the usual Cessna issues and specifically the 210 gear issues (which if properly maintained by a knowledgeable mechanic are less a safety factor and more of a spendy factor, but cause insurance rates to go up because people regularly gear-up the airframe more often than not due to not properly maintaining theirs...):

1. Fuel starvation. This is #1 for a reason, it happens a lot, and it is partially because line people don't know how to fill it, if it isn't on level ground you won't be able to top it off, and the fuel gauges are terrible in terms of accuracy. The main reason, of course, is careless or ignorant operator. We had an empirically marked "dip-stick" and a very careful eye when fueling (we're double checking the lineman's work). I would suggest a good fuel totalizer as well... Running out of fuel is a cardinal sin as far as I'm concerned, and it happens a lot in this airframe (even still today when this type has been around forever).

2. Runaway electric trim. This one is nasty, think electric trim keeps running to one of the stops at a particularly inconvenient time. This has killed more than one 210 pilot and isn't something always heavily discussed, but the plane can be a major, major handful in this situation and a loss of control can occur quickly. Have the circuit breaker marked and thus able to quickly be pulled...

3. Carbon Monoxide. There are inspection plates in the floor. Wise owners/mechanics know that you need to put down a plastic barrier over these plates and duct tape them to prevent an already relatively high amount of carbon monoxide when it is "right", to a potentially lethal level (in terms of proper brain function for flying) when it is "wrong" / if not done properly. We found this out the hard way (no one hurt but it was a bad situation, had it been a longer and higher altitude flight it may have been a much worse outcome).

4. Vacuum failures. Of course this goes for a great many older planes out there, but a lot of people fly hard IFR in 210s and so it bears mentioning that it would be wise to preempt any failures with regular replacements and a careful eye, or even better spend some money on a electric HSI (at a minimum) and/or an electric AI.

5. Wing spar issues (lower wing spar cap). Given the age of the fleet and the nature of use, it would be a good idea to take a real hard look at this, there is SID for it on the 210.

It's a fairly quick load hauler that can operate in back-country situations, it is like a powerful SUV of sorts. I have a soft spot for them (especially the silver eagle turboprop converted ones), but my personal tastes (as a >3000 foot paved runway guy doing longer cross countries with light loads) actually run more toward the A36/G36 Bonanza side of things for unpressurized 6 place, and Piper Malibu/Mirage for pressurized 6 place piston single. All 3 great planes with different ideal mission profiles. If you told me I needed to haul a family of 5 600nm with all their junk then the 210/T210 is a solid, solid option!
 
FloridaPilot said:
Are there other airplanes out there with better useful load?
Click to expand...

Single Engine 6 pax pistons, PA-32-300, U206 both come to mind. A Turbo Stationair will approach the performance of a 210. 160kt cruise at altitude and will haul 1,400lbs. @mulligan could probably give you real world numbers.
 
ocflyer said:
3. Carbon Monoxide. There are inspection plates in the floor. Wise owners/mechanics know that you need to put down a plastic barrier over these plates and duct tape them to prevent an already relatively high amount of carbon monoxide when it is "right", to a potentially lethal level (in terms of proper brain function for flying) when it is "wrong" / if not done properly. We found this out the hard way (no one hurt but it was a bad situation, had it been a longer and higher altitude flight it may have been a much worse outcome).
Click to expand...
I have heard -- second, third or fourth-hand -- of possible carbon monoxide issues with the aftermarket gear-door-removal mod; that the factory-built doorless wheel wells ('79 210N and later) are sealed better against exhaust gases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top