Think about it a bit...

Why does turns matter?


You are flying in coordinated flight... right?
LOL

Why?

Why?

Kent,

Most of the time it makes NO difference in a bonanza/baron.

We did have ONE instance during formation training where there was a problem.
IIRC... gear "hung" and tripped the breaker...
Because of that situation we do not recommend lowering the gear in a turn.

Doing an overhead break to land.... pilot "pulls" a little G... in the break... and selects gear down...
IF the gear system has wear and slop.... gear resting on the uplocks.. then the G load could hang it up....
there is at least the potential for bad things to happen.

A well maintained beech gear system.... probably no problem.... but the fleet has the full bell curve... from well maintained... to poor condition..

Leldon

One tough plane then!

One has to be a little careful talking about and comparing the 210s because they morphed quite a bit over their years of production. What started out as a kind of quirky landing gear system turned into a very robust and inexpensive one starting in 79. But each year the model was improved and the older gears don't necessarily disqualify a plane from purchase.

Prior to 1979, all the 210s came with landing gear doors. Many of those earlier years have had their doors removed according to an STC called The Uvalde Mod. The speed lost from the main gear door removal, whether done by a mod or done by the factory, is so small it is difficult to document.

The other thing that changed was the airplanes ability to carry gross weight. My 81's useful load is 1600 pounds, of which 540 pounds would be set aside for full fuel. That's a pretty healthy number for a single.

Another big issue of purchase is the airplane's maintenance currency. It's very easy to buy an airplane that has fallen behind and will cost a lot of money. to bring up to a high standard of maintenance. Like $20,000 to $30,000 said and done. So searching for 210 cannot be done too carefully.

There are a lot of doggy old 210s out there. And remember a service like Controller is a distillation of what hasn't sold. One look at the avionics and asking price you get the idea people can be in denial about what their plane once was.

The performance between in A36 and 210 is so close that the issue becomes one of personal preference. It is nice that that T210 can be run lean of peak with a fair amount of success at altitude. At 10,000 to 12,000 I routinely see 182 knots on 14.8 gallons per hour.

Gear saddles were an issue for the older airplanes, especially the ones from the 60s. Big money gear actuator problems happen less frequently in the 210 then in the 182RG. I have owned my 81 for 26 years and have spent a very small amount of money on the landing gear over those years and 2400 hours. Hoses, a couple of actuator reseals, a limit switch issue..... Really minimal stuff.

As I get older I appreciate more and more being able to slide into the seat rather than having to lower myself into seating off the wing. And falling out, instead of having to lift myself back out and then falling off the wing.

The 210 is quite heavy in pitch, but quite pleasant in roll. If you've been around you probably know there are many people who feel very comfortable rolling the 210, and they do roll very nicely. If you think about the extreme CG range required to be able to carry that much load there is some sense of why the pitch is the way it is. It's simply must have a lot of authority and surface area and rigging that can make it feel somewhat heavy. One does use the trim in a 210.

The high wing is good in rain and sunny heat. That shade in the cabin can be nice.

I have a suspicion finding a good A36 is likely easier to do than finding a good later model T210. Maybe the thing to do is to shop opportunistically until you find an airplane that is a candidate, whether 210 or Beech. Then make a decision based on that particular airplane's features and price, avionics, and all the other desirable things that we may or may not find in a for sale airplane. I find it getting harder and harder to have a preconceived idea of exactly what you want when you set out shopping when in fact it is getting quite hard to find the ideal matching variant. I could easily see myself being happier with a well bought A36 than a poorly bought T210, and vice-versa.

Just to add to what has already been said, over the years I have owned and operated both A36s and C210s (L,M & N models) in Australia and my aircraft had tens of thousands of hours, with in some cases up to 10 sectors a day or more, and flown by young first job CPLs. In my experience as a commercial aircraft with high utlisation into rough bush strips the 210s (from K model on) are a much better proposition.

They carry a better payload, handle the rough better, are much better to fly at gross weight (the A36 in my view has aft CofG issues with 6 big guys), and fuel management is easier/safer, and when ambient temp is 45C+ the high wing is so much better.

As A36s get older the rubber bag fuel tanks need replacement compared to the wet wing on the 210.

Much of what has been said about the undercarriage is BS. There is nothing wrong with the tubular 210 undercarriage if you maintain it by the book.

The main gear doors (on models still with doors) will crack if you consistently lower the gear in the turn, because even with the best pilot the turns can be slightly out of balance, and they will crack if you exceed the gear down speed. In our operations we reduced gear speed to below 130kts and straight & level... no more door cracking on the L & M models.

Every 4,000 hours the gear powerpack needs a complete overhaul, we also replaced all microswitches around 4,000 hours... those little switches and wires only take so much fatigue! And we were religious about the tolerances (go / no go guages) on the up locks and down locks... getting these right particularly in the down lock will eliminate saddle cracking... and overhaul the shimmy damper every 1,000 hours or so and don't allow any wear or looseness in the shimmy damper mounting.

We operated daily into a mixture of good sealed runways and rough grass and gravel.

The older engines were prone to crankcase & cylinder cracking, but Teledyne has improved the metallurgy over the years and the aircraft retrofitted with IO550s are an improvement, but keeping baffles in good condition, good engine management and do not over lean in high ambient temps are essential for engine life.

IMHO both the 210 & A36 are great aircraft, but if you are regularly flying with 6 POB or into rough grass/gravel strips, or in hot climates the 210 is the far better aircraft. However if you are mostly 4 POB and temp below 30C then the A36 is just as good, and maybe a little nicer to fly.... and it is still in production!

Thanks for all the posts about this. I have never flown a 210 and don't want to spend the money A36's are going for. I need about 1200# of lift. My Deb has 960# so I'm looking for more plane but If it does not happen I'm going to enjoy the plane I have.

I called about a 210 and talked to the IA that had been working on it for years. That guy said "you need an early A36".

I think I could get by with a 67' ish V35, now back to looking for the right plane.

Thanks again,
Russell

Russell
I had a 1979 Cessna T210N that I flew for 20 years and 1,200 hours.
Now I have a Cessna 1986 T210R with 325 HP, 120 gallons on the wings not with tip tanks, factory Intercooler, two alternators and both tanks in the fuel selector valve.
That I appreciate in the T210 is the comfort of the two doors that open nearly 90 degrees and can open and get off down during rain, full visibility to the terrain, cabin shaded and cooler, large load capacity and speeds of 175 to 180 knots depending on the power at altitudes of cruising that most use 9,500 and 10,500 feet, very stable in turbulence without the need of yaw damper.
Sometimes I have loaded with 100 pounds more than the maximum weight and without problems logically greater weight you need more runway and a little less speed as any aircraft in cruising speed. The Centre of gravity range is very wide so it rarely needs to make a weight and balance.
Landing gear although don’t seems it is very robust made of vanadium steel and trained for 4,100 pounds in the T210R and is the same as in the T210N
I recommend buy a plane from 1979 or newer, this model is factory without main landing gear doors and the system of actuators is simpler, and doing the check at each service and change of packaging to the actuators every 5 years and checking the hydraulic level almost every flight It gives no problem. The year 1982 or newer have selector tank valve in both and dual alternators.
I agree that a Bonanza is more pretty in figure than the Cessna and also are very well built and good quality but I don't like that the cabin is very hot and needs air conditioning, entrance and output of the pilot is more difficult and legroom for passengers is shared in the club seat of the A36 version however the baggage door in the F33 is very large and better yet the rear two doors of the A36.
Convince me to change the 210 by a Bonanza I think it is an impossible task.
Rodrigo

Patrick

i agree. the 210 Centurion is a phenomenal airplane. the A36 is too. no i'm not running for congress or an expert with either airplane. i've flown both. all sorts of reasons to like 1 over the other. for me, the vision when flying a 210 is awesome; with TCAS for traffic above. the hauling capabilities is remarkable. the glamour or elegance is NOT THERE. the 210 is a utility aircraft. let's face it. but that is what i am all about. mission: accomplished. hence why i'm transitioning to a turbine.

purpose.
mission. get it done. thanks all.
eric

About 2 years ago a fellow BTer gave me a tour of his hangar. He had both, a later model T210 and a B36TC. Both were in a no expense spared maintenance condition with clean P&I.

That was an expensive day for me, 2 weeks later I wrote a check for the share in my current plane It happened to be an A36TC, but had a similar opportunity in a 210 come around, I would have jumped on that.

Not to get off topic, but why not get a P210? If you're going to get a turboed bird and fly higher, oxygen masks are a pain in the ass. My first airplane was a M20K Mooney. I did a lot of flying at 17.5 with cannula. I loved the Mooney, and I loved the higher altitude, but if I had the option of buying a pressurized one I'd jump all over it.

Pressure is a game changer. BTW, before anyone one even starts about how expensive it is to maintain, I'm on airplane #7 in ~20 years and I've never spent much at all on pressure. Too bad they never made a P Bonanza.

If my dad ever passes his written, I'm thinking of getting us a turboprop P210 to play with- that thing is the cat's ass.