Do they have an article on it?

Just found it an posted about it above while you were posting. Thanks.

$117 is spendy. That's probably the issue more than any objective flaw in the product.

More like $120k: http://www.vitatoeaviation.com/centurio ... y-pricing/

It's not that much more than the TAT conversion for Bonanzas ($47k) considering that it includes a factory remaned engine. It also makes the P210N into a plane that's comparable to a P210R and they routinely trade for $300ish.

If I were back in the market for an all weather traveling single, I'd seriously look at the Vitatoe P210... I like the 210 airframe a lot and this conversion addresses some of the issues that the P210 has (lack of horsepower).

Robert

Western Skyways has just added some 46 airframes to the Turbo Normalized family. (complete line of 206, 207 and 210 with either the 520 or 550 engines). This took roughly 7 years to complete, and truckloads of money for R&D.

Prior to STC issuance, 13 jobs were pre-ordered and paid for. There are 80 some as of now on our watch list for calendar slots.

This is on top of the Western Skyways Turbo Normalizing STC for the Bonanza.
This is also on top of over 300 engines built this year alone, with a total of 1100 work orders from all streams (component overhaul, engine installation, etc).

The fair comparison is the TAT conversion for a B36TC, which when I investigated back when I owned a B36TC priced out about the same: $115k -ish.

Does one of those 46 airframes include the Mooney Ovation/Eagle ?[/quote]

No sir, just the bonanza and cessna line thus far

The P210 has two big weaknesses:

1. The factory engine sucks - not enough for the plane.
2. The gear system is a bad design.

#1 can be fixed - #2 much more difficult.

Geez, somehow by some miracle I have managed to get 3000+ hours in P210s with no gear problems at all, probably because I realize that proper maintenance results in proper operation. Got to check rigging annually, etc. Amazing. As to the engine, while the Vitatoe 550 conversion would be nice, the stock setup is perfectly adequate. Ran 2 engines to TBO, no cylinders replaced, must be another miracle. Amazing what proper use of an engine monitor gets you. Flies just fine at FL230, LOP on 14.5 gph , TAS is 180 or so. Best altitudes are in the high teens though, takes too long to climb higher. You do have to keep an eye on CHTs, that is true, but if you run the engine properly, and manage the CHTs, it does just fine. In short, the P210 is the least expensive pressurized airplane to operate, period. Perfect it isn't, but for the dollar spent for good preventative maintenance, I have found it to be quite reliable. You won't get more for your money in a pressurized plane than a P210. If you want more, or better, it will cost more. But if you want pressurization, the P210 is the least expensive way to get it. Folks say all sorts of things, but my experience is that if you maintain the plane properly, and fly it properly, it is a wonderful cross country airplane.

Geez, somehow by some miracle I have managed to get 3000+ hours in P210s with no gear problems at all, probably because I realize that proper maintenance results in proper operation. Got to check rigging annually, etc. Amazing. As to the engine, while the Vitatoe 550 conversion would be nice, the stock setup is perfectly adequate. Ran 2 engines to TBO, no cylinders replaced, must be another miracle. Amazing what proper use of an engine monitor gets you. Flies just fine at FL230, LOP on 14.5 gph , TAS is 180 or so. Best altitudes are in the high teens though, takes too long to climb higher. You do have to keep an eye on CHTs, that is true, but if you run the engine properly, and manage the CHTs, it does just fine. In short, the P210 is the least expensive pressurized airplane to operate, period. Perfect it isn't, but for the dollar spent for good preventative maintenance, I have found it to be quite reliable. You won't get more for your money in a pressurized plane than a P210. If you want more, or better, it will cost more. But if you want pressurization, the P210 is the least expensive way to get it. Folks say all sorts of things, but my experience is that if you maintain the plane properly, and fly it properly, it is a wonderful cross country airplane.

I will stand up for the 210 gear system.

I had a 1981 T210N. Gear operation speed was the top of the green arc (165 knots I think). Gear extended speed was redline (203 knots?).

I never had a problem. In turbulence and descent, the gear made a great speed brake.
Looks goofy but works great. The earlier models had some gear issues, but not the later models. Most P210s were N models with no main gear doors.

I'll be #3 in line to say that the 210's gear system is fine. The gear system on the T/P210 Ns and beyond doesn't have the gear doors and it works great. Never had a single issue, and I've got to call BS on Todd's claim that "1/2 the fleet" has been landed gear up.

I also think the de-ice on the 210 - a known ice T210N in my case - works pretty well. Agreed that it only works on one vacuum pump however.

Robert

Just to correct one point. The deicing system worked on only one vacuum pump through the 1982 models. For the 1983 N models, and the R models, Cessna changed the setup to where it was like a twin, 2 400 series vacuum pumps, both plumbed into the deicing boots. Aside from redundancy, this also doubled the inflating air supply and made the system much better at shedding ice. FWIW, I have had pretty good results with all three deicing setups on the P210, but they did get more effective with each incremental improvement. No piston airplane will be great in ice, but in my experience the P210 does pretty well. I live in Oregon, and we do get quite a bit of ice here. Even if a plane is FIKI, you can still get more ice than the deicing system can handle, this applies to the P210 as well as any booted piston light plane. Boots are there to facilitate getting out of icing conditions, not for flying along in icing conditions.

Call BS all you want. Shop for a C-182RG, or 210 and read the books. It is not a good system. Any system that relies on a single hydraulic path to push the gear down is not a good system.