banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 03:44 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 24 May 2018, 11:30 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/13/14
Posts: 537
Post Likes: +257
Aircraft: Cessna T206H
Username Protected wrote:
They flew a '75 C210 against a '92 A36 that was 200 lbs heavier empty. I would wager that extra 200 lbs accounted for much of the performance difference.


That right there explains the problem with GA.
Only in aviation can an older model outperform a newer model. Ridiculous!


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 24 May 2018, 21:48 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/23/17
Posts: 170
Post Likes: +45
Location: KSSF
Aircraft: T210N,182Q,310R
Well the last or newest 210 built R model was faster, and higher gross and useful than the earlier model 210’s. :hide:


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 25 May 2018, 00:54 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/27/08
Posts: 3167
Post Likes: +1251
Location: Galveston, TX
Aircraft: Malibu PA46-310P
Username Protected wrote:
Well the last or newest 210 built R model was faster, and higher gross and useful than the earlier model 210’s. :hide:


But cessna stopped making the 210 in 1986. Why did they stop making such a gem? :hide:


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 25 May 2018, 11:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/12/15
Posts: 96
Post Likes: +31
Location: Larkspur, Ca. (SF Bay Area)
Aircraft: Cessna P210 Vitatoe
Username Protected wrote:
Well the last or newest 210 built R model was faster, and higher gross and useful than the earlier model 210’s. :hide:


But cessna stopped making the 210 in 1986. Why did they stop making such a gem? :hide:


From what I've read a variety of reasons. When they restarted production new regs were in place which would have added 300-400 pounds to the empty weight. Plus, the cost of production went up dramatically and their feeling was there wasn't enough of a market for a $1mm single retract. Too bad.
_________________
Steve
Cessna P210 Vitatoe TN550
KDVO Gnoss Field Novato, Ca.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 25 May 2018, 12:15 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/23/17
Posts: 170
Post Likes: +45
Location: KSSF
Aircraft: T210N,182Q,310R
I think its because they achieved perfection and shut it down :dancing:

I sure wish someone would look into resuming production of the T210R.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 25 May 2018, 12:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/15/11
Posts: 899
Post Likes: +920
Location: Elk City, OK
Aircraft: B55 P2 & 210
Username Protected wrote:
Well the last or newest 210 built R model was faster, and higher gross and useful than the earlier model 210’s. :hide:


But cessna stopped making the 210 in 1986. Why did they stop making such a gem? :hide:


Cessna shut down all single engine production during that time frame. At that time, airplane sales had almost totally stopped for all manufacturers. Cessna was one of the few that actually survived that era.
_________________
Sincerely,
Bobby Southard


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 25 May 2018, 13:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/12/15
Posts: 96
Post Likes: +31
Location: Larkspur, Ca. (SF Bay Area)
Aircraft: Cessna P210 Vitatoe
It's my recollection that production stopped because of law suits agianst Cessna and others, and it was only after congress passed new laws that the restart occured.

_________________
Steve
Cessna P210 Vitatoe TN550
KDVO Gnoss Field Novato, Ca.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 25 May 2018, 14:41 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 14529
Post Likes: +22860
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
Username Protected wrote:
From what I've read a variety of reasons. When they restarted production new regs were in place which would have added 300-400 pounds to the empty weight. Plus, the cost of production went up dramatically and their feeling was there wasn't enough of a market for a $1mm single retract. Too bad.

I doubt it. Both new regs, and addition of weight. Newer planes are fat pigs because new plane buyers want creature comforts, not because of regulations.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 25 May 2018, 15:10 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 11885
Post Likes: +2848
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
Username Protected wrote:
From what I've read a variety of reasons. When they restarted production new regs were in place which would have added 300-400 pounds to the empty weight. Plus, the cost of production went up dramatically and their feeling was there wasn't enough of a market for a $1mm single retract. Too bad.

I doubt it. Both new regs, and addition of weight. Newer planes are fat pigs because new plane buyers want creature comforts, not because of regulations.


Actually regulations played a part from what Cessna sales rep told me back in 2011 when I was looking at a new 182. When Cessna restarted production they wanted to make some changes which required FAA approval. Cessna "negotiated" with the FAA and implemented some of the newer regulatory changes; such as crash cage, tougher seats....
How much of the higher weight was comfort/functionality and how much was due to new regulations; only Cessna knows.

Tim

Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 25 May 2018, 16:23 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/27/08
Posts: 3167
Post Likes: +1251
Location: Galveston, TX
Aircraft: Malibu PA46-310P
Username Protected wrote:
It's my recollection that production stopped because of law suits agianst Cessna and others, and it was only after congress passed new laws that the restart occured.


Steve,

I just saw one of the last P210s built at my avionics shop today. Superb low time example and it is getting a full new panel with Garmin TXI. Very nice airplane.

On the subject of weight, the Cessna 172 that I bought new in 1997 definitely gained weight over the old 172. They said a lot of it was structural and new seat requirements.

Kevin


Top

 Post subject: Cessna still makes the 206 & T206
PostPosted: 25 May 2018, 17:56 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 10/06/16
Posts: 114
Post Likes: +182
Location: Tucson, AZ (winter) & Brunswick, ME (summer)
Aircraft: T210, Aerostar 702P
Cessna never restarted the 210 model, but they will sell you a brand new 206 or T206. Basically the exact same airplane as a 1964 210D through 1966 210F, just with fixed gear. In fact the “210-5” fixed-gear model became the 206.

So if you want a brand new 2018-model T210, buy a T206 and try not to think about the extra 15-20 knots you’d gain with retractable gear. (since they’re Textron now, they swapped out the Continental IO-520 for a Lycoming IO-540) Nice plane, and you can get all the whiz-bang goodies, Garmin glass cockpit, air conditioning...


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 25 May 2018, 18:06 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/10/11
Posts: 198
Post Likes: +58
Company: Marathon Heater
Location: Del Rio, TX
Aircraft: 1970 A36, COL 400
Username Protected wrote:

In the video, he remarks that the Centurion was "upgraded to an Atlantic engine" (whereas the Bonanza had the usual factory IO-550). I wonder if he really does mean the Atlantic Aero IO-550P engine that was available for 210s and would have about 15 more HP than the usual Continental IO-550 that the Bonanza had...
:scratch:


I had the Atlantic Aero conversion for my A36 and it is significantly faster now. Easily 7-8 knots although I only had a 520 previously.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 25 May 2018, 18:31 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/21/09
Posts: 11864
Post Likes: +14524
Location: Albany, TX
Aircraft: Prior SR22T,V35B,182
Username Protected wrote:
OK; I'll admit I'm a closet Bonanza owner wannabe. :D

Everybody is. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be on BeechTalk trying to justify their Cessnas.

If they own an airplane, justifying is as important as breathing. Any airplane.

And a few of us came to BT when we had a Bo, and stayed cause we enjoy arguing.

Loved my Bo - and it was a nice one. In fact, during winter, I was wondering if I might go back. Now that summer is here, I love my high wing 182. Staying put.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 28 May 2018, 23:41 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/22/14
Posts: 103
Post Likes: +65
Location: KMYF/ Kamiah, ID
Aircraft: C525, AC90
Back on topic: AOPA comparison.
As others have suggested, both airplanes are uniquely modified, so this particular comparison won't be relevant to another pair of airplanes. Both planes are very nice--I can speak from my personal experience since I have been part owner in both of them for about 14 years. Remember, these flight tests were conducted by the co-owners, not test pilots, although both have plenty of time in type.
The 210L is a great IFR platform, given it's stability and G500 panel & 55X autopilot. Yes, the Atlantic Aero 550 does seem to produce a bit more power, and properly rigged gear doors also help with the speed compared to other 210's. It's a great traveling airplane and for real IFR in the busy SoCal airspace, its a real winner. It's loud though. Noise cancelling headsets recommended. We have had a few issues with worn tires. 210 pilots know the brakes are sensitive and require the correct technique. 03S is a great example of very nice 210.
The A36 is also a wonderful plane to fly. We opted for the D'Shannon tip tank STC primarily to boost the maximum load to 4,000. We also added the engine floor boards and the baffle kit. CHT's are super low now. The Bonanza has real utility at 4,000 TOW, with the big doors. We discussed getting the exhaust kit also, but didn't have the budget. The bonanza is nearly 200 lbs heavier, but it is much much quieter, it's newer, and feels solid overall. Once we move to a glass cockpit (soon?), it will be one of the nicest examples around. Some of my co-owners fly the bonanza almost exclusively. The paint job is fantastic too. I am fortunate to get to fly both airplanes on a regular basis.

The article refers to SDFC as a club. We are really a fractional ownership corporation, all 16 pilots are fractional owners, and share in the costs through dues and flight hours. Neither plane is available to rent. What the print article didn't mention is our ownership group has been continually in operation since 1936 and has owned 48 different airplanes over that time.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 31 May 2018, 22:19 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 705
Post Likes: +476
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
Is the Bonanza cabin really only 42" wide? My Cardinal is 48" wide and that feels tight.

Vince


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.AAI.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.