banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 15:37 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 19:52 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/13/07
Posts: 19825
Post Likes: +9520
Location: Seeley Lake, MT (23S)
Aircraft: 1964 Bonanza S35
Username Protected wrote:
Did you notice on the take off exercise the 210 used flaps and the bonanza didn't?


I know you're being somewhat tongue in cheek, but: SOP for the Cessna is 10 degrees flaps on takeoff, SOP for Bonanza is no flaps (per their respective POHs).

Robert

If we are going for max performance then use the amount of flaps on both aircraft that minimizes ground roll. In the Bo that's about 15 degrees, probably 20 degrees on the 210.
_________________
Want to go here?:
https://tinyurl.com/FlyMT1

tinyurl.com/35som8p


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 22:28 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/01/14
Posts: 2128
Post Likes: +1607
Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
Username Protected wrote:
I hope you meant 32-35 g/hr in the climb?


Yes, on take off I’m looking for 34-36 GPH but coming back to 30/2500 I’m looking at 25 GPH. 13.5- 15.5 cruise LOP 168 TAS. With lots of elbow room.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 12:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/19/11
Posts: 224
Post Likes: +93
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: Baron 58
The girl is always going with the Bo.

End of discussion.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 15:35 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 09/07/12
Posts: 143
Post Likes: +77
Location: CZBA - Canada
Aircraft: C177RG
Too bad they didn't swap pilots since some of the aircraft performance differences could easily be explained by pilot skill/flight styles.

I'm surprised by how close the match up, but the results are too close IMHO to declare clear winners and losers.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 17:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/27/10
Posts: 1849
Post Likes: +823
Location: KFFZ & KGRR
Aircraft: BE36, CE501
Which is “better”? Why not look at used prices for similar total time, similarly equipped A36 vs 210 and let the perfect free market decide?

_________________
Last 60 mos: CL65 type rating, flew 121, CE680, CE525S, and CE500 type ratings.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 17:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/13/14
Posts: 8308
Post Likes: +6508
Location: Central Texas (KTPL)
Aircraft: PA-46-310P
Username Protected wrote:
Which is “better”? Why not look at used prices for similar total time, similarly equipped A36 vs 210 and let the perfect free market decide?

By that standard it appears the market considers the 210 to be the best.

I’m surprised at how reasonable the P210 prices appear.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 21:05 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/01/14
Posts: 2128
Post Likes: +1607
Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
The turbo 210s, especially the “P”s can easily get into your pocket if the maintenance has been neglected. They make great machines when everything is working in harmony. It’s hard to find folks who know how to, or are willing to take on such projects. In many cases they aren’t maintenance friendly unlike the Beechcraft. I’ve heard mechanics say if there were only Beech aircraft out there then they’d go out of business.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 21:40 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 705
Post Likes: +476
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
Username Protected wrote:
I’ve heard mechanics say if there were only Beech aircraft out there then they’d go out of business.


It's funny, I hear Cessna mechanics say Cessna puts food on their table, but Beech sends their kids to the best colleges. Or Ford (fix or repair daily) vs Chevy, Lycoming vs Continental, pick your rivalry.

Vince


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 14:51 
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:
The girl is always going with the Bo.

End of discussion.


The first date maybe. But for the girl you keep, more go for the Cessna.
It hauls more.

Tim


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 15:03 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/01/14
Posts: 2128
Post Likes: +1607
Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
Her butt don’t stick up in the air getting in and out either.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 15:03 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/28/09
Posts: 198
Post Likes: +125
Aircraft: C-310K
Username Protected wrote:
The girl is always going with the Bo.

End of discussion.



Yeah, until she discovers the 210’s got more girth.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 16:16 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 705
Post Likes: +476
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
Username Protected wrote:
The girl is always going with the Bo.

End of discussion.


I've never seen a woman in a skirt and heels prefer a low wing over a high wing.

Vince


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 22:59 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 07/02/14
Posts: 1978
Post Likes: +1993
Location: Lakeville, Minnesota (KLVN)
Aircraft: J35
Username Protected wrote:

Go sit on the flightline at OSH. If we are making generalizations, he is right.


Watched B2OSH and Ceznas to OSH arrivals this year. There were a lot more Cessna landings that made me wince. Was it the planes, the pilots, I don't know but the B2OSH group exhibited a better landing show.

_________________
N340Q
J35

ASEL&MEL ASES CFII MEI BPPP Instructor


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 23:13 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/01/14
Posts: 2128
Post Likes: +1607
Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
Admittedly so, the Beech owners are a much better organized group than their Cessna brothers and sisters are with the 150 owners, Cardinal Owners, Twin Flyers, CPA, CPS, etc...
Can’t we all just get along??? I guess we’re just a factious bunch. :eek:


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 23:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/28/12
Posts: 3315
Post Likes: +2734
Company: IBG\Altapraem M&A Advisors
Location: Kerrville, TX (60TE)
Aircraft: SR22-G2 GTS
Username Protected wrote:
Her butt don’t stick up in the air getting in and out either.


That sounds like a negative to me, unless she needs that extra girth. :peace:


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next




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

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