28 Mar 2024, 08:48 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 29 Nov 2017, 12:33 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/04/14 Posts: 1693 Post Likes: +1137 Location: Southern California
Aircraft: C 210
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’ve flown both and agree that the Bo handles better from a pilot’s perspective; control is balanced as opposed to the 210 which is heavy in pitch. I own a 210 and fly it off the grass and unimproved strips and have done the same in the Bo. I don’t think gear on either is an issue. After 4500 hours I’ve had to overhaul my power pack and would think after that much time in a Bo you would consider rebuilding the gear motor. Electrohydraulic is more complex than straight electric but both are pretty bulletproof when maintained. I can see bladder replacement would have advantages over a leaking wet wing. Flap cables and motors are common to both but Cessna really “Rube Goldberged” their flap indicator/cable but I’ve never heard of any problems with these systems. I think that either airplane could be landed gear up with minimal airframe damage. I’ll never run the Bo or it’s owner down but I really like my 2x10. You can get a 210 with bladders too, mine has 42 gal bladders. It'd be a bit of a downgrade for you though. I don't understand why Cessna went to wet wings with later models, was it mostly a weight savings deal?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 29 Nov 2017, 17:42 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/01/14 Posts: 2126 Post Likes: +1605 Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
|
|
I’d guess that eliminating the bladders for a wet wing was an engineering call. Do the new Bos ride around with bags in their wings? I certainly can see pros and cons.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 29 Nov 2017, 18:35 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/11/10 Posts: 12363 Post Likes: +11346 Location: Indiana
Aircraft: Cessna 185, RV-7
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’d guess that eliminating the bladders for a wet wing was an engineering call. Do the new Bos ride around with bags in their wings? I certainly can see pros and cons. I'll bet it had more to do with wrinkled bladders and retained water.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 29 Nov 2017, 19:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11884 Post Likes: +2848 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I’d guess that eliminating the bladders for a wet wing was an engineering call. Do the new Bos ride around with bags in their wings? I certainly can see pros and cons. I'll bet it had more to do with wrinkled bladders and retained water.
Unless there was a lawsuit about them. More likely production cost was a factor, or possibly was marketing related (e.g. new and improved, no longer need to maintain the bladders).
Tim
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 30 Nov 2017, 14:08 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/19/11 Posts: 224 Post Likes: +93 Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: Baron 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 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. Just some friendly banter with the Cessna drivers. All in fun.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 30 Nov 2017, 15:18 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11884 Post Likes: +2848 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'd agree with interesting, but I don't find these fly-off articles to be all that well documented or executed. As others have pointed out in this thread, the tests aren't always objective, don't necessarily reflect real-world use of the plane or best practices, and rely on pilot skill as much as airplane performance.
They are fun to read, though :-) How is rental club not "real world use"? And when you consider prices, I expect in the future that more and more people will rent instead of own. Tim
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 30 Nov 2017, 15:43 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/22/08 Posts: 4832 Post Likes: +2602 Location: Sherman, Tx
Aircraft: 35-C33, A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: the tests aren't always objective, don't necessarily reflect real-world use of the plane or best practices, and rely on pilot skill as much as airplane performance.
They are fun to read, though :-) These kind of articles just start Old Wives Tails about different airplane models. Now that AOPA did that article... for years to come... new pilots are going to be quoting that article....even though the test methods compared apples and oranges... "oh... remember waaay back in twenty seventeen.. when AOPA compared a 210 and an A36...the 210 outperformed the bonanza in every test!" Does help sell magazines Leldon
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 30 Nov 2017, 15:57 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/23/13 Posts: 8010 Post Likes: +5705 Company: Kokotele Guitar Works Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
|
|
Username Protected wrote: And when you consider prices, I expect in the future that more and more people will rent instead of own. Maybe, but FBOs that rent machines of that caliber are not widespread. The FBOs around here have downgraded to pretty much just 172s and 152s. There was one that had a Saratoga, but even that is gone.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 30 Nov 2017, 17:17 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/09/09 Posts: 1750 Post Likes: +979 Location: KRYY (Marietta, GA)
|
|
I have thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth on this. I too read the article and my first thought was comparing a stock A-36 to a modified 210 was probably not entirely fair. Both are great airplanes and excel at different types of missions. I learned in an Archer and 172s and I have always preferred the low wing airplanes.
One comment on which airplane owners prefer, my suggestion would be that if you looked at comparably equipped, airframe and engine times, damage history, etc. and look at valuations you will get your answer. The higher valued airplane is more desirable to purchasers. On this front, I would think that the A36 wins but have never done a comparison. Would be an interesting exercise.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 30 Nov 2017, 17:55 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/29/13 Posts: 705 Post Likes: +476
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I learned in an Archer and 172s and I have always preferred the low wing airplanes. I also learned to fly in Archers and 172 and prefer high wings. I find in a low wing, I feel like I am driving, when in a high wing, I feel like I am flying. I guess pilots are split 50/50 on this. If someone else were paying the expenses, I'm sure that would be the plane I preferred. Vince
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 30 Nov 2017, 18:05 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/03/08 Posts: 14525 Post Likes: +22857 Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
they missed the only rear advantage of the 210 - you can have a bigger collection of cars and boats in your t-hangar with a high wing
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style Posted: 30 Nov 2017, 18:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11884 Post Likes: +2848 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: And when you consider prices, I expect in the future that more and more people will rent instead of own. Maybe, but FBOs that rent machines of that caliber are not widespread. The FBOs around here have downgraded to pretty much just 172s and 152s. There was one that had a Saratoga, but even that is gone.
Then I missed it. I saw complaints about unequal comparison (stock vs modified); and how the club use is not how an owner flies it. But none of that means it is not "real world". In fact, club use probably gets more hours per year and more people flying. So it is likely more "real".
I think twins are getting harder to find on rental lines. But I am seeing more and better equipped planes near large metro areas. With hangar and other expenses through the roof, partnerships and rental clubs just make sense.
Tim
|
|
Top |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|