banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 08:48 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 12:33 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




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. :peace:


You can get a 210 with bladders too, mine has 42 gal bladders. It'd be a bit of a downgrade for you though. :D

I don't understand why Cessna went to wet wings with later models, was it mostly a weight savings deal?


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 17:42 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 18:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 19:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 20:59 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/07/10
Posts: 8249
Post Likes: +7268
Location: Boise, ID (S78)
Aircraft: 1964 Bonanza S35
There were many lawsuits about bladder tanks. It was a fashionable theory of liability by plaintiffs in the 70’s and 80’s. There was a cadre of phony “fuel system experts” who showed up and sang the same tune in every case. Most of the cases were BS. I was involved in flight testing for some of the litigation, and we had a hard time dumping enough water into the system to make the engine quit. A few drips and drabs behind the bladder wrinkles wouldn’t do it.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 23:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/22/12
Posts: 2425
Post Likes: +956
Aircraft: G36 turbo normalized
Back to the original post, I found the article very interesting and well documented. It would be good food for thought for anyone considering a 6 plane airplane. I would like to see more articles like this.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 13:56 
Online


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8010
Post Likes: +5705
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
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 :-)


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 14:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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. :eek:



Just some friendly banter with the Cessna drivers. All in fun.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 15:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 15:43 
Offline


 Profile




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. :beechslap:


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!"
:pullhair:

Does help sell magazines :whistle:

Leldon


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 15:57 
Online


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 17:17 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 17:55 
Offline


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 18:05 
Online


 Profile




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

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 18:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




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

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 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

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