banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 06:12 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 18:40 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/04/14
Posts: 1693
Post Likes: +1137
Location: Southern California
Aircraft: C 210
Username Protected wrote:
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


Good point, Id have to find a new home for the golf cart.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 18:54 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/23/09
Posts: 11840
Post Likes: +10440
Location: Cascade, Idaho (U70)
Aircraft: 182
Username Protected wrote:
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


Good point, Id have to find a new home for the golf cart.



Yep.

Cessna in hangar.......2 beater airport cars in with it with plenty of room to spare.
Bonanza in hangar.......2 beater cars outside getting beatier.
_________________
Life is for living
Backcountry videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSChxm ... fOnWwngH1w


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 19:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/11/10
Posts: 12359
Post Likes: +11344
Location: Indiana
Aircraft: Cessna 185, RV-7
The high wing helps with hangar storage and walking around the airplane. Two front doors is, IMHO, kind of a big deal. Beech really should've put two front doors on the Bonanza.

Cessna should've made it so you can check inside the cowling without popping 75 Dzus screws.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 20:22 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/03/08
Posts: 14524
Post Likes: +22857
Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
Yep
I would nominate a 182 airframe, Saratoga engine, and beech cowl and throwover yoke, as the perfect plane


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 20:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/23/09
Posts: 11840
Post Likes: +10440
Location: Cascade, Idaho (U70)
Aircraft: 182
Username Protected wrote:
Yep
I would nominate a 182 airframe, Saratoga engine, and beech cowl and throwover yoke, as the perfect plane


With a magically disappearing trailing edge so as to prevent the multiple diamond imprints on the forehead while wearing a ball cap.

_________________
Life is for living
Backcountry videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSChxm ... fOnWwngH1w


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 20:53 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/04/14
Posts: 1693
Post Likes: +1137
Location: Southern California
Aircraft: C 210
Username Protected wrote:
Yep
I would nominate a 182 airframe, Saratoga engine, and beech cowl and throwover yoke, as the perfect plane


With a magically disappearing trailing edge so as to prevent the multiple diamond imprints on the forehead while wearing a ball cap.


I know someone that rationalized a late model 210 purchase just to get away from corrugated flaps and ailerons for the same reason. Impressive. :lol:

10 years of flying Cessna's and still no "Cessna tattoo" on my forehead but Ive come close. Probably shouldn't have said that... :duck:

Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 20:55 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/04/14
Posts: 1693
Post Likes: +1137
Location: Southern California
Aircraft: C 210
Username Protected wrote:
The high wing helps with hangar storage and walking around the airplane. Two front doors is, IMHO, kind of a big deal. Beech really should've put two front doors on the Bonanza.

Cessna should've made it so you can check inside the cowling without popping 75 Dzus screws.


+1

I have always wondered if there is someone out there that has made their Cessna oil door 4 times bigger...


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 20:58 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/23/09
Posts: 11840
Post Likes: +10440
Location: Cascade, Idaho (U70)
Aircraft: 182
oh yeah.... its a royal pain.

_________________
Life is for living
Backcountry videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSChxm ... fOnWwngH1w


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2017, 17:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/16/17
Posts: 807
Post Likes: +805
Location: KYIP Willow Run (Detroit MI)
Aircraft: BE58/7AC/C140
Username Protected wrote:
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




Yep, I’m already trying to figure out how much of the stuff we have crammed in the hangar with the 172 will have to come out when the Baron arrives. :doh:


It’s a good problem to have though! :thumbup:


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 23:33 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 7396
Post Likes: +2224
Company: Retired
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
I thought the AOPA article was poorly done from a journalistic standpoint for reasons already noted as well as some others. But that's typical for AOPA which is why I seldom read their magazine.

As for the 210 vs. A36 debate, I could go on and on about the many reasons my family and I prefer the A36, but why do all that typing? Plus what's not to like about club seating, double doors for the aft cabin, a 1,638 lb. useful load and a TAT TN 550?

Of course they're still making the Beech G36. Was the 210 discontinued in 86?

So some guy at AOPA who didn't write the check thinks the 210 is better.

Really?
:lol:

_________________
ABS Life Member


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 09:14 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/01/14
Posts: 2125
Post Likes: +1604
Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
I visited with Tom Hirshman before the article came out. He said that Tom Haines wanted to read every word before it came out. Both airplanes are great machines! We are fortunate to have a country that allows us opportunity to own and travel at our whims.


Top

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



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/19/12
Posts: 4061
Post Likes: +1786
Location: Belton, TX (KTPL)
Aircraft: 1968 Bonanza E33
Received my new AOPA magazine the other day. A couple of letters to the magazine commenting on the match-up. One that made me chuckle was an owner of a 1978 Super Viking claiming that they should have compared it, as it would beat both by a longshot.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 00:35 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/16/11
Posts: 939
Post Likes: +417
Location: Fitchburg MA, MA (KFIT)
Aircraft: 1978 Bonanza A36TN
Flown both - both are great airplanes as already mentioned. I found the TN A36 hard to beat for my missions... with the 550 gross weight increase you get similar load carrying with full fuel and with the TN setup the performance is hard to bet. I wish I had more fuel but can eventually add tips and take care of that once a kid or two stops coming on vacation with us! :).

_________________
Jeff Kauffman
BE-36 TN, Fitchburg, MA (KFIT)


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 19 May 2018, 11:11 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/12/15
Posts: 47
Post Likes: +24
Location: South Tx
Aircraft: Baron E55, c340,Pc12
I fly out of 8000 + elevation runways with 1000 lbs of bags and passengers and climb straight to fl190 to smooth air cruising at 188 knots tas burning 18.3 Gph in my T210N. One of my passengers is 6’6 330 lbs and sits in the back seat comfortably with the middle seat removed. Don’t think any bonanza is remotely close to achieving that level performance or comfort. A Barrón might do it but at double the cost.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 210 vs Bo AOPA Style
PostPosted: 19 May 2018, 11:39 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/13/07
Posts: 19825
Post Likes: +9516
Location: Seeley Lake, MT (23S)
Aircraft: 1964 Bonanza S35
Username Protected wrote:
I fly out of 8000 + elevation runways with 1000 lbs of bags and passengers and climb straight to fl190 to smooth air cruising at 188 knots tas burning 18.3 Gph in my T210N. One of my passengers is 6’6 330 lbs and sits in the back seat comfortably with the middle seat removed. Don’t think any bonanza is remotely close to achieving that level performance or comfort. A Barrón might do it but at double the cost.


Yes, a turbo Bo can do that, the cruise number at FL190 would be low 200's from what has been reported here.

_________________
Want to go here?:
https://tinyurl.com/FlyMT1

tinyurl.com/35som8p


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 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

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