banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 13:32 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 22 Dec 2020, 22:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/20/15
Posts: 183
Post Likes: +66
Location: AZ
Aircraft: MU-2 Solitaire
Username Protected wrote:
Garth, beautiful ship!! I love the 210SE, my boss used to have one and it almost always flew between annuals with no mechanical squawks.. Best value in SETP-

Question for the Gallery... would you fly one at night in the Western US??


I would..no question. I would try and fly high to give me options.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 22 Dec 2020, 23:27 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14128
Post Likes: +9073
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Username Protected wrote:
Garth, beautiful ship!! I love the 210SE, my boss used to have one and it almost always flew between annuals with no mechanical squawks.. Best value in SETP-

Question for the Gallery... would you fly one at night in the Western US??


Night flight? Of course, why not? orders of magnitude more reliable than any piston and I fly those at night all the time. I love the Silver Eagle but as for best value that's hard to say... nice ones are listed upwards of 800k. In that ballpark you could get a 25 year newer Meridian and go 40 kts faster in a purpose built machine. Half of 800k will get you a nice C90, Mu2 or Turbo Commander and leave 400k gas money. It's true that those will cost more to run, but if you're willing to drop 800k on a plane should't be a break the bank difference.

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 22 Dec 2020, 23:46 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/23/18
Posts: 130
Post Likes: +30
I have flown the P210SE over the Rockies and all over the west at night on many occasions.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 23 Dec 2020, 00:49 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/15/18
Posts: 9
Post Likes: +2
Location: Winnipeg Canada
Aircraft: A320
Username Protected wrote:
Garth, beautiful ship!! I love the 210SE, my boss used to have one and it almost always flew between annuals with no mechanical squawks.. Best value in SETP-

Question for the Gallery... would you fly one at night in the Western US??


Night flight? Of course, why not? orders of magnitude more reliable than any piston and I fly those at night all the time. I love the Silver Eagle but as for best value that's hard to say... nice ones are listed upwards of 800k. In that ballpark you could get a 25 year newer Meridian and go 40 kts faster in a purpose built machine. Half of 800k will get you a nice C90, Mu2 or Turbo Commander and leave 400k gas money. It's true that those will cost more to run, but if you're willing to drop 800k on a plane should't be a break the bank difference.



I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone actually paying 800k+ for those machines though these days. There is a very large split between the ask and get for these. The machine Garth bought was listed at 775k and was purchased for lower mid 600 amu. It had 80 hours since HSI, brand new paint and interior, ect.

There are 2 machines with relatively fresh hot sections for sale right now for less than 500k, one with a full garmin glass cockpit. The propjet brokered machines are all listed high which makes it seem like it’s an expensive machine compared to the meridian but I would be surprised if many people are paying close to sticker price.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 23 Dec 2020, 07:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/05/09
Posts: 4082
Post Likes: +2731
Location: Small Town, NC
600-900 would also get you into an earlier TBM.

_________________
"Find worthy causes in your life."


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 23 Dec 2020, 08:02 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/23/18
Posts: 130
Post Likes: +30
The silver eagles are not fake prices.. add a 5 bladed MT prop and upgrade the STec to the 3100, get current generation state of art avionics and yaw dampener...etc...it adds up fast...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2020, 20:10 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/25/17
Posts: 236
Post Likes: +93
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Aircraft: P210 SE, C182
Username Protected wrote:
600-900 would also get you into an earlier TBM.

True. But not the same ops costs though. That was the issue for me.

garth


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2020, 01:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/04/11
Posts: 108
Post Likes: +18
Location: Woodland CA
Aircraft: Cessna Silver Eagle
Does the Cessna spar AD apply to the P210? I am considering the Silver Eagle as my next airplane.

Jack


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2020, 03:46 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/23/14
Posts: 994
Post Likes: +285
Location: LOIH
Aircraft: P210N, RV-4
Username Protected wrote:
Does the Cessna spar AD apply to the P210? I am considering the Silver Eagle as my next airplane.

Jack


Since all P210's left the factory with the Spar paint treated, they haven't really had the same issue as the earlier non-treated 210's.
There is no AD (yet) on the P210's, but they are included in the Cessna Service Bulletin for Eddy-Current inspection.

I planned to do this inspection this coming spring. Not very expensive to do, but depending on what you have installed in the roof, access may be limited.
I have Factory AC installed, so doing this inspection at the same time as we have the evaporators removed for service.

The Spar AD is a One-time inspection.
Once it passes, and get painted properly, the issue is gone.
Most 210's with failed spars after the inspections have been due to the fact that several interior shops used glue to attach the head bump foam to the underside of the spar.
The foam+glue kept moisture and the corrosion process could continue unsighted for years.

Its a pretty easy inspection on prebuy, as most interior roofs have zippers to access the Spar area.
But as said above, the P210's dont really have the Spar issue.

_________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dulce bellum inexpertis


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2020, 10:07 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/25/17
Posts: 236
Post Likes: +93
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Aircraft: P210 SE, C182
Espen is spot on. For the P210 I just sold, as well as the SE I just bought, the spars looked brand new on both.

garth


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2021, 08:56 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/18/16
Posts: 27
Post Likes: +19
Location: London - UK
Aircraft: P210N Silver Eagle
I missed this thread as it developed. I have seven years of Silver Eagle ownership under my belt and I love it. I have now about 900 hours of Silver Eagle time. Here is what I wrote about it for the magazine "Instrument Pilot" after I had just become used to the aircraft - it might be useful to a prospective buyer. I refer in the article to my home airport, Fairoaks that has about 2500 feet of tarmac and to Glenforsa in the Scottish Hebrides that has about 2000 feet of (usually soaking) grass runway. The desire to have a machine under two tonnes relates to the fact that, in Europe, there are hefty airway charges above that limit. It is a lengthy read - so feel free to stop here!



I bought N67JK because the Cessna P210N “Silver Eagle” was the only aircraft available that was pressurised, turbine-powered, had a maximum weight below two tonnes and had enough headroom to accommodate my height (6’4” or 1.93m). I had coveted a P46T but was disappointed to find that its headroom was not quite enough. I have since come to appreciate that N67JK, although less sleek and modern than other single turbines, plays a strong hand overall. She can cruise up to F230 at 205-210 knots, get to cruising altitude from an MTOW take-off in 20 minutes, dive (at flight idle, with speed brakes, gear and flaps) at 6000 fpm without exceeding 120 KIAS and land to a full stop in just 300 metres. Zero-wind range tops 1000 nautical miles with 1 hour of reserves and the useful load is around 1200lbs. Fuel burn is 24-29 USG/hour and fuel capacity 147 USG.
I learned to fly in 1991. I was running a business in Chertsey and was intrigued by signs on my way to work that pointed to “Fairoaks Airport”. I had been fascinated by flight since my first experience as an eight-year-old transatlantic passenger, and I just had to find out what went on at this small and historic airfield. One lunchtime, I visited its flying school and found myself being shown over the controls of a very well-appointed Cherokee 160. I was hooked. Five months later I achieved my PPL and bought a 1/6 share in a Cherokee 180, an ex-Hamble trainer with slab wings and the ability to carry quite a load. The panel was sparse – a single VOR and a non-functioning ADF. I persuaded the group to add a Garmin 100 – one of the very first GPS receivers, picked up my IMC rating five months after that and then went on to hand-fly 250 hours in that very basic aircraft, 40 of which were in hard IMC, all over the UK and (VFR) in Europe. Some of these trips had legs of 4 hours or more. The aircraft had no autopilot and very minimal instrumentation. With long-distance IMC and night missions, I was pushing it, but I was young and inappropriately fearless and the Cherokee never skipped a beat. It was built in 1964, air-raced extensively, landed hard on numerous occasions and is still going strong for its current owners!
In 1996 I moved on to a succession of overseas appointments and managed for the next ten years to keep current or revalidate, flying only around 18 hours in all in the UK, Canada and the UAE. Finally I returned to remain in the UK in 2006, and, confident of staying put, I started looking at new aircraft. I had tried a few hours flying a twin Comanche under instruction many years ago and rather liked the idea of a twin. I fell for the Diamond Twinstar (both the looks and the handling) and ordered a new one. Thielert, at that time the DA42’s sole engine manufacturer, went into liquidation before the purchase could be completed, voiding any engine warranties, and I was lucky to escape a massive value hit. That purchase duly cancelled (Diamond Aircraft behaved very honourably), I bought instead a new Cirrus SR22 Turbo Perspective that was delivered in 2008. It was a well-timed buy; I got US$2 to the £GB. Six months later, to make the most of the Cirrus, I had added an FAA IR to my 61.75 FAA, completing the training and testing entirely in the UK. I had a lot of fun in my 500 hours over the next six years in the Cirrus, but my wife and I had a problem; she does not feel well at altitude, even with oxygen, and the Cirrus airframe performance dropped off at an alarming rate with even a light spattering of the ice that is all too often hanging around at the F100-F120 levels. The TKS panels did not add much to my confidence, frequently failing to wet out full length against the wings’ dihedral. Too often we were faced with a choice between altitude and ice, and after a flight at F120 to Chambery where the glycol ran out, the alternative air intake opened and I had to go to full rich to keep the engine cool as I descended towards warmer air, I realised that I needed a pressurised aircraft, and preferably one with a significant performance reserve. At F180 there would have been no drama at all. The search began.
Besides the JetProp P46T the only other options I was aware of were the Extra 500, of which hardly any had been built, the TBM850, which I test flew but felt was too much of a commitment in terms of annual fixed costs for the 150 hours per year that I expected to fly, and the PC12 which was always going to feel like turning up in a huge bus when there were usually only two of us on board. I had almost given up when I chanced upon a picture of a Silver Eagle. Up until then I had not known anything about the pressurised version of the Cessna 210 – with its square cross section it just did not look to me like a pressurised airframe. After a lot of research I decided that, despite its rarity, this Silver Eagle conversion might be the perfect aircraft for Europe.
The starting point for the aircraft is a conventionally-powered Cessna P210N. This aircraft was big news in its day. The P210N was the first successful single-engined pressurised airframe, and the T210 and P210N were the first singles certified for flight in icing conditions and the first such to have the option of on-board radar. Given how long ago that was, and all the aircraft introduced since, it is amazing that the 210 family still has an enthusiastic following. The American aviation journalist Richard Collins kept his P210N from new and flew it nearly 9000 hours. He said “The P210 was probably the most comfortable and useful piston single ever and even with twins included it was close to the top of the list on comfort.” I also concur with Jim Hoddenback, another well-known figure, on the American GA scene, who, when asked why his all-time-favourite aircraft, of the countless types he had flown, was a Cessna 210, said “It’s not because the 210 is the prettiest of them all, and it’s not that the 210 is the fastest, or best flier. It’s because it does so many things well.” The proven premise of the Silver Eagle conversion is that the P210N can, albeit with some effort and expense, be made even better.
N67JK flew under 2400 hours as a standard P210N before conversion. She flew just 20 hours of that total between 2002 and 2014. That made her a very young airframe indeed. The windows are notionally life limited to 13,000 hours and the wing spar caps subject to periodic inspection after 8,000 hours of normal use. These are Cessna recommendations, not FAA airworthiness limitations, however. Fortunately, having been hangered in Arizona, there was almost no corrosion. The conversion swaps out a 450lb 300 horsepower engine for one of 210lb and 450 horsepower driving a reversible 90 inch heated propeller. Tip tanks, a fuselage tank, modern avionics, structural beefing up of the tail, paint, a hand-stitched Scottish leather interior and pneumatic de-icing round out the process. The POH numbers are left largely unchanged in the conversion, with the STC supplement stating merely that the take-off, landing, climb and cruise performance numbers will exceed those of the original aircraft. MTOW is unchanged at 4000lbs, basic empty weight depends on equipment but is typically 2800 lbs. VNE is reduced from 200 to 167 KIAS, with the amber caution zone being deleted from the speed dial (or tape).
The finished result is a 1981 aircraft that looks remarkably fresh and has great functionality. It is still, however, very much a Cessna P210N. I have never flown a piston P210N and cannot therefore comment on what the conversion changes in terms of handling. The P210N is still sought after as a very capable, fast IFR tourer but it is certainly not widely reputed to be “easy to fly”. I can say that I found the step-up from the Cirrus to N67JK to be about as challenging as my ab-initio PPL. In fact it took me 100 hours to become confident. That might be because the Cirrus was a very neutral handler requiring very little rudder and elevator trim work. Throw in the Cirrus’ GFC700 digital autopilot and I have to say that the Cirrus undoubtedly blunted my stick and rudder skills and made the transition harder for me than it might have been had I been a good C152 driver. The 210 family has a very wide centre of gravity range requiring an extensive trim range and a rudder that needs to be used actively and trimmed for every change in airspeed or power. The engine on N67JK has a significant p-factor effect, too. The control cables run through tight seals in the P210N, contributing to the “truck-like” control feel that is already augmented by the additional rotational inertia around the yaw-axis from the tip tanks and the sheer mass of the loaded aircraft. As with almost all aircraft, however, an experienced pilot will learn to love its characteristics once they become familiar with them.
A key consideration for a European operator is how easy it will be to maintain an aircraft like N67JK outside the USA. Although this aircraft is unusual, her components are very well supported. The Cessna P210N is, after all, just a Cessna, and around 900 of these pressurised versions were built. Many of the airframe parts are common to the much larger 210 population. The engine, a 450hp Rolls Royce M250 variant, is very like those that power a vast number of helicopters around the world and many shops can work on them. The avionics (G500/GTN750/GTN650/GSR56 Iridium/Stormscope/2 G330ES transponders/Trilogy L3 backup PFD/STEC55X Autopilot/Honeywell RDR2000 radar) are all commodity STC / AML stock items. A competent avionics shop will know all these items well. There are at least six of these aircraft in Europe to my knowledge. GAMA at Fairoaks seem to have become comfortable looking after mine. Overall, I have seen nothing to change my initial view that N67JK will cost less to operate than my Cirrus did, and show about the same variable cost if one looks ahead to the admittedly expensive major engine overhaul at 3500 hours.
The combination of sturdy landing gear, short-field capability and decent speed at altitude make N67JK a versatile performer. A typical mission for which she is well suited was one I flew last week. My 93-year-old neighbour wanted to visit her son on the Isle of Mull. A pilot friend and I took her to Fairoaks where at 0945 she easily boarded the aircraft (not needing to climb over a wing). We took off and climbed to cruise in the airways at F180, dropping 2 hours and 5 minutes later into low VFR conditions along the sound of Mull, landing in rain on Glenforsa’s wet grass runway from the hilly end and stopping comfortably using beta in conditions that would have proved problematic for conventional braking. Having handed over our passenger and enjoyed a leisurely lunch at the hotel, we were back in the south of England by teatime, having flown 900nm that day without any sense of strain. I expect that, technically, one could do the same in many other aircraft, but I would contend that this aircraft delivers against the brief whilst putting a lot less stress on the pilot.
I intend to keep N67JK. She is a very comfortable aircraft – one in which one can spend four or even five hours without fatigue or discomfort. Jim Thorpe and I flew her with ease from Warsaw to London in one bound quite recently, having flown her 900 miles the previous day.
Of course we all love our own aircraft, but after 350 hours of flying this one, I can say that she has made me a better pilot than I was and that I still look forward to every flight.

Postscript: I have since upgraded the STEC55X to a 3100 digital autopilot - and that has made the ride in automatically controlled flight feel just like that of a commercial jet.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2021, 15:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/22/09
Posts: 2549
Post Likes: +1936
Location: KLOM
Aircraft: J35, L-19, PT17
Great write up David. Many years ago when I was shopping for a plane, I ended up looking at a Mooney that was at the same field as O&N, the folks that converted the P210's to the Silver Eagle's. The mechanic that showed me the Mooney worked for O&N and offered to give me a tour of their shop. As I recall, they remove just about everything that can be removed from the airframe before they begin the conversion. It was a very comprehensive approach. I was very impressed.


Username Protected wrote:
I missed this thread as it developed. I have seven years of Silver Eagle ownership under my belt and I love it. I have now about 900 hours of Silver Eagle time. Here is what I wrote about it for the magazine "Instrument Pilot" after I had just become used to the aircraft - it might be useful to a prospective buyer. I refer in the article to my home airport, Fairoaks that has about 2500 feet of tarmac and to Glenforsa in the Scottish Hebrides that has about 2000 feet of (usually soaking) grass runway. The desire to have a machine under two tonnes relates to the fact that, in Europe, there are hefty airway charges above that limit. It is a lengthy read - so feel free to stop here!



I bought N67JK because the Cessna P210N “Silver Eagle” was the only aircraft available that was pressurised, turbine-powered, had a maximum weight below two tonnes and had enough headroom to accommodate my height (6’4” or 1.93m). I had coveted a P46T but was disappointed to find that its headroom was not quite enough. I have since come to appreciate that N67JK, although less sleek and modern than other single turbines, plays a strong hand overall. She can cruise up to F230 at 205-210 knots, get to cruising altitude from an MTOW take-off in 20 minutes, dive (at flight idle, with speed brakes, gear and flaps) at 6000 fpm without exceeding 120 KIAS and land to a full stop in just 300 metres. Zero-wind range tops 1000 nautical miles with 1 hour of reserves and the useful load is around 1200lbs. Fuel burn is 24-29 USG/hour and fuel capacity 147 USG.
I learned to fly in 1991. I was running a business in Chertsey and was intrigued by signs on my way to work that pointed to “Fairoaks Airport”. I had been fascinated by flight since my first experience as an eight-year-old transatlantic passenger, and I just had to find out what went on at this small and historic airfield. One lunchtime, I visited its flying school and found myself being shown over the controls of a very well-appointed Cherokee 160. I was hooked. Five months later I achieved my PPL and bought a 1/6 share in a Cherokee 180, an ex-Hamble trainer with slab wings and the ability to carry quite a load. The panel was sparse – a single VOR and a non-functioning ADF. I persuaded the group to add a Garmin 100 – one of the very first GPS receivers, picked up my IMC rating five months after that and then went on to hand-fly 250 hours in that very basic aircraft, 40 of which were in hard IMC, all over the UK and (VFR) in Europe. Some of these trips had legs of 4 hours or more. The aircraft had no autopilot and very minimal instrumentation. With long-distance IMC and night missions, I was pushing it, but I was young and inappropriately fearless and the Cherokee never skipped a beat. It was built in 1964, air-raced extensively, landed hard on numerous occasions and is still going strong for its current owners!
In 1996 I moved on to a succession of overseas appointments and managed for the next ten years to keep current or revalidate, flying only around 18 hours in all in the UK, Canada and the UAE. Finally I returned to remain in the UK in 2006, and, confident of staying put, I started looking at new aircraft. I had tried a few hours flying a twin Comanche under instruction many years ago and rather liked the idea of a twin. I fell for the Diamond Twinstar (both the looks and the handling) and ordered a new one. Thielert, at that time the DA42’s sole engine manufacturer, went into liquidation before the purchase could be completed, voiding any engine warranties, and I was lucky to escape a massive value hit. That purchase duly cancelled (Diamond Aircraft behaved very honourably), I bought instead a new Cirrus SR22 Turbo Perspective that was delivered in 2008. It was a well-timed buy; I got US$2 to the £GB. Six months later, to make the most of the Cirrus, I had added an FAA IR to my 61.75 FAA, completing the training and testing entirely in the UK. I had a lot of fun in my 500 hours over the next six years in the Cirrus, but my wife and I had a problem; she does not feel well at altitude, even with oxygen, and the Cirrus airframe performance dropped off at an alarming rate with even a light spattering of the ice that is all too often hanging around at the F100-F120 levels. The TKS panels did not add much to my confidence, frequently failing to wet out full length against the wings’ dihedral. Too often we were faced with a choice between altitude and ice, and after a flight at F120 to Chambery where the glycol ran out, the alternative air intake opened and I had to go to full rich to keep the engine cool as I descended towards warmer air, I realised that I needed a pressurised aircraft, and preferably one with a significant performance reserve. At F180 there would have been no drama at all. The search began.
Besides the JetProp P46T the only other options I was aware of were the Extra 500, of which hardly any had been built, the TBM850, which I test flew but felt was too much of a commitment in terms of annual fixed costs for the 150 hours per year that I expected to fly, and the PC12 which was always going to feel like turning up in a huge bus when there were usually only two of us on board. I had almost given up when I chanced upon a picture of a Silver Eagle. Up until then I had not known anything about the pressurised version of the Cessna 210 – with its square cross section it just did not look to me like a pressurised airframe. After a lot of research I decided that, despite its rarity, this Silver Eagle conversion might be the perfect aircraft for Europe.
The starting point for the aircraft is a conventionally-powered Cessna P210N. This aircraft was big news in its day. The P210N was the first successful single-engined pressurised airframe, and the T210 and P210N were the first singles certified for flight in icing conditions and the first such to have the option of on-board radar. Given how long ago that was, and all the aircraft introduced since, it is amazing that the 210 family still has an enthusiastic following. The American aviation journalist Richard Collins kept his P210N from new and flew it nearly 9000 hours. He said “The P210 was probably the most comfortable and useful piston single ever and even with twins included it was close to the top of the list on comfort.” I also concur with Jim Hoddenback, another well-known figure, on the American GA scene, who, when asked why his all-time-favourite aircraft, of the countless types he had flown, was a Cessna 210, said “It’s not because the 210 is the prettiest of them all, and it’s not that the 210 is the fastest, or best flier. It’s because it does so many things well.” The proven premise of the Silver Eagle conversion is that the P210N can, albeit with some effort and expense, be made even better.
N67JK flew under 2400 hours as a standard P210N before conversion. She flew just 20 hours of that total between 2002 and 2014. That made her a very young airframe indeed. The windows are notionally life limited to 13,000 hours and the wing spar caps subject to periodic inspection after 8,000 hours of normal use. These are Cessna recommendations, not FAA airworthiness limitations, however. Fortunately, having been hangered in Arizona, there was almost no corrosion. The conversion swaps out a 450lb 300 horsepower engine for one of 210lb and 450 horsepower driving a reversible 90 inch heated propeller. Tip tanks, a fuselage tank, modern avionics, structural beefing up of the tail, paint, a hand-stitched Scottish leather interior and pneumatic de-icing round out the process. The POH numbers are left largely unchanged in the conversion, with the STC supplement stating merely that the take-off, landing, climb and cruise performance numbers will exceed those of the original aircraft. MTOW is unchanged at 4000lbs, basic empty weight depends on equipment but is typically 2800 lbs. VNE is reduced from 200 to 167 KIAS, with the amber caution zone being deleted from the speed dial (or tape).
The finished result is a 1981 aircraft that looks remarkably fresh and has great functionality. It is still, however, very much a Cessna P210N. I have never flown a piston P210N and cannot therefore comment on what the conversion changes in terms of handling. The P210N is still sought after as a very capable, fast IFR tourer but it is certainly not widely reputed to be “easy to fly”. I can say that I found the step-up from the Cirrus to N67JK to be about as challenging as my ab-initio PPL. In fact it took me 100 hours to become confident. That might be because the Cirrus was a very neutral handler requiring very little rudder and elevator trim work. Throw in the Cirrus’ GFC700 digital autopilot and I have to say that the Cirrus undoubtedly blunted my stick and rudder skills and made the transition harder for me than it might have been had I been a good C152 driver. The 210 family has a very wide centre of gravity range requiring an extensive trim range and a rudder that needs to be used actively and trimmed for every change in airspeed or power. The engine on N67JK has a significant p-factor effect, too. The control cables run through tight seals in the P210N, contributing to the “truck-like” control feel that is already augmented by the additional rotational inertia around the yaw-axis from the tip tanks and the sheer mass of the loaded aircraft. As with almost all aircraft, however, an experienced pilot will learn to love its characteristics once they become familiar with them.
A key consideration for a European operator is how easy it will be to maintain an aircraft like N67JK outside the USA. Although this aircraft is unusual, her components are very well supported. The Cessna P210N is, after all, just a Cessna, and around 900 of these pressurised versions were built. Many of the airframe parts are common to the much larger 210 population. The engine, a 450hp Rolls Royce M250 variant, is very like those that power a vast number of helicopters around the world and many shops can work on them. The avionics (G500/GTN750/GTN650/GSR56 Iridium/Stormscope/2 G330ES transponders/Trilogy L3 backup PFD/STEC55X Autopilot/Honeywell RDR2000 radar) are all commodity STC / AML stock items. A competent avionics shop will know all these items well. There are at least six of these aircraft in Europe to my knowledge. GAMA at Fairoaks seem to have become comfortable looking after mine. Overall, I have seen nothing to change my initial view that N67JK will cost less to operate than my Cirrus did, and show about the same variable cost if one looks ahead to the admittedly expensive major engine overhaul at 3500 hours.
The combination of sturdy landing gear, short-field capability and decent speed at altitude make N67JK a versatile performer. A typical mission for which she is well suited was one I flew last week. My 93-year-old neighbour wanted to visit her son on the Isle of Mull. A pilot friend and I took her to Fairoaks where at 0945 she easily boarded the aircraft (not needing to climb over a wing). We took off and climbed to cruise in the airways at F180, dropping 2 hours and 5 minutes later into low VFR conditions along the sound of Mull, landing in rain on Glenforsa’s wet grass runway from the hilly end and stopping comfortably using beta in conditions that would have proved problematic for conventional braking. Having handed over our passenger and enjoyed a leisurely lunch at the hotel, we were back in the south of England by teatime, having flown 900nm that day without any sense of strain. I expect that, technically, one could do the same in many other aircraft, but I would contend that this aircraft delivers against the brief whilst putting a lot less stress on the pilot.
I intend to keep N67JK. She is a very comfortable aircraft – one in which one can spend four or even five hours without fatigue or discomfort. Jim Thorpe and I flew her with ease from Warsaw to London in one bound quite recently, having flown her 900 miles the previous day.
Of course we all love our own aircraft, but after 350 hours of flying this one, I can say that she has made me a better pilot than I was and that I still look forward to every flight.

Postscript: I have since upgraded the STEC55X to a 3100 digital autopilot - and that has made the ride in automatically controlled flight feel just like that of a commercial jet.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2021, 16:23 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14128
Post Likes: +9073
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Username Protected wrote:
MTOW is unchanged at 4000lbs, basic empty weight depends on equipment but is typically 2800 lbs.


Full fuel is 985lbs right? so typical payload with full fuel is 215 lbs?

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2021, 16:41 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/06/15
Posts: 256
Post Likes: +263
Aircraft: Bonanza A36
Username Protected wrote:
MTOW is unchanged at 4000lbs, basic empty weight depends on equipment but is typically 2800 lbs.


Full fuel is 985lbs right? so typical payload with full fuel is 215 lbs?


Given that the M250 weighs about 300 lbs less than the TSIO520 that it replaces, I would have thought that the full-fuel (147 gal) payload would be more in the 500 lb range. Looking at the useful loads listed for some of the planes for sale, this seems about right. Of course you could leave out fuel and cary a lot more inside the cabin.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna P210 Silver Eagle Turbine
PostPosted: 04 Jan 2021, 20:05 
Online


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8012
Post Likes: +5710
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
Specs say 1530 useful load.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/articl ... fications/


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  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

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