02 Jun 2025, 13:52 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: What about the Cessna 210? Posted: 29 Apr 2014, 16:06 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 04/15/10 Posts: 691 Post Likes: +101 Location: Atlanta
Aircraft: 77' B55
|
|
I'm starting to look at planes with more useful load than my 60' Deb. I have asked about v35 and a36 but I don't know anything about the Cessna210. Any of you guys have time in one? Thanks, Russell
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What about the Cessna 210? Posted: 29 Apr 2014, 16:09 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 08/15/08 Posts: 1101 Post Likes: +59 Location: Santa Rosa, CA (KSTS)
Aircraft: 1975 Bonanza A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm starting to look at planes with more useful load than my 60' Deb. I have asked about v35 and a36 but I don't know anything about the Cessna210. Any of you guys have time in one? Thanks, Russell They are great airplanes and I'd take an A36 over a 210 any day.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What about the Cessna 210? Posted: 29 Apr 2014, 17:03 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 05/01/11 Posts: 434 Post Likes: +240 Company: Learning Fundamentals, Inc. Location: KSBP
Aircraft: PA28, C210
|
|
We have a 1973 T201L and my brother frequently fills the seats with kids. Useful load in ours is 938lbs. Not that the kids are getting bigger, he does have to pay attention to total weight, but not how it’s loaded. On the last trip he had room for 94lbs of baggage. I noticed that he left water bottles and jars of peanuts on the hangar floor, so I’m pretty sure he was at gross.
He’s not a LOP guy so he burns 20gph at ~165kts.
I’ve never flown a Beech, but think it handles fine. Easier to land than a 182. As with any high wing, you need to be firmly on the ground before you start braking or you’ll put flat spots in the tires.
The first annual was a lot, but for the last few years annuals and repairs have been around $5,000 for around 100 hours per year of flying. We switched IAs this year and are doing most of the work ourselves, so we’re hoping for a lower annual cost.
A friend with a 79 has burned up a couple of cylinders, but we have high compressions and no turbo issues.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What about the Cessna 210? Posted: 29 Apr 2014, 17:10 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 10/06/09 Posts: 29 Post Likes: +7
Aircraft: Baron 58
|
|
I had a 78 T210M for about five years. Wonderful airplane, reasonably fast, and really carries a load. Not as nice to fly as a Bonanza, it is a bit trucky, although it is an excellent instrument platform. Much more convenient than a Beech when it rains, as you get out under the wing. Far easier to drain the tanks, and you fly in the shade. For sight seeing it is great as you can see straight down, but not into the turns.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What about the Cessna 210? Posted: 29 Apr 2014, 17:57 |
|
 |

|


|
 |
Joined: 12/12/07 Posts: 10873 Post Likes: +2245 Company: MBG Properties Location: Knoxville, TN (KDKX)
Aircraft: 1972 Bonanza V35B
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I had a 78 T210M for about five years. Wonderful airplane, reasonably fast, and really carries a load. Not as nice to fly as a Bonanza, it is a bit trucky, although it is an excellent instrument platform. Much more convenient than a Beech when it rains, as you get out under the wing. Far easier to drain the tanks, and you fly in the shade. For sight seeing it is great as you can see straight down, but not into the turns. Exactly my experience in 350 hours in the same model. Story: I once flew into Snyder, OK, to a grass strip...the only airport for the town. Just before arrival it started pouring rain. With no DME, I had to circle several times before I saw a wind sock. A local saw me circling. He drove under the wing just as I found a place to park the plane. I got out of the plane and into his Cadillac without getting a drop of rain on me. 
_________________ Max Grogan
Come fly with me.
My photos: https://photos.google.com/albums
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What about the Cessna 210? Posted: 29 Apr 2014, 18:06 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 02/23/08 Posts: 6414 Post Likes: +9589 Company: Schulte Booth, P.C. Location: Easton, MD (KESN)
Aircraft: 1958 Bonanza 35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Story: I once flew into Snyder, OK, to a grass strip...the only airport for the town. Just before arrival it started pouring rain. With no DME, I had to circle several times before I saw a wind sock. A local saw me circling. He drove under the wing just as I found a place to park the plane. I got out of the plane and into his Cadillac without getting a drop of rain on me.  And this is exactly why general aviation represents the best of our Country. What a privileged few we are.
_________________ - As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
Robert D. Schulte http://www.schultebooth.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What about the Cessna 210? Posted: 30 Apr 2014, 08:59 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/29/10 Posts: 2757 Post Likes: +2588 Location: Dallas, TX (KADS & KJWY)
Aircraft: T28B,7GCBC,E90
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I had a 78 T210M for about five years. Wonderful airplane, reasonably fast, and really carries a load. Not as nice to fly as a Bonanza, it is a bit trucky, although it is an excellent instrument platform. Much more convenient than a Beech when it rains, as you get out under the wing. Far easier to drain the tanks, and you fly in the shade. For sight seeing it is great as you can see straight down, but not into the turns. Gilbert said it very well - the T210 is one of the best single engine airplanes out there. I had 500+ hours in rented F33s and A36s and truly loved flying Bonanzas (I still do) but when it came time to purchase my own plane I chose a 1980 T210. Why? - more interior room. The A36 just doesn't have any baggage area and if people are sitting in the back there's no where to put "stuff". The 210 has a nice baggage area behind the rear seats. - I liked the two doors, however this ones a wash with the A36 cargo door - more fuel and range. Down low, the T210 and A36 are about the same speed, but up high where you can take more advantage of the turbo, the T210 is faster. Also, the stock T210 has 89 gallons whereas the A36 only has 74 (yes, you can add tips and/or TAT turbo) - air conditioning - factory AC is more readily available on the 210. When it worked it was great, but it was very finicky. - radar pod - very nice addition on the 210, even with NEXRAD. Hard to find in a A36 - known ice capable. - slightly better off field performer (don't believe the bs about the 210 gear system - it's rock solid). Please don't get me wrong - I love flying Bonanzas, but the above were MY reasons for purchasing a known ice, radar equipped and air conditioned T210. Every mission and pilot is different! FYI, I have a 421 now and love this airplane, but still miss my 210! Robert
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What about the Cessna 210? Posted: 30 Apr 2014, 10:24 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 03/01/14 Posts: 2280 Post Likes: +2041 Location: 0TX0 Granbury TX
Aircraft: T-210M Aeronca 7AC
|
|
+1 What Robert said!! The fat sister handles like a truck the Bo is a sport utility vehicle. I think its easier to get in and out of the Cessna than the Bo. Umbrellas don't work as well as the high wing as the interior is going to get wet in the Bo. Both are great performers.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What about the Cessna 210? Posted: 30 Apr 2014, 10:30 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 04/16/12 Posts: 7194 Post Likes: +12937 Location: Keller, TX (KFTW)
Aircraft: '68 36 (E-19)
|
|
Username Protected wrote: - more interior room. The A36 just doesn't have any baggage area and if people are sitting in the back there's no where to put "stuff". The 210 has a nice baggage area behind the rear seats.
- more fuel and range. Down low, the T210 and A36 are about the same speed, but up high where you can take more advantage of the turbo, the T210 is faster. Also, the stock T210 has 89 gallons whereas the A36 only has 74 (yes, you can add tips and/or TAT turbo)
Robert
Many A36s have the rear cargo area option, or it can be added if needed. Comparing a T210 to a non TN/turbo A36 is apples and oranges. A Turbo or TN A36 will absolutely smoke a T210 at any altitude. Just sayin. Agree the T210 is a great airplane. I seriously considered it before settling on the 36. I ultimately discounted it because it's a Chevy Suburban and I wanted a Porsche Cayenne.
_________________ Things are rarely what they seem, but they're always exactly what they are.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What about the Cessna 210? Posted: 30 Apr 2014, 22:00 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 07/18/13 Posts: 418 Post Likes: +79 Location: TEXAS
Aircraft: 1964 BE35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 210's are great planes suited for a slightly different mission than a Bonanza. 210 is an Escalade, Bonanza is an S class mercedes. If you want to haul A LOT with no CG issues, 210 is your bird. +1 I have about 250 hours in NA & T210's. I have little to no experience in Bonanzas other than traveling with friends. I'm looking for my first Bonanza now. The T210 is a good airplane. TAS 155 kts. Useful load around 1500 lbs. Performs well. Flown them with the Robertson and Horton STOL kits on them. 6 seats. The front and middle row is comfortable. The back two seats should be for smaller folks and it's a climb to get back there. Good IFR machine. I have the chance to buy either. I want the Bonanza.
|
|
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 2007-2025
|
|
|
|