15 May 2025, 08:24 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Am I crazy to be considering a 1969 Turbo 210?  Posted: 15 Nov 2018, 16:37 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 08/31/17
Posts: 1744
Post Likes: +703
Aircraft: C180
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Ummmm,,,,,there is a big difference in fuel burn between the two,,,and thats a deal breaker for me.........Bonanza all day LONG !!!!  I thought HP was HP? 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Am I crazy to be considering a 1969 Turbo 210? Posted: 15 Nov 2018, 19:55 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/01/15
Posts: 968
Post Likes: +851
Aircraft: Bonanza F35
|
|
OK............ Have you ever heard of aerodynamics.OMG!!!!!! 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Am I crazy to be considering a 1969 Turbo 210? Posted: 15 Nov 2018, 23:19 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 10/28/12
Posts: 3607
Post Likes: +3216
Company: IBG Business-M&A Advisors
Location: Scottsdale, AZ - Kerrville,TX
Aircraft: SR22-G2 (prev:V35)
|
|
Username Protected wrote: OK............ Have you ever heard of aerodynamics.OMG!!!!!! I believe his point, which I agree with, is that for a given engine and HP output, the fuel burn rate will be the same. The speed may differ for a given output which is driven by aerodynamics. And these two planes have been compared ad nauseum, they’re very close in speed if all other factors are equal. (Weight, power settings etc)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Am I crazy to be considering a 1969 Turbo 210? Posted: 16 Nov 2018, 10:04 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/31/17
Posts: 1744
Post Likes: +703
Aircraft: C180
|
|
Username Protected wrote: OK............ Have you ever heard of aerodynamics.OMG!!!!!! I believe his point, which I agree with, is that for a given engine and HP output, the fuel burn rate will be the same. The speed may differ for a given output which is driven by aerodynamics. And these two planes have been compared ad nauseum, they’re very close in speed if all other factors are equal. (Weight, power settings etc)
Bob gets it 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Am I crazy to be considering a 1969 Turbo 210? Posted: 16 Nov 2018, 10:20 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 02/22/09
Posts: 2697
Post Likes: +2203
Location: KLOM
Aircraft: J35, L-19, PT17
|
|
I've got a friend with an early 210. Bob's right. We've compared notes a few times. My IO520 powered J35 and his 210 match up fairly closely with speed and fuel burn. I don't remember the exact numbers but at similar power settings the old J35 wasn't much faster. Username Protected wrote: OK............ Have you ever heard of aerodynamics.OMG!!!!!! I believe his point, which I agree with, is that for a given engine and HP output, the fuel burn rate will be the same. The speed may differ for a given output which is driven by aerodynamics. And these two planes have been compared ad nauseum, they’re very close in speed if all other factors are equal. (Weight, power settings etc)
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Am I crazy to be considering a 1969 Turbo 210? Posted: 17 Nov 2018, 22:05 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/28/12
Posts: 3607
Post Likes: +3216
Company: IBG Business-M&A Advisors
Location: Scottsdale, AZ - Kerrville,TX
Aircraft: SR22-G2 (prev:V35)
|
|
Username Protected wrote: O.k.......We will agree to disagree! I can't see a Cessna 210 plane being as aerodynamic as a Bonanza?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I'm gonna have to open another Johnny Walker Red on this one!!! Enjoy the red, you’re confusing sexiness and lust with physics. The two are very similar in so many ways - wingspan, cabin width and height (so similar cross-section) that physics has to be similar. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... -centurionCertainly on this board you’ll find no one arguing against which one wins the sexiness prize, self included. Maybe make it black instead of red, you have the sexier plane.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Am I crazy to be considering a 1969 Turbo 210? Posted: 17 Nov 2018, 22:14 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/27/17
Posts: 80
Post Likes: +9
Location: Cordele, Ga. KCKF
Aircraft: A36
|
|
|
i have a friend with a 210 that we spend a lot of time in. great fast hauler. it likes fuel! love the two doors and easy entry. if I could buy a new 210 I would. just scared of plane that has not been made in 35 years. Staying with my 99 A36!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Am I crazy to be considering a 1969 Turbo 210? Posted: 22 Nov 2018, 16:07 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/16/08
Posts: 63
Post Likes: +21
Location: KPDK
Aircraft: Prior 210L, 182RG
|
|
the best variants are the 210L and later. I prefer the doors and the 550P if you can get it. the other one is the Larry Vitatoe conversion to the P210. Paul New says these are the 2 STC'd planes perform as the airframes were intended to. Found a 210L with 550P with no corrosion. took me 3 years. middle seat out. interior as close to a bonanza as was willing to spend. great aircraft. our family is 5, and stable in weather. Bo handles better. high wing helps with the heat too with no AC in the south. load carrying and speed unmatched with 1 piston. truck like..perhaps. I need and like the truck. Attachment: Screenshot 2018-11-22 14.51.48.png
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Am I crazy to be considering a 1969 Turbo 210? Posted: 22 Nov 2018, 18:12 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/16/08
Posts: 743
Post Likes: +633
Location: Nevada City, CA
Aircraft: Baron 55 w/550s
|
|
|
Back in the late '70's when I bought my C182, the sales guy (remember when there were aircraft sales guys?) picked me up at Ft. Collins-Loveland (KFNL) now and flew me over to Grand Junction to look at it...he took me over in a, probably, '72 Turbo 210. Wow, I was stunned. Cruise climbed as I recall at about 800'/minute, right past Long's Peak at 14,000 something. I remember thinking that if I could ever have something like this, life could not be better.
'Course, I would not go back to that from the Baron. The choices we have to make!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Am I crazy to be considering a 1969 Turbo 210? Posted: 26 Nov 2018, 21:10 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/20/16
Posts: 7081
Post Likes: +9345
Location: Austin, TX area
Aircraft: OPA
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Would you be getting a RG or fixed gear 210 model? Both have their advantages and disadvantages. A what? 
Perhaps he was referring to the C205, which was essentially a fixed gear C210, and was even known as the "Model 210-5"?
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
