Cessna 210N Questions

Sinistar

Sinistar

En-Route
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
3,734
Display Name
Display name:
Brad
I have some 210 questions and would like to learn more. I'd like to keep the questions specific to the 210N models (turbo and NA) but not pressurized (P210N).

1. How different does it handle and land than our 1972 182P.
2. Is the cabin any wider than our mid 70's model 182P?
3. What is a typical cruise speed and fuel burn for 210N (non-turbo) loaded to 90% MTOW
4. What is a typical cruise speed and fuel burn for Turbo 201N loaded to 90% MTOW
5. Can the owner remove/install a 2nd row seat without A&P/IA being involved?
6. What would a typical annual cost be for a 210N and a turbo 210N?
7. Do both the 210N and turbo version have FIKI approval?
8. What are the TBO's for the NA an Turbo versions?
9. Are there any nasty AD's on this model?

....I am trying to get a big picture first. Then I might pick up a buyer's guide. My hangar neighbor has learned that a PC12 or King Air or equivalent 8 person rental is out of his brother-in-law's budget. If he can limit back to 4 persons, not fly it on all his trips but still be able to haul a fair amount of stuff (more than a SR22 could) he might consider this route instead. And I will admit my wife and I often chat about stepping up from the 182 to a 210.
 
The 210 is a veritable beast (I mean that in a good way). I don't have nearly enough time in them to offer a value added response to your questions, but will be following other's responses.

If you haven't seen this, then it's worth checking out.. granted the 210 had mods, but damn it's a sweet plane. I'm a low wing person but I'd get a 210 over a Bo or Lance every day

 
Tantalum said:
The 210 is a veritable beast (I mean that in a good way). I don't have nearly enough time in them to offer a value added response to your questions, but will be following other's responses.

If you haven't seen this, then it's worth checking out.. granted the 210 had mods, but damn it's a sweet plane. I'm a low wing person but I'd get a 210 over a Bo or Lance every day

Click to expand...
I saw that video a while back. I am partial to high wings but I will admit it seemed the 210 mods were favoring the 210. Of the three you mentioned, the T-Tail Lance just looks cool. However, something about 4 nice sized forward facing seats in the 210 seems just right. Throw in the lack of the wing strut and the speed/W&B and it sure seems like a great "last plane" to own. I hope someone will chime in soon with the "reality" of the 'N' model and the true differences between the NA and Turbo versions.
 
I've got a 2002 G36 AFM here, when it was brand new the useful load shows 1067 pounds, I'm betting most, if not all later model 210s are pushing 1,400 useful.

If I bought a low wing I'd buy a Cirrus, but too much money and not big enough, I'd buy a 210 over it in a heartbeat.
 
Sinistar said:
T-Tail Lance just looks cool. However, something about 4 nice sized forward facing seats in the 210 seems just right
Click to expand...
The T-Tail is cool, but I hear their flying qualities take a little getting used to since the elevator is out of the prop wash so it takes more force to keep the nose up. I agree about the seats, whenever I see pictures of Lance or Bo with those club seats I can't imagine it would be fun sitting in that seat bending forwards flying backwards.. and I'm quite sure your CG will be off if you just sit in the very back seats

Was never a fan of club seating

This has to be some kind of joke, who wants to sit bending over the whole time? This is on the ground, I can imagine during take off you are actively being dumped out of our seat. And where do your feet go? Are you playing footsie the whole time with the clown sitting across from you? Trash.
upload_2019-6-14_16-43-27.png
 
Tantalum said:
The T-Tail is cool, but I hear their flying qualities take a little getting used to since the elevator is out of the prop wash so it takes more force to keep the nose up. I agree about the seats, whenever I see pictures of Lance or Bo with those club seats I can't imagine it would be fun sitting in that seat bending forwards flying backwards.. and I'm quite sure your CG will be off if you just sit in the very back seats

Was never a fan of club seating

This has to be some kind of joke, who wants to sit bending over the whole time? This is on the ground, I can imagine during take off you are actively being dumped out of our seat. And where do your feet go? Are you playing footsie the whole time with the clown sitting across from you? Trash.
View attachment 75029
Click to expand...

You've never sat in one, have you?
We did a 30 hour trip with 5 adults in a Saratoga. No complaints, plenty of room.
When the front seats are moved forward (as they will be), the seats are in a natural angle.

And no, your W&B won't be off. You want to load the rear seats first in a 'Toga. Easy to go off W&B from the front in them.
 
mtuomi said:
You've never sat in one, have you?
Click to expand...
Cool thanks, that makes more sense. And no, but the photos always make the back look big yet oddly uncomfortable
 
Tantalum said:
Cool thanks, that makes more sense. And no, but the photos always make the back look big yet oddly uncomfortable
Click to expand...

Yeah, when you pull the front seats all the way back, it leans against the middle row and makes the seat back tilt a bit. But obviously that's just for getting in and out, you never fly like that. The club seating is 100% the way to go in a 'Toga/Lance/C6.
With W&B, the engine is way far in the front - there's a luggage compartment between the cockpit and engine (big enough for 2 normal rollerboards). With 4 passengers, you always load the rear seats first, otherwise you are likely off from the front.
No need to play footsies, there's enough room. 6 is tight, but 5 is great.
Go check one out - they are great haulers and very comfortable to travel in. Not the fastest, but much, much cheaper to maintain than a 'Bo.
 
Is there a definitive "fact sheet" about the gear issues/rumors/faux facts? Ask anyone about a 210 and they all yell "GEAR SADDLES". What's the current situation?
 
mtuomi said:
Is there a definitive "fact sheet" about the gear issues/rumors/faux facts? Ask anyone about a 210 and they all yell "GEAR SADDLES". What's the current situation?
Click to expand...

Not all 210s are saddle variants. Not all saddles are created equal. 210 and 210A models have mandatory 1000 hr replacement, 210B and beyond have inspections every annual. I forget the year where they went away from saddles and into pivots. The pivots are prone to cracking as well (as they are in the 182 and 172) and cost almost double than the saddles FYI. Some STC are available for the pivot rework, which approaches the cost of the saddles themselves.

Both dwarf in comparison to the cost of a cracked actuator housing. That's the bad day for a 182/210 owner. 20K from Cessna, otherwise it's wild goose chase time. Fun times, said no one ever.

All in all, expensive parts all around when they fail. No free lunch when it comes to 210s. For your tolerance of these engine overhaul level gear parts costs, you get a pretty good useful load and respectable speed. Personally I would go with the Lance or retract Saratoga, significantly cheaper airframe to maintain and more reliable engine imo. To each their own.
 
Sinistar said:
Please, share! Anything to break up the low wing circle...uh, um...love fest.

Why did you get a L vs N. Turbo?
Click to expand...
Yeaah uh huh

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 
Well, maybe there's a reason I am asking specifically about later (N) models and not the older variants (or any type of low wing)
 
I don’t have a ton to add here other than I really want a 210 someday. What a machine.

1,000 lb useful load on a brand new G36?!?! I just about threw up.

Perhaps you can share why you are only looking at N models? The only reason I can see for being so specific is that you have one in your sights.
 
Last edited:
Sinistar said:
Please, share! Anything to break up the low wing circle...uh, um...love fest.

Why did you get a L vs N. Turbo?
Click to expand...

I wasn’t focused on a particular model as long as it was mid-70’s or later, which seemed to be the sweet spot. I found a 1975 L I liked and bought it. Yes, mine is turbo. As it was explained to me: why buy a cross country capable airplane you can’t go cross country in. ie, it’s easier to get over the humps higher and faster.

I’ve flown her from Virginia to Texas and Texas to Oregon.
 
210s are extremely capable and fast. They also handle like dump trucks, which is a term I got from Tantalum. The 182 handles better, but the 210 is the much better airplane.

A Bonanza is nicer to fly than the 210 and better in turbulence. The 210 will perform better, though it will burn a little more gas. They are equally overpriced.

The Lance/Saratoga will eat them both for lunch with regards to carrying capacity and personal space.

Also, club seating is absolutely the way to go. The nice pull out tray and easier ingress and egress are winners.

bnt83 said:
I've got a 2002 G36 AFM here, when it was brand new the useful load shows 1067 pounds, I'm betting most, if not all later model 210s are pushing 1,400 useful.
Click to expand...

210s have always beat Bonanzas on UL, even before the G36 got porky.
 
N1120A said:
210s are extremely capable and fast. They also handle like dump trucks, which is a term I got from Tantalum. The 182 handles better, but the 210 is the much better airplane.

A Bonanza is nicer to fly than the 210 and better in turbulence. The 210 will perform better, though it will burn a little more gas. They are equally overpriced.

The Lance/Saratoga will eat them both for lunch with regards to carrying capacity and personal space.

Also, club seating is absolutely the way to go. The nice pull out tray and easier ingress and egress are winners.



210s have always beat Bonanzas on UL, even before the G36 got porky.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I have to disagree with the general statement that a 210 handles like a dump truck compared to a 182. The cantilever wing 210 has much better roll characteristics with better aileron performance than 182’s. Early strut model 210’s not quite as nice. The only single engine Cessna from the 70’s that compares to a 1970 and newer 210 for roll rate was the Cardinal RG. Climb rate for a comparably equipped 210 exceeds a 182 hands down. Heavier airplane at gross but still handles the load well. Not much room for the fifth & sixth seat passengers but very adequate room for four with good baggage even with full fuel. This gives 6 hours of flight and a 1,000 mile range if your bladder can take it. I just slide the middle seats all the way back and don’t use the back 2 except to lay stuff on unless I am taking youngsters. I do not know of many with FIKI capability, I have iced them up a couple of times but not on purpose. There may be some turbo models with boots but not NA models. My thought is if you want FIKI get a twin.
This site will give you the differences by year https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_210
My opinion is the K models and newer are more desirable. The L model with the 24 volt system and electric hydraulic pump is a nice improvement too (but you can’t jump it with your auto if needed). The turbo models have a lot more stuff inside the cowling and if you want to fly above 10,000 frequently are worth the investment. I generally fly below 10 so am happy with NA. The tighter space inside the cowling, added exhaust & turbocharger with more mp generate more heat and wear on engine parts and exhaust. A turbo engine life is reduced to around 1,200 hours and commonly need a top overhaul versus the 1,500 to 1,800 of an NA. TBO on the IO-520 was 1,700 increased to 1,900 to 2,100 on new production engines. An engine analyzer is a good investment. My annuals usually cost a bit over $2,000, John would be a better source for turbo annual expenses. An N model should fly around 180-185 mph, I think book is 187. A turbo at altitude over 200 mph but even though I have some time in one it is when I worked at the factory and don’t remember the figures. As stated previously gear actuators are expensive, bought a new one three years ago and it was close to $10K then. Fortunately they don’t go bad frequently, I have only had to replace one. If you are looking at a bird with over 5,000 hours have the headliner dropped and inspect the carrythru between the spars. They had a problem with some around 10,000 hours in Australia as I recall and this created the most serious airframe AD and there are a few others such as foam filled stabilizers that need to be checked.
 
AA5Bman said:
I don’t have a ton to add here other than I really want a 210 someday. What a machine.

1,000 lb useful load on a brand new G36?!?! I just about threw up.

Perhaps you can share why you are only looking at N models? The only reason I can see for being so specific is that you have one in your sights.
Click to expand...
No, I don't have one in might sights. Call me a victim [perhaps] of doing a quick internet search. From a quick search it seems that by the N model lots of kinks have been worked out which also makes that model probably more desirable. Looks like @JCranford found a nice turbo L model so it sounds like the "sweet spot" isn't necessarily the N model.

The main reason I was asking was I have been trying to help a friend find a plane for his brother in law for some business/pleasure. He understand carrying 8 people is just ridiculous and now he's looking at just carrying 4 people. His ideal trip is about 650nm to a hunting lodge up in Canada. The first plane that came to mind was a later model 210 for any short field work and all the gear they would be carrying. I will definitely add the Saratoga and Lance to his list.

If we were to buy a 210 it would be for typical trips of 300nm or less. Its just my wife, daughter and myself and our golden retriever. It would also be nice for a couples trip. It would also be nice if we could remove one of the middle seats so fido could lay down on the floor beside one of us...if laying way in back didn't work out. With the Skylane we're often seeing ground speeds of 130mph...160mph (including typical winds aloft) and it sure would be nice if it was more like 150mph...180mph. The gear parts and costs do spook me though. Its like we really want a 206 (fixed gear) but wouldn't be as fast a 210 and doesn't have two front doors. That leaves the 205 but it seems like every last one was stripped down to a pilot seat, one yoke and like 2 gauges and turned into a jumper plane and they probably aren't as fast either.
 
Sinistar said:
No, I don't have one in might sights. Call me a victim [perhaps] of doing a quick internet search. From a quick search it seems that by the N model lots of kinks have been worked out which also makes that model probably more desirable. Looks like @JCranford found a nice turbo L model so it sounds like the "sweet spot" isn't necessarily the N model.

The main reason I was asking was I have been trying to help a friend find a plane for his brother in law for some business/pleasure. He understand carrying 8 people is just ridiculous and now he's looking at just carrying 4 people. His ideal trip is about 650nm to a hunting lodge up in Canada. The first plane that came to mind was a later model 210 for any short field work and all the gear they would be carrying. I will definitely add the Saratoga and Lance to his list.

If we were to buy a 210 it would be for typical trips of 300nm or less. Its just my wife, daughter and myself and our golden retriever. It would also be nice for a couples trip. It would also be nice if we could remove one of the middle seats so fido could lay down on the floor beside one of us...if laying way in back didn't work out. With the Skylane we're often seeing ground speeds of 130mph...160mph (including typical winds aloft) and it sure would be nice if it was more like 150mph...180mph. The gear parts and costs do spook me though. Its like we really want a 206 (fixed gear) but wouldn't be as fast a 210 and doesn't have two front doors. That leaves the 205 but it seems like every last one was stripped down to a pilot seat, one yoke and like 2 gauges and turned into a jumper plane and they probably aren't as fast either.
Click to expand...

Well, ironically I own a 205 my handle notwithstanding, so I can speak to that. They’re definitely not all jumpers, the only ones that have been available for sale recently have been pretty spiffed up. Doesn’t really solve your problem either way as I don’t think it’s probably the right platform anyway - they (as well as the 206s and Cherokee 6s) are just too slow. I think that part really depends on how far you’re really going to go with the plane. If you are really going to try to go 650nm in the fall (hunting season) in Canada, you better be looking at a 210 if the runway is reasonably smooth and over, say, 2,000 feet in the length at a minimum. It better have some pretty seriously weather capability and it needs to be fast, which is why I think the 205/206/Cherokee 6s are all out. However, if you’re really only going 300nm miles and (for instance) really thinking about rough strips, maybe the 205/206/Cherokee 6s are back in. My impression observing some of the bush operators who use 210s is that they are an amazing, fast, load carrying machine that will do a heck of a lot more off pavement than they are given credit for. As long as things are reasonably smooth, whatever the surface.

At the end of the day, I think the downsides of the 205 and 206 are that they are slow as dirt (or you run them super hard and they’re somewhat faster, but burn 17gph), and the downsides of the 210 is that they have expensive gear. Cherokees are ugly, low wing, AND slow, Lances have retracts and are a little faster but not 210s, but still ugly. Just kidding, I like the Cherokees for a lot of things, they’re just slow, but so is my 205.

PS - think about the P206 if you want two doors up front, 205/206 capability, and a somewhat lower acquisition cost than U206s or 210s. I still think the 210 is probably the way to go based on what you’ve written.
 
For 4 adults, the Saratoga is going to be very comfy. Club seating is ideal for this. The back passengers can put their feet up and relax. Lots of room back there.

I’m partial because I own a Lance. No experience with the 210.

82ce5f847d97f8e4a801cd162fd98914.jpg
 
And the Saratoga II comes in fixed gear and retract versions... so choose which is better for your mission. -Skip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top