BONANZA VS. CENTURION according to AOPA a clean sweep?

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name

Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
I have enough time in both, using them to their max capabilities. Centurions are better for long trips with lots of stuff. Full fuel payload is great and most are TC making it higher and faster. Shorter distances, sub 400 miles or just two people, I’ll take an A36. Take a reduced fuel load and you can shove in full size bikes and people. Passengers love the a36 with its cabin seating. And it flies like a Beechcraft they just fly smoother.

In a club environment a 210 wins all day long hands down. I say that because clubs have a tendency to “fill the tanks” after every flight. That’s okay with a 210 because the full fuel payload is more than 800 pounds. Full fuel on a Bonanza all the time greatly reduces the planes capabilities.

I make occasional longer flights (650 nm) with 4 and the t210 does it nonstop. An A36 requires a stop because fuel has to be left behind. With a club a36 I wouldn’t even be able to leave, that sucks.

For a rental the 210 is better, for a personal plane I’d take an a36 all day long
 
A 210 is about the best value in 6 seat aviation. Not sure if the early version has a more reliable gear but I like those with the struct and spring gear. If I was shopping with A36 money though it would be a lot tougher decision.
 
View attachment 57995

I like 'em all ... but Mrs. P always says if money were no object we'd have a Saratoga. :cool: It's a big, awkward, sloppy, lovable St. Bernard of an airplane, but passengers like it.

Yup. Made the mistake of showing the wife around a Lance, we don't even need the UL (2+1 mission). Doesn't matter anymore. Momma wants the kitchenette. So these days it's just a 'when' conversation rather than a what. Togas are outside reach, but a well worn Lance, or a discounted II (T-tails) should make a great compromise. Flying that thing around at 600 under gross should be a blast though LOL.
 
Is there a big difference between the two with pilot experience being the same?
Apparently. There’s a POAer here (JCranford I think) who had a heck of a time finding an insurance company even willing to write a policy on a 210.
 
I'd take either but would favor a Bo.

It looks nice but with two doors, passengers can look down, shade in the rain and sun...I live in Florida and more legroom. a Well maintained 210 would be hard to pass up.

View attachment 57995

I like 'em all ... but Mrs. P always says if money were no object we'd have a Saratoga. :cool: It's a big, awkward, sloppy, lovable St. Bernard of an airplane, but passengers like it.

I just happened to sit in the back of a Saratoga a few weeks ago at the AOPA fly in just to see what the back feels like and I was pretty cramped. I didn't expect it to be an airliner but I felt like being in a can of sardines. I'm 6 foot 1 1/2. Anybody my height and beyond will have issues.
 
More accidents in a 210 over a Bo?
Maybe he’ll chime in, but I think it was more landing gear related accidents.

Honestly, I’ve enjoyed flying both 210s and Bos. I was surprised when he posted about his insurance woes.
 
... Shorter distances, sub 400 miles or just two people, I’ll take an A36. Take a reduced fuel load and you can shove in full size bikes and people. Passengers love the a36 with its cabin seating. And it flies like a Beechcraft they just fly smoother.

In a club environment a 210 wins all day long hands down. I say that because clubs have a tendency to “fill the tanks” after every flight. That’s okay with a 210 because the full fuel payload is more than 800 pounds. Full fuel on a Bonanza all the time greatly reduces the planes capabilities.

I make occasional longer flights (650 nm) with 4 and the t210 does it nonstop. An A36 requires a stop because fuel has to be left behind. With a club a36 I wouldn’t even be able to leave, that sucks.

For a rental the 210 is better, for a personal plane I’d take an a36 all day long

Through all my years owning Piper singles my lust-after dream airplane was always an A-36 Bonanza. When I finally got to the point I could actually afford a reasonable example of one I discovered they aren't really 6-place airplanes. They aren't even a serious 4-adults cross country airplane imo.
 
The Centurion had a bunch of mods, didn't it?
Yep, bigger motor I think. Still dig the 210 though.

Both had been mod’d, and both have an IO-550 in them.

The folks on BeechTalk have been grousing that they flew the Bo too fast on final, hence the longer landing.

I like either, but give a slight nod to the 210. The insurance is higher on the 210, partially due to gear issues; as in real issues, not forgetting.
 
Through all my years owning Piper singles my lust-after dream airplane was always an A-36 Bonanza. When I finally got to the point I could actually afford a reasonable example of one I discovered they aren't really 6-place airplanes. They aren't even a serious 4-adults cross country airplane imo.
In any GA plane, real-world seating is N-2.
 
View attachment 57995

I like 'em all ... but Mrs. P always says if money were no object we'd have a Saratoga. :cool: It's a big, awkward, sloppy, lovable St. Bernard of an airplane, but passengers like it.
Funny, I'll bet all of those "models" are 5'9" and 150#.
 
In any GA plane, real-world seating is N-2.

1977 Cessna 182Q - 1260# useful load. w/75 gal, 812# still left for cabin. This is with a $700 paperwork STC for a 3,100# MGTOW. I've seen P-model 182 with up to about 30# more useful than we have.
 
Seems like for 4 people or less a Bo

For more people or stuff a 210

But with the Bo, if you're going to Bo it, do it with with a V tail and a IO550
 
I knew a gentleman who owned both. A B36TC and a T210. Both in 10/10 condition. The 210 for ice season and business flying, the 36 with AC for the summer.
 
Through all my years owning Piper singles my lust-after dream airplane was always an A-36 Bonanza. When I finally got to the point I could actually afford a reasonable example of one I discovered they aren't really 6-place airplanes. They aren't even a serious 4-adults cross country airplane imo.

Agree and you can get into an aft CG situation easily in a Bo, whereas a Piper Lance has the handy cargo area between the firewall and panel that helps tremendously with CG. I assume the same for a Saratoga. But the Bo sure is a niceeeee ride, and I'd take it over a Lance/Saratoga, but would love either one. I'm easy. ;)
 
It's not. I owned 2 straight tail lances. Capable and comfortable. But a blast? No.

yeah, i should have qualified my response a bit better. i meant a marked improvement over my arrow in climb rate while schlepping the same amount of meat and trinkets over the same distance, which puts me really light on a lance.

i thought most of the gallery already knew what i fly for a living and would infer the silent "relatively speaking" when i make any hyperbolic claim about GA lol. thats my bad.

just like you said, we re looking at the lance for straight comfort, the extra 15 knots over the arrow (at the power setting i run) is just the cherry on top.

sorry for the thread drift, now back to bos and uninsurable cessna retracts (i keed i keed).
 
That doesn’t surprise me. Cessna seems to have some of the most complex landing gear of any of the GA singles.

Most of the Cessna gear failures I've seen are the result of a short circuit between the pilot's seat and the gear selector.
 
Most of the Cessna gear failures I've seen are the result of a short circuit between the pilot's seat and the gear selector.
So, honest question: why would the insurance companies treat the 210 differently?
 
So, honest question: why would the insurance companies treat the 210 differently?
Because they have more short circuits. :)
Likely this is a function of habits. The 206 looks, flies and feels like a 172/182 just a touch faster/bigger.
So most pilots not in the habit of dealing with the gear.
While you look at most low wing planes and how the RG planes handle feel, sight picture... All vary very much from the general fixed gear training planes.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
Hard to beat the view out of an A-36. I might have a different usage profile than the rest of you though!
30232399183_fd8ef9f0fd_b.jpg
 
They are saying that it's a clean sweep Cessna Centurion wins hands down. When I saw the way the 210 raises the landing gear I said to myself "Geez that is a lot of moving parts and a bad way to tuck the gear in".

I don't have any personal exposure to the matter, but I asked David White about it once. His experience with the 210 was a series is easy to find at PoA thanks to the search function:
1. "Well, the entire hydraulic system crapped on me, and I had to burn my hand manually pumping the gear down because of a poor gear design and pump location."
2. "I don't fly 210s anymore. Almost had one kill me, and then I decided I'd give 210s another chance and within the first 3 hours flying it I had gear issues and a total brake failure on the runway at SAT."
 
Back
Top