BONANZA VS. CENTURION according to AOPA a clean sweep?

zaitcev said:
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."
Click to expand...
I bet he’d change his tone pretty fast for a mid six figure job flying around Swedish blondes in a 210.
 
I never got a solid answer on what the issue was with the 210 and the insurance companies. Might have been the combination of my low time, no retract time, and the 210's (early models mainly) gear issues. Hopefully that will resolve itself after the first year when I have a bunch of 210 time. Only time (in the airplane) will tell.

I liked the AOPA article. Validated my choice. Although, everyone knows, the answer is Bo's. ;)
 
JCranford said:
I never got a solid answer on what the issue was with the 210 and the insurance companies. Hopefully that will resolve itself after the first year when I have a bunch of 210 time. Only time (in the airplane) will tell. ;)
Click to expand...

Don’t count on it. When I bought my 210 the ins broker told me after I had a few hours the premium for not having any retract would decrease. 250 hrs later and 3 years I am still waiting. Although the instrument rating helped. Broker said increased 210 accident rates is the cause. :(
 
I've flown both and the majority of my PIC has been in Cessnas. Love them but I'd go with the BO (I did) For one the view out of the cockpit from the BO is sooooooooo much better. In most of the larger Cessnas just looking forward over the engine cowling was a pain and having to peek around the wings constantly sucked. The BO flies like a luxury car in the air, fuel efficient, rugged landing gear and is crazy easy to land. 210's feel, fly and look like a truck. Trucks are great but more tiring to operate.
 
Debonair Driver said:
I've flown both and the majority of my PIC has been in Cessnas. Love them but I'd go with the BO (I did) For one the view out of the cockpit from the BO is sooooooooo much better.
Click to expand...

Then a high wing airplane? I've flown Cessnas and Pipers and I agree low wing airplanes are MUCH easier to land.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Then a high wing airplane? I've flown Cessnas and Pipers and I agree low wing airplanes are MUCH easier to land.
Click to expand...
Low wing and high wing have little to do with it. More about airfoil. And Beech selected a very forgiving airfoil with room for lots of slop. Hence, it is super easy to land....

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
zaitcev said:
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."
Click to expand...

I have no dog in this fight but I remember when the gear issue happened to David and sh*tty maintenance does not equal a sh*tty airplane. Any poorly maintained airplane can try to kill you.

Cessnas definitely look like wounded ducks when the gear is extending/retracting though. It just ain't right!
 
Last edited:
tspear said:
Low wing and high wing have little to do with it. More about airfoil. And Beech selected a very forgiving airfoil with room for lots of slop.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

More forgiving than a Cessna?
 
zaitcev said:
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."
Click to expand...
Any aircraft maintained like a pile of junk due to bad maintenance is a problem, the 210 landing gear maintained properly is trouble free. Don't blame the aircraft for bad maintenance. Any aircraft will kill you, and if you fly junk the odds are against you and if you don't know what you are doing as a pilot then you are lucky your still alive. Go back to a simple airplane that you can fly, don't blame the airplane for bad maintenance or your poor pilot ability.
 
brien23 said:
Any aircraft maintained like a pile of junk due to bad maintenance is a problem, the 210 landing gear maintained properly is trouble free. Don't blame the aircraft for bad maintenance. Any aircraft will kill you, and if you fly junk the odds are against you and if you don't know what you are doing as a pilot then you are lucky your still alive. Go back to a simple airplane that you can fly, don't blame the airplane for bad maintenance or your poor pilot ability.
Click to expand...

What did you mean by flying junk...what do you consider junk?
 
FloridaPilot said:
More accidents in a 210 over a Bo?
Click to expand...

I think I remember seeing that the C210s have a higher fatality rate. Certainly the highest amongst the Cessna line. Carrying more people in a complex HP aircraft with more challenging missions will do that.

That, and they are notorious for gear-ups and engine cooling issues. That said, I do love a tricked out C210. Just cool looking planes.
 
I have to think that most of the issues with these planes has to do with flying into nasty.....and getting bit. They go high and fast.
 
One thing a lot of these comparisons miss, and I think why our POA discussions are so adamant between low wing, high wing, Mooney, Cirrus, etc., is that flying (at least pleasure/recreational flying for most people) is equal parts pragmatic and romantic, in other words... it's not all a strict math exercise. That's why in the other thread about the top 10 planes to own you saw so many varied answers, from Piper Cubs to PC12s

I would pick the Bonanza because I think it looks better than the 210, and I'm rarely (if ever) going to fill a plane to the gills.. but really given any choice I would pick a Cirrus over either

I think that's why not everyone is driving a minivan, or Prius, or whatever. I drive an FJ Cruiser.. its mileage sucks and the back seat is uncomfortable and the handling is crap.. but guess what, I like it
 
Tantalum said:
One thing a lot of these comparisons miss, and I think why our POA discussions are so adamant between low wing, high wing, Mooney, Cirrus, etc., is that flying (at least pleasure/recreational flying for most people) is equal parts pragmatic and romantic, in other words... it's not all a strict math exercise. That's why in the other thread about the top 10 planes to own you saw so many varied answers, from Piper Cubs to PC12s

I would pick the Bonanza because I think it looks better than the 210, and I'm rarely (if ever) going to fill a plane to the gills.. but really given any choice I would pick a Cirrus over either

I think that's why not everyone is driving a minivan, or Prius, or whatever. I drive an FJ Cruiser.. its mileage sucks and the back seat is uncomfortable and the handling is crap.. but guess what, I like it
Click to expand...
Exactly. Like any ‘which airplane’ thread, it’s all so subjective.

I’ve flown both. I think they both have their pluses and minuses, but they’re both good airplanes.

Personally, I like the way the Bo flies/handles better, and if it was just me flying around, I’d go for the Bo. But if I was hauling my family and luggage somewhere, I’d probably take the 210.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
labbadabba said:
That, and they are notorious for gear-ups and engine cooling issues.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some stats on just how many gear up landings were actually due to faulty gear compared to how many were due to a faulty pilot seat / gear handle connector. I think I'm probably paying for some dumb pilots.

I looked at a buncha planes before I bought my 210, Bo included. Since my list included things like big useful load and 'wow that V tail is really ugly', I went with the 210.
 
“The 210 is a workhorse, and it carries a heavy load,” he said. “But it doesn’t have the grace and refinement of a Bonanza, and it never will.”

LOL grace climbing in & out of the B, especially if you forgot something and the copilot/passenger is already in...
 
TheGolfPilot said:
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
Click to expand...

The 36 you flew must be a chunk of an airplane. My 36 has 1482 useful load and burns 12.2 gph at 166ktas. That 650 mile flight is 4 hours ish, call it 4.5 hours. With IFR reserves, I'd comfortably make that trip with 70-75 gallons on board. If you round up to 75 gallons on board that still leaves me over 1,000# of useful load to haul stuff.

I originally wanted a 210, was all set to buy one. I kept telling myself I didn't want a Bonanza; kept telling myself that the tiny back seats and little bitty cargo door on the 210 wasn't a big deal. Then I looked for insurance and at twice the price, I couldn't see me paying for the 210. I have 5k+ hours, all but about 600 are in retracts and jets; still couldn't get the 210 insured for less than double what I could get my 36 insured for.

We do two trips a year from New Orleans to the Bahamas, we take 4 adults and gear everytime. The 36 is a great traveling machine and the big doors are something you won't want to do without once you get used to them.
 
mscard88 said:
Agree and you can get into an aft CG situation easily in a Bo, ...
Click to expand...

The short body Bo's have a problem with this. In the 36, you'd have to try hard to get an aft CG. The closest I ever came to having an issue was taking 650# of water to hurricane Harvey victims. The back was full of water, and I didn't have a ton of fuel. It would've been right on the edge since I didn't have anyone else in the plane so I just took the seats out of the middle row and moved more water forward.
 
EvilEagle said:
The short body Bo's have a problem with this. In the 36, you'd have to try hard to get an aft CG. The closest I ever came to having an issue was taking 650# of water to hurricane Harvey victims. The back was full of water, and I didn't have a ton of fuel. It would've been right on the edge since I didn't have anyone else in the plane so I just took the seats out of the middle row and moved more water forward.
Click to expand...

The context I meant was four adults in the first two rows, and then trying to add adults or bigger kids in the last row, or cargo, as you did with water. I love Bonanzas, just something to be aware of.
 
mscard88 said:
The context I meant was four adults in the first two rows, and then trying to add adults or bigger kids in the last row, or cargo, as you did with water. I love Bonanzas, just something to be aware of.
Click to expand...

If I'd had another person in the front seats I wouldn't have been close. It's a common thing people say about Bo's but I don't think those people have looked at the CG for the 36, it's drastically different than the 35 or 33. If you had big enough people in the 5th/6th seats for it to throw off the CG in the Bo it would be a mute point in the 210/Bo discussion because two of those sized people could never get into a 210 back row.
 
bnt83 said:
I tend to agree with him actually. Jets based there show it. Coastal areas are worse than others.
Click to expand...

But just like his other sweeping generalizations you can’t say that any airplane from Florida is automatically junk. It makes you sound rather ignorant.

Yes, Florida can be rather harsh on aircraft, especially ones that spent a lot of time outside. But I’ve also seen some very nice airplanes from FL as well. I could show you a few airplanes that came from FL (one spent 30 years there) and you’d never guess it came from FL.
 
Fearless Tower said:
But just like his other sweeping generalizations you can’t say that any airplane from Florida is automatically junk. It makes you sound rather ignorant.

Yes, Florida can be rather harsh on aircraft, especially ones that spent a lot of time outside. But I’ve also seen some very nice airplanes from FL as well. I could show you a few airplanes that came from FL (one spent 30 years there) and you’d never guess it came from FL.
Click to expand...
BS
 
EvilEagle said:
The 36 you flew must be a chunk of an airplane. My 36 has 1482 useful load and burns 12.2 gph at 166ktas. That 650 mile flight is 4 hours ish, call it 4.5 hours. With IFR reserves, I'd comfortably make that trip with 70-75 gallons on board. If you round up to 75 gallons on board that still leaves me over 1,000# of useful load to haul stuff.

I originally wanted a 210, was all set to buy one. I kept telling myself I didn't want a Bonanza; kept telling myself that the tiny back seats and little bitty cargo door on the 210 wasn't a big deal. Then I looked for insurance and at twice the price, I couldn't see me paying for the 210. I have 5k+ hours, all but about 600 are in retracts and jets; still couldn't get the 210 insured for less than double what I could get my 36 insured for.

We do two trips a year from New Orleans to the Bahamas, we take 4 adults and gear everytime. The 36 is a great traveling machine and the big doors are something you won't want to do without once you get used to them.
Click to expand...

Ya, that isn’t my experience at all. the A36 I’m talking about takes just over 800 pounds with full tanks and is nearly impossible to put anything in the back without putting yourself in a fly out of cg position. Gave me a real bad taste for the things. I love the barn doors for shoving bikes and stuff in there.
 
TheGolfPilot said:
Ya, that isn’t my experience at all. the A36 I’m talking about takes just over 800 pounds with full tanks and is nearly impossible to put anything in the back without putting yourself in a fly out of cg position. Gave me a real bad taste for the things. I love the barn doors for shoving bikes and stuff in there.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of guys that own/operate 36's and you are the first one that's had that type of experience. I think you just got ahold of a poor example of a 36. Bummer.
 
Fearless Tower said:
But just like his other sweeping generalizations you can’t say that any airplane from Florida is automatically junk. It makes you sound rather ignorant.

Yes, Florida can be rather harsh on aircraft, especially ones that spent a lot of time outside. But I’ve also seen some very nice airplanes from FL as well. I could show you a few airplanes that came from FL (one spent 30 years there) and you’d never guess it came from FL.
Click to expand...
My 182 was in Ft. Myers before I bought it. Zero corrosion
 
TheGolfPilot said:
Ya, that isn’t my experience at all. the A36 I’m talking about takes just over 800 pounds with full tanks and is nearly impossible to put anything in the back without putting yourself in a fly out of cg position. Gave me a real bad taste for the things. I love the barn doors for shoving bikes and stuff in there.
Click to expand...

There is a weight limitation on the third row seats (iirc 250lb combined). There isn't all that much side-side room in the third row, so exceeding that weight has never been an issue. The third row in the 210 is also midget territory, so little difference there.

Our TC is so nose-heavy that I have to strap two cases of oil in the luggage compartment when I fly with one of my partners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top