1963 Cessna 210 any issues with this model?

pigpenracing

pigpenracing

En-Route
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Messages
2,757
Location
Brenham Tx
Display Name
Display name:
pigpen
We may go look at a 1963 Cessna 210. Very low airframe and engine hours and just a very clean airplane. I know the 210 had gear issues and some other problems through the years. Are there any major issues with the 1963 210C?
 
pigpenracing said:
We may go look at a 1963 Cessna 210. Very low airframe and engine hours and just a very clean airplane. I know the 210 had gear issues and some other problems through the years. Are there any major issues with the 1963 210C?
Click to expand...

Not really. Primary thing you'll hear about is gear doors, but I think there's more made out of it than there is.
 
pigpenracing said:
We may go look at a 1963 Cessna 210. Very low airframe and engine hours and just a very clean airplane. I know the 210 had gear issues and some other problems through the years. Are there any major issues with the 1963 210C?
Click to expand...

Be certain you have all the ADs and verify the serial numbers. and modifications are recorded properly.
 
I think the old 210s have gear saddle issues that can get really spendy. I'm not positive of that though.

Edit, I found this from CPA:

1960 through 1969 210s have flat spring steel landing gear legs held in "saddles". Service history indicates that these saddles can crack over time, creating the possibility of a landing gear failure. The FAA issued AD XX-XX-XX which requires annual dye-penetrant inspection of these saddles after a certain number of hours. The Cessna Pilots Association reccomends the saddles be checked every 100 hours or at annual inspection no matter how many hours are on them.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
I think the old 210s have gear saddle issues that can get really spendy. I'm not positive of that though.

Edit, I found this from CPA:

1960 through 1969 210s have flat spring steel landing gear legs held in "saddles". Service history indicates that these saddles can crack over time, creating the possibility of a landing gear failure. The FAA issued AD XX-XX-XX which requires annual dye-penetrant inspection of these saddles after a certain number of hours. The Cessna Pilots Association reccomends the saddles be checked every 100 hours or at annual inspection no matter how many hours are on them.
Click to expand...

I think there was an AD to have a part replaced, but even with the replacement, some type of check is required.
 
Saw this flyer at kgle yesterday

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • tmp_24869-20151213_151132-1-768x9621173394566.jpg
    tmp_24869-20151213_151132-1-768x9621173394566.jpg
    150.4 KB · Views: 240
SixPapaCharlie said:
Saw this flyer at kgle yesterday

attachment.php
Click to expand...

Thanks.. That older model is basically a 182RG. They got redesigned in 63 I think and got the 3rd window. My partner likes 182 and 310's. I like Bonanza's and Super Vikings. May have a 310 on the table wanting to trade for our 172.
 
timwinters said:
I think the old 210s have gear saddle issues that can get really spendy. I'm not positive of that though.

Edit, I found this from CPA:

1960 through 1969 210s have flat spring steel landing gear legs held in "saddles". Service history indicates that these saddles can crack over time, creating the possibility of a landing gear failure. The FAA issued AD XX-XX-XX which requires annual dye-penetrant inspection of these saddles after a certain number of hours. The Cessna Pilots Association reccomends the saddles be checked every 100 hours or at annual inspection no matter how many hours are on them.
Click to expand...

It's not a difficult or expensive inspection though if opened up for annual it adds half an hour or so to clean it up and spray, wipe, spray. As for them cracking, pretty much a once in a life time event if it occurs.
 
The '63 210C had hydraulic flaps, unusual among single-engine Cessnas. You sometimes see them drooping a bit if the airplane has been parked for a while.

pigpenracing said:
That older model is basically a 182RG. They got redesigned in 63 I think and got the 3rd window.
Click to expand...
'61 210A got the third side window with the original 180/185-style fuselage; '62 210B got a new 4" wider fuselage and all-around cabin windows. The '64 210D (christened "Centurion") got wider-span electric flaps, along with a bigger engine (285 hp IO-520), and optional child seats built into the top of the main gear wells.
 
Looks like a great deal, if it inspects out OK.
 
The main thing you must check on a 210, (any year) look for hydraulic fluid under the cabin floor. they are famous for the hydraulic pack leaking, and it is a horrible thing to remove and re-seal. they kinda built the 210 around that reservoir/hydrulic pump/selector valve unit.
If it is dry in the belly, and corrosion free, jump on it at that price.
 
A. On Model 210 and 210A (Serial Numbers 21057001 thru 21057840) airplanes with 1,000 hours or more time in service or upon accumulation of 1,025 hours time in service on those aircraft with less than 1,000 hours time in service:

1. Within 25 hours time in service after the effective date of this AD and within each 25 hours time in service thereafter, inspect Part Numbers 1241004-1 and 1241004-2 landing gear saddles for cracks using dye penetrant procedures in accordance with the instructions outlined in Paragraph E. of this AD. Particular attention should be given to the critical areas shown in Figure 1 of this AD. When all modifications specified in Paragraph A.3. have been accomplished, the requirements of this Paragraph A.1. are no longer applicable.

2. Prior to further flight, replace any cracked saddles found during any inspection required by Paragraph A.1.
 
Is there such a thing as a 50 year old complex aircraft that doesn't have issues that are expensive to fix?
 
steingar said:
Is there such a thing as a 50 year old complex aircraft that doesn't have issues that are expensive to fix?
Click to expand...

Actually, there are quite a few. Unfortunately, for the prospective buyer, those are almost never the ones which are for sale. ;)

Mark
 
I thought all 210s were retracts and strutless???
 
EdFred said:
I thought all 210s were retracts and strutless???
Click to expand...

All 210 are retracts. Not all Strutless. Not all have 6 seats. Not all have an electric/hydraulic powerpack. Not all have electric flaps. Not all have a 520

The 1963 through ~ 1966 are basically a Cessna 205 (started in 63) with retractable gear. As noted a 1964 210 has a 520. All 205 and <1964 210 came with IO470
 
Last edited:
1964 Cessna 210:



Here's 1963 Cessna 205. (Cowling has the same bulge and engine mount/tunnel for nose gear retraction as the 210)

 
EdFred said:
I thought all 210s were retracts and strutless???
Click to expand...
1960 Model 210 (hideous paint job standard at no extra cost):

cessna_210_07.jpg



1961 Model 210A:

cessna_210a_02.jpg



1962 Model 210B:

cessna_210b_02.jpg



1964 Model 210D "Centurion", with wider span flaps, shorter but deeper-chord ailerons, and 285 hp engine:

cessna_210d.jpg



1966 Model T210F "Turbo Centurion":

cessna_t210f.jpg



The '67 210G/T210G was the first strutless model.


bnt83 said:
The 1963 through ~ 1966 are basically a Cessna 205 (started in 63) with retractable gear.
Click to expand...
The 205 (also known as "Model 210-5") was introduced in 1963 as a fixed-gear derivative of the wide-body retractable Model 210B from the previous year. A fixed-gear variant allowed Cessna to increase gross weight, get rid of the main gear wells and lower the rear cabin floor to allow room for six seats, while using the same 260-hp engine and basic airframe. Also, the baggage door on the left rear was enlarged. The 205 was built only for the 1963 and 1964 model years.

cessna_205.jpg


The 206 (later U206) "Super Skywagon", introduced for '64, was similar to the 205, but had the 285-hp engine and wing of the '64 210D, along with beefed-up structure, utility interior and big double cargo doors on the right side.

cessna_206.jpg


The P206 "Super Skylane" (1965-70) was a 206 with the 205-style interior and door arrangement.

cessna_p206b.jpg
 
Last edited:
205 is pretty sweet. Two big doors up front and one you can get kids through in the back. I've had 5 adults and one middle schooler in one with 80 gallons of fuel. It was a short ride but it did fine. IO470 is a little easier on the wallet than the 520 gas bill.
 
bnt83 said:
205 is pretty sweet. Two big doors up front and one you can get kids through in the back. I've had 5 adults and one middle schooler in one with 80 gallons of fuel. It was a short ride but it did fine. IO470 is a little easier on the wallet than the 520 gas bill.
Click to expand...
Years ago I flew a P206 Super Skylane to deliver a load of donated Christmas gifts to Mexico. Lots of room; would have been very comfortable for 4 or 5 plus beaucoup bags. Disadvantage to the U206 (Super Skywagon, Stationair) is that it does not have a right-front passenger door.

Flying-1970s-1076.jpg


Flying-1970s-1083.jpg
 
Dangit, I thought I could talk you into a Meyers I could borrow .... ;)
 
txflyer said:
Dangit, I thought I could talk you into a Meyers I could borrow .... ;)
Click to expand...

I think they are cool. I spoke to a guy that owns one and he talked me out of it. Back seat is tiny and when you add fuel you can only haul 2 people. I am still researching and not set on anything yet. I have a guy wanting to trade a Bonanza, Super Viking and 2 C210 guys want to trade. I had a call today from a real serious buyer and he may leave a deposit tomorrow????
It will be a
Bonanza
Super Viking
182 or 210?
I like your 180 but my partner is not a tailwheel guy and does not fly enough to stay on top of it. The best thing for him would be a fixed gear 182.
 
My recommendation for the 210 is to acquire John Frank's Cessna 210 buyers' guide. It does an excellent job of calling out the key concerns and ADs. On a 210C, the gear saddles are probably the most expensive one. You should do that inspection as part of the pre-buy, as the parts cost $$$. Another one is cracks at the horizontal and vertical stab attach points. There's a kit to beef it up, which you should look for having been accomplished. All of that said, the 210 is an awesome airplane!
 
pigpenracing said:
I think they are cool. I spoke to a guy that owns one and he talked me out of it. Back seat is tiny and when you add fuel you can only haul 2 people. I am still researching and not set on anything yet. I have a guy wanting to trade a Bonanza, Super Viking and 2 C210 guys want to trade. I had a call today from a real serious buyer and he may leave a deposit tomorrow????
It will be a
Bonanza
Super Viking
182 or 210?
I like your 180 but my partner is not a tailwheel guy and does not fly enough to stay on top of it. The best thing for him would be a fixed gear 182.
Click to expand...


That's a surprise because wiki lists the Meyers as having a 1050lb. useful load. :dunno:

Sounds like you may as well give in and get a Dr. killer. If it's speed you're after, maybe a 182 RG will up your game but a standard 182 you'll be doing good to hit 150m.p.h. average. Not much more than your 172. Super Viking's were the shiznet when they were new, but as you have pointed out, most of them are flying around with almost 50 year old fabric. If I were looking for a Viking, I'd want a turbo because without it, the full potential of the aircraft can't be realized.

Flying the same plane for years gets a little old, but I've told myself if I'm going to trade up, it has to break 200m.p.h. and haul a good load or I stick with what I've got. :redface:
 
"Full fuel and two people" is meaningless without mentioning fuel capacities.

Need to be very careful comparing Beech to 210 series as the fuel capacity can be quite different.

I've never understood the reduced gross of the early 210. Maybe the flaps were too big and it had trouble meeting the balked landing climb gradient requirements.

1963 P35 Bonanza (IO470) is 44 usable gallons standard range or 74 long range Gross 3,125.

1964 S35 Bonanza (IO520) is 44 usable gallons standard range or 74 long range Gross 3,300.

1963 Cessna 210C (IO470) 63 gallons usable standard or 80 gallons long range - 3,000 pound gross.

1964 Cessna 210D (IO520) 63 gallons usable standard or 80 gallons long range - 3,100 pound gross.

1965 Cessna T210F (TSIO520) 63 gallons usable standard or 80 gallons long range - 3,300 pound gross.

1967 Cessna 210G (IO520) (Strutless new wing) 89 usable gallons 3,400 gross

Fixed gear 210-5 (205) (IO470) - 63 gallons usable standard or 80 gallons long range - 3,300 pound gross. IME around 1,400 useful.

I'd compare the service ceilings carefully too. The 210D has a light gross but a high service celling for a normally aspirated airplane.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top