A35 V tails vs C210....what's the diff?

Unit74

Unit74

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
6,992
Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
I have been browsing the ads and never really knew about the C210. I have my sights on a Bonanza long term until I ran across this C210. Just numbers wise, the C210 is a winner all the way around. But how does it really compare in the real world?

I'm not a Cessna guy at all, but it has my interest. School me please!:yes:
 
It has the same basic set of capabilities and equal years compare pretty well. The 'feel' of them is the only real difference, that and the gear on the Bonanza being stronger and less problematic than the 210. The 210 adds a hydraulic system, and some problematic gear saddles to the equation. This sounds like more of an issue than it is, but if it bites you, it takes a chunk of your ass with it.:lol:

Fly both and see which you prefer. High wings and 2 doors has some advantages.
 
Last edited:
You have to fly them,to get a good appreciation of there good points. The gear on the 210 is the planes weak spot. Try pricing parts on the Beech however. Both are great aircraft.
 
Which on is bigger inside?
 
Unit74 said:
Which on is bigger inside?
Click to expand...

About the same, there are larger and smaller fuselages on the 35, and there are the early strutted and later cantilever 210s. Just check them out and choose the one your wife likes better.:lol:
 
Unit74 said:
Which on is bigger inside?
Click to expand...
Your thread title says "A35" -- that's the 1949 model of the V-tail Bonanza. Are you limiting yourself to older models?

If you're talking about early models, the Bonanza has the roomier cabin. The '60 and '61 C-210 have the same cabin dimensions as a C-185, just a hair wider than a C-172. The '62 C-210B was widened, and the addition of rear windows helped the sense of spaciousness. The 1964 C-210D added optional child seats in the third row, perched upon the main landing gear wheel wells. For 1970 (210K) the main landing gear was redesigned to allow room for six "full-size" seats (though room in the third row is still tight).

Being a low-wing airplane with large windows that curve well into the cabin roof, the Bonanza has a much greater feeling of light and openness inside.
 
My bad.... I was talking about the mid 70s airplanes for both. Somewhere in the 'hood of $100k.
 
Unit74 said:
My bad.... I was talking about the mid 70s airplanes for both. Somewhere in the 'hood of $100k.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just choose between them, you'll be happy with either if you get a good copy. With $100k though, you'll probably get "more" in a bonanza than a 210. Just look for the best planes between the two and take the best deal.

To me the best of the Bonanzas is the S, but P,S,V, all of them are fine.
 
Unit74 said:
My bad.... I was talking about the mid 70s airplanes for both. Somewhere in the 'hood of $100k.
Click to expand...
I haven't flown in a 210, but I have owned a 172 and been in a 182.
I just bought a Bonanza (1967 V35 V-tail) and if I had it to do over again, I would. The Bonanza just has such as solid feel to it it is hard to describe. I do miss the left side door, but during flight, I don't miss the high wing at all, and during fueling I definitely do not miss it.
 
Mid 70's A35? Sounds like a V35B if we are talking about mid-70's. Different animal than the 210. Four place vs. six is pretty good indicator of the differences. V-tails are a great aircraft, but you have to watch the CG carefully, it moves aft as you burn fuel. Assuming I could use either for my mission I would just choose the best one based on individual modifications and condition.
 
The only thing I like about the Bo over the 210 is the cowling.

For $100k you can buy a early 210 (1964 to 1966) decked out with 4 (plus two kiddie) seats and wing struts and pocket $30k to $40k or a later one (1970 to 197? in decent shape with 6 seats and cantilever wings.

The 1964 - 1966 have the highest service ceiling of an NON-turbo plane I've seen at 21K feet.

You can install an anti-detonation STC and run 91 octane mogas in many C210. (210,A,B,C, G, H, J, K, L, M, N )

http://www.airplains.com/index.php/news-updates/information-articles/121-anti-detonat-injection

I believe the 6 seats started in 1969 with the K model. 6 seaters have a round tube landing gear leg. These do not have the saddle cracking issues that the 4 seater flat spring gears do. Some of the very early round tube gear 6 seaters also have a 12 volt electrical system avoiding spendy batteries. (They also have an engine driven hydraulic pump) I believe there were a very few serial numbers that are 12 volt have the electric driven hydraulic pump and 6 full seats.
 
Last edited:
Can you open the windows on the C210? If so that along with the high wing could be a big benefit for photography.
 
narchee said:
Can you open the windows on the C210? If so that along with the high wing could be a big benefit for photography.
Click to expand...

The strutted version have windows like a 205/206 so it usually does on the pilot side and sometimes the copilot side.

I believe all cantilever wings have windows like a cardinal on both sides, not operable for photography but damn nice in hot weather. (there may be a mod to cut camera hole in the big window like the cardinal but not sure) (I've always shot thru my windows in the cardinal)

That being said, two doors is plus in hot weather on the ground.
 
Last edited:
You don't bash your head on a strut when walking under the cantilevered wing of a 210 (or C177!). I can't count how many times I've bashed my head on Cessna struts.

No but seriously... the cantilevered wing does have a recent wing spar cap AD that mandates inspection. You want to be sure that's been complied with.

TKS Certified FIKI is available for both the 210 and the A36 and G36 Bo. But you said V35 bo.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
The strutted version have windows like a 205/206 so it usually does on the pilot side and sometimes the copilot side.

I believe all cantilever wings have windows like a cardinal on both sides, not operable for photography but damn nice in hot weather. (there may be a mod to cut camera hole in the big window like the cardinal but not sure) (I've always shot thru my windows in the cardinal)

That being said, two doors is plus in hot weather on the ground.
Click to expand...

They make a sliding "photo window" STC for the Cardinal and I'm pretty sure 210, these work fine.
 
Henning said:
They make a sliding "photo window" STC for the Cardinal and I'm pretty sure 210, these work fine.
Click to expand...

I have flown both a cardinal with one and without and I kinda prefer the one without the hole...

That's thru the window lol

 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
I have flown both a cardinal with one and without and I kinda prefer the one without the hole...

That's thru the window lol

Click to expand...

Yep, but if you're going to use the Cardinal RG as a working photo platform, and there really isn't a better one out there, then you have to live with it. I wonder if you can install a jump door on a Cardinal? That would be ultimate.
 
First I would decide if I need 4 or 6 seats. That will help narrow down the models to choose from.

The 1964 thur 1966 210 have 4 real seats plus two little kiddie seats built into the gear wells. The back rest of those fold flat for a different loading option.

The cowlings are super easy to remove but the Bo is still much better to preflight with the huge hinged doors.
 
210 hauls more weight, uses more gas, goes slower than comparable Bonanza(similar vintage). Basically a V35A compares to a 210F or G. So, cruise speed/fuel burn the Bo wins every time.
 
bnt83 said:
I believe all cantilever wings have windows like a cardinal on both sides, not operable for photography but damn nice in hot weather.
Click to expand...
Sure looks like the standard high-wing Cessna doors and openable window, at least on the pilot's side.

cessna_t210n_1983.jpg
 
bnt83 said:
The only thing I like about the Bo over the 210 is the cowling.

For $100k you can buy a early 210 (1964 to 1966) decked out with 4 (plus two kiddie) seats and wing struts and pocket $30k to $40k or a later one (1970 to 197? in decent shape with 6 seats and cantilever wings.

The 1964 - 1966 have the highest service ceiling of an NON-turbo plane I've seen at 21K feet.

You can install an anti-detonation STC and run 91 octane mogas in many C210. (210,A,B,C, G, H, J, K, L, M, N )

http://www.airplains.com/index.php/news-updates/information-articles/121-anti-detonat-injection

I believe the 6 seats started in 1969 with the K model. 6 seaters have a round tube landing gear leg. These do not have the saddle cracking issues that the 4 seater flat spring gears do. Some of the very early round tube gear 6 seaters also have a 12 volt electrical system avoiding spendy batteries. (They also have an engine driven hydraulic pump) I believe there were a very few serial numbers that are 12 volt have the electric driven hydraulic pump and 6 full seats.
Click to expand...

The NA Comanche also has a 21k service ceiling. But, given the lack of performance up there, there is little reason to take either plane that high (unless you're catching a massive tailwind or topping an icy cloud deck).
 
bnt83 said:
The strutted version have windows like a 205/206 so it usually does on the pilot side and sometimes the copilot side.

I believe all cantilever wings have windows like a cardinal on both sides, not operable for photography but damn nice in hot weather. (there may be a mod to cut camera hole in the big window like the cardinal but not sure) (I've always shot thru my windows in the cardinal)

That being said, two doors is plus in hot weather on the ground.
Click to expand...

This is not correct. I owned a 1980 T210 that had two large windows hinged at the top like a 172, able to to opened, which I did routinely while on the ground. They are placarded to be open below a certain airspeed (which I don't remember).

Responding to the OP, the 210 is much more forgiving that the Bo in terms of loading. It is very hard to load a 210 outside of the envelope. I loved my 210. Another advantage over the Bo is the ease of ingress/egress. The 210 is not as easy as a Cardinal to get in and out of, but is sure is easier than a one-doored low wing!

Wells
 
Beware the Bo, and its corrosion prone Mag skins and the huge AD lists.
The Landing gear box on the bo is very dependable, but when it's time for it to be overhauled it will look like a house payment.

The 210 has a hydraulic pack under the center console driven by a engine pump and a hand pump, when it leaks it is a horrible job to pull it and re-pack all the seals. but when it is done it is good to go many years, there is no moving parts to wear.

Owners that maintain them must have a hydraulic mule to swing the gear and a very tall set of jacks.

OBTW a 210 will not tolerate a hydraulic leak. you see a leak get it fixed. 90% of the 210 gear failures are due to bad hydraulic hoses. Upgrade to stainless steel and teflon hoses and forget the problem.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Beware the Bo, and its corrosion prone Mag skins and the huge AD lists.
The Landing gear box on the bo is very dependable, but when it's time for it to be overhauled it will look like a house payment.

The 210 has a hydraulic pack under the center console driven by a engine pump and a hand pump, when it leaks it is a horrible job to pull it and re-pack all the seals. but when it is done it is good to go many years, there is no moving parts to wear.

Owners that maintain them must have a hydraulic mule to swing the gear and a very tall set of jacks.

OBTW a 210 will not tolerate a hydraulic leak. you see a leak get it fixed. 90% of the 210 gear failures are due to bad hydraulic hoses. Upgrade to stainless steel and teflon hoses and forget the problem.
Click to expand...

You are close Tom. If engine driven pump equipped all you need to use is the emergency pump cycle the gear per a cessns letter from the 1970 I've seen. If an electric driven pump no mule needed at all but external ground power recommended.
 
Pilawt said:
Sure looks like the standard high-wing Cessna doors and openable window, at least on the pilot's side.

cessna_t210n_1983.jpg
Click to expand...

Ok. So I'd remove the window stop thingy so the window opens all the way for photo ops.
 
bnt83 said:
You are close Tom. If engine driven pump equipped all you need to use is the emergency pump cycle the gear per a cessns letter from the 1970 I've seen. If an electric driven pump no mule needed at all but external ground power recommended.
Click to expand...

Maybe, the last I read their manual stated they needed a mule, I've never seen the letter you mentioned.
 
I've physically replaced Bo wing bolts for a client before I lot my hand and feet and learned quickly that fixing low winged planes sucks no matter which way you slice it. Working around the plane climbing up and down the wing, no thanks.
 
I forgot to mention that the 210 is better than the Bo for tall people. I love Bonanzas, but if you are 6'4" or taller you have to sit with your neck flexed all the time.

I loved my 177RG for its appearance, economy, and ease of ingress/egress. I loved my de-turbo'd T210 IO-550 for its capabilities (known ice, radar, 1500 lb useful load). But I am out of the general aviation thing altogether now, except that I am still perusing these boards.

Wells
 
Tom-D said:
Beware the Bo, and its corrosion prone Mag skins and the huge AD lists. .
Click to expand...

What huge list do you speak of?

My Bo (a V35B) only has a few, and they are simply "inspect" type ADs such as the uplock rollers (takes about 30 seconds) and the V tail structure inspection. None of them is particularly burdensome, and cover items which should be checked at annual time anyway.

The spar web AD is every 500 hours, and only adds 2 hours to annual time. Every Bo/Baron made before 1988 requires it (plus some built with the old structure in the late 40s), so it's not a model specific item.

Everything else is a one time AD, which should have already been taken care of by the previous owner. Every make has their share of those.

Richman
 
Tom-D said:
Run a search for the generic 35 see what kind of list you get.
Click to expand...

Like he said, they are most all one time, or simple 'look see' ADs. 210s aren't exactly free of ADs either. I'd call six of one, half a dozen of the other on this point as well, including corrosion.
 
Tom-D said:
Run a search for the generic 35 see what kind of list you get.
Click to expand...
my hangar neighbor was singing the blues last year.....his Cessna had a cracked nose wheel well yoke bracket thingy....in the firewall.:yikes: Cessna's do get fire wall damage from hard landings.....

I'm thinking he was into that fix at least $5-6Ks.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top