Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by FloridaPilot, Nov 24, 2017.
but....they are slower in comparison.
Not by much, from what I recall 10-15 kts maybe?
I agree...I love my Lance. Maybe not as sexy as the A36, but it does the job and does it well! More room for people & bags and more useful load without the 2x pricetag for things that say Beechcraft
And that’s the message in the 1980 Piper ad I posted above. It’s basically saying, “Yeah we know the Saratoga is slower than the 210 and Bo, but the extra room is a better trade-off.”
I’d usually see about 155 KTAS in a fully-loaded NA retractable ‘Toga at around 10,000’.
Sounds right, think I flight planned for 160 in the Lance, but that was 35+ years ago. Seems I used 160-170 for the A36, but that was too was years ago.
Years ago a friend had recently learned to fly in the Archer II he bought, and was looking to step up. He said he wanted a T210. I shuddered a little and suggested he look at the Saratoga instead. He did and bought a factory-new 1985 Turbo Saratoga SP.
He still has it.
I regularly get 155 KTAS (65% power) between 8,000 and 10,000 feet MSL with 13.5 (+/- a little) GPH at 100° ROP in my NA 1977 Lance
that's a bit slower than my turbo Bo.....I see 195kts true at 16,500 ft and 16.5 gph...but I'm not hauling the PA-32 load either.
I forgot that part...hauling a 1,400 pound useful load! But you also said there "turbo"...so...
yup....my useful load is only 1090 lbs....vs the 1,550 I had in my Six (138kts at 15 gph @ 7.5Kft).
A little of both!
I am definitely envious of the front baggage compartment on the Piper's - what a great design!
Same thing with C310s until the R model, with the longer nose to accommodate bigger cargo compartments up there. Definitely a needed improvement.
Here is Paul B's gear up landing analysis good stuff he mentions the 210:
dayum, almost 1 in 5 is pretty bad record. That's rube Goldberg gear for ya. mooniacs ain't gonna like this table either.
I'm surprised Mooney is on the list, pretty simple landing gear but a bit low to the ground!
A little context for your graphic would be helpful. There’s no way 18% of all 210s have landed gear up. Aviation Consumer looked at the accident data from 1994-1998 and found that
most troubling is the airplane’s tendency toward landing-gear related incidents. Fully 10 percent of all 210 accidents we found were caused by gear malfunctions of some type. …
compared to other retractables in which gear failures are so rare as to not even appear in the accident history in measurable numbers.
I could be wrong, but I think those numbers are the percent of all gear accidents. In other words 18% of the gear up accidents they reviewed were 210s rather than 18% of the fleet has been gear upped.
One thing the 210 has working against it is that you need hydraulic power/pressure to get the gear down. Most airplanes with hydraulic powered gear are designed to only need the pressure to raise the gear and rely on gravity and/or hand cranking to lower the gear. The SE Cessna retracts have that working against them.
Watch the video for context. That's that Paul Bartowhoever from the video @FloridaPilot posted. I just took a snapshot of it. They're saying 18% of ALL GEAR-UP'd airplanes, not 18% of all 210s in service. I got no dog in the fight, but it's not a compliment to the 210, and the insurance companies concur. Don't shoot the messenger.
What's interesting about that is that other cessna singles are the same way, yet they don't boast the pride of having such lopsided contribution to the totals. Especially the 172RG with its almost dedicated trainer role, still has a lower contribution to the totals. It's not like 210s are anywhere near Cirrus-like in proliferation, let alone Piper Arrow like, and that one didn't even make the list.
My guess is it's the spring leaf models (saddle plus door controllers, plus engine-spun hydro, plus flap sharing on the earliest models), that mess it up for the 210.
*double times to the bunker and dons kevlar*
The video above said that there were nearly 10,000 210’s built. I am sure the data is not available, but I would like to see that chart adjusted to account for # of aircraft or # of landings. Guessing the 210 would be on top but those #’s on their own don’t tell a lot.
Edit: Wikipedia says 6000 Cirrus have been delivered, not sure why they were brought up
Maybe the 54% are people that migrated over from Cessna 172's? But the 30% Mechanical failure and 15% Gear collapse really accounts for something.
Like @Fearless Tower mentioned previously. If the insurance companies are charging more or don't want to cover you....something is wrong!
That’s why the 210 was known as the doctor killer.
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
There are a lotta personal airplanes out there that could use some serious landing gear attention, doesn't matter which model.
Wiring harnesses, switches, missing boots, worn out attach bolts, worn bushings, corroded springs, corroded cables, corroded rod end bearings, gearboxes that haven't been serviced in decades, worn out electric motors, decades old hydraulic hoses, the list goes on and on.
Some just plain sloppy like a plastic spring guide in 210, that should have been replaced with a metal one, DECADES ago it was introduced.
The rod end bearing on the main gear actuator in the 177RG series, yes it been a known weak link for a long time, still finding orginal ones in these airplanes, typically after they fail. Seems like I read about it every year in the club forums when a member can't get the gear to extend and totals the airplane, for a rod end bearing...
So back in the day I'm flying for an attorney, right seat in a Cheyenne II, with my old CFI in the left. His wife also an attorney. She mentioned taking flying lessons to him I guess, and he told us he would let her do it and then buy her a Bo after she got her PPC. Guy was a character.
Yep. That’s why even though I’m a mechanic who has worked on some very complex landing gear systems, I have no desire to own a retract. The added amount of work required to maintain them isn’t worth the increase in speed or the “cool factor” that some folks see in retracts. Plus as I am quickly approaching the age of 60, I fear that a senior moment will cause me to forget to put the gear down.
meh....it ain't all that hard......and that's what insurance is for.
Is it just me or did the AOPA fly-off miss all the points that would really matter and just suggest to me that the 2 aircraft are for the most part flying a dead heat? The above post tells me more about what I’d like to know (whether accurate or not) than the fly-off.
I have less than a horse in this race and absolutely no experience with either aircraft but for a high performance piston traveling machine, minor differences in TO & landing distances, stall speeds, even stall behavior, mean little. The speed run, if I read it correctly, simply showed that the 210 accelerated faster then they both maintained the same speed... correct me if I read that wrong.
After 11 pages of fine discussion, I still gained little insight beyond confirmation of the above post except the important notes regarding insurance.
What am I missing? Ding helmet at full power.
Oh, I’d go Bo’ even though I’m a high wing guy.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Your quote doesn't contradict the slide.
210 = Caddy A-36 = BMW. Anyone know how much speed is lost due to the tip tanks on the Bo? I hate tips. I've never flown an airplane who's endurance was less than my bladder's.
Take a look at this study. They decrease induced drag, but increase parasitic drag. The speed penalty at typical cruise profiles is very small, and maybe as much as 5 knots down low. Small increase in speed up high.
although slower.....the koolaid drinkers sell the tanks as faster....cause it extends your legs by a couple hours and eliminates a fuel stop.
Mine doesn't have tips....but 3.5 hrs with an hour reserve is long enough for me. the tips add +2-3 hrs.
A few knots. One of the reasons to get the tips is the 150lb increase in useful load that comes with them. I prefer the looks of the plane without tanks.
Ya. It it’s just a paper increase. Nothing magical about aerodynamics that makes that happen....and it comes with more take off roll and less climb performance but lots of folks like em.
That decrease in takeoff performance is just because of the higher MGTOW, right? And that increase comes from changing the category from Utility to Normal, which reduces the max G load from 4.4g to 3.8g. So if you install the tips and don't actually put gas in them, I'd expect a small increase in takeoff performance due to the lower induced drag.
This has been debated on BeechTalk more times than I can count. Most of the Bo owners have come to the conclusion the NAR Associates is wrong, the tips add drag and decrease performance. Not a lot, but a knot or two. However, the operational flexibility it gives more than makes up for the penalty.