Missing Cessna 210 - Colorado to Utah

[Fearless Tower]

I think folks that fly in the mountains back east probably just need experience with aircraft performance at high elevations.

Being currently based on the east coast and crossing the Appalachians regularly, I'd disagree somewhat. You can actually get some high DA exposure out here. Hot Springs is almost 4000' MSL. May not be as high as EGE, SBS or TEX, but in the summertime, it will give you a good appreciation for the performance loss.

But you just don't get the kinds of wave action and drafts out here that you do in the Rockies and other mountains out west. You can safely cross the Appalachians when the winds are blowing. Might be a little bumpy, but unless it is something crazy like a T-storm, you don't have to worry about being driven into the mountains. I have experience VFR in NA airplanes in the Rockies, but by no means an expert. If the wind is blowing over 20 kts in the passes, I don't mess with it. On the other hand, I've crossed the Appalachians with a tailwind of 70 kts. It was a non-event.

 

[Pilawt]

It was one of those planes that you don't forget seeing - was previously owned by a National Airlines pilot, and had their livery - an orange and yellow sun on the tail, matching orange and yellow stripes!

Just found this ...



Oh ... and Scott Crossfield was flying a 210A, as well.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Flying in the mountains means flying below the ridges and peaks and landing at airports in the valleys. Colorado has airports at 7000' surrounded by mountains that are 14000' high.

 

[GRG55]

...I have experience VFR in NA airplanes in the Rockies, but by no means an expert. If the wind is blowing over 20 kts in the passes, I don't mess with it. On the other hand, I've crossed the Appalachians with a tailwind of 70 kts. It was a non-event.

20 knots is the general rule-of-thumb I use for flying the passes to the west. I fly for enjoyment, and once the winds get above 20 knots in the Rockies it's usually anything but.

 

[Clark1961]

Being currently based on the east coast and crossing the Appalachians regularly, I'd disagree somewhat. You can actually get some high DA exposure out here. Hot Springs is almost 4000' MSL. May not be as high as EGE, SBS or TEX, but in the summertime, it will give you a good appreciation for the performance loss.

But you just don't get the kinds of wave action and drafts out here that you do in the Rockies and other mountains out west. You can safely cross the Appalachians when the winds are blowing. Might be a little bumpy, but unless it is something crazy like a T-storm, you don't have to worry about being driven into the mountains. I have experience VFR in NA airplanes in the Rockies, but by no means an expert. If the wind is blowing over 20 kts in the passes, I don't mess with it. On the other hand, I've crossed the Appalachians with a tailwind of 70 kts. It was a non-event.

Did you disagree just to be disagreeable? A four thousand ft ground elevation airport doesn’t even come close to trying to cross a 10 or 12 thousand ft ridge in the summer. That ridge with a density altitude greater than the service ceiling of the aircraft is one of the things that kills folks.

The other point was about flying in the mountains rather than over the mountains. A pilot who flys in mountains learns about terrain clearance and the interaction of terrain and wind. Those things are similar in all mountains but have local quirks. Hell, thousands of folks are flown over the Rockies every day with high winds aloft. The key fact is they are well above the terrain just like you were when you flew in 70 kt winds over the Appalachian hills. Now if you were down in the terrain with those 70 kt winds it would be one bumpy ride no matter where that terrain was.

 

[azure]

Just found this ...

View attachment 61724

Interesting, it's one of the 210s with struts. JOOC, is there any way to tell from the picture that it's a 210 and not, say, a 182RG?

 

[azure]

Did you disagree just to be disagreeable? A four thousand ft ground elevation airport doesn’t even come close to trying to cross a 10 or 12 thousand ft ridge in the summer. That ridge with a density altitude greater than the service ceiling of the aircraft is one of the things that kills folks.

The other point was about flying in the mountains rather than over the mountains. A pilot who flys in mountains learns about terrain clearance and the interaction of terrain and wind. Those things are similar in all mountains but have local quirks. Hell, thousands of folks are flown over the Rockies every day with high winds aloft. The key fact is they are well above the terrain just like you were when you flew in 70 kt winds over the Appalachian hills. Now if you were down in the terrain with those 70 kt winds it would be one bumpy ride no matter where that terrain was.

There's a lot of truth to this. However, I have to say that I've experienced mountain wave action flying in the White Mountains of ME/NH and though it was disconcerting, I was never concerned about being forced down into terrain, I just had to ask ATC for a block altitude. And I was only about 2000 feet above the highest peaks. That said, there are times when the Whites can no doubt be every bit as hazardous as the Rockies, when 70-80 kt winds are blowing atop Mt. Washington as they often are, especially during the winter. On that flight when I couldn't maintain altitude for love or money, they were a measly 25-30 kts.

 

[denverpilot]

Oh ... and Scott Crossfield was flying a 210A, as well.

Center-punching thunderstorms is a different risk, and probably more deadly, strictly by the numbers.

 

[Pilawt]

Interesting, it's one of the 210s with struts. JOOC, is there any way to tell from the picture that it's a 210 and not, say, a 182RG?

There's the nosewheel well "chin" under the prop spinner. The 210 and 210A (1960 and '61) had small humps on the main gear door (visible in this photo, behind the tiedown chain). And 182s of that vintage were not built with the drooped wingtips -- though that's not a reliable spotting feature now, since so many 182s have had drooped tips added later. Also, the 182 had the 180/185-style adjustable stabilizer through 1961, while all 210s had a fixed stabilizer and hinged elevator trim tab.

1961 C-182D:


1961 C-210A:


1962 C-210B:


The 1962 through 1966 210s looked more like a 205/206, with wider fuselage and windows all around. The 205 and early 206 even had the cowl "chin", just for parts commonality. The 1967 210G was the first strutless model.

The retractable "182RG" (model number R182) didn't come along until 1978, and didn't look anything like a 210.

 

[GRG55]

Just in case anyone is still not convinced there's a difference flying the high country in the West, here's a brief but sobering NTSB report of a turbocharged Beech Baron 58P that could not outclimb the lee side of a mountain wave. In just a few minutes it got shoved down from 18,000 ft cruise to impact Vermejo Peak, CO at ~12,000 ft.

https://ntsb.gov/investigations/_la...ev_id=20081221X13714&ntsbno=CEN09FA097&akey=1

"...The pilot from the passing airplane submitted a written statement about what he observed while circling over the accident airplane. The pilot was flying a pressurized Cessna 210, equipped with an Allison 250 turbo-propeller engine that was capable of producing 450 horse power (HP). While approaching the accident area at 19,000 feet the Cessna pilot spotted a ground fire that he believed was the accident airplane. While circling the wreckage, he realized that his airplane was descending and added engine power thinking it was poor piloting technique. After reporting the fire to air traffic control (ATC), he noticed that his airplane’s altitude was now down to 18,500 feet and the engine was already at full power. The Cessna pilot informed ATC that he was in an area of downdraft and they cleared him for a block altitude of 17,000 to 19,000 feet. During this time his airplane continued an uncontrolled descent at 500 feet per minute (fpm), and the Cessna pilot estimated that the airplane should have been climbing at 1,000 fpm. The Cessna pilot elected to leave the area to the south and the rate of descent began to slow until he was able to maintain altitude. The Cessna pilot characterized the downdraft as an area of “mountain wave.”​

 

[KWL]

There's the nosewheel well "chin" under the prop spinner. The 210 and 210A (1960 and '61) had small humps on the main gear door (visible in this photo, behind the tiedown chain). And 182s of that vintage were not built with the drooped wingtips -- though that's not a reliable spotting feature now, since so many 182s have had drooped tips added later. Also, the 182 had the 180/185-style adjustable stabilizer through 1961, while all 210s had a fixed stabilizer and hinged elevator trim tab.



1961 C-210A:
View attachment 61726

This picture of the 210A must be the prototype. If you look carefully you can see the pilot's side window has the smaller vent window, where as I believe all the production 210A's had a full-sized upper hinged window .

 

[Clark1961]

There's a lot of truth to this. However, I have to say that I've experienced mountain wave action flying in the White Mountains of ME/NH and though it was disconcerting, I was never concerned about being forced down into terrain, I just had to ask ATC for a block altitude. And I was only about 2000 feet above the highest peaks. That said, there are times when the Whites can no doubt be every bit as hazardous as the Rockies, when 70-80 kt winds are blowing atop Mt. Washington as they often are, especially during the winter. On that flight when I couldn't maintain altitude for love or money, they were a measly 25-30 kts.

Just a clarification on wave. In general it won’t take you to the ground in the Rockies either. Wave usually doesn’t impact terrain because it is flowing over the terrain. Now when the lower edges of the jet stream get into to rocks and we see 100 kt winds in the passes I have no clue what’s happening with wave.

The rotors that live under wave can do bad things like disassemble aircraft. Turbulent flow around peaks, through passes, and over ridges can put aircraft on the ground. If ya wanna think about downdraft speeds one way to do it is to redirect the horizontal velocity down slope along the downwind side of a ridge or a peak. It’s a bit extreme but illustrates the point of winds exceeding an aircraft’s climb performance. For example consider a 60 kt wind redirected downward which would be about 6,000 fpm down. Way too much, right? Well often terrain isn’t vertical so reducing that rate by 50% is reasonable. Still most of our spam cans won’t make 3,000 fpm. Okay, now take a 20 kt wind which would give ~2,000 fpm down for vertical flow or ~1,000 fpm adjusted for terrain. Still a bit much but ‘high performance’ spam cans can handle that and even the low-n-slows have time to get out of the downdraft if they have planned well.

Is there a moral to these stories? Some. There are reasons for the 20 kts in the peaks and passes advice. Some reasons are based on experience and others are based on physics. Another is that altitude is usually your friend but watch out for rotors which may or may not announce themselves with clouds.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Did you disagree just to be disagreeable?.

I think you just described yourself in this whole thread.

Stop acting like a jackass.

 

[edo2000]

Just in case anyone is still not convinced there's a difference flying the high country in the West, here's a brief but sobering NTSB report of a turbocharged Beech Baron 58P that could not outclimb the lee side of a mountain wave. In just a few minutes it got shoved down from 18,000 ft cruise to impact Vermejo Peak, CO at ~12,000 ft

Thanks for that link. Very interesting. I recently moved from Alaska to Northern New Mexico and fly in the Rockies frequently. I have mountain flying experience from AK, but not so much the high density alt. mountain flying. To hear about a very capable aircraft like a turbocharged Baron getting into trouble like this definitely changes my thoughts on how much wind is too much.

 

[Clark1961]

Just in case anyone is still not convinced there's a difference flying the high country in the West, here's a brief but sobering NTSB report of a turbocharged Beech Baron 58P that could not outclimb the lee side of a mountain wave. In just a few minutes it got shoved down from 18,000 ft cruise to impact Vermejo Peak, CO at ~12,000 ft.

https://ntsb.gov/investigations/_la...ev_id=20081221X13714&ntsbno=CEN09FA097&akey=1

"...The pilot from the passing airplane submitted a written statement about what he observed while circling over the accident airplane. The pilot was flying a pressurized Cessna 210, equipped with an Allison 250 turbo-propeller engine that was capable of producing 450 horse power (HP). While approaching the accident area at 19,000 feet the Cessna pilot spotted a ground fire that he believed was the accident airplane. While circling the wreckage, he realized that his airplane was descending and added engine power thinking it was poor piloting technique. After reporting the fire to air traffic control (ATC), he noticed that his airplane’s altitude was now down to 18,500 feet and the engine was already at full power. The Cessna pilot informed ATC that he was in an area of downdraft and they cleared him for a block altitude of 17,000 to 19,000 feet. During this time his airplane continued an uncontrolled descent at 500 feet per minute (fpm), and the Cessna pilot estimated that the airplane should have been climbing at 1,000 fpm. The Cessna pilot elected to leave the area to the south and the rate of descent began to slow until he was able to maintain altitude. The Cessna pilot characterized the downdraft as an area of “mountain wave.”​

My experience with that is the wave takes you down but doesn’t put you on the ground. Once at lower altitude the aircraft may fly into the terrain but they are below the wave at that point. Some folks will say that it doesn’t matter and the wave put them into the rocks. It’s important to realize there is an ‘out’ down there if you’re caught in that situation. I’ve used it.

 

[Pilawt]

This picture of the 210A must be the prototype. If you look carefully you can see the pilot's side window has the smaller vent window, where as I believe all the production 210A's had a full-sized upper hinged window .

Good eye.

N1296, the C-210A in the photo above, was the first 210 prototype. It was reworked from a 1957 C-182 airframe, then appeared in the first 1960 C-210 ads. N1296 was modified and repainted again for the 1961 C-210A.





When Cessna was messing with the styling for the first swept tails, N1296 also few with a perfectly ugly experimental fin/rudder:

 

[Clark1961]

I think you just described yourself in this whole thread.

Stop acting like a jackass.

I was quite civil to you. There was no reason at all to respond in that fashion.

 

[GRG55]

My experience with that is the wave takes you down but doesn’t put you on the ground. Once at lower altitude the aircraft may fly into the terrain but they are below the wave at that point. Some folks will say that it doesn’t matter and the wave put them into the rocks. It’s important to realize there is an ‘out’ down there if you’re caught in that situation. I’ve used it.

Reading that report I was left with the impression he never figured out he was in rapidly descending air. Winter night, IFR over the rocks, perhaps no external visual reference, perhaps fixated trying to troubleshoot a non-existent problem with the airplane that was causing the loss of altitude.

The descending air can't go "through" the terrain, it eventually has to start following it. There's often an out down there, but only if you can see the terrain.

 

[Clark1961]

Reading that report I was left with the impression he never figured out he was in rapidly descending air. Winter night, IFR over the rocks, perhaps no external visual reference, perhaps fixated trying to troubleshoot a non-existent problem with the airplane.

Yeah, the accident aircraft never figured out what was happening until it was too late. At least the second guy didn't get caught by the same trap.

 

[KWL]

I don't know that I have seen this shot before. I want to put a straight tail on one of these!
You can see in this shot that there were playing with rotating the nosewheel 90 degrees as it came up!

 

[denverpilot]

You can see in this shot that there were playing with rotating the nosewheel 90 degrees as it came up!

Which they used on the 337.

 

[Clark1961]

It seems true for most down-draft situations (that they don't necessarily go to the surface, or below). Please elaborate on your experience in severe down-drafts and how you skillfully used this "out." Thanks in advance.

Many downdraft situations do go to the ground. Two in particular are virga and microbursts. I’ve played around with the edges virga starting at 5,000 ft AGL and it is an elevator straight down. I run scared from microbursts. The dust the stir up indicates they hit the ground. Another downdraft that hits the ground is turbulence from a peak that stands by itself. My personal rule is to not be downwind of one of those things on a high wind day.

As for your question about how to use an out, I think that answer is best left for another time and audience, one that isn’t intent on making unprovoked attacks.

 

[Zeldman]

Thanks for that link. Very interesting. I recently moved from Alaska to Northern New Mexico and fly in the Rockies frequently. I have mountain flying experience from AK, but not so much the high density alt. mountain flying. To hear about a very capable aircraft like a turbocharged Baron getting into trouble like this definitely changes my thoughts on how much wind is too much.

I came to New Mexico after several years in Alaska. If you survived a couple years in Alaska, you should be able to learn flying here pretty quick. It isn't rocket surgery. Just good common sense will go a long way. And yes, biggest difference is the density altitude.

The hardest change has been the tax differences.....

 

[Pilawt]

You can see in this shot that there were playing with rotating the nosewheel 90 degrees as it came up!

Which they used on the 337.

C-337 nose gear retracts forward, same as the production 210.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cessna-337-Super-Skymaster/1997479

 

[GRG55]

I came to New Mexico after several years in Alaska. If you survived a couple years in Alaska, you should be able to learn flying here pretty quick. It isn't rocket surgery. Just good common sense will go a long way. And yes, biggest difference is the density altitude.

The hardest change has been the tax differences.....

I would have thought the hardest change was missing 10 months of winter each year.

 

[BrianNC]

C-337 nose gear retracts forward, same as the production 210.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cessna-337-Super-Skymaster/1997479

Somewhere in a thread on here somebody posted the gear retracting for a number of Cessnas and one of them rotated, but I don't remember which one.

 

[denverpilot]

C-337 nose gear retracts forward, same as the production 210.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Cessna-337-Super-Skymaster/1997479

Correct, and rotates which the 210 does not.

The photo shows the factory test 210 where they were playing with having the 210 rotate. They ended up not doing it on the 210, but did do it on the mixmaster.

 

[denverpilot]

Somewhere in a thread on here somebody posted the gear retracting for a number of Cessnas and one of them rotated, but I don't remember which one.

It was me and it was just a simple YouTube search to find them all. I just reposted the 337 in this thread.

 

[Pilawt]

Correct, and rotates which the 210 does not.

The photo shows the factory test 210 where they were playing with having the 210 rotate. They ended up not doing it on the 210, but did do it on the mixmaster.

I stand ... corrected! Thanks.

 

[denverpilot]

I stand ... corrected! Thanks.

No worries. It’s why I looked all of them up on YT a couple weeks ago because it came up in another thread. The rotation is “weird” to me.

Also probably explains why the only Cessna I’ve ever been in that we couldn’t get a gear down indication from, was the nosegear on a 337.

Yay fire trucks. It was down. The light came on at about 100’ AGL and then proceeded to blink on and off taxiing to the hangar.

Circling in that guy’s POS mixmaster at night trying to get a gear indication for 25 minutes was entertaining since he would put his head down and jack with the side panel breakers while the airplane tried to roll inverted. And I was in the back seat.

His description later? “Oh this thing has always had gear problems.” Yeah. Great. So fix them or sell the thing because you can’t afford to maintain it, dummy. Never got in that airplane ever again.

 

[bluerooster]

Being currently based on the east coast and crossing the Appalachians regularly, I'd disagree somewhat. You can actually get some high DA exposure out here. Hot Springs is almost 4000' MSL. May not be as high as EGE, SBS or TEX, but in the summertime, it will give you a good appreciation for the performance loss.

But you just don't get the kinds of wave action and drafts out here that you do in the Rockies and other mountains out west. You can safely cross the Appalachians when the winds are blowing. Might be a little bumpy, but unless it is something crazy like a T-storm, you don't have to worry about being driven into the mountains. I have experience VFR in NA airplanes in the Rockies, but by no means an expert. If the wind is blowing over 20 kts in the passes, I don't mess with it. On the other hand, I've crossed the Appalachians with a tailwind of 70 kts. It was a non-event.

The areas being discussed here, out in the hills of CO. are the likes of, 7900' FE, TPA 9900', DA12k @ 7:00 am, then add in the roller, lenticulars, and stuff you can't see that far exceed the climb capabilities of all but a rocket to mars. And that's in the valley. The highest peaks here in the east are under ground in places out there.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The areas being discussed here, out in the hills of CO. are the likes of, 7900' FE, TPA 9900', DA12k @ 7:00 am, then add in the roller, lenticulars, and stuff you can't see that far exceed the climb capabilities of all but a rocket to mars. And that's in the valley. The highest peaks here in the east are under ground in places out there.

Exactly. That’s precisely why I said you wot get any translatable mountain experience crossing the Appalachians.

You can get an appreciation (key word) for the loss of performance from high DA in the summertime that while not the same, if you have half a brain, you can figure out in advance it’s gonna be even worse in the Rockies.

If you take a flatlander and have them do a takeoff and landing at 6000’ DA and then point out that they could easily see a 11-12k DA at Telluride, they (if they have half a brain) are going to get the picture that those places aren’t to be trifled with.

But you won’t see the other wind related phenomenon in the Appalachians that will kill you in the Rockies.

 

[GRG55]

No worries. It’s why I looked all of them up on YT a couple weeks ago because it came up in another thread. The rotation is “weird” to me.

Also probably explains why the only Cessna I’ve ever been in that we couldn’t get a gear down indication from, was the nosegear on a 337.

Yay fire trucks. It was down. The light came on at about 100’ AGL and then proceeded to blink on and off taxiing to the hangar.

Circling in that guy’s POS mixmaster at night trying to get a gear indication for 25 minutes was entertaining since he would put his head down and jack with the side panel breakers while the airplane tried to roll inverted. And I was in the back seat.

His description later? “Oh this thing has always had gear problems.” Yeah. Great. So fix them or sell the thing because you can’t afford to maintain it, dummy. Never got in that airplane ever again.

Every time I look at that flamingo-like main gear, and that silly rotating nose-strut on the 337, I wonder wtf Cessna was thinking. Then I remember this was back in the glory days of light aircraft manufacturing, when engineers could do things because...well, because they could.

That constantly needy gear system is one of the major reasons I dumped the idea of a 337 as a first twin.

Maybe Cessna put the 337 rear prop up high for a reason.

 

[edo2000]

I came to New Mexico after several years in Alaska. If you survived a couple years in Alaska, you should be able to learn flying here pretty quick. It isn't rocket surgery. Just good common sense will go a long way. And yes, biggest difference is the density altitude.

The hardest change has been the tax differences.....

Yeah, more than a couple years in AK. Born and raised there, flying regularly since I was 17. Flew for a living up there for a while. New Mexico flying is different. My home base is at 6000msl, density altitude usually much higher, compared to 100msl and cool temps at my AK base. Whole lot less rain and fog in NM, but more turbulence. Like you say, common sense goes a long way.