What can you tell me about the Cessna 210?

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
FloridaStudentPilot
Home Airfield
48X
I hear so many conflicting thoughts on the Cessna 210. Is there a weight & Balance issue? Does the Gear get jammed from time to time. Are there any positives ?

What are your experiences with the 210 Centurion


Thank you!
 
Last edited:
A 210 is a good true 4 passenger airplane with a cruise of 160-165 kts. No, they do have gear issues. I would stick to the later production years.
 
Last edited:
That's quite a range of airplanes. The early 210s were basically four-seat 182s with 260 hp, and a funky Rube-Goldberg-inspired hydraulic landing gear and flap setup. Wider cabin in 1962; power increased to 285 hp in 1964, turbo (optional) in 1966, strutless wings in 1967. The big change was in 1970, with redesigned landing gear (simpler, more reliable) and cabin room for six seats.


Screen Shot 2017-05-16 at 7.29.46 PM.png

Screen Shot 2017-05-16 at 7.30.48 PM.png
 
The later ones with the 550 conversion seem nice.
 
I flew a 210 through an embedded level 4 thunderstorm, and it came out just fine. Me on the other hand....

I only have about 200 hours in the 210, but never had any issue with the gear.

I did have a vapor lock issue taking off from Mobile Downtown once, but I hit the fuel pump and away we went. Very hot day and sitting a couple hours on the hot ramp did not help.
 
When I was a young commercial pilot I flew as a corporate pilot for two different companies that had T210s. I loved both of them. The 1977 model still had gear doors. I flew it around 800 hours with no issues. The other was a 1983 model without gear doors. I picked it up new at the factory & put the first 500 hours or so on it. It was a great airplane too.

They are a great IFR platform because the controls are very stable...almost truck-like. I have more actual IFR time in 210s than any other airplane. Wearing oxygens masks got a bit old but I loved climbing up in the teens & catching some hellish tailwinds.

I've had thoughts of buying one.
 
@JCranford has been on a learning curve for Cessna 210's and chicken tenders lately... perhaps he can share some knowledge and dipping sauce.
 
I flew a 1967(?) model. The gear doors had a tendency to fail open. As I remember it had something to do with the hydraulic sequencing. If I was looking at 210s, I would get one without gear doors. I think the older ones (with the flat legs) needed some other modification to the gear saddle but I'm not sure what that involved.
 
Everskyward said:
I flew a 1967(?) model. The gear doors had a tendency to fail open. As I remember it had something to do with the hydraulic sequencing. If I was looking at 210s, I would get one without gear doors. I think the older ones (with the flat legs) needed some other modification to the gear saddle but I'm not sure what that involved.
Click to expand...

Think there was also an approved maintenance way to simply remove the gear doors completely and leave them off on the old ones with the door problems. Traded a couple of knots for not worrying about the stupid things.
 
denverpilot said:
Think there was also an approved maintenance way to simply remove the gear doors completely and leave them off on the old ones with the door problems. Traded a couple of knots for not worrying about the stupid things.
Click to expand...
I think you are right, but this was a long time ago.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I hear so many conflicting thoughts on the Cessna 210. Is there a weight & Balance issue? Does the Gear get jammed from time to time. Are there any positives ?

What are your experiences with the 210 Centurion


Thank you!
Click to expand...
I used to fly a 210L

No W&B issues. I played around with the W&B calculator and could not load it out of CG using normal passenger and luggsge weights.

Very easy to fly. Stable. Good IFR platform. Cruise speed was around 165 KTAS.

Downside: not as much baggage space or elbow room as a PA32, but still decent if you are only filling 4 seats.

I used to slide the middle seats all the way back against the bench seat and put large suitcases on that and then fill the baggage compartment. Worked out well.

The gear does require more maintenance, but no more than any other Cessna retract.

Overall, I liked the airplane. It was a decent family hauler.
 
Gear door mod by Uvalde
Some are paying to reinstall due to exposure of switches to mud/debris/water

The gear is funky BUT despite the old wives tales is, with proper rigging and proper routine maintenance, very reliable. It's a retract so it will involve more.
Power pack and gear saddles need to be checked for overhaul and service.
Also, ensure that the tail foam mod has been done or prepare to spend several thousand bucks doing it.

1974 and newer have the full size rear seats, prior to that, they were for children only.
Great useful loads, fast, great airplanes. But get a very good pre-buy by a 210 knowledgeable mechanic. Do a search of the title and NTSB reports.

If it fits your mission of longer trips then go for it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I used to fly a 210L

No W&B issues. I played around with the W&B calculator and could not load it out of CG using normal passenger and luggsge weights.

Very easy to fly. Stable. Good IFR platform. Cruise speed was around 165 KTAS.

Downside: not as much baggage space or elbow room as a PA32, but still decent if you are only filling 4 seats.

I used to slide the middle seats all the way back against the bench seat and put large suitcases on that and then fill the baggage compartment. Worked out well.

The gear does require more maintenance, but no more than any other Cessna retract.

Overall, I liked the airplane. It was a decent family hauler.
Click to expand...

What is the useful? on the 210L? Does the lower wing airplanes have better UL? I hear that the 210 has 1440 useful? 90 Gallon tanks!
 
Pilawt said:
That's quite a range of airplanes. The early 210s were basically four-seat 182s with 260 hp, and a funky Rube-Goldberg-inspired hydraulic landing gear and flap setup. Wider cabin in 1962; power increased to 285 hp in 1964, turbo (optional) in 1966, strutless wings in 1967. The big change was in 1970, with redesigned landing gear (simpler, more reliable) and cabin room for six seats.


View attachment 53581

View attachment 53582
Click to expand...

Thank you for that insight. I downloaded the Owners Manual and I do some light reading!
 
Have a few hundred hours in an M-model (78'). Great plane! I've been told by a current owner of the same model, the gear door mod will cost about 5kts in cruise. The one I flew had original doors and true'd out at 165, and that's with a Robertson STOL kit on it. The kit was awsome. Very truckie feel at slow speed, but could hit the numbers at near 152 stall speeds. Talk about a hauler, pull the middle seat(s) out and load to the headliner. Never had CG issues.
 
Weight and balance is very seldom an issue and there are lots of very positive issues with 210's! The earlier comment is correct about starting life as a modified 182, but significant design changes really have created a very improved bird. The early 210's with struts have flat gear legs and they have mandatory replacement of the gear saddles around 1,000 hours of use. These are the 4 place models, early ones had io470's which is a great engine. They went to the cantilever wings in 67 but that first year had a different dihedral than successive years. The 6 place cantilever wing design has much nicer aileron control. The gear was changed in 1970 and eliminated the gear saddle issues. In 73 they started using 28 volt systems with electric hydraulics instead of engine driven and have a bit more reliability/less maintenance. There is a service bulletin on the hydraulic actuators so if the current ones leak beware replacements can be expensive. The cantilever models are all 6 place but only children are comfortable in the back two seats. There is an inspection requirement of the cantilever carry thru starting at 5,000 hours I believe. I currently own a 1970 but has about 3500 hours so have not had to deal with that yet. Also owned a 63 for several years and enjoyed it, and have several hours in a 73. The N model 1978 did away with the main gear doors and there is a popular mod (Uvalde) for previous models to do the same thing, some like the mod. Had it on the 63 but not on the 70. The original 3 blade McCauley prop used on the IO-520 is hard to get parts for and tough to find someone to overhaul it, suggested at 6 years & 1,200 hours I think. A replacement 3 blade prop runs around $12,000 +/- . The early io520 engines have a light or heavy case, if you tear them down you have to have a VAR crankshaft before reassembly and there is concern about a camshaft gear with a service bulletin to be replaced if older than 2005 or so. The TBO on the original IO 520's was 1,700 hours. The turbo models can be expected to require top end work at 1,100 to 1,200 however due to the additional heat and pressures. New naturally aspirated engines have 1,900 to 2,100 hour TBO's depending upon frequency of use each month. I worked at the factory in the early 70's and 210's were and still are my favorite single from that era, great cross country and IFR platforms. My preference is the 1970 and newer models. Here is a link that shows advancements by year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_210

Insurance runs us about $2,100 for $110,000 of coverage at a small paved & hangar airport.
I do not have much to offer about the pressurized versions but will be happy to share my 2 cents if you have other questions.
 
I've heard ramp rumors of engine cooling issues and engines not making TBO because of it. Any credence to that?
 
I flew one a few times long ago. If I had the buckos to buy, refurbish, update and maintain one I'd do it in a heartbeat. Theres a guy in, Tennessee I think it is, that is a Centurion guru. If you're really thinking about it I'd put him on your list of ears to bend.
 
One of the members of our board had one and he loved it, only sold it when he got older and stopped flying as much so the costs were no longer justifiable.. misses it every day he says. I don't have time in any but they seemed to me like the best "non-trainer" real cross country plane in the classic high wing Cessna line up
 
Man o man, I'll defer to Briar Rabbit on 210 knowledge. We have had some great discussion via PM. I *have* been looking pretty hard at them and in fact have a pre-buy scheduled on a T210L for next week. We will see how THAT goes. I looked at a buncha planes comparing speed, UL, room, mission, blah blah and the 210 fits what I think I'll be doing. Actually it will fit everything I will be doing and some things Im pretty sure I'll be doing. Might be more than I need, but we will see.

Huge useful load on the later models, most of the ones I see list around 160kts and upwards of 175kts at altitude with a turbo. The '72 and later seem to be the sweet spot for gear issues. I think thats when they went to the tubular legs. The gear door were removed from the production models in the N model.

Lots to consider and get a good pre-buy, or not if youre some people on this board...:rolleyes:
 
Briar Rabbit said:
They went to the cantilever wings in 67 but that first year had a different dihedral than successive years.
Click to expand...
Actually two years -- '67 and '68 -- had the high dihedral.

Screen Shot 2017-05-17 at 8.57.01 AM.png

It's interesting to read the comments by former Cessna aerodynamicist and test pilot Bill Thompson (Cessna - Wings for The World: The Single-Engine Development Story). The switch to cantilever wings brought a lot of unintended consequences, structurally and aerodynamically. Said Thompson about the dihedral,

To give increased visibility to the pilot the wing was repositioned 4.5 inches rearward. This dictated a wing planform with a straight leading edge. Aerodynamically, this translates to a slightly-swept-forward quarter-chord line and, hence, a decreased wing-dihedral effect at low speed. Therefore, it was necessary to incorporate a somewhat unattractive high dihedral angle in the 1967 C-210G. Eventually, in the 1969 C-210J/C-T210J this was reduced to 1.5 deg. with the installation of rudder-aileron interconnect springs.​

The cantilever models are all 6 place but only children are comfortable in the back two seats.
Click to expand...
The cabins were the same from '64 (strutted) through '69 (cantilever), with the optional third-row fold-down kiddie seats in cutouts in the top of the big main gear well hump.

Screen Shot 2017-05-17 at 9.02.03 AM.png

The landing gear redesign in 1970 (C-210K) made the MLG gear well much smaller and moved it further aft, making room for a more reasonably-sized third row of seats.

Screen Shot 2017-05-17 at 8.59.30 AM.png
 
Last edited:
^Fascinating... I had no idea the 210 had aileron and rudder interconnect, or that dihedral would have been any issue at all since the weight is all hanging under the wings I would have assumed that would mimic dihedral effect and lessen the need for it
 
Tantalum said:
^Fascinating... I had no idea the 210 had aileron and rudder interconnect
Click to expand...
Continuing the quote from Thompson (p. 161),

Thus a corrective full-rudder deflection would pull the ailerons toward a wings-level condition in a wing-low lateral stability test. However, this interconnect system was loose enough that the pilot would be unaware of its presence in normal maneuvering flight.​
 
I can tell you that annuals can be expensive. Friend of mine spent 12k last year and this year is approaching 15k with no engine work except the turbo needed to be rebuilt ($5k). There is a lot of STUFF on a 210.
 
I would love a 64 thru 66, bladders which can be a lot easier to fix than the wet wings, and has performance charts for ops over 20k feet for NON-turbo version.

Early IO470 powered and later IO520 powered are covered by an STC to burn mogas via an anti-detonation injection system which is super cool.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I can tell you that annuals can be expensive. Friend of mine spent 12k last year and this year is approaching 15k with no engine work except the turbo needed to be rebuilt ($5k). There is a lot of STUFF on a 210.
Click to expand...

That really isn't all that telling. I mean, a prop on a 182 is around $9k for a new one, without the governor. Any turbo gets spendy when it finally comes time to pay up.
 
Meh....bout the same $$$ for any other aircraft in that performance category.
 
Mainly it was worn out parts on gear doors, a chafing fuel line, a leaking fuel selector valve, ignition switch and other nit noid stuff that just added up. A little z shaped part for his door lock was $340 alone. Those parts are expensive and on a 210 there isn't a whole lot of room to get at anything. It seems to fix one thing, you have to remove three other things to get to it.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Mainly it was worn out parts on gear doors, a chafing fuel line, a leaking fuel selector valve, ignition switch and other nit noid stuff that just added up. A little z shaped part for his door lock was $340 alone. Those parts are expensive and on a 210 there isn't a whole lot of room to get at anything. It seems to fix one thing, you have to remove three other things to get to it.
Click to expand...

Parts are expensive across the board but the 210 has a few more. A T210 even more so.

What sucks is that all these old aircraft are in a constant state of being restored. Being a mechanic, I would have a hard time resisting the urge to replace every hose and oring in the hydraulic system then every wire part of the landing gear system and every wire that passes through the firewall.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
performance charts for ops over 20k feet for NON-turbo version.
Click to expand...

1/11/1966, Walt Cable flying a T210F Centurion (strutted), single-engine altitude record of 39,334' -- breaking the prior record of 35,070' set three months earlier in a modified 210.

5/13/1967 (yep, 50 years ago this week), Walt Cable, T210G Centurion (strutless), single-engine altitude record of 43,699'.
 
Pilawt said:
1/11/1966, Walt Cable flying a T210F Centurion (strutted), single-engine altitude record of 39,334' -- breaking the prior record of 35,070' set three months earlier in a modified 210.

5/13/1967 (yep, 50 years ago this week), Walt Cable, T210G Centurion (strutless), single-engine altitude record of 43,699'.
Click to expand...

The 64-66 has a gross of 3100 I believe which pegs the usefull load a bit lower than most people expect. But it also has a higher power to weight ratio than the others (at gross), making it the perfect plane for those with smaller families.

There are a lot of different variables to consider when buying a 210, they have changed so much over the production run.

I think a 62 - 63 ish would be about my ideal size & power, IO470 with the bigger C205 fuselage rather than a 1960 which is basically a very early 182RG.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Early IO470 powered and later IO520 powered are covered by an STC to burn mogas via an anti-detonation injection system which is super cool.
Click to expand...

Speaking of IO-470 and IO-520... doesn't that put all of these 210s squarely in the headlights of the train known as an SB today, that will probably become an AD on those engines?
 
denverpilot said:
Speaking of IO-470 and IO-520... doesn't that put all of these 210s squarely in the headlights of the train known as an SB today, that will probably become an AD on those engines?
Click to expand...

I haven't read the latest.
 
denverpilot said:
Speaking of IO-470 and IO-520... doesn't that put all of these 210s squarely in the headlights of the train known as an SB today, that will probably become an AD on those engines?
Click to expand...
The only IO-470s on the list are the IO-470-U and IO-470-V, which are only found in C-310s. Dunno what's different about the -U and -V from the rest of the IO-470s to make them qualify for this SB, but there it is.

Screen Shot 2017-05-17 at 12.01.53 PM.png
 
Last edited:
Since someone brought up the Saratoga, assuming all other things being equal (which they aren't) is the retractable gear in a low wing way more simple than in a 210 since it doesn't have to rotate to go into the well?? Seems it would be.
 
Thanks to Pilawt for adding the year 1968 for the different dihedral design on the first cantilever 210's, he is correct. I do not have any flight time in a 67 or 68 but I can suggest that the later models do have significant nicer handling characteristics than 1966 and earlier regarding role rates and aileron control. The earlier ones are good, later ones are really excellent.

Labbadabba asked about engine cooling, It is important to watch cylinder heat temps and can be a problem on Turbo versions (and naturally aspirated too). Top overhauls are not uncommon before TBO. Turbos frequently at 1,100/1,200 hours. Newer IO520's are supposed to have fewer issues. We just replaced our engine with a "0" time reman from Continental. The old engine had a bit over 1,800 hours and still ran OK. We always ran ROP, I know there are strong reasons for LOP but I have had good success using ROP. A little more fuel burn is cheaper than premature cylinder work if LOP is not perfect on all six jugs.

Annuals cost us $1,500 to $2,000 each year unless we replace something major. I am a fanatic about quality and timely work so the annuals are fix anything questionable and we use a Certified Cessna Repair shop which is probably not the cheapest option. A turbo will be higher, gets pretty tight inside the cowling with all the additional exhaust and is also why they run hotter.

I still am of the opinion that the 5th & 6th seats are only comfortable for smaller statures even after the gear change to tubular in 1970. They make a great airplane for 4 adults and two additional children but not 6 adults. I weigh 240 and have flown with a fellow close to 300 beside me in the front seats, little tight but better than most airplanes.
 
I like a nice 210 as much as the next guy, but the later models run well into the six figures.

This being PoA, I'm just going to say it - that's getting up into Bonanza territory. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top