Why did Cessna drop the 210 line?

[Henning]

So, am I not remembering correctly that the insurance company totaled it? If so, that's not exactly what I'd call "little damage."



Red herring. Fixed gear aircraft are no more likely to be porpoised than retracts and, when they are, can withstand more abuse before they collapse than the typical retract can...especially Cessna retracts...

i.e. Porpoising incidents are completely unrelated to whether a plane is FG or retract thus they likely don't impact a company's liability decision making...except, if anything, Cessna might view it as yet another reason not to build retracts since they are less robust than fixed gear.

The damage from a collapsed nose gear is pretty equivalent to the damage from a gear up. Totaling the plane was an economic decision focused around the cost of the engines, the airframe damage was apportioned $12,000, engines and props were apportioned $17,000 each, when you deduct the salvage value of the panel, the 80% of the $70,000 insured value threshold is crossed and it gets totalled. Having retractable gear does nothing to the Manufacturer's Liability.

Manufacturers' liability is about risk to life. Retract gear doesn't affect that to any substantial degree.

 

[txflyer]

CompAir experimental has a high wing fast mover that's close to what a 210 is in some ways.

If you can build one of these normally aspirated, then you've got a 210/206/208 type thing ...

.