Dad's has a 1976 T210. Years ago, he had an incident, gear up landing. He spent almost an hour trying to get the gear down orbiting the field. The breaker kept tripping on the gear and only the nose wheel would slightly extend. He tried everything including negative G maneuvers to no avail. The manual pump was also ineffective and the handle actually broke while pressuring the system. Dad, wife and 2 of my siblings on board. Lots of help from the ground and even in the air observing. Eventually he made a perfect gear up landing, doors unlatched, minimal fuel, everything and everybody firmly secured. 700 feet on a rubberized asphalt runway. 1 prop tip strike, no fire, smoke etc. All recorded on video. The plane was jacked up, placed on a dolly and taken to a hanger. The gear was tested electrically and it worked! It was also tested manually and it worked! The power-pack was removed and sent in for inspection. Turns out that the system has an interlock piston in the hydraulic unit that can become stuck in between ports effectively rendering both, electrical and mechanical fluid pathways fully closed. It is a multi stage system for the gear doors first then the gear. As I recall it only affected 2 or 3 years? Those gear doors are sitting in the hanger. Dad's been flying for over 50 years, is a Navy veteran and flew for the Coast Gaurd Axillary for 22 years. He has recently been diagnosed with dementia and can no longer drive or fly. He remains surrounded by his many flying buddies and veterans and spends many hours a week in the hangers and hanging out with these fine people. I have been blessed with a wonderful father.
sorry to hear about Gene,s dementia. had the privilege to fly with him to his fishing cabin in Michigan and help him de-winterise his 33 ft twin big block fishing boat.
@johnypitman2368 Dear sir. Thank you for your kind words. I would guess that we have met at one time. Those years in Michigan were very special times with dad. So many fond memories fishing lake Michigan, home projects, working on the boat and ice cream at Kilwins in downtown Frankfort. I'm about 100 miles from dad and get down to see him and take care of chores a few times a month. I will give him your best wishes. My best to you and your family sir.
Thanks for sharing your story. Contemplating a 210 purchase and intensively taking notes (good & bad) regarding 210. Sorry to hear about your dad. I wish you and your family the best possible outcome.
Very good video! I have a friend who had a 210B. He said, that this plane is very comfortable, fast, but it has a weakpoint: the gears. There were three times he couldn't release the main gears at the first, second, third attempts. Fortunatelly he allways solved the problem somehow and land perfectly on wheels. Later he sold the 210 and bought a 172N...
I owned a 1967 Turbo 210G for several years in the 1980s. It was the first year of the cantilever wing. It was basically a 4-seat plane, but with lots of room for everyone. At non-oxygen altitudes (8,000-10,000 feet) it would cruise at 200 mph on 15 gph. Of course, if you went higher (and breathed oxygen) it would go faster, thanks to the turbocharged engine. It also had 90 gallons of usable fuel, so it would travel long distances fast. What a great traveling machine.
Been maintaining GA aircraft full time for 18 years, specializing in 210's. If properly maintained (rigging checked, hoses changed every 10 years, etc) the landing gear is great. By the way, the picture that was shown as the gear pump was actually the fuel boost pump. Overall 210's are still one of the best piston singles in general aviation.
September 1973, 4 of us were in a Cessna 210 Centurion which crashed. Pilot couldn’t get the landing gears to come down. It was at night and a small airport. As he was trying to lower the landing gears manually, he failed to maintain altitude and hit a tree. It rolled wing tip to wing tip 3 times. It also crushed another plane parked and totaled it as well. After coming to a stop, the 4 of us walked away with minor injuries. I’ve never flown in a small plane since.
The electric motor has issues as well. It turns on when pressure is demanded of it. But in an aging aircraft the seals start to wear and the pressure bleeds down. This means the pump can run continuously and burn out (they aren’t meant for constant duty.. they need to cool down between gear cycles). A common STC is to put a light on the dashboard that illuminates any time the pump is running.
I worked for an FBO while i got my ppl and one of the jobs i was given was rebuilding a landing gear valve body on a 210. It was interesting how the gear doors and gear were timed to operate. I will always remember that.
You did a good job on the video. I learned to fly in an old 172, then progressed into a V Tailed Bonanza, and I can attest to the radical response when I put it in a cross controlled stall at altitude, working on a CFI rating. Bought a 1975 T 210, and after selling a 310 went back to a 210 D model before selling it all and sailing away on a Leopard Catamaran
I had a 210h, it was a 206 with no struts, dihedral on the wings and no heavy weight on the nose like later models when the back wheels where shifted further rear to allow 6 seats. there was double glazing on the windows and double riveting. Inside it is the quitest plane compared to the later 210 models and the 182. I did a trip with an A36, I did 4 hours less than the A36 and 9 hrs less than the c182:s. Plus I carried all the extra junk. it did 165kts on 53lph my comanche 260 now does 160kts on 48lph
Those double glazed windows were awful. Had them in the 1966 337 I flew. Dirt would get between the panes and it required hours to disassemble and clean.
The red Centurion at minute 4.04 is my brother, Antonio Cerezo landing at Peyrisourde Altiport, French Pyrenees. In his youtube channel can be seen the full landing.!!!!
a friend of mine belly landed his 210 because he could get the gear down. as I recall he said a servo got stuck in the middle position between the automatic and the manual deployment
Flint Aero conformal wingtip fuel tanks increased range and takeoff weight. They gave the 210 a range closer to 3,000 miles at 14,000 feet with the fuel injected motor and breathing oxygen, enough to fly from Norman's Cay, Bahamas to Columbia.
Details: at 6:04 the pump shown is described as the electric gear power pack. That particular pump shown is a Dukes fuel pump, not the Cessna electro-hydraulic power pack unit. Otherwise, very informative video, thanks.
Great story. Of course there was one small issue with the P210 that might be under the writers radar. Quite a number of them suffered blown engines in flight! The opinion of the day (1984) was that the continental 520 just had too many accessories hanging off of it. My dad’s partner lost their’s coming back north out of Chihuahua, Chihuahua when the middle cylinder on the pilot’s side came apart. As fortune would have it, the partner was a new pilot flying with a 20,000 hour ex- military pilot as instructor. Guess who had the clear windshield! That was the second blown engine on that aircraft. The first took place during climb out while leaving Santa Barbara.
I’ve seen more continentals with holes in the side of them than any other aircraft. Bonanzas, Malibus, etc. One common mode of failure is the alternator drive coupling. Can’t have an alternator fail and stop the engine so they put a rubber coupling between them. First one is like the mag couplings.. a blunt “blade” that goes between two rubber pieces. Second style is rubber that’s frictionally locked inside a cup. This second style will eventually wear out and introduce rubber into the oil system. This of course get picked up and enters the filter.. until it clogs and bypasses. Then it enters the oil galleries in the crank shaft and crank case and it’s usually a main bearing or rod bearing that catastrophically fails. Always check the alternator to see if it turns too easily. If it does.. pull it out and change the coupling (they used to be about $1200.. probably more now.. or convert to the first type but you’ll need new gears) and drop the oil and filter.
You won't loose the gear with an engine failure on the early 210, there is the hand pump and the windmilling prop is also capable of providing enough hydraulic pressure to operate the gear and flaps. i don't know why the engine driven pump is so shunned, every car has one to run the power steering.
Because you can still steer a car without a power steering pump. And most modern cars no longer have them either for the same reasons as well as others (like hybrid and electric).
I guess it was about 16 years ago when I had to drive into Philadelphia….for who knows what reason….and City Hall sits at the confluence of Market Street and Broad Street, and there are court rooms nearby…..and what do I see sitting on the concrete sidewalk next to City Hall, but Richard Collins old P210, “Romeo Charlie.” No wings attached….just standing there, waiting for a jury to come out and look at some aspect of its design, probably involving attorney Arthur Wolk…and I remember thinking to myself, what an ignominious end for such a well-known aircraft.
Collins famously had his P210 parted out when he retired from flying. He said it wasn’t ‘safe’ anymore, but obviously his ego was the bigger issue. Just didn’t want anyone else flying ‘his’ airplane (he bought it new in ‘78). It really shocked many fans at the time to see such a highly respected aviator/author end his career on such a sour note.
We have around 500 hours on our T210N. The landing gear has needed 0 maintenance, just top off hydraulic fluid a few times. It's something that is way overblown.
It is interesting that innovation continued on in other areas, but in GA aircraft it pretty much stopped, other than the panel electronics. Same engines, same crummy ignitions systems, same crummy carburetors. Same poor fuel economy. Can you imagine trying to sell a 1960s car, new, to a 2023 buyer and telling them you wanted half a million for basically a 1960s Ford. No fuel injection, that's many thousands extra, no electronic ignition, though that is available from the aftermarket, but you have to also have a 1930s magneto and an extra set of extremely expensive spark plugs to work with the weak spark that 'reliable' device produces. Oh, and your dashboard instrumentation is driven by vacuum produced by pumps which will fail, and the system is also prone to failure due to moisture ingress and freezing. Aircraft engine life is terrible. My Jeep engine is coming up on 7,500 hours and has never needed a compression test or a teardown. These GA engines are lucky to survive their TBO at nearly 1/4 of that. Car engines used to be just as bad. A 1960s car with 60,000 on the clock would be pretty tired, it would probably need a 'tune up', which it probably had many times before. New plugs, maybe a valve job, again. Just like an aircraft engine. A modern car engine at 60k, which is typically over 2,000 hours is going to need... an oil change. Plugs still good for another thousand hours. And it probably hasn't once failed to start. if it had very cheap regular maintenance.
The reason for the stagnation in innovation is FAA certification requirements and manufacturer liability. Experimental aircraft had made some progress with alternative materials or adding small turbines instead of reciprocating engines… the cost of avionics for experimental aircraft is cheaper too (non-certified). Basically, the government and courts are involved, innovation stops.
Can you imagine the cost of a 172 if they modernized the propulsion. They are already unaffordable with the ancient technology unless you buy something made before you were born and dump money into it.
@@wsmith3849 Old, monopoly, engines are not reasonably priced. Breaking that monopoly would be unlikely to increase prices. The monopolies would disagree, but they have reasons to lie.
No oloes, no doors on the mains. In my experience I never had any issues with 210 gear. I wasnt paying the bills though, so I might not have the full story.
I reskinned the belly on one just after it got a paint job and an autopilot. Poor owner hopped over to another airport five miles away for something.... Missed the gear check on the way back to the uncontrolled airport.
@wanderleyapparecidovieira2282 It depends on the plane. There’s two forms of drag in a plane. Parasite drag which increases with speed. And induced drag which reduces with speed. Induced drag is also related to the weight of the aircraft and how high it flies as it’s a function of how hard the wings are working to provide lift. A strutted wing can be made much lighter than a cantilever one. Indeed the more external bracing, the more lighter it gets. That’s why the first planes were biplanes-not for more lift, but because a truss structure could be made between them extremely lightly. Planes like a Cessna 172 benefit greatly from having wing struts as they simply aren’t fast enough to experience excessive drag from them but they greatly benefit from the reduced weight. There are three contemporary planes that were designed in its class that don’t have wing struts. The first was the Cherokee. By way of ingenious design it actually wound up being as light as the 172. It achieved this by only having a single wing spar (which was used for the rear seats and to mount the main gear), no subfloor (it used chines like boats do for reinforcement and a raceway in the middle to run control cable) and simple and tiny wings and flight controls which lead to anemic handling and climb performance. The single spar would come back to haunt it with severe structural problems. The second was the Beech Musketeer. This was a heavy and portly aircraft that needed 20 more horsepower than the 172 to get airborne. It had a wing tinier than the 150 which also lead to very poor performance. It eventually needed 30 more horsepower to only equal the 172s performance. Then Cessnas own replacement for the 172. The 172J or what was more commonly known as the 177 or Cardinal. It started life with a mere 5 more horsepower than the 172. But because of its heavy weight, awkward centre of gravity (they placed the cockpit well forward to get out from under the wing spar as well as well as improve the upward view in comparison to the 172) and the very draggy tubular gear.. it was a disaster. Due to its inability to make the design speed.. the sleek laminar flow cantilever wing actually produced MORE DRAG.. leading to a lower speed than the 172. They had to modify the wing with a leading edge cuff, modify the gear with aerodynamic fairings, and modify the stabilator with slots to increase its effectiveness. But ultimately it needed another 30 horsepower and a constant speed prop to get the performance it was designed for. It was cancelled after ten years of production and the 172 continues on. Sure.. today with modern design and composite materials it’s easier to make a lightweight cantilever wing. But they are more difficult to repair and less durable and resistant to damage.
@@RR-pw5nb Controllers used to refer to our 78 turbo 210 as "twin cessna 06a" due to the groundspeeds they were seeing and my dad would delightfully remind them with a big grin on his face we were a single
What’s it going to evolve to? Porsche made a “modern” airplane engine back in the 80s. It was a disaster that was outperformed by an aircraft engine 40 years older than it.
Push pull is waaaaaaaay better! I fly a Caravan and it has the annoying lever controls. It’s a PITA to use because you can’t put your finger on the dashboard to gauge their position and you also can’t firewall it without over torque or over temp. I rest my hand on the bypass handle when it’s open for the power lever. Also push pull controls can be fine adjusted by vernier action rather than trying to bump them and adjusting the friction lock. No.. the only place levers belong are multi engine planes so you can control several at once. Otherwise they are garbage.
Thumbs down for the irritating and distracting "black rectangle" on the left side of much of the video. What is it even there for ... cuts off some of the video!
My T210 beats a new Diamond DA50 in every aspect of performance including speed, range, endurance, max altitude and payload. Let me know when Cirrus/Diamond catch up. Until then I will fly Cessna’s 50 year-old technology.
![The Giant Airliner With Cabins In Its Wings | Junkers G38 [Aircraft Overview #19]](/img/n.gif)
Dad's has a 1976 T210. Years ago, he had an incident, gear up landing. He spent almost an hour trying to get the gear down orbiting the field. The breaker kept tripping on the gear and only the nose wheel would slightly extend. He tried everything including negative G maneuvers to no avail. The manual pump was also ineffective and the handle actually broke while pressuring the system. Dad, wife and 2 of my siblings on board. Lots of help from the ground and even in the air observing. Eventually he made a perfect gear up landing, doors unlatched, minimal fuel, everything and everybody firmly secured. 700 feet on a rubberized asphalt runway. 1 prop tip strike, no fire, smoke etc. All recorded on video. The plane was jacked up, placed on a dolly and taken to a hanger. The gear was tested electrically and it worked! It was also tested manually and it worked! The power-pack was removed and sent in for inspection. Turns out that the system has an interlock piston in the hydraulic unit that can become stuck in between ports effectively rendering both, electrical and mechanical fluid pathways fully closed. It is a multi stage system for the gear doors first then the gear. As I recall it only affected 2 or 3 years? Those gear doors are sitting in the hanger. Dad's been flying for over 50 years, is a Navy veteran and flew for the Coast Gaurd Axillary for 22 years. He has recently been diagnosed with dementia and can no longer drive or fly. He remains surrounded by his many flying buddies and veterans and spends many hours a week in the hangers and hanging out with these fine people. I have been blessed with a wonderful father.
sorry to hear about Gene,s dementia. had the privilege to fly with him to his fishing cabin in Michigan and help him de-winterise his 33 ft twin big block fishing boat.
@johnypitman2368 Dear sir. Thank you for your kind words. I would guess that we have met at one time. Those years in Michigan were very special times with dad. So many fond memories fishing lake Michigan, home projects, working on the boat and ice cream at Kilwins in downtown Frankfort. I'm about 100 miles from dad and get down to see him and take care of chores a few times a month. I will give him your best wishes. My best to you and your family sir.
Great comment! Sorry to hear about your father's diagnosis.
Thanks for sharing your story. Contemplating a 210 purchase and intensively taking notes (good & bad) regarding 210.
Sorry to hear about your dad. I wish you and your family the best possible outcome.
Very good video! I have a friend who had a 210B. He said, that this plane is very comfortable, fast, but it has a weakpoint: the gears. There were three times he couldn't release the main gears at the first, second, third attempts. Fortunatelly he allways solved the problem somehow and land perfectly on wheels. Later he sold the 210 and bought a 172N...
I owned a 1967 Turbo 210G for several years in the 1980s. It was the first year of the cantilever wing. It was basically a 4-seat plane, but with lots of room for everyone. At non-oxygen altitudes (8,000-10,000 feet) it would cruise at 200 mph on 15 gph. Of course, if you went higher (and breathed oxygen) it would go faster, thanks to the turbocharged engine. It also had 90 gallons of usable fuel, so it would travel long distances fast. What a great traveling machine.
Been maintaining GA aircraft full time for 18 years, specializing in 210's. If properly maintained (rigging checked, hoses changed every 10 years, etc) the landing gear is great. By the way, the picture that was shown as the gear pump was actually the fuel boost pump. Overall 210's are still one of the best piston singles in general aviation.
Always loved the "thump-thump-thump" of the gear doors slamming shut
September 1973, 4 of us were in a Cessna 210 Centurion which crashed. Pilot couldn’t get the landing gears to come down. It was at night and a small airport. As he was trying to lower the landing gears manually, he failed to maintain altitude and hit a tree. It rolled wing tip to wing tip 3 times. It also crushed another plane parked and totaled it as well. After coming to a stop, the 4 of us walked away with minor injuries. I’ve never flown in a small plane since.
I don't blame you, but what would the chances of it happening to you again? Did the crushed plane soften the impact leading to everyone's survival?
As an Air Force pilot, I used to rent a C210 and also a V35 for long distance trips away. Heart always said Bonanza, but head still says Centurion.
I got my ppl in 1970. The Cessna and Pipers were, indeed, perfected then. THE BIGGEST AND BEST innovations recently is the glass panel and GPS.
The electric motor has issues as well.
It turns on when pressure is demanded of it. But in an aging aircraft the seals start to wear and the pressure bleeds down. This means the pump can run continuously and burn out (they aren’t meant for constant duty.. they need to cool down between gear cycles). A common STC is to put a light on the dashboard that illuminates any time the pump is running.
I worked for an FBO while i got my ppl and one of the jobs i was given was rebuilding a landing gear valve body on a 210. It was interesting how the gear doors and gear were timed to operate. I will always remember that.
You did a good job on the video. I learned to fly in an old 172, then progressed into a V Tailed Bonanza, and I can attest to the radical response when I put it in a cross controlled stall at altitude, working on a CFI rating. Bought a 1975 T 210, and after selling a 310 went back to a 210 D model before selling it all and sailing away on a Leopard Catamaran
You, sir, are living the dream!
The retraction of the gear on Cessna singles and the 337 always amuses me.
I had a 210h, it was a 206 with no struts, dihedral on the wings and no heavy weight on the nose like later models when the back wheels where shifted further rear to allow 6 seats. there was double glazing on the windows and double riveting. Inside it is the quitest plane compared to the later 210 models and the 182. I did a trip with an A36, I did 4 hours less than the A36 and 9 hrs less than the c182:s. Plus I carried all the extra junk. it did 165kts on 53lph my comanche 260 now does 160kts on 48lph
Those double glazed windows were awful. Had them in the 1966 337 I flew. Dirt would get between the panes and it required hours to disassemble and clean.
The red Centurion at minute 4.04 is my brother, Antonio Cerezo landing at Peyrisourde Altiport, French Pyrenees. In his youtube channel can be seen the full landing.!!!!
a friend of mine belly landed his 210 because he could get the gear down. as I recall he said a servo got stuck in the middle position between the automatic and the manual deployment
Flint Aero conformal wingtip fuel tanks increased range and takeoff weight. They gave the 210 a range closer to 3,000 miles at 14,000 feet with the fuel injected motor and breathing oxygen, enough to fly from Norman's Cay, Bahamas to Columbia.
Great video! Love the Centurion!
I grew up in the 210. Biggest smile Ive ever had was when my grandpa gave me the yolk for the first time. And I race dirt bikes :)
rode backseat from phoenix to new york a few decades ago. turbo and pressurized , a bit cramped but a great view
Very popular 210 in outback Australia. Good passenger and cargo capacity at reasonable speed over the long distances in remote areas.
I Fly the 210 when I’m in Namibia 🇳🇦. It’s a great bush plane ✈️
CESSNA IS LIFE TIME BEAUTIFUL
Well done video,
Subscribed!
Thanks for the sub! Glad you enjoyed the video :)
C-210 forever ✈️♥️
Details:
at 6:04 the pump shown is described as the electric gear power pack. That particular pump shown is a Dukes fuel pump, not the Cessna electro-hydraulic power pack unit. Otherwise, very informative video, thanks.
Sure is a beautiful plane. Sad to hear of the landing gear troubles. But it sure is beautiful with the gear up. Increadable speed.
Great story. Of course there was one small issue with the P210 that might be under the writers radar. Quite a number of them suffered blown engines in flight! The opinion of the day (1984) was that the continental 520 just had too many accessories hanging off of it. My dad’s partner lost their’s coming back north out of Chihuahua, Chihuahua when the middle cylinder on the pilot’s side came apart. As fortune would have it, the partner was a new pilot flying with a 20,000 hour ex- military pilot as instructor. Guess who had the clear windshield!
That was the second blown engine on that aircraft. The first took place during climb out while leaving Santa Barbara.
Woah! Never heard of this issue but thats crazy!
I’ve seen more continentals with holes in the side of them than any other aircraft. Bonanzas, Malibus, etc.
One common mode of failure is the alternator drive coupling. Can’t have an alternator fail and stop the engine so they put a rubber coupling between them. First one is like the mag couplings.. a blunt “blade” that goes between two rubber pieces. Second style is rubber that’s frictionally locked inside a cup.
This second style will eventually wear out and introduce rubber into the oil system. This of course get picked up and enters the filter.. until it clogs and bypasses. Then it enters the oil galleries in the crank shaft and crank case and it’s usually a main bearing or rod bearing that catastrophically fails.
Always check the alternator to see if it turns too easily. If it does.. pull it out and change the coupling (they used to be about $1200.. probably more now.. or convert to the first type but you’ll need new gears) and drop the oil and filter.
The STC conversion to Allison 250-B17F turboprop power makes the P210 the ultimate light aircraft in my opinion. It turns it into a real hotrod.
Love the 210
You won't loose the gear with an engine failure on the early 210, there is the hand pump and the windmilling prop is also capable of providing enough hydraulic pressure to operate the gear and flaps. i don't know why the engine driven pump is so shunned, every car has one to run the power steering.
Because you can still steer a car without a power steering pump.
And most modern cars no longer have them either for the same reasons as well as others (like hybrid and electric).
I guess it was about 16 years ago when I had to drive into Philadelphia….for who knows what reason….and City Hall sits at the confluence of Market Street and Broad Street, and there are court rooms nearby…..and what do I see sitting on the concrete sidewalk next to City Hall, but Richard Collins old P210, “Romeo Charlie.” No wings attached….just standing there, waiting for a jury to come out and look at some aspect of its design, probably involving attorney Arthur Wolk…and I remember thinking to myself, what an ignominious end for such a well-known aircraft.
Collins famously had his P210 parted out when he retired from flying. He said it wasn’t ‘safe’ anymore, but obviously his ego was the bigger issue. Just didn’t want anyone else flying ‘his’ airplane (he bought it new in ‘78). It really shocked many fans at the time to see such a highly respected aviator/author end his career on such a sour note.
Pretty good vid however, if you’re going to talk about the landing gear power pack you ought to show a real power pack, not an electric fuel pump!
Caught my eye as well
It didn’t catch my eye but it’s been a lot of years.
We have around 500 hours on our T210N. The landing gear has needed 0 maintenance, just top off hydraulic fluid a few times. It's something that is way overblown.
If you are topping off the fluid, where does the fluid go? Out of sight out of mind?
I’d be pretty happy with just a few top offs in 500 hours. That’s a lot of flying! No seal is perfect.
It’s a game of hot potato. 500 hours isn’t enough to really tell and it depends very heavily on how well it was taken care of beforehand.
Also remember that a lot of this is proactive maintenance. Years of doing just top ups usually ends with a gear up landing.
1:03 that was the plane Mathias Rust flew into Red Square on 28 May 1987
he flew a C172
@ecomandurban7183
Indeed. And the plane at 1:03 is his 172.
yeh...late Richard Collins had a good service itinerary with turbo C-210😎👏
It is interesting that innovation continued on in other areas, but in GA aircraft it pretty much stopped, other than the panel electronics. Same engines, same crummy ignitions systems, same crummy carburetors. Same poor fuel economy. Can you imagine trying to sell a 1960s car, new, to a 2023 buyer and telling them you wanted half a million for basically a 1960s Ford. No fuel injection, that's many thousands extra, no electronic ignition, though that is available from the aftermarket, but you have to also have a 1930s magneto and an extra set of extremely expensive spark plugs to work with the weak spark that 'reliable' device produces. Oh, and your dashboard instrumentation is driven by vacuum produced by pumps which will fail, and the system is also prone to failure due to moisture ingress and freezing. Aircraft engine life is terrible. My Jeep engine is coming up on 7,500 hours and has never needed a compression test or a teardown. These GA engines are lucky to survive their TBO at nearly 1/4 of that. Car engines used to be just as bad. A 1960s car with 60,000 on the clock would be pretty tired, it would probably need a 'tune up', which it probably had many times before. New plugs, maybe a valve job, again. Just like an aircraft engine. A modern car engine at 60k, which is typically over 2,000 hours is going to need... an oil change. Plugs still good for another thousand hours. And it probably hasn't once failed to start. if it had very cheap regular maintenance.
The reason for the stagnation in innovation is FAA certification requirements and manufacturer liability. Experimental aircraft had made some progress with alternative materials or adding small turbines instead of reciprocating engines… the cost of avionics for experimental aircraft is cheaper too (non-certified). Basically, the government and courts are involved, innovation stops.
Can you imagine the cost of a 172 if they modernized the propulsion. They are already unaffordable with the ancient technology unless you buy something made before you were born and dump money into it.
@@wsmith3849 Old, monopoly, engines are not reasonably priced. Breaking that monopoly would be unlikely to increase prices. The monopolies would disagree, but they have reasons to lie.
@@cageordie There may be a day when GA aircraft are so scarce they’ll be sold at auctions like Mecums netting the prices you mentioned.
Diamond has Diesel Engines.
the wing and gear look very familiar; Cardinal RG
Yep. I have a 1978 177RG.
No oloes, no doors on the mains. In my experience I never had any issues with 210 gear. I wasnt paying the bills though, so I might not have the full story.
Aww no mention of the Silver Eagle? I get it, it's a departure... but still.
Not really made by Cessna.
Make a video about the b58 baron
Will do!
Which (or was there ever one), single engine Cessna had a turbo prop engine in it?
To my knowledge it was 182, 206 and 210 that had turbo versions.
Cessna 208 (Caravan) has the PT6 turbo prop engine.
2:51 UMX C182 (rc plane) I have that lil bastard looool
Strutless 210s are the nicest-looking of all GA singles.
177's look good too
@frankmeyers7304
177RGs are the best looking Cessnas period.
Solenoids on power-packed need replacement as they get hot and intermittent causing gear malfunctions.
I reskinned the belly on one just after it got a paint job and an autopilot. Poor owner hopped over to another airport five miles away for something.... Missed the gear check on the way back to the uncontrolled airport.
I’d rather have my landing gear down and welded….🤣🤣
Me too. The Cessna Caravan still goes 175 KTAS with welded gear.
Just a dizzy man provide struts to hold wings,the modern engineering use cantilever spar wings, the goal is to reduce drag,not increase.
@wanderleyapparecidovieira2282
It depends on the plane.
There’s two forms of drag in a plane. Parasite drag which increases with speed. And induced drag which reduces with speed. Induced drag is also related to the weight of the aircraft and how high it flies as it’s a function of how hard the wings are working to provide lift.
A strutted wing can be made much lighter than a cantilever one. Indeed the more external bracing, the more lighter it gets. That’s why the first planes were biplanes-not for more lift, but because a truss structure could be made between them extremely lightly.
Planes like a Cessna 172 benefit greatly from having wing struts as they simply aren’t fast enough to experience excessive drag from them but they greatly benefit from the reduced weight.
There are three contemporary planes that were designed in its class that don’t have wing struts.
The first was the Cherokee. By way of ingenious design it actually wound up being as light as the 172. It achieved this by only having a single wing spar (which was used for the rear seats and to mount the main gear), no subfloor (it used chines like boats do for reinforcement and a raceway in the middle to run control cable) and simple and tiny wings and flight controls which lead to anemic handling and climb performance. The single spar would come back to haunt it with severe structural problems.
The second was the Beech Musketeer. This was a heavy and portly aircraft that needed 20 more horsepower than the 172 to get airborne. It had a wing tinier than the 150 which also lead to very poor performance. It eventually needed 30 more horsepower to only equal the 172s performance.
Then Cessnas own replacement for the 172. The 172J or what was more commonly known as the 177 or Cardinal. It started life with a mere 5 more horsepower than the 172. But because of its heavy weight, awkward centre of gravity (they placed the cockpit well forward to get out from under the wing spar as well as well as improve the upward view in comparison to the 172) and the very draggy tubular gear.. it was a disaster. Due to its inability to make the design speed.. the sleek laminar flow cantilever wing actually produced MORE DRAG.. leading to a lower speed than the 172. They had to modify the wing with a leading edge cuff, modify the gear with aerodynamic fairings, and modify the stabilator with slots to increase its effectiveness. But ultimately it needed another 30 horsepower and a constant speed prop to get the performance it was designed for. It was cancelled after ten years of production and the 172 continues on.
Sure.. today with modern design and composite materials it’s easier to make a lightweight cantilever wing. But they are more difficult to repair and less durable and resistant to damage.
As nice as the 210 looks I would still take a 182 over it.
@@RR-pw5nb Controllers used to refer to our 78 turbo 210 as "twin cessna 06a" due to the groundspeeds they were seeing and my dad would delightfully remind them with a big grin on his face we were a single
@bigal1863
Twin Cessnas aren’t that fast. My Caravan goes as fast as a Twin Cessna. Unless it’s a 421 or 425 or 441.
GA engine technology has not evolved enough.
What’s it going to evolve to?
Porsche made a “modern” airplane engine back in the 80s. It was a disaster that was outperformed by an aircraft engine 40 years older than it.
It's a retrograde dash panel lay out,with push pull throttle,mixture,rpm, instead levers like multi engine type ! cessna doesn't even learn...
Push pull is waaaaaaaay better!
I fly a Caravan and it has the annoying lever controls. It’s a PITA to use because you can’t put your finger on the dashboard to gauge their position and you also can’t firewall it without over torque or over temp. I rest my hand on the bypass handle when it’s open for the power lever.
Also push pull controls can be fine adjusted by vernier action rather than trying to bump them and adjusting the friction lock.
No.. the only place levers belong are multi engine planes so you can control several at once. Otherwise they are garbage.
Some have radar.
Thumbs down for the irritating and distracting "black rectangle" on the left side of much of the video. What is it even there for ... cuts off some of the video!
you are probably too young then haha
Cessna is trash. Old type of aircraft, it belongs to the museum. No comparison to modern cirrus/ diamond an other ul aircrafts
My T210 beats a new Diamond DA50 in every aspect of performance including speed, range, endurance, max altitude and payload. Let me know when Cirrus/Diamond catch up. Until then I will fly Cessna’s 50 year-old technology.
The planes you listed are rich boys toys. They aren’t workhorses or for getting shit done.
That’s the worst airplane Cessna built👎
T210 faster than a36 or saratogo but 3rd row small. stall it off with aproach flaps accelerate in ground effect during cleanup and turn on course