Cessna 210 Centurion

    Itll haul heroic payloads at respectable cruise speeds. But dont scrimp on preventive maintenance.

    If you need to haul four people in relative comfort at speeds greater than 160 knots or so, the Cessna 210 will rise near the top of your list of potential aircraft buys. Thats because the upper end of the single-engine retract market isnt flush with choices.

    Basically, there are three: the Bonanza 36 series, Pipers Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga line and the Cessna 210. Would-be heavy cruiser buyers often complain that the Beech is expensive and the Pipers are too slow, unless you opt for a turbocharged model.

    The venerable Centurion occupies the middle ground and if straight-ahead, long distance cruising is your wont, its nearly the perfect airplane. Its affordable to buy and although owners consider it expensive to own and operate, the return for the dollar is clearly near the top of the scale for this class of airplane.

    The downside, however, is maintenance. Centurions demand attention to ongoing and preventive maintenance, especially regarding the gear system. If too many items are deferred, the airplane may have annoyingly bad dispatch reliability. Owners say pay the money, fix stuff before it breaks and youll be happy.

    A Cessna Home Run
    The 210 is a remarkable airplane. Even in the normally aspirated models, cruise speeds of about 170 knots are possible, with useful loads of about three-quarters of a ton, equipped.

    And variable with model and tankage, theres gas enough to cruise for 1000 miles. Whether the 210 is a true six-place airplane is debatable; some owners say yes, others say no. But one thing is clear: the 210 will haul plenty. Four people and lots of baggage with full tanks is doable.

    Like Pipers seemingly endless retooling of the Cherokee, the 210s lineage extends back to the days when Ike was in the White House and Chevy made cars with doors as heavy as a Toyota. First certified in 1959 as a 2900-pound airplane with a strut-braced wing and a redline speed of 174 knots, it ultimately evolved into a 4100-pound, 325-HP pressurized behemoth with a 200-knot redline.

    The pressurized version was designed to fly above 20,000 feet in icing conditions. The P210 was, in fact, the first pressurized single, pre-dating the Piper Malibu by more than a decade.

    All this was accomplished under the certification standards of the old CAR Part 3 rather than the more stringent FAR 23 now in force. Cessna says that with later models, it has conformed to newer criteria but it doesnt have to; the original type certification is grandfathered.

    The 210 evolved from Cessnas first heavy hauler, the 182, although the airframes are substantially different. Obviously, with a high wing, the gear couldnt be retracted into wheel wells so Cessna engineers had to devise a way to hide it in the belly.

    They succeeded but no one would call the results elegant. The 210 gear system is more complicated than most, relying in early models on an engine-driven hydraulic pump, later upgraded to an electro-hydraulic system.

    The original system was also fitted to the early Skymasters, which also got the later upgrade. Service difficulty reports show landing gear problems remain at the top of the gripe list among owners and mechanics-by far.

    This is to be expected with any retractable for the landing gear is always out of sight and out of mind. Until something goes wrong, which it frequently does in Cessna gear systems.

    Nonetheless, many owners ask what the fuss is about. With diligent maintenance, the gear will be relatively reliable if not trouble free. It is, nevertheless, a complex system with numerous actuators, pumps, plumbing, fittings and limit switches.

    Model History
    The first 210s had 260-HP Continental IO-470s, a more powerful, fuel-injected version of the engine then in use on the Skylane. Actually, the early 210 was quite similar to the Skylane of the same era: gross weight was 250 pounds greater and empty weight was about 200 pounds more.

    But the 210 was the only Cessna retractable available, so it was well received. The 182RG appeared in 1978 and siphoned off a few buyers who might otherwise have considered a 210.

    By then, the 210 had grown into a heavier, more capacious and more powerful airplane.

    Over the years, the cabin was enlarged (1962) a bit and outfitted with rear windows. In 1964, engine power increased from 260 to 285 HP and in 1965, a turbocharged model was introduced that went on to outsell the normally aspirated version by nearly two to one.

    In 1967, Cessna made a major change in the look of the airplane when it replaced the strut-braced wing with a cantilevered design. The fuel capacity increased from the standard 65 gallons to a whopping 90 gallons.

    However, since the airframe break-up rate of the cantilever models exceeds that of strutted ones, some critics question the wisdom of this redesign. But theres little question the strutless model looks faster and sleeker.

    In 1970 Cessna added extra baggage space, two additional seats and a higher gross weight of 3800 pounds, an increase of 400 pounds. A year later, the 210 got a boost in takeoff horsepower, to 300 HP, still using the tried and true IO-520-L.

    Better Gear
    In 1972, Cessna finally reworked the gear system. While still hydraulic, it no longer relied on an engine-driven pump. Instead, it became a simpler electro-hydraulic system, although it was still more complex than straight electromechanical systems.

    Seven years later, in 1979, Cessna introduced another simplification by eliminating the main gear doors. This ridded the airframe of actuators, linkages and various switches, yielding a system with fewer failure points. It was also lighter and less expensive to build. Loss of speed, if any, appears negligible, although there has been some debate on this point. (Owners of older models can have their gear doors removed if desired.)

    In the same year, Cessna raised the gross weight to 4000 pounds (210N) then added another 100 pounds in 1985 (210R). Since the Centurions were-and are-highly desired as instrument aircraft, Cessna pioneered electrical redundancy in singles with optional dual alternators and vacuum pumps.

    The dual pumps became standard with 1983 models as the turbo versions were offered with certification for flight into known icing conditions. Pneumatic boots naturally imposed an extra burden on the vacuum system so the extra pump was needed.

    Also in the 1983 models, Cessna began installing new Slick pressurized magnetos to prevent misfiring at high altitudes. And in 1984, engine TBO went up from a stingy 1400 to 1600 hours.

    Performance, Handling
    Light on the controls, sports car-like handling, delightfully well-balanced are all adjectives used to describe how airplanes handle. None of them apply to the Cessna 210, however. The Centurion is, at best, a sled.

    Pitch forces are relatively heavy and although roll rate is adequate, the controls are not well harmonized when compared to, say, the 36-series Bonanzas.

    One owner says it takes muscle and trim to make it do what you want. If you dont learn to trim precisely, hitting the airplanes target speeds for approach and landing will be like a workout in the gym. But set the power and trim correctly and its childs play.

    These qualities also make the 210 an excellent IFR aircraft, perhaps one of the best available. Once trimmed, it goes where you point it and although some owners complain about the ride in turbulence, theres never any question of control.

    Thanks to limited elevator travel, the big Centurion is tough to wrangle into a full-stall break, so theres nothing particularly nasty about them. Since its the heaviest airplane in its class, the 210 has to be handled with respect, especially on landing. Its not difficult to land, mind you, but it suffers its share of hard landings, swerves, runway overruns and gear collapses. Again, if trimmed on speed, the 210 can be landed with no undue strain. Speed is the 210s true forte. Owners tell us that real-world cruise speeds lie in the 160 to 170-knot range, with climb rates of about 750 FPM at 120 knots indicated, although many do cruise climbs of 500 FPM all the way to altitude for better speed and cooling.

    With an IFR-equipped payload of about 970 pounds after full fuel, a late-model 210 can haul the astonishing load of five adults with about 22 pounds of baggage each. No other single comes close to this except the Piper Saratoga, which is still about 30 pounds shy.

    Furthermore, the Centurions have an unusually broad center of gravity envelope that tolerates loading extremes that would make other models in this class virtually unflyable, namely the Bonanza. When all out payload and speed are important, the 210 is hard to beat.

    Although most Cessnas have an excellent reputation for short-field operation, the 210 doesnt shine in this category in comparison with its peers. Minimum runway required over a 50-foot obstacle is at a little over 2000 feet, which is close to the figure given for the A36 Bonanza, but longer by several hundred feet than those posted by the other Bonanzas and Pipers PA-32R.

    Cabin and Comfort
    With a cabin width of 44 inches in the middle and a height of 47 inches, the aircraft has a roomy interior for four adults and perhaps two kids. Wrote owner William Lyons: It has been a good family machine carrying to Aspen four skiers averaging 165 pounds with skis1, boots poles, banjo, guitar and clothes for a week, without a ski tube, which is approved for the airplane.

    Ventilation and heating are generally good except for the rear of the cabin. But poor fit of doors and aging seals occasionally lead to drafty cabins. In general, fit and finish in many Cessnas is not the best and the 210 is no exception.

    Owners complain of water and air leaks and Royalite interior panels that crack and come apart with age.

    Owners also complain that the rear cabin has a serious heating deficiency. Said one owner: The difference between the N and R models (hes owned both) is that the 1986 model is a flying freezer for anyone behind the pilot. The pilot roasts; the middle row passengers require full winter gear and water freezes behind them.

    He noted that hed duly complied with Cessnas service bulletins on the matter. But nevertheless my family remains reluctant to fly again [in] winter.

    All of the 210 owners who have contacted us are realistic about one thing: this is not a cheap airplane to own. Owners report a significant maintenance burden with annuals that run around $2500 to $3000. Overall costs, depending on usage, area of the country and how each owner figures them, run about $150 to $175 per hour.

    Although production of 210s ended in 1986, owners report good parts availability, albeit with high prices. Used parts are sometimes an option, given the relatively high population of 210s.

    The main gear doors on 210s have been an ongoing problem for years. One of the more popular mods has been to simply remove them, a step eventually taken by the factory as noted above.

    The SDRs show many gear-related problems in the 210, ultimately due, we suspect, to the complexity of the hydraulics used to swing the legs into place. Among the various components blamed for gear problems are the thermal relief valve in the power pack; landing gear door valve failure; hydraulic reservoir depletion from chafing by control cables; filter housing ruptured in flight; power pack pump failure causing continuous running and overheating; motor burned; and so on.

    The historic nemesis of older Centurions, fatigue cracks in landing gear saddles, has apparently not abated completely. While a repetitive AD from 1976 addresses the issue, it still crops up from time to time in the SDRs.

    All 210s built from 1960 to 1969 live under the shadow of this problem. With luck, the cracks are found during annual inspections and are fixed in any airplanes now on the market. If for some reason theyre missed, the saddles eventually break and the pilot finds out when one landing gear leg hangs up in the halfway position.

    Saddle replacement was required for 1960 and 1961 models. But even they must be replaced every 1000 hours. Buyers should check the saddles and replacement times on these aircraft. Some owners simply replace them whether theyre cracked or not.

    Later, 1968 and 1969 models came with improved saddles as original equipment, but they must be inspected at 1200 hours and annually thereafter and still run the risk of eventual cracking.

    Finally, the landing gear system was redesigned in 1970, thus apparently ridding the line of the problem once and for all.

    Mag failures also appear often in service reports. These involve Slick magnetos on all 210s, pressurized turbos as well as normally aspirated versions. The FAA issued an AD late in 1988 (88-25-04) calling for inspection of pressurized mags for moisture contamination within the next 50 flight hours and at each annual thereafter for Part 91 operators.

    But the SDRs suggest that contamination was only part of the problem. Others called out failures from a variety of causes such as bearing failure, worn brushes, partially disintegrated distributor blocks, worn gear teeth, broken impulse couplings and broken mounting flanges, to name a few.

    Also cropping up fairly regularly are cracked cylinders, particularly in pressurized and turbo 210s. In 1986, Cessna brought out a service bulletin (SEB86-3) tagging, in turn, a Continental SB (M86-7) calling attention to unexplained cylinder barrel cracking that had caused instances of head separation. Inspections were required, to be repeated every 100 hours, on certain IO-520 and TSIO-520 engines.

    Of late, many 210 owners-indeed, many owners of large displacement Continental engines-have complained of premature cylinder wear leading to soft compression.

    In addition, those old bugaboos of any aircraft-vacuum pump and alternator failures-take their toll on 210s as well. In this context, AD 82-6-10 requires certain Cessna 210s to have two operable vacuum pumps before flying into IMC.

    Potential buyers should also take care to check the horizontal tail for a variety of problems, including stabilizer and bracket cracking. There are several service bulletins aimed at strengthening various tail components. And make sure the elevator skin itself has not become corroded thanks to water absorption by the foam filler, especially in older 210s. Back in the 70s, the FAA received numerous reports of damage (loose or broken rivets, cracking and other problems) near the forward fittings, bulkhead and doublers. The problem is confined to fuselage station 209 and Cessna has kits to repair the problems or prevent them from happening.

    More recently, Cessna issued service bulletins dealing with cracks in the lower forward doorpost and strut fitting (affects other Cessna singles as well); if any are found, a mod must be done. If not, repetitive inspections at 1000-hour intervals are called for.

    Another bulletin warns of cracking in the nose gear downlock actuator pins. Again, its a repetitive inspection or installation of a service kit. Failure of the part could prevent the gear from locking down.

    AD 91-22-1 calls for the replacement of cracked and chafing wires in the nose gear tunnel on all 210s.

    Other ADs include 97-26-17, inspection and possible replacement of the crankshaft, 94-12-8, calibration and labeling of the fuel system; and 93-13-9, replacement of the air induction hose on T210s.

    Theres one more thing to be aware of about the 210, a trait that could bring the pilot who pushes the limits of range to grief. The position of the fuel caps on top of the wing, as designed, places them at the high point of the tanks.

    Its entirely possible that, if the airplane is not level or if the nose strut is not properly inflated, the tanks cant be fully topped.

    Given the dismal accuracy to be expected from aircraft fuel gauges, this potential mismatch between what the pilot thinks is on board and what is actually there poses a possible hazard. When flying to maximum range, be diligent in getting the tanks topped correctly.

    Mods, Clubs
    Most airplanes are draggy enough or underpowered enough that speed mods are marketable options. Its a testament to the 210s basic good performance that this is not the case. Still, like any high-performance single, the 210 can benefit from the installation of speed brakes.

    Precise Flight makes electric brakes that work well and are a good value. Precise Flight also makes standby vacuum systems. (Contact 800-547-2558 or www.preciseflight.com.)

    Also of interest is the IO-550 engine upgrade, which is generally done in conjunction with a prop upgrade. Atlantic Aero (800-334-2001, www.atlantic-aero.com) and John Jewell (662-252-6377, www.johnjewellaircraft.com) offer upgrades to the TCM 550-series engine. (Jewell owns the former Bonaire STCs.)

    Theres also the aforementioned gear door elimination mod from Sierra Industries 830-278-4481, www.sijet.com). Sierra also makes STOL kits, as does Horton and Bush. (Horton can be found on the Web at www.airsport.com/hortninc.htm. Bush can be contacted at 800-752-0748.

    As an invaluable source of wisdom and support, 210 owners should join the Cessna Pilots Association (805-922-2580, www.cessna.org). CPA has an excellent buyers guide on the 210. Another group is the Cessna Owner Organization at 888-692-3776 or www.cessnaowner.org.

    Owner Comments
    We bought N6151N, a 1978 Cessna 210M, in 2001 with 2020 hours on the tach. The aircraft now has 2700 total hours. Before the 210, we flew a 1978 Turbo Lance for eight years and have flown Mooneys, Comanche, Bonanzas and other Cessnas before that.

    We fly our airplane about 400 hours per year, traveling to all parts of the U.S. for our engineering business. With a move to Texas in 1998, we decided to look for a high-performance normally aspirated aircraft. We settled on a Cessna 182RG or 210 as fitting our missions and being within our budget. We decided on the 210 even though it stretched our budget and we are pleased with the choice.

    The elimination of the turbo associated with our Lance has reduced maintenance substantially. Our four to five trips annually to the west coast are fine in the 210; you just need to watch the weather and high density altitudes. With portable oxygen, 14,000-foot cruise altitudes are readily attainable in the 210 at our normal 3500-pound weight.

    Now for specific comparisons: The 210 is a solid 8 to 10 knots faster than the turbo Lance at 10,000 feet, burning 4 GPH less. Almost all of our flying is at about 3500 pounds loaded. At 3800 pounds allowable gross, the 210 can carry 200 pounds more than the Lance. Since empty weight and fuel capacity are similar, thats 200 pounds of additional load.

    At 65 to 70 percent power, the 210 regularly burns 15 GPH versus 19 GPH for the Lance. One wrinkle though, the 210 uses a fuel-flow gauge calibrated in pounds per hour, which would be fine except the manual uses gallons for fuel figures. It takes some getting used to the different units. Actual endurance compares at 5.5 hours in the 210 and 4.5 hours in the Lance to empty tanks.

    So what did the Lance offer? A substantially larger cabin-six adults are possible-a $40,000 lower purchase price and better turbulence ride. We wouldnt want to go back to the Lance but if I was on a budget, the big Cherokee offers a lot of airplane for the dollar. I say avoid the turbo unless you actually need the performance.

    Maintenance on the 210 has generally been good. The overall engineering and manuals for the Cessna are a step above Pipers, making maintenance easier. This applies to all but the landing gear. After one year of operation, we had a problem with the gear doors. (Ours still has the doors installed.)

    We have rebuilt or replaced every cylinder, shuttle valve and actuator and after six months, finally found a switch just slightly loose. We looked into the door mod but found out that all the switches, shuttle valves and everything else must still work as they are left in place.

    We have elected to retain the doors now that we know the system. My recommendation is using a mechanic who is familiar with this system. Before he starts, check everything in the maintenance manual troubleshooting guide first. Our mechanics are now experts.

    Even with the mechanical gremlins, we like the 210. We attribute most of our problems to age. Almost every part we are replacing are items from 1978, many of which finally broke after 24 years in service. Not bad for a fast, reliable IFR platform.

    -Ted Gribble
    Via e-mail

    I purchased a 1984 T210N in 1996; 1984 was the last year of the N model and the later ones have several improvements over earlier 210s. These include a revised fuel system that eliminates the vapor return problem in the fuel tank lines and the fuel selector has a both position.

    My aircraft is certified for known ice and this, plus the dual alternators and dual vacuum pumps add to the overall IFR ability of the aircraft. Average annual maintenance, including annual inspections but not avionics, has been $6240. This included quite a bit of out-of-pocket expense not covered by Continental for the crankshaft AD in 2000, plus extensive troubleshooting and repairs on an elusive problem of low critical altitude with the turbo system.

    Average annual avionics maintenance has been $1030, with the Cessna 400B autopilot being the biggest culprit. Annual insurance for $255,000 aircraft damage and $1 million liability is currently $3210.

    I had the engine overhauled in 1999, with Superior Millennium cylinders, GAMIjectors, full Knisley exhaust, overhauled prop and all accessories (including a switch to Bendix magnetos) for $42,700. I have also replaced the interior and am planning a new avionics package. This is not an inexpensive airplane.

    My previous airplane was a Cessna TR182, so I was hooked on high-altitude turbo performance, but wanted more room and useful load and a more capable IFR platform. And the added speed at high altitudes is nice. At first, I was upset that my insurance company required 10 hours of dual instruction for the upgrade from the TR182, but 10 hours later I was glad I had found an old salt 210 instructor.

    The T210 is a stable airplane. It has a very solid feel in the air but it takes muscle and/or trim to make it do what you want. With muscle, its hard; with trim its easy. It takes a few hours to learn the easy ways to hit every airspeed and to set up each configuration.

    That said, the T210 is a great cross country airplane and with experience it becomes a joy to fly. It is the smoothest running airplane and the best airplane in turbulence I have ever flown.

    The airplane has a very high landing gear extension speed at 165 KIAS, so its easy to slow down and to descend quickly if needed by dropping the gear. Also, the first 10 degrees of flaps can be used at 160 KIAS, which helps the process. When the tower says to keep the speed up on final due to trailing jet traffic, the 210 can blast in very fast and then slow down for landing with good control by dropping the gear and working down the flaps.

    The T210 is happy in the middle to high teens. For flight legs of 200 to 600 miles, I typically fly between 14,000 and 17,000 feet. Higher altitudes have higher airspeeds but only give faster port-to-port times for the longer legs, due to the time to climb.

    Is it a six- place plane? Or four plus luggage? I have taken out the left middle seat and this makes it a very roomy four or five-place airplane. A previous owner had added Flint long-range tip tanks, but I dont need that much range and the tanks are a weight and balance headache, so I removed them.

    Also, that owner added a Riley intercooler, which I still have. Intercooler mods for the T210 complicate the power settings because there is more power for a given manifold pressure and the suggested MP reductions from the POH settings by Riley are only approximate. I adjust power by fuel flow, with reference to the Cessna POH charts. This gives several knots more than the POH charts for the same fuel flow.

    Cessna 210 parts are available from Cessna; no problem other than the dollars. The Cessna Pilots Association is very useful as they know 210s better than Cessna. I have attended both their 210 Systems and Procedures Course and their 210 Flight Proficiency Program. Both are very good. Also, the friendly CPA staff is always available by phone or e-mail to answer questions.

    The T210 has met my expectations and it has a combination of overall performance, room and load carrying ability that isnt available in the new Cessnas.

    -Charles Hull
    Canyon Country, California

    I have owned the T-210L since I picked it up new in Wichita in 1974.The machine has always been hangared: the original paint held up well until the wife insisted onmore up-to-date colors in 1997. There was essentially no corrosion apparent at that time. With the new polyurethane paint, which is black and white, all windows and windshield, which were green tinted, were replaced with the gray or smoke tint. The thing is beautiful; I designed the scheme myself and get many compliments. (It was rendered perfectly by Hagerstown Air Service.)

    For eight years prior to getting the 210, I operated a C-205. I was so pleased with it, the 210 was a natural step up. I had purchased a place in Aspen and scheduling into and out of that airport three to four times a year required the capabilities of the 210.

    Aside from its business utility, it has been a good family machine, carrying to Aspen four skiers averaging 165 pounds with skis, boots poles, banjo, guitar and clothes for a week, without a ski tube, which is approved for the airplane. This is a well-thought out design benefiting from years of development.

    The built-in oxygen system is a model of competence and simplicity in operation, well suited to the airplanes mission capabilities. It is a constant flow six-outlet system and, as such, it does waste some oxygen. But consider this: a four-hour leg out of Aspen for St. Louis at FL 210. With four on oxygen, theres plenty without completely deflating the system. Oxygen is cheaper than gasoline and I think controllable flow valves are a needless complexity. Oxygen is available at reasonable prices as a line service throughout the middle and western parts of the country. In the east, FBOs often insist its a shop service making a bigger deal out of it. I just carry a load from out west.

    Performance is pretty much by the POH. It operates as a 200 MPH machine. Mine carries 865 pounds in the cabin plus 513 pounds of fuel in standard tankage. Obviously, Im satisfied with the airplane after lo these many years. Is it expensive? You bet!Annuals run $1200 to $1500 but you can never get out of one for less than $2500 or $3000.

    Not too rarely, theres a cylinder surprise adding another couple thousand. At 3500 hours, this airplane is on its third engine. The first replacement in 1976 cost $12,000. The last one, a factory reman in 1995, about $25,000. Two of the engines were destroyed by turbocharger failure, a shaft failure the first time and a compressor turbine disintegration the last. (Ive slavishly adhered to the two-minute idle after taxi, following the first failure. The POH had nothing to say about this in 1974.)

    Frequent rendezvous with the fire engines and finally a belly landing at night led to the Uvalde gear conversion. Although this resulted in the removal of 30 moving parts, Ive still had a couple of gear glitches and fly-bys resulting in the trucks coming out. But no more belly landings.

    The original Slick mags were not up to the job of high-altitude operation. The mags and harness were virtually destroyed in the first 400 hours, which included a fair amount of high-altitude operation. Changing to Bendix mags resolved the arcing problem. Pressurized mags apparently are not necessary; cleaning at annual has been sufficient.

    I dont yet know how this GAMIjector gambit is going to work out. I dont have the GAMIs yet but leaning to 25 to 50 degrees LOP (by GEM) and 27.5 inches simply results in the airplane slowing down about 12 MPH at a fuel flow of 14 GPH. One gets the same result at 64 percent power ROP. Its been suggested that the manifold pressure needs be advanced to 30.5 inches (not approved)to restore 75 percent power at this sharply reduced fuel flow.

    Long experience-not too favorable-with this engine tells me it needs much more gas than the POH indicates. Generally, I run it at 18 GPH. I still think gasoline is cheaper than machinery.

    Aviation Consumer has taken to referring to some six-seat piston singles as cabin-class. The 210 is not included because it has no rear-entry door to the cabin. Its not appropriate to refer to any of these as cabin-class except perhaps the Malibu/Mirage. Better criteria for cabin class might be can the captain be the last to board without the tail striking the ground and/or are the fifth and sixth seats suitable mainly for children if the flight is over a couple of hours?

    The Centurion has two large front doors and a decent aisle between the middle two seats to access the fifth and sixth chair height seats. Persons up to 5-feet 8 inches have enough headroom and theres plenty of accessible baggage space behind. The 210 wont settle on its tail when loaded without the pilot aboard.

    -W.S. Lyons
    Falls Church, Virginia

    Having owned five single-engine airplanes, I consider our 1974Cessna 210L to be our first real airplane, in that it does it all.It is roomy (seats six), cruises fast (164 knots) and hauls a big load,full fuel plus 1012 pounds.

    We rarely put five or six in the plane, but we can take four heavy adult males and still have the room for 200 pounds of baggage, and thats with full tanks and five and a half hours of endurance. Although our first three airplanes had low wings-where God and fighter pilots meant them to be- we found that our children and other passengers were boredon long flights due to the restricted downward visibility. The 210s high, strutless wings give them a new perspective. Addto that shelter from the rain and worry-free ground maneuvering near snow piles and I dont think Id go back to a low wing.

    Annuals run anywhere from $1000 on up, depending on the necessity for replacing 28-year-old components. Insurance runs $2200 per year for a smooth million. As far as my wife and I are concerned, we have found the plane we will most likely keep until we are done flying.

    Its that good.

    -Jim Marinangel
    McHenry, Illinois

    Also With This Article
    Click here to view “Accidents: Fuel Exhaustion and Engine Failures Top the List.”
    Click here to view “Resale Values, Payload, and Prices Compared.”