The Smart Pilot’S Expedited Approach

A Complete & Easy Buyer’s Guide For Cessna 210s, Turbo 210s & Pressurized 210s

Everything You MUST KNOW To Be A Fully Equipped, Safe & Confident Buyer/Owner

Guaranteed to save you ;

time money guess work & most of all - regrets!

By Lee Parker www.aircraftbuyersguide.com

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 7

The Excitement of Owning a Centurion

Dramatic enhancements = significant performance improvements II. Bright Spots & Blight Spots 10

Where Centurions Shine & Where They Fall Short

Cavernous Cabin Room

The Most Solid IFR Platform Available

Price/Performance Ratio Unexcelled

Flight Level Flying in Pressurized Comfort

Midget Seats in the Rear – Room Enough for an NFL Linebacker?

Cabin Heating or Ice Box? (Depends on Where You Sit)

Fuel Tank “Shrinkage” - Watch Out!

Watery Fuel

Watery Fuel Plus! (It gets worse)

Vapor Lock Can Ruin Your Day

Short Lived Royalite Interior

Cessna/ARC Radios – Ugh!

Detonation Problems, Frustrated Centurion Owners & Cessna’s Eventual Rescue

“A Daring Technological Advance?” IV. Dramatic Changes Through The Years 19 V. Centurions Get Better & Better Each & Every Year – A Quick Summary 21

VI. Don’t Get Raked on Your Maintenance Bills 30

Don’t Expect to Make TBO with the TSIO-520

The Notorious 210 “Gear Problems”

Magneto Misery

Cylinder Cracking Alert

A Deadly Design Flaw That You Don’t Want to Live With

VII. Do Centurions Fall Apart in the Sky? 34

VIII. Flying the Centurion – What a Wonderful Feeling 35

IX. Is Insuring a Centurion Going to Be Possible? 36

X. Stacking Up Against the Competition 38

P-210 vs Malibu

Heavy Hauling Speeders - Bonanza and Lance/Saratoga

When Speed is All That Matters - Mooney XI. Problem Areas to Look for When Shopping 42

Gear Saddles Crack & One Gear Drops While Flying

Cracked Cylinders Can Lead to Major Engine Failure

Low Compression Trickery

Cracked Exhaust Plumbing Can Be Deadly XII. Operating Hints That Will Deliver More Value and Performance for Less 47

One Small Trick Can More Than Double The Life of the Turbocharger

How to Prevent Expensive (& Frequent) Cracks in Cylinders

Taming the Hulking Truck in Landing and Touch-Down

Overcoming the Silence of Vapor Lock

Speed with Economy, Smoothness and Longevity XIII. After - Market Modifications That Increase Utility, Safety & Performance 52

XIV. What the Rags are Reporting 56

XV. From the Discussion Boards 59

XVI. Organizations for Cessna 210 Owners 63

XVII. Performance and Specifications for 1986 64

XVIII. Lists, Tables and Charts 65

This book has been written to relay vital information about Cessna 210 aircraft to any pilot/owner or potential pilot/owner considering making a purchase. While both the good and the bad are covered, more space is dedicated to problem areas. The reason for that is to reveal the “gotcha’s” that could come back and bite you rather than fill pages with gushing superlatives. It is not meant to discourage a purchase in any way.

In the following pages, every effort is made to present all of the known issues (and some that may not be very well known) for these aircraft that would appreciably affect the value, safety, comfort, performance, maintenance costs and overall satisfaction for a pilot/owner. However, it is not possible to mention every possible discrepancy or problem that might have been experienced by some pilots & owners.

It is believed that through research and personal experience, the author has revealed all the major and pertinent issues for someone considering becoming a pilot/owner. That said, you are encouraged to continue your research beyond the study of these pages for any information that may have been inadvertently omitted.

It is expected (and strongly recommended) that the reader of this book will be enlisting a qualified aircraft mechanic to perform a thorough pre-purchase inspection as part of the purchase decision. Your mechanic will review whether the target aircraft is compliant with all current ADs and for that reason, ADs have not been covered here.

“Remember that all things are only opinion and that it is in your power to think as you please.” - Marcus Aurelius

This guide is intended to present a comprehensive overview of information for you to “think about”. It is my hope that this volume of research will be of great assistance in your quest for the perfect Cessna 210 for you .

“All things are difficult before they are made easy.” - Thomas Fuller

Happy Buying & Flying!

Lee Parker

I. Introduction

During the life of its production, the Cessna 210 captured the crown position of the Cessna single piston engine model lineup as the premiere Cessna aircraft for the step-up buyer. The first flight of the 210 occurred in January 1957. It featured for the first time on a single engine Cessna aircraft, a retractable undercarriage and swept back vertical tail surfaces. The 210 entered production in late 1959 and was constantly improved over the years. Early upgrades include the 210B which introduced the wraparound rear windows, the 210D with a more powerful 285 HP engine (and introduced the Centurion name) and the turbocharged T210F. The 210G introduced a new strutless cantilever wing, greater fuel capacity, restyled rear windows and enlarged tail surfaces. The landmark pressurized P210N model first appeared in 1978. With a rather lackluster pressure differential of 3.35 pounds, the cabin's internal altitude of 8,000 feet could not be maintained any higher than about 17,000 feet. Development of the 210, T210 and P210 aircraft continued through 1985 until production ceased in 1986 along with all of Cessna’s line of single engine aircraft (in 1998 Cessna briefly considered returning the 210 to production).

The Excitement of Owning a Centurion

If you’ve decided that a Cessna 210 is likely in your future, you’re joining a loyal group of aircraft owners. Once pilots find a 210 that fits their use profile, they seem to hang on to them. It’s no wonder the 210 has caught your eye. It’s one of the most popular airplanes in the used aircraft market.

Perhaps it’s the design itself that’s attractive to you, the speed and load hauling capability or maybe it’s just the attraction of owning this solid IFR cross country magic carpet that delivers high flying performance unlike any other aircraft in this price range. The 210 can be a joy to own and fly and it can deliver some of the best performance for the purchase dollar than any other single engine aircraft available. It can also be one of the most expensive single engine aircraft to maintain. Nonetheless, many of the Cessna 210 service problem horror stories circulating on the internet discussion boards are overblown. In addition, some of the maintenance

This airplane went through such a dramatic evolution over the 27 years of its production and Cessna made so many improvements year to year, that no one should even consider buying a 210 until having a clear understanding of what year and what model fits the use profile and, following that, what specific things to include in the pre-purchase analysis and buying inspection.

For example, when shopping for a turbocharged or pressurized 210, you should know before starting your search that Cessna provided these aircraft with, what turned out to be, miserably weak exhaust systems. Consequently, they carry a very annoying and bothersome AD requiring a stop in the shop every 50 hours for a complete exhaust inspection. That’s not the kind of discovery that you want to be surprised with after you’ve completed your purchase (see Chapter V on maintenance for my recommendations).

Of course, some of the buying decisions, like model and year, may be driven by price (and therefore affordability). And for good reason. The price range is huge between the cheapest to buy 1960 normally aspirated 210 models and the most expensive pressurized, turbocharged “fire-breathing dragon” produced in 1986. You’ll likely pay more than 10 times as much for the later design. And for good reason, as you’ll soon learn.

Is speed important to you? Depending on which year and model of aircraft you’re looking at, maximum speeds for this family of aircraft have a very large range. The slowest is about 160 knots true air speed, while the fastest is 225 knots maximum cruise – more than a 40% variation from the slowest to the fastest.

Do you need to maximize your payload capability? The Cessna Centurions are known as heavy haulers. However, does the early models’ useful load of 1,220 lbs. provide enough? If not, perhaps you should opt for one of the later models that carry a useful load approaching almost a ton !

Dramatic enhancements = significant performance improvements

It started out in 1960 as a strutted, 260 HP, 160k cruise/174k redline, 2,900 pound airplane and through 27 years of improvements ended production after 1986 as a 325 HP, 217k cruise/200k redline, 4,100 pound gross weight wonder. During that span of time, turbo and pressurized versions were introduced, the P210 being the first pressurized single (if you don’t count the Mooney Mustang). The airplane went from the original “retractable 182” with 4 seats to a high flying, fast and efficient transport for up to six individuals.

4 seat interior in 1961 210A (note: the rear window was added the next year)

The original 1959 design of the 210 was derived from the Cessna 182. In fact, it was little more than a retractable Cessna 182 with some minor improvements. The first 210’s came with Continental IO-470’s rated at 260 HP versus the non-injected version in the Cessna 182 (230 HP Continental O-470). To accomplish converting a high wing 182 into a retractable gear airplane, the Cessna engineers had to figure out a way to tuck the gear up under the belly of the airplane. That challenge was conquered with the twisting of the main gear, then tucking each wheel up flat under the belly. That complexity wasn’t without its drawbacks however, as the maintenance and reliability of the 210 gear is not one of its strong points, particularly on the early models that featured an engine-driven hydraulic system. The additions added to the Cessna 182 to make it into a Cessna 210 added about 200 lbs. to the 182’s empty weight.

’64 Nose on left – ’65 on right. The prop shaft was extended in 1965 allowing a more attractive nose cowl

Bright Spots & Blight Spots

Where Centurions Shine & Where They Fall Short

It may appear that I’m much more focused on the Centurions problems than its assets, particularly as you read the following and note how short the section is for “pluses” and how long the section is for “minuses”. It’s not because I’m a pessimist (I’m really an optimist) and it’s not because I don’t believe that the Centurion is a fine aircraft (it was one of my favorites ever). But my job in writing this book is to show you the pitfalls, the shortcomings and the weaknesses in the Centurion series so you’ll know what models and years to shop for and then how to properly evaluate a potential purchase.

Where They Shine

Speed, useful load and range are the Centurion’s strong suits. For the Centurion (normally aspirated for instance), with a top cruising speed of 171 knots, the 70’s and later vintage can go 1,000 statute miles with reserve. Only the Mooney 201 of similar vintage has better range.

Better yet, that fully fueled Centurion can still carry 5-6 people plus baggage, depending on year and equipment, and remain under gross. No other single of similar vintage comes close (the Piper Lance comes closest, but is still 70 lbs shy).

The large useful load has an unusually broad center of gravity envelope too. What that means is that loading is a breeze. Baggage can go into the baggage compartment where it belongs instead of on passengers’ laps to satisfy weight and balance requirements.

From our Pilot/Owners Desk…

“The Cessna (210) wins on cabin comfort plus people ergonomics. You have two doors and a wing that shields you from the rain…, the center area for storage of charts, lots of cubby holes for stuff and of course, elbow room.”

Cavernous Cabin Room

The seating up front is spacious and comfortable with plenty of shoulder room (a full 44” in the middle of the cabin and 47” of height). There’s space between the seats for carry-alongs and lots of legroom. Unlike Mooneys and some Pipers, there’s enough room to sit upright (as opposed to the feeling that you are literally sitting on the floor or laying on your back, sports car

The Most Solid IFR Platform Available

The Centurion is renowned for its stable and smooth flying qualities in IFR. An IFR approach in a Centurion tends to make the pilot look good. The passengers may think that the airplane is virtually descending to the airport on rails.

From our Pilot/Owners Desk…

“… 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.”

“Approaches are very pleasant. We usually hand-fly them just to stay in practice. I recommend doing this since one can become quite complacent in this airplane.”

“…an IFR machine, built for travel.”

Price/Performance Ratio Unexcelled

Where can you buy the performance of a turbocharged or a pressurized six place aircraft that can carry such heavy loads with the speed and range of these Centurions at such a price? Without a doubt, the Centurions are one of the best buys in the heavy-hauler, six-place marketplace.

Flight Level Flying in Pressurized Comfort

As the only pressurized single engine of its day (until the introduction of the Piper Malibu in 1983), the pressurized version of the Centurion offered single engine pilots the ability to ascend over the top of weather in the comfort of a pressurized cabin. With the beefed up structure required to pressurize the vessel and the air tight cabin, noise levels are lower, which adds to the comfort.

From our Pilot/Owners Desk…

It (his P-210) loves the high teens, but we will occasionally go up as high as FL230 eastbound to catch the jet stream in winter.”

“The ability to get over ice was the main reason I bought this airplane.”

Where they Fall Short

Cessna didn’t “come out of the chute” with a perfect design with the 210. Although it sold well when the Cessna 210 was introduced (and even better

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 11 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com when the T-210 was introduced), the Centurions have a spotty history of maintenance challenges and poor designs choices by Cessna in some of the early models.

There are always trade-offs in not starting an airplane design with a clean slate. Retracting the gear on the Cessna 182 and adding 30 horsepower was where this bird started its life. But taking the 4-place 182 and stretching into a 6-place airplane didn’t result in a true 6 place interior.

Cramped 5 th & 6 th seats are designed for only Midget Seats in the Rear – Room very small passengers Enough for a NFL Linebacker?

When Cessna added the 5 th & 6 th seats to the 210, they were considered children’s seats because the cabin narrows down appreciably in the back and doesn’t allow for full size seats. The cabin was enlarged in 1970, permitting “adult” seating, although the width & height space in the back is still somewhat lacking. The back seats are small and tight on space, particularly in leg space. The small cabin also limits club seating, which is not an option on this airplane.

That being said, I’ve actually had a 300 pound Phoenix Cardinal football player in one of those “kid” seats for a one hour trip, so it’s not like they’re unusable for adults. But they are limited and smaller than the competition, i.e. Beechcraft and Piper (see “How 210’s Size Up to the Competition”). And that one football player more than filled up that whole back seat with legs sprawled out between the seats in front of him.

Cabin Heating or Ice Box? (Depends on Where You Sit)

Heat (or a lack thereof), is a common complaint for back seat passengers. The front seat pilot and passenger are toasty warm, but beginning in the middle seats directly behind them, it can be freezing cold. It’s particularly bad for the Turbo Charged Centurion, because it can fly in the extreme cold temperatures of the high altitude flight levels, but without pressurization, the cabin can leak a tremendous volume of air, particularly around the two forward doors. The draw of cabin air through, around and out those door seals means that that the heat flowing out from under the panel in front never moves further back than the front seats. Plan on taking lots of blankets along for back seat passengers and even then, expect some complaints.

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 12 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com Fuel Tank “Shrinkage” - What out! The Cessna 210 history is speckled with (too high) a number of accidents due to fuel exhaustion. Reading the accident reports, it would make one believe that a pilot who pushes the limits of range with this airplane is sooner or later heading for grief. Are Cessna 210 pilots just sloppy about keeping track of their fuel?

A debate arose as to whether there was a problem with the 210’s fueling system. However, there were plenty of accidents where calculations showed that there should have been fuel in the tanks. Yet these aircraft mysteriously ran out of fuel.

An FAA safety inspector in San Diego, after several personal encounters with unexplainable fuel exhaustion accidents, recommended to the FAA that it commence an investigation into the situation. The FAA concluded however that “since most of these incidents/accidents involving fuel exhaustion indicate pilot error”, it was unnecessary to pursue further investigation .

What!!!???

(Is it just me or do you see the irony here? The response from the FAA bureaucrats was essentially, “there’s no reason to review any new facts that could prove these pilots innocent since we originally found them guilty”).

Eventually the Cessna Pilot’s Association (CPA) conducted a fuel capacity test with twenty Centurions from around the country to determine if they would be able to find conditions where the fuel tanks could not be filled fully. The results were quite astounding. Only 2 of the 20 aircraft were able to fill their tanks completely. 5 of the aircraft had at least 4 gallons short in one of its 45 gallon tanks. The largest shortage was 6.5 gallons/tank (or about 15%).

It looked like the mystery had been solved. At least the part of the mystery of whether the pilots were really the culprits in these fuel starvation accidents and incidents.

The conclusion that CPA made after their admittedly unscientific tests were completed was that filling the Cessna 210 tanks to their 90 gallon capacity was not easy to do in certain situations. The main culprit seems to be trying to fuel to capacity when the attitude of the aircraft is not correct. In other words, the wings must be perfectly level and the nose slightly up (about 4 degrees). Other recommendations made by CPA include allowing time for the fuel to settle and lowering the tail and rocking the wings to get maximum fuel capacity.

The flush fuel caps installed in all models of Cessna 210’s will leak rain water into the gas tanks, even when the caps, rings and seals appear to be in good condition. Fuel contaminated with sufficient amounts of water can cause a sudden total loss of power. A simple solution is available from Monarch Air which replaces the flush cap with an umbrella type that sits above the wing surface.

In a T-210 owned by the author, an unacceptable water contamination situation was totally eliminated by this low cost fix. It could be argued that the flush cap design is more aerodynamic and therefore a better design, but I was unable to detect any loss of airspeed with the umbrella style caps. And the peace of mind of knowing that there was no chance of large quantities of water roaming around in my fuel tanks was worth a lot more than a slight degradation of airspeed, even if there had been some.

Watery Fuel Plus! (It gets worse)

All Cessna 210 fuel tanks before the cantilevered wing design in 1967 were of the bladder type. Bladder tanks have the reputation for wrinkling over time and the wrinkles trap water and other contaminates. Furthermore, fuel contamination in bladder tanks can easily go unnoticed to the pilot, since the trapped water and contamination doesn’t show up in the pre-flight fuel test. The danger comes when in an uncoordinated turn or during nose up or nose down attitudes (as in takeoff or landing). The sudden release of contaminates or water in the tank could easily cause engine failure.

Bladder tanks and leaky flush mounted fuel caps together pose a potentially extreme hazard for the unwary pilot. You have the unfortunate combination of a faulty cap letting in lots of water and a tank that can hide the water from even the most conscientious pilot. A thorough pre-flight may not expose the hazard and there’s a good chance for an accident (see Chapter 12, “Operating Hints…” for my recommendations).

Vapor Lock Can Ruin Your Day

Occasionally, the Continental 520 series engines were known to vapor lock in the Centurions. In the old days, cars would commonly vapor lock, but Detroit figured out what caused it and we haven’t seen vapor lock in automobiles since the 1950’s or 60’s. Cessna didn’t catch up to the problem until much later when it came up with a new design in 1982 that eliminated this potential (see Chapter 12, “Operating Hints…” for suggestions on pre- 1982 aircraft).

Royalite Interior is Short Lived

When Cessna chose Royalite as the product to use for its aircraft panels, it must have seemed like a great idea – lightweight, easy and cheap to form in the manufacturing process and convenient and easy to remove. However, as time has shown, it didn’t wear well. Most older Cessna’s have interiors that are in need of replacement because of cracking, Brown Royalite Eventually Gave Way to Black in Later breaking and disintegrating plastic Years. (Royalite) panels throughout the interior of the cabin. It doesn’t look so hot, but if you see it happening, you’ll at least know why.

Cessna/ARC Radios – Ugh!

One of the “easier” (though not inexpensive) problems to fix in Centurions is the Cessna/ARC radio stack…, “easier” because they can be readily replaced by a more reliable, higher quality radio stack from King or Collins. If the Cessna you’re evaluating has the original ARC radios in them, whether they’re the 300 series or the 400 series, they likely are in need of replacement or will be soon. None of the ARC/Cessna radios, turns out, were all that good to begin with. But by now, they certainly are near the end of their expected life.

The 300 series die slowly. They begin to fade as the internal amplifiers fail. The 400 series have expensive-to-repair channel relays and some avionics shops don’t consider them cost effective enough to repair. In either case, you’ll find burnt out LED segments and other annoying signs of age and obsolescence.

My old 400 series had the annoying habit of losing audio output while I was on approach into my hometown international airport. The first time it happened, I was totally caught off-guard. Wondering why there had been such a long spell of silence and why I had not been given further clearance I switched radios in time to hear a frantic tower controller rerouting half of the skies of Phoenix, trying to direct aircraft clear of my inbound approach path.

What was even more annoying was that it wasn’t just the one radio. Either of the two 400 series radios could and would frequently pull this trick while approaching Phoenix (it was almost like there was some mysterious “force” around that airport). However, the mysterious “force” was eliminated once the radios were replaced. With new King radios, it never happened again.

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 15 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com While you’re having the avionics shop install new radios, make sure you have a high-quality cooling fan installed for your avionics (only the newest Centurions came equipped with avionics cooling fans). There are aftermarket kits that are fairly easy to install too. With a good cooling fan, you’ll extend the life of your radios by many years and you’ll reduce your ongoing avionics maintenance bill, particularly in hot climates.

Parkers Rule: Cool electronics live longer. Avionics fans are cheap insurance against big repair bills .

Before leaving this subject of the Cessna radio stack, a mention of the Centurion autopilots is in order. I thought that it was just my Centurion that had this problem, but I’ve found postings from other pilots with the identical problem.

That said, in fairness to Cessna, I really have no idea how widespread the problem is;

From the pilot/owners desk;

“…there is a design fault which makes them (Cessna autopilots) unstable in pitch, especially at certain CG positions”

That’s it. That’s my autopilot exactly. And as often as I tried, none of the avionics shops I visited were able to cure the problem. My playing with CG would sometimes improve the pitch stability. But then you might find that what worked okay in climb would lose stability once you pushed the nose over for level flight.

The effect of an unstable pitch, if you’ve never experienced it, is like your airplane is skipping across the sky – much like a flat rock skips across a pond. It’s very annoying and makes the autopilot pretty much useless.

The P-210 has had a troubled history. AD’s requiring hefty increases in fuel mixtures to overcome detonation problems drove up the operating costs. High altitude performance on some models was anemic with some operators complaining of not being able to maintain manifold pressure above 18,000 feet or less. The pressure vessel has the lowest cabin pressure differential of any pressurized aircraft and if not in optimum condition, has difficulty even maintaining 12,000’ cabin pressure at its maximum operating altitude of 23,000’.

The good news is that some of these are no longer issues, assuming the airplanes have been properly repaired. Here’s the how and why;

Detonation Problems, Frustrated Centurion Owners & Cessna’s Eventual Rescue

Several P-210’s crashed in 1980 due to engine failures. The cause was traced back to a lethal tendency for the Continental TSIO-520 engines in the P-210 to detonate. After the FAA issued emergency ADs to address the problem, Cessna engineers went to work to try to solve it. Eventually, a Performance Plus package was announced that solved the problem, but contrary to its much bally-hoed name, the “fix” dramatically decreased performance.

So, P-210s without the “fix” were required by the AD to operate at ultra-rich fuel mixtures to overcome detonation. P-210s with the “fix” were rewarded with lower performance. The performance reduction because of the “fix” had effectively lowered the service ceiling from 23,000’ to more like 16,000’- 18,000’. The airplane soon got a new nickname - “sick dog”.

Finally in late 1981, Cessna found that it was their poorly designed induction system that was the source of the problem. To their credit, they offered to retrofit all affected aircraft for free. With the new induction system, consisting of a larger intake scoop and a redesigned air plenum, performance was restored (manifold pressure increased up to 7” at altitude) and detonation is no longer a problem.

“A Daring Technological Advance?”

Despite Cessna’s marketing copy to the contrary, the P-210 was hardly a great technological marvel. The “new” pressurization system introduced in 1978 was the same old system designed and then lifted from Cessna’s Twin

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 17 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com Engine, Push-Pull Skymaster. As already mentioned, it had an anemic 3.35 pound pressure differential. Add to that a lack of any rate controller, which meant that a pilot had no ability to soothe the ear-popping effects of descent, and the advertised comfort of having a pressurized cabin is somewhat muted.

There’s nothing really dangerous about this limitation. You should just be prepared for the wide and swift altitude fluctuations that pilot and passengers could experience and the discomfort associated with it.

Dramatic Changes Through The Years

The first 210 was just a redressed Cessna 182 with retractable gear. It had a 260-HP Continental IO-470, a more powerful, fuel-injected version of the engine then in use on the Cessna 182 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 when Cessna introduced the 210, it was the only Cessna single retractable available, so it was well received (the retractable 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 much heavier and more powerful airplane, however). Over the years, the cabin was enlarged a bit and outfitted with rear windows. The engine power 1966 Model (last year with wing struts) increased from 260 to 285 HP in 1964 and two years later, a turbocharged model was introduced that went on to outsell the normally aspirated version by nearly two to one. The power was increased eventually to 325 HP before production was stopped. In 1967, Cessna made a major change in the look and speed of the airplane when it replaced the strut-braced wing with a cantilevered design. The fuel capacity had a dramatic increase from 65 to 90 gallons with the new wing tanks.

The biggest problem reported by owners of early Centurions was the landing gear system, especially in the pre-1972 models with the engine-driven hydraulic system, as opposed to the later electro-hydraulic one. The task of maintaining the older systems with accumulator, power pack, filter, hydraulic pump was a real pain. 1981 with Cantilevered Wing

(note: nose doors open on the ground, a 1979 change) In addition, the history of the early Cessna 210’s was beset with gear saddles that cracked and failed. This problem seems to have disappeared with the major gear redesign in 1970.

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 19 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com But pre -1970 210’s will have a recurring AD requiring replacement of the saddles every 1,000 hours in the 1960 and 1961 models and inspections every year for later models. That could add up to a couple of bucks an hour to your flight cost.

In 1970 Cessna added extra baggage space, the two children’s seats became adult seats, the aircraft increased its gross weight to 3800 pounds (an increase of 400 pounds) and the normally aspirated version got a boost in takeoff horsepower to 300 HP. In 1972, the electrical system was boosted to 28 volts to power the higher electrical load of the new and improved electric-driven gear power pack system. The “T” style instrument grouping became standard in the 1974 models. In the following year, the 3 bladed prop became standard. Aileron gap seals and other minor aerodynamic improvements resulted in about a 9 MPH improvement in cruise speed for the normally aspirated model and 13 MPH for the turbocharged model in 1976. In 1977, the turbocharged 210 was boosted to 310 HP for takeoff power (however, it was still 285 HP continuous power). 1978 was the last year any of the Centurions were equipped with gear doors. It was also the year that the first pressurized single engine Cessna was introduced. Speaking of firsts, 1979 was the first year that a single engine aircraft (T-210 & P-210) was given known ice certification. The vapor lock problem was fixed in 1982 with a much improved fuel delivery system. Dual vacuum pumps became standard in 1983. Gross weight was increased again to 4,000 lbs for the turbo as well as a boost to a 1,600 TBO in 1984. No P-210’s were manufactured this year. The largest single advance for the Centurion series came in 1985 when Cessna re-introduced the P-210 after a one year reprieve the year before. Gross weight was increased to 4,100 lbs, the engine power went to 325 HP and the service ceiling was boosted to 25,000’. Cruise at altitude for the P- 210 and T-210 became a very respectable 212 knots and with the new long range fuel tank options, range with IFR reserves was extended to over 1,000 nm.

Centurions Get Better & Better Each & Every Year – A Quick Summary

1960 210 – Original 210. Base Price: $22,450

1961 210A – Third side window was added, more headroom was provided and the baggage door hinged forward (was hinged upward). Optional long range 84 gallon fuel tanks became available. Base Price: $23,450

1962 210B – Rear window added, cabin widen by 4 inches, usable fuel increased from 55 to 63.5 gallons, left window added, engine change to IO-470S, gross weight increase 100 lbs to 3,000 lbs, Vno went from 175 to 190 mph and Vne increased from 200 to 225 mph. Base Price: $23,975

1963 210C – New power pack installed that unloaded the hydraulic system when at rest. Base Price: $24,625

1964 210D – Centurion name introduced. 285 ph Continental engine installed, gross weight increased to 3,100 lbs with 280 lbs of baggage capacity. The horizontal tail was widened, flaps were extended outboard and the ailerons were increased in chord to make the shorter span more effective. Flaps went from hydraulic power to electric. Optional foldable child seats (only 140 lb capacity) could be installed on the flat part of the baggage area. Base Price: $25,570

1965 210E – Alternator replaced the generator, the vernier throttle was discarded and the cowling could be more streamlined due to an extended propeller shaft. Base Price: $25,975

1966 210F – Turbo Centurion is introduced. Windscreen became a one- piece unit and a 3 bladed prop was offered as an option. Base Price: $25,975; Base Price for Turbo: $31,975

1967 210G – Cantilevered wing is fitted and the Centurion loses it struts, gets 45 gallon (90 gal total) tanks integral to the wing. The flap extension in the new wing is limited to 30 degrees (was 40 degrees). Horizontal stabilizer enlarged, gross weight increased to 3,400 lbs. Base Price: $27,975; Base Price for Turbo: $31,975

1968 210H – Flap switch modified to allow pre-selection. Optional de-icer boots and heated prop were offered. Base Price: $29,475; Base Price for Turbo: $33,675

1969 210J – The nose wheel well blister was replaced with a much more attractive and streamline cowling. The IO-520J model normally aspirated Continental engine offered a 300 hour TBO increase to 1,500 hours. Base Price: $31,250; Base Price for Turbo: $35,695

Nose wheel “bubble in 1966 Centurion Versus smooth nose in 1978

1970 210K – The flat-spring main gear struts are replaced with the newer tubular gear struts. The change permitted regular fixed seats for the 5 th and 6 th seats. A single side window replaced the two and the engine was changed to an IO-420L, which developed 300 hp for takeoff and gross weight went to 3,800 lbs. Base Price: $34,725 Base Price for Turbo: $39,250

Flat gear identifies pre-1970 vintage before major gear change

1971 210L – Minor panel improvements including fuel gauge measurements in pounds and gallons. Base Price: $36,450 Base Price for Turbo: $40,950

1972 210L – Voltage system changed to 28V, an electric powerpack replaced an engine-driven hydraulic pump to power the landing gear system, boarding steps were removed and flap limit speed increased to 120 mph. Base Price: $38,375 Base Price for Turbo: $43,075

1973 210L – Communication antenna mounted inside vertical fin. Base Price: $38,375 Base Price for Turbo: $43,075

(normally aspirated ) 1974 210L – Minor interior improvements like shoulder Specifications harness storage trays and door handles that folded out of the way Engine Continental IO-520L into the arm rests. Propeller McCauley 3-blade, 80” diameter, constant-speed Base Price: $42,505 Base Price for Turbo: $47,706 Gross Weight 3,800 lb Empty Weight 2,170 lb 1975 210L – 3 blade prop became Wing Span 36 ft 9 in standard and a turbocharger Wing Loading 175 sq ft Length 28 ft 3 in access door was added. Baggage Cap 240 lb Base Price: $47,950 Useable Fuel 89 gallons Base Price for Turbo: $53,150 Oil Capacity 10 qt

1976 210L – Cruise speeds Performance

increased due to aerodynamic Max Speed 175 kt improvements. Primary airspeed Cruise Speed markings were changed from MPH 75% power 171 kt to Knots. Stall Speed Base Price: $55,950 Flaps Down 56 kt Range - 75% pwr Base Price for Turbo: $61,950 45 min reserve 855 nm, 5.1 hr Max Range 1,060 nm, 7.8 hr 1977 210M – Engine increased to Takeoff: 310HP takeoff power in Turbo Ground Roll 1,250 ft Centurion (TSIO-520R) Over 50’ Obs 2,030 ft Landing: Base Price: $59,950 Ground Roll 765 ft Base Price for Turbo: $68,180 Over 50’ Obs 1,500 ft Rate of Climb 860 fmp 1978 – Pressurized Centurion Service Ceiling 15,500 ft introduced. Radar offered as an Base Price $55,950

option, gear extended speed increased to 224 mph / 195 kt and the flap extended speed was raised to 115 kt. Base Price: $63,950 Base Price for Turbo: $70,350

1979 – Gear doors removed and nose gear doors don’t close while on the ground anymore. Turbo Centurion gross weight increased to 4,000 lbs and receives known ice certification. Base Price: $67,995 Base Price for Turbo: $74,995

1980 – Gear operating speed increased to 190 mph / 165 kt, flap speeds increased to 160 kt, instrument panel color changed to black, an optional air-conditioning and standby alternator offered. Base Price: $76,250 Base Price for Turbo: $84,100

1982 – Pressurized version TBO increased to 1,600 hours, economy fixed point controller dropped for more efficient slope controller for turbocharger, Turbine Inlet Temperature gauge added to keep exhaust temperatures down, fuel selector valve on all models features a “Both” position, vapor return line design corrected, dual vacuum pumps and dual alternators offered as option and improved cowl flaps to help keep engine warm on descent. Base Price: $114,650 Base Price for Turbo: $124,650

1983 – Dual vacuum pumps became standard, Slick pressurized magnetos became standard on turbo equipped engines to prevent misfiring at high altitudes. Turbo versions were offered with certification for flight into known icing conditions. Base Price: $130,450 Base Price for Turbo: $141,800

1984 – Presumably due to declining sales from the stiff Piper Malibu competition, Cessna suspended sales of pressurized Centurions while the Cessna engineers “went back to the drawing board”. The new much improved P-210R was re-introduced the following year. T-210 engine raised to 1,600 TBO. Base Price: $139,600 Base Price for Turbo: $151,750

1985 – Turbo and Pressurized engines increased 25 hp to 325 hp with intercooler, fuel capacity went to 85 gallons standard with 115 gallon long range option. 210 and T-210 get gross weight increases. Base Price: $133,950 Base Price for Turbo: $154,900

1986 Last year of production of Centurions and all Cessna’s piston singles. Base Price: $143,350 Base Price for Turbo: $165,750

**************************************

Comparing Several of the More Popular Centurions

1977 210L normally aspirated Centurion 1978 T-210M turbocharged Centurion 1985 P-210R pressurized Centurion

Powerplants

210L - 300hp Continental IO-520L fuel injected flat six piston engine driving a three blade constant speed McCauley prop. T210M - 310hp fuel injected and turbocharged TSIO-520R, driving a constant speed three blade prop. P210R - 325hp turbocharged and fuel injected TSIO-520CE. Performance

210L - Max speed 175kt, max cruising speed 171kt, long range cruising speed 134kt. Initial rate of climb 950 ft/min. Service ceiling 17,500 ft. Max range with reserves 1065nm. T210M - Max speed 205kt, max cruising speed 198kt, long range cruising speed 140kt. Initial rate of climb 1030 ft/min. Service ceiling 29,000 ft. Range at long range cruising speed 785nm. P210R - Max speed 225kt at 20,000ft, max cruising speed 213kt at 23,000ft. Initial rate of climb 1150 ft/min. Service ceiling 25,000 ft. Range with reserves and optional fuel 1190nm. Weights

210L - Empty 2238lb, max takeoff 3800lb. T210M - Empty 2250lb, max takeoff 3800lb. P210R - Empty 2470lb, max takeoff 4100lb. Dimensions

210 - Wing span 36ft 9in, length 28ft 2in. Wing area 175.5sq ft. T210M - Wing span 36ft 9in, length 28ft 2in, height 9ft 5in. Wing area 175.5sq ft. P210R - Wing span 38ft 10in, length 28ft 2in, height 9ft 8in. Wing area 185.5sq ft. Capacity

Typical seating for four with optional seating for extra two children in some models, or seating for six adults in later versions. Production

Total 210, T210 and P210 production 9,240 (including 843 P210s).

2 rear side windows in 1966 …

were changed to 1 side window in 1970

210

Year/Model Num Cruise Useful Rate Fuel Engine HP TBO Svc Built Load of Cap Ceiling Climb 1960/210 610 190 mph 1,160 1,300 65 260hp IO-470E 1,500 20,700 165kt 1961/210A 171 190 mph 1,160 1,300 68 260hp IO-470E 1,500 20,700 165kt 1962/210B 281 184 mph 1,220 1,270 65/84 260hp IO-470S 1,500 20,300 160kt 1963/210C 156 184 mph 1,220 1,270 65/84 260hp IO-470S 1,500 20,300 160kt 1964/210D 283 191 mph 1,260 1,210 65/84 260hp IO-470S 1,500 21,000 166kt 1965/210E 224 191 mph 1,260 1,210 65/84 260hp IO-470S 1,500 21,000 166kt 1966/210F 101 190 mph 1,435 1,115 65/84 285hp IO-520A 1,700 19,900 166kt 1967/210G 122* 192 mph 1,440 1,000 90 285hp IO-520A 1,700 18,300 167kt 1968/210H 125* 192 mph 1,440 1,000 90 285hp IO-520A 1,700 18,300 167kt 1969/210J 136* 192 mph 1,440 1,000 90 285hp IO-520J 1,700 18,300 167kt 1970/210K 181* 192 mph 1,552 800 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 15,500 167kt 1971/210K 171* 192 mph 1,552 860 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 15,500 167kt 1972/210L 220* 192 mph 1,552 860 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 15,500 167kt 1973/210L 351* 192 mph 1,552 860 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 15,500 167kt 1974/210L 474* 192 mph 1,552 860 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 15,500 167kt 1975/210L 531* 192 mph 1,552 860 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 15,500 167kt 1976/210L 520* 197 mph 1,552 860 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 15,500 171kt 1977/210L 351* 197 mph 1,552 860 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 15,500 171kt 1978/210M 197 mph 1,644 950 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 17,300 171kt 1979/210N 197 mph 1,683 950 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 17,300 171kt 1980/210N 197 mph 1,679 950 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 17,300 171kt 1981/210N 195 mph 1,580 950 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 17,300 170 kt 1982/210N 195 mph 1,679 950 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 17,300 170kt

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 27 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com 1983/210N 195 mph 1,679 950 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 17,300 170kt 1984/210N 195 mph 1,679 950 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 17,300 170kt 1985/210N 195 mph 1,679 950 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 16,000 170kt 1986/210N 195 mph 1,679 950 90 300hp IO-520L 1,700 16,000 170kt * Cessna 210 & T-210 combined

T-210

Year/Model Num Cruise Useful Rate Fuel Engine HP TBO Svc Built Load of Cap Ceiling Climb 1966 147 220 mph 1,335 1,280 65/84 285hp TSIO- 1,400 31,300 T-210 191kt 520C 1967 104 223 mph 1,350 1,115 89 285hp TSIO- 1,400 30,200 T-210G 194kt 520C 1968 65 223 mph 1,350 1,115 89 285hp TSIO- 1,400 30,200 T-210H 194kt 520C 1969 45 223 mph 1,350 1,115 89 285hp TSIO- 1,400 30,200 T-210J 194kt 520C 1970 - 219 mph 1,620 930 90 300hp TSIO- 1,400 28,500 T-210K 190kt 520H 1971 - 219 mph 1,560 930 90 300hp TSIO- 1,400 28,500 T-210K 190kt 520H 1972 - 223 mph 1,550 1,030 90 300hp TSIO- 1,400 28,500 T-210L 194kt 520H 1973 - 223 mph 1,565 1,030 90 300hp TSIO- 1,400 28,500 T-210L 194kt 520H 1974 - 223 mph 1,535 1,030 90 300hp TSIO- 1,400 28,500 T-210L 194kt 520H 1975 - 223 mph 1,535 1,030 90 300hp TSIO- 1,400 28,500 T-210 II 194kt 520H 1976 - 227 mph 1,507 1,030 90 300hp TSIO- 1,400 28,500 T-210L 197kt 520H 1977 - 227 mph 1,549 1,030 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 28,500 T-210L 197kt 520R 1978 - 228 mph 1,576 1,030 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 28,500 T-210M 197kt 520R 1979 - 225 mph 1,795 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 27,000 T-210N 197kt 520R 1980 - 232 mph 1,788 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 27,000 T-210N 202kt 520R 1981 - 232 mph 1,780 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 27,000 T-210N 202kt 520R 1982 - 232 mph 1,779 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 27,000 T-210N 202kt 520R 1983 - 232 mph 1,780 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 27,000 T-210N 202kt 520R

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 28 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com 1984 - 222 mph 1,753 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 27,000 T-210N 193kt 520R 1985 - 250 mph 1,798 1,150 87/115 325 hp TSIO- 1,600 29,000 T-210R 217 kt 520CE 1986 - 250 mph 1,749 1,150 87/115 325 hp TSIO- 1,600 29,000 T-210R 217 kt 520CE

P-210

Year/Model Num Cruise Useful Rate Fuel Engine HP TBO Svc Built Load of Cap Ceiling Climb 1978 150 187 kt 1,600 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 23,000 P-210N 520P 1979 235 187 kt 1,600 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 23,000 P-210N 520P 1980 205 187 kt 1,600 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 23,000 P-210N 520P 1981 170 191 kt 1,600 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,400 23,000 P-210N 520P 1982 51 191 kt 1,600 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,600 23,000 P-210N 520AF 1983 23 191 kt 1,600 930 90 310hp TSIO- 1,600 23,000 P-210N 520AF 1984 None Delivered

1985 32 212 kt 1,629 1,150 90 310hp TSIO- 1,600 25,000 P-210R 520CF 1986 8 212 kt 1,629 1,150 90 310hp TSIO- 1,600 25,000 P-210R 520CF

P-210 Limits Access to 1 Door at the Pilot’s Station Though an Emergency Door is Available for the Front Seat Passenger

Maintenance is not cheap, but then you wouldn’t expect it in this class of airplane. My annuals for a 1978 T-210 would run around $3000-4,000. My total hourly cost for maintenance including annuals and reserves would run about $150 to $175 per hour when it was getting regular use, but jumped to twice that during the time that the airplane was getting little use. Don’t Expect to Make TBO with the TSIO-520 Cessna’s TBO for the turbocharged versions are often optimistic. As a Part 91 operator who is used to taking my engines well beyond TBO, even the most careful operation of the TSIO-520 didn’t allow me to push much beyond TBO in the 210. And even though TBO is a mere 1,400 hours for pre-1985 T-210s and P-210s, you will be lucky to get even that many hours out of them before they require a major overhaul. Here’s why; Turbochargers permit high power operations at altitude. They also add a great deal of heat to the engine. So while a normally aspirated engine loafs along at 50% power in cold air at altitude, the turbocharged version runs at 80% power and at relatively high pressures and temperatures. In other words, while most aircraft engines spend a great deal of their life loafing along at partial power, a turbocharged engine is still working hard at altitude. As you would expect, engine wear in a turbocharged engine is significantly more than in its normally aspirated cousin. The added heat combines to shorten these engines’ time between overhauls. So don’t be surprised if the cylinders need a mid-time overhaul or if your engine goes in for TBO well before its time. That said, some report good luck at reaching (and even exceeding!) TBO. A lot of it depends on how you operate the engine (see my suggestions in the chapter on Operating Hints). In 1985, Cessna introduced intercoolers for the T-210s and P-210s and at the same time increased TBO by 200 hours. An intercooler cools the heated compressed air from the turbocharger before it enters the induction system, helping these engines to run a lot cooler and longer. Aftermarket intercoolers are available for the older Centurions (see “After- market”) and are definitely a worthwhile investment.

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 30 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com The Notorious 210 “Gear Problems” Stories abound regarding the “dreaded 210 gear problems”. However, many 210’s have very reliable and maintenance free gear designs (you just have to know which ones). Based on the number of Service Difficulty Reports (SDRs), the early 210’s experienced an unacceptably high number of gear-related problems. The complexity of the hydraulics used to retract the gear were where a lot of the gear problems came from. It took Cessna a number of years before a more reliable and less complex design emerged. A major reduction in the complexity and maintenance of the gear occurred when Cessna changed to an electrically driven hydraulic servo versus the engine driven design in 1972. In addition to that sad story, fatigue cracks in landing gear saddles plagued the early model 210’s. All 210s built before 1970 are subject to this problem. Replacement of the gear saddles with “improved” saddles didn’t seem to fix the problem either, because the “improved” saddles cracked just as well. If the cracks were not detected and the saddles replaced, the saddle could break. When that happens, one landing gear leg hangs up in the halfway position. Saddle replacement was made mandatory by an AD every 1,000 hours for

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 31 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com 1960 and 1961 models. The “improved” saddles retrofitted in 1962 through 1969 models are mandated by yet another AD for a dye penetrate inspection annually. You should check the saddles and replacement times on all pre- 1970 Cessna 210s as part of your pre-buy evaluation. The main gear doors on 210s have been reported to be an ongoing problem in many of the aviation publications. One of the more popular modifications has been to simply remove them (see the chapter on modifications), a step eventually taken by the factory in 1979. That said, I operated my 1978 Centurion with gear doors for almost 700 hours and never had a lick of problems. And there are a slew of other owners who also have had excellent trouble free service from the Centurion gear door system. Just be sure your mechanic knows how to service and adjust your doors and my guess is that you’ll have an equally rewarding experience. Magneto Misery Magneto failures also appear often in the SDRs. These involve Slick magnetos on all 210s; pressurized, turbos and normally aspirated versions. To solve high altitude misfiring, Cessna went to pressurized magnetos in all turbocharged Centurions. However, the FAA issued an AD late in 1988 (88- 25-04) calling for inspection of these new and improved pressurized magnetos for moisture contamination within 50 flight hours and at each annual thereafter. The SDRs indicate that contamination is only part of the problem. Failures have also been reported from such causes as bearing failure, worn brushes, worn gear teeth, partially disintegrated distributor blocks, broken impulse couplings and broken mounting flanges. Cylinder Cracking Alert Like a few other aircraft with Continental IO-520 engines, cracked cylinders are a common occurrence, particularly in pressurized and turbo 210s. In fact, Cessna 206’s suffer from the same nagging (and expensive) problem. It’s not something to be ignored. Inattention to even minute cracks in cylinder barrels can result in catastrophic head separation. Make sure you have a good mechanic who understands Continental 520 series engines. There are some theories of what could be causing the cracks and some recommendations for minimizing the occurrence of cracks discussed in a later chapter. Suffice it to say, this is one problem that I haven’t seen anyone solve entirely. So, pay attention to the operation recommendations provided in a later chapter that should minimize the necessary early replacement of cylinders due to cracking. And even then, it would be wise to budget a healthy maintenance reserve to cover partial or full top end overhauls before reaching TBO.

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 32 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com A Deadly Design Flaw That You Don’t Want to Live With In my opinion Cessna should be embarrassed for the woefully inadequate exhaust systems it put into their turbocharged Centurions (T-210s & P-210s). As explained earlier, these engines produce lots of heat. Their exhaust systems which have to carry most of the load of that high heat needed more attention than Cessna engineers gave them. The materials used to form the plumbing frequently crack. Cracks in the exhaust can allow deadly exhaust gas leaks into the engine compartment and the cabin heater, which in turn, could cause the cabin to fill with deadly carbon monoxide poisoning. But even more frightening, cracks that enlarge over time can cause an engine fire that could quickly turn a Centurion flying at 20,000 feet into a burning inferno. An AD requires 50 hour repetitive inspections of the exhaust system so that any cracks can be detected early before causing catastrophic consequences like these. Fortunately, there is a better solution available. Install an Inconel exhaust system. It will eliminate these concerns and the recurring AD. Hopefully the 210 you’re buying has already been retrofitted with an Inconel exhaust system. If not, I’d recommend adding the conversion to your budget.

Some believe that Centurions crash statistics are indicative of a less than safe aircraft design. The in-flight break-up of Centurions shows that there is something different about this airplane and/or who and how it is being flown. In addition, break-up in flight is higher for the strutless Centurion than for the earlier Centurion before it shed its wing struts in 1967. For some, it raises the question as to whether the cantilevered wing in the post-1966 Centurions is somehow not as strong as the strutted wing.

In reality, the strutless, cantilevered wing is actually stronger than the strutted wing. In addition, there is no known issues with the Centurion design that would make it anything but extremely safe.

So why does this airplane have the reputation for falling apart in the sky? I believe the reason has more to do with pilot proficiency than any problem with the airplane. Here are two of my own theories/observations on this issue;

(1) Probably more cantilevered Centurions than strutted ones break-up inflight because the cantilevered Centurion can very quickly get into trouble. The new cantilevered, strutless wings are much more aerodynamically clean than the old wing and therefore, it takes less effort to get into a situation in which the nose drops and redline is exceeded. In its clean configuration while in cruise, redline can be exceeded without much effort…, a mistake while in the clouds, a momentary loss of control, heavy turbulence, an out-of-control autopilot or just allowing the nose to lower too much and you’ll be able to exceed redline in an astonishing short lapse.

(2) Secondly, it’s my observation that the cantilevered Centurion seems to be the aircraft of choice for doctors, engineers and other very busy professionals, who, although their incomes permit the purchase of a high flying, high performance, fast airplane, their busy schedules sometimes don’t permit enough time for initial and ongoing training. This airplane demands a methodical and disciplined regimen to remain safe and proficient.

210 accident statistics point to pilot error as the major cause of accidents. Fuel mismanagement, unsafe IFR operations, gear-up landings, bad landings and poor ground handling account for a full 85 per cent of Centurion accidents or incidents.

The 210 cannot be described as light on the controls, sports car-like handling or well-balanced. Pitch forces are relatively heavy and although roll rate is adequate, the controls are not well harmonized when compared to other aircraft like the 36-series Bonanzas. However, these traits also make the 210 an excellent IFR aircraft, perhaps one of the best available. Once trimmed, it’s “steady as a rock” and goes where you point it. Landings can be a handful if the elevator trim is ignored. Perhaps that’s why the 210’s history is checkered with a number of hard landings, swerves, runway overruns and gear collapses. Again, if trimmed while reducing speed on approach and in the flare, the 210 can be landed with ease. Speed is the 210’s true forte. A typical mid-range flight (12,000’ – 16,000’ altitude) would give a cruise speed in the 160 to 170 knot range (1978 T-210) at 65% power, with climb rates of about 750 fpm to 1.000 fpm at 120 knots indicated. Higher cruise altitudes will deliver higher true cruise speeds for the turbocharged versions. At 60-65% power, I would lean my 1978 T-210 to 84 lbs/hour (14 gallons/hour), a very respectable economy setting. For a long cross country where climbing to the low to mid FL20’s was practical, the higher true airspeed and the occasional jet-stream tail winds could speed 6 people along at 250 knots or more (for an efficient 20 miles/gallon). Besides speed, late model Centurions are a true 6 place cross country machine. After full fuel, depending on year and equipment, there’s still about 1,200 lbs of payload available. So even with IFR, radar and other typical options, this is still a solid 5-6 place aircraft with full fuel. Centurions don’t achieve all of these speed attributes without giving up something. Short field landing and takeoff capability is not its strong suit. Minimum runway length required for a takeoff over a 50’ obstacle is over 2,000 feet. That’s still not too bad considering what else this aircraft is capable of.

Is Insuring a Centurion Going to Be Possible?

The best way to answer the questions about insurance is to visit your insurance agent and see what it would take for you to insure a Cessna 210. Insurability is largely based on your experience, ratings, total time, complex time and any incidents, accidents or FAA violations or infractions that you might have had. That being said, here’s what will make the challenge (and cost) more difficult for you;

(1) You will need a fair amount of total time before you are insurable. In addition, you will likely need an instrument rating, particularly for the T-210 or P-210 models. If you’re ready to start working on an instrument rating, do it in your 210. Your insurance company can insure you now to fly with a properly rated instructor for your instrument work. Once your rating is completed, you’ll be covered for solo flight.

(2) The performance of the Cessna 210 makes you a greater risk to the insurance underwriter. Speed can get the pilot into trouble faster, so expect higher premiums than slower flying aircraft, even ones where the hull value is similar.

(3) Having 6 seats is great when they’re needed, but you’ll be paying higher premiums for every flight you take because the insurer has liability for potentially 5 people flying with you in those seats.

(4) A big, powerful engine and greater complexity (retractable gear, constant speed prop, pressurization, etc) always drives up the cost of insurance. The Cessna 210 is certainly no exception.

(5) Expect the T-210 to cost more to insure than the 210 and the P-210 to cost more than the T-210, even if you aren’t buying hull insurance . Just the liability alone on these higher flying, more complex versions of the 210 aircraft are likely to have higher premiums.

(6) Expect some limitations. My insurance carrier told me that I wouldn’t be covered if I tried using some of my favorite unimproved dirt strips with the 210.

It’s difficult to provide you minimum hours for any of these guidelines, because it varies with insurance carrier, pilot credentials and background, type of Cessna 210 and even varies from year to year depending on what the

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 36 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com insurance underwriters are experiencing in the way of aircraft claims. You just need to visit your insurance agent to get the answers for yourself.

- One pilot upgrading to a 1984 T-210N from a Turbo-Retractable Cessna 182 was required to get 10 hours of dual instruction in the 210 by his insurance carrier. Annual insurance for $255,000 aircraft damage and $1 million liability was given as $3,210/year.

- Another pilot upgrading to a 1978 T-210M from a Cessna 172 with 1,500 hours total but very little complex time was required to fly with an instructor until obtaining an instrument rating and 10 hours in type.

Again, check with your insurance agent before you purchase a Centurion. You want to know if you’re insurable and of course, you want to know how much it’s going to cost.

Emergency Inflight Power

P-210 vs Malibu The Piper Malibu was a revelation in its time, a pressurized cocoon of comfort and speed that in 1983 left Cessna in its dust and threatened to capture all of the pressurized-single business. With an easy 215-knot cruise at 25,000 feet and a cabin simulating 10,000 feet, the Malibu outshined the P210 in every area. In response to Piper’s blockbuster introduction, Cessna reintroduced the Pressurized Centurion in 1985 as the dramatically revised and improved P210R, and effectively closed most of the performance gap between the old P210N and the Malibu. Climb improved from 945 to 1,150 fpm and cruise jumped from 192 to 212 knots. Sadly, Cessna shut down all piston production in 1986, and the P210R was shelved along with all the other non-turbine Cessnas. That’s all the more regrettable as it seemed as if Cessna had finally got it right. Owners and would-be owners of these late model P-210s (and T-210s) must agree, because the premium in resell value between a 1983 and a 1985 is significant, 50% or more.

1985 - 1986

Rate Cruise Useful of Speed Load Climb (kts) (lbs) (fpm) 1986 Cessna P210R Centurion 212 1629 1150 1984 Piper Malibu 216 1640 1143

Earlier model pressurized 210’s have no real competition, since the much lower prices of the pre-1985 P-210s puts them into a different league than the late model Piper Malibu and there were no other single engine pressurized aircraft besides that and the P-210.

210 & T-210

Early normally aspirated and turbocharged 210’s are often compared to the similar vintage Beechcraft 36 or the Piper Saratoga/Lance. Both are heavy

A comparison can also be made to the equivalent Mooney models if speed is the major attribute being compared. However, in load hauling, the Mooney is in a different league than the Centurion with its cramped cabin, 4-place maximum seating and its much lighter useful load.

We’ll make both comparisons in the following paragraphs;

Heavy Hauling Speeders - Bonanza and Lance/Saratoga

In the heavy hauler speedster category, Beechcraft’s Bonanza 36 was the target of Cessna’s marketing department when it introduced the Cessna 210 in 1960. The first 6 seat Bonanza’s had a 1,423 lb useful load. Cessna introduced the 6 seat version of the Centurion in 1970 and at that time it had a 1,552 lb useful load. Piper Lance with 6 seats was about the same.

What’s interesting is the Centurion has not only the greatest useful load of these aircraft, but has this incredibly wide center of gravity envelope, wider than either the Beech or the Piper (the Bonanza has the smallest envelope).

Comparing these aircraft is complicated because just as the Centurion’s specifications changed from year to year, so did the Bonanza and the Lance/Saratoga. In terms of performance, in general the Bonanza is the fastest and the Lance/Saratoga is the slowest with the Centurions taking up the middle ground.

All 3 aircraft use essentially the same engine, so for all practical purposes, the fuel burn is about the same. The Lance/Saratoga has the greatest fuel capacity with between 94 to 102 gallons useful. The 210 is next with 89 gallons useable and the Bonanza comes in last with 74 gallons useable.

When Cessna introduced the T-210 in 1966, it was an instant success. Over the years, the turbo version of the Centurion has outsold the normally aspirated version by a two to one margin. Piper’s currently selling about twice as many turbo versions as normally aspirated, but there are a lot more normally aspirated versions on the FAA’s registration. Beechcraft, on the other hand, seems to sell well as a normally aspirated plane, with far fewer turbocharged versions sold.

Although, all 3 are 6-place aircraft, not all things are equal in the cabin. Piper and Beech have cabins large enough to permit club seating, albeit, the passengers will have to put up with knocking knees together. The 210 cabin narrows to the rear (as does the Bonanza) and the two seats there could only be described as designed for skinny, short and/or small people. Also,

As far as flying qualities, the Centurions are known to be “truck-like”. The Bonanza is known for its responsiveness. The Lance/Saratoga is somewhere in between. The bad rap for the Centurion has to do with the elevator control, which can be very heavy, particularly in the approach phase of flight. Judicious use of the elevator trim solves this problem.

Minimum runway length required for a takeoff over a 50’ obstacle is over 2,000 feet, longer than both the Piper Lance and Saratoga and most Bonanza’s.

Preferences in design such as a high wing versus low wing, T tail (Piper Lance) versus standard tail and the like are left for the reader to decide. The high wing, strutless Centurion provides an unsurpassed, unobstructed view of the ground. But the age-old debate of a better view in the pattern with low- wing airplanes is also worthy of consideration.

From the pilot/owners desk…

“The (1978 Cessna 210M) 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, that’s 200 pounds of additional load. At 65 to 70 percent power, the 210 regularly burns 15 GPH versus 19 GPH for the Lance.”

When Speed is All That Matters

Before purchasing my Cessna T-210 in the late 80’s, I was considering a turbocharged Mooney. The main objective was speed and flight level capability. Both the Cessna and Mooney deliver those in spades. I didn’t need 6 seats. I didn’t need ¾ of a ton useful load (or so I thought). I just wanted to get somewhere fast and I wanted the capability to get above the weather and get up into the thin and efficient air of the flight levels to maximize speed and fuel efficiency (as an engineer, I’m a fanatic for efficiency - what can I say?).

The Mooney looked like the hands-down winner, particularly for an efficiency choice. So how did I end up buying the Cessna? You’ll see in a moment, but first, let’s examine the two aircraft;

The notes and research when I made this evaluation have since been lost. So, I’ll provide the details here of a similar evaluation done by a colleague of mine, Richard Collins in Flying Magazine in 1986 along with the impressions of my own evaluation that I still recall. His evaluation was between the 1986

The 1986 Centurion was certified to 29,000, the Mooney to 28,000 – both impressive (and more than adequate) service ceilings. The Mooney lifts a far smaller load* (2,900 lb gross weight versus 4,100 for the Cessna), so the fact that it can get to altitude a little faster than the Centurion wasn’t surprising. In Richard’s test, the Mooney reached 23,000’ two minutes before the Cessna. The Cessna was also hampered by deice boots and a wing-mounted radar pod, however.

* (one argument in favor of the Cessna, in this example, is that at full fuel, the Mooney is really only a 2 place aircraft)

Book cruise speed of the T-210R is 15 knots faster than the Mooney. In Richard Collins evaluation, however, he discovered that the Mooney trued out at 10 to 15 knots above book predictions. So possibly, the Cessna’s speed advantage is not so great. In the earlier vintage speed comparison, the Mooney 231 had a clear speed advantage over the Cessna T-210M or N.

The Mooney uses the 210 hp Continental TSIO-360-MB-1, a 4 cylinder, dual intercooled, turbocharged engine attached to a two bladed prop (not quite as “brash & bold” as the 3-bladed prop on the Centurion). In Richard’s test, fuel flow showed 13 gph.

So although the Cessna burns half again as much fuel, it can be countered that with full fuel, it does so while carrying almost twice the load in the cabin.

It would appear then, that for me, the Mooney was the better choice, right? Wrong. The Mooney failed the most important test of all for me. What was that, you ask?

The “spouse test”

One trip to the airport with my wife and the decision was made. The Mooney’s cabin was too cramped and the seats were too low (she has back problems) and hard to get in and out of. In addition, she didn’t like having only a single door for the whole cabin in the event of an emergency. I was unable to deter her fears, even though she’d be sitting right next to the door herself. Then there was her comment – “There’s not room for anything more than a briefcase in this thing!” ( she was right, of course )

Problem Areas to Look for When Shopping

Gear Saddles Crack & One Gear Drops While Flying

Covered earlier, in summary: Between 1960-1969, fatigue cracks in landing gear saddles was a big problem, usually occurring within about 1,000 hours TT. Gear saddles with cracks that went undetected would eventually fail altogether. The pilot would discover the problem when one landing gear would hang up in the half-way position. An AD was issued in 1976 that required replacement of the defective saddle at 1,000 hours. An “improved” saddle for retrofit in 1962-67 models (installed as original equipment on the 1968 and 1969 models) turned out to crack as well. Finally, in 1970, the landing gear system underwent a major redesign and the problem finally seemed to be solved.

Cracked Cylinders Can Lead to Major Engine Failure

The Continental 520 series of engines are notorious for cracked cylinders, especially the turbocharged versions (T-210 & P-210) due to the high flying models’ higher operating temperatures and dramatic temperature changes that are thought to be the cause of cylinder cracking. It’s not unusual for a pre-buy inspection to turn up one or more bad cylinders (which are not inexpensive to replace!). Many owners don’t know how or don’t have the skills to apply power smoothly and/or to reduce power gradually (operating the Continental 520 engines to prevent shock cooling will be covered later under “Operating Hints”). Your mechanic should give a critical eye for minute signs of cracking in and around all 6 cylinders as part of your pre-buy inspection. Any cracked cylinders should be part of your purchase negotiations. Either have them repaired or replaced by the seller or have the price reduced sufficiently to cover your costs for it after the purchase.

Low Compression Trickery

Compression tests for a Continental 520 series engine is more an art than a science. It takes a bit of finessing to get the cylinders to come up to pressures that are acceptable. Ring blow-by varies tremendously with slight repositioning of the piston against the cylinder wall. And if the engine has not been warmed up enough, there’s no hope to get a good reading. In short, my advice to you is don’t have a mechanic who isn’t intimately familiar with Continental’s 520 series engines do a compression test for you, because it’s unlike almost any other aircraft engine. Let me say it again, do not trust a compression test of any the 520 series Continental engines found in Cessna 210s to anyone but a mechanic who has specific experience in these engines. Otherwise, you’ll be putting your pocketbook at great risk.

The normal guidelines for when compression results are too low and when it’s time to pull a cylinder out of service DO NOT APPLY TO 520s. If applied to the 520 series of engines, the test will frequently fail perfectly fine cylinders and you will be paying someone big bucks to replace perfectly good cylinders. And ironically, you may find that the new cylinders, once installed, don’t measure much better than the ones you just replaced!!!. Don’t make this mistake!

If your mechanic is not familiar with these variances, he will likely ground the airplane needlessly and you’ll spend a grand sum of money to replace 1, 2, 3 or even 6 cylinders because of an apparent “problem”. The “problem” is usually misidentified as unacceptably high ring blow-by. However, Cessna has addressed the unusually low compression readings in the 520 series aircraft with a Cessna Service Bulletin. Be sure that your mechanic has it and reads it.

And frankly, even with that information in the mechanic’s hands, I wouldn’t let a cylinder get removed from my 210 until I had obtained a second opinion from someone who has had a lot of experience with Continental 520 series engines. It really takes someone who knows how to finesse these tests to reach a proper diagnosis of cylinder health in these engines.

Cracking and Corroding Control Surfaces, Door Post and Strut Fittings There are several service bulletins aimed at strengthening various tail components. They are an attempt to overcome a variety of problems, including stabilizer and bracket cracking. Be sure you check these areas carefully for cracking. And check to be sure the skin covering the elevator trailing edge and elevator trim has not become corroded. The foam filler that fills the cavity of the horizontal stabilizer can absorb water, especially in older 210s. When that happens, the continuous water contact against the skin causes corrosion from within. Signs of corrosion include visible spots of corrosion edging through the skin surface, paint blisters, and unsealing of the edges. Recently, Cessna issued service bulletins dealing with cracks in the lower forward doorpost and strut fitting (it affects other Cessna singles as well). Cracks found require a Cessna modification or alternatively, repetitive inspections can be done every 1,000 hours.

Cracked Exhaust Plumbing Can Be Deadly

It’s a 50 hour AD, but cracks in the exhaust systems of any aircraft can lead to deadly results. The original factory designed exhaust stacks on the

The best time to find exhaust cracks is during your pre-buy inspection, because then the previous owner can be responsible to fix them. A simple weld is all that’s required to meet safety specs. But some older exhaust systems are so warped and problematic, that welding them no longer makes them safe.

Your best bet is to replace the Cessna exhaust with Inconel from Cessna or from an aftermarket supplier. And if the bird your evaluating already has Inconel exhaust, so much the better. Even with the Inconel exhaust, I’d still recommend a carbon monoxide tester in the cabin.

For more information, go to http://www.acornwelding.com/pdf/Cessna/Cessna%20200%20Series/Cessna %20P210.pdf

Major Improvements Throughout the 210 Lineage

Year Description Model

1959 210 certified - essentially a retractable Cessna 182 with an injected engine and 210 higher gross weight 1962 Cabin was enlarged and rear windows were added 210B 1964 Engine power rose from 260 HP to 285 HP, introduced as a “Centurion” 210D 1966 Turbo-charged T210 model was introduced T210F 1967 Strut-braced wing was replaced with a cantilevered one, fuel capacity in the new 210G integral tanks rose from 65 gallons to 90 gallons, lift struts were eliminated. 1968 “Improved” gear saddle, but it still cracks. 210H 1970 Cabin enlarged - seating capacity went from 4 to 6 and baggage space was 210K increased, major gear redesign, gross weight went from 3,400 lbs. to 3,800 lbs, takeoff power increased to 300 HP 1972 Engine-driven hydraulic pump for gear was replaced with less complex electric- 210L hydraulic operated gear 1975L 3 bladed prop standard 1976L Aerodynamic clean-up adds 8 knots to cruise 1978 First pressurized P-210 Introduced P210N 1979 Gross weight raised 400 lbs from 3,800 lbs to 4,000 lbs., gear doors were removed 210N entirely 1982 Optional dual alternators and vacuum pumps were offered, new fuel system features “both” position on fuel selector, vapor lock eliminated “ P210 engine TBO went from 1,400 hours to 1,600 hours 1983 Slick pressurized magnetos were used in place of non-pressurized magnetos 1985 T210 engine TBO went from 1,400 hours to 1,600 hours, engine power in the T210 T210R and P210 models rose from 300 HP to 325 HP, dual intercoolers, gross weight rose P210R from 4,000 lbs. to 4,100 lbs., fuel quantity goes from 90 gallons standard to 85 gallons standard and 115 gallons optional and received wing and tail extensions.

1962 210B Baggage Door Hinged at Front

Top Hinges in Later Design (note – no gear doors on this 210)

One Small Trick Can More Than Double The Life of a Turbocharger

The most frequent phenomenon that kills turbochargers in Centurions is what happens to them when they’re shut down (as opposed to when they’re running). In normal operating mode, the turbo is getting fresh oil injected into its bearings from the engine’s oil pump. The oil serves to both lubricate and cool the bearings which get superheated from the hot exhaust that drives the turbo. But the turbo stops getting oil injected into its bearings the moment the engine is shut down. And that’s where the problem occurs. Without oil delivery to keep things cool, the heat-baked turbo housing and impeller transfer their heat to the turbine bearings. The extreme heat boils out what little oil remains in the bearings after engine shut down. The resultant coking of the oil eventually causes stuck bearings. Stuck bearings put a drag on the turbo, leak oil and result in an early demise and replacement of the turbo.

There is a solution to prevent all of this and it involves a means of allowing the turbo to spin down and cool down sufficiently before shutting down the engine. The recommended procedure is to allow 3 minutes from touch-down to shut-down. That gives the turbo time to spin down and cool down while oil is still being delivered from the idling engine. I start my 3 minute countdown the moment my wheels hit the ground (when the engine goes to idle) or even a little before if I’m demanding little or no power during the final approach.

This procedure might mean changing some of your bad habits however. For instance, you should strive to keep your hand off the gas once you’ve landed, because if you “hit the throttle” and spin up the turbo again, then you’ll have to wait another 3 minutes to let the turbo spin down again. It might also mean that you’ll need to stop your practice of revving the engine one final time before shut down. And if you’re one of those who likes to “hot rod” around the taxi area (heaven forbid!), here’s another good reason to lighten up and take it easy – just keep the engine at slow idle and, believe it or not, it will get you back to your tie down just fine. No revving is necessary. . How to Avoid Causing Expensive (& Frequent) Cracks in Cylinders

There is a good deal of information available from Cessna and after-market suppliers as to the causes of cracked cylinders in Continental 520 engines. When cracked cylinders are discovered, they must be fixed or replaced immediately. Left unattended, they will eventually self destruct which can

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 47 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com lead to a catastrophic engine failure. Unfortunately, cracked cylinders are not an inexpensive fix. However, it’s a lot cheaper than what can happen if the engine experiences a catastrophic failure.

Although other theories get debated in many of the pilot magazines and among mechanics, there seems to be a consensus of opinion that the main culprit for cylinder cracking in 520 engines is something called “shock cooling”. I’ll define that term in a moment, but you also need to understand the concept of “shock heating” which is equally hazardous to your engines longevity. Following are some critically important operating procedures to help prevent both phenomena.

Shock heating is when the pilot “pours the coal” to the engine, usually at takeoff, rather than “bringing in the power slowly”. Even though the engine may have been warmed to operating temperatures, it is still a long way from the heat and pressures of full power. Damage can occur by trying to force the cylinders to absorb takeoff power, high heat and high pressures instantly rather than gradually.

RAM Aircraft’s™ recommendations for avoiding shock heating at takeoff for Continental’s TSIO-520 are worth implementing;

(1) When lined up on the runway centerline for takeoff, hold the brakes and smoothly advance the throttle to 27-30 inches of manifold pressure. Allow the MP (power) to stabilize 3-5 seconds. During that time, scan the engine instruments. Verify that they are normal.

(2) Release the brakes and smoothly advance the throttle to takeoff power/MP. This does not mean full forward to the firewall. Remember, oil pressures and feedback signals to the controllers are adjusting as the temperatures rise. Allow the systems time to do their work.

(3) Again, scan the instruments and make a final throttle adjustment, probably at the full forward position this time.

(4) Should an immediate take-off be required upon arrival at the runway, the same procedures can be followed during the takeoff roll instead of holding brakes, runway length providing.

These are procedures that would be recommended for pilots operating any engine, but it’s particularly true for a turbocharged engine. It’s common sense and could save your engine from damage and expensive repairs.

More often than not, conversations usually center around shock cooling when discussing the Continental cylinder cracking problem. The target of discussion is the shock cooling that can occur at altitude when the pilot

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 48 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com makes a significant power reduction and then drops the nose for descent. Both the sudden power reduction (oftentimes in very cold air) and the additional ram air over the cooling fins of the cylinders from the higher airspeed while in descent combine to create an immediate and double- whammy “shock” cooling for the cylinder walls. I’ll provide recommendations how to minimize this scenario, but first, there are two other forms of shock cooling that need to be addressed;

(1) At reduced power settings during descent, approach and landing, the fuel flow per horsepower increases. Increased fuel flow while the engine is working less leads to excess cooling. The common practice of moving the mixture control to full rich during this phase of flight only serves to exasperate the amount of excess cold fuel entering the hot cylinders. The result is rapid and uneven cooling in the area of the fuel injection nozzles, which can cause cracking between the injector nozzles and the spark plug holes. RAM Aircraft™ recommends maintaining 1200 to 1400 degrees F. exhaust gas temperature during descent and landing. Note: the recommendation is to not fully enrich the mixture during descent. There is no need to fully enrich the mixture until on the ground.

(2) RAM Aircraft also recommends reducing running time of the engine on the ground with the cowling off. Consider a two minute limit, 1200 RPM, 400 degrees F. maximum for the cylinder head temperature and 200 degrees F. for the oil temperature. Full power tests should be limited to 10-20 seconds.

Returning to the problem of how to descend without shock cooling your cylinders;

Combining the best recommendations from RAM Aircraft™, Cessna and several other reputable sources, my procedure starts with one or two slight power reductions (about 2 inches of MP each time) before beginning my descent. This early “pre-cooling” effectively starts a gradual cool-down of the cylinder walls from the peak cruise temperatures. Only after temperatures have stabilized (1-2 minutes – watch your CHT/EGT) do I begin the descent (another way to “pre-cool” the cylinders is to open the cowl flaps. Just don’t forget to close them before starting the descent ).

Power reductions in the descent are also done in small increments, 2 inches MP or less. Again, allow the temperatures to stabilize each time before further power reductions are made. This means that there’s a fair amount of power on during the descent and that presents a challenge of keeping speeds in the safe range during descent, particularly in turbulent air. Descent profiles are all planned for a maximum of 500 feet per minute descent (here’s where the optional after market speed brakes would be helpful to allow higher descent rates when needed).

Obviously, these type of carefully managed power-on descents must be started well in advance of landing and should follow a disciplined regimen. Otherwise, there will be too much altitude to lose and too little distance to lose it without pulling the power off or circling. Neither of those alternatives is desirable.

I use a formula for determining when to start my descent. It’s something that I created and it seems to work well. For each 1,000 feet of descent to the destination airport elevation, I allow 6 miles of descent, plus another 6 miles for each pre-cooling step at altitude.

Here’s an example: If I’m descending from Flight Level 19 to an airport at 2,000 MSL, for instance, the descent formula would look like this;

Descent Distance to Landing = (19,000’ – 2,000’) X 6 miles + 6 miles = 108 miles

So, when at 108 miles out from my destination airport, I begin my first power reduction for pre-cooling before starting my descent.

Careful and disciplined heat management in the Continental 520 series of engines will go a long way to minimizing the expensive problem of cylinder cracking, but unfortunately, it doesn’t eliminate it completely, as I have found.

Taming the Hulking Truck in Landing and Touch-Down

Landings are a non-event when judicious use of the elevator trim is used. Because of the heavy pitch forces of the Centurions, it can be a bear to handle on approach. However, it’s easy to tame. The approach becomes a cinch by simply applying back pressure on the yoke mounted elevator trim while on final instead of pulling (tugging) on the control wheel. Even while in the flare, use of the elevator trim can improve the ease and results of each touchdown. This technique tames this big, heavy airplane and makes it seem as easy as touching down in my Cessna 172.

From our Pilot/Owners Desk… “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, it’s hard; with trim it’s easy. It takes a few hours to learn the easy ways to hit every airspeed and to set up each configuration.”

As discussed earlier, until 1982, the Continental 520 series of engines in the Centurion could vapor lock if the right conditions were present. The cause is really a Cessna design problem. The belly tank feeding the engine has the potential of filling with vapor. But the solution is to be ready to quickly change tanks (selecting the alternate tank will also switch to the second belly tank which is full of fuel) and turn the fuel pump on low whenever you sense the engine faltering. The experts say that vapor lock will most likely occur with fast ascents into thinner, colder air, so you should have time to remedy the situation before something critical occurs…, just as long as you are aware of the possibility of it happening and know what to do about it when it happens.

Speed with Economy, Smoothness and Longevity

Call it a personal preference if you will, but I find that you get a lot more “bang for the buck” with a high performance airplane like the Centurion by cruising in the 60-65% power range with high MP and low RPM. Why? First, more aggressive leaning is possible if you don’t insist on pushing it all the way to the 70%-80% limits recommended by the manufacturer. Many Centurion pilots make a practice of cooling their engines with excess fuel, purposely enrichening by a gallon or two an hour over the book specs just to “protect” the engine. And truthfully, using extra fuel for cooling could possibly save money in the long run by preventing premature failure of cylinders, valves and valve guides. If I were operating at 80% power all the time, I’d likely do the same. I just think it’s more prudent, though, to give up a couple knots of speed in exchange for easing up on the wear and tear. And as a bonus, lower power means you’re operating further away from the point of pre-ignition, so more aggressive leaning is permitted. I continuously operated my 78 T-210 at 14 gallons per hour without any problems and I didn’t have the benefit of Gami Injectors.

Second, you’re engine will operate more efficiently if you operate at low RPM’s (which necessitates higher MPs). Low RPM generates less friction in engine bearings, valve train and between rings and cylinders. In addition, props operate more efficiently at lower RPM. Greater efficiency (for you non- engineering types) translates to greater savings in fuel burn per unit of forward motion. You save money.

Thirdly, lower RPM reduces wear and tear on the engine, for all the same friction issues mentioned above. Less friction equals less wear, which translates to longer life.

Remember to always follow manufacturers’ recommendations. Don’t operate the engine outside the limits provided for in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook.

After - Market Modifications That Increase Utility, Safety & Performance

To make a good plane better, many fine companies have designed some wonderful products to make the Centurion safer, faster, slower, more stable, more long-legged, more comfortable and fly faster and higher while reducing maintenance bills. All it takes is money.

Hoerner Increased lift, more 210 Met-Co-Aire $600 / pair Wingtips speed, added stability.

Lower stall speed, 210 STOL Horton STOL $800 shorter T/O distance.

Speedbrakes Increased descent, 210 Precise Flight $4K (kit) (electric) less shock-cooling.

Low Fuel Warns when 6-7 210 & O & N Aircraft Warning gallons $600 T-210 Modifications System left in either tank.

Flight Control O & N Aircraft Additional structure, All Flutter Margin $3K (kit) Modifications 100% mass balancing. Increase

210 Bush Lower stall speed, STOL $1+K (kit) (G -N) Conversions shorter T/O distance. 800 752-0748

Increased lift, more All R/STOL Sierra Industries $8K speed, added stability.

O & N Aircraft Adds 18, 28 or 29.7 gal All Fuel Tank $4K Modifications fuel in baggage area

Adds 33 Gal & 26” in All Tip Fuel Tanks Flint Aero $8K wing length

Engine Ram 310 HP, $45K-50K T-210 Conversion Aircraft Corp. new 402 Prop* + airframe

O & N Aircraft 450 HP Allison250-B-17F/2 P-210 Silver Eagle $Lot$ Modifications turbine , new Garmin panel.

Umbrella style fixes All Fuel Cap Monarch Air leaky caps

T-210 & Engine Ram FWF reman $50K P-210 Conversion Aircraft Corp. TSIO-520 * + airframe

Engine Replace with Lycoming T-210 Atlantic Aero Conversion IO-550

Gear Door Remove 19 lbs of All Sierra Industries $3K Removal weight & complexity

T-210 & Inconel Removes AD requiring Acorn Welding P210 Exhausts 50 hr inspections

Contact Information; Flint Aero Inc., Gillespie Field, 1942 Joe Crosson Drive, El Cajon, CA 92020 Phone: (619) 448-1551, Fax: (619) 448-1571, www.flintaero.com/index.html O& N Aircraft Modifications, PO Box 292, Seaman’s Airport, Factoryville, PA 18419, (717) 945-3769, fax (717) 945-7282; www.onaircraft.com Precise Flight, 63354 Powell Butte Road, Bend, OR 97701 1-800-547-2558, fax:541-388-1105; [email protected] or www.preciseflight.com RAM Aircraft, Waco Madison Cooper Airport, PO Box 5219, Waco, TX 76708; (817) 752-8381, fax (817) 752-3307. www.ramaircraft.com Sierra Industries, Inc., Garner Field Municipal Airport, PO Box 5184, Uvalde, TX 78802-5184, (512) 278-4381, fax (512) 278-7649. www.sijet.com

Lycoming IO-550 Conversion

450 HP Turbine Powered Silver Eagle by O&N Aircraft Modifications

Performance of the Silver Eagle

Maximum Cruise Speed 220 knots Maximum Altitude 23,000 feet Rate of Climb at Gross Weight 2,200 ft/min 19 gal/hr @ 19,000 ft Fuel Consumption 22.8 gal/hr @ 17,500 ft Range 1,070 NM Fuel Capacity 115.8 gal Take Off Distance 600 feet Landing Distance 400 feet Basic Empty Weight 2,470 lbs Maximum Gross Weight 4,016 lbs

A Riley modified Riley Rocket (no longer produced)

Greater Comfort and a Luxurious “Like New” Look and Feel

Performance of the Riley Rocket

Maximum Speed 217 knots Cruise Speed, 20,000 feet 205 knots Maximum Altitude 23,000 feet Rate of Climb at Gross Weight 2,200 ft/min Fuel Consumption @ 75% power, 205 kt 18.6 gal/hr @ 20,000 ft Range % 75% power 1,129 NM Fuel Capacity 90-123 gal (89-119 usable) Take Off Distance 1,300 feet Landing Distance 765 feet Basic Empty Weight 2,758 lbs Maximum Gross Weight 4,016 lbs

Aviation Consumer , March 1996

“Cessna’s big single offers great load carrying and performance, but quality is a nagging doubt. The upper end of the non-pressurized, single-engine retractable market is sparsely populated. If you need of one of these big, fast, six-place load haulers, your choice is limited to the 36-series Bonanza, the Piper PA-32A Lance/Saratoga and the non-pressurized Cessna 210 Centurion.

“The Bonanza is widely regarded as the king of this particular hill, but the 210 can offer quite respectable performance and load-lifting capability for a lot less. The Piper is closer in price, but is both slower and slightly short on load carrying. There’s a catch, however: 210s have a reputation for gear problems and poor quality of construction.

“The C-210 in many ways is a truly remarkable airplane, one that evokes expressions of awe and respect from owners. Even with the normally aspirated models you’re talking about cruise speeds around 170 knots / 195 MPH, coupled with useful loads of about three-quarters of a ton, equipped.

“Add to that cruising ranges of 1,000 NM and better with full tanks and you have an airplane to be reckoned with when shopping for a fast aerial U-Haul.”

Aviation Consumer , April 1998

“Cessna’s top-of-the-line single started life with much fanfare… and its share of problems. In 1978, the Cessna P210 was a real landmark. While not the first pressurized single (the Mooney Mustang was the first real attempt), it was the first one that was truly viable. It was (and is) remarkably inexpensive for a pressurized airplane. What that means is that it’s very expensive, just not as bad as the other choices a prospective purchaser is faced with.

“What pressurization does, directly, is offer the ability to fly over much enroute weather in relative comfort. Indirectly, it offers somewhat lower noise levels and a more solid feel, the result of the reinforcement needed for pressurization.

“There is a price to be paid for operating a pressurized airplane at flight level altitudes. Part of it comes in the form of mechanical woes – the engines are short lived, often don’t make it to TBO and costs a lot to overhaul; pressurization adds another complex system to maintain and operate. Part of it comes in mundane problems: separate, unpressurized baggage compartments and the need to fit everything that goes into the cabin through the pilot’s door.”

Aviation Consumer, March 2003

“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. That’s because the upper end of the single-engine retract market isn’t flush with choices. “Basically, there are three: the Bonanza 36 series, Piper’s 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, it’s nearly the perfect airplane. It’s 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 you’ll 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, there’s 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.”

Plane & Pilot , July 1986

“As the first six-place retractable single with enough weight allowance to really carry six full-size people, the Turbo Centurion has endeared itself to a whole generation of pilots. It has become a standard for comparison, the fastest, highest-flying and best weight-lifter in the class.”

“In the beginning, it seemed a simple enough concept – take a 182, drop in an engine from a 310 and fold up the landing gear. In the interim, Cessna’s model 210 has evolved into one of the most sophisticated single engine airplanes in the skies.

“More than 8,000 of these 210s, and their Turbo 210 and Pressurized 210 derivatives, have been produced in the intervening 22 model years and they represent one of the most popular airplanes in the used aircraft marketplace.”

Cessna Pilots Association , January 1996

“The Cessna 210 Centurion is a great aircraft. In its later variations, it is arguably the best single-engine traveling machine ever built. But as with any mechanical device, time and service have shown that there are areas of concern that owners/operators need to be aware of.”

“Our experience indicates that many 210 owners (even some experienced ones) are not aware of certain important characteristics of this aircraft. Without this knowledge, it is possible to get into serious trouble.”

AOPA Pilot , March 1976

“…when cabin size, speed, fuel consumption and maintenance costs are taken into account, the 210 appears to be a thrifty competitor to most light twins as well as singles.”

“This is not the airplane in which you would want to go blithely off on an IFR trip. Five or 10 hours of familiarization with the panel design and operation of the aircraft’s features would be essential for the new Centurion flyer. It’s a sophisticated piece of machinery with tremendous operating capabilities.”

Flying , June 1986

“The T210R is a remarkably good long-distance traveler. With the full 690 pounds of fuel and with allowances for takeoff, climb to the low 20s and 100 pounds of reserve, the airplane can fly legs of just over five hours at true airspeeds of up to 210 knots. That’s 1,050 nm with no wind; on an average eastbound trip with a moderate tailwind, the airplane could fly 1,300 nm or more with all the reserves.”

posted 04-06-2001 02:42 PM

Don't believe everything you hear. I've owned a 210 for about 4 years. Haven't had any problems. In fact, two of my other pilot friends also each own a 210. Mine is a late 1972 model. The others are a 1967 and a 1976 turbo. None of us have had any problems. Most of the landing gear problems you've heard about are caused by mechanics that don't understand the gear system and don't adjust it correctly or pilots just forgetting to put it down. A 210 is a high performance aircraft. Mine cruise at 165knots (190mph) all day, every day, hauling 1000lbs in the cabin with full fuel(90gal) and burning 13.5 gal/hr.(I've got Gammi injectors). This plane is made for going between point A and point B, not blasting around for the $100.00 hamburger. As far as parts, the three of us have never had a problem getting anything we've needed. It's an easy plane to fly as long as you have some high performance time and know how to manage a big bore Continental engine. In IFR it's like on rails, really stable. If you'd like to know more E-mail me back. Longez posted 04-13-2001 10:36 PM Co-pilot I bought a 1963 C-210 about 7 years ago and I’ve had two gear problems in about 500 hours of flying it. The first time the gear did not extend normally & I had to pump it down with the emergency pump. It got my attention but it was no big deal. Now that I know in detail how the system works I’m pretty comfortable with it. You would have to loose a seal or break a hydraulic line aft of the emergency pump to have a complete gear failure. While this could happen to any retractable, it is very unlikely. The second incident happened a few days ago. I was out working on a new level of Wings when I was not able to get a green light on the gear. It sounded like all three locked but no light. We did a low pass at the tower. They said it looked ok to them so in we came, landing very gently with happy results. Problem was a loose wire on the nose gear switch.

Now that I hear someone walked away from two gear-up incidents I’m even more at ease.

All in all I’m very happy with my 210. It is an old airplane to be sure but it is fairly fast with a fuel burn of 11 gal/hr. It carries 1,100 lbs minus the fuel load which can be up to 82 gal. It is comfortable, stable and easy to fly. Plenty of room for a family of four & our little dog.

Dusterman posted 07-16-2001 12:08 AM Co-pilot I agree with the two owners' informed posts. Flew a rented C-210 from Florida to Canada at this time last year. It is a wonderfully smooth and stable XC plane. 185-190 mph all

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 59 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com day long (800+ miles!). More than any bladders on board! Flew into a narrow gravel crop duster's strip in Saskatchewan in a very stiff crosswind - no sweat. Take off a full gross in Williston, ND with a density altitude up around 8,000 feet - jumped into the air. My only "unusual' comment would be that the trim changes with power changes on final approach. After learning that fact you simply plan and fly a stable approach, no problem. I would love to own a 210!!!

posted 08-15-2001 07:45 PM Co-pilot As a Cessna mechanic for 20+ years I would not hesitate to recommend a 210 for a WELL trained pilot. This is a HIGH PERFORMANCE SINGLE and about as complex as a single gets. I would avoid anything over 20 years or so for practical reasons. Generally the older the model the harder to get many parts for and i would avoid the engine driven pump models and a 210 which still has gear doors.(higher maintenance) As with most things , You Get What You Pay For. I have seen many "low priced " airplanes,almost NONE were cheap come annual time. Posted 08-11-2000, 03:02 PM

I fly a Cessna 210 Turbo. I have flown and owned a normally aspirated 210 and having experienced the best of both worlds can say that I prefer to fly with Turbo power. My turbo has 310hp at full power for 5 minutes and 285hp continuous. I seldom fly higher than 12500 feet but my home airport is at 4500 feet asl. If you are based at a coastal airport and you are not prepared to fly at the flight levels, the Turbo variant is a waste. If you are flying with heavy loads and high density altitudes the turbo gives that extra bit of confidence and safety. Turbo's do cost a lot of cash. As another member mentioned overboosting, can be an extremely costly affair. This usually occurs when over eager pilots slam the throttle fully forward on takeoff. My method on applying full power is advancing the throttle too 27 inches mp and letting the motor settle with that power setting ( heat changes are huge in these motors and engine life can be extended by gently allowing the temperatures to build up to operating range) I then advance the throttle to full throttle still watching the mp like a hawk. Shock cooling is also notorious for lowering engine life. Pulling the power on a turbo engine in the descend is fatal for the motor. By pulling the mp on a turbo motor in the descend the motor is not generating the heat of cruise and uneven cooling will be drastic. This will cause cylinder cracking. I rather keep the power up and plan my descents in advance. If ATC makes that difficult put out a notch of flaps and in some cases the undercarriage. After landing it is imperative to run down the turbo for at least 4 minutes. This is due to the turbo impeller spinning at 100000-150000 RPM. In my opinion if a turbocharged aircraft is flown by a knowledgeable pilot who understands the complexities of the system, it should run and give the owner great pleasure. All things good in life cost extra and if you can afford the extra cost and you have a use for it Turbo is the way to go. posted Mar 8 2002, 6:58 pm CFII Flight Ice ( www.flightice.com ), the company which owns the TKS known-ice STC for the Cessna 210/T210/P210, probably owns and flies more 210s than anyone in the world and probably flies in more icing conditions than any other single-engine

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 60 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com operator... they developed the TKS approval for the 210 as an outgrowth of their fleet of over 50 Cessna 210s which fly Part 135 cargo. Flight Ice operates mostly normally aspirated 210s, not turbocharged 210s. Their impression is that the TKS system is so good at eliminating ice from all the aerodynamic surfaces (not just the leading edges) that known-ice flying is quite reasonable in a normally aspirated Cessna 210.

While I have not personally flown a normally aspirated TKS airplane, I can indeed say that I have not yet experienced any icing situation in my P210 which has resulted in any noticeable performance degradation (either airspeed or rate of climb). The aerodynamic surfaces stay completely or almost completely clean.

Posted Aug 9 1994, 1:49 pm

I have a bunch of hours in a 210 (not pressurised) equipped with de-ice and a comprehensive IFR fit.

Good News:

+ You can cruise economically at 10,000 feet and 155 knots TAS. + Plenty of endurance. + Does slightly better than the traditional light aviation load factor of "half the seats are usable" - you can use 4 of the 6 seats comfortably and still carry plenty of fuel/bags. + It is rock solid to hand fly in the cruise, including IFR. + It is cheaper to operate than a twin. + There's lots of panel space - the example I fly has HSI, RMI, Stormscope, GPS and various other bits and pieces with room to spare.

Bad News:

+ It only has one engine - it has all the other attributes that will tempt you to fly hardball IFR, but when the fan stops when you're 10,000 feet up, night IFR, above the freezing level, you're gonna die. Also related... + There are only 3 accessory points on (most) of the engines used. You can have two alternators and one vacuum pump, or two vacuum pumps and one alternator (like the one I fly). Again, in serious IMC, the battery will not get you to a diversion airport and instrument approach if the alternator fails at 10,000 feet. + It is a handful to fly an approach in gusting crosswinds - the controls are heavy, and the combination of high mass/inertia and low stalling speed (because of certification rules for singles) means you'll burn a lot of calories wrestling it to the ground. It might look like a big 172, but it sure doesn't fly like one. + The autopilots are always broken :-). Actually there is a design fault which makes them unstable in pitch, especially at certain CG positions (so I'm told). + Turbulence penetration speed is surprisingly low (I seem to recall 125kts). Flying IFR, you're never sure whether this is just a bumpy patch, or if it's getting worse, so you end up slowing down a lot... + Although the pressurised and turbo versions are mostly OK, not all de-iced models are certified for known icing. + They leak rain through the overhead vents (on the ground and in flight). + There are zillions of panel light bulbs to burn out, but you STILL can't find the switches on the bottom of the panel at night :-).

I don't want to get into the Single versus Twin argument, but that's partly what a choice of a 210 is about. In fact, a 210 is the closest you can get to a twin without actually having the second engine. It hauls a similar load, flies at 90% of the speed, and can carry much the same equipment fit, incuding if you want it de-icing and radar. Once you've got one with radar, hot prop, boots, pressure, not to mention retractable gear and so on, you will also have one of the most expensive singles on the ramp, from a maintenance and operating costs point of view. It will however cost only 70% as much as a comparable twin, for about 90% of the capability - because it's only got one

© Copyright 2011 Lee Parker - 61 - www.aircraftbuyersguide.com engine and it burns less fuel. But it's a "twin" with only one engine... If that's all you can afford, or can fly, (or can insure?) and your missions stay away from mountains or oceans, then the 210 family makes a great personal travelling machine.

I have a buddy who is a doctor who doesn't fly much at all but what he did was convert his Cessna 210 into something quite docile in order to compensate. He put speed breaks on it, a Robertson STOL kit, Flint tips to increase the aspect ratio. The ailerons droop when you lower the flaps, etc. He did everything he could to make the airplane into a C-172 when you slow it down. And I'm here to tell you, it worked. That old airplane is like an old horse. If you fell asleep, it would find its way back home. You can't stall it at all (I mean it's hard to do). With the ASI reading 55 knots and the nose up 20 degrees, at full flaps it just parachutes down into the runway at about 300 ft/min.

My buddy survives this way because his business is just too demanding for him to go fly twice a week and stay proficient. So, this airplane is not beyond his capability to cope with.

Telephone Name & Mailing Fax E-mail / Web site Address

Cessna Pilots 805-922-2580 805-922-7249 Association (CPA) [email protected] P.O. Box 5817 Santa Maria, CA 93456 (CPA has an excellent buyers guide for the 210 as well. Contact them for more info)

Cessna Owner Organization www. cessnaowner .org P.O. Box 5000 Iola, WI 54945-5000

1986 Centurion, Turbo Centurion and Pressurized Centurion Performance and Specifications Centurion Turbo Pressurized Centurion Centurion SPEED (knots) Maximum 175 225 225 @ Altitude @ Sea Level @ 20,000’ @ 20,000’ Cruise 169 217 217 @ Altitude @ 7,000’ @ 25,000’ @ 23,000’ Cruise at low altitude - 185 185 @ Altitude - @ 10,000’ @ 10,000’ RANGE AT MAXIMUM CRUISE (std tanks) 770 nm 705 nm 720 nm @ Altitude @ 7,000’ @ 20,000’ @ 23,000’ @ Hours Duration 4.6 3.7 3.7 RANGE AT MAXIMUM CRUISE (opt tanks) 1,070 nm 1,015 nm 1,040 nm @ Altitude @ 7,000’ @ 20,000’ @ 23,000’ @ Hours Duration 6.4 5.2 5.2 MAXIMUM RANGE @ 10,000’ (std tanks) 1,010 nm 855 nm 855 nm @ Hours Duration 7.7 6.2 6.2 MAXIMUM RANGE @ 10,000’ (opt tanks) 1,390 nm 1,190 nm 1,190 nm @ Hours Duration 10.6 8.5 8.5 RATE OF CLIMB @ SEA LEVEL (ft/min) 1,060 1,150 1,150 SERVICE CEILING 16,000’ 29,000’ 25,000’ TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE (feet) Ground Roll 1,215’ 1,270’ 1,270’ Distance Including Over 50’ Obstacle 2,050’ 2,110’ 2,110’ LANDING PERFORMANCE (feet) Ground Roll 815’ 825’ 825’ Distance Including Over 50’ Obstacle 1,585’ 1,600’ 1,600’ STALL SPEED (knots) Flaps Up, Power Off 63 65 65 Flaps Down, Power Off 53 55 55 WEIGHTS (lbs) Takeoff 3,850 4,100 4,100 Landing 3,850 3,900 3,900 Empty 2,220 2,320 2,471 Useful Load 1,642 1,798 1,647 Baggage Area 240 240 200 USABLE FUEL (gallons) Standard Tanks 87 87 87 Long Range Tanks 115 115 115 ENGINE Horsepower 300 takeoff 325 325 285 continuous Type Continental Continental Continental IO-520-L TSIO-520-CE TSIO-520-CE

1976 C-210 Centurion Specifications 22

Comparing Several of the More Popular Centurions 24

Summary Of Performance Improvements Over The Years 26

Major Improvements Throughout the 210 Lineage 43

1986 Centurion, Turbo Centurion and Pressurized Centurion Performance and Specifications 62

Mr. Parker graduated from the University of Washington in 1977 with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering degree. During the summer months in between classes, he worked for Southeast Skyways in Juneau, Alaska loading and fueling Grumman Goose, Dehavilland Beavers and Cessna 206 and 185s on floats. It was during these summer breaks that he caught the flying bug and began flying right seat in all of the company’s sea planes, logging his first 20 hours of dual whenever CFI rated pilots needed him to jump in and help unload the aircraft at their destinations.

A consummate consumer of all information related to flight and to aircraft, Lee’s study of aviation began long before his first hour of instruction in Alaska. While taking engineering courses at the university, Lee also took a number of aeronautical engineering courses as elective classes toward his BSEE.

Lee has owned and/or flown a number of Cessna, Piper, Beech, Grumman, Dehavilland and other aircraft. Most of his over 2500 hours of flying time is in Cessna 172 and Cessna T-210 aircraft, which were the focus of the first two buying guides that he wrote.

Lee resides in Gustavus, Alaska with his wife Linda of 32 years. Gustavus is a pilot’s paradise. Without any roads into or out of this small southeast Alaska community, the only practical way to travel is by small airplane. Therefore, justifying the cost of flying is a snap since the much needed mobility that those in the lower 48 depend on their autos for is only available to those in Gustavus and most other southeast Alaska communities to those who own and fly their own planes.