Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/82142/

Topic: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: Boeing nut
Posted 2004-03-04 22:08:14 and read 23558 times.

I have heard around that the turbo powered version of the Cessna 210 is somewhat of a maintenance pig. Somewhat more problematic versus the normally asperated 210. I really like the 210 and I'm trying to learn more about it. Has anybody heard this? Or is it a bit innacurate.

Thanks.

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: Canoecarrier
Posted 2004-03-04 23:29:27 and read 23540 times.

I'm a little removed from the GA world, but when I did work at a smaller airport we had both the turbo and non-turbo 210 based there. I seem to remember that the turbo was harder on the engine, and I could be wrong but I think the TBO was shorter for the turbo.

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: Boeing nut
Posted 2004-03-04 23:49:47 and read 23505 times.

Ahh, so there is some truth to it then. Were there any failures? Or just that the T210 is more "higher maintenance".

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: G4doc2004
Posted 2004-03-05 00:55:29 and read 23462 times.

The maintenance of a T-210 versus the 210 is related to the fact that both engines are tightly cowled and heat is a major factor in the life of a piston engine. The turbo runs really hot (cherry red when viewed at night) and is a factor in the heat. All 210's were famous for maintenance issues, primarily the landing gear system. I've got about 300 hours in 210's including the hotrod P-210........great flying airplanes!!

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: Illini_152
Posted 2004-03-05 02:42:49 and read 23392 times.

Just about any turbo-ed engine will be higher maintinance and have a shorter TBO than it's normally asperated counterpart. 'Tis the nature of the beast. More moving parts and higher compression ratios both will increase wear and tear on any engine mounted in any airframe.

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: 411A
Posted 2004-03-05 03:30:00 and read 23356 times.

In actual fact, turbosupercharged TCM engines are of a LOWER compression ratio than their normally asperated counterparts....and always have been.
Having said this, they DO run significantly hotter, and this, in the end, effects the overall life of the powerplant.

You pays your money...and takes your chances.

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: Jetguy
Posted 2004-03-05 03:32:34 and read 23353 times.

Illini 152 has it correct, there is higher maintenance associated with the turbo verses the normally aspirated engine. The real question is do you need the turbo? It the airplane operated out of high density altitude airports or do you really need the high altitude capability that the turbo provides? If so, then you simply bite the bullet and budget for the higher maintenance costs.

There are things that you can get to help cut the maintenance costs - aftermarket intercoolers and GAMI injectors can really cut down the heat. (IF YOU OPERATE THE ENGINE CORRECTLY!) The question is, do you operate the airplane enough to make these mods cost effective?

I've got quite a bit of time in all models of the 210. I especially liked the P-210. The one I flew had the intercooler and speedbrakes. We never had any problems with it, but we operated the engine properly. They are great airplanes. It's too bad Cessna isn't planning to reintroduce them.

Jetguy

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: Liamksa
Posted 2004-03-05 06:21:47 and read 23272 times.

Speedbrakes. Wow. I didn't know such a thing existed (so i'm going to have to reel off a few questions  Innocent ). Were they an aftermarket mod? What are your thoughts on them Jetguy, did they "expedite those descents"? Were they the same as the ones below? And last one, how were they activated?



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andreas Medlhammer


Sorry for the barrage of questions,

Rob.

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: Jetguy
Posted 2004-03-05 07:34:27 and read 23241 times.

Rob,
Yes they were an aftermarket mod. Their main advantage in the P-210 was they allowed us to descend with the power up which made it easier to keep the cabin pressurized. Yes they were very effective. I think that the only ones still available for 200 series Cessnas are the electrically operated Precise Flight units like the one in your post. I really don't know if I would bother installing them on a straight or turbo 210, but I think they would be a highly desirable mod on the P models.
Jetguy

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: Liamksa
Posted 2004-03-05 09:24:01 and read 23220 times.

Thanks for the info Jetguy, you learn something every day. It could be a handy mod to have for those pilots flying parachuters up and down all day.

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: Boeing nut
Posted 2004-03-05 14:43:00 and read 23205 times.

They are great airplanes. It's too bad Cessna isn't planning to reintroduce them.

Indeed. I think they'ed have a great seller if it came with the new Garmin G1000 along with the 182.

Another question for you guys in the know. Is/would a supercharger be more compatible? Or is it pretty much the same thing?

If your wondering, it's just out of curiousity. Other than speed, the only advantage I could see for having a turbo is the family has property in the mountains of Colorado, and there is an airport there at nearly 9'000' ASL. It's also a dream to be able to own one.  Laugh out loud


[Edited 2004-03-05 14:47:27]

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: Jetguy
Posted 2004-03-05 16:43:46 and read 23191 times.

"...Is/would a supercharger be more compatible? Or is it pretty much the same thing?

A turbocharger and supercharger are pretty much the same thing. The proper name for a turbocharger is a turbosupercharger. The primary difference is that a supercharger is (in most aircraft installations) gear driven and a turbosupercharger is exhaust driven. For simplicity, it's pretty hard to beat a turbo.

"...Other than speed, the only advantage I could see for having a turbo is the family has property in the mountains of Colorado, and there is an airport there at nearly 9'000' ASL..."

As I wrote in my earlier post, there are basically two reasons (well, maybe three) where a turbo is economically justified. "The real question is do you need the turbo? Is the airplane operated out of high density altitude airports or do you really need the high altitude capability that the turbo provides?" Those are the big two reasons, the other reason is power related - some designs, for whatever the reasons, need the power that you can presently only obtain from turbocharged engines or turbines. If the designer / builders elects to go with pistons and the power is needed, well, that's the other time they're justified.

You mentioned speed. That's correct, typically, at altitude they are faster. The reason for that is that turbocharged aircraft are able to maintain a higher percentage of their rated power at higher altitudes. Typically a normally aspirated aircraft engine loses about 2% of its power for every 1,000 feet it is above sea level. Additionally, your true airspeed increased about 2% for every 1,000 feet above sea level as well. That, of course, is a good thing; but with a normally aspirated engine it doesn't take long to run out of power in a climb.

Again, loss of power is the primary culprit. Normally aspirated aircraft lose power with altitude. An aircraft's climb ability is directly proportional to the amount of "excess" power that it has available vs. what is needed to maintain level flight. For example, if a 200 HP normally aspirated airplane requires 100 HP to maintain level flight it would (at SL, ISA day) has 100 "excess" HP to use for climb. At 10,000' MSL, the engine might only be able to produce 160 HP, leaving it with a 60 HP surplus. This is the reason why turbocharged aircraft perform so well - you are able to maintain SL power up until you reached the "critical altitude" for your particular installation. In some cases this is as high as 18,000' MSL. This performance comes at a price - Heat, and heat is the primary culprit for the higher maintenance bills.

(Note: This is also why light twins typically perform so poorly on one engine. Take, as an example, a Twin Comanche with two 160 HP engines. If that airplane required, say, 150 HP to maintain level flight it would have 170 "excess" HP to climb with. If it lost an engine, it would have lost 50% of its available power, but with just 10 "excess" HP, it may have lost 95% of its ability to climb. Light twins have two engines because they need two engines, not because it's cool!)

One final comment, turbocharged airplanes have a speed advantage at altitude - not necessarily down low. The equipment that give them their power advantage at altitude increases backpressure and adds weight. For most, otherwise comparable aircraft, the point where having turbos really "kick in" is around 10,000 feet. A case in point was the Baron 56TC that I used flew for a mining company 25 years ago. That airplane was a beast, it was basically a flying test bed for the 380 hp engines that Beech installed on the Duke. Originally, the Beech Travelair / Baron airframe was certified with 180 hp engines. The 56TC had 380 hp on each wing! It was the closest thing that you'll ever come to flying a jet with pistons. However, below 8,000 feet the lowly 260 hp B55 Baron would out run it. (At altitude, it was a different beast entirely - I used to be mistaken for King Airs all of the time.) The same thing applies to the Mooney 201 and 231, and just about any other pair of similiar aircraft that I can think of.

Oh well, got to go.

Jetguy

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: Boeing nut
Posted 2004-03-06 04:40:11 and read 23152 times.

Thanks Jetguy,

That was above and beyond.  Big thumbs up

Topic: RE: Cessna 210 Vs. Cessna 210 Turbo
Username: ThirtyEcho
Posted 2004-03-07 02:51:58 and read 23117 times.

I've got lots of time in all versions of the C210; in fact, I flew the very first one in 1960 (almost had a gear up landing as the notoriously fickle gear locking mechanism on the early 210s did its thing.)

There are some slight differences in piloting technique between the straight 210 and the turbo but nothing that the POH and a good instructor can't teach you. The thing that a lot of people miss is to advance the throttle about halfway on takeoff, wait a short beat, and then go to full power. That gives the turbo a chance to spool up more slowly. Heat is a biggie on the 210 and even more so for the 210T; and don't forget the lack of heat either that comes from those screaming high-rate descents that shock cool the engine.

One big advantage to the higher climb rate for the T210 is that the higher you go the more likely ATC is to give you that sweet "cleared XYZ direct." At least that seemed to be true where I did most of my T210 flying.

Maintenance is a big issue with 210s of all types and even more so for the T210 and P210. The blower causes higher stresses on the engine and is an additional maintenance item in itself.

And, Jetguy, I simultaneously got checked out in the P210 and got an endorsement to drive 18-wheelers along with it. HAHAHAHA!


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/