Guy Leitch

Like the Toyota HiLux – the Cessna 210 has become an icon of South African transport. It has come a long way since  the first four seater models.

Big ‘n beefy, the Cessna 210 Centurion is one of South Africa’s most important light aircraft. The reasons are obvious: good cruise numbers no nonsense flying qualities, a really useful payload and good range.

Development

The 210 may be the most evolved of all Cessnas singles in how far it has come from the first models. First certified in 1959 as a 2900 lb plane with a strut-braced wing and a redline speed of 174 knots, it evolved into a 4100-pound, 325-HP pressurized behemoth with a 200-knot redline, designed to fly above 20,000 feet in icing conditions. And the P210 was, the first pressurized single.

When the first 210 appeared in 1960 it still had strut braced wings and so was essentially a ‘hot-rod’ Skylane with retractable gear and a 260hp Continental. The first 210s were fitted with 260-HP Continental IO-470s, a more powerful, fuel-injected version of the engine then in use on the Skylane. In fact, the first 210s were quite similar to the Skylane of the same era: Gross weight was 250 pounds greater, and empty weight was about 200 pounds more. At the time, of course, there was no other Cessna retractable.

The niche filled by the first 210s was later occupied by the Skylane RG; by that time, the 210 had grown into a heavier, more spacious and powerful plane.

By today’s standards early models were raw and noisy yet enjoyed a respectable performance.

The 210’s innovative but complex undercarriage was the subject of great curiosity and frustration. It still is. Cynics claim two types of 210 pilots: those who’ve had a wheels-up and those who are going to have one –  but not because they forgot to lower it.

Early models used a complicated hydraulic system which operated the flaps as well. It clunked like a hydraulic back actor. To retract, the wheels sag, then power back to snuggle into the aft fuselage. The system was modified after 1971 and installed in the 172 and 182 retractables.

The first major design change to the first 210s was made in 1962, with the addition of a rear window and enlarged cabin to accommodate two child seats. In 1964 the 260hp IO-470 Continental was replaced by a 285hp IO-520. From 1965 a turbocharger was an option.

In 1969 the dihedral angle was reduced and the engine oil sump was changed to allow the nosegear to retract further into the fuselage. This eliminated the chin “bump” in earlier models. The wing struts also disappeared in 1969 and the following year it got proper rear seats, albeit cramped for a 4+2 layout. With gross weight originally at 2,900 lbs, the extra power and new wing increased this to a very useful 3,800 lbs by 197.

Improvements don’t come without penalty – the handling, particularly in pitch forces, deteriorated, largely due to the wide centre of gravity range.

Utility is the Centurion’s big pitch, one that it meets handsomely. The aircraft’s ability to carry a decent load far and fast has been the key factor in the 210’s popularity in South Africa. The aircraft is long legged, having the ability to cruise at 155 knots for up to six hours. The turbo is even more impressive, cruising at over 170 knots while carrying almost three quarters of a ton.

Although far from maintenance free, the hefty undercarriage lends itself to unpaved strips typical in this part of the world. An example is a 210 which suffered an extremely heavy landing which bent a main wheel leg. It resisted a 40 ton load before the engineers gave up trying to straighten it and ordered a replacement from Cessna.

The aeroplane looks heavy and purposeful, which is carried through the plane’s flight regime. As a four-place aircraft, space is ample. For six though, the two rear seats are somewhat of a booby prize for those who drew the short straw on long trips typical of many flight profiles.

The instrument panel is tall and imposing before the pilot. It requires considerable seat adjustment to see over the glareshield, which then raises eye level above the top of the side window – hampering visibility, especially in the circuit.

The 210 is mostly muscle, from the throaty rumble of the Continental to its beefy handling qualities. It’s no aeroplane for those who like fingertip control response and consistently rewarding touchdowns.

Soon after the first model was introduced Cessna started to install bob-weights and springs in the elevators, resulting in high pitch forces. That has never much intimidated pilots, and it makes the aircraft stable for IMC flying.

Unlike the heavy elevators, the ailerons are fast and responsive, with light breakout forces, despite the complex high wing routing for cables. At light weights and a forward centre of gravity the pitch feel is at its heaviest and requires a hefty pull during the flare, however, with the centre of gravity moving aft, i.e. with more than four occupants and nearly full tanks, elevator forces lighten. Many pilots with just two up add in nose up trim on short final, but this makes a go-around a wrestle to keep the nose down.

Maximum gear extension speed is a high 160 KIAS, providing a useful way to go down and slow down. Large semi-fowler flaps create a considerable nose up pitch, and leaving flap application late causes unnecessary and late fiddling with trim.

The 210 has always had good rudder authority, making a decent crosswind landing capability. The sprung steel mainwheels are resistant to sideloads, but on the downside, visibility over the nose when flaring is non-existent, causing pilots to have to look past the nose, much like a steam locomotive, and making greasers a rather hit or miss affair.

With a cabin width of 44 inches in the middle and a height of 47 inches, the aircraft has a roomy interior for four adults and perhaps two kids.

Fit and finish in many Cessnas is not the best, and the 210 is no exception. Owners complain of leaks and plastic interior panels that crack and come apart with age.

In the Air

For the non-turbo versions real-world cruise speeds are in the 160-165 knot range, with climb rates of about 750 FPM at 120 KIAS. With a payload of about 970 pounds with full fuel, a late-model 210 can haul the astonishing load of five adults with about 22 pounds of baggage for each one.

Thanks to limited elevator authority, the 210 is tough to wrangle into a full-stall break, so there’s nothing particularly nasty about them. Since its the heaviest plane in its class, it must be handled with respect, especially on landing. Judging from the number of hard landings, swerves, runway overruns and gear collapses in the accident reports, this is a matter to be reckoned with.

Although most Cessnas have an excellent reputation for short-field operation, the 210 does not shine in this category in comparison with its peers. Minimum runway over a 50-foot obstacle tallies out at a little over 2000 feet, which is close to the figures given for the A36 Bonanza, but longer by several hundred feet than those posted by the other Bonanzas and Piper PA-32R Lance/Saratoga. This is why Okavango Delta operators far prefer the Cessna 206.

Maintenance

It’s a big old complex plane so high maintenance bills can be expected.

After undercarriage problems, the most frequent cause of mishaps is fuel mismanagement. The position of the fuel caps on top of the wing places them at the high point of the tanks. It’s entirely possible that, if the plane is not level or if the nose strut is not properly inflated, the tanks will not be fully filled. Given the dismal accuracy to be expected from aircraft fuel gauges, this potential mismatch between what the pilot thinks is on board and what is actually there is a real risk.

The fuel problems were ameliorated after Cessna provided a ‘Both’ position on 1982 models.

Turbocharging helps with Southern Africa’s high density altitudes, but the 210 is not a short field performer at high payloads, especially in summer. This is the main reason charter companies are reluctant to employ low time pilots, especially in Okavango Delta operations.

It is impossible to write about 210s without mention of their unique wheel retraction system. Although clever, this system is a major source of maintenance gripes. It is predictably the area in which the FAA issues most Service Directives. Problems originate from a myriad collection of valves, actuators, and microswitches. Early models had the dubious benefit of having hydraulic flaps which worked (or sometimes didn’t) in limbo with the undercarriage powerpack, driven by an engine mounted pump.

Not until 1972 did Cessna eventually install the electro-hydraulic system, and even then many problems persisted. Only in 1979 was the step taken to do away with the main wheel doors completely, which significantly reduced gear related problems and maintenance costs. So successful was it that many owners resorted to having their pre-1979 aircraft modified to remove the doors. Interestingly, cruise speeds were unaffected. Maintenance shops heaved a sigh of relief too.

The gear does not respond happily to low usage and so a well used aircraft is probably less likely to give problems. For the 210s assembled prior to 1969, the spectre of a cracked landing gear saddle bracket is high. The saddle should be inspected during an MPI – not only is it a very expensive replacement, but failure usually results in one gear leg hanging half down without any method of locking it into place. There is an AD requiring dye penetrant inspection of the gear saddle every 1,300 hours and 1960 and 1961 models have to have the saddle brackets replaced every 1,000 hours. These are important points to establish when buying older, pre-1970 aircraft.

The Continental IO-520 powered the 210 since the D-model was introduced in 1964. Few owners will escape the cost of cylinder repairs. Cylinder and crankcase cracks seem to be an ever-present problem. Most cracks occur with the turbocharged and pressurised versions, however normally aspirated models are also prone.

It is a problem supposedly lessened by the use of a beefed-up crankcase, easily identified by bolt knuckles along the top of the engine casing. However some AMEs claim that “the improved crankcase is of dubious benefit, as cracks seem to appear elsewhere instead. The only way to prevent cylinder and crankcase cracking is to lock your aeroplane in the hangar!”

Crankcase cracking is not peculiar to the 210, but is a point to be aware of when operating a 210, Bonanza or Baron which use the same engine.

Vapour locks in the fuel system have been the claimed culprit of other engine-loss incidents. A kit introduced in 1981 to instal return lines to the tanks, seemed to sort it out but it makes sense to keep an eye on the fuel flow gauge during flight and to be ready to hit the fuel boost switch if the engine should cough.

The last 210 produced by Cessna, the R-model, arrived in 1985. All R-models came with the more powerful 310 horsepower engine introduced in 1977. Cessna redesigned the horizontal stabiliser and in doing so, rid the aeroplane of all its handling ‘enhancing’ control springs and bob-weights. Only 152 were manufactured, including 12 pressurised airframes.

For the R model the wingspan was extended by two feet to 38 feet, 10 inches (which made it a tight fit for a 40-foot-wide hangar door) and an additional three feet was added to the horizontal stabiliser, making it almost billiard table sized. The landing gear extension speed was upped to 165 knots, and there was an option to increase the fuel capacity by an additional 30 gallons to 115 usable.

The MTOW for the normally aspirated 210R was 3,850 pounds while the T210R could takeoff at 4,100 pounds but was restricted to 3,900 pounds for landing.

The pressurised 210 was killed off when Piper launched their Malibu single. The trouble-some P210 was never an entirely happy aircraft, beset by awkward passenger access, fuel-flow bugs and engine problems. However it was the only serious pressurised single then available, which guaranteed at least some measure of success. Only extremely well cared for examples reached TBO as the TSIO-520 Continental was very touchy about correct temperature management. Furthermore, the pressure vessel meant that the control lines had to fit even tighter, further degrading its already heavy controls.

The 210 has achieved a well deserved following and despite the idiosyncrasies is funda-mentally easy to fly, well matched to the regions demands and presents no problems for maintenance companies.

Though production of 210s ended forty years ago, AMOs report good parts availability, albeit with high prices.