The International Cessna^® 170 Association

Yep, that beast in TAP is sure ugly. Actually, I thought the X-210 was a very good looking airplane. It had a 180 style cowl with air inlets on each side of the spinner, along with square wing tips and tail feathers, again ala 180.


George, do you have any pictures that would reproduce for posting? The ones in my book are all very small, B&W photos that I doubt would scan and enlarge well, but I can try.

BTW, my source is a small paperback book/pamphlet called "An Eye in the Sky. Cessna: First 50 years, 1911-1961.

Okay, one last quest: What is a Model 308?


Bruce

Google makes this too easy, but at least it's pointed
me to this fascinating web site that has all kinds of info
on obscure Cessna designs (so thanks for the questions!).

From:

http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/features ... asp?id=461

[quote]

Model 308-This design could be characterized as a four-place Model 305-the airplane which had become the U.S. Army's "Bird Dog" in 1950. The 308 was in answer to a military proposal which called for a new, larger aircraft category that was eventually filled by the de Havilland Beaver. Built on the general lines of the 170, the Model 308 had a much larger 47-ft wing span and 4,200 lb gross weight. Powered by a whopping 375 hp Lycoming GSO-580, it could operate smartly off unimproved strips and carry a 1,000-lb payload for 800 statute miles. Only one example was built, and it first flew in July 1951.

[/end quote]


I think I'd like to have me one of these! I've always thought the
Birddog was a heck of an airplane... A 4-place one would give
the 180/185 a run for it's money. The Beaver is cool, but with
a 25+ gph fuel flow (and $500K+ price), it's not exactly appealing/
attainable for the average-Joe pilot....

The Cessna 206 would meet all those requirements very handily. (And it was a SIX place, with no complicated geared engine.) I had one which was legal to carry almost it's own empty weight as a useful load!

Might be so, but the tailwheel is on the wrong
end of a 206 (stupid / old saying, but there it is!).

Since the 206 is a 185 with a nosewheel, I'd tend
to gravitate towards the 185 as the "all-around"
best bush-plane ever built (what's that saying
about opinions? Everbody has one!)

My favorite is a mid-70's 185 ('73 to about '76...
the wing got the hook-nose in '73). Go much past
a '76 model, and they started to get a bit too heavy
for my taste.....

If I won the Lottery or married rich I'd be flying
a stripped down (light as I could get it) '73 C-185 (naturally,
being as how I was rich, I'd keep my 170 just because!).

The motivation for building the 308 (only one was built) was short lived. The Army had a restriction in 1951 preventing them from operating aircraft with GW over 5000 pounds (the book didn't go into the reasons or history of this restriction). The Army had hoped to buy the Beaver to fill its need for a 6 pax light cargo aircraft, but the Beaver weighed in at over 6000 pounds. Six months after its first flight in 1952, the 308 was ready for Army evaluations, but the Army changed their rules and eliminated the 5000 pound max GW restriction. They promptly bought the Beaver and the market for the 308 disappeared.

Demonstrations of the 308 were still conducted for the Army, but to no avail. The 308 was returned to Cessna, dissembled and put in storage...oh my...the possiblities of a rare, cool, one-off, classic Cessna rat-holed in the back of some obscure Wichita warehouse...were could it be now???

Bruce

gahorn wrote:The Cessna 206 would meet all those requirements very handily. (And it was a SIX place, with no complicated geared engine.) I had one which was legal to carry almost it's own empty weight as a useful load!

This is getting pretty far afield, but I think it's interesting. In May 2004 I was flying with a friend in Ireland, and we met a pilot who flies a P&W 450 turbine powered P210 for its owner, about 600 hours per year. He said he's never found the problem with it. It cruises at 200 knots at 20,000 feet if I remember right. His is US-registered, because (I guess) the US certification regs are easier to deal with than the European ones.

Now here's the interesting part: he also said he can fly it for less than it cost us to fly our C90-powered aircraft, because it burns jet fuel. In Europe, almost all jet fuel is used for international flights, so it's sold duty-free. He was paying 25 Euro cents per liter then -- about a buck-twenty per US gallon at today's exchange rate. We were paying four or five times that for avgas over there, so I guess that was mostly taxes.

He did have an interesting and expensive piece of bent-propeller sculpture in the hangar, because the nose gear had failed during a recent landing. So I guess there is a problem with it after all....

Best Regards,

John

I've seen a C-210 with an Allison turbine conversion, but I can't immagine a P&W on it. Too big!

blueldr wrote:I've seen a C-210 with an Allison turbine conversion, but I can't immagine a P&W on it. Too big!

Well, I'm less sure about the manufacturer of the turbine than the horsepower. It was 450HP, and the cowling didn't look any larger than a stock 210.

John