These two aviation myths have been around for some time, and I suspect there is some truth to them as with most of the myths placed here - typically some details have been changed, for poetic license, or through the process of the Chinese whisper.
Anyone who has a lead to some proof of origin please comment!

Space Race

During the height of the space race in the 1960s, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration decided it needed a ball point pen to write within the zero gravity confines of its space capsules. After considerable research and development, the ‘Astronaut Pen’ was developed at a cost of about 1million US$. The pen worked and also enjoyed some modest success as a novelty item back here on earth.
The Soviet Union, faced with the same problem, used a pencil.

Aircraft Windshield Testing

The British Aerospace industry developed a unique device for testing the strength of windshields on aircraft. The device is a gun that launches a dead chicken at a plane’s windshield at approximately the speed the plane flies.

The theory is that if the windshield doesn’t crack from the carcass impact, it’ll survive a real collision with a bird during flight. Other countries were very interested in this, including the an American aircraft manufacturer.

The Americans borrowed the chicken launcher, loaded the chicken and fired. The ballistic chicken shattered the windshield, went through the pilot’s chair and embedded itself in the back wall of the cockpit. Stunned at the results, they asked the British to recheck the test to see if everything was done correctly.

The British reviewed the test thoroughly and had one recommendation: “Try defrosting the chickens.”

I feel compelled to provide a short rant on quality, following a discussion on the matter last night, as I honestly feel most people or organisations as the case may be, completely miss the point with quality.

Quality for me has two essential elements:
1. Checking that you are doing what you are suppose to do; and
2. Checking that what you are supposed to do is doing what it is supposed to do.

This statement has been described in plain simple language to avoid all the bamboozling that quality people tend to attach to it.

The problem with most quality auditors, is that although they have extensive training in number one, they are normally not process experts. furthermore, most audit processes are designed to check purely on item one.

Let me give you an example, related to flight training. A quality auditor checking on how you complete transition training, will ask you to show the section in your operations manual that describes transition training. This will normally refer to a transition training manual, so they will ask to see this (and tick a box - yes, documentation referred to is there). The transition training manual will refer to a training record, which they will ask for (and tick another box), then they will ask to see a recent transition training student file, which should contain a completed training record with all the required items filled in (there’s another box to tick).

If the process described in the operations manual has been followed, and all the documentation is complete, including a process to follow if there is failures, the auditor is happy. Auditors will normally confirm that the process confirms to the minimum legal requirements, but as far as most quality systems go, that’s the end of it.

How do we know the transition training syllabus itself was a quality product? Well of course that is not the job of a quality auditor, most people will reply, this is the responsibility of the company experts, in this case the chief pilot/chief flight instructor and the training manager.

Therein lies the old adage, which I first learnt when I was exposed to ISO9000 back in the early 90’s, a quality system can ensure your process is completed accurately, but if your process is s**t, your quality system will ensure that you stick to all the procedures for producing s**t! A great thing wasn’t it?

So how does a quality expert who is not a subject expert ensure quality? Of course there are ways, which any of the better quality courses and auditors will now recognise, such as proper customer feedback surveys, monitoring of process success/failure rates, identifying faulty processes, discussion with process implementers at all levels (in this case the instructors) to name a few.

A quality auditor who is a topic expert can normally provide a better insight than one who is not, but provided the second part, and in my opinion the most important part of quality, is not forgotten the goal will be achieved, and the quality audit will add to the quality of the process.

Any quality auditors out there, please send comments!?

We found the following two articles very informative with regard to C210 accidents and accident prevention:

First: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-10781942/Cessna-210-Centurion-it-ll.html, providing a little useful statistical data on causes of C210 accidents.

Cessna 210 Centurion: it’ll haul heroic payloads at respectable cruise speeds. But don’t go cheap on preventive maintenance or you’ll regret it.

Publication: The Aviation Consumer
Publication Date: 01-JUN-09 Format: Online

Full Article Title: Cessna 210 Centurion: it’ll haul heroic payloads at respectable cruise speeds. But don’t go cheap on preventive maintenance or you’ll regret it.(USED AIRCRAFT GUIDE)(Product/service evaluation)

Note; this article abbreviated to reflect accident information, full article includes some helpful information about operating the C210

The six-seat retractable single is a market niche to which many prospective owners aspire. And why not? They are as fast as many twins, can carry prodigious payloads, come with plenty of panel space to install any goodies the previous owner neglected and generally are easy to fly. The solo powerplant avoids a twin’s upkeep costs while most systems–with landing gear being a notable exception–are almost as simple as the trainer first soloed.

PERFORMANCE, COMFORT

Light on the controls, sports car-like handling, delightfully well-balanced are all adjectives used to describe how airplanes handle. None of them apply to the Cessna 210. The Centurion is, at best, a truck. Pitch forces are relatively heavy and although roll rate is adequate, the controls are not well harmonized when compared to, say, the 36-series Bonanzas.

ACCIDENT REPORT: GET THE GEAR

At the beginning of this article, we noted the Cessna 210, perhaps more than other six-seat singles, does not tolerate any inattention to its maintenance requirements. After reviewing 93 accidents and incidents in the NTSB data base over a three-year period, we have additional evidence of the type’s ongoing need for attention.

Leading the pack of accidents causes–but without a single resulting injury or fatality–is what we categorize as a “landing-gear-related mishap,” or LGRM. A total of 18 Cessna 210s made it into the NTSB’s files for reasons involving mechanical issues with the landing gear or plain, old-fashioned pilot forgetfulness. That said, the majority of the mishaps recorded were mechanical in nature.

Closely following LGRMs is another broad category: runway loss of control, or RLOC, with 17 entries. Essentially, this category includes a pilot’s failure to get down and stopped, or to clear the runway and its surroundings on takeoff. Usually, this category leads the pack when examining other aircraft types. Engine mechanical issues came in a close third, with 16 entries.

Fuel starvation tied with fuel exhaustion at eight entries apiece. The 210–perhaps more than other any other Cessna–is prone to being “underfueled”: The tanks’ geometry can preclude completely filling them, especially if the airplane is parked on an uneven surface. Meanwhile, even when there’s adequate fuel aboard, pilots seem to find ways to ignore it. Given the 210’s left-right-both-off fuel system, this one’s a mystery to US.

The remaining accidents covered a wide range of causes, but never numbered more then three each. Among these were airframe mechanical issues, including an in-flight fire, collision with objects at night, controlled flight into terrain, wildlife impacts, two stall/spin events, plus (two each) improper IFR and spatial disorientation. An in-flight breakup, a deplaning passenger killed by a spinning propeller (the airplane suffered an engine failure during a takeoff later the same day) and a hand-propping event round out the collection of accidents and incidents.

The Cessna 210 is a complicated high-performance airplane demanding attention when it’s flown and when it isn’t. Any failure to supply the attention it requires may result in an unpleasant day for the pilot and his passengers.

ACCIDENT SUMMARY

LGRM (18)
RLOC (17)
ENGINE (16)
FUEL STARV. (8)
FUEL EXHAUST. (8)
AIRFRAME/NIGHT/CFIT (3)
IFR/SPAT. DIS./WILDLIFE/STALL (2)
HAND-PROP/MIDAIR/PROP/ETC. (1)

Gonumbers comment: The fact that RLOC accidents typically “lead the pack”, as the article states, when it comes to light aircraft, is a sad but true reflection on the state of training. A C210 may be a little more difficult to handle than most light aircraft, but the fact that accidents are comparable in this sector, perhaps means that schools and operators realise the need to take transition training more seriously.

And the following article from http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182907-1.html, which has some really useful operating tips from a well versued source.

A Letter to Cessna 210 Owners
The Executive Director of the Cessna Pilots Association (who is a 210 owner and A&P/IA himself) tells Centurion owners what they need to know to stay out of trouble.
January 9, 1996

by John Frank

Dear Cessna 210 Owner,

FAA records indicate that you recently registered a Cessna 210 aircraft. I am writing to brief you on several safety-critical topics that we believe every Centurion owner should 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.

In this letter, I’m going to talk to you about idiosynchrasies of the Cessna 210 fuel system, retractable landing gear, and several other aircraft systems. If you are new to Cessna Centurions, I’m sure you’ll find this information enlightening. If you are an old hand with Centurions, you may still find it a worthwhile review.

At the end of this letter, I’m going to tell you a little about the Cessna Pilots Association and urge you to become a member of this valuable technical information service for Cessna owners. But whether you decide to join CPA or not, I want you and your passengers to be safe when you fly your Centurion. So please take a few minutes to read over this material carefully.

FUEL SYSTEM
BLADDER WRINKLES. If you fly a strut-braced 210 (1960 through 1966 model years), your airplane uses rubber bladder tanks in each wing. These bladders have a tendancy to develop wrinkles along the bottom. The wrinkles act as little dams that can prevent water from moving to the sump drain. This means that you can sump the tanks at preflight and see no water, yet dangerous amounts of water could still be present in your fuel tanks.

To make matters worse, Cessna originally installed flush-style fuel caps on these aircraft. These caps have a tendency to leak if the aircraft is exposed to moisture. If your fuel caps have a small hinged pull-up handle that fits into a recess in the cap, you have the dangerous fuel caps. At CPA, we call them “killer caps.”

There have been a number of engine failures after take-off in these aircraft due to water ingestion even though the pilot sumped the tanks thoroughly during pre-flight. Some of these incidents have been fatal. The FAA issued Airworthiness Directive AD 84-10-01 to deal with this problem. It requires inspection of the bladders for wrinkles, and suggests changing flush-style fuel caps to umbrella-style caps.

If you fly a bladder-equipped 210 that still has flush-style fuel caps, the Cessna Pilots Association strongly uges you to change immediately to either the Cessna umbrella cap (kit SK182-85 available through any Cessna dealer) or the Monarch Development cap.

BUT THE LINEBOY SWORE HE TOPPED THE TANKS! If your 210 is a cantelever-wing model (without struts, 1967 through 1986 models), it uses integral fuel tanks. This basically means that several bays in each wing are sealed to serve as a fuel tank, with the top and bottom wing skins forming the top and bottom of the tank.

Because the fuel tank is long and flat and has a recessed filler port, it can be difficult to get the last few gallons of fuel in each tank. The tank may appear full when it is actually 5 to 10 gallons short. There have been a number of off-airport landings caused by fuel exhaustion because the pilots thought the tanks had been filled but were actually short of full by a significant amount.

This problem can be reduced by installing non-recessed fuel caps, using Cessna kit SKxxx-xx or Monarch Development caps (phone xxx/xxx- xxxx). If you order the Monarch caps, make sure to get the latest raised caps and not their older screw on caps. The FAA has also issued AD xx-xx-xx, applicable to all cantelever- wing 210s, which requires calibration of the aircraft’s fuel gauges, notation in the aircraft records, and in some cases placards at the fuel filler ports.

Any time you make a flight of 4 hours or more, you must be 100% positive that you have full tanks. To accomplish this, you must fuel the aircraft on a level surface. Your nose strut must be inflated sufficiently to give the aircraft a slightly nose-up attitude (about 4.5 degrees for most models). Fill each tank until the fuel in each tank is all the way up to the upper wing skin. Then wait several minutes, re-check the fuel level in each tank, and add more fuel if necessary.

SO THAT’S WHAT THOSE TWO HOLES ON THE BELLY ARE FOR! On all Cessna 210s, the main fuel tanks feed into small reservoir tanks. Their purpose is to provide the fuel injection system a source of fuel undisturbed by aircraft attitude, and to receive excess fuel and vapor that is returned from the fuel control unit.

Models prior to 1982 have two reservoir tanks, one for each wing tank, that are located in the belly of the aircraft beneath the floor boards. From 1982 on, the 210 fuel system was changed so that only a single reservoir tank is used. The reservoir tanks can collect water and sediment. They should to be drained at preflight prior to the first flight of the day. This is frequently overlooked. The reservoir tanks have quick drains. (Early models originally had drain plugs installed in the reservoir tanks, but an A.D. mandated that these be retrofitted with quick drains.) In some cases, the holes for access to the quick drains have “Wilkie” buttons installed in them. These can be removed and discarded to provide easier access to the drains.

THE LOUDEST SILENCE IN THE WORLD. The Centurion has a history of fuel flow fluctuations and, in a few cases, engine stoppage due to vapor lock. This has been most prevalent in turbocharged 210s from the early 1970s through the 1981 model year. The problem occurs when the reservoir tanks become filled with fuel vapor instead of liquid fuel. Turbocharged aircraft are more vulnerable because they climb rapidly to altitude and have higher engine compartment temperatures. Normally-aspirated 210s seldom develop this vapor lock problems in-flight. If they do, it is usually an indication of a mechanical problem within the fuel system.

The important thing to remember is that while the reservoir tank on the side of the fuel tank in use is filling with vapor, the opposite-side reservoir tank is full of liquid fuel with no vapor. If you suspect a vapor problem, switch fuel tanks and turn the boost pump to low. This will almost always stabilize fuel flow and restore engine power. There is also a modification that can be performed to the T210 exhaust system that reduces the heat soaking of the fuel in the engine compartment.

Another vapor-related topic is the infamous problem of hot starts on fuel injection engines. The Cessna Pilots Association has developed a sure-fire hot-start proceedure that works every time, and does not involve flooding the engine (which can be a fire hazard). CPA members may obtain this hot-start handout at no charge.

RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
The Centurion landing gear system has a lousy reputation. Actually, the gear system can be extremely reliable if you and your maintenance shop understands the system thoroughly. CPA’s three-day Cessna 210 Systems and Procedures Course devotes several hours to this subject, but I will mention a few of the highlights here.

UH OH! NO GREEN LIGHT. If you don’t get a green light after extending the gear, the first thing to do is to visually check the landing gear position. When down and locked, the main gear tires can be seen from the cabin. However, the nosewheel is not visible to the pilot unless you install a convex landing gear mirror. A mirror is also necessary to observe the position of the main gear doors (if your plane has them). CPA sells an STC’d mirror that simply replaces one of the underwing inspection plates.

If the landing gear appears completely down but there is no green light, a normal landing should be made. If the main gear is down but not quite locked, the weight of the aircraft will push the main gear legs toward the locked position. However, the nose gear retracts forward, so weight on an unlocked nose gear will tend to make it retract. Therefore, take care to hold the nose wheel off the ground as long as possible.

If the gear does not appear to be fully extended, try to determine the cause. On 1971 and earlier 210s which use an engine-driven hydraulic pump, recycle the landing gear handle to the neutral position and then back to the down position. On 1972 and later 210s with an electrically-driven hydraulic pump, make sure that the landing gear switch is in the down position and that neither the landing gear motor circuit breaker or landing gear control circuit breaker have tripped.

If the gear still is not fully extended, then it is time to use the emergency extension system. With the landing gear handle or switch in the down position, pull out the emergency extension pump handle and start pumping. Continue until the handle feels like it is set in cement. Visually determine that the gear is extended and that you have a green light, then make a normal landing.

If the emergency extension handle won’t budge, the most likely cause is a stuck door solenoid valve (assuming you have doors). The door solenoid valve is electrically activated to the door-closed position and spring- loaded to the door-open position. Try turning off the master switch (VFR conditions only!) to allow the electrical circuits in the landing gear system to cool down. This may allow the solenoid valve to drop into place. You can also try pulling the plastic center console cover off to expose the landing gear power pack, and rap on the door solenoid valve to encourage it to release. The door solenoid valve is the small silver canister assembly on the left side of the power pack.

If the emergency extension handle moves freely but the gear does not extend, the most likely cause is insufficent hydraulic fluid. On pre-1972 aircraft, there’s not much you can do other than verifying that this is the situation by observing if any fluid is visible through the sight glass. On 1972 and later models, there’s a dipstick and filler port behind a removable panel on the center console. If the dipstick shows no fluid in the power pack, you can try pouring any available liquid into the power pack reservoir.

IF NOTHING WORKS, KEEP YOUR COOL. If a gear-up landing can’t be avoided, the important thing is not to panic. A landing with the gear up or partially extended is not a life-threatening situation and only through panic can a pilot turn it into one. Simply make a normal approach, touching down at as low an airspeed as you are comfortable with while maintaining control of the aircraft.

If you are faced with making a wheels-up landing, here are some items you might want to keep in mind:

1.

Pavement is better than grass. Contrary to intuition, less damage will be done touch down on smooth pavement than on grass.
2.

Pick a runway the airlines don’t need. If you disturb airline schedules, the airport management will want toclear the runway quickly, which could result in greater damage to your aircraft. The FAA may get upset, too. If the wind is manageable, consider using a crosswind runway at an airport you think you might have repairs done.
3.

Don’t worry about prop or engine damage. The hangar flyers will tell you should shut down the engine and stop the prop on final to minimize damage. Most of those guys have never done it. I have, and let me tell you it is no easy task. Once you pull the mixture out to shut down the engine, you will have to reduce airspeed almost to stall to get the prop stopped, and then remain at very low airspeed to prevent the prop from windmilling again. What’s the point? At best, you’ll only be saving money for your insurance company. And that’s a pretty poor reason for increasing the risk factor during a wheels up landing.

JUST LIKE KIDS WHO WON’T CLOSE DOORS. The most common 210 landing gear complaint I hear is “I retract the gear but the doors won’t close!” Because many shops really don’t understand the system, owners have paid for many needless repairs, power pack overhauls, and door-removal modifications. Actually, there is a simple electrical circuit involving the the up-lock and down lock microswitches along with the handle switch that energizes the door solenoid valve to the door-close position. If your doors won’t close on either the gear-up or gear-down cycle, then the problem is in this circuit and should take less than an hour to troubleshoot.

IS PLASTIC KEEPING YOUR NOSE UP? Your nose gear has a little “downlock spring guide” to retain a spring that keeps tension on the nose gear downlock hooks. When Cessna originally built your aircraft, they installed a spring guide made entirely of plastic, with two plastic pins that fit into holes in the downlock hooks. These plastic pins have a tendency to break, and this can result in the downlock spring falling out and leaving no tension on the downlock hooks. Taxi over a bump and the nose gear could collapse. Ouch!

Cessna came out with an improved guide, P/N xxxxxxxx, which has steel pins instead of plastic ones. All 210s were manufactured with the all-plastic guide, so unless you have a log book entry that shows installation of the improved part, your aircraft is in jeopardy. The new part costs about $15 and takes about an hour to change. It’s a very small price to pay to avoid a costly nose gear collapse.

BACK IN THE SADDLE AGAIN. 1960 through 1969 210s have flat spring steel landing gear legs held in “saddles”. Service history indicates that these saddles can crack over time, creating the possibility of a landing gear failure. The FAA issued AD XX-XX-XX which requires annual dye-penetrant inspection of these saddles after a certain number of hours. The Cessna Pilots Association reccomends the saddles be checked every 100 hours or at annual inspection no matter how many hours are on them.

EXHAUST SYSTEM
ALL YOU WANT IS CLEAN AIR. On turbocharged 210s, the exhaust heat exchanger uses spiral fins to improve cabin heat capacity. Unfortunately, the heat exchanger tends to develop cracks where the fins welded to it. Such cracks can allow dangerous exhaust fumes into the cockpit. The FAA issued AD 71-XX- XX which requires pressure checking the exhaust system of all turbocharged 210s EVERY 50 HOURS! This is an important and often overlooked inspection.

TAIL
DON’T SHAKE YOUR TAIL FEATHERS. Cessna 210 often develop cracks at the attach points for both the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, particularly at the “station 209 bulkhead” where the forward spar of the horizontal stabilizer attaches. This area needs to be inspected very carefully. Cessna offers service kits to strengthen these areas.

ROTTEN TRAILING EDGES. Cessna built the trailing edge of the 210 elevator and the entire elevator trim tab with a foam core. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but it wasn’t. The foam core absorbs moisture which causes the elevator trailing edge and the trim tab to corrode from the inside out. By the time you see the tell-tale bubbling of the paint on the trim tab or elevator trailing edge, the structure is seriously compromised. Cessna now offers replacement parts that do not use a foam core.

AND NOW…A WORD FROM YOUR SPONSOR
The Cessna 210 Centurion is a great aircraft. In its later variations, it is arguably the best single-engine travelling 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. Which is why CPA exists.

The principal purpose of the Cessna Pilots Association is to provide our members with in-depth technical information about their aircraft that is simply not available anywhere else. CPA members receive our monthly CPA Magazine; each 32-page issue is jam-packed with late-breaking news, technical articles, details of new ADs and service bulletins, service difficulty reports, general aviation alerts, and other vital Cessna-specific information.

CPA also has developed a long list of informational handouts that deal with the most frequently-seen problems and frequently-asked questions about Cessnas: nosewheel shimmy, hot starts, oil on the belly, uneven fuel feeding, and many other subjects. These handouts are available at no cost to CPA members.

One of the most valuable aspects of CPA membership is unlimited access to the CPA Technical Hotline. CPA is the only Cessna owners association with a full-time staff of A& P mechanics available daily to answer your questions. Each one is a real Cessna expert. We also maintain the largest Cessna technical library outside of the Cessna factory. If you need help troubleshooting an elusive problem or locating a hard-to-find part, we can help. We can also save you big money on high-ticket parts by telling you where to get the best deals.

If you join CPA and call with a 210-related problem, you’ll probably wind up talking to me. One of my jobs at the Cessna Pilots Association is to provide technical support to our members who own 210s. In addition, I operate and maintain my own T210 (a 1967 model). I know the aircraft intimately and can answer almost any 210 question you might have. If I don’t know the answer myself, I know who knows!

CPA also offers a terrific three-day Cessna 210 Systems and Procedures Course. The seminar is given several times a year at the CPA Technical Center in California, and once a year in several other parts of the country. Our instructors are some of the foremost 210 experts in the world. After you graduate from this course, you will know more about your Centurion than 99% of all 210 owners, and you’ll probably understand its complex systems (particularly landing gear and electrical) better than most A& Ps do. There is no better way to learn so much about your aircraft so quickly.

I hope you decide to join the Cessna Pilots Association. It costs just $40 to for the first year, and $35 to renew. Most of our members feel that CPA membership is one of the best bargains in aviation.

But whether or not you choose to join CPA, please pay careful attention to the information in this letter, particularly the cautions about fuel contamination and fuel capacity. The 210 has a history of fuel-system- related accidents. A little knowledge and caution will prevent you from adding to the statistics.

Let’s all of us be careful up there.

John M. Frank
Executive Director

Cessna Pilots Association

About the Author …

John Frank is the founder and Executive Director of the Cessna Pilots Association. John is a 14,000-hour ATP-rated pilot and an A&P mechanic with Inspection Authorization, and probably knows more about single-engine Cessnas than any man on earth. John flew helicopters in Vietnam and fixed-wing in Berlin for the U.S. Army, was a test pilot for Beech Aircraft, and headed up the American Bonanza Society before founding CPA in 1984. John lives in Santa Maria, California, with his wife Kris, and spends his after-hours time doting on two young sons, John III and Steven.

It seems that some of the later model POHs are copyrighted. I do hope the intention of Cessna in putting this is to prevent illegal resale, not for prevention of their use for study purposes. While awaiting a response from Cessna I’ll leave the POHs up.

In using a POH for study purposes, pilots must remember, there are a variety of model types and modifications within the a type series. A POH is a great tool for study to get a general idea of an aircraft, and a couple of different copies is also sometimes helpful - depending on the age range and variations. For this reason I’ve written to Cessna for permission to leave the FREE POHs up at red sky ventures Free_Stuff page -

See discussion on this matter here.
http://www.pprune.org/login.php

As a side note, Cessna started calling their generic manuals PIMs - Pilot Information Manuals, to distinguish from the updatable, customisable POH, to date I am not sure if it is Cessna’s terminology or an industry wide accepted term.

As another side note, the gentleman in the pprune discussion above makes a note that GA8 - the airvan - provides their manuals for free on their website, which is how it should be! Here’s the link to the Airvan site. , and that the Piper copies he has are not copyright.

From my side, searching forums there is a constant want from conscientous pilots to review a POH in preparation for a type rating when they may not yet be at the place where the aircraft is, proven by the number of requests and searches for such. Many copies provided at the RSV site are used scanned copies, and are only intended for private use by pilots.

I hope Red Sky Ventures can make this a real resource for pilots and the information police don’t prevent it.

Red Sky Ventures, the sponsor of GoNumbers has recently begun uploading a number of free resources to their website. These free resources are included on the Free Stuff page, http://www.redskyventures.org/free_stuff.php

The first in the series of uploads is the Cessna POH range, over 15 files are presently uploaded, including both POHs and Owner manuals for a range of Cessnas, including various models of the Cessna 152, Cessna 172 and Cessna 182.
Red Sky Ventures director, Danielle Bruckert welcomes contributions via email, and hopes that the POH archive will become a valuable resource of all that’s available POH wise on the web.

This upload coincides with the US release of Red Sky Ventures’ C210 Training Manual, written by Oleg Roud and Danielle Bruckert, found at http://www.unlimitedpublishing.com/redsky , and aims to improve pilot knowledge for transition training.

Red Sky Ventures hopes their series and the uploads will help the move towards better training practices and proper training resources in General Aviation.

I recently read a post on the Cessna Pilot’s Society forums about a simple way to work out hold entries.

It’s a great post, fortunately somewhere on the second page someone recommended a simulator! I mean it’s great if you enjoy burning fuel to go out and test the methods in the plane, but why not get it right on the ground first?
Easiest and cheapest way to practice the hold, and the most effective to get the method right, and so make you’re practical flying.

They provide a link to a free VOR simulator tool which you can use to get an idea how to fly holds, and to determine your position relative to the indications on the VOR.

There are also some really good, cheap, IFR simulation software packages available. Microsoft Flight Sim is very nice, but it is not specifically aimed at IFR instruction. The cheaper packages which are aimed at helping pilots not gaming, may be a better solution. I remember distinctly using a program like this myself to get current for my first IFR renewal. As with the normal trap for a new IFR pilot, I had little more than an hour or two in the previous year. After putting in a number of evenings slog on the PC, really getting to know the procedures and getting my scan up with a cheap PC simulator program and a joystick, I passed the test with one prep session, and I felt confident about it. A fellow flight instructor who perhaps hadn’t thought about the concept of PC flying, walked out of the same exercise $10,000 poorer.
Many airline pilots and ‘wannabe’ airline pilots use the same method, to prep for a simulator interview, as would I if the need arises. Despite great advances in airline training, non-normal stuff is only practiced in the simulators every 3 months if you are lucky, some airlines still apply the minimum 6 months. PC flying can really help where impressions matter, especially if you are not flying much.

You can’t log it but that doesn’t mean it is not a great learning tool, and you can’t beat the cost. I find it amazing of all the students who I recommend this to, how few take it up.

Holds, despite being a simple maneuver designed primarily for a delay, are not the easiest to get right, and, on top of this, in reality holds are very seldom flown, ATC tries to avoid them when possible, so when you do have to fly one, and you are not one of the ‘lucky’ ones who gets given holds all the time, the PC flying will really pay off.

A final quote from the CPS forum by Tod Covey

“This is still a big distraction to allot of pilots, where there should not be a distraction…

The hold should be a time to compose your self, ready for your approach… Have a cup of coffee…Instead for many it puts them behind the gun. or really in front of the barrel…”

Too true!

The Cessna Buyer’s Guide, Which one is right for you?
(Approximate Prices 2008-9)
By Barron Thomas

During the private flying boom in the early ’50s, America fell in love with Cessna Aircraft Company’s high-wing singles. By the mid-’70s, Cessna had built more single-engine airplanes than any other manufacturer (100,000 by 1978). In the late ’70s, production peaked for all new airplanes, including Cessna singles, and then sharply tapered off (the production line was actually dormant from 1987 to 1996). Thankfully, Cessna restored piston-engine production in 1997; the first models to return were the ever-popular 172 and 182. Sporty’s Pilot Shop gave away one of the first new Cessna 172s as its 1997 Grand Sweepstakes Prize. Response to the new 172 was so positive that Cessna dealers quickly sold out of their allotments.

Cessna delivered approximately 360 new 172s and 182s in 1997. The “new” Cessnas offered significant improvements over the older models, but retained the ease of flying qualities that had made them favorites for 40 years.

How To Decide
New Cessna models offer such a variety in terms of performance that they fit the skill levels and flying needs of most GA pilots. These Cessnas are simple enough to fly that a qualified student pilot should be safe and comfortable. Acquisition costs, operating costs and capabilities, however, will differ. Examine your specific flying requirements and then match them to an appropriate Cessna model.

The Cessna 172
Hands down, the 172 has introduced more people to personal and business flying than any other airplane. The 172 began life in 1956 and, today, there are more than 25,000 still flying. The new-generation 172 was introduced in 1997 as the 172R. It came with a 160 hp Lycoming IO-360 engine and was designed for pilots already possessing or working toward an instrument rating. The 172R offered an impressive lineup of the latest King/Honeywell IFR avionics and a KLN-89B GPS (with moving map) as standard. A King KAP-140 autopilot was optional.

To stay competitive with the Piper Archer III, Cessna offered the upgraded 172SP, which came with a 180 hp Lycoming engine, in 1998. The 172SP quickly became the most popular model; the 172R is still available on special order, but at least 90% of all new 172s sold are the 180 hp “SP” model.

With the exception of the optional 180 hp engine and an optional King HSI, there were very little changes to the 172 between 1997 and 2004. In that year, Cessna introduced its first piston, glass-cockpit airplanes, the 172SP and the 182T. The simple, easy-to-fly, economical four-seater that introduced thousands to flying was now better-equipped than many commercial airliners. The Garmin G1000 came standard in all 2004 and newer 172SPs.

The 172R and 172SP cruise at approximately the same speed (110 knots on 9 gph), though climb performance is noticeably improved on the 172SP. A 2008 C-172SP costs about $255,000, depending on final options; a used glass-cockpit (2004 to 2007) 172SP will run about $180,000; and a good-condition 2000 C-172SP with low hours and little if any student-training history will cost about $120,000. The early 172Rs (1997 and 1998) with mid-time engines sell for about $85,000.

Compare flying a ’60/’70s model 172 with a new-generation 172, and you’ll quickly see the differences and why pilots are willing to spend extra money for a new or near-new airplane with significantly improved avionics. There are no significant maintenance issues to watch for on any of the newer 172s. It’s just a great, simple, affordable, easy-to-fly family single that has justifiably earned its place in the hearts of thousands of pilots.

The Cessna 182
What if you took the world’s most popular single-engine airplane and made it even better? You’d call it a new Cessna 182. Like the 172, the 182 was introduced in 1956. It offered the same ease of handling, comfort and simplicity of its little brother, the 172, but it also had more speed and better high-altitude performance. Hot-and-high performance was remarkable, mountain flying was a breeze and the aircraft offered a decent 150 mph on cross-country trips. The 182 design proved so perfect that Cessna kept the same powerplant and made only cosmetic styling changes for 30 years (1956 to 1987).

In 1997, Cessna resumed production of the 182 in its new incarnation, the 182S. Even the newer 182 is still the same basic airplane as its 40-year-old cousin (the only major changes, beyond styling, are a Lycoming IO-540 rather than a Continental engine; leather seats; and a fancier, standard King digital avionics stack). A turbocharged model was introduced in 2001; the next major change came in 2004 with the introduction of the Garmin G1000 as standard equipment. The 182 is a true 150 mph airplane on about 15 gph.

The 2008 glass-panel 182 lists at about $370,000. The earlier new-generation 182S (1997 and 1998) runs about $160,000; the next group, the 182T (2001 to 2003), will sell for $200,000 to $220,000; and the early G1000 182 (2004 and 2005) will run $235,000 to $250,000, depending on hours.

The new 182 may offer one of aviation’s best overall values and capabilities; on the glass-panel airplanes, it’s common to see the optional equipment include traffic avoidance, weather downlinks and XM Stereo. With Frank Sinatra or Mick Jagger playing on your headset at 10,000 feet and 150 mph on a beautiful sunny day, in an airplane so simple that anyone can handle it safely, can personal flying get any better than a 182?

The Cessna 206
Do you have a big family? Do you need to travel to short, unimproved runways with the family dog, baby stroller and enough luggage for a month? If so, and you can’t spend $3 million for a new Pilatus PC-12, you’re probably flying a Cessna 206 (or a 180 or 185, but we’ll get to those). The days of the air-taxi operator flying 206s are almost gone—except for in Latin America, Africa and Alaska. Today’s typical Cessna 206 owner is more like this:

Mr. Bob Cavrell, owner of a Cessna 206, is a private pilot with a noncurrent IFR rating. Recently, his wife inherited a valuable antique piano that was 400 miles away. Not trusting a moving company with the valuable family heirloom, she enlisted her husband and the 206 to retrieve the prized antique. By removing all the seats (except the pilot’s), and using the two large cargo doors and some careful maneuvering, Bob got the piano into the 206 and safely delivered it to his wife three hours later. Try that with FedEx. That’s why Cessna 206 owners universally adore their airplanes.

Following the overwhelming success of the 172 and 182, Cessna reintroduced the 206 in 1999. Two versions of the 206 were offered: a turbocharged model and a normally aspirated model. The new 206H was introduced with a full King/Honeywell IFR panel, corrosion-proofing, optional float-fittings and a 300 hp Lycoming IO-540 engine. The airplane remained virtually unchanged from 1999 to 2003. In 2004, Cessna also added the Garmin G1000 to the 206 line. All 206s are easy to fly, roomy, excellent on short/rough fields and easily handled by low-time pilots. There’s nothing negative about the airplane. Figure a solid 150 mph on about 18 gph.

A 2008 G1000-equipped 206H will run almost $500,000; a new-generation (1999 to 2003) 206 starts at about $240,000. A near-new glass-cockpit 206H (2004 and 2005) will sell for around $350,000. Whether you need to haul oil drums in the Amazon, tourists on photo safaris in Africa, plywood to remote villages in Alaska or just Sam the golden retriever and an occasional antique piano, think of a 206 as a flying Chevy Suburban, because that’s exactly what it is.

Which Cessna Is Right For You?
What kind of flying do you realistically do? What’s a typical trip 70% of the time? And what can you easily afford? Each of the aforementioned planes is terrific, but to decide which Cessna best fits your travel or mission needs (and comfortably suits your checkbook), examine your flying profile, honestly assess your requirements and talk to a few Cessna owners and pilots. Ultimately, you can’t go wrong with any of the new Cessna singles, but for you, right now, which one is best? Decisions like these are the best problems to have.

More Classic Cessnas
Cessna 150/152
The simple, forgiving and highly economical 150 and 152 made flying lessons fun and affordable and motivated people to try flying on a huge scale. Between 1959 and 1977, more than 20,000 Cessna 150s were built. The new and improved 152 had a Lycoming engine that could more easily handle the transition to 100LL octane than the 150’s Continental O-200A. Prices range from $12,000 and up, for an older 150, to an average of $25,000 for a top-quality 152.

Cessna 140/170
As early as 1946, Cessna—wisely identifying the post-WWII private flying boom—was producing an economical two-seater with an 85 hp Continental, which zipped along at 90 mph and sold new for $3,500. Cessna was always ready with something bigger and better, and the 170 was born in 1948. It carried four full-sized adults and would hit 105 mph reliably; it sold new for $5,900. Today, a decent 140 is $14,000 and a sharp 170B can easily cost $40,000.

Cessna 180/185
Can you say “macho rocket ship”? Introduced in 1953, the 180 carried four adults at good speeds (150 mph) and would land and takeoff literally anywhere you could imagine. Climb performance was phenomenal, and the airplane was a true workhorse. The 180’s big brother, the 185, was introduced in 1961 with a 260 hp engine and six seats; it had essentially the same airframe, just beefed-up. A 300 hp engine became standard in 1966. Production lasted until 1981 for the C-180 and 1985 for the 185. A new 180 was $13,000 in 1953; today, a nice 1953/1954 model brings $60,000. A new 185 in 1961 was $18,950. Today, don’t come to class without at least $95,000 in your pocket for a good-quality one.

Cessna 175
This was a great concept that just didn’t work. The idea was to offer a faster 172, using the same engine but gearing it up to go faster and gearing the prop down to stay within its limits. The net result was an engine doing a lot more work than it was originally designed to do, and it showed in much higher maintenance costs and a lower TBO. The engine is so problematic that some shops won’t overhaul it because it’s so sensitive, making it difficult to accommodate the owner. Like the Ford Edsel, some owners swear by them, but most mechanics swear at them. Best to avoid this low-production Cessna model in favor of a 172 or 182. Today, stock 175s sell for about $22,000, and the retrofitted O-360 Lycoming engine models can bring between $38,000 and $40,000.

Cessna 177
This Cessna has a virtual cult following. Cardinal buyers want only a Cardinal; they will accept nothing else. The Cardinal was introduced in 1968 as a sleeker and sexier 172. This wider airplane sat lower to the ground and the pilot had terrific visibility (only in the Skymaster and the Cardinal does the pilot sit in front of the wing). In the first year, sales were disappointing because it was underpowered—using the same engine, the O-320, as the 172 on a larger airframe wasn’t a great idea. Landing and takeoff were “different” by virtue of an all-flying stabilator, as opposed to a fixed horizontal stabilizer with a moveable elevator. Cessna quickly replaced the powerplant in 1969 with a 180 hp O-360 engine, and a new wing design arrived in 1970. A retractable-gear version was added in 1971. Production ceased in 1978 for both models.

An important note: Many Cardinals have been successfully outfitted with hand controls for disabled pilots. The airplanes’ low-to-the-ground stance and huge, wide doors make it easy for a wheelchair-bound pilot to get in, load the chair in the back and fly without assistance. While Cardinals were extremely difficult to sell in the late 1960s and were eventually replaced by the Hawk XP, today they’re now quickly scooped up on the used market by eager Cardinal fans. An early, 150 hp Cardinal sells for around $32,000; a later 177B with the O-360 engine and newer wing brings $45,000 to $60,000; and a good-condition, late-model Cardinal RG can hit $75,000.

Cessna 210
Feeling the need for speed? Want a roomy and comfortable six-seater that an average pilot can fly? Need decent short-field performance, good climb, good mountain performance and a stable IFR platform for a reasonable price? Look at the 210.

The 210 was born in 1960 as a retractable-gear 182 to compete with the V-tail Beech Bonanza. The major model changes for 210s were: 1962 for the rear window; 1964 for the 285 hp engine; 1966 for optional turbocharging; 1967 for elimination of the wing struts; 1970 for the larger fifth- and sixth-seat area and tubular gear; 1977 for the 300 hp engine; 1979 for optional full deicing; and 1984 for the 325 hp engine.

Like a Bonanza, nosegear collapses are fairly common on 210s and aren’t considered a major sin if repaired properly. The key to a successful ownership experience on the 210 (and all older, high-performance retractables) is who has been doing the annuals and whether the owner was willing to spend the extra money to properly maintain the airplane. On early 210s, be sure to have a competent 210 mechanic check the gear-actuating mechanism. The most problematic years for the gear were 1960 through 1966, but Cessna has good fixes for most of the gear issues.

A late-model 210 in many cases does a better job than most light twins at half the operating costs; it’s a luxury people-hauler and an impressive ride for family members and business clients alike.

Paying For Your Cessna
Financing
If you’re thinking about aircraft financing, now is a terrific time to get an airplane loan. Rates and terms have never been more favorable. Friendly aviation bankers are eager to help you get a loan. The major criteria that they’re looking for is very simple: Can you reliably pay them back? The approval process is quick and easy. Here’s how to get started:

1. Call one of the aircraft bankers listed below. They will obtain credit bureau reports for you and start the application process. You’ll need a credit score of at least 650, but there are exceptions if there are other strong factors in your favor. Each bank varies in its credit requirements.

2. You’ll need to furnish two years’ worth of tax returns to prove that you have adequate income to make your airplane payments and pay your existing bills.

Now, you should consider how much money you can get. Should you purchase a $25,000 Cessna 172 or a $250,000 pressurized P210? How much of an airplane loan do you qualify for?

Inside tip: Most airplane bankers want to see a debt-to-income ratio of about 45:100. In plain English, this means that the total of all your regular monthly obligations (car, house, credit-card minimums, etc.), including your proposed airplane payment, doesn’t exceed 45% of your gross income before taxes. For example, if you make $5,000 a month, your total monthly obligations shouldn’t exceed $2,250 (which includes the airplane payment); if your monthly gross income is $10,000, then it’s a maximum of $4,500 per month. There can be some flexibility in this, especially for people who are self-employed with strong business cash flow and excellent personal credit. Bankers often define excellent credit as a score of 720 or above. Knowing your credit score, income and these parameters will give you an idea of the loan size you’ll most likely be approved for.

Your interest rate, down payment and loan term will be based on your credit and the bank’s guidelines at the time of your application. Here are some industrywide examples, at this writing:

Term: The average term for a used Cessna is 20 years. Some banks will go to 25 years for the newer, more-expensive models, and 10 years for the lower-priced, older Cessna singles (140s and $25,000-range 172s).

Rate: With the vendors listed here, the average rate on a $100,000 used Cessna single is 6.8%. A $50,000 Cessna would be about 7.35%, and for the older, $20,000- to $25,000-range Cessnas, expect about 9.5%

Down payment: Almost universally among all the listed financial sources, the down payment will be 10% to 15% with good credit.

Each bank has its own criteria for aircraft age and loan amount. Most lenders have a $25,000 minimum, but Allied First Bank in Oswego, Ill., will consider under-$25,000 airplanes; Randy Aarestad, President of Red River State Bank in Halstad, Minn., is a pilot with a program for under-$25,000 airplanes. Take advantage of some great rates and terms on airplane loans. Your dream Cessna can be in your hangar quicker than you think!

Resources:
Airfleet Capital www.airfleetcapital.com (800) 390-4324
Allied First Bank www.alliedfirst.com (800) 272-3286
Cessna Finance www.cfcloan.com (866) 232-5626
Dorr Aviation www.dorraviation.com (800) 214-0066
Red River Bank www.airloan.com (800) 472-1754
U.S. Aviation Finance www.usaviationfinance.com (888) 654-8723

Insurance
Insurance is easy to get, and it’s an important part of buying and financing your Cessna. Lenders will require full coverage on your airplane with the bank named on the policy as loss-payee and breach-of-warranty. Here are the main points that an insurance company will consider to determine your insurance rates:

IFR ticket: It’s helpful on six-seaters, turbocharged airplanes and retractables. It will save you enough in insurance premiums to practically pay for the rating.

Hangar vs. tiedown: Hangaring will save you about 5% on the hull rate with most underwriters.

Total time and time in type: For retractables and tailwheel models, this is important in determining your insurance rate. For example, the insurance fee for a $50,000 Cessna 210 is about $3,000 yearly with a low-time, VFR pilot. A $150,000 1980 T-210N costs about $3,500 per year with an IFR-rated pilot who has 500 total hours (10 in the type and 30 in retractables). The T-210N, which costs three times the hull value of the other model, costs almost the same price to insure as the $50,000 Cessna 210 with a low-time pilot. An instrument rating and hours-in-type will bring your rates down considerably. What’s better than flying and saving money?

Resources:
Avemco www.avemco.com (888) 241-7891
Aviation Insurance Resources www.air-pros.com (877) 247-7767
Wenk Insurance www.wenkinsurance.com (847) 433-8370