Plane down in Burleson, TX KFWS

I've got 1200 hours in 210s in probably two dozen different tail numbers.

None had an engine driven hydro pump. They all had electric pumps with a hand pump for emergency extension.

I think that's either a 172 or 182 RG. The 2 blade prop and wing struts is a give away.


Sent from my iPhone
 
I've got 1200 hours in 210s in probably two dozen different tail numbers.

None had an engine driven hydro pump. They all had electric pumps with a hand pump for emergency extension.

I think that's either a 172 or 182 RG. The 2 blade prop and wing struts is a give away.


Sent from my iPhone
The early 210s ( Pre-G model IMS) had struts and 2 blade props. I don't know what year they moved away from the engine driven hydraulics, but tiredcfi flew one with struts and engine driven hydraulics. Looking at it again I'm almost certain it is an early model 210 as it has that bulge in the nose gear doors. Both the 172 and 182 nose gear doors are a smooth contour with the rest of the cowling. If you look at early strut winged 210s, they are just retractable 206s. The early 206 has that same bulge in the cowl but obviously no retracting wheel that hides in there.
 
The early 210s ( Pre-G model IMS) had struts and 2 blade props. I don't know what year they moved away from the engine driven hydraulics, but tiredcfi flew one with struts and engine driven hydraulics. Looking at it again I'm almost certain it is an early model 210 as it has that bulge in the nose gear doors. Both the 172 and 182 nose gear doors are a smooth contour with the rest of the cowling. If you look at early strut winged 210s, they are just retractable 206s. The early 206 has that same bulge in the cowl but obviously no retracting wheel that hides in there.

The OLD ones have engine driven hydraulics and a hand pump.
 
Even if they had an electric pump, lowering the landing gear can make the difference between making your runway and landing short. There are plenty of reasons you might not lower a landing gear during an engine failure.
 
I've got 1200 hours in 210s in probably two dozen different tail numbers. None had an engine driven hydro pump. They all had electric pumps with a hand pump for emergency extension. I think that's either a 172 or 182 RG. The 2 blade prop and wing struts is a give away.

Clearly none of them were older 210s. :> I have a whopping 12 hours of 210 time, but it's in a 210D with both wing struts and an engine-driven hydraulic pump. Looks just like that one, actually.

~Fox
 
Looking at it again I'm almost certain it is an early model 210 as it has that bulge in the nose gear doors.

That's what gave it away to me, too. That, and it just looks like the 210D I just got done flying a couple weeks ago, so I have an unfair advantage.

~Fox
 
Clearly none of them were older 210s. :> I have a whopping 12 hours of 210 time, but it's in a 210D with both wing struts and an engine-driven hydraulic pump. Looks just like that one, actually.

~Fox
yeah L, M, and N models mainly


Sent from my iPhone
 
Did he show you the gear knuckle? It is quite an amazing story.

Yep, he sure did. Right after he did my Com SEL ride, he said.. "Hey wait here! I got something to show you!!!", and then he ran out to his car to find it and tell me the story, LOL.
 
Even if they had an electric pump, lowering the landing gear can make the difference between making your runway and landing short. There are plenty of reasons you might not lower a landing gear during an engine failure.

Considering his runway was an interstate service road, he had nearly unlimited runway. Either way, he made the decision not to put the gear down, for whatever reason.
 
Someone falling out of an airplane I'm flying, by my direction would be one of those things that would make one go mad. May as well just admit me on landing.


"Oooooooohhhhhhh..... So THAT'S what happened to him....Gotcha."
 
Back
Top