Talk:Cessna 210

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

What I miss here is the fuel consumption, would be nice to know that too!

That's dependent on the engine, not the aircraft itself - a 210P is going to use a lot more than your basic non-turbo version. ericg 03:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Use in Papua New Guinea[edit]

A statement was in the article claiming that the 210 is common in PNG. I removed this statement because as of October 2007 there is not a single Cessna 210 registered in PNG. The PNG civil aircraft register can be viewed here. YSSYguy 02:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


I have restored the public domain C210L photo recently deleted as "redundant". This photo did serve a purpose, as it was the best shot emphasizing the strutless design of the later 210s from the front. The other photo of the same aircraft was to show the general outline and window arrangement in contrast with the P210N below it. These two photos were actually specifically shot to illustrate this article, as was the P210N photo. The 210L and P210N photos were intentionally shot from the same angle for the article to illustrate the differences between the models. Since the photos do not come down to the bottom of the text (even when user thumbnail preferences are set to 250 px) there doesn't seem to be a great need to remove photos from the article. If there were too many for the text length I would suggest putting them in a gallery, rather than deleting them. PD photos are useful for people doing research on the aircraft, especially school kids who can legally use them in their reports, etc. - Ahunt 11:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Styling changes[edit]

I would like to introduce the following info into the article: "Cessna introduced the 3rd window to the 210 in 1961 and in 1962 the Cessna 210B featured the "omni vision" cabin, incorporating 2 rear quarter windows separated by a rear window. The 210 lost a couple of knots cruise as a result of this styling change." Any thoughts? (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a list of variants - does that help. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


I would really love to see a more infbiased operator summary Danielle Bruckert (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

All we need are references! - Ahunt (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents[edit]

I just added a new accident to the list. This being my first edit in Wikipedia, I would like to have someone check if I did it right. Wingtipvortex (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your write up style and referencing is just fine, but the accident is not-notable as it does not meet the inclusion criteria set out at WP:AIRCRASH-TYPEARTICLE. basically there are hundreds of accidents like this every year and we just don't include them because they have no lasting effect beyond the individual aircraft and people involved. Let me know if you have any questions. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for pointing that out. And here I though I was being useful. Sorry about that! Wingtipvortex (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
No need for sorrow! Wikipedia is a very mature project these days and as a consequence lots of consensus guidelines are in place. If you are interested in the guidelines for what and how we put text into aircraft type articles have a look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. Please do join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, we need new points of view and new sets of eyes over there. There certainly is enough work for everyone! - Ahunt (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I see. Well, this may not be the most appropriate place to make this suggestion, but would it not be beneficial to every so often update the number of incidents a type of aircraft has been in by doing an NTSB search query? I have seen this done in some other aircraft articles, but it is not mentioned in WP:AIRCRASH-TYPEARTICLE. Wingtipvortex (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing preventing that, as long as it is referenced. The only two problems I can see are 1. that the results will be strictly US-centric and since the 210 is used extensively around the world won't really won't give a good picture of the safety record, and 2. it will get out of date and will need someone to update it periodically. - Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, both are good points. Getting someone to update the report periodically does not seem to me like a big task, updating it yearly would still give somewhat accurate information. Your first point is really something to consider. We would have to determine which is worse, if US-centric information, or no information at all. I know that Wikipedia tries to be as little US-centric as possible, but at the same time, listing the number of accidents in the US would give somewhat of a perspective of how safe the aircraft is. I won't make the call here, as I am the inexperienced user. If we determine that it is valuable information, then I would have no problem putting it in and updating it. We would have to wait anyway, as the NTSB database is currently being updated (new software) and doesn't want to yield any results. Wingtipvortex (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a barrier with updating as long as the information in the text is dated (eg: "As of January 2011..."). Once a year would probably be a good timeframe to come back for another look. As far as the US-centric problem goes, the text could indicate that the reports are USA-only. I am not entirely convinced that just a raw number would be useful, however. If it is going to say "Between January 1966 and January 2011 US-registered Cessna 210s were involved in X number of accidents", that alone isn't really useful information. To make sense of it you would need to break it down some way. For instance, I am sure a certain percentage would be gear-up landings, which happen in all retractables, have predominantly pilot cause factors and aren't really all that significant as they don't tell you much about the aircraft type other than the fact that the gear retracts and people forget to lower it sometimes. On the other hand if it said the aircraft had had X number of inflight structural failures that might be more significant, although only in comparison to some other type, like Beech Bonanzas or Cirrus SR22s, etc. The problem here is that to produce that kind of information is getting into WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR territory unless someone has already made those comparisons in a citable report. - Ahunt (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
With the point you bring up about all the original research that would have to be done, I see now that it would not be a very good idea and would spark one too many debates over this. And, as you said, since mentioning it does not really add a comprehensive safety overview of the aircraft, it does not seem worthwhile to deal with all of it. Wingtipvortex (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)