The General360-modified Cessna 210 "Centurion" is a single-engine land (SEL) light utility/trainer aircraft. The version in this review is a six-place aircraft is of conventional construction, with an unswept, externally-braced wing of 58' span, larger than the conventional version, and features ailerons and plain flaps. The fuselage, 34.3' long, is of conventional monocoque structure ending in a cruciform tail in a low-mounted, unswept horizontal stabilizer with two interconnected elevators. The vertical stabilizer is swept approximately 45 degrees and includes a conventional rudder. The landing gear is in a tricycle configuration, with the nose gear retracting forward and the main gears folding and retracting into the fuselage. The engine, significantly upgraded from the stock version, is a 1000 hp Blade T1000 driving an 85 in diameter three-bladed constant speed prop.

Takeoff runs, with or without flaps, are best flown with neutral trim and are typically short, between 400 and 500 feet required to reach rotation (Vr) at 100 mph, with liftoff immediately thereafter. The aircraft, without any further trim input, climbs out at approximately 30 degrees nose high, while maintaining a best angle and rate of climb (Vx/y) airspeed of 100 mph. In fact, leveling off requires nose down (VTOL slider up) added incrementally as airspeed increases beyond 100 mph.

Clean up is complex, with a test crew lost when they disregarded the manufacturer's claim to not attempt to activate all retraction mechanisms at the same time. The retraction of the flaps and gear requires a dual activation of first a selector button, followed by the actuation of a lever upwards, four independent actuations are required to retract the flaps (if used, see further information below), nose and main gears...the main gear are especially complex requiring the activation of two independent systems one at a time. The whole process requires considerable attention by the pilot to avoid losing control or structural failure. The system might be improved in two ways: First, reverse the direction of flap retraction so that flaps extend by actuating the flap extension lever down (vs. up). This would be more in line with standard control actuation in the vast majority of other aircraft and less confusing for pilots operating the system. Second, link the nose gear and first main gear actuators together, so that one system retracts both of these parts in the process, decreasing the required actuations from four steps to three. In the opinion of this pilot, the objective of training student pilots would still be met without increasing the concurrent risk beyond an acceptable level. However, the system works as designed and would be greatly improved with only a few minor adjustments.

Following cleanup, the aircraft was flown to 5,000' for the stall and spin test series. Climb rate was as expected for a light SEL. Both flaps down configured and flaps up clean stalls, flown at idle power, exhibited the exact same stall characteristics. The nose was raised to approximately 15 degrees above the horizon using full nose up (VTOL slider down) trim and back yoke pressure and the power reduced to idle. The aircraft would experience a moderate break and pitch down at 60 mph (Vs/so), regardless of configuration, which surprised the test pilot. The aircraft tended to "fall off" and yaw and drop a wing to the left or right, but was easily controlled with either aileron or flaps. However, if back yoke pressure was not released during the recovery, the yaw and wing drop was significantly more pronounced, making the application of proper stall recoveries, especially at low altitudes, paramount.

The spin evaluation was also flown from 5,000'. The entries were affected by holding full back yoke and full rudder (either direction) through a normal stall entry. The aircraft exhibited excellent spin characteristics, being very resistant (in fact never entering into a spin) to rotation which accompanies every other spin ever flown by the test pilot. As the aircraft stalls, the nose drops and the aircraft enters a spiral descent, which is easily recovered through normal application of controls.

Following the stall and spin evaluation, the aircraft was flown to evaluate maximum airspeed and altitude performance. The aircraft reached approximately 160 mph at 10,000' and 28,000' after a prolonged climb. Most efficient performance altitudes tended to be between 5,000' and 10,000'.

Two patterns and landings were flown, the first clean and the second configured with full flaps. Surprisingly, absolutely no difference was observed in the two configurations. Approaches are best flown at 90 mph and approximately 10% power. Caution must be taken as allowing the airspeed to decay below approximately 80 mph can rapidly lead the aircraft into the region of reverse command, without enough power or altitude to recover from a stall. Landings, though, were straightforward, provided the pilot flares in the touchdown phase to prevent a hard touchdown or the nosewheel to hit first and resultant porpoising on the runway. Landing rolls were surprisingly short, taking less than 200' to come to a complete stop.

Overall, a few minor adjustments would only improve this aircraft as a trainer: Reversing the flap controls as well as combining the nose retraction and the first step of main gear retraction. Stall awareness, as with most aircraft, should be of paramount concern, but the aircraft exhibits no vicious spin characteristics whatsoever. The biggest surprise, though, was the apparent lack of difference between clean and configured (flaps down) performance. The exact same stall speeds, handling characteristics and takeoff/landing distances were observed regardless of flap position. This has caused the entire ChiChiWerx aerodynamic engineering team back to the drawing board to re-examine years of research!

@General360 enjoy, @Himynameiswalrus you're next