185 vs 206

[Cardiff Kook]

This thread doesn’t exist on the site according to my search. Now it does.

The 206 came up on my “family plane” thread. I didn’t know much about them. Through a bit of research seems wider cabin, bigger doors, bigger flaps, etc.

When not flying my cub, I have a current next plane love affair with the 185. I have a bit of 180/185 time. No 206 time.

I do have what is probably an irrational affinity for tailwheels- but feel free to talk me out of it. That could just be a blondes vs brunettes thing- you like what you like.

Educate me and the next pilot who has this question.

[Bill Rusk]

The 206 is an Alaskan workhorse. As long as there is a "reasonable" runway it does fine. Obviously the tailwheel is better for unimproved surfaces. The 206 has a large door and a useful load of around 1700 pounds which is well above most 185's. Like the 180/185 it is also used on floats; however, the 180/185 is going to offer much better ski utility. It really depends on your mission and need for the seating capacity and or useful load.

Bill

[skywagon8a]

A 206 flies like a truck when compared to a 185.
A 206 has more elbow room than a 185.
A 206 has bigger flaps than a 185.
A loaded 206 seaplane is a dog when compared to a loaded 185 seaplane.
An unmodified 206 seaplane has difficulty docking with the dock on the right side when a 185 doesn't care.

Just a few points for starters.

[bob turner]

A light 180 would be way more fun. If all you want to do is drive an airborne truck without power steering from A to B, Southwest is lots cheaper and probably more fun than a 206.

[frequent_flyer]

I think it would be helpful to current and future readers if comments on the "206" specified whether the comments relate to P206, U206, or both configurations.

[skywagon8a]

I think it would be helpful to current and future readers if comments on the "206" specified whether the comments relate to P206, U206, or both configurations.

Perhaps you can tell us what percentage of the 206 production was the P206? I don't know, but I believe it would be a small number and only during early in the production run. Isn't a P206 similar to a 205 in configuration? Two front doors?

[Cardiff Kook]

I think MTV in a post elsewhere said he thought a 185 was superior until the first time he actually flew a 206. Would be curious to get more info on that.

The vast majority of 206’s for sale seem to be turbos. Web said thats a mechanical pit unless you “need it.” When would one want/need a turbo?

[frequent_flyer]

Perhaps you can tell us what percentage of the 206 production was the P206? I don't know, but I believe it would be a small number and only during early in the production run. Isn't a P206 similar to a 205 in configuration? Two front doors?

Yes, P206 had two front doors and did not have the huge right side cargo door. I had no idea how many of each were produced but according to Wikepedia P206 production was small compared to U206.

"647 P206s were produced under the name “Super Skylane” which made it sound like a version of the Cessna 182, which it was not. Sub-variants were designated P206 to P206E."

<sup>"Production of all versions of the U206 was halted in 1986 when Cessna stopped manufacturing all piston-engined aircraft. A total of 5,208 U206s had been produced."

I have only flown the P206.</sup>

Have not checked how many P206 are still registered in USA but anyone looking for a 206 would probably need to know which version they wanted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_206

[MainlandCub]

The 206 has wider span flaps, frise ailerons, a bigger tailplane, large doors in the U version, and is a true six seater, though the rear seats are a little small compared to the Cherokee Six. I think all those things are improvements. I don't have stacks of time in the big Cessnas, so don't consider my hands-on experience worthy of posting here, but I have spoken with guys who have and they generally consider the 206 the better aeroplane. Some of the previous posts say when it isn't. My pick of the three would the 180 anyway......

[DENNY]

I got a buddy that is a huge tailwheel fan. 172 with 180 hp and tailwheel conversion, PA18 with slotted wings. Flys all over Alaska year round Brooks Range, Down South East, out West you name it. Has 3 kids and needed a heavy hauler to get to fish camp out by Dillingham and other places so broke down and got the 206 (minivan family plane) tried to keep it quiet that was that he was driving a nose wheel aircraft. After 20 hours it became one of his favorite planes!! Fast, no more 3-4 trips to get gear/people to camp, better in big winds. Most every 1,000 ft strip in Alaska has had a 206 deliver hunters so the cub guys can bring them the other 10 miles to the short stuff. If I needed a Minivan in the ski I would get a 206 with Robinson STOL kit. With a good pilot they are GREAT PLANES!! A 185 is a great plane and a lot of fun but more of a 4 door sedan than a Minivan. Wants, Needs, Priority.
DENNY

[stewartb]

I wouldn’t buy a U206 unless it had the right side door mod and the cargo door release mod. It gives me the creeps sitting in the right seat with no way out.

[BC12D-4-85]

MTV will elaborate but at least one of his 206's was not factory stock. Many upgrades. Hopefully he'll offer a perspective.

Gary

[frequent_flyer]

I wouldn’t buy a U206 unless it had the right side door mod and the cargo door release mod. It gives me the creeps sitting in the right seat with no way out.

Is it any more of a concern than flying left seat in a PA-28? Anyone who flys in that right seat with me is briefed on door operation and the need to leave when told. I must admit I have often thought of modifying the small right side cargo door so it can be opened from inside. I seldom have the back seats in the aircraft.

[stewartb]

I wouldn’t buy one of those, either.

[mvivion]

I flew 185s on floats, amphibious floats, wheels and skis (straight and retractable) for a number of years in Alaska. I loved those airplanes, and still do. These were all "working airplanes" meaning a variety of tasks, including hauling full loads of people and gear, radio telemetry flights which typically had just two up and lots of gas, etc, etc.

Then the crew took a vote (I had a boss who believed in "equity", whatever that is) and they chose a 206 to replace the 185s we had been using. Once that decision was made, I insisted that since we were acquiring a 206, and that plane was going on floats, it HAD to have an IO-550 engine. Wipaire rebuilt a U-206F for us, equipping it with an IO-550, a co-pilot door, and Wip 4000 straight floats.

We operated from the Fairbanks International Float Pond, which is a narrow ditch, a bit over 5400 feet long, and lined along the bank with seaplanes, parked. So, very easy to judge takeoff distances. Having operated a couple different 185s on both PeeKay and EDO floats out of that pond for a number of years, I had a really good idea where one of those planes would launch from that pond. This was not based on distances, but rather by "Launched right next to "so and so's" Cub, etc. Easy to compare distances.

At first, I really disliked that 206. As Pete mentioned, controls are heavy ("truck-like" to some), and those big floats kind of had me buffaloed for a bit. Then, one day, I figured out the magic to launching those big Wip 4000s, and, with a bit more practice, I was regularly launching within 100 feet or so of where the 185s came un-assed at gross weight.

But, here's the thing: Those 185s all went out at 3350 max all up weight. That IO-550 206 on Wip 4000s left at 3800 pounds all up! So, 450 pounds heavier, and launching within about 100 feet of where the 185 did? I'll take that every day!

Heavy controls: Yes, if you're driving around looking at stuff on the ground, while low level, heavier controls are kind of a pain. That said, I did a lot of radio telemetry locations with that 206. Makes for stronger left arm.

BUT, this is a "going somewhere airplane", not a "poking around in the weeds plane", and enroute, set it, trim it and forget it, even without an autopilot. The 206 was meant to go somewhere. We were prohibited from single engine IFR by policy. That plane was a magnificent IFR platform, however. Don't ask how I found that out.

On wheels, the 206 is a TRUCK! I was regularly moving things like 16 foot inflatble boats with outboard motors....and of course, these folks quickly discovered 4 stroke outboards. Try yarding one of those pigs out of the back of a 185 sometime...... When parked, the 206 floor is mostly level, the 185 floor has a serious slope to it. I hope I never again have to haul heavy stuff out of the back of a 185.

206, as someone noted, is a true six seat plane. The far back seats aren't real comfy, but the forward four are, and the two back seats are fine for smaller adults or kids.

Stewart argues for the co-pilot door. It's available as a mod from Wipaire. And expensive. If I owned a 206, I'd spend that money on gas. Look, almost every low wing Piper, every Beech Bonanza, and many, many other types of aircraft only have one pilot side main entry door. I'm okay with that. On floats, it is REALLY nice to have at least one additional egress door up front, though. But, at what price?

Stewart also noted the safety mod to the cargo door. I've never used one, so don't have experience with it. Now required in Canada, I believe, at least on floats. Not a bad idea, BUT, if you're flying a 206, you REALLY need to take your responsibility as PIC to heart and perform a SERIOUS passenger safety briefing, with emphasis on how that cargo door functions. On floats, I simply never really considered it a viable egress route in the water, but that's me. Problem is, flaps down blocks the front half of the door from fulling opening, which means the latch prevents the aft half from opening.....without some machinations.

BUt, to me, that's all trainable information, especially if you're flying the same folks all the time.

Skis: A fellow named Joe Matty operated a U-206 for many years out of Fairbanks, on Fli-Lite hydraulic retractable skis. Joe was both a trapper and a fur buyer. I've seen that plane parked in places I'd have to give serious thought to landing in a 185......out in the bush at trapper's cabins. I've only flown a 206 on Fluidyne retractable wheel skis personally. Those skis' performance sucks in deep snow on ANY airplane, in my experience. Fortunately, I didn't fly that plane much. But, on the RIGHT skis....the 206 does really well. Consider that in deep snow, FLOATATION is your friend. And, the 206 has THREE great big skis, compared to the 185s two big skis and one itty bitty one......think about that.

Wheels: The 206 is just plain a magnificent load hauler, and it's fast. Lots of cabin space, great useful load, good speed, and pretty much as bullet proof as any Cessna.

TU-206 vs U-206: Can't help much there. The key there is if you REALLY NEED to operate heavy at high density altitudes. That's where a turbo-anything shines. I've never worked TU-206, but I think if not on floats, engine reliability can be good, AS LONG AS the pilot learns to operate that engine.

But, then the pilot SHOULD learn to operate ANY engine they're flying.....just saying.

The bigger difference, in my opinion, is the difference between the "legacy 206s", and the "post shutdown of production" 206s. What I'm calling the "legacy" planes are the 206s up through the U-206G models. The "post shutdown" airplanes are all U-206H models. The most notable difference is that the early 206s all had big Continental engines: The P-206 used an I)-520 rated at 285, the rest of the legacy planes all came with Continental IO-520s, rated at 300 hp, except for the TU-206s, which had TSIO-520s, rated (if I recall) at 310 hp.

On the other hand, ALL the -206H airplanes came with big Lycoming engines. The U-206H with IO 540s rated at 300 and TU-206 with TIO-540 engines....not sure rated hp.....but 300ish.

So, if you really like Lycoming engines, the H models may be the hot ticket. I'm pretty sure that a much higher percentage of H model production has been TU equipped than was true of the earlier 206s.

The other characteristic of the U and TU-206 is that they are HEAVY. Lycoming engines are heavy, and Cessna seemed determined to pimp these planes out to attract lawyers and doctors, as opposed to bush operators. Leather interiors, etc. Ultimately, this resulted in Cessna increasing the Gross weight, to try to recover some of the lost useful load.

I really, really like 206s. If I were going to work an airplane of about that size out in the pucker brush again, on floats, wheels or skis, I'd go for the 206 EVERY time. No hesitation or qualifier.

MTV

[stewartb]

Kardiff is looking for a family plane. My 180 is my family plane. When my daughter was young she always sat in the right front. Wife in right second row. With the kid’s seat moved forward my wife had easy reach to the door latch and a wide path to get out, where she could release the daughter’s seat belt and get her out. As a dad? Providing my wife and kid a simple egress plan that didn’t rely on me was my responsibility. No regrets.

[Colorguns]

I picked up a C182J series with IO470 long range bladders and Sportsman stol wing. Very impressed with the performance and makes a great travel bird for me.
I have 20 hours in it already and wide fork and bigger tires coming in to give it more flotation of the tires. It should go anywhere I should go with a normal bush plane.
Fast, solid, IFR, warm, quiet, lots of useful load. Wife will enjoy it more than looking at the back of my head too.

Doug

[gbflyer]

Family pickup truck for a couple years. It’ll haul a lot of stuff. 135kts across the ground at 23/24 on those tires. This is at sea level to 3000’. Burns less fuel per mile than a CE180, much less than a supercub. Maintenance is high, not as high as a CE185 though. They will go into and leave places that are really unbelievable. Easy to fly, sleep through the landing and takeoff unlike the TW Cessna. They have gotten super expensive, most have been hammered hard.

[aktango58]

Wow, lots of opinions and ideas.

Comparing the 185 to the 206 is like comparing cubs to 185s. yes there is overlap, but the 206 is a much bigger plane.

As such, you must fly it like a big plane. You can not slow the thing down a mile out and drag it in like we do with the 185- get it much below 80 on approach with any load and you are going to be busy. My point is that both will go into some small places, the 185 will fit in smaller, but you need to decide if you want to travel with the plane, and if so how much stuff are you taking?

It is pretty easy to stuff four people and all their gear in a 206, shove a number of hours of fuel and not be over weight, especially on wheels. They are fast enough that you can go a long ways in a short period of time, without cutting your baggage in half.

How big is the family? How far you going? If you want a fixed gear plane the 206 and Cherokee 6 are both six seat and some gear birds. Four adults and full fuel, and gear is still good to go.

Purchase price, insurance and personal comfort then comes into play. If I were looking at long distance travel, I would be looking at a strait tail Bonanza or maybe a Piper Comanche if I could find one. The Bonanza is a very comfortable platform, and for Long distance I actually prefer the low wing.

[stewartb]

Hmm. Don’t ask what a guy’s flown. Ask what he bought with his own money. Big difference.

[skywagon8a]

Long ago when I was instructing for a living there was a fellow who had a Tri-Pacer and flew it a lot with his nonpilot wife as a passenger. One day he needed to be dropped off at Logan airport about 20 miles away. So he hired me with a Cherokee 6 to take him there. His wife went along for the ride. When he got out, I had his wife get in the left seat. She had never piloted a plane. She, following my instructions, taxied out, took off flew back to Norwood, landed and went home. A week or so later the man came to me thanking me profusely for his wife's lesson. Apparently she became a very enthusiastic flyer because of that short trip. The point being, the Cherokee 6 is very easy to fly.

Also for off airport use.it has a 6:00-6 nose tire without any modifications. The 206 has a 5:00-5 nose wheel.

[Steve Pierce]

Hmm. Don’t ask what a guy’s flown. Ask what he bought with his own money. Big difference.

Sorry stewart but I had to laugh. I know a lot of folks who have some very nice, expensive airplanes and can't and/or don't fly them. If that was aimed at Mike I don't think you can discount his experience even if he wasn't footing the bill. Kinda like listening to the military pilots I fly with, Uncle Sam was paying but they still sacrificed and experienced what they experienced. I just enjoy learning from it.

This has been an interesting discussion that I took the time to read this morning because I told myself I wasn't going to the shop today. I own a Super Cub and a C182 but as with anything I buy the 182 was a flying project until I took it apart and then started building a hangar. Hope that is done shortly and I can get the panel back in the 182 and start using it. Since I have owned the 182 I have met others who own or who have owned one. I have spoken with several people that owned a 182 and stepped up to the 206. More of them said they wish they still had their 182, they used it more. I know that doesn't fit everyone but just a perspective I have heard more than once.

[thaefeli]

I spent 10 years flying loaded 207/208 and DHC-6's. My 206 fly's like a sports car compared to that lot, and it has the Flint tip tanks. The 185's I have flown felt heavy compared to the '56 180 I owned. It's all relative.
My '73 TU206F has 6.00x6 nose tire on larger fork, 8.00 mains, Robertson STOL, Sportsman cuff, 86" McCaulley prop.
It is very comfortable at 50KIAS approach, has a 3800 gross, empty 2100.
I have had my family of 5 and camping gear at OSH, Outer Banks NC, Mexican Mtn, Dirty Devil, Hidden Splendor (and most other UT BC strips) and even a 1400' (5700 msl) abandoned ranch strip west of Casper WY for the Great Eclipse. (that was friggin awesome! The Ranch owner said she had not seen an airplane there since her Grandfather quit flying in the 50's. She was so happy!)
My longest leg, so far, was here at home to Brainerd, MN to put a deposit on my Javron 4S. 5 hour 45 minutes. It carries 7 hours of fuel. 135KTAS on 15.5 gph.
It is, by far, not your normal 206. It has taken many years and $$ to get where it is. Well worth it, the most capable airplane I have owned/flown.
Separate issue is why I am building the 4S. I am really scared of the pending A&P/ IA situation. The guy that let me do owner assist annuals just turned 92 and no longer capable. The next guy is 76 and just spent 7 weeks at home with health issues. There will soon be one guy left. He is awesome, but a one man shop in very high demand.
Oh yeah, the rear door: Even though the family is very familiar with all doors and operation, they still get the briefing and hands on with the rear door before every flight. By hands on: I have them open the front half, I stop it where it will stop with flaps down and then have them open the rear door. Every flight. That is my only bitch about the 206 and it does bother me.

Tom

[scout88305]

The F.E. Potts book (Guide to bush Flying) has become like unobtanium, so I'll share a few pages.

[aktango58]

Hmm. Don’t ask what a guy’s flown. Ask what he bought with his own money. Big difference.

A bit off-color for you I would think.

Working pilots often fly great planes they can not afford. Some guys buy Champs and T-crates because that is in their budget, or their mission. Private guys often buy what they can afford, or their particular mission, and change as their lives change. How many working corporate pilots own Gulfstreams to take the family on trips?

Not everyone has unlimited budgets to buy $300,000 planes then add another $150,000 in modifications, so we do with what we can afford that can adapt to our desires. Doesn't mean our choice with all factors is the only or best plane, just might be what we have available at the cost.

[stewartb]

Sounds like we agree. I didn’t advocate a 206 with a 550. I think he needs a 180.

[mvivion]

Hmm. Don’t ask what a guy’s flown. Ask what he bought with his own money. Big difference.

I love it!

Merry Christmas, Stewart!

MTV

[aktango58]

Sounds like we agree. I didn’t advocate a 206 with a 550. I think he needs a 180.

Absolutely fabulous plane for sure!! Even with the 470s, they rock!

[sub3]

I'm in love with my 185. I've thought a bit about a 206 but after owning a P210, I'd skip that size, opt for a real cabin and upsize to a turbo beaver, caravan, or kodiak.

[dgapilot]

I had a Howard DGA-15. Could carry as much as a 206 (but only 5 seats), go just as fast, burned a little more fuel, could get in and out of 1400’ strips. All in all a great airplane, fun to fly but not easy on the ground. Best thing, when you arrived, you arrived in style! Wish I still had it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mvivion]

I had a Howard DGA-15. Could carry as much as a 206 (but only 5 seats), go just as fast, burned a little more fuel, could get in and out of 1400’ strips. All in all a great airplane, fun to fly but not easy on the ground. Best thing, when you arrived, you arrived in style! Wish I still had it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ummmm, “a little more fuel”??

Been into the holiday spirit (s) a wee bit?

MTV

[Gordon Misch]

The only Howard I've observed is WAY COOL.

[narrow deck]

The 185 works well for me. I like the lighter feel over the 206. Most trips just the Wife and a week or so worth of gear. The Cub is great for the roughhousing. Got my fill of Part 135 (heavy) float 206 ops. in the 80’s. Great airplane, just not for me personally…My 2 cent.

[BC12D-4-85]

The only Howard I've seen went promptly off the side of now extinct Phillips Field and expired. Dave Koslowski (SP?) an engine rebuilder at local Bachner's Aircraft, rebuilt the plane over years then flew it to failure it in seconds. Bad deal there, but it convinced me never to fly in one without someone with experience in type at the controls.

Gary

[behindpropellers]

This thread doesn’t exist on the site according to my search. Now it does.

The 206 came up on my “family plane” thread. I didn’t know much about them. Through a bit of research seems wider cabin, bigger doors, bigger flaps, etc.

When not flying my cub, I have a current next plane love affair with the 185. I have a bit of 180/185 time. No 206 time.

I do have what is probably an irrational affinity for tailwheels- but feel free to talk me out of it. That could just be a blondes vs brunettes thing- you like what you like.

Educate me and the next pilot who has this question.

Put a bid on this hail damaged 206 while thinking about buying a 185. People say they drive like a truck. Yep, that is ok because I typically go in a straight line. Has worked exceptionally well for our family hauler.

[skywagon8a]

I had a Howard DGA-15. Could carry as much as a 206 (but only 5 seats), go just as fast, burned a little more fuel, could get in and out of 1400’ strips. All in all a great airplane, fun to fly but not easy on the ground. Best thing, when you arrived, you arrived in style! Wish I still had it.

[dgapilot]

Ummmm, “a little more fuel”??

Been into the holiday spirit (s) a wee bit?

MTV

I used to be able to get mine to about 17.5 gph. That would give me 130mph indicated, 150 true at 10,000’. 1850 RPM and about 23” if I remember correctly. If I wanted to go fast, fuel flow would go up to about 24 to 28 gph. Mine had the automatic mixture control. As long as I was below 2000 rpm you could run auto lean and it was pretty fuel efficient for an R985!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dgapilot]

The only Howard I've seen went promptly off the side of now extinct Phillips Field and expired. Dave Koslowski (SP?) an engine rebuilder at local Bachner's Aircraft, rebuilt the plane over years then flew it to failure it in seconds. Bad deal there, but it convinced me never to fly in one without someone with experience in type at the controls.

Gary

The Howard is an airplane you don’t want to be complacent with. As long as you keep it pointed in the right direction it isn’t bad. They certainly like grass much better than pavement. I flew mine right around 600 hours without issue. Hadn’t flown one prior to picking it up and on the way home my first landing was in a 28 kt crosswind. My knees were shaking for about a 1/2 hour after that I think!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mvivion]

While my previous messages may have suggested that I don’t care for Cessna 185s, that would be an incorrect assumption. A significant portion of my flying time has been in 185s, on wheels, floats and skis, and I loved every one of those airplanes dearly. I had the privilege of being handed the keys to a brand new 1985 model, with 22 hours on the clock. Ten years later (to the day), I parked that airplane on a mountainside after the crankshaft broke. The plane was sold for salvage, and, much to my delight, the fellow who bought it sent me an email with a photo of it, looking just like it did the day I first flew it…two years later.

So, they are wonderful and capable airplanes. They keep you on your toes, particularly in a gusty crosswind…..the airplane can handle incredibly gnarly conditions, assuming the pilot is up to the task. But, it’s not an airplane I’d want to fly “occasionally”, particularly if I was a relatively inexperienced pilot. That’s where I was when I flew a 185 for the first time in Kodiak. Plenty of Cub time on the rock, but that 185 taught me a lot.

So, I was comfortable working 185s, or at least as comfortable as you should get in one, when I transitioned into the 206, which is an equally great, but quite different airplane.

Earlier, I noted that the 206 I flew the most was equipped with an IO-550 engine, and that is the engine every 206 wishes it had. And, BTW, that’s a magnificent engine upgrade in the 185 as well.

But, I’ve flown bone stock 206s as well, and they are just as good on wheels as the 550 airplane. On floats, not so much, as Pete alluded to. One of the best things that has happened with ALL these airplanes, however, was the development of much better propellers for them. I knew a gent with a stock 206 on floats who was ready to sell the plane because of its poor performance. He was talked into installing one of the new generation three bladed props. That prop changed the entire performance envelope of that plane.

So, the 185 is a great airplane. So is the 180…..I owned one at one time, a 66 H model. But, considering the OP’s profile, in my opinion, the 206 or a 182 would be a better choice for a traveling airplane.

But, I’ve never owned either, therefore what do I know…..

Merry Christmas to all!

MTV

[RaisedByWolves]

Only Howard I saw upclose had a stretcher door if I remember correctly. It was pretty cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk