206 Upgrades

[Jeremiah Jennings]

Hey, New to this forum....question. Can you put a tail wheel on a 206? I haven't been able to find hide nor hare of this set up. Asking for a friend.


Thanks

J

 

[Bell206]

Can you put a tail wheel on a 206?

Why? What would you hope to gain?

 

[Racerx]

Don't believe there's an stc. Would take a ton of work. Sell the 206, buy a 185. Swept tail Cessna's shouldn't have a conventional set up.

 

[Jeremiah Jennings]

Why? What would you hope to gain?

I am not sure if Ive ever seen a 206 with tail wheel and 31's

 

[Bell206]

I am not sure if Ive ever seen a 206 with tail wheel and 31's

I seem to recall there was one 206 converted under a One-Time STC but had issues. Plus lost useful load which is the main proponent of owning a 206. Nothing stopping you from trying another if you want.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

I seem to recall there was one 206 converted under a One-Time STC but had issues. Plus lost useful load which is the main proponent of owning a 206. Nothing stopping you from trying another if you want.

I think that was a 210.

 

[eman1200]

I thought you were going to make 206 upgrades, which is a lot.

 

[Pilawt]

I think that was a 210.
View attachment 103136

It was a 210B, with the 185-style wing and smaller horizontal tail. FAA website says its registration (N285BH) was canceled 10/30/2021.

 

[Jeremiah Jennings]

Don't believe there's an stc. Would take a ton of work. Sell the 206, buy a 185. Swept tail Cessna's shouldn't have a conventional set up.[/QUOTE

I seem to recall there was one 206 converted under a One-Time STC but had issues. Plus lost useful load which is the main proponent of owning a 206. Nothing stopping you from trying another if you want.

Years ago we had a friend who flew the turbo 206 on floats. Now compared to the 185 and 172 and the cub, the 206 could haul. I dont remember numbers but I do recall everyone being very impressed. It would seem to me floats would be more of a hindrance than tail wheel when it comes to useful load.

 

[Bell206]

It would seem to me floats would be more of a hindrance than tail wheel when it comes to useful load.

If I recall correctly it was the ground/landing loads that reduced the aft loading specs. On floats all those loads are still transmitted in the same manner as regular gear. However, I still think there was a 206 modified as the 210 above but regardless its all basically the same airframe.

 

[Jeremiah Jennings]

If I recall correctly it was the ground/landing loads that reduced the aft loading specs. On floats all those loads are still transmitted in the same manner as regular gear. However, I still think there was a 206 modified as the 210 above but regardless its all basically the same airframe.

Looking at float manufacturers I've come across PK and EDO amphib. They are both mounted on 185f but completely different design. PK seems alot more useful. Is there much weight difference?

 

[Bell206]

Looking at float manufacturers I've come across PK and EDO amphib.

For new floats PK and Wipaire are the most common. EDO sold out to Kenmore Air but I don't believe they manufacture new.

Is there much weight difference?

Yes but depends on configuration like amphibs, straight floats, etc.

 

[SkyDog58]

I seem to recall there was one 206 converted under a One-Time STC but had issues. Plus lost useful load which is the main proponent of owning a 206. Nothing stopping you from trying another if you want.

It was a 210B, with the 185-style wing and smaller horizontal tail. FAA website says its registration (N285BH) was canceled 10/30/2021.

I don't know anything about a 206 taildragger but I don't think that 210 ever had a STC, one-time or otherwise. I also believe it never flew without an Experimental-R&D certificate. I think the developer gave up on it several years ago when it became evident that a STC would likely not be forthcoming. The cost to convert it back to a trike was probably not worth it which probably explains why it was eventually deregistered.

 

[Bell206]

I don't know anything about a 206 taildragger but I don't think that 210 ever had a STC, one-time or otherwise. I also believe it never flew without an Experimental-R&D certificate.

You nailed it. Made a call and it was a 210B and operated E/R&D. There was One-Time paperwork started but not completed. Last rumor was it had ground looped a few years ago. The owner called it a 285: Cessna 200 series with 185 gear.

 

[SkyDog58]

Ah, didn’t know about the ground loop. That might discourage anyone from moving forward depending on how bad the damage was.

 

[Stewartb]

206 and 185 share the same motor and props. Gross weight is a little higher with the 206 and empty it’s heavier so useful load is about the same. The monster tail on later model 206s make it a great float plane and no slouch on tires, either. As a tail dragger? No thanks. I’m not a fan of tail dragging Cessnas with fixed horizontals and trim tabs.

 

[kyleb]

I’m not a fan of tail dragging Cessnas with fixed horizontals and trim tabs.

Out of curiosity, why?

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Out of curiosity, why?

Because the two he owns have movable horizontals and no trim tabs .

 

[Stewartb]

Because adjusting the horizontal changes how my planes fly. A trim tab changes how the controls feel. Big difference, especially as CG varies.

 

[kyleb]

Because adjusting the horizontal changes how my planes fly. A trim tab changes how the controls feel. Big difference, especially as CG varies.

A trim tab also changes the neutral point of your control surfaces which is another way to change how the plane flies. It ain't just control feel.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

A trim tab also changes the neutral point of your control surfaces which is another way to change how the plane flies. It ain't just control feel.

Trim tabs change the chord line of the control surface wing, which in turn adds drag. Movable tails are more efficient than a tab.

 

[Stewartb]

A trim tab influences position of the elevator. A jackscrew moves the horizontal stabilizer. One works a lot better when the technique requires lifting the tail.

 

[Jesse Saint]

Trying to understand why you would want to make it a taildragger.

 

[Jeremiah Jennings]

Basically, I thought the 206 had more cargo space, more power, more refinement than say the 185...hence Making it a better bush plane. The 185 is tried and true....just wondering why I haven't seen the turbo 206 With 33' bush tires on it. The float set up was wonderful from my recollection. And cargo capacity was seemingly alot more.

 

[Jesse Saint]

In the missionary aviation world of bush flying, they have almost completely gotten away from the conventional gear airplanes. The 206 has been the standard piston plane for many years now.

 

[SkyDog58]

Basically, I thought the 206 had more cargo space, more power, more refinement than say the 185...hence Making it a better bush plane. The 185 is tried and true....just wondering why I haven't seen the turbo 206 With 33' bush tires on it. The float set up was wonderful from my recollection. And cargo capacity was seemingly alot more.

The extra cargo space and payload of the 206 or comparable plane is most useful with a flat deck rather than sloped several degrees just to accommodate a tailwheel. It makes loading much easier. Besides the type of “bush” flying one would do with a 206 isn’t typically the type that would make a tailwheel more desirable. You would not be plopping a 206 full of cargo down onto a rocky riverbed.

But yeah, I’d love one on amphibious floats.

 

[Pilawt]

In the missionary aviation world of bush flying, they have almost completely gotten away from the conventional gear airplanes. The 206 has been the standard piston plane for many years now.

MAF training at Mackay Bar, Idaho

 

[Stewartb]

The 206 nose gear attachment can take a beating. They’re very good bush planes.

 

[N1120A]

205/6/7s ply the African Bush constantly with their nose wheels. It is what they are best at, because they sure AF aren't fast for the installed power. I wouldn't change a thing on one of those airplanes if I was Bush flying.