Newish C206, or old but highly refurbished?

[spiderweb]

Just for fun (since, unless something dramatic happens with my finances, this doesn't apply to me):

You have two choices:

1) Buy a newish C206. Let's say a G1000 turbo 206 from 2006 or 2007, with maybe 500 hours on the engine. Basically, she's clean inside and out, and has all the goodies you've come to expect in a G1000--traffic, terrain, collision avoidance, weather, etc. Perhaps something like this: http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Single+Engine+Piston/2006/Cessna/T206H/1439045.html. You'll pay nearly $400k.

2) Buy a late '70s C206. Again, you want the turbo. Maybe something like this: http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Single+Engine+Piston/1979/Cessna/TU206G/1375325.html. Since you apparently have the money to do this, you'll strip the paint, and make it look new outside, get a new Lycoming engine, completely refurbish the interior, and get a G600, so you have the same functionality. You'll start by paying $170,000, but all the other stuff you want will add a lot more to the price. Maybe if you want to add a hot prop and weeping wings this will all add up to about the same price as the newish Cessna.

Which would you pick, and why?

 

[Pilawt]

2) Buy a late '70s C206. Again, you want the turbo. [...] Since you apparently have the money to do this, you'll strip the paint, and make it look new outside, get a new Lycoming engine, completely refurbish the interior, and get a G600, so you have the same functionality.

Any 206 built before the 1998 restart will have the Continental IO/TSIO-520 engine. I don't think it's possible to swap it for a Lycoming IO/TIO-540 as on the 206H/T206H restart models.

 

[weilke]

Do you want to have a Continental engine (and change cylinders) or a Lycoming (and change camshafts)


I would buy an early 2000s steam-gauge with a runout engine, hang a new engine, put flint-tanks on it for the useful. Then I would sell the HSI and most of the Silver-Crown stack, put either a Garmin 500 or a dual-screen Aspen in it and spend the 200k saved on Avgas. I am sure the GFC700 is great, is it 200k worth of great ?

 

[Everskyward]

If it's my money I'd choose the older. Funny, I flew one just like that 1979 and it was state of the art at the time. All the other 206s I flew were late 1960s models.

Holy cow, close to $400,000 for a used 206. I remember one I flew which sold for $12,000, cash. You know what happened to it...

 

[Morne]

The wing flies the same regardless of how old the bird is or what gadgets are staring at the pilot.

Get an old bird with steam gauges and hang an iPad on the yoke. When the iPad goes out of style, upgrade for a lot less than replacing panel mounts.

 

[yakdriver]

What is the mission for the airplane? If it is for cross country flying get a 210. If it is for backcountry flying get the old one and a navcom, txp and a handheld GPS is plenty. The older 206s have a lot more usefull load than the new ones and aren't as noseheavy. If flown right there isn't a lot of problems with the Continental cylinders compared to Lycoming. I would get the older non turbo 206 and put the turbo-normalizer on it. I flew a 78 T206 a lot and it is a great load hauler. Don

 

[Alexb2000]

If you compare apples to apples you can have a restart for about the same money. There are also some things on a restart that are hard to find on an older model, for example:

Factory corrosion proofing standard

Much better wiring, dedicated grounds, etc.

300 HP with accessory load NA, or 310 Turbo vs. 285 without accessories

Better seats, seat belts, interior

Etc.

No deal breakers, however if you plan on doing a bunch of upgrades you're going to get more of your money back buying a newer bird and you'll spend less time in the shop upgrading it.

 

[Gubbins]

I pondered this same question, although also considered 210's and would probably have gone that route. I ended up getting the newish 206 with the G1000 and GFC700 simply because I'm a tech geek and wanted the glass panel but didn't have a lot of time or experience to deal with upgrading the avionics on an older plane.

 

[spiderweb]

Mission is hauling three persons and a couple of instruments and bags. C210 won't cut it because there isn't enough room without something sticking out in row 2.

Hypothetically, you have plenty of money, so that's no object. But you -have- to choose between the two birds!

Also I have a question: Why can't I buy a new turbo Lyc 310 hp for the older bird? If something needs to be modified, can't I just give you more money to do that?

 

[spiderweb]

I pondered this same question, although also considered 210's and would probably have gone that route. I ended up getting the newish 206 with the G1000 and GFC700 simply because I'm a tech geek and wanted the glass panel but didn't have a lot of time or experience to deal with upgrading the avionics on an older plane.

That's a very good point. It sucks to be on a learning curve when you simply want to be flying and completing your missions!

 

[Everskyward]

Hypothetically, you have plenty of money, so that's no object. But you -have- to choose between the two birds!

If money is no object I would go with brand spanking new!

But when is money no object.

 

[spiderweb]

If money is no object I would go with brand spanking new!

But when is money no object.

Well, money is no object (hypothetically), but the buyer still prides himself on making shrewd choices. And brand-spanking-new is not so shrewd.

Then again, there's something about a pristine airplane!

 

[Everskyward]

Well, money is no object (hypothetically), but the buyer still prides himself on making shrewd choices. And brand-spanking-new is not so shrewd.

There's the warranty. Not sure what it is on Cessna's piston airplanes, though.

Then again, there's something about a pristine airplane!

Yes there is!

 

[Alexb2000]

And brand-spanking-new is not so shrewd.

How so?

 

[spiderweb]

How so?

Well, we're playing a game, remember. OK, hand over the cash and fly away. The price has just gone down . . . I'm not sure in the case of airplanes, but it sure isn't new.

If you NEED new, you'll need money. That's psychological; not shrewd.

What do you think? (I'm already countering my own argument!)

 

[Everskyward]

Here's the price list for a new one. It looks like the base price is around $600,000 and you can add about $100,000 in options.

http://textron.vo.llnwd.net/o25/CES...engine/stationair/stationairtc_pricesheet.pdf

If money is no object go for it! You only live once...

 

[mbundy]

There's the warranty. Not sure what it is on Cessna's piston airplanes, though.

2 Years.

 

[Alexb2000]

Well, we're playing a game, remember. OK, hand over the cash and fly away. The price has just gone down . . . I'm not sure in the case of airplanes, but it sure isn't new.

If you NEED new, you'll need money. That's psychological; not shrewd.

What do you think? (I'm already countering my own argument!)

I always try to think of how to sell something when I buy it, because eventually we all do.

IF you decide to sell a new bird in a year, or two, or five, then you have something that someone else can also feel confident buying and most importantly financing. It's nearly new, on the original factory motor and prop, with no chance of some B.S. overhaul, etc. The logs and history will be easy to investigate and verify vs. sorting through 40 years of creative writing. Overall the buyer also knows you spent half a million on an airplane, you're probably going to spend the money to maintain it, hangar it, etc.

Looking at controller most all of the late model 206's are bringing about what they sold for new if they are right. Limited production is probably helping a lot. Last picking something like a 206 (new or old) is a good choice because you have a world wide market. Even if the U.S. economy sucks, plenty of buyers in central and south america like the plane, so they keep the values up.

Of course this only makes sense IMO if you have the money stuffed in a mattress. If it were a choice between paying cash for a used bird or financing new, I would buy used and just try to find one setup the way I wanted it to avoid losing a ton on upgrades.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Look at the useful load comparison too. The newer planes pay for the "niceties" by sacrificing useful load. About the only "real" safety improvement from old to new is the more crashworthy seats. Pretty much everything else can be addressed with careful selection of a clean airframe and a sufficiently large bundle of Ben Franklins.

Jeff

 

[Gubbins]

In my case, I use my 206 for the occasional local business trip, so that would be two or three big guys plus luggage. I also use it for pleasure, which sometimes means taking my wife plus three kids and luggage. Because of the Texas heat, I wanted air conditioning too because waiting 3rd in line to take off in 105F temperatures is not conducive to persuading passengers to fly with me (and thus giving me an excuse to fly more). The 206 I bought with AC was a little low on useful load for my mission, but I solved that with the flint wing tip tanks. Those give me an extra 200 lbs of payload if I leave them empty, and of course that increases my range when I do use them. I also made sure to get the float kit, since that will help resale.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Also I have a question: Why can't I buy a new turbo Lyc 310 hp for the older bird? If something needs to be modified, can't I just give you more money to do that?

It would require an STC (and there might be an existing one) but those two engines have vastly different mounts. The Continental is a bed-mounted affair that is supported by the aluminum tunnel beneath it. The Lycoming mounts on a steel-tube structure very similar to the plain old 172, bolted to the firewall. It would take lots of cash to change the structure to suit the Lycoming.

Someone mentioned Lycoming cams being a problem. That hasn't been so for quite a few years now. Lyc cams work well if one uses the recommended additive, and they've been changing some engines to roller-tappets that reduce cam wear enormously. There's also an aftermarket cam available that has been drilled to deliver oil from the cam's bearings to the lobe faces; I don't know why Lyc didn't buy that from the aftermarket developer. Makes plenty of sense to me.

Lyc used to have exhaust valve guide issues, too, but in '99 they went to a high-chrome content guide that reduced those problems to almost nothing. I never ran into any valve problems after that. Continentals still have finicky valves.

Did they fix up those crack-prone top wing skins in the restart models?

Dan

 

[Henning]

I'd take the Continental powered older one.

 

[Ted]

I'd take the Continental powered older one.

I would, too. The TIO-540-AJ1A is not my favorite engine. Burns about as much fuel as both engines on my Aztec combined.

However, you do need to take a look and see which one makes more sense. Will an old one with all the goodies end up depreciating worse than a new one over the intended ownership period? Only you can make that call.

 

[Henning]

I would, too. The TIO-540-AJ1A is not my favorite engine. Burns about as much fuel as both engines on my Aztec combined.

However, you do need to take a look and see which one makes more sense. Will an old one with all the goodies end up depreciating worse than a new one over the intended ownership period? Only you can make that call.

I think financial depreciation should be the minor consideration in a craft you intend to keep and use. That ends up being a drop in the bucket of the costs of operations and can cause a "spend a dollar to save a dime" situation all too easily. You don't even know how you'll dispose of it.

 

[Gubbins]

I would, too. The TIO-540-AJ1A is not my favorite engine. Burns about as much fuel as both engines on my Aztec combined.

You get better than 18-20 gph cruising with your Aztec?

 

[Ted]

I think financial depreciation should be the minor consideration in a craft you intend to keep and use. That ends up being a drop in the bucket of the costs of operations and can cause a "spend a dollar to save a dime" situation all too easily. You don't even know how you'll dispose of it.

That's going to depend on what you buy. Judging the depreciation on new planes even within first few years, that could buy a whole lot of operating expenses.

You get better than 18-20 gph cruising with your Aztec?

21 gph @ 155 kts, repeatable over 900 hours. That's about what I've heard most people burn with an AJ1A.

 

[Alexb2000]

That's going to depend on what you buy. Judging the depreciation on new planes even within first few years, that could buy a whole lot of operating expenses.



21 gph @ 155 kts, repeatable over 900 hours. That's about what I've heard most people burn with an AJ1A.

Where are you getting that info? Look at the prices on Controller, the depreciation on a 206 is very low. Compared to other new GA singles they do pretty well. If you take out engine and prop reserves its negligible.

155 in a T206H takes about 17.5 ROP at 10K. Obviously, less LOP ~14.5.

 

[Henning]

They have always done well because they are money makers, if you want one that rocks IIRC there is a an STC for a single and IIRC twin Soloy turbines on it.

 

[DavidWhite]

Take the old one. Playing "Pimp My Wings" with an airplane is alot of fun.

 

[DavidWhite]

IIRC there is a guy on PoA with probably the nicest 172N on the planet. He has a glass cockpit and Air Plains conversion - and he probably has 1/2 of what a new 172SP costs in a plane that is just as nice (or nicer). I want to say his name is Alan, but I'm not 100%.

 

[Henning]

IIRC there is a guy on PoA with probably the nicest 172N on the planet. He has a glass cockpit and Air Plains conversion - and he probably has 1/2 of what a new 172SP costs in a plane that is just as nice (or nicer). I want to say his name is Alan, but I'm not 100%.

I have a low time glass panel twin for <$100k, to buy a competitive factory glass panel even used will cost $600k and will have more hours on the engines.

 

[Ted]

Where are you getting that info? Look at the prices on Controller, the depreciation on a 206 is very low. Compared to other new GA singles they do pretty well. If you take out engine and prop reserves its negligible.

So you're saying that a new one won't depreciate any more than an old one? I find that hard to believe. Even looking at 172s, it doesn't take too many years to go from the ~$250k new to ~$150k used.

155 in a T206H takes about 17.5 ROP at 10K. Obviously, less LOP ~14.5.

Have you flown it to get those numbers? What're the CHTs at those fuel flows? The LOP number sounds within the ballpark (but still low), but the ROP number sounds low. Just because the engine will run there doesn't mean it's a good operating point.

If you looked at the $/hour costs for a T206 vs. an Aztec including insurance, hangar, MX, fuel, and depreciation, you'd probably find them to be remarkably close.

 

[Alexb2000]

So you're saying that a new one won't depreciate any more than an old one? I find that hard to believe. Even looking at 172s, it doesn't take too many years to go from the ~$250k new to ~$150k used.



Have you flown it to get those numbers? What're the CHTs at those fuel flows? The LOP number sounds within the ballpark (but still low), but the ROP number sounds low. Just because the engine will run there doesn't mean it's a good operating point.

If you looked at the $/hour costs for a T206 vs. an Aztec including insurance, hangar, MX, fuel, and depreciation, you'd probably find them to be remarkably close.

Just like anything the new ones will have more depreciation. However, with Cessna making only about 50 per year the used prices have been very high and stable. If they made more and didn't keep increasing the price $10-15K per year then they would certainly depreciate more. Look at other popular aircraft Caravans, TBM's, etc. They sell for what they cost new at 10+ years old.

Attached are the only picture set I have that comes close to your requested numbers. This was during a new engine break-in so it's not fully leaned, cowls are half-open, and ROP. Usually ROP I lean the T206H to 1600 TIT, and keep the CHT at 400. This is very conservative for the factory numbers and for those other than Ted, this is a Lycoming not a Continental (re: CHT's).

Generally, I'll stand by my earlier comment, on a broken in engine at 10K you should see 155 KTAS, 17.5 ROP, 1600TIT, and 400 CHT. I flew another one with gap seals and tips and it was definitely faster, maybe 160-165 at 10-12K with the same engine settings.

 

[Ted]

Attached are the only picture set I have that comes close to your requested numbers. This was during a new engine break-in so it's not fully leaned, cowls are half-open, and ROP. Usually ROP I lean the T206H to 1600 TIT, and keep the CHT at 400. This is very conservative for the factory numbers and for those other than Ted, this is a Lycoming not a Continental (re: CHT's).

Your numbers are a bit better than what I've heard from others, so that's good to know. I'll still bet that if you look at the total $/mile costs that it won't be much different between a T206H and the Aztec, but that's not particularly relevant to the conversation.

Even on a Lycoming, I do try to keep CHTs at or below 380 when it's practical. I also try to keep TITs at or below 1550. So, if I were flying, I'd be running a bit richer than you (if flying ROP).

Generally, I'll stand by my earlier comment, on a broken in engine at 10K you should see 155 KTAS, 17.5 ROP, 1600TIT, and 400 CHT. I flew another one with gap seals and tips and it was definitely faster, maybe 160-165 at 10-12K with the same engine settings.

Good to have some extra numbers. Like I said, I'd run it a bit richer if running ROP, so that would probably account for the differences between what I'd expect to see and what you've seen.

The AJ1A is a relatively new engine with a relatively new cylinder design. I'm a bit wary of it, and would try to keep it cool as a result.

 

[Alexb2000]

Your numbers are a bit better than what I've heard from others, so that's good to know. I'll still bet that if you look at the total $/mile costs that it won't be much different between a T206H and the Aztec, but that's not particularly relevant to the conversation.

Even on a Lycoming, I do try to keep CHTs at or below 380 when it's practical. I also try to keep TITs at or below 1550. So, if I were flying, I'd be running a bit richer than you (if flying ROP).



Good to have some extra numbers. Like I said, I'd run it a bit richer if running ROP, so that would probably account for the differences between what I'd expect to see and what you've seen.

The AJ1A is a relatively new engine with a relatively new cylinder design. I'm a bit wary of it, and would try to keep it cool as a result.

I wouldn't disagree too much with your comment about the Aztec operating cost. If they made anything close today it would be a much better comparison, although the Aztec would cost $1M if Piper sold it new. Since you like twins, just on speed vs. fuel burn I would rather compare a Baron with NA 550's burning 22.5 total at 185. Hard numbers to beat and you have the 600HP when you need it.

The turbo birds won't like to run that cool and will make you pay with a lot of fuel and open cowls. If you don't like those temps, you should see the 350HP version in the Mirage.

Other than the crankshaft issues in the early 2000's, I believe the AJ1A's have built a very good reputation. Unless you just get stupid with it they seem to run to 2,000+ most all the time. Their Achilles heel is that they seem to burn more fuel for the same HP as the 550 Continental. If fuel prices continue to rise that will certainly favor the 550T or TN running LOP. In my mind so far it's been an operational wash with the Conti's top end cost, I've flown and like both.

 

[Ted]

I wouldn't disagree too much with your comment about the Aztec operating cost. If they made anything close today it would be a much better comparison, although the Aztec would cost $1M if Piper sold it new. Since you like twins, just on speed vs. fuel burn I would rather compare a Baron with NA 550's burning 22.5 total at 185. Hard numbers to beat and you have the 600HP when you need it.

That'd be a good comparison new vs. new. And so I'd take the Baron.

The turbo birds won't like to run that cool and will make you pay with a lot of fuel and open cowls. If you don't like those temps, you should see the 350HP version in the Mirage.

The TIO-540-AE2A in the Mirage is a significantly different engine, especially in head design. Plus, it's not only feeding the engine, but also pressurization. This is one of the reasons why I don't believe pressurized piston singles work well - you're asking too much of the engine.

Even still, it's not that difficult to get the head temps to 380 or below in a number of turbo birds. This is dependent mostly on what your operational philosophy is, and also on cooling. And even if you only do the 1550 TIT that I would shoot for, you're still helping the overall longevity.

Other than the crankshaft issues in the early 2000's, I believe the AJ1A's have built a very good reputation. Unless you just get stupid with it they seem to run to 2,000+ most all the time. Their Achilles heel is that they seem to burn more fuel for the same HP as the 550 Continental. If fuel prices continue to rise that will certainly favor the 550T or TN running LOP. In my mind so far it's been an operational wash with the Conti's top end cost, I've flown and like both.

The AJ1A, like any of the 300+ HP Lycomings, is overall a pretty stout engine overall. The cylinder design on it is relatively new, having been originally conceived sometime in the 90s. It is a top-mount induction, which Lycoming hasn't used much (the engines that come to mind are the TIO-541s). I've seen some issues with them, but as with most engines, you don't hear anything from the people who are happy with them and have no issues.

 

[Alexb2000]

That'd be a good comparison new vs. new. And so I'd take the Baron.

Now that we both agree, it only leaves the problem of coming up with the $1.65M for a NA, non-pressurized, light twin.

 

[Alexb2000]

Ted-

I finally found some post break-in pictures that might give you better data. I believe this is with about 200 TT on the motor. This is about as good as it gets for a T206H without mods. IMO.

17.1 and 158, I'd like to hear your thoughts?

 

[Ted]

Now that we both agree, it only leaves the problem of coming up with the $1.65M for a NA, non-pressurized, light twin.

Which is why I don't buy new planes.

Ted-

I finally found some post break-in pictures that might give you better data. I believe this is with about 200 TT on the motor. This is about as good as it gets for a T206H without mods. IMO.

17.1 and 158, I'd like to hear your thoughts?

There you go, it's more efficient than I thought it was.

Looks like your TIT in the picture is 1585. I'd still shoot for 1550, which might get your CHTs down a couple of degrees. Overall, they look happy, and it appears that you've got a good operating point you're running at (based on not being in the plane to experiment a bit further, and also having not looked at the detailed specs on an AJ1A in a long time).

I'd run at 2300 RPM because it tends to be quieter, and the engines tend to be a bit more efficient there. But that is nothing more than personal preference - there is nothing wrong with 2400 RPM. And you're also in a MP/RPM combination where detonation isn't much of a concern, which is always nice.

Thanks for the extra info and data points. Good discussion.

 

[Pa28-140]

That's going to depend on what you buy. Judging the depreciation on new planes even within first few years, that could buy a whole lot of operating expenses.



21 gph @ 155 kts, repeatable over 900 hours. That's about what I've heard most people burn with an AJ1A.

To me, depreciation is only relevant if you plan on reselling soon. What it's worth is a mute point if you intend on keeping it for the long term. I've owned and enjoyed my airplane for 16 years now. Surely, that has to be worth something. My opinion is (although you don't want to pee the money away): if your pockets are deep enough to buy a $400K+ single engine.....fly it, enjoy it, take the depreciation on taxes and move on. Probably not smart to buy an airplane as an investment. Heck, I have a hard enough time justifying my airplane to my spouse. :wink2: