Questions about the Cessna 206

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
I saw a Cessna 206 on the ramp yesterday when I was flying out, white with burgundy stripes and I have to admit it's a very good looking bird.

I have never flown a Cessna 206 but wanted to hear what your experiences were like to those who have.

What kind of fuel burn on average does it have?

Does it really have 1540 useful? That means I can have full fuel and have 1150 left for passengers and bags?

Is CG a problem?

Maintenance like every other Cessna?

Travels 144 knots? or slower?

As always thanks for your responses...

FP
 
Do you mean T206 (turbocharged) or naturally aspirated?
 
I have quite a bit of 206 time flying part 135 in Alaska. They are a good plane for load hauling and yes, they usually have around a 1500 lb useful load. They will average 16-17 gallons/hr fuel burn. We would routinely load 5 people with bags and 35-40 gallons of fuel for short hauls. The back seats are for smaller adults and kids, but are not bad. The U206 has no passenger side door, so all but the back seat pax load through the pilot's door. You do need to pay attention to CG, but that's true on any airplane. MX as straight forward aa any workhorse aircraft. I don't know about the "restart" 206s, but the Continental powered ones are about a 125 knot aircraft. We flew ours at 24"/2400 RPM down low. 16 gallons/hr in cruise.

I know of a very good one for sale in Juneau.
 
Htaylor said:
I have quite a bit of 206 time flying part 135 in Alaska. They are a good plane for load hauling and yes, they usually have around a 1500 lb useful load. They will average 16-17 gallons/hr fuel burn. We would routinely load 5 people with bags and 35-40 gallons of fuel for short hauls. The back seats are for smaller adults and kids, but are not bad. The U206 has no passenger side door, so all but the back seat pax load through the pilot's door. You do need to pay attention to CG, but that's true on any airplane. MX as straight forward aa any workhorse aircraft. I don't know about the "restart" 206s, but the Continental powered ones are about a 125 knot aircraft. We flew ours at 24"/2400 RPM down low. 16 gallons/hr in cruise.

I know of a very good one for sale in Juneau.
Click to expand...

Can you remove the back seats by taking the pins out? Someone at the FBO told me this yesterday?
 
FloridaPilot said:
Can you remove the back seats by taking the pins out? Someone at the FBO told me this yesterday?
Click to expand...

Yes. When I regularly flew a 206 I was always changing seats for the different loads.

The 206 is the work truck of small planes. If it can be done, a 206 will do it. All of my off airport work was done in a 206. And it is not the fastest single out there by no means.

I got about the same cruise speed loaded as Htaylor with same power settings. I think we planned 25 GPH, but regularly saw 16-18 GPH, depended on power settings.

I once carried a whole dead moose in a 206.

A good 206 will not stay on the market long. The last one I sold, for someone else, lasted a week then was gone to South America.
 
Zeldman said:
Yes. When I regularly flew a 206 I was always changing seats for the different loads.

The 206 is the work truck of small planes. If it can be done, a 206 will do it. All of my off airport work was done in a 206. And it is not the fastest single out there by no means.

I got about the same cruise speed loaded as Htaylor with same power settings. I think we planned 25 GPH, but regularly saw 16-18 GPH, depended on power settings.

I once carried a whole dead moose in a 206.

A good 206 will not stay on the market long. The last one I sold, for someone else, lasted a week then was gone to South America.
Click to expand...

How big were the tanks on each side? 46? Does the useful load performance vary greatly from year to year?
 
FloridaPilot said:
Can you remove the back seats by taking the pins out? Someone at the FBO told me this yesterday?
Click to expand...
My CAP squadron recently was assigned a U206G, and the POH weight and balance section shows loading configurations with various seats removed. The only seat that it doesn't show as removable is the left front one.
 
FloridaPilot said:
How big were the tanks on each side? 46? Does the useful load performance vary greatly from year to year?
Click to expand...

Ya stumped me on that one, I have never flown a 206 with full tanks. The last one I flew had the fillers relocated so it could be fueled while standing on the strut instead of using a step ladder, and it held 35 per side.

I don't seem to remember much change in useful load differences but I think the earlier models had a little less useful load than the later models.

Once I loaded up with the band and their instruments, 4 guys, including drums, their overnight bags and 30 pizzas to take to a lodge for the 4th of July celebration.

And on the other side I have ice up a 206 a few times. And survived. The one and only 206 I few that was IFR certified was as stable as could be in the clouds.

I forgot to add, just about all of the 206s I have flown were equipped with larger tires or tundra tires, which knocks down the speed. The very few I have flown with pavement tires seemed to get 130-135 knots indicated, depending on load.
 
Most 206s (1964 Model 206, 1965-86 Model U206, and 1999-present 206H) have big double doors on the right side of the rear cabin. Great for hauling bulky cargo, but the downside is there is no front passenger door on the right side, which is a little awkward. If you don't need the big cargo doors, Cessna built a Model P206 ("Super Skylane") from 1965 through 1970, with front doors on the left and right, and a smaller baggage door at the left rear, similar to the arrangement on the earlier Model 205.

FloridaPilot said:
Does the useful load performance vary greatly from year to year?
Click to expand...
Useful load will be lower in the 1964 and 1965 models, which had a max gross weight of 3300 lb. Gross weight was increased to 3600 lb with the 1966 model.

Palmpilot said:
My CAP squadron recently was assigned a U206G, and the POH weight and balance section shows loading configurations with various seats removed. The only seat that it doesn't show as removable is the left front one.
Click to expand...
In the early models, only the left front seat was standard equipment; everything else was optional at extra cost.
 
Pilawt said:
Most 206s (1964 Model 206, 1965-86 Model U206, and 1999-present 206H) have big double doors on the right side of the rear cabin. Great for hauling bulky cargo, but the downside is there is no front passenger door on the right side, which is a little awkward. If you don't need the big cargo doors, Cessna built a Model P206 ("Super Skylane") from 1965 through 1970, with front doors on the left and right, and a smaller baggage door at the left rear, similar to the arrangement on the earlier Model 205.

Useful load will be lower in the 1964 and 1965 models, which had a max gross weight of 3300 lb. Gross weight was increased to 3600 lb with the 1966 model.

In the early models, only the left front seat was standard equipment; everything else was optional at extra cost.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Good info here!
 
What's going on with the C-206?

Today at church 5 or 6 folks were asking me about a C-206. Only 2 of them are pilots. Am I missing something good?:)
 
My 206 was slow and thirsty. Didn't have much more useful load than my new bird. By the time I loaded it up, I couldn't carry any fuel to get us where we wanted to go. Great for short flights with lots of people and luggage. Horrible cross country bird
 
mulligan said:
My 206 was slow and thirsty. Didn't have much more useful load than my new bird. By the time I loaded it up, I couldn't carry any fuel to get us where we wanted to go. Great for short flights with lots of people and luggage. Horrible cross country bird
Click to expand...

Please don't make this a "Cirrus" promotion thread, we have enough of those already on here. A 206 may not be faster than a Cirrus but it's way more comfortable for taller people, I can carry what I want and it's predictable and I like Cirrus air frames but you are comparing apples to oranges. (Sport car vs SUV)
 
FloridaPilot said:
Please don't make this a "Cirrus" promotion thread, we have enough of those already on here. A 206 may not be faster than a Cirrus but it's way more comfortable for taller people, I can carry what I want and it's predictable and I like Cirrus air frames but you are comparing apples to oranges. (Sport car vs SUV)
Click to expand...
You asked people for their opinion and he gave it to you. :dunno:
 
FloridaPilot said:
Please don't make this a "Cirrus" promotion thread, we have enough of those already on here. A 206 may not be faster than a Cirrus but it's way more comfortable for taller people, I can carry what I want and it's predictable and I like Cirrus air frames but you are comparing apples to oranges. (Sport car vs SUV)
Click to expand...

I'm in ft Lauderdale all week. If you want to have a bottle of wine and talk about cirrus I mean 206 I'm around
 
The 206 is the largest plane I've ever flown and I only have 1 flight in one. That being said, I found it heavy on the controls and slow to react in roll, and relatively slow. Boring is the first word that comes to mind.

On the other hand, I could see where someone with a different mission would say it felt solid, that it is a good IFR bird, and that it has a good useful load.

I guess it all comes down to what you're like looking for in an aircraft.
 
jordane93 said:
You asked people for their opinion and he gave it to you. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Not with other airplanes in comparison. I wanted to know what the experience was like to fly a 206 because I've never flown one. When you start comparing two different types of airplanes, (A sports car vs an SUV) then that starts up other people that fly other types of birds without really answering the original question. A Cirrus cannot carry 6 people and bags totally different mission.

No hard feelings tho...I just want to throw that out there! ;)
 
mulligan said:
I'm in ft Lauderdale all week. If you want to have a bottle of wine and talk about cirrus I mean 206 I'm around
Click to expand...

Have a good time! I would love to but family is in the house, (Kids are stuck on the smartphones) so I'm stuck ranting on POA.....o_O
 
When I flew a 206 (it happened to be a P206) it was to carry big loads of bulky stuff. It did that job very well. But unless I had frequent need for a flying truck, it wouldn't be my choice, any more than I'd want a Suburban as a daily commuter (and I'd say the same about a Cherokee Six). No one would accuse a 182 of being particularly sporty, but it's a lot more nimble than a 206, and less painful when the monthly fuel bill arrives.
 
Pilawt said:
When I flew a 206 (it happened to be a P206) it was to carry big loads of bulky stuff. It did that job very well. But unless I had frequent need for a flying truck, it wouldn't be my choice, any more than I'd want a Suburban as a daily commuter (and I'd say the same about a Cherokee Six). No one would accuse a 182 of being particularly sporty, but it's a lot more nimble than a 206, and less painful when the monthly fuel bill arrives.
Click to expand...
What he said. The 206 is a fantastic utility airplane. Not fast but not terribly slow. The ones I flew made about 130 kts at 65% power. Almost the same speed as the 185's we operated, but with a lot more cabin space. We routinely hauled 1300 lb loads of salmon off of rough Alaska beaches. IIRC they carried 72 gallons useable fuel. Very hard to beat for what they do. Dirt simple maintenance. All that said, they are a very desirable aircraft for commercial ops and so they bring a premium price. You can buy quite a bit more speed for less fuel burn and a lot less money if you don't need to haul 1300 lbs off a beach or a short gravel airstrip. But like someone said above, if you buy a good one, you will have no trouble selling it when the time comes.
 
A proper 206 is a U206 with a 550, black mac, extensions, VGs and a factory seaplane kit.

That's said, it's a if it fits it ships, great aircraft, 144 might be a little much, more like 130ish.

Great planes.
 
Cessna 207. Load it up, if the door closes you can take whatever is in the airplane as far as full tanks will go.
 
DavidWhite said:
Cessna 207. Load it up, if the door closes you can take whatever is in the airplane as far as full tanks will go.
Click to expand...

Don't have much time in the 206, but based on that time I MUCH prefer the 207. It was a huge improvement over the 206. Not sure why Cessna chose to start up the 206 line instead of the 207 line.
 
Anymouse said:
Don't have much time in the 206, but based on that time I MUCH prefer the 207. It was a huge improvement over the 206. Not sure why Cessna chose to start up the 206 line instead of the 207 line.
Click to expand...


I prefer the 207 as well. A bit wider and easier to put folks and freight in the back. Ours had seat tracks for small 7th and 8th seats.

Zeldman said:
if the door closes and the nose wheel stays on the ground your good to go.
Click to expand...

I've seen a 207 flown where the pilot needed to start the engine and use prop wash to get the tail off the ground.
 
Zeldman said:
I ain't sayin' nothin'...;)
Click to expand...

FWIW it was possible to have the 207 legally within the W&B envelope and the tail sitting on the ground.

Ive flown a 207 once in the last 2 years. I miss it. I'd fly a 207 for the rest of my career if I could control the weather and make 6 figures doing it.
 
Last edited:
Ya know what's really funny, is we've all probably flown some of the same 207 tail numbers. In fact I've flown a 207 I'm sure Any has flown that a mutual friend of ours hit a tree with 20 years ago lol
 
Is the 206 good for low time pilots? If it's not the fastest airplane transition should be easy coming from a 172...No? The reason why I ask is because I always have people ask me questions about different airplanes. I always tell them, I don't know but I can find out for you. ;)
 
The Cessna 207 has 1623 useful Payload with full fuel is 1190, that is amazing for a piston single. That is a lot of weight but why do you folks think it's better than a 206? 300 Horse category will drink a LOT of fuel the speeds are pretty comparable to a 206. Only advantage I think is it carries more.

(Maybe I'm missing something, fill me in)
 
FloridaPilot said:
The Cessna 207 has 1623 useful Payload with full fuel is 1190, that is amazing for a piston single. That is a lot of weight but why do you folks think it's better than a 206? 300 Horse category will drink a LOT of fuel the speeds are pretty comparable to a 206. Only advantage I think is it carries more.

(Maybe I'm missing something, fill me in)
Click to expand...

You are missing the extra row of seats.
 
FloridaPilot said:
The Cessna 207 has 1623 useful Payload with full fuel is 1190, that is amazing for a piston single. That is a lot of weight but why do you folks think it's better than a 206? 300 Horse category will drink a LOT of fuel the speeds are pretty comparable to a 206. Only advantage I think is it carries more.

(Maybe I'm missing something, fill me in)
Click to expand...

1. Cargo door - The cargo door on a 206 happens to be in the same spot as the flaps. If you try to open that door with the flaps down, you will do extensive damage. The 206 actually has a switch in the door which prevents the flaps from coming down if the door is open. It sucks if this switch indicates that the door is open in flight. The 207 was stretched a bit, which allows the cargo door to be behind the flaps.

2. Forward cargo area - Because the tail was moved back as part of the stretching, the engineers decided to move the engine forward to keep things in balance. This provides enough room for a forward cargo area. Putting cargo in there helps with keeping the CG within limits.

3. Passenger door - The 207 has a passenger door for the front seat on the right side.

4. Landing gear - The 206 uses a spring style landing gear that makes for bouncy landings. Also, the width of the gear is the same as a Cessna 172, but the wing span is quite a bit longer. This makes for a tippy plane, especially in crosswinds. You really need to be on the controls while taxiing in wind. I've seen a 206 that got flipped in 20 knot winds because the pilot didn't use the controls while taxiing. The 207 uses a tube style gear that absorbs landing much better and is quite a bit wider, making it more stable on the ground.


I believe that's the key points. It's been over 18 years since I last flew a 207 so some details may be murky.
 
DavidWhite said:
Ya know what's really funny, is we've all probably flown some of the same 207 tail numbers. In fact I've flown a 207 I'm sure Any has flown that a mutual friend of ours hit a tree with 20 years ago lol
Click to expand...

Ah yes. The infamous bird strike while the bird was still in the nest. Repaired for ferrying with a Mountain Dew can.
 
Might be tough to find a 207 in good condition. There are 215 of them on the US Civil Register (both turbo and non-turbo models), of which 114 are registered in Alaska. No doubt many of the others are registered to out-of-state corporations but operated in Alaska. The Alaska airplanes are likely worn to the nub from Part 135 service. There's one Canada-registered 207 on Trade-A-Plane right now; Barnstormers has an AZ-based listing, plus this ad: "8 C207A, 1969 through 1979 vintage. All currently Part:135. High Airframe Hrs."

By comparison, there are more than 2,400 "legacy" 206s on the US Register, plus 892 Lycoming-powered 206H models, built since the re-start. The last 207 was built in 1984.
 
Last edited:
207s are village to village taxis. If you're a taxi driver and need revenue paying seats, they fill the bill. I've never seen one privately owned and don't know anyone who'd want one. 206s are fairly popular family planes. I know a handful of guys that need more space than a 206 and those guys have Beavers. For those who need a little more space than a Skywagon offers? The 206 is the preferred option. Solid flyers, good haulers, good STOL operators, and the nose gear is hell for stout. I've considered trading up a couple of times but didn't. I don't prefer nose draggers on skis. 206s make good ski planes if you have the space to get one stopped. They make fabulous float planes, too. Around my neighborhood the majority of 206s are on floats.

Not hard to fly. Just a big 172 with a constant speed. Definitely a bigger plane. Great big flaps. The 206 wing is great and the huge tail makes it work, but it'll feel heavy.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I saw a Cessna 206 on the ramp yesterday when I was flying out, white with burgundy stripes and I have to admit it's a very good looking bird.

I have never flown a Cessna 206 but wanted to hear what your experiences were like to those who have.

What kind of fuel burn on average does it have?

Does it really have 1540 useful? That means I can have full fuel and have 1150 left for passengers and bags?

Is CG a problem?

Maintenance like every other Cessna?

Travels 144 knots? or slower?

As always thanks for your responses...

FP
Click to expand...
Do you know if the airplane was a vintage model, 1986 and older (such as the U206G), or a newer generation, 1999 and newer (206H) model? There's a pretty large difference in performance and useful load.
If it is a 206H model (Lycoming 540) you will see 145 KTAS at 16GPH (non-turbo models). The turbo models will yield 150 KTAS and up to 165 KTAS, conservatively, at higher altitudes, burning 17.5 - 18 GPH running 30", 2400 RPM and 1550 on the TIT ROP.
The vintage airplanes do typically have a higher useful load as the newer airplanes have a lot more insulation and are quieter in the cabin. The typical useful load on the 206H is 1320 lbs or so on the non-turbo and 1220 on the turbo as they are equipped with built-in oxygen and prop-heat. Adding tip tanks will bump the gross weight up to 3800 giving you about another 180lbs of useful load. CG is typically not temperamental for this airplane. Maintenance is similar to a 182. .
The 3rd row seat is removable. Starting around 2004, you have quick release pins to extract the seat, and prior to that you just remove the bolts from the seat frame.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Might be tough to find a 207 in good condition.
Click to expand...

If I could, I would. Unfortunately, the last time I saw a 207 that was in good shape for sale was almost 20 years ago. I think the listing price was around $140k. That wasn't in my budget back then and probably isn't now. I've considered getting a beat up 207 and restoring it, but it would probably be too much effort ($$$).
 
Here's a link to the 206H POH with G1000. It was the last non-turbo 206 made. It should be able to answer many questions, looks like you've got a 1417lb useful load. 92 gallon fuel capacity. Just a quick look at the 8000ft charts looks like you can pull a 139kts at 15.6gph at standard temp. Cruise speeds at various altitudes seems like you'd get 135-140kts no problem between about 14-17.5gph depending on the altitude. My 182T does better than book number speed at lower than book number fuel burn so I'd trust what the POH says.

http://www.redskyventures.org/doc/c...07_NavIII-G1000+GFC700-POH-PIM-fromCessna.pdf

I've never flown a 206 but I've been highly considering upgrading from my 182 to a T206H
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top