Bam Bam wrote:The 206 would a guy consider a turbo or not look at a turbo? Stick with a higher hp version?

A couple of guys here have flown them for a living. Both the T and normal are used a lot in Alaska for air taxi work and make a profit. I think your original mission statement mentioned something about stepping down from a 55 or 58 Baron into the low and slow crowd. A T206 really isn't low and slow in my mind. I could be wrong. Several have mentioned the 180. You can go all the way up to a Continental 550 and a three blade prop in that airplane. You won't feel underpowered. I think you're probably a big guy but you're not a great big guy you know? The 180 fraternity comes in for some rough treatment around here sometimes because they won't allow converted 182s into the club. But in many ways, as has been mentioned again and again, for the purposes of this gang around here there are really only two airplanes in the world. Super Cubs and Cessna 180s. If you look through a few pages of the "where did you fly today" thread you'll see that BC flying goes all the way from improved gravel to sagebrush and boulders. That's why you keep getting the two airplanes jab. A 206 and a Scout would cover all your bases. If it's got to be one airplane and you really don't care to dodge boulders and get in and out in 75 feet, then it's hard to imagine you going wrong with a 206. If it was me, and this is just an uninformed opinion, I would buy the best 206 normal I could find, then turn it over to P-Ponk for a giant motor and big fat tires. You'll be happy. I would be.

.02 and worth every penny.

Emory,

Well said, on all counts. I flew a friend's T206, but would have been terrified of the potential repair bills if it had been my own.

I'm starting to think that you can find a nice straight tail 182A, put in a new Pponk, and all the dream mods and you'll have a bitchin backcountry plane to fly low and slow.

I know where there is a sweet Red & White 58 model sittin in a hangar. Owner will take $40K cash right now Oh, just needs a new engine (perhaps that Pponk you might want ), then it would be a awesome BC plane for a long time. Already has 850's all around and leading edge cuff stol kit. Interior is a 8-9ish. Basic VFR panel.

Turbo Helio Courrier...think I can make it just under 200k

Bam Bam wrote:The 206 would a guy consider a turbo or not look at a turbo? Stick with a higher hp version?

Depends on the mission look at the 206's on Barnstormers.

I'm in NW Sask and out here a 300 horse 185 is the standard by which all others are judged. If you fit!
Can do skiis, floats, whatever. Seen some pretty nice ones. And yes, it's cabin fever time. Snowing and blowing today.

We've had 180's, 185 for a summer, and now 206. They all have their negatives.

You will be tight in a 180/old 182/185 at your size. Your front seat passenger will be uncomfortable for flights of any distance. Great airplane though if you maintain a high level of competence.

Normal 206 is a dog above 6K with a load. 180/185 aren't quite as bad. I've found that normal Cessnas suffer at higher DA much more than Beechcraft or HP Piper. I don't know why.

Ideal in my opinion would be '68 or newer C206 with IO-550N with the cold air induction and 6 motor mounts. They are seeing a honest 17 mph increase over IO-520 on straight floats. Impressive performance with no turbo. Good backcountry ship for nearly any place you should operate a 200K aircraft, plenty of room, and operating costs not too far out of line from C182. Easy transition from your Baron.

Gb

Bam Bam wrote:I am a larger guy 6'3 290 lbs Bam

If you would have led off with that statement, there would have likely been less joshing,....Sir.

Buy a fair priced decent 206, use the change to fix it up to yr preferences.

Or have both legs amputated at the knees while going on a starvation diet.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... o+UBA.html

Still have enough money left over to fly it a couple hours.

oldtech wrote:I'm in NW Sask and out here a 300 horse 185 is the standard by which all others are judged.

My kind of place

I flew 180/185 for a number of years at work, then switched to a U-206 with an IO-550. I agree that stock 206s can be a LITTLE anemic on floats. On wheels, they are still world beaters. With the IO-550 (and I also agree that the N model is the best of that bunch, though mine didn't have it, and worked fantastic), the airplane just blows everything else away.

Easy to fly, a GREAT STOL performer with a Robertson STOL kit, heavy hauler with the Wipaire engine kit, which gives you 3800 pound GW, or go with the WingX wing extensions, or both.

I really like 185's, but it's really hard to find a kind of flying or a place where the 206 can't go that the 185 can, and there are conditions (like gusty crosswinds) where I'd MUCH rather be in a 206.

Ski flying? I can introduce you to a couple fellows who work the hell out of 206s on skis. Not a very FUN airplane on skis, but then neither is a 185 in my opinion. Those who disagree may not have been terminally stuck in one yet, like I have....

MTV

I was very happy with my '62 Skylane for two people. There was a lot of shoulder room (feels like a little more than in the front of the 206), good load hauling capability, adequate performance and, while the O470 is still subject to Continental quality problems, the 182 was more reliable and less expensive to own than the 206 (2 flap motors, 3 prop blades, elevator trailing edge corrosion, McCauley (cracking) main wheels, cracking air box, 3k starter adapter, leaky electric boost pump and its Rube Goldberg microswitch etc. etc. etc.).

The 206 will haul more, if you need to. But if you don't need to, then I'd stick with the 182. The cross country speed difference is negligible. Fuel burn is slightly less. Roll response is quite a bit better in the 182 than the 206. The 206 is super stable, but I enjoyed the relative lightness of the controls of the 182 more. The O470 can burn auto gas w/o ethanol, or, god forbid, 92UL if it ever comes to that. Something worth considering when your 520 or 550 must have 100 octane. Good 182s can be had for a lot less than good 206s these days.

If you have to have more useful load or room in back than a 182, then consider a 205 or a P206. They're lighter, have the front passenger door, haven't been thrashed hauling freight and seem to sell for less. Fewer were made than the U206, so you'd have to be patient shopping. A 182 may not immediately exhaust your 200k, but given what you've described as your mission, I doubt if the extra expense of the bigger Cessna would be worth it. My $.02.

CAVU