I was wondering whether anyone has experiences with using a 206 on skis, and whether those experiences were good or bad? Any advice on which skis (preferably hydraulic wheel skis) to use or avoid?
[/img]

Try Sandy Hamilton at Arctic Air Alaska in FAI. He operates both a 185 and a 206 on skis. Should be in the FBO or phone directories.

206 with skis and a phone number

There are 206's on skis and there are 206's on skis.

The single biggest problem with a 206 on retractable skis is that the gross weight is limited significantly, thus the useful load is severely limited. To be legal that is.

The best skis for the 206 are the Fli Lites, but they are really hard to come by these days. That's what's on Jay Hudson's 206 in the pictures.

The Fluidyne (nee: Wipline) 3600 retractable wheel skis are also approved on the 206, but they are really too small surface area for an airplane the size of a 206. They work, but don't take them into any kind of deep snow, unless you plan to spend the winter.

I've flown one 206 where the owner thought it was a good idea to put the Fluidyne retractables on the mains, and a Schneider penetration ski on the nose gear. That was a REALLY bad idea. The balance of that penetration ski on the nose is totally wrong for a steerable ski, and as soon as you put the nose down in snow, the ski would go right to the steering limit, and you were stuck. I flew it once, and opted not to do any more flights in that airplane with that setup. It was just plain dangerous, and later I rescued a couple guys who were trying it out.

The Fli Lites work pretty well, but this is a big airplane, and if you get it stuck, you are REALLY stuck. Contrary to popular belief, the 206 actually turns around fairly tight, but the key to getting it to turn around on skis is to carry a good bit of weight very far aft to allow you to pick the nose up with nose up elevator.

They work, and work fairly well, IF you can live with the reduced gross weight AND you can afford to always carry a fair amount of weight in the rear baggage.

MTV

What would you think of those ski's on a 182 with STOL Kit?

Would love to put them on the plane....

Are there any better for a 182?

tahoe,

The single biggest problem with putting a 182 on skis is where the nosegear attaches. Skis inflict a LOT of loads to the landing gear, and that nose gear is firmly attached to your firewall. Bend that and you are looking at HUGE $$$

The 206 nose gear attaches to the engine mount. Bend that and it costs a lot but nothing like a firewall. And the engine mount attachment is stronger.

As far as performance goes, I know a couple of guys who run 182's on straight skis, and they do okay. They try to keep them loaded as far aft as possible.

The retractable skis are going to put that much more weight on the nose and nose gear, though, making it sort of a vicious circle.

MTV

aktahoe1 wrote:What would you think of those ski's on a 182 with STOL Kit?

Would love to put them on the plane....

Are there any better for a 182?

DUDE!!! just get a tailwheel airplane.............they are much cooler.

Thanks Mike!

Yeah I know, I need a tail dragger......

How come the 182 doesnt have the nose wheel attachment like the 206?

Anyone heard of any STC's re-enforce the 182 firewall?

It would only make sense...I am all to aware of the firewall deal with my own 182.

I can assure you I hope to never do that one again.....$$$$ (thanks Avemco!)

Anyhow, I thought the same thing with the firewall and stress for skis on the 182.

Damn I need a 185......

I need a 185 also,keep a look out for a 2 for 1 sale

I believe that Wipline reinforces the firewall on the 182 as part of their float kit, but the reinforcements aren't in the nosegear attachment area, but rather to install hard points to attach the floats.

MTV

I've got Hudson in a video somewhere saying their Turbo 206 could handle missions the 185 couldn't. Looking for it now.

Flywriter posted this. Listen to topic #3 "Planes" at 50 seconds through the end of interview.

http://uaf-db.uaf.edu/jukebox/denali/html/clhu.htm

The Kahiltna Glacier Cliff refers to there is at ~7200 feet msl. As he explained, the TURBO 206 still makes 310 hp at that altitude. The 185 is making a LOT less horsepower at that altitude.

Also, note that Cliff ducked the question when the interviewer stated that the 206 had a bigger payload than the 185 on skis. Cliff changed the subject back to performance. Payload isn't great in the TU 206 on skis due to the strict limitation of Gross weight on skis.


MTV

Tahoe-

Check your insurance policy...if you are with Global they will specifically exclude operations with skis...most others do not, but read the policy first if you make the change.

I flew C206's on straight skis for years off Lk Hood in Alaska.
But never on wheel ski's. On straight ski's they were a rocket
and could out perform C180 and C185 hands down, especially
in deep snow. Used Landis 3000 on the mains and Landis 2500
on nose. Lots of floatation. They were a pain to turn but once
u figured it out it turned okay. Flew news crews from Anchorage
to Nome and back on the Iditarod for several years without a problem.

Actually I think it was 3500 Landis on the mains.........

I know Ray Arnold uses a 206 in the summer time. Does anyone know if he uses it on skiis in the winter time? He flies supplies into the Idaho backcountry in the winter.
Bob

skybobb wrote:I know Ray Arnold uses a 206 in the summer time. Does anyone know if he uses it on skiis in the winter time? He flies supplies into the Idaho backcountry in the winter.
Bob

He uses a 185 for the ski flying.

John

Low and Slow, Next time you see Ray ask him if he used skis on the 206 years ago. I think he might have but wouldn't bet a million$$$. He hauled some friends of mine into Monumental Creek a long time ago when they were building a cabin there---probably not the 206 though.

Where is the bottom photo taken? Alaska Range?