Well you now have plenty of "intel" to chew on, keep us update. Its great to see more like minded aviators getting into the backcountry realm.

TR wrote:

Rob wrote:^^^ This.
Interior volume aside, and that is an important side not on a 'family adventure plane', spend some quality time with a 18X wing and then the same time with a 206 wing and then revisit your goals. All the engine in the world doesn't make a lesser wing fly like a superior one. I love 180/5's but their wing is not a 206 wing, and never will be.
Take care, Rob

Hmmm! I believe the 206 uses the same NACA 2412 airfoil as employed in the Cessna 180/185 series wings. Furthermore, it is the same 174 square feet unmodified.

I believe the 206 has longer flaps & shorter ailerons than a 180/182/185,
I would imagine that's what Rob is referring to.

Works for us, edo 3500s are heavy but we have wing x , sportsman, io550, and Leading edge exhaust.
Nice three place and gear airplane. We carry 3 of us and I’m a big guy, light gear, full tanks and 24 gallons in the floats to get to our camp on lake of the woods n back,.

Hotrod,
You are correct that the 206 has longer flaps and a frise aileron. My only point is that it is not a different wing from the 180/185 series. When calculating lift for a given airfoil design (in this case NACA 2412) given the same input parameters results in the same numbers. Math does not lie. Someone can claim all day long a particular wing behaves in such a manner but without the numbers to back up claims is it is mere opinion albeit there is still useful data in that opinion if the parameters are known. The difference is empirical data vs anecdotal data.

Bkn4thr wrote:Works for us, edo 3500s are heavy but we have wing x , sportsman, io550, and Leading edge exhaust.
Nice three place and gear airplane. We carry 3 of us and I’m a big guy, light gear, full tanks and 24 gallons in the floats to get to our camp on lake of the woods n back,.

35C23315-B477-43BE-95A8-D7CF99C31E43.jpeg

This is so awesome!

Wipaire 182 is pretty sweet. I would prefer a 206 for the same money…

Sigh....

Cooperd0g,

I apologize if my lack of linguistics has led to some inter thread banter. As a family man who enjoys hauling anyone who will come along I am familiar with your plight. And since you are potentially preparing to lay out the equivalent cash of an average American home, you deserve each and every opinion (because that's all your going to get on an internet based forum) that you can stomach. I will make an attempt to clean up the 'loose' anecdotal opinion I presented earlier, it may be of no value to you, or it may present some thoughts to ponder.

TR has correctly pointed out that the airfoil and square footage of the 180/2/5 and 205/6/7 are the same. And I guess if that is the formula we are adhering to to define a 'wing' then he is still almost right on the sum of a given airframes performance relative to a different airframe with that 'wing' (more on that later). But is that your definition of a wing?

For me a 'wing' is the sum of design, and structures that create a lifting plane. That means airfoil, and square footage for sure, but what about AOI, dihedral, wash in/out, chord vs length (aspect ratio), flaps, ailerons, slats, spoilers, VG's, winglets, wing tips, add infinitum...

Changing any one of these structures or parameters will alter an aircraft's performance in one or many regimes, regardless of how identical you keep the airfoil and sq footage to the 'baseline'. It is the precise reason an original Wayne Makes SQ2, a Piper PA18, and a Piper PA12 all share the exact USA 35B airfoil, similar sq footage +/-, and similar HP, yet vary wildly in every performance regime possible.

Which leads to the next fly in TR's ointment. Even if you affix the exact same wing (my definition) to two differing fuselages with differing tail planes, the performance parameters are going to change. Because the wing in it's entirety is still only one 'assembly' in the entire aircraft. As anecdotal evidence I present again the Piper PA12-150 vs PA18-150. Identical airfoil and square footage, yet vastly differing performance in all parameters.

Bringing this full circle and back to you, I can assure you that a Cessa 206 wing with it's deep chorded frise ailerons, and uber long flaps that are the envy of every 18x, is superior enough to the 180/2/5 wing that if exchanging them was a simple bolt on affair, virtually every bandit 18x driver in the sticks would have already swapped over. Being the general same shape and size does not make them the same wing. I will admit (with no shame) that I'd probably be first in line Add RSTOL to the 20X and the difference will literally leave you scratching your head.

But to be completely fair to TR, let me just put this out there, (in case no one id following my eclectic thought process) when is the last time you ever saw a 18X or 20X driver landing (or taking off) with a 'clean wing'? So ya, if cruise speed performance is the number that matters most to you, and everything else the wings were bolted to was identical, then ya, the numbers may be the same. Drop the flaps, or lift an aileron, and you have effectively created two different wings. Change the fuselage and/or tailplane and all bets of similar performance are off. Call it anecdotal, call it opinion, call it whatever you want. The proof is in the drivers seat

Semantics, that's how people make the numbers lie for them.

BTW, having had both a late, big engined 182, and an early big engined 180, I have no qualms in admitting I love them, but recognize the superior wing of the 20X series...

Take care, Rob

I definitely appreciate opinions from those who actually have experience where I have none. With these opinions I was also able to find some more data. I know that I'll be trying to carry at least 2 or 3 with me and probably operating from mountain lakes. So useful load, but also the ability to have a turbo is appealing. My business partner prefers the look of the 185. I'll try and be on the lookout for opportunities to fly them for myself as well.

I might as well put my .02c in. I own both a big engine, high GW C180 (for 45 plus years, so its family) and a 206 (for 2 years). The 206 does everything better, all day long, except, EXTREME rough stuff, Skis and Wow factor. If I had to keep only one it would be the 206.

Cooperd0g wrote: My business partner prefers the look of the....

Jeez oh Pete... now I have to go and retract everything I alluded to. Had I known there was double cash involved, I would never have selected the C206 as preferred...
I mean with that bankroll package, a soloy 206 would no doubt trump the current offerings, and with just a little bigger bite that might morph in to a PT6-20 version
none in class sexier

It's sooooooo much fun findings airplanes to spend someone else's money on.

hotrod180 wrote:Never heard of a "Boss 182" so I googled it.
Hmmm, looks like a (later model 540 Lyc powered?) 182 fitted with an IO580 Lycoming.
Sounds very spendy.
If you're concerned about room and useful load, why not a 206?
With an IO-550 if you have the money.

At the Osh seaplane base

JamieG wrote:I might as well put my .02c in. I own both a big engine, high GW C180 (for 45 plus years, so its family) and a 206 (for 2 years). The 206 does everything better, all day long, except, EXTREME rough stuff, Skis and Wow factor. If I had to keep only one it would be the 206.

That is very interesting Jamie! A good data point.