*** dead links removed ***

For some reason, this computer isn't letting me copy the image location, so I'll try again when I get home.

Hmmm, it looks not bad, but I would have to ask, why? What would that 210 do that a 185 can't for lots less money, and more conveniantly since the 210 only has one door.
Now if there was a way to retract the gear on the 210, that would make it worthwhile.

He said it had a lot more interior room, though I couldn't ask him much more about it, as he was on his way out the door. Here's a video clip of his departure. I just uploaded it, so it may still be processing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OY98cgQNNQ

There is a bit more room in the 206 than the 185 yes. A third row of seats in a 185 takes up your baggage space, most 206's come with a third row and still have a small amount of space behind that. I quibble about the cost factors - I haven't looked but I would guess that a comparable year model of each in comparable condition would be about the same price give or take on the used market. Sure, you can get newer Centurions (edit: I mean Stationaires, have Centurions on the brain from the thread title I guess) at higher prices. Which is probably why this conversion exists - no newer 185's out there if that is want you want.

I'm partial to the Found Bushawks myself :shrug: Not that I could ever afford any of this.

If thats a 210 I cant see the advantage but a 206 that big cargo door makes all the diference. ever try to put a 4x4 quad in a 185?
It seems like that is a 206 but I cant tell for sure from the picture.

It looks like a 206 to me. A 210 has very different side windows, and less of them.

Who knows what this airplane is like, but the tailwheel conversions of the later 172's with the swept tail are NOT great airplanes when it comes to directional control.

But, whatever winds your watch, I reckon.

MTV

According to the FAA, it's a T206H.

1SeventyZ wrote:According to the FAA, it's a T206H.

Now that you take a good look at the picture and what Zane found, should have known from the get go. 210's don't have three windows on the side (I believe).

What I dont get is why would you go through the trouble of converting it and then put wheel pants on it. I would rather have a trike than a set of wheel pants on a soft field.

ccurrie wrote:What I dont get is why would you go through the trouble of converting it and then put wheel pants on it. I would rather have a trike than a set of wheel pants on a soft field.

I was thinking the same thing

Another case of the pilot phenomenon more money than brains.

There was a 206 in Yakutat years ago that was converted to tail wheel. I saw some of the parts that were left over. A friend of mine was sort of close to the project, the determination was that the fuselage/empennage wouldn't take the added abuse of the little wheel being on the back. In order to beef it up enough to do the job, it would get way too heavy as Cessna wasn't figuring on it being a tail dragger when they designed it.

I'm with Richard, the Bush Hawk is the way to go for a 206 sized airplane with a tail wheel.

gb

mtv wrote:That's not a 210. It looks like a 206 to me. A 210 has very different side windows, and less of them.

I can't imagine why you'd want to do that to a 206, frankly. A stock 206 is a great backcountry airplane.

Who knows what this airplane is like, but the tailwheel conversions of the later 172's with the swept tail are NOT great airplanes when it comes to directional control.

But, whatever winds your watch, I reckon.

MTV

Before 1967 the Cessna 210 had the struts and same window outline.In 1968 they removed the struts. In 1969 they went to the later model style windows.I'd say this is a 210 fuselage married to 185 gear -more than likely -Experimental I have a picture some where where you can see the Experimental sticker on the side. I believe first showing was at Oshkosh 5 or so years ago. Look at Cessna 205 or 206"P"( "U" 206 came in in 1964or 65 -"P" was produced until 1970) it looks just exactly like a before 1968 210 without retracts. First 210's were called on TCDS 210-5 205 on same TCDS -same airframe with or with out retracts. I just looked at the picture again there is a "EXPERIMENTAL" sticker both sided just aft of front doors.

Here's the serial number, maybe that helps?

T20608749

Shucks, folks- it does say "Bush Concepts" on the tail feathers, after all. I for one welcome the fact that somebody was willing to chuck some money at this idea and see what resulted. As for the wheel pants, a bit incongruous yes, but maybe they were traveling?

-DP

I've wondered what a 206 tailwheel conversion would be like...now I know. On an almost similar topic, I've often wondered what performance differences you'd see in a 180/182/185 if you stuck a set of 206 wings on with the bigger flaps. Has anyone seen such a conversion? Or know if swapping wings would be a relatively straight-forward modification (not that I have the money...or plane...to try)?

I would venture to guess that the airplane is a 210B or 210C model. I guarantee you it is not a T206H. How they have that paperwork assembled would be a mystery to me. The window outline matches those of a 210B or 210C and so does the horizontal and elevator tip layout. All 206's utilized a different horizontal and elevator than the one matched on this airplane.

Amazing things people do to these airplanes. I wouldn't mind taking it for a ride to check it out. Nice looking bird.

I think it's really cool. I seriously doubt it's a case of more sense than dollars, as two of these probably wouldn't come close to the price of a Found... Without people who explored all avenues of flight like this, there would be no airplanes for those of us who choose to buy the "standard plain vanilla"...
Thank you Mr. Bush 210, 206, or whatever you are....

MTV, I have a question, I have no ski experience to speak of, an zero nose wheeled ski experience. How do you think this would fair compared to a ski'd 206 / 210 ?

I'm sure moving the tail around could suck, but surely no worse than a helio...

IMHO I think it could only be cooler if the following were added:
Standard AW Cert (STC approval)
Soloy conversion
C185 tail
B-wheels

I think you could do all that (minus the standard AW) and still be under the price of a new Found... and that would be something!

182 STOL driver wrote:

mtv wrote:That's not a 210. It looks like a 206 to me. A 210 has very different side windows, and less of them.

I can't imagine why you'd want to do that to a 206, frankly. A stock 206 is a great backcountry airplane.

Who knows what this airplane is like, but the tailwheel conversions of the later 172's with the swept tail are NOT great airplanes when it comes to directional control.

But, whatever winds your watch, I reckon.

MTV

Before 1967 the Cessna 210 had the struts and same window outline.In 1968 they removed the struts. In 1969 they went to the later model style windows.I'd say this is a 210 fuselage married to 185 gear -more than likely -Experimental I have a picture some where where you can see the Experimental sticker on the side. I believe first showing was at Oshkosh 5 or so years ago. Look at Cessna 205 or 206"P"( "U" 206 came in in 1964or 65 -"P" was produced until 1970) it looks just exactly like a before 1968 210 without retracts. First 210's were called on TCDS 210-5 205 on same TCDS -same airframe with or with out retracts. I just looked at the picture again there is a "EXPERIMENTAL" sticker both sided just aft of front doors.

I agree, no matter what the serial number says, this looks like a '65 or so 210.
I can't see rear doors on it, the flaps aren't similar to a 206, the elevator doesn't look like a 206 to me either.

Not to mention, the guy that took the pic talked to the pilot, and he is saying centurian.

Rob wrote: Thank you Mr. Bush 210, 206, or whatever you are....

This reminded me of those Bud Light Real Men of Genius radio commercials... Thank you Mr. Cessna Tailwheel Bush Conversion Guy. Without you, 200-series pilots would still not stand half a chance of groundlooping their single-engine heavy hauler trikes in a mere 8 kt crosswind... (Somebody call Avemco....)