I've heard people compare cessna 205 to the 210 and that they evolved into the 206. I've read just a great deal on the net on all of the basic sites. The wing might be different, the 206 might be stronger, the flaps are shorter on the 205, etc. Specifically, how do they handle compaired to the 210 and the 206. Can you get any or many mods for the 205? How about skis and floats? Gar Aeros? It seems like it would make a great plane for flying in the back woods. I'm thinking about getting one with a IO470. I'm likely not going to change that engine anytime soon, so that is the data I'll need. Thank you for all your help and insight...great or small. Links or people to call would be helpful. Regards, Troy

Tryo,
If you are an AOPA member you can look back through your magazines. They had an article on the 205 a while back. Can't remember the month it was though.
Good Luck
Keith

There used to be some guys on the Cessna Pilot Association forum that had 205's. Might be worth joining to get some information from those that have them.

They did evolve from the 210, the older ones. That is why they have the "chin" on the cowling. The same cowling was used for both airplanes initially. They just riveted a solid piece in place instead of gear doors. The older 206's have the same deal going.
Some friends down here bought one out of Challis a few years back and I've had the opportunity to fly it some. They have it fairly stock other than a STOL kit and big nosewheel. I also flew jumpers in one a ways back. I've also got a fair amount of time in 206's both on wheeels and floats.
Comments on them;
Good buy for the money, has a huge useful load and fair performance.
Like any of the older 205/206 series with the smaller stabilizer it takes some practice to land it well when empty especially with the big nosewheel. You HAVE to carry some power in the flare to get the tail down or you will "wheelbarrow" or three point onto the nosewheel. Loaded with some weight in the back, not so bad. I believe that if you were flying around ID with one you would definetly want to watch your load/density altitude scenarios. They can turn into real pigs. Bottom line is you have the same heavy widebody airframe as the 206 with 25 to 40 LESS horsies. It shouldn't take much for you to see how that will work especially over 4k feet elevation. In a nutshell YOU will have to restrain yourself where load and fuel is concerned and work your way into it as you get more time and eperience with it. A lot of it can be controlled just by fuel load. My buddies have L/R fuel, it gives like 5 hours+. Who the hell needs that when just goofin' around the woods?
The flaps are smaller than the 206. A little les lift to get off, a little less hard to land with no load in the back.
Of course if you want to circumnavigate the value issue all of this is null and void. Just dump another $60+k into it and buy the IO550 conversion. Then it'll rip. That was on the airplane in the AOPA article in question.
Overall great deal in my opinion, just watch the load when operating over 3-4k elev. and/or operating out of less than 3k of runway. I'm sure that once a guy got current and familiar much more could be done than what I am personally comfortable with in this type.

In my opinion, the 205's and the early P206s are real sleepers. Both were equipped with two full size front passenger doors, and a smaller "passenger" door on the driver's side aft. I really like the notion of having two doors up front, and the U 206 does not have two, only a pilots side door.

The 205 and P 206 are both approved on floats and skis.

As noted, the IO-470 is a little light on power, but as lowflyin noted, keep it light and it'll sing.

I don't recall the flaps being smaller, though its' been a while since I flew a 205....could be.

The hot ticket for either the 205 or P 206 is a bigger engine, either the IO 520 or the 550. The 550 is a really nice engine, turns slower than the 520 and makes tons of torque. Runs lean of peak very nicely as well with good injectors.

These are great airplanes, and were undervalued until AOPA and some others "found" them. A friend bought a P 206 several years ago, and has been working it hard ever since. He loves it.

Good luck, learn to fly it well, and it'll be a great airplane. Just watch the loads. That's a HUGE cabin....and fuel tanks.

MTV

The 205 was a 210 that Cessna made a fixed gear out of. Its original model designation is 210- something. It was marketed as the Super Skylane. It does not have the same wing as the 206, it is more like, if not exactly like, the 182. It has the IO-470 at 260 HP. For all intents and purposes it is a heavy 182 with a slightly larger engine. It performs almost identically to a 182 of the same time frame. Cessna made them for two years and then overhauled it and came up with the 206, marketed as the Stationair. Different wing, fuselage and engine.

Thank you for a lot of the good data so far. It seems the useful load is not as much a factor of the size of the wing as I first thought. It does appear that the 205 has the same wing size and length as the 182. Though longer than the 206.
Other than the nose wheel mount location, useful load, and the rear door, the 182 seems like it might be a better in all other aspects. Does the IO470 have too high of compression for mogas or can you run it? Who would you suggest to put on float fittings and where might you find skis? I'm still leaning towards buying the 205. That looks like a good one in alaska. Thank you for the link. Troy

I haven't looked closely at the nose gear mount for the 205. The 182 is mounted to the firewall and is the weak link. The 206 is not mounted to the firewall and is tremendously stronger, you'd be hard pressed to damage a 206 nosewheel mount.
The 205 wing, being basically a 182 wing, will not perform as well as the 206. At the same weight the 206 will get off the ground sooner.

I thought the 206 and the 210 have the same wing? The 210 has the same wing as the 182? Wouldn't that be true if a 205 is a fixed gear 210?I'm pretty sure the early 210's and the later ones have different wings too. FWIW the flint tanks sure help the wing lift on a 76 210 when they are empty as I believe they add a couple of feet to the wing length, don't know if they are available for a 205 though.

The 205 was a derivitive of the Cessna 210 (the 205 is listed on the 210 TC as the 210-5 and 210-5A).

The 210 was essentially a significant modification of the Cessna 182 in some ways, so I suppose you could say that the 205 was a modified 182.

You could also say it was a modified 172, for that matter.

Here's a note on the model:

"Cessna 205
The Cessna 205 was introduced late in 1962 as a 1963 model year. The six-seat aircraft was essentially a Cessna 210 with fixed landing gear and with changes to the crew and passenger door arrangement. The 205 retained the early 210’s engine cowling bulge, originally where the 210 stowed its nosewheel on retraction (the space where the nosewheel would have retracted was used for radio equipment in the 205). This distinctive cowling was made more streamlined on the later Cessna 206.

The 205 is powered by a Continental IO-470-S engine producing 260 hp.[3]

The 205 was officially designated by Cessna as a "Model 210-5"

The 205 was only produced in two model years - 1963 and 1964 before being replaced in production by the Cessna 206. A total of 576 Cessna 205s were produced"

The engine mounts on these aircraft are similar to the 206 engine mounts--ie: the nosegear mounts to the engine mount, not to the firewall, such as is done in the 182's.

The wings of virtually all these airplanes have the same wing span and area. The flaps and ailerons are different on the 182, 210 205 and 206, compared to the 180-185 series, but I BELIEVE the wing area is within a couple square feet on all of these models. I also doubt the tail of the 205 is the same as the tail of the same year 182, but I suppose it's possible.

If the thing was just a derivitive of the 182, why is it listed on the 210 TC, and not the 182 TC?

Cessna played with lots of names, so the Super Skylane means nothing. Note that the first 206's were called Super Skywagons, but they are in no way similar to the 185 Skywagon.

Note that the small tanks were the only ones available on this model, and the Gross weight is 3300 pounds, compared to the 206, at 3600 in the later models.

I'd jump on a 205, rather than a 182.

MTV

The 205 was designated a 210-5 as others have said, it was a fixed gear 210B. Many people consider the 205 the best plane Cessna ever built because it was a heavy lifter and still economical. It has a greater useful load than the 206 because it’s lighter much like the Cherokee 6/260 having a greater useful load than the 6/300. A full load on a hot day would likely make you wish for the bigger engine.

My friend Trent used to run Green River Aviation in central Utah. He had use of an early 206. His personal plane was a 205 that he used to haul rafters into Sand Wash, Hite, and Mineral Canyon. He loved the 12 gph and the extra doors and he rarely powered out, but he did say the 206 was a little better STOL with the larger flaps and extra ponies. Pilot technique could make up for some of those 25 fewer ponies. I also remember him saying that his plane would only cruise at 120kts. with oversized tires and a Sportsman STOL. As BM said, you basically get 182 performance but with a bigger cabin and UL.

I was talking to an I0-470 STC holder last week and he said as far as his testing was concerned, a 260hp IO-470 only burns about .3 gallons more per hour than a carbureted 230hp 0-470. The improved fuel scheduling offset most of the horsepower diff. The 470 has great reliability as well.

I have noticed a big spread on price between the 205 and early 206’s, sometimes 30 grand on similar planes. Also, many of the 205’s have been personal airplanes and have not lived a battered life. I wish I had the cash for one. I consider it one of those buy it and keep it forever planes that fit the whole family and gear inside.

Need a partner???

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1-4-shar ... dZViewItem

I guess I'm looking at the glass half full instead of half empty... I can't imagine the 182 looking better in many aspects (if any), unless you just plain don't want that big of a plane...

If I could have three planes this would be them:


Since I can't, it's just the center one for now, and maybe an RV for a gotta get there sooner ride in the future.

Here's a shot I really like of Jeffs 205, the flaps are already on the way up, but they're really not all that small...just smaller:

BTW, in case you feel they are too anemic , that strip is 1300' +/- a few at at about 3000' elev... What's not to like?

The photos are courtesy of the 'wagon driver... halfast

This is my first post, however, I have been reading for a couple of years. I have owned my 205 for over 15 years and love it. I first saw one at Moose Creek years ago, the owner stated they were a sleeper on the market that few knew about. He stated they flew slightly faster, burned less fuel, hauled more weight, had more cabin space and best of all cost less than a 182. I have found his statements to be pretty close.

Mine has a full Robertson Stol kit, 80 gallon tanks, larger main and nose gear, full IFR with autopilot, and performs very well. I have no problems needing extra weight in the tail even when solo. It seems to just jump off when ready to fly. I flight plan for 125 kts at 12gph which works out quite accurately. I regularly fly into strips in the Idaho backcountry sometimes with 4 adults plus gear. I have flown it to Alaska several times also with 3 or 4 and gear. I have been into some pretty short strips when lighter. I have never flown one without the Robertson so have no comparison as to the stock configuration.

MTV, I would love to put mine of floats. I tried to find an approval for floats for a couple of years and was told by everyone I talked with, including the feds, that they were no approvals. I found a picture a couple of years ago of what was identified as a 205 on floats. It had a Candadian registration, I tried to find this aircraft, however, was told it was no longer registered. Not really sure it was a 205, perhaps a early 206? Any information you could provide for float approval would be greatly appreciated.

You might talk to Wipline. A few years ago, their then President had a 205, but I don't know if it was on floats. I remember discussing the airplane with him, and I assumed that it was on floats, but that may have been a bad assumption on my part.

If there are no approvals, it would be tough to do, unless you were to go through a full stc process, which I would not recommend.

You'd have to change the tail for sure, since these airplanes have the smaller, land plane tail, but Wip does that with all the new 206s as well.

I'll bounce a friend of mine who is THE expert on floats, and see what he says.

MTV

Ditto on most of the good thoughts on the C205. I looked at buying one about 25 years ago figuring a poor man's C206, and ran into the same situation with the floats as you guys are discussing now.

Edo, Wipline, all that I talked to said the same thing. "Sorry Guy, it's a Cessna 210, and no floats are approved for a Cessna 210. I walked away from an otherwise good airplane because of that, but at the time I needed to land on water, so I went with another C180 instead.

Gump

Just talked to a good friend who knows more about floats, and the history of floats than anyone I've ever met. He said that he's not aware of any 205 float approvals. EDO looked at it, but never went forward, since the 205 was only in production for two years, to be replaced by the 206, which was then approved on floats.

Sorry,

MTV

MTV
Thanks for checking out the float situation, appreciate it. Would have been nice to add floats to an otherwise great airplane. Guess a guy needs to go to a 206, however, lots more $$$.

I was just looking back through old threads on this site.
I don't post very often, but read most every day.
To my surprise I found my name "Trent" mentioned above by sixtwoleemer.


I wonder how many people actually know each other, but don't know their "Handle" on the site.

Now all I need to do is figure out who sixtwoleemer really is.
Probably someone who used to frequent the Green River airport.

Trent

I am confident that the picture of the "205" a few posts back is actualy an early 206. It has the large flaps and larger horizonal tail. Looks like that post is about a year old. I used to have an old P 206, good plane........