Redbaron180 wrote: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........

Redbaron is correct, the flaps on the 205 don't stretch past the struts that far. Also, the tail span of the 205 is 10' 10" compared to the 11' 8" tail span of the the 206. The way you tell the difference with the tail in photos is in the outboard leading edge of the elevator. In the 205 series (and model 210 through the C model), the outboard leading edge comes to a point. Starting with the 210D and 206, the outboard leading edge is square.

See the pic below to take a closer look at the smaller flaps and elevator.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cessna-205/0910449/L/

I can assure you that it is a 205............my friend ownes it, I've flown it, and I've seen the registration.

It may say 205 on the paperwork but it has 206 wings and horizontal tail assembly. That would make it a 205.5! I'll bet the ailerons don't have corrugated skins either. I have flown and worked on both types since the late sixties. If the data plate says 210-5 there should be some very interesting log book entries. The 205 handles like something in between a 185 and a 206. If it had a trimable stabilizer it would be nearly perfect. As for not enough power, there was one for sale a while back with an IO-550 in it. Yee Ha!!
BCB

All of the 205 tails I have seen are similar if not the same as the early wide body 182's. The balance portion of the elevator is wedge shaped.

On the 206's they had two tails that I am aware of. The early one used on the "bullnose" 206 is similar in size to a 205/182 but has squared off balance portion of the elevator.

The later 206's had a bigger horizontal that was also used in the 207's.

The one in the picture looks to be a larger late model 206/207 tail.

All fo the wings on the 205's had the shorter flaps that are similar if not the same as 182.

Also the baggage area fo the 205 is smaller than the 206.

I am aware of at least 1 field approval using 206 parts to enlarge the baggage area.

If the picture is of a 205 it looks to have some good mods.

The tail on the 205's is a little too small when loaded light. You have to hold quite a bit of back elevator to get your speed where it needs to be for landing.
If you are loaded full it is fine as long as you aren't loaded too far aft...

I had often thought of changing the wings and tail, but thought it would be too much of a hassle to get field approved.

Hafast,
Do you know the tail number of your friends plane in the picture????
I would like to see if i can get some field approval information.

I forgot to mention.

More power is always better.

Useful load on my 205 is about 1500 lbs.

But I used to take off @ hite in the middle of summer, loaded to gross (full seats and bags stacked to the ceiling), 105+ degrees headed for Moab on a regular basis with the IO470.

At times there was some pucker factor , but the 205 has about the same climb rate as a normally aspirated 207 also loaded to gross under the same conditions.

The 206 was quicker getting off of the ground and had a slightly better rate of climb than both the 205 and the 207.

I think the longer flaps on the 206 wing would definately help the 205 on takeoff and landing.

90% of the pilots out there that would be considering a 205 would not use it like this.

Basically what brought me to the 205 was for about the same initial cost (for similar year) & fuel burn and speed as the 182 you get 6 seats and more payload and a stouter nose gear.

So the nosewheel setup is similar to the 206?

It is pretty close to the same.
The strut centering device is inside the strut, not externally on the scissors.
I'm not sure but some of the really early 206's may also have this setup.

I have enjoyed reading through the post here. I know this is an old thread. I have been looking at the ground roll numbers in the books between the 205 and the early 206. The 205s have a significantly shorter roll on both takeoff and landing. Anybody have any thoughts on that?

onceAndFutr_alaskaflyer wrote:So the nosewheel setup is similar to the 206?

For what its worth, my 205 project plane came from the factory with long range tanks (84 gal), and heavy duty nose gear. It's also missing some nose gear parts. Lately while purchasing nose gear parts on line, I've noticed the part numbers to be the same as the same parts on the 206.

205s have four different nose gears. Early Heavy duty and light duty, and later model heavy and light duty. The early models (through serial 481) have the internal centering mechanism. The later gear is more like most other Cessna gear and has external centering.

205FAN wrote:I have enjoyed reading through the post here. I know this is an old thread. I have been looking at the ground roll numbers in the books between the 205 and the early 206. The 205s have a significantly shorter roll on both takeoff and landing. Anybody have any thoughts on that?

I'd like to see a 205 POH to compare with my 206 POH. I have a hard time believing that they are much different. If anything I'd think the 206 is shorter due to more power and more flap. Been wrong lots before though.

In my experience the 206 does get off shorter and land shorter, I think the flaps and engine have a lot to do with it.

A1Skinner wrote:

205FAN wrote:I have enjoyed reading through the post here. I know this is an old thread. I have been looking at the ground roll numbers in the books between the 205 and the early 206. The 205s have a significantly shorter roll on both takeoff and landing. Anybody have any thoughts on that?

I'd like to see a 205 POH to compare with my 206 POH. I have a hard time believing that they are much different. If anything I'd think the 206 is shorter due to more power and more flap. Been wrong lots before though.

Did a quick check and they seem similar.
The T/O run does seem short as it is listed as shorter than my IO-520 powered 185.

205FAN wrote:... I have been looking at the ground roll numbers in the books between the 205 and the early 206. The 205s have a significantly shorter roll on both takeoff and landing. Anybody have any thoughts on that?

Maybe Cessna hired ol' BD to write up the performance specs?

I gotta start looking at the dates of posts. Somewhere I've heard that the old ones are called "necro-posts"--seems appropriate.

When I first started working on my commercial, the FBO at Laramie had a 205. I was always hopping revenue rides to get the experience of flying different airplanes on the return leg, so I got to fly the 205 for several hours. I remember two things: its radios were junk, and it was the noisiest airplane I've ever flown. I don't remember that it flew any differently from the T206 that they also had, and that it was about the same as the 182s they had. But I was a rank newbie at the time, so my views today might be different than they were back then. My gosh, that was 45 years ago!

Cary

What kind of plane is this one, 205 or 206? It has an Adams Apple and a baggage door like a 205. But also its on floats. This is an old pic of Bush Pilot John Ski, in Northern Quebec. He didn't own this plane however.

We celebrated his 90th birthday yesterday. Question came up as to which model this is. Any thoughts?

On The Fly wrote:What kind of plane is this one, 205 or 206? It has an Adams Apple and a baggage door like a 205. But also its on floats. This is an old pic of Bush Pilot John Ski, in Northern Quebec. He didn't own this plane however.

We celebrated his 90th birthday yesterday. Question came up as to which model this is. Any thoughts?

Probably a P206.