I'm loosely familiar with why the Cessna family of aircraft stopped making them (although I'd be interested to know more). But does anyone think there's any chance we'll see another one roll off the production lines in "our lifetime"?
It's hard to avoid the fact that there's still a need for these planes for certain operations. Despite the sales talk from Cessna, I personally doubt the 182/206 supplants a 180/185. Others will disagree.

After the stupid but successful lawsuit which found Piper at fault for producing an inherently hazardous design (a tailwheel equipped Super Cub), Jack Pelton, interviewed some time later and asked this question, said that Cessna would never produce another tailwheel airplane for liability reasons.

I seriously doubt they ever will. Who needs a 185? I've gone places in a 206 that I'd have to take a hard look at to even think going with a 185. The only really valid argument for the 185 MIGHT be skis, but I've seen 206s operated pretty successfully on skis, though their useful load is seriously reduced.

The Achilles heel with the 182 is the nose gear attach point....the firewall. But, keep the weight off the nose and no problem.

The 206 is one hell of a load hauler, and a great back country airplane. What's not to like? I've flown a lot of hours and a lot of landings in a 185. I'd take a 206 ANY day, for just about any mission.

MTV

mtv wrote:The 206 is one hell of a load hauler, and a great back country airplane. What's not to like?

Honestly....? The appearance of a nosewheel
They only look 'correct' on jet aircarft to me.

Lets face reality. Tailwheel airplanes get it done with the ladies!

I'm playing a significant part in what is probably the next best thing, which is "making" Cessna taildraggers that are much new-er and a lot less clapped out than the vast majority of factory taildraggers.

But no, if the Canadian "Cyclone" was not able to succeed, and a new 172 is almost a quarter million dollars, and avgas is six bucks or higher, then I doubt Cessna's bean counters would ever approve any new 180's.

I saw an article several years ago that said a "government owned company" in Iran is making parts for airplanes bought from the US before 1979, and that they are also making new cessna 180's, 206's, and beech bonanza's. Good luck with customs if you buy one and ferry it home.

206 will go there, but I am not sure maintenance wise if it makes much sense. Yes that chin and gear tunnel is stout, but man does it ever take a beating. Very expensive repair when it gets twisted up and loose.

I don't think the new generation 206 is a replacement for anything. A now defunct air taxi here bought 4 of them several years ago. The business was doomed from the start. Riding in the new ones was very comfortable, but they are so heavy and the way the seats are it was difficult to use for freight. Also looked like a nightmare under the cowling. I imagine the 182 is the same. Cessna wants to sell Caravans for commercial use, nice if you have a couple mil laying around I guess and don't mind flying around underpowered.

gbflyer wrote:206 will go there, but I am not sure maintenance wise if it makes much sense. Yes that chin and gear tunnel is stout, but man does it ever take a beating. Very expensive repair when it gets twisted up and loose.

I don't think the new generation 206 is a replacement for anything. A now defunct air taxi here bought 4 of them several years ago. The business was doomed from the start. Riding in the new ones was very comfortable, but they are so heavy and the way the seats are it was difficult to use for freight. Also looked like a nightmare under the cowling. I imagine the 182 is the same. Cessna wants to sell Caravans for commercial use, nice if you have a couple mil laying around I guess and don't mind flying around underpowered.

Good point on the new vs older 206s. A friend of mine who's been in the air taxi business, flying 206s for a lot of years was looking to replace his old F model, that has around 12,000 hours on it....we were at the AOPA Convention. The Cessna sales guys weren't much interested in selling him an airplane, even though he probably had cash in the bank. Asked them the empty weight....."uh, not sure". Really? Can you find out? "uh, yeah, we'll see if we can find the paperwork at the hotel". They didn't. "Floats? You want to operate on floats? Dang, not sure what you'd do to get there". Answer: Go to Wipair and buy a seaplane fin and rudder (bring MONEY) to go with your floats. In the end, he found a good low time G model, and bought that.

The new ones aren't made for working folks.

MTV

Would it change the cg a lot if they woyld at least move the nose gear on the 182 to the wngine mount instead of firewall? Just curious why they've never done that...

I want to see a picture of those girls next to the Wilga. I am having serious doubts.

Yeah, no offense meant, but even a pretty homely girl would look pretty good next to the Wilgabeast!

Cary

Hard to say if anybody would buy a $500,000 185 that weighed more. But it would have to have a G1000, Airbags, a different motor, different door latches, different cowling, as mentioned, seat tracks. The market overseas would be potentially bigger than the US, but the availability of Avgas would make their sales area small. So if a real 300 hp diesel pops up, then perhaps the overseas market might perk up. Last time Africair (Cessna's Africa distributer) got stuck with 6 halfway converted 182's with that German outfit.

I just got offered some 185's and ag-wagons in Africa, they can't use them, no avgas. Trying to decide if it is even worth it to go over there and box up 5 aircraft in a complete bunghole of a place, even if I get them for $10-20K each. I've had the conversation on light aircraft, but the fuel issue in many places keeps popping up. Avgas can cost an extra $5-10 a gallon in these places so a Caravan works out to be a bargain.

Meantime, I leave next week for Brisbane, Australia for a month, kind of a family emergency and business. My daughter in law is in the hospital for limbic encephalitis. Son is an engineer at a remote mine and flies back and forth. So I get to be a nurse and inspect my Twin Otter up in Cairns when my son is home. Bet my legs look good in white hose. So Africa will have to wait until I get back.

Realistically, for what Cessna would charge, you could almost build a better, lighter 185 around a data plate for less money. Of course, the un-informed would not be as impressed than if you had a new one.

One guy did a tailwheel conversion on a 206. It looked great in the picture, but I have no idea about the reality of whether that would be a desirable airplane and have a market for it.

I could certainly design a 206 conversion and get it certified, based on what I am doing now for the 172/175/182. But I have ZERO experience with flying or operating 206's (other than watching Skydive 206's dad operate them at California City). I wouldn't invest the time/money/aggravation unless someone convinced me it would be a big hit with the working real-world bush operators.

There are people on this forum with a lot of professional experience using that airplane. I'm curious if any of those people think that a well-executed tailwheel 206 conversion would be highly successful or not.

dogpilot wrote:Meantime, I leave next week for Brisbane, Australia for a month, kind of a family emergency and business. My daughter in law is in the hospital for limbic encephalitis. Son is an engineer at a remote mine and flies back and forth. So I get to be a nurse and inspect my Twin Otter up in Cairns when my son is home. Bet my legs look good in white hose. So Africa will have to wait until I get back.

Who's operating your twotter out of Cairns?

EZFlap wrote:One guy did a tailwheel conversion on a 206. It looked great in the picture, but I have no idea about the reality of whether that would be a desirable airplane and have a market for it.

I could certainly design a 206 conversion and get it certified, based on what I am doing now for the 172/175/182. But I have ZERO experience with flying or operating 206's (other than watching Skydive 206's dad operate them at California City). I wouldn't invest the time/money/aggravation unless someone convinced me it would be a big hit with the working real-world bush operators.

There are people on this forum with a lot of professional experience using that airplane. I'm curious if any of those people think that a well-executed tailwheel 206 conversion would be highly successful or not.

I put between 4 and 6 thousand hours on 185s, working them on floats, wheels and skis. The last one I worked suffered a broken crankshaft, and I parked it on a mountainside. No harm to me, but the plane was a mess.

So we needed a new airplane. My boss at the time was the "inclusive decision maker" type, so he told me to provide our crew with the pros and cons of a variety of airplanes, and we'd vote.....groan. Long story short, they picked a 206, and frankly, since I was the one did the research, and presented the data....I really couldn't argue. Go with the flow.

So, a refurbished 206 F appeared in due time. Now doing the same job those 185s had been doing for 8 or 9 years.......and guess what? The 206 kicked the 185's ass every way from Sunday, except that it's kinda trucklike on the controls. With an IO 550 engine, it would carry more stuff, which was WAAAAAYYYY easier to load and unload, into and out of the same places the 185 would go, and easier.

Convert one to a tailwheel???? You won't see anybody who actually works airplanes converting a tri gear airplane to a tailwheel. Toy airplane maybe.

At one point, there was a guy hauling barrel gas into a remote strip for a helicopter operation (I know....). He installed some gear damage in the 185...rough short strip. I told them I could give it a try... Went in there with the first load and it was an absolute piece of cake. Would have been a PITA in the 185, mostly because of loading, but the 206 on a decent set of tires is a world beater. Bar none.

Only place where the 185 MIGHT have an edge is on skis. I worked airplanes (including 185s) on skis for 20 years and most of what I did on skis I could do in a Cub/Husky/Scout. the 185 in deep snow, is a great way to improve your winter camping skills.....don't ask how I know that.

The 206 is such a great working airplane, the only way Cessna could improve on it was to lengthen it....called the 207. The 207 isn't a great off airport machine, but what a hauler!

Tailwheels? We don't need no stinking tailwheels....

MTV

The Twin Otter works for Heavylift (Flightline Services, Singapore shell corp). Does a Constabulary contract in Burma.

The main thing I like about the 185 is how it flies. The 206 is heavy on the controls and has a slow roll rate. But if you want to move stuff, it wins hands down. The 185 has the edge on soft landing areas. When I had both a 206 with the Allison turboprop and the 207, the 207 was no slouch on short field, 650' vs 600' for the 206 and this was at a heavier max gross weight. The 207 was positively cavernous on its load, but Skyvan hideous in appearance. It was a real pig in its native form, it needed more horsepower. When it got it, it blew the 206 away.

I pulled into Taos, on the way back from a trip. Inside I had a Kayak, two mountain bikes, a table saw and an antique dresser my wife bought someplace. The rather retro hippy on the lines goes, "this plane rules man!" I had the 207 all over East Africa, doing off field, heck most places there was never a field or ever going to be a field. It did everything I could ask of it that I wanted a Porter to do, but it had range and was 30% faster. During the lead up to the American intervention to Somalia, the Air Force sent in a bunch of CCT's (combat controllers) to do field evaluations prior to operations. So since the Air Force does not have any light STOL planes, we did the job. JC, a major and the now retired head of the special forces school in Eglin was onboard. Asked if he wanted to do a low level down the Juba river. We did 200 lies of the river at barely measurable height above the water, with crocodiles and hippos leaping out of the water as we passed. To this day, after 3 tours in Nam, several other undeclared wars and such, he says that 207 flight was the best in his career.

Thats pretty cool dogpilot. Seems like you've gotten to do a lot of cool flying. Hoping to meet ya some day and hear some stories.

Some may say there's no need for a tailwheel plane. Maybe.. Although I'd hate to fly a nose wheel thrush.
One important factor here though... A nose wheel plane will never ever ever look as good as a tailwheel plane. the only way you can closely save em is with big tires.
True OFF field work and play just can't convince me that a nose wheel is "just" as good as a tailwheel. 95% as good... Sure.
Yep. No way a 185 can haul what a 206 will, but that's a different story. 206 vs beaver?

The 206 is such a great working airplane, the only way Cessna could improve on it was to lengthen it....called the 207. The 207 isn't a great off airport machine, but what a hauler!

Tailwheels? We don't need no stinking tailwheels....

Put a load in that C207 and you might as well be in a tailwheeled airplane. With that long nose stuck straight up in the air, you ain't seeing anything directly in front of you for taxiing, takeoff, or landing. And... You'll be hard pressed to find a better crosswind airplane out there.

Gump

WilgaBeast wrote:Lets face reality. Tailwheel airplanes get it done with the ladies!

I rarely laugh out loud at something I read - thanks!

I have looked at the U206 tailwheel idea. Only looked. I think the empennage is made to thin to handle rough surface with the tailwheel. A tailwheel U206 would look cool and with my PT6 on the front even cooler. Like others said not much added utility for the work involved. Also a level floor is easier to load and sleep in.