So I've been looking for a while now for a second airplane. I want a plane that will be able to haul my wife and I plus 2 kids our dog and gear comfortably at reasonable speeds for cross country flights but still get into (and out of) longer backcountry airstrips. The Cessna 205 looks like a great airplane for this but I've also just started looking at the PA-32 260s as well. I have left out the 300hp 206s and Cherokee 6 300s due to fuel burn and higher purchase price. From my research here are the pros and cons of each that I have managed to gather.

Cessna 205 pros:
High wing aircraft
Better visibility
2 large pilot doors on each side
6 seats
~1400-1500lb useful load
optional 84 gallon long range tanks
left side rear baggage door
better short field perfomance than the Cherokee 6 260
better rate of climb than the Cherokee 6 260
Capable of installing larger nose fork and tires
16100ft ceiling
STOL kit STCs available

Cessna 205 cons:
Smaller baggage door
Slightly less useful load
Cruise seems slightly slower
Electric flaps
Rare, only ~500 made in 2 years with ~200 registered in the US, low availability on the used aircraft market
1500hr TBO

Cherokee 6 260 pros:
6 seats
~1500-1600lb useful load
Optional 84 gallon fuel tanks
Cruise speed seems slightly faster than the 205
Left rear passenger door that when opened with the baggage door at the same time allows loading of large items
49'' cabin width (5'' wider than the 205)
Nose baggage compartment with 100lb limit
Capable of installing larger nose fork and tires
Manual flaps
Many more Cherokee 6 260s available on the used aircraft market
2000hr TBO

Cherokee 6 cons:
Low wing aircraft
Only one pilot door on the right side
Fuel is split between 4 tanks instead of 2
Not as good of a short field performer and climber
14500ft ceiling (lower than 205)
No STOL kits available?
Much harder to sit under the wing and drink a beer

I have no experience with any of these airplanes and I would love to hear input from anyone that has, especially if they have experience in both types. The Cherokee 6 looks like a great and capable airplane but I'm worried about its performance at higher altitude and backcountry airstrips compared to the 205. Right now for the type of flying I do I am leaning towards the 205 but there are a lot of nice looking PA-32 260s out there for sale right now. Any input would be appreciated.

Cessna . Look at a P-206 never flown a Cherokee . Or a 205 . I do have a P-206 though. Come on up and I'll let you drive it around.145kts. Few pounds short of 1700 useful.People want lots of $ for a u model. The p's seem to go for alot less .Far as I know the 205 is pretty much a p206.for the most part.

Thanks, Mike, I might have to come check out your P-206 sometime. From what I can tell its basically the same as a 205 but with 285hp. I would take one of those if I could find one for a good price but they seem rare as well.

Can't speak to purchase price, but I wouldn't let fuel burn of a 300 deter you. With Gami's and an EDM I generally burn 10 to 11 gph, no higher then 12 gph at 2550, and 9.5 under certain conditions. Talking cruise here. 185 with IO520D.

There is no replacement for displacement.

Looking forward to seeing what you end up with.

I will burn around 15gph .135-145 kts in cruise. With 8.50s'..Io-550. .... 1000 ft of runway feels pretty comfy heavy at 6000ft+.....Fuel burn is pretty scary but once you areup and out you can pull the big motors back and lumber along. Feels nice to have the juice on takeoff, ( especially when you look back and you have two kids a dog , wife , queensize futon mattress , case of beer on ice , food for a week and a full tank if gas.)ect.............. And a flame thrower

They both are good aircraft. The Cherokee 6 is a fantastic load hauler and a bit quicker than your 205. Real stable and moronically easy to fly. They have a better CG range for hauling and the door does make it easy to load. Kind of homely though, not that the 205 is any beauty queen, more of a goat/pig contest. Vis is a lot better down in the 205. Your needs will dictate, if your not going to ultra short fields, you may come out better with the old Piper and mpg is a bit better. The 205 is a decent honest plane, but finding one that isn't beat to all hell and back by jumpers, is a challenge. I do favor high wings, I fly for the view.

What Dogpilot said.

The 6 has a BOMBPROOF Lycoming SIX cylinder (not four as stated) engine, that WILL go to 2000 hours if treated well. Much better engine than IO 470, which is a good engine in its own right.

The 6 has a VERY robust nose gear assy compared to the stock 205/206. In fact, the nose gear yoke that Landes Airglas sells to upgrade the 206 nose gear is essentially a Cherokee nose fork.

The cargo door on the 6 is much better than that aft. "P door" on the 205 or P 206.

All that said, I like high wing airplanes a lot. I've flown both and in my opinion the Six will probably outwork the 205, BUT you're not really going to work it.....

The 205 offers the ability to upgrade engined at overhaul, then you'd have a lot more power than. The Six. Not sure how hard it is to upgrade a Six-260 to a 300.

You won't go wrong with either.

MTV

Rob pretty sure that 205 is 48" inside C-170s and 180s are 40" later model 182s are 44"

Rob,
A few years back, a 185 flew to Alaska with a 170. Both planes were loaded for the trip. The 185 had two aboard with baggage and the 170 with one aboard with baggage.
The 185 slowed to not outrun the 170 and when they stopped for fuel they both had used about the same amount.
I did the same traveling up there with a 180 and we were always within a gallon or two... plus I had my pod on.
Basically what I'm saying is, the 205 won't use any more(or just slightly more) fuel than your 170 when traveling over the same distance. You'll just get there a little faster in the 205.

You and Tracy having twins

Mark

Well, I'm biased, but will give you my thoughts since I just went through this same dilemma not to long ago, and I'll address your Cons with what I've seen and learned. If you've not yet talked to Rich, he is the guy to talk to about 205s. Sounds like he is shopping too so if he gets one, you should go fly it with him. Or if we get near each other, I'll take you up as well.

I think Rich will tell you that he has had very few issues with the 470 in the 38 years he has owned a 205. I know that the 470s on our Club's 182s have been rock solid and regularly go 1000 hours past TBO. I flew one with the IO-550 in it. Oh baby! Hopefully, many years down the road when we need an overhaul done, this will be an upgrade we can do.

The small back door hasn't been an issue for us. Unless you are trying to put some thing really big back there, it should be more than sufficient. With the two back seats out, you should have plenty of room for all your gear.

Although the book says 1500# useful load, I think you will find most between upper 1300s to mid 1400 #s. With all our gear we are still around 200 pounds under gross, full fuel (82 gal usable) and the CG is barely in the center. I thought that with no baggage I'd run into the issue of running out of elevator effectiveness like in the older 182s, but this hasn't been the case. With two adults, 160 & 190#s in the front seat, the CG is barely forward of the envelope and no full up trim or carrying power has been needed. I've had some of my best landings in that configuration.

For cruise, I see 150 mph TAS ROP and burn around 13. I say around because I've only ran it there a couple of times and didn't note exact numbers. I run it 65 degrees LOP and get 130 mph TAS using 22" and 2200 RPM with a fuel burn of 10.3 at 7,500 ft decreasing to 9.7 at 11,500 ft. My Gami spread it .2. These numbers are dead on what Rich told me to expect.

The electric flaps doesn't bother me, but the flap handle is a small annoyance. It is spring loaded to the neutral position from both up and down. So, to retract them, you have to hold it up. I'd rather be able to just slap the handle up and get my hand back to the throttle, but you get used to it...or I have Dee do it if I need her to.

While there may have only been 576 of them made, don't let that dissuade you. Since it came from the 210 family and spawned the 206/207 line, you have more parts availability than you might think. There is commonality in parts between the 205 and 210s, 206s, 207s, and 310s. Same part numbers just used on different aircraft. The 310 nose fork is a perfect example.

As I've explored what this aircraft can do, here are a couple of things that have impressed me.

Departing out of OGD, 36 C, light winds, DA of 8,000 ft, I was around 250# under gross weight. I left fuel off because I was concerned about the weight and climb performance. Ends up, it took around 1,400 ft and climbed out at 400 fpm at 90-100 mph.

Then a few weeks later, I departed out of Scofield with a DA of around 10,000-10,300 ft, I figure I was around 85-90% of gross weight, and used around 1600-1700 ft of runway with a 200-300 fpm climb. Not something that I plan on doing on a regular basis, but the performance impressed me.

Overall, everything that I read and was told about this aircraft has been true. Because of its short run followed by the introduction of the 206, and the lack of the clam shell doors, most of these have not seen the hard life as cargo haulers or jump ships. With a bit of patience, I think it is very likely you can find one like I did that is low time on the frame and been a family aircraft. As you have seen, they are a sleeper on the market and much less expensive than a higher time 206. For us and our mission, it is proving to be the perfect fit. We will add VGs for now, then hopefully a Sportsman STOL down the road as well as the extended baggage area. Don't forget that there is a belly pod option too if you really needed more space!

Anyway, feel free to call or email with more questions if you have them. And if you are down this way or if we meet up again some place we can go fly mine.

I used to rent a 205 and a Cherokee 6. I liked both of them.

Hauling a load, I thought they were very similar for cruise speed. The 540 has a better rep for longevity. The top end seems to be the issue on the Continental...the lower end seems very sound. The fuel burn seemed to be slightly more for the 205, but I know folks with the -S that claim to match my own 182 fuel flows. The landing characteristics of the 205 were nicer (slower, perhaps a bit more forgiving). The flaps in the 205 were more effective.

I think the build quality of the Cherokee is better. I hated the access for loading big stuff, and crawling under the wing to check stuff. The landing gear (and nosewheel, same setup as the high wing pipers) is bulletproof. The Cherokee 6 did have a bit harder time way up high with a load, but lightly loaded, I really didn't notice the difference.

I ran into 135ers in AK running both aircraft off of gravel strips to think either is up to the task. One operator I talked to commented that he thought the Cherokees were better for maintenance overall on the rough strips (less stuff getting shaken apart), and actually said he regretted selling a couple to buy a Stationair, which was not holding up to the same abuse as well.

Overall, I liked the 205 more for visibility, access, and looks. If 182's were not going for peanuts at the time I was buying a plane, the 205 would have been my preference. It takes a lot to use up the gross weight in the 182, though- 4 ppl, luggage (easy with the extra width), and a few hours of fuel, and it flies well up high with a full load (12k' DA, 300 fpm). I just don't think I would ever use the extra useful load more than a time or two a year. The extra climb and room in the back of the 205 would be nice, as always.

If I had purchased a 205, I would have had to tie up a lot more cash that has since gone into 100LL for the trips that the 182 accomplishes with ease.

Thanks for all the input everyone. I'm still leaning towards the 205 but it would be nice to get some time in each type to help me decide.

This story is from Joe Stancil "Mr. Skywagon":

There was a bar room bet years ago about who could get off in less distance. 185 or Cherokee Six. The Six did a J - turn and smoked the 185's ass.

Six's are awesome. Too bad Piper didn't build more high-wings.

It's been a lot of years since I flew either one. My experience with the 205 was pretty limited, only a few flights, so I really can't comment on it--other than I recall that it was one of the noisiest airplanes I've ever flown. I flew the 6-260 quite a bit, though (I was instrument-instructing the owner), and I often borrowed the airplane for personal family flights involving my then wife, her early-teen daughter, our foreign-exchange teenage daughter, and my over-sized son, plus baggage for weekends. We were under gross, but not by much with full fuel.

Coming out of Laramie fully loaded as above, the 6-260's climb rate was abysmal, even in the winter, something like 200-250 fpm. But it would continue at that rate all the way up to a 12,000' MEA. Once at cruise, it would fly at a typical 182 speed, around 130 knots. It was rock-solid stable, so it made a superb instrument airplane. I disagree that its flaps aren't effective--I think that they are much better than most low-wing Pipers, if not quite as good as Cessnas' barn doors. And it was certainly built like a tank.

Probably the single most annoying feature of the 6-260 is fuel management. The AFM requires that the mains be used first, then the tips, so any imbalance is pretty noticeable, especially when running on the tips. I typically flew half hour intervals switching back and forth on the mains until the gauges would be just barely reading (not about to run them dry, though some pilots do that), then do the same on the tips. But 84 gallons at 13-14 gph takes you a lot farther than most people want to go non-stop, so for a typical 3 to 4 hour flight, there's still a lot of fuel in the tips. That means that there is a lot of noticeable weight effect from the weight so far outboard, so roll response is slow for most flights.

From a pilot comfort standpoint, the 6-260 is great. That inherent stability makes for a very light workload--point the airplane, adjust the trim, and it just stays there--as long as you're managing the fuel well. Planting it where you want it is easy--very predictable even if approach speed is inconsistent (my client's initial problem was that he'd never been taught to maintain consistent approach speeds). If you want to approach at 80 mph each time, it'll always land on the same spot though roll-out will be long; at a more reasonable 65 mph, it's not a bad short field landing airplane. It will get off in a reasonably short distance, too, but climb-out won't impress anyone.

Cary

I would look for a Robertson Stol equipped Six. Drooping ailerons and all.

Paul

One great thing about the 205 is VERY few ADs. I would consider the Texas Skyways O-550 conversion, they put a carbureted 550 derated to 285 HP and get a 2700hr TBO! !

N300RE wrote:One great thing about the 205 is VERY few ADs. I would consider the Texas Skyways O-550 conversion, they put a carbureted 550 derated to 285 HP and get a 2700hr TBO! !

2700 TBO, that's pretty impressive! Now if I could just find one already equipped that I can afford

Papa Victor wrote:I would look for a Robertson Stol equipped Six. Drooping ailerons and all.

Paul

An R-STOL Cherokee 6 would be interesting. I did some research and it looks like in addition to the cuffed leading edge and drooping ailerons the Robertson kit is known for, the kit on the Cherokee 6 incorporates a belly flap that connects the left and right hand flaps. That make for one huge flap! Has anyone here flown an R-STOL equipped SIX that can comment on the handling characteristics and increase in STOL performance?

I imagine a lot if things can affect how noisy a plane is. I find the 205 no more noiser than a 182. With the prop dialed back to 2200 RPM, it's actually pretty quiet.

No time in a 6 so I can't compare.

robw56 wrote:

N300RE wrote:One great thing about the 205 is VERY few ADs. I would consider the Texas Skyways O-550 conversion, they put a carbureted 550 derated to 285 HP and get a 2700hr TBO! !

2700 TBO, that's pretty impressive! Now if I could just find one already equipped that I can afford

I too was impressed with the TBO. So I asked one of their guys how they got it. Did they do anything special, any tests, mods to the engine other then things like a relocated oil drain. You know how? They asked for it. The gov baulked initially so they asked for 3,000 hours instead. The gov agreed to the 2,700. This apparently is one of the beauties of getting an STC for your mod. YOU specify the parameters and if approved you are golden.