Hey guys... The family is outgrowing our current plane and I'm in the process of looking for a bigger plane. I have a few questions regarding the 6 seat Cessnas and know some of you guys here have alot of experience with them. I know there are Piper and Bonanza models out there that might meet my requirements but I like the high wings. I'm torn between the 206 & 210 because they each fulfill certain needs better than the other. I really like the 206 for it's roominess and useful load, ability to up-size the tires, and the prospect of lower maintenance and insurance costs. I really like the 210 for it's speed (OBVIOUSLY), and it seems you can get more plane for quite a bit less money on the older vintage 210's compared to the 206's. I've also been struggling with the decision of turbo vs. normally aspirated. Living in Michigan, a turbo is not needed for most of the flying I do. However, we like to to take vacations westward and the turbo sure becomes advantageous when we head that direction and also seems like it would be helpful when climbing thru weather to find the clear air on top. So here's a couple of questions for any of you guys who have experience you wouldn't mind sharing:

206:
How's the short field and climb performance of a NA 206?
Can the standard 60ish gallon fuel bladders on the late 60's birds be upgraded to the Cessna long range bladders of 80ish gallons?
What are real world cruise speeds, climb rates, and fuel burns a guy can expect from a late '60's or early '70's model?
Can the lower cowl on a late '60's model be replaced with one off from an early '70's model that doesn't have the big chin on it?
How big an impact does a STOL kit have on TO/landing, climb and cruise performance?

210:
Does anybody know how the wing performance of the '66 model with lift struts compares to that of the '67 or later models with the cantilever wings in terms of TO/landing, climb and cruise performance?
Does the spring style gear of the '69 and older models provide any advantages like taller stance for prop clearance or durability over the tubular gear of the '70 and later birds?
What size tires do the 210's have and is there any possibility of larger than stock tires fitting into the gear wells when retracted?
What kind of toll will grass stirp operations have on the gear? I'm envisioning places I've seen on videos like Moose Creek, Johnson Creek or Stanley as potential places I could visit in a 210 and places like Fish Lake would be too rough for the small tires and folding gear.

Turbo's:
I know they generate heat and those temperatures have to be paid attention to, but if managed properly how would you say a turbo would affect maintenance costs over a 10 or 15 year period?

I really appreciate any wisdom or advice you guys might have for me.

I have a thousand hours or so in a P210. I love the 210, best flying Cessna made in my opinion. however, they break a lot.
I only have experience with the Turbo IO-520p but it's a maintainers dream, lot's of revenue from 210 owners.
It is crowded to work on with the turbo, things get hot and wear out faster. Airframe it's self is great, the tube gear on the one I flew was solid but the actuators all leaked. Had a hydraulic power pack go out, then the engine with only 1400 hours on the overhaul went when the turbo did. New Cylinders on an AD after the new engine then the exhaust all in about 1000 hours then a vacuum pump and an engine analyzer (don't fly one without it). Oh yeah a tachometer as well.
This airplane was well maintained and flown 3-4 day's a week using power settings recommended by the CPA always cooling down 20 plus miles from the airport and kept in a hangar plugged in.

I'm hoping to get a 206 non turbo in the future if that tells you anything.

Thanks for your candid reply. It's real world experiences like yours that I'm hoping can keep me out of the poor house. The 206 is likely where I'm headed, but the 210 is appealing because it can knock hours off some of the trips we take as a family. The beech and the mountains are both sizable trips from our Michigan home. 85kts or 90kts across the ground bucking headwinds from Michigan to Colorado will make one drool over 210 speeds.

Thanks again.

I was in your shoes a year ago. My wife and I are having our third child in the first week of May. I reluctantly sold the family Skywagon and after long analysis of our mission decided on and purchased a 206. Maintenance cost and mission reliability differences associated with retractable gear was the deciding factor between the 210 and the 206. Our mission profile includes several long x-countries, but we're not in that much of a hurry anyways. The cabin space and loading capabilities were the deciding factors over a 185 or later 180. The Skywagon was fun to fly (really fun) and a great novelty for me, but my experience level and intended use wasn't taking me anywhere that the 206 can't handle. Looked at the other manufacturers and the 206's useful load for carrying all the families necessary camping gear made the difference.

We've owned our 79' U206G with Atlantic Aero upgrade IO-550-F for just under a year. I couldn't be happier with our choice. Little bit more of the goodies on it than I really wanted, but that's kind of necessary to find a good, non-abused aircraft in the market. In the 150 hours this year I've had an alternator need replaced and looks like I'll need some sealing work on the R/H integral fuel tank. Also will have to comply with SAIB CE-05-27R1 for some corrosion coming through the R/H elevator inboard trailing edge. Wish I could give you a greater idea of maintenance costs, but I'm establishing the baseline myself. Pretty excited about the annual in May because it will be owner assisted.

Still feels like I have some work to do to have the engine running perfect, but here are some numbers I've recorded on X-country:
- 10K PA, 46dF, 2350 RPM, 19" MP, 14.8 GPH (ROP), 151 KTAS
- 3,300 PA, 75dF, 2300 RPM, 22" MP, 11.5 GPH (LOP), 131 KTAS

I have a Horton STOL and have struggled to get the right speeds over the fence for landing. 75 lbs. in the baggage area has really smoothed things out and my short final speed is 58 KIAS for an efficient landing without float. I've searched out an instructor with 206 experience (real experience and not the "yup, I've flown one before" kind) to help me explore the envelope of performance. Until then, I keep pretty conservative.

I love our Stationaire and think we made the perfect choice for our family. This airplane will be our family SUV for well into the future.

I have a few hundred hours in about a dozen different 210 models from the basic B model to the P-210...even flown 2 models with STOL kits. I will say that all 3 of the Turbo models that I have flown had major engine issues...with the exception of the P-210 which I probably just did not fly enough. The N/A powered models that I have flown were very reliable and I do not recall any routine or major powerplant issues that would not be expected from any big bore Cont powered aircraft.

The strutted wing is lighter, produces more lift, and subsequently more drag so it is a slower aircraft...basically it is a 182 RG. The 2nd generation wing (1967) is a completely new airfoil with a constant taper from root to tip, is cantilevered (heavier), and has 3 degree dihedral...they traded some lift for airspeed. The 3rd generation wing (1968) has a 1 degree dihedral...again trading climb / short field performance for speed. The 4th generation wing (1985) has an additional 3 feet due to enhanced wingtips, but maintains the same main wing design. The gear was changed from spring steel to tubular in 1970 which allowed for the full size back seats...the largest size tire you can mount on the mains are the 600x6...anything larger will hang up in the wells...they may go up, but they probably won't come back down. For off airport use you must take into account that the nose tire is 500x5...I am comfortable with grass strips in a 210 and it will do it all day, but anything serious off airport other than nice grass strips I would be very hesitant...especially with a 2 blade prop.

Bottom line, for its designed mission of heavy hauling, cross country, high cruise speed, and rock steady IFR it is an excellent aircraft that is arguably the best in its class. For off airport use I would go with the 206 if faced with the choice between the two aircraft.

I had the same decision 7 years ago. Had a 67 182 and wanted something else. I went with the Bonanza. A friend has a 206 that I have been in a few times. Basically a bigger 182. Good takeoff and short field landing capability. Painfully slow like the 182. Not a real good climber either but adequate. Unlike the 210 the Bonanza was designed for non paved strips. My gear is the same gear as on that years Baron that weighs more than 2000 pounds more. The nose gear is mounted like the 206, not to the rather fragile firewall of the 182. My Bo weighs approx 200 pounds more than my 182 empty but has 65 more HP.
The 182(and 206) gets off the ground in less distance with the same load inside but loses in climb, cruise and MPG. The 210 with a 520 would offer similar differences. I bought my Bo for the space inside and the hell for stout gear. I have about 1-2 inches more prop clearance than my 182 did that had a 6.00x6 nose tire, I do keep my nose gear strut inflated slightly higher than average just for this reason. I don't know what the 210's clearance would be. I have done everything I can to reduce empty weight, currently 1992 and that will go down here this week as I'm having some avionics work done and we are removing the entire vacuum system. Should get 10-15 pounds lighter. One thing I wish I had was the bigger baggage door. The one I have is slightly larger than the 182's, serviceable but the bigger one would be much nicer.. Over the last 15 years of flying NW Montana and a little in Idaho I see virtually no 210's. Lots of 206's and 182's like you'd expect but no 210's. I see more Mooney's. Not sure why that is.

Bonanza Man wrote: I see more Mooney's. Not sure why that is.

Ever look at the gear on a Mooney...built like it was designed for carrier landings and the prop has good clearance.

UH-60andC-180 wrote:Still feels like I have some work to do to have the engine running perfect, but here are some numbers I've recorded on X-country:
- 10K PA, 46dF, 2350 RPM, 19" MP, 14.8 GPH (ROP), 151 KTAS
- 3,300 PA, 75dF, 2300 RPM, 22" MP, 11.5 GPH (LOP), 131 KTAS

I have a Horton STOL and have struggled to get the right speeds over the fence for landing. 75 lbs. in the baggage area has really smoothed things out and my short final speed is 58 KIAS for an efficient landing without float. I've searched out an instructor with 206 experience (real experience and not the "yup, I've flown one before" kind) to help me explore the envelope of performance. Until then, I keep pretty conservative..

Thanks a bunch for this info. Do you have any idea what you see for a climb rate at lower altitudes and when you get up higher? Sounds like you found a really nice 206 specimen. Good luck with your new instructor. I read a post on here not long ago by a gentleman in Alaska that was speaking to training new company pilots in the art of slow flight in the 206. Sounded like the kind of guy somebody like you and I could really learn alot from. Anyhow, thanks again.

I'll throw my $.02 in about the Cessna 205.

I have 38 years experience in the 205 and love its' capabilities.

Plus:
Not many AD's
Useful load around 1400#
I fly at 22 squared. 10.5 gph, (with GAMIs)
I have 800x6 all the way around with GS 115-120 K (135K with std wheels and wheel pants)
Gross Wt 3300#
Lots of room
I put $20/hr in the maintenance acct, and this has covered all maintenance and 5 factory zero time engines over the years. I'm now doing $30/hr.
6 seats
Less $$ to purchase than a 206 because no one understands what the 205 is
Does off pavement very well even at high DA
Landing speed is 50 indicated with VG's. Kind of noisy with stall warning screaming, but still have full elevator, aielron and rudder authority. Without VG's things get heavy at 70 indicated.
The IO 470 is a solid powerplant and trouble free
Flies like a 182 without worry of carb ice
Most 182 and 206 parts are compatible with the 205
Lots of STC'd stuff available for it


Negative:
Nose gear requires regular maintenance and difficult to get to
Nose heavy like the 206 (nice to have some luggage in the back)
Can get power surges at high temps. They get your attention but not a big deal.

PM me with your phone # if you have any questions and I'll call you.

Rich

Lowflybye... thanks for the 210 info. I figured the tire sizes on the 210 were what you've stated but wasn't sure. Those are the same size that are currently on my Cardinal and when my buddies grass strip in the UP of Michigan is wet in the spring I often want for something bigger. Thanks for the info on wing design too.

Bonanza man... thanks for the Bonanza insight. I've read some of your posts in the past and there are days that the Bo does enter my mind but I keep coming back to the things I really like about the Cessnas. We have 2 youngsters and the thought of schlepping car seats up onto the wing and down into the back seat every time we go somewhere is a big reason why low wings lack some appeal for me. Unfortunately, no matter what I buy the car seat task will get somewhat more difficult that it is today. There's really nothing like the cabin access you get with the doors on a Cardinal. The Bo speeds sure we be nice on the weekend visits to Grandma's in golf shores or those annual trips out west though.

Thanks again guys!

'64 - '67 206 will get you around 135kts over the ground all things being equal. Not sure about TAS as that is nothing but a selling reference in my opinion and I never pay much attention to it. '68 and newer with 13' tail just a bit slower. Not sure about changing the chin without major FAA hassle...it is kind of ugly but it's no big detraction either way. Figure 15.5 - 16.5 gph down low unless you like buying lots of exhaust parts then lean it. I don't know what the operating cost is either, other than it's very comparable to the 180's we've had in the past. Still a 6 - banger Continental, same basic prop, fuel burn within a couple gallons of one another. Lots of room in both P and U models, I believe '66 and up have more baggage area behind back seats. Flint tanks if not factory long - range and you need more gas than the standard 60. Cuff the wing and approach at 55mph if you want, maybe less on a good day depending on how much crap you have in it.

You can come to Alaska and fly mine around a bit...Hell I"ll even sell it to you. We want a LSA.

rfinkle.... thanks for the 205 input. I have looked at them as well. I've heard good things from others who have owned them too. The IO470 seems like a really good engine from the research I've done. In fact I've got a buddy looking for a 182 right now and I told him to look for one with the Petersen IO470 STC if at all possible. I like the economy of the IO470 in the 205, but I have seen 1 or 2 on the market with IO550's and I have to admit it seems the added TO, climb and cruise performance you'd get from that would be nice. The thing I keep coming back to is the limited baggage space in the 205 if you have people in the back seats. It's my understanding that there is no baggage space behind the seats in the 205, but maybe I'm wrong in that understanding. I have read that somebody does have an STC to install the baggage compartment from a P model 206 in the 205 but I figured if I were going to that trouble, why not buy the P206.

gblyer..... thanks for the data points on the early 206's. That's likely what I'm going to end up in because I'm trying to keep my purchase under $100K and would like some decent avionics. Thanks for ground speed data. I use ground speed for my calculations because it's always right there in front of me on the GPS.

Maybe we'll meet someday. We hope to take a summer vacation within the next couple of years and travel up to your slice of heaven on earth. It's one of the reason for looking for the bigger planes. My wife and I have been to Alaska on our honeymoon, but my Mom nor our kids have ever been. We really want to get back and to take Mom and the kids with us.

Let me know if you're ever in need of a partner for a Moose, Sheep or Goat hunt. Those are bucket list things for me.

Thanks again.

Look up inflight fires in the turbo 210 on NTSB. Not pretty. When it happened to me, we barely made it.

pilot117 wrote:
Bonanza man... thanks for the Bonanza insight. I've read some of your posts in the past and there are days that the Bo does enter my mind but I keep coming back to the things I really like about the Cessnas. We have 2 youngsters and the thought of schlepping car seats up onto the wing and down into the back seat every time we go somewhere is a big reason why low wings lack some appeal for me. Unfortunately, no matter what I buy the car seat task will get somewhat more difficult that it is today. There's really nothing like the cabin access you get with the doors on a Cardinal. The Bo speeds sure we be nice on the weekend visits to Grandma's in golf shores or those annual trips out west though.

Thanks again guys!

Cessna having two doors is an advantage. I had a Cardinal for awhile and would rather have a 182. The Cardinal sits too low. For your car seats eventually that problem goes away but in the meantime I can reach in thru the baggage door and put stuff on the back seats as it is not a bench seat. When ever I need to install/remove a back seat I do it thru the baggage door.

pilot117 wrote: because I'm trying to keep my purchase under $100K and would like some decent avionics. .

Under $100K and some goodies? Here you go:

Pics here:
http://www.hubgarage.com/mygarage/dburk ... cles/31527

Following are the specs and pics for my 1966 Vtail N3702Q:

Fly 175 knots at 15 gph or 148 knots at 12.2 gph. Travel non stop to Key West from NYC in comfort and style. I hate to see it go but I am not giving the plane enough use.



1966 Beech V35 N3702Q SN:8363
Airframe Total Time: 5735
Engine Time Since Major Overhaul:1604 Ultimate Engines IO550 2000 Hr TBO
GamiJectors installed runs smoothly LOP or ROP
Prop Time: Hartzell Super Scimitar 1745 SNEW 10 Hr since reseal

February 2012 Annual
March 2012 IFR Certification
1,358 Lb. useful load
Beryl D’Shannon 15 Gal Tip Tanks for 104 gal. total
1989 Paint

Garmin 530 WAAS
Garmin TIS 330 Transponder w/traffic on 530W
King KCS 55A HSI
KMA 24
KX 155 w/GS
KR 87 ADF
KN 64 DME
KT 76A Secondary Transponder
Hoskins CFS 1000A Fuel Flow
JPI 760
BFG WX 1000E Stormscope
S-Tec 60-2 Autopilot w/altitude pre-select & S-Tec yaw damper
P1000 Digital Tach
Beryl D’Shannon Speed slope windshield
GAMI Baffles and Louvers
Wet Vacuum pump
Flap Gap & Aileron Seals
Fuel Cells replaced 1999
Landing Gear Motor replaced 2010
Fuel Selector Valve rebuilt 2010
Fuel Pump rebuilt 2010

$ 82,500.00

Contact Dave Burkart 914-262-7336

Consider a pair of Kids Fly Safe CARES instead of car seats. Lots less cumbersome, light weight, convenient. I bought one for my C172 for Angel Flights. Had to lengthen the strap to go around the double back seat rest, but it would fit on bucket seats without any changes. It works perfectly, keeps the kids tied down and safe, but gives them wiggle room. http://www.kidsflysafe.com/

Cary

Bonanza Man wrote:

pilot117 wrote: because I'm trying to keep my purchase under $100K and would like some decent avionics. .

Under $100K and some goodies? Here you go:

Pics here:
http://www.hubgarage.com/mygarage/dburk ... cles/31527


Contact Dave Burkart 914-262-7336

This is a horrible development Dave. I hate to see a dream airplane like this go. And Bo's are an incredible buy these days. That's cheap with all that stuff. Say it ain't so....

EB

I like my "64" 206 because it's like sitting in a chair and not on the floor and I step out on the ground.

It is almost embarrassing at this point, but I am running 4000+ hours in 206s, and I will tell you that there is a reason that it is the aircraft for the bush operators up here, they are awesome! The big cargo door, they have the ability to get into short, and bad, and more importantly get out of short and bad, and can carry 1100 lbs of soda pop. Ours all have the seaplane braces, 8.50 10's and either the add on cuffs or the wing tip extension, and cargo pods. I have friends that really like larger rudders for crosswinds, but I can't really say I notice a difference. I flight plan out at 120kts and 16 GPH to be conservative. The turbos are just not cost efficient for the cycles we do, however, we do not have the DAs that I experienced down in AZ and NM where a turbo would really be nice.