I just purchased a 1969 U206. It has Robertson STOL. I need to overhaul the engine and since it is a light case with a non-VAR crank, a remanufactured engine seems the smartest choice. It is $7000 more to install an I owe 550 F (leaving that voice dictation error in, because it has an element of truth to it!!) installed, so I think I am going to go that route.

Since I will need a new prop and have been weighing the different options. I have been told that these airplanes can be to light on the front end and the MT prop creates an aft center of gravity problem when loaded heavily with cargo. I have run some sample weight and balance scenarios which place the c of g inside the envelope but near the aft limits with extre,e loading (most of the time I will fly with it closer to the middle).

My question is how much of a handful is a 206 with aft loading that is still inside the envelope? Since the R STOL seems to create a flatter approach, does it help mitigate negative control issues?

Congrats on the new plane! It will be a beast with a 550.

I fly a 1971 Turbo 206 on a USFS contract. I have never loaded it up heavy at aft CG, so I have no real world experience to share. We usually operate with four people, full fuel and light baggage load on board.

I have the details in a Foreflight W&B profile, and played with scenarios, so that I will share:

The empty weight and CG are 2161 lb at 35.2. The loading envelope is 41.2"-49.7", with a 3600 lb gross weight.

With full fuel, 6 - 180 lb people on board and 100 lbs in the baggage compartment (a ludicrous load), it still isn't out of the CG range. It is 245 lb over gross weight in this situation. I can't imagine loading 6 180 lb people in, but some may consider that a reasonable thing to do.

Emptying the middle two seats - so two 180 pound people in the aft seats and 100 lbs behind them and the operating weight and CG are well within limits at3485# and 46.5" cg. Don't know why you would put all of that weight so far aft, but you could in this plane.

It is turbocharged with a 520 and a 401 MAC, so it is likely quite a bit further forward than yours will be with new engine and prop, but still it may be a data point that you are interested in, and demonstrates how useful the loading envelope is on the 206.

This airplane also has VGs, which I believe really help the elevator to do it's thing.

My 0.02$

I have a Cessna 205, so take this with a grain of salt. The difference between fore and aft CG is night and day in mine. Two different airplanes. When light, I'm always near the front limit. I fly approaches with full up trim, and flare with two hands to get enough force on the yoke. Often I land with less than full flaps just to have enough elevator authority to keep the nose wheel off the ground, even with VGs. The elevator forces are significantly higher than roll at forward CG. And this is with 7 gallons of water and 40 lbs of gear in the baggage compartment all the time.

I've flown right under gross near the rear CG occaisionally. Approaches don't run out of trim, flare is almost fingertip light, and elevator forces feel lower than roll. It's easy to porpoise/overflare because the forces are so low. It isn't dangerous or particularly scary, but gets your attention when you forget it. Kind of like hitting the brakes in your sports car after you get out of an old pickup truck. I prefer loading to give me a CG that is biased slightly to the rear of center if possible.

The difference between light and heavy is also eye opening with respect to sink and power reserve.

My 65 206 is 1846 empty, C of G is 33" empty. 520 ajd a black Mac. So even further forward the the one Scolopax flies. I can put basically anything I want in there and be under gross. I prefer the way it flies with aft CG, the smaller tail benefits in the flare from that configuration. But even up at the fwd limits it performs great and handles fine, just needs a bit more power to flare. I'm installing an extended baggage here soon so I can carry more when I have all 6 seats full, and also have a belly pod to mount up.
The black Mac pulls like a beast, and I really like that prop. That would be my recommendation on a 206.

Didn’t read all the technical W&B replies. What is that anyway[emoji1]

Never head of one light on the nose. Any of them I’ve flown are pigs empty. I can tell you that I have seen the tail hit the ground when the pilot gets out on more than one occasion and there’s still plenty of nose down trim. Get the tail skid. Incredible airplane. I foolishly sold mine to pursue E-AB.

Yes, definitely put the tail skid on it. Bounce the tail cone up into the elevator once and landing with a jammed rudder will give experience you don’t need. And lighten your wallet.

The 206 I flew most was an F model, with the Wipaire IO 550 mod, which includes an upgross to 3800 pounds. Metal prop, but never had a problem getting aft of legal CG.

One project I worked on was a steel shot initiative in Native villages in AK. I’d load cases and cases of steel shot shotgun shell, a trap, shotguns and myself and two others. We’d be right at 3800 pounds at launch with 75 gallons of gas (ie a LOT of ammo). Before I loaded the last couple cases in the baggage, I’d have my front seat passenger board. Otherwise, the plane would settle on its tail skid, and passengers and pilot would have to climb up to board.

In that configuration, which was still slightly ahead of aft CG, the airplane flew great. As noted above, with aft loading, the plane is very nice to land.

When I first started flying that plane, I was very concerned with CG, particularly at 3800. I worked a LOT of sample problems, and without being really stupid, it just never got out of CG aft. Now, understand that includes hauling large outboard motors, 55 gallon barrels of jet fuel (two at a time, cause that’s all that would fit), and other very bulky loads.

I had a 500 gallon fuel facility out in the Bush, well north of Fairbanks. We had a bulk tank made that fit in through the cargo doors, and secured in the baggage. It was ~150 gallons or so, maybe a bit larger. This was with the plane on floats. Thing flew great with that tank full.....and that’s a long ways aft.

So, I wouldn’t worry about aft CG too much. When it’s completed, just do some math with realistic loads.

But, DO install a tail skid......seriously, loaded aft, but still legal, they’ll sit on their tail.

MTV

Thank you everyone for the input,… I really appreciate this group!

I had not considered the tail skid and now it is at the top of my list! I don’t think they make these float plane cones anymore, and would hate to damage it.

There is the tail skid made by I believe a company called middle Fork aviation that looks super cool but is expensive.

Aircraft Spruce has tail skids that fit models up through the 182 for 30 bucks,… This is springy and may absorb energy rather than transfer it directly to the bulkhead and tail comb like the middle Fork Aviation model may do.

Are there affordable skids like those I found for the 182 that attached to the 206?… MTV what were the ones like that you had on the planes you flew?

Mine is just one of the little spring ones. Works good.

Yes, the “basic” works. The Middle fork one is a work of art, and it too will work.

MTV

… I did not consider it while looking at propeller choices, but just realized that the air glass fork POH supplement moves the forward center of gravity envelope back from 33 inches at 2500 pounds to 38 inches at 2500 pounds! With two people in full fuel and an aluminum three blade prop, I believe I would be past the forward limit by an inch or so, with the MT I would barely be inside of it. I realize a little bit of luggage in the back of the plane will make the difference, but thought I would post this for those who may not be aware.

AZ Flyer wrote:… I did not consider it while looking at propeller choices, but just realized that the air glass fork POH supplement moves the forward center of gravity envelope back from 33 inches at 2500 pounds to 38 inches at 2500 pounds! With two people in full fuel and an aluminum three blade prop, I believe I would be past the forward limit by an inch or so, with the MT I would barely be inside of it. I realize a little bit of luggage in the back of the plane will make the difference, but thought I would post this for those who may not be aware.

The nose fork cuts the first five inches off of your CG envelope? Interesting

Let's see pics of your new ride?

Scolopax wrote:

AZ Flyer wrote:… I did not consider it while looking at propeller choices, but just realized that the air glass fork POH supplement moves the forward center of gravity envelope back from 33 inches at 2500 pounds to 38 inches at 2500 pounds! With two people in full fuel and an aluminum three blade prop, I believe I would be past the forward limit by an inch or so, with the MT I would barely be inside of it. I realize a little bit of luggage in the back of the plane will make the difference, but thought I would post this for those who may not be aware.

The nose fork cuts the first five inches off of your CG envelope? Interesting

Let's see pics of your new ride?

It looks like it is only certain models setup with a specific tire size. Very interesting though. I wasnt aware of that, but mine is not one of the listed models...

Here is a picture!

AZ Flyer wrote:Here is a picture!

Looks like a beauty!

I love a red and white airplane, and I love a 206!

It has been a year and a half since this post and I have put a couple hundred hours on my 206. I was searching for something else, and saw this discussion and wanted to circle back with an update.

Taking the above advice, I put a Middle Fork Mods tail skid on my 206, and I’m glad I did that.

I spent some time with CC Pocock at Bush Air, and determined that for short fieldwork the airplane handled best at 44 inches aft center of gravity. With two people on board, this required 120 pounds of ballast in the far back, besides tools and survival stuff I have a couple 6 gallon containers of water (not necessarily a bad thing in the desert southwest). … I think the tail skid adds a pound and a half, but I’ll take all the weight I can that far back so I require less ballast in the baggage area, With this ballast, we were easilly landing and taking off in 4 to 500 feet at 4400 foot density altitude, -at 2850 pounds. That is with a Robertson STOL kit and an IO550.

What prop did you go with? Very nice looking 206!

Kurt

Thanks Kurt, I went with the 82 inch voyager, wanted to do 84, but only the 82 was approved for land plane configuration.

Mike