PT6 Cessna 206

It wont work / FAA bureaucracy blocks
I am working with an individual that has over 25 STCs and has 5 separate piston to turboprop STCs. This includes PMA. He did his first piston to turboprop conversion in 1975.
He has already carved the steps up that mountain and they are well worn.

The market already has the small turboprop aircraft.
Super STOL U206F with all the wing mods, 550, Prop cost $130K. Piston Helio $160K, Used Soloy 206s in Europe for $450K that need Hots. Gippsland Airvan $650K. Cheapest I can find- Caravan $650K, Pac 750 $1M, Porter $650K, Kodiak $1.4m. Ill sell you my 100 series Twin Otter with -20s for $700K. The cheapest PT6-34 engine I have found was over $350K.
I can buy used -20s for $60-80K with 3500 STMOH and 0 since Hot. Used 206F or G needing an engine for $100K. I plan on offering completed aircraft for $300 - $350K . Now this is not 500 hour airframes with Garmin stacks and leather interiors.
I will build an aircraft that meets a market price / performance gap.

The PT6-20 is an old design and thermally weak.
Yes the -20s operated at 680 degrees F barely last to the 1250 Hot interval and need parts replaced at inspection.
I am looking at only asking 350 hp continuous which during a hot summer day is well below 640 degrees F. I have been using 640 as a company limit on my -20 powered Otter for 5 years now and can read the printed part numbers on the parts in the Hot section.
At 350 hp limit you would torque out to 10,000 msl using a 640 temp.
Most aircraft in my target market would use this for only 300 – 400 hours per year so a fresh hot section inspection would last for 4 years and at 8 years upgrade to the -27 or 28 when the prices come down on those.
The hp I am asking from the engine reduces or removes the thermal aspect of performance or cost.

Range
Yes the range is a limiting factor with this concept design change.
Range or payload can be increased by a number of STCs, Flint tip tanks ect.
100LL Avgas availability may be a greater limit in the future, not so bad here in the US but other places it is just not available.
Carrying skydivers to altitude the aircraft would perform as fuel cost efficient per seat as the piston version. The additional power allows the pilot to reach the exit point at target altitude easier, reducing time and fuel burn, no staged power reduction at alt to reduce shock cooling, reducing time and fuel burn, faster decents, reduces time and fuel burn. Reduced fuel cost per gallon from, Jet A is cheaper than 100LL avgas.
I think most of the commercial 206 float operators are only going out 35 - 45 minutes one way anyway. Not advocating overweight but a lot of those guys limit the weight for performance not the placard,tell me if Im wrong but its hard to get an overloaded 206 on the step with the piston. 10 to 20 gallons of extra fuel required for mission profile is 70 to 130 lbs
In my niche market of skydiving this aircraft would fit an operational/performance/acquisition cost need.

The 206 F/G airframes are widely available for conversion making recovery of STC cost possible. There just isn’t a big enough market of used 207 airframes to convert.
Current availability of PT6-20s for the very reasons you stated are quite affordable.

I had 3 206s that ran over 300 hours each last summer, up too 63 GW departures a day on the weekends. Me and 1 full time mechanic wrenched all winter and summer to make that happen and I was biting my nails until it was over. 1 PT6 206 would have easily done the work of 2 of those planes and would have dramatically reduce my labor cost and stress.

Of course there are smarter things to do with my time and money. But I never listened when I was young and why would I start now. I personally enjoy flying my 206s over the Twin Otter and an over powered STOL 206 just floats my boat. We have all seen a lot of start up ideas in aviation and I don’t see how I’m different. If this progresses as planned I may not get rich but I should have a lot of fun. Please don’t get me wrong, I hope to be open to debate on the merits of this project. I have worked many experimental projects and understand the importance of “It won’t work because” debates. Please let me know if I haven’t answered any of your questions or you find fault in my answers.

Wow skydive you went from asking about grass to STC pretty fast.......Are you smoking that grass they suggested or flying off it.

All those number make sense and are right where I see them too. The funniest one to think of is your Otter price for me. My how time changes things! I remember when I was like 14 and the Freefall Express (122PM)was bought from Joe Fougere for like $250k! And they thought they were gettin' screwed!

I was thinking that your biggest hurdle would be the feds but it seems that you've allied with the right peeps to git 'er done.

When you run the numbers can you turn it with three if they aren't a tandem/vid?

You would definetly be filling a niche, "work" airplane market for a reasonable cost. Who knows, it might be the 182 of the future. Every DZ will have a PT6 206 stuffed in the back of the hangar behind the PAC or Otter for winter.

By the way, I can tell you've paid the bills. 640 is very responsible of you. Only thing I'd do diferently isrun a little harder (it's in my nature) and split by 800-900 hours. But burnt is burnt and lower temps means longer life.

Plus another side benefit for you personally is that you've got two 206 conversions hanging on your Otter wings.
I can hear it now. "Honey, I just HAVE to upgrade the Otter to -27's because what am I gonna tell these potential turbine 206, I've got no -20's to build up their airplanes with"?

Post some pic's as you get goin'. What'd you think of the 195?

UM,,,,, YEA That 195 turbine looks like a pretty Bitchen airplane! Had not seen that til just now now,,,,,good grief! Willing to trade 57 180 for that............

the 195 looks like a lot of fun, I saw one of the youtubes with what looks like 7 jumpers getting out. The PT6 206 wont be sexy but It should be quiet, and fast. Number of jumpers, loads, fuel, Pilot and 6 fattys + 3 loads of fuel + reserve = 3600 lb GW. First load of 5 jumpers and 4 loads of fuel, should give you 23 head of jumpers to 13k in a clock hour, legal, just fueling the rt wing only. Got to get to work if Im going to get anything done.

On another site this morning, I remembered this plane being discussed there some time ago.
Not a jump plane, not back country, and not even a 206 , but I understand Soloy had a hand in it's construction this Cessna Ag Husky has got to be one of the cooler turbine conversions I've seen. I would sure like to take it out for a spin

Skydive,

Looks like you've done some calculating. The question that remains in my mind is this: Assuming you get this conversion approved by the FAA (which is doubtless going to take a while, and cost something) are you really going to be ahead of the game, cost or performance-wise than if you'd gone with Soloy conversions on the 206? Or the 207, for that matter.

Trust me when I tell you that I am the LAST guy you want analyzing economics for you, but it seems to me that you MAY be re-inventing the wheel. Unless there's a pretty large potential market for this type airplane.

I worked seaplanes for many many years, and range and load carrying capacity are the things that killed the Soloy conversion for commercial operations. The airplane just didn't have the range, nor the load capability. Performance is nice, but load is king in that business, and if you're hunting fuel all the time...you ain't working.

For skydiving, it might be the cat's ass, though.

MTV

Cheapest soloy 206s comming out of EU are 400k and the starts kill you. We will be able to carry more power to higher alt than the soloy, yes jumpers over range.

Skydive206 wrote:Cheapest soloy 206s comming out of EU are 400k and the starts kill you. We will be able to carry more power to higher alt than the soloy, yes jumpers over range.

I could have told you that get a STC for a PT-6 on 206 -or even a field approval would be 5-7 times your investment in parts and airplane . For engine change like that It might be as high as 10 times your investment in equipment. You might buy a AN-2 and form
a club(cost divided by skydivers) with all the Skydivers being part owners in aircraft and charging a fuel and service fee per jump. I know of one such operation in Southern Calif. If you want to sell your Cessna 206 with or without engine let me know.

Bill Reid
[email protected]

Moving forward with the PT6 206. You cant even see the chop saw marks in the photo.

Skydive,

One suggestion, as long as you're working on the STC: Go for a GW increase to 3800 pounds. It's been done now by Wipaire on their IO 550 conversion, and on Flint Tank equipped airplanes (as long as the weight over 3600 is in fuel), so there is precident. Frankly, that's where Soloy messed up with their conversion: a 3800 GW would have afforded almost a decent useful load, but at 3600 those airplanes don't have much useful. When Soloy converted the 207, they upped the GW to 4000. That was a smart move.

MTV

If you buy the Flint tip tanks you get the 200lb gw increase on the Turbine conversion. The Wing x designer told me that when they tested the 206 wing for the GW increase it held with the lead weight but he could gently push and the wing would yeild so he didnt apply for the GW increase on the 206. Didnt a Cessna 337 just loose 6 foot of wing with extensions? We are going to concentrate on the engine first. If I get that far Ill be happy enough.

One of the wing extensions permits weights to 3800, and as I noted, Wipline's mod to the 206 adding the 550 goes to 3800 as well, with NO mods to the wings. It seems to me that would be a logical thing to do while you're going through the process. As I noted, that's really where Soloy messed up on the 206 turbine conversion: You can't carry enough to make the airplane pay. Don't underestimate how far float operators work. Lots of them hit multiple stops, with short hauls, but gas isn't available in many places, and jet fuel availability on water is almost unheard of in this country, so an operator is pretty much going to have to provide his own fuel source. Also, don't assume that all float operators operate over gross weight. Doesn't happen much, and it's generally not because of lack of power.

Sounds like a fine setup for skydivers, though. Extra useful load is never a bad thing, though.

MTV

At Oshkosh last year there was a 206 with a turbine in it. I forget what engine it was though. Anybody know?

That was Soloy Conversions' latest C-20 conversion.

MTV

Lube prop, change fuel nozzles, fuel filters, lube starter splines and check brushes, save money for Hot and life limits. Some day on a 206.
This project is still moving forward.

Engine mount being fabricated for the PT6 U206F, Calling it the Tiger 206. Airframe is also being reinforced from the firewall to the fusealge cabin box.

See my 206 gallery for the engine mount to firewall installation. Couldnt get the pic to load.

Is that duct tape being used to assist with the jig procedure in the previous pic? I thought redneck cropdusters were the only ones that could get away with those materials.

Looking good so far. Can't wait to see the first flight report!

Looks pretty slick. Figuring the fuselage reinforcements would be interesting.