I've looked around and not found much discussion about operating restart 206s in the backcountry (i.e. post 1998 or whenever they started making Cessnas again). Specifically I'm interested in the turbo models. Does anyone out there have experience with it?

In general I think I'd really prefer a legacy T206, but as the prices converge between nice legacy T206s and older restart T206s, it has me wondering if a restart model might be worth exploring. A couple questions spring to mind:

- How much performance is lost in the restarts?
- Can the restarts be "stripped" to reduce weight? They look like pigs on paper - almost a dealbreaker right there.
- Are the new 206s any more or less rugged than the old ones?
- Any benefits for going with a restart? Any benefits other than more recent avionics?
- Alternatively, if anyone knows of off-market legacy turbo 206s available for sale, I'd be all ears, because they seem hard to come by.

If it is of any help I fly a fair bit in G1000 182T aircraft. The Lycoming is smooth but heavier, and the empty weight is over 2,000 lbs!. I understand that these types have some excellent safety features, including inertia reel passenger restraints with airbags, and 26 G seats, but I still don’t know how the 182 has added around 300 lbs plus in empty weight.

One might hope the G1000 would have shaved some weight from the old avionics set ups, but it doesn’t appear to be the case.

While heavier the re start provides a good turn of speed at around FL80 with a solid 140-145 KTAS on around 11-12 USGPH.

-0-

The government loves new airplanes. But the government also loves legal airplanes. There are not many newer 206s in the DOI fleet in Alaska because the useful load is so small compared to older 206s.

dogpilot wrote:So if your like a biking weight weenie, you can achieve similar load, but shedding a few pounds on the pilot frame and buying light weight gear to compensate. Just a thought.

Well, hang on there - I have always been under the impression that weight difference isn't exactly trivial. The new ones are 300-400 pounds heavier than the old ones, right? I see that the useful load hasn't gone down the same amount (although it is still less), but only because they've increased the gross weight to nearly 3,800 pounds. Since they have the same horsepower as the older 206s, I assume this just means a reduction in performance at GW (well, at all weights for a given loading, really). Am I missing something?

-0-

How about the difference between Lycoming vs. Continental, expense and maintenance-wise. I hear a new TSIO540 is insanely expensive, even for aviation.

CAVU

-0-

I know a guy with a old T206 that hasn’t flown in years. He was still having the annuals done last I knew but that may have stopped. He keeps it so he can keep his hangar which he sided to store other crap. Doubtful he’d sell it for that reason but next time I see him I’ll ask.

I have a '73 F turbo. When I bought the airplane, it had a first run, runout engine (yes, 1500 TT airframe as well). I had my local engine guy do the rebuild. $45K later, I had a very solid engine. I had him put the Knisely exhaust on it. I have had no exhaust issues in seven years/800 hours.
I did have one of the turbo oil supply check valves fail though. Luckily I had just landed when the cabin started filling with white smoke.
Weights: 2200 empty. Flint tip tanks give me 3800 gross. With the tip tanks, I can carry 106 useable if I need to. Robertson STOL, Sportsman cuff and Flint tips give a touchdown speed of 40 kts. Pretty amazing airplane.
Tom

-0-

@dogpilot I think I'm just interested in performance, ruggedness, and the impact of the extra weight. The rest is nice for sure but not worth the $100k (minimum) additional price tag. Are the new birds the same / as good / similar than the old ones in terms of getting in and out? I have always understood that answer to be no, but maybe I'm wrong.

-0-