Don't know how much it weighs but the useful load is something like 4,500lbs. We checked into insurance for it but with zero turbine time it would have taken years for me to get to their minimums. With work, I only have time to fly 75-100hrs per year.

Cubdude, don't toss out the 210 idea too quickly. I've got a bunch of 206 hours flying in the Amazon area years ago. Bought a 210 and got the best of both worlds. The older ones are by far the best. Get one before the struts came off and before they got rid of the good wing. The gear problem in my experience in not a problem if the A&P maintaining it knows how to adjust it. But again I would only want an older one. They'll get in and out of lots of places and the gear hold up good if maintained properly.

If you want to dream - rather than a 208 - dream on the Kodiak - now that's the one for the backcountry.

http://www.questaircraft.com/KODIAK.htm

Jeff's rules on aircraft ownership:
Super Cub: Best real bush plane. Hope you're not in a hurry

Maule: For people that can only afford one plane, but can't afford a Super
Cub.

Pacer, 170, 160 Stinson: Budget backcountry, but don't eat too much before
you go flying.
180/185:Great second plane if you've already got a Cub. Excellent poser
plane, wear flanel and the Mooney guy's will be impressed.
206: Really great second plane if you've already got a Cub. Land the Cub
move the big rocks and you're in business.
Beaver: You know what, the kids don't really need an education, and you can
Take out a second on the house, so why not.

After flying 17 different makes and models of aircraft my favorite is by far and away the Super Cub. Mostly due to the type of flying I like to do.

One of my least favorites was the 206. The thing was nose heavier than the Ayatollah Komehni (sp) unless you had it loaded aft. The T210 flew much better in my opinion. We used them for patrol, at the end of the day the 206 made you feel fatigued. The T210 was much easier to maneuver.

I'd sell out and buy a C-185 and a Maule with the proceeds.

If you want to build Caravan time fly for Fed-Ex. The composite three bladed prop is cool but the cost per blade is over 10k. The 208's are absolutely huge on floats.

The Caravan is well under the 12,500 GW limit for type ratings.

Insurance companies want turbine time because the motor is worth almost as much as the airframe in most turbine aircraft. More in some. And operating a turbine in cruise is a simple procedure, but getting it started and stopped and big power changes can cause damage if not done carefully.

The Kodiak is a really interesting airplane, and looks to offer a lot more performance than a Caravan.

Tish, one thing I failed to mention before:

If you are flying any airplane while sitting close to the controls, I'd consider very strongly purchasing the AMSAFE airbag belts. THey are approved on the newer 206's now. Don't know what they cost to retrofit, likely not cheap, but whether you're short or tall, they'll add some protection. If you are really close to that control yoke, though, I'd really want one.

MTV

mtv wrote:If you are flying any airplane while sitting close to the controls, I'd consider very strongly purchasing the AMSAFE airbag belts. THey are approved on the newer 206's now. Don't know what they cost to retrofit, likely not cheap, but whether you're short or tall, they'll add some protection. If you are really close to that control yoke, though, I'd really want one.

MTV

It has the airbag belts...I asked the Cessna guy about the effectiveness of the belts when he delivered the plane. He said it is the difference between a closed casket or an open casket at the funeral.

I have the opposite problem, have to move the seat back to feel comfortable on the pedals. But do a lot of reaching to get to all the buttons on the G1000. I can see over the nose pretty well but overall the visibility forward and sideways sucks compared to the cub.

Supercubber, what year was the the 206 that you flew? The older ones had small elevators. The idea was to make them nearly impossible to stall at gross weight.

As a result, though, the early 206s, the 205s and early widebody 182s are both nose heavy and lack the elevator authority to flare properly at light weights and forward cgs. The optimal approach speed for the wing doesn't leave enough airflow over the elevator, so you have to compromise and either zoom a little or carry some power to land as short as the the wing will allow.

The "newer" (70's and later) models have bigger elevators and can easily raise the nose to near 3-point attitude at light weights, forward cg and power off. My '76 206 is a lot easier to fly, more forgiving and more versatile than my 182 was, even if it feels a lot heavier and slower in roll than the 182.

Still, as one friend of mine who has flown pretty much everything bluntly said, the 206 is a pig. There's no denying that, but there are some of us who just like pigs. As Agustus McCrae said, "A man who wants to rent a pig can be hard to stop."

Well, the 206 may be a "pig" but it'll haul twice as much stuff as many other airplanes which are purported to be its equal, it can land and takeoff as short as a 185 with a pilot at the controls, and it is comfortable and stable in IMC and major bumps.

A little heavy on the controls?? Yes, I'd agree. A pig?? Nope. A workhorse, perhaps.

Get someone good with a 206 to demo short field ops sometime, particularly with the airplane a little light, and you'll be impressed.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: You don't have to tear the crap out of your interior and seats to load little stuff like 16 foot Zodiac rafts, or 50 hp four stroke outboards, you can put 8 foot lumber INSIDE, carry a BUNCH of stuff.

Oh, wait---those wouldn't even fit in anything else discussed here, cept the Beaver and the Caravan.

And its approved on floats, amphibs, wheels, skis, etc

Pig my eye. The 206 is a real workhorse. Give me the choice between a 185 and a 206 and it would be a rare mission that I'd choose the 185. And I really like 185's.

MTV

I have an old 206 with the small tail feathers. They are nose heavy with the flaps deployed (up to 40 degrees in the old 206's) and nothing in the back. When they are empty they have a nasty habit of porpoising if you don't give them a little shot of power at the flare.....not that I would ever make a mistake like that.

If I go up by myself I throw a couple of 10#sandbags in the very back and it lands as nice as anything else. With a full load they land as easy as any plane I have flown; however, they do sink like a brick with wings with the power pulled back.

IMHO, the 206 is meant to haul stuff and really isn't much of a touch & go, or trip around the pasture bird. I don't think of it as a pig because it will get you out of a lot of places other planes can't.

CJS

Saw this listed on the seaplane site today. Would be a nice option. http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprotecte ... 42584.html

steve wrote:Saw this listed on the seaplane site today. Would be a nice option. http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprotecte ... 42584.html

This looks familiar.... Oh yeah, I see it in my dreams at night.

Ok, MTV and Rowsign, perhaps I've overstated. Please forgive me for slandering my own wonderful bird. I really do love it and am obsessed with it (a fact for which my wife will vouch).

I took it into some of the strips on the Middle Fork last summer with a decent load on board and really enjoyed it. It really gets up and goes. Mine has the heavy landing gear and the Horton kit on it, so it does well at the bottom of the ASI, too. I'm working up to the shorter strips in this plane, but it really did great at Upper Loon, Bernard and Mahoney. The talk about Shearer in the other thread has me salivating.

When I first got the 206, I still had the 182 for a while. I flew the 206 all of the time and flew the 182 every couple of weeks to keep it in good shape. The 182, with its lighter weight and faster roll rate felt positively sporty compared to the 206. Sporty? A 182? Well, mine was one of the early, light ones (a '62). I loved that plane too, but now that I have the 206, the only time I miss the 182 is at the gas pump.

MTV,

I don't think Cubchicks use had those types of missions in mind. She was asking a valid question for their intended use and keeping her flying family happy in the process, including her brother and dad. Swapping the 206 for a Maule for the dad, the 185 to carry the kids and the Super Cub seemed like a much happier arrangement providing everyone with something fun to fly.

Personally, I found flying the 206 about as exciting as driving an old lumber wagon around town. You could make a valid argument for it if the sole mission was to work the aircraft near it's gross weight. Buying one for personal pleasure, your paying thoroughbred prices for, well a pig. No thanks.

Ol Gus....probably a lot of truth in his comment.

Supercubber,

I wasn't argueing CubChick's choice of airplanes, but rather the derogatory comments regarding the 206.

An airplane being a good working airplane does not equate to it being a pig, in my opinion.

By the standard you offer, one could easily suggest that a Super Cub is a real pig compared to a Pitts Special. Maybe it is, relatively speaking, but they are different airplanes and both good at what they do.

Cubchick was talking about flying FIVE people around, presumeably with some fuel. Do the math. With a few hundred pounds of fuel aboard and five people, even small ones, you're looking at a serious load.

Frankly, that calls for a working airplane, not a runabout.

Hey, I'll admit that the 206 is heavy in pitch and roll, but after a few thousand hours in Robertson equipped 206's, I can tell you that they will go in and out of some really impressive spots, with ease.

A lot of folks think that flying a 185 is heavy on the controls, and compared to a Cub or Pitts, they are. It takes some significant gymnastics to get a 185 to perform. The 206 will go without all that muscle, and do it with panache.

Comparing airplanes is always relative. When I hear someone refer to an airplane as a pig, I tend to think of something that is underpowered and doesnt' climb well, or is difficult to maneuver. The 206 is none of those things, in my opinion.

But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

MTV

This thread has been fun reading. After a perusing it again tonight I've come to the conclusion that most of us would make terrific congressman since we seem to be real good at spending other peoples money.

Yeah, I know they asked for it, but I think the CubClan got more than they bargained for here.

mtv wrote:When I hear someone refer to an airplane as a pig, I tend to think of something that is underpowered and doesnt' climb well...

I think the word you're looking for there is "dog." It's most commonly applied to a 145 HP C170.

Ok MTV....so you absolutely love a 206, got it, or maybe your a crusader for aircraft that get called names like the Skymaster/Disaster or Gutless/Cutlass. Just kidding. We all seem to develope feelings for aircraft we have substantial time in.

This particular fleet included T210's, 182RG's, Cardinals and the one 206. Didn't matter much what you called it. The fact it was a hangar queen, since the only time anyone flew it was when their aircraft of choice was down for maintenance kind of told the story. All seven or eight pilots had the same feeling towards it. They didn't like it. Don't recall what year it was, perhaps it was an early model with the small elevator but then again maybe not. Guess I could go back through my old logbooks and research the tail number but it isn't worth the time.

At the end of a day of flying patrol the 206 definitely felt like a pig, dog, deadhorse or whatever other "derogatory" name you want to call it. Perhaps loading it up and landing it in some far off unimproved strip would have instilled fonder memories of it, but I never had the chance or desire to do that with this aircraft.

There are people out there that curse and are afraid of Super Cubs, Maules, Huskys, C-180's or any tail dragger for that matter. Just isn't their thing while at the same time their choices usually fall short of my expectations. Who cares. Some people like riding clysdales or mules while others like riding saddle breds and quarterhorses.

I'm glad Cubchick has options in case the insurance thing doesn't work out or the partnership goes sour. I don't think she'll be loading her 206 full of family and lumber to fly into a short strip nor do I think she'll be flying patrol with it, so somewhere in the middle it may turn out to be the perfect aircraft for her needs.

P.S. What's your definition of a "runabout"?

BTW;

Since we are talking about 5 person planes for Cubchick.......I saw the Airvan from Gippsland Aero up at the Alaska Airmen show in Anchorage last weekend. It looks like a mini Caravan or mini-Quest type plane. It looks very "professional" in person, rather than the flying box it looks like on their website.

It is powered by an I0-540 and has eight REALLY nice airliner type seats ( you can remove seats for more storage space). It has a big sliding door (4' x 4') plus both a pilot and copilot door. The one up there had a pod underneath. It has a relatively slow cruise speed; however, it will pick up nearly a ton. $485,000.00 no pod and $494,000.00 with the pod. I took my wife up there with me to show her this plane and she actually liked it.

The Found Bushhawk was very nice also. Since Cubchick needs 5 seats, and is partial to taildraggers, this a potential purchase. Nothing against the Maule, which is the first plane I flew in on a regular basis, but this Bushawk will pick up the required load (I think?).

Chris

The Found has the very best landing gear in the world.

Brad

(sounds like Zane has discovered the joys of the O-300

Let me add another vote for the Beaver.

I have one and I love it. There is just something about how nice the controls are, the lightness, the solid feeling, the great sound of that radial engine, etc.

The market has really firmed up lately though, for sure, and finding a nice one is tough. A really nice Beaver is quite pricey, if you do a full rebuild. Seating is 6 to 8 depending on how you want to configure - I chose 2 individual middle seats and then the hammock across the rear which technically is 3 - but could do a bench in the middle too for 8.

I have spent a fair amount of time in Maules (M7 both 180hp and 265hp) and there is no question which is more fun to fly - the controls on the Beaver feel just like a stick does to me. Maule is a great plane, but I wouldn't think of having 5 people in one. The front seat also is a bit tight with two guys up front shoulder-to-shoulder. My only complaint is the tough door to enter (same as the Beaver) and with the wing root so low I thought the visibility was a bit compromised under the wing. For the price though, that is one fantastic performer!

I don't think the r985 Beaver is a great amphib plane though. The turbine is much better for that, but I don't really like them - the looks and the fuel smell on taxi. Straight 4930's is the way to go - and it is a shame not to have a Beaver on floats.

180/185 sure is versatile, but I am a Beaver fan.

The 206 is a lot more civilized, faster, etc and the Beaver is noiser, drinks fuel, but flies like a dream. The Beaver is much more fun to fly - no comparison - , but is going to cost more and is slow. No G1000 either, but I put a 530 in there with TCAS (essential).

If you want to splurge and make your brother jealous, go for a Caravan! Beaver is much more fun to fly though. [just saw this was discussed earlier. insurance is a killer - a high time professional pilot was assessed $40k on floats a month or so ago. And it isn't a great amphib plane as it takes forever to get up on step and take off - with limited visibility then. Fragile and lots of firewalls are bending even with the new reinforcements from wip and the factory]. I also flew the Quest Kodiak and that is a plane that can get up and go quickly - but I tried it when it came back from last year's Alaska show and it had no interior so weighed less. Much smaller than the Caravan. Still got up in a few hundred feet and we (well the expert pilot) took it into Vashon North which is a small grass strip protected on both sides by tall trees. No problem. That should be a great plane but I worry about getting parts, etc. Also has a G1000.

So you might want to stay with your 206 share or get an earlier one for yourself. My caution though is on floats, I think they are a bit dangerous because with the flaps down you can't open the rear doors so if you flip...

And do look around. I think the glass panel's and 430/530's etc are causing near misses.