Families growing! I have to get something with more seats for the backcountry. I'm also working on an off-grid construction project and want to be able to carry stuff - something the Husky just can't do.

Is there a substantial difference between the 1979/1980s TU206G (2250~ gross) and a newer, say 2006+ T206H (2300?~ gross)? I found a local TU206G for sale that I love, but the price isn't that much different than a newer vintage T206H, $150k+/-. From my understanding, the wing is the same. The doors look the same. I can't verify this as I haven't seen one in person in a long time, but do the seats mount differently in the newer 206?

But what’s the empty weight difference?

My only experience has been with 550ed U206s, which are great aircraft

I haven't gotten an answer on a for-sale used T206H empty weight, but Cessna.com claims 2,365. The TU206G I found is 2,250~.

HuskyCountry wrote:Families growing! I have to get something with more seats for the backcountry. I'm also working on an off-grid construction project and want to be able to carry stuff - something the Husky just can't do.

Is there a substantial difference between the 1979/1980s TU206G (2250~ gross) and a newer, say 2006+ T206H (2300?~ gross)? I found a local TU206G for sale that I love, but the price isn't that much different than a newer vintage T206H, $150k+/-. From my understanding, the wing is the same. The doors look the same. I can't verify this as I haven't seen one in person in a long time, but do the seats mount differently in the newer 206?

I'm not too sure about your terminology...........I think you are quoting Empty weights. Max gross on late legacy models is 3600lbs.

My rig is a 1972 TU206F. When configured with the bushwheel setup(8.5x6front, 29x10Mains), Empty Weight is 2115lbs, useful load is 1685lbs, max gross is 3800lbs(it has flint tips which increases gross by 200lbs). I run it Lean of Peak using 11.5-12GPH. If you know how to run a TSIO-520 you can make it to TBO without pulling cylinders.

Get a legacy model....they are lighter, burn way less fuel, and you get to install "best of breed" avionics.

You're right - I labeled it "Gross" but I meant empty weight.

The new T206H claims to weigh 2,212 empty - do you think that's a real number?

I would not believe any marketing material. Go to Van Bortel, they have a multitude of H's for sale. Check out those empty weights.

Are you planning any float ops? The H model doesn't come with a seaplane rudder. To put an H on floats you have to scavenge a rudder from an older model.

Just curious

I know Idaho has some elevation, but as someone who flew people to 13,000’ and 17,999’ multiple times daily in a IO550 U206 and at max weight lots of the time, is the benefit of the turbo worth the added maintenance and failure points?

I get it in a plane that’s going to be flying lots in the flight levels, but for a 206 type plane I’m not sure I see the appeal

NineThreeKilo wrote:Just curious

I know Idaho has some elevation, but as someone who flew people to 13,000’ and 17,999’ multiple times daily in a IO550 U206 and at max weight lots of the time, is the benefit of the turbo worth the added maintenance and failure points?

I get it in a plane that’s going to be flying lots in the flight levels, but for a 206 type plane I’m not sure I see the appeal

HP Loss at Altitude Formula
HPL=EP∗A/1000∗.03
Variables:
HPL is the HP Loss at Altitude (HP loss)
EP is the original engine power (HP)
A is the total altitude (ft)

The TSIO520 has 285HP continuous up to a critical altitude of about 19Kft.
The IO550 has 310HP at sea level. At approx 2700ft it has 285HP. At 19Kft it has 133HP.

Turbo performance, to me, is a must have in the mountains(which is where I do most of my flying).
Engine management running LOP with a turbo basically no management....just set the RPM and FF, alt doesn't matter.

If managed properly, there isn't much additional maintenance. Personally, I overhaul the turbo and replace the exhaust every 1000hrs(I'm on my third set). These are hard duty parts and running LOP takes it's toll.

Putting a 206 into the flight levels, having o2 crammed up my nose, that’s not too appealing, and that much work after just 1k hrs is rich for my blood

Maybe for a turbo Lancair yanking and banking down low, or a Aerostar or P210 in the FLs, but the 206?


For me a 206 is a 10k and below plane where a IO550 or even 520 is plenty, and a good IFR ship if you’re able to plan the whole trip and alternate below the freezing levels, just doesn’t seem like a good choice for something you’re flying into the flight levels, just my .02

But for much of ID 10k and below is plenty fine, I crossed ID MT WY in a VFR Stinson 108 with no issue, even if it was IFR it wouldn’t have mattered as I’d be below 0c so no visible precip


If the FLs are your playground, and with the price of a 206, I’d be looking at P210s and aerostars, unpressurized in even the o2 altitudes, not even the FLs where you really want FIKI too, it sucks and just doesn’t feel like the right tool for the job, especially if you’re paying vs getting paid to do it

macica wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:Just curious

I know Idaho has some elevation, but as someone who flew people to 13,000’ and 17,999’ multiple times daily in a IO550 U206 and at max weight lots of the time, is the benefit of the turbo worth the added maintenance and failure points?

I get it in a plane that’s going to be flying lots in the flight levels, but for a 206 type plane I’m not sure I see the appeal

HP Loss at Altitude Formula
HPL=EP∗A/1000∗.03
Variables:
HPL is the HP Loss at Altitude (HP loss)
EP is the original engine power (HP)
A is the total altitude (ft)

The TSIO520 has 285HP continuous up to a critical altitude of about 19Kft.
The IO550 has 310HP at sea level. At approx 2700ft it has 285HP. At 19Kft it has 133HP.

Turbo performance, to me, is a must have in the mountains(which is where I do most of my flying).
Engine management running LOP with a turbo basically no management....just set the RPM and FF, alt doesn't matter.

If managed properly, there isn't much additional maintenance. Personally, I overhaul the turbo and replace the exhaust every 1000hrs(I'm on my third set). These are hard duty parts and running LOP takes it's toll.

I had a NA Bonanza 36 and now a turbo Cessna 400. Not the same wing or same performance, but the NA Bonanza was 3000lb on average and was an absolute dog with an IO550 and a DA of 5k. I've had turbo airplanes for 10 years+, I don't think it's really that much more maintenance when you compare the performance. More frequent oil changes, and I do pay a lot more attention to the exhaust. In the summer time I find that the heat is a lot easier to deal with because of the improved climb performance.

You don't have to go into the flight levels to enjoy the benefits of Turbos. From 10,000 to 17,500 the climb rate is astoundingly better, much more resistant to mountain waves, and your true airspeed INCREASES approx 2 knots per 1,000 feet higher you climb.

Turbo's don't make a lot of sense out here in the flat lands, but having sea level power in the mountains is a game changer.

HuskyCountry- turbo +1. 22 yrs owning T210 flying mostly mid teens; 1700 hrs mostly LOP and not ONE turbo/exhaust issue. Loved the climb and LOP performance.

Newer T206Hs have the lycoming engines vs turbo contis. I have a 2005 in my shop right now, has the wiptips and 3800 gross. It’s 2400 empty, so 1400 useful. My old P206 will blow it out of the water on takeoff and down low, but up high this thing really shines. I can also haul 400 lbs more despite having the lower gross weight.

The empty weight of the actual airplane you are interested in, not the factory marketing weight, should be easy to find. Look it up in the POH that is required to be carried on every airplane. There should/must be current W&B data in the POH for the actual airplane, not just marketing numbers. There is a POH in the airplane you are interested in isn’t there? I find it surprising how many airplanes don’t have these required items in the airplane.

Kurt

With regard to turbo, I like the idea of having full sea level power on a mountain lake takeoff.

G44 wrote:The empty weight of the actual airplane you are interested in, not the factory marketing weight, should be easy to find. Look it up in the POH that is required to be carried on every airplane. There should/must be current W&B data in the POH for the actual airplane, not just marketing numbers. There is a POH in the airplane you are interested in isn’t there? I find it surprising how many airplanes don’t have these required items in the airplane.

Kurt

@Kurt and @MTV - drudging up this topic again. I have been in the hunt for a turbo 206 for 6+ months. Hesitated on one because I didn't like the price of an older airplane. Is the performance really that much different between a T206H turning 2700 and making 310HP vs a TU206G limited to 310HP for 5 minutes? I fly to Arizona frequently, so I hold AC in high regard and that would be my main concern with getting a H model. The rest of the time I'll be going to my backcountry property which has a 1200ft strip, at 2100ft and very warm in the summer. I can't imagine I'll need to take off heavy, but I would love to be able to land at max gross and safely stop in 800ft with no wind.

My experience is mostly seaplane so you have a different mission. As far a durability our experience puts the 550 first then the T540 Lyc and the IO520 and lastly the turbo 520. The 520's were certified long ago when they only had to make a percentage of advertised power and the prop efficiency at 2850 rpm is not as great as it is on the 550 or the H model running at 2700 RPM. No matter what the books say there is a huge difference in performance. With the same heavy load at low elevation the G or F model with a 550 will be the first off the water or off your shorter strip mainly due to its lower empty weight and raw HP. Wing X will get you 3800 gross. For that purpose they are probably the most desirable. The bad news is most of those models of 206 were used commercially back in the day and good luck finding a low time, corrosion free, NDH with a low time 550. The H model has the same engine performance with good reliability and the only real issue is empty weight. A lot of that weight is in the interior so with back and or mid row seats out that changes things quite a bit.
A low time minty type G model with a 550 if you can find one is way overpriced to a H model that is 25 years newer in my opinion. Went through that whole scenario last year and went to the H model.

I was faced with a similar decision a couple of years ago. Here is my thoughts and experience:

My regular mission is flying from Flagstaff,which in the summer sees 10,000 foot density altitude, to Phoenix and back. … that is for my business, but wanted an airplane to use camping in backcountry strips also.

I ended up finding a corrosion free Hangar queen, which was a 206F model normally aspirated with a factory floatplane kit and Robertson STOL. I replaced the engine and all accessories, I went with an “I owe” 550 and a Voyager prop. My empty weight is 2000 pounds and useful is1600. … an H model would’ve cost another hundred thousand dollars or more and probably have had a midtime engine.

No problem off the pavement in Flagstaff in the middle of summer, I usually fly down to Phoenix with a near full useful load of coffee and cold brew, but return more than half empty, even when it’s 105° in the afternoon, it seems to hop off the runway pretty quickly, my main challenge is cylinder head temperatures, which usually in the summer has me limiting climb rates to around 500 feet per minute.

I initially thought I wanted air-conditioning and was going to get one of the remote ice units for the back. … I may be wrong but when it’s over triple digits, it takes a while for even a car to cool down, I wonder how much more comfortable you would be on the ramp with AC for the first 10 minutes anyways, … even with limiting my climb rate in 10 minutes or so im up at a much cooler altitude, … I never did get around to trying a cooling unit.

If you get an H model with a turbo and AC, you’re gonna have a very heavy bird, besides wing tips, you may want to consider a Sportsman STOL kit

You will have a very nice machine there with that IO550 in that F model for sure. At the lower altitudes no 206 with the same big payload will get off the ground better than that one. Had a 185 with a 550 that was running hot in the climb like it sounds yours is. Presume you have already paid a lot of attention to the cowl baffles. In the end we put a Maple Leaf exhaust stack fairing on the cowl and it fixed the problem instantly. Seems the hole for the exhaust was oversized over the years and the gap between the stack and the cowl was allowing air to pressurize the lower cowl area and restrict the flow. The fairing will create a negative pressure the way its designed. That engine doesnt typically run hot as we have a 550 in a 182 and never see anything over 380 in the climb on floats on a hot day.