Backcountry Pilot

[moppready offline]

I'm attempting to weigh the options of six seat airplanes. I've narrowed down to a legacy U206. Recently a pretty good deal has presented itself for a 64' 185 with a kenmore IO-520. I've only got experience in my 180.

My goal with this request isn't to compare my families flying patterns against the two airframes, but to outline the differences in the two (besides location of the third wheel) so I can make a more objective decision. Some examples are takeoff and landing performance, storage space, cruise performance, equipment loading/unloading, and wind limitations.

I really had my mind set on finding a U206, but the market seems completely full of overpriced gems or tired and retired 135 airplanes. I had dismissed 185s until this deal came along.

Thank you very much with the help.

Brett

[denalipilot offline]

Sure, let me help out:

I feel strongly that you should really go with the 206.

p.s.: Mind giving me the info on the C-185, since you won't be needing it now?

[M6RV6 offline]

185 is generally a little faster as in no nose wheel, especially if you have a big nose wheel on the 206.
206 will out haul and out perform a 185 every where except where you need a 185.
Loading and unloading a 185 with gear is a bitch, everything has to go thru the front door. Ya I know they have a cargo door but nothing will fit thru it!
If you are ever going to haul barrels of fuel or big heavy things, go with the 206.
Also do not just turn your head on some high time 206's that have been 135 operated. Some have been rebuilt by some good craftsmen and are one helluva lot better than new.
They have already fixed everything that broke and made it better!
If you get the old 206 with the small tail just remember to keep about 800 RPM thru the flare to keep the nose up.
Seating is pretty nil for those 2 guys in the back of a 185, they need to be small and good friends if going far.
Good Luck on either one.
My $.02
GT

[FloatFlyer offline]

George is being kind describing what "the guys" in back of a 185 will experience in seating. I owned a '67 206 for over 6 yrs and have had the 185 for about the same period, the 185 is a 6 passenger plane ONLY if the rear seat passengers are 6 yr old anorexic girls. I can barely put 2 slender women in the middle seats and it is gymnastics to do that. And don't forget the cabin is narrower than a 206 and that makes a huge difference IMO.

If you go with a 206 and want to haul anything, do not buy a P model. You will have just eliminated one of the joys of a U-206, the double doors. The ground handling differences between a 206 & 185 are well documented. For my mission, if I weren't on floats half the year, I would have a 206 without regret. FF

[88H offline]

Brett:

Have 4 kids and a 59 180. I have the extended baggage and a 3 rd seat setup like the 185s, so theoretically, I can fit 6.

I love my 180 and would be hard pressed to give it up, but I can tell you the 206 is a whole lot easier to get the load into and more comfortable once you do.

When I started this journey, kids were pretty small and the comfort factor wasn't much of an issue. They thought riding in the very rear of the airplane was cool.

Now my oldest is 6' 2" and the other 3 are quickly catching up and they are tossing coins to see who has to take the "small seat". If this is going to be a true family wagon, it is hard to beat the 206. Still not luxury conditions, but certainly better than the 180 / 185 route. I also would echo the previous comment about the convenience of having the rear cargo doors.

The 180 / 185 is an amazing plane. If you can stuff it in, the plane will lift it (of course I have never flown over gross). So I have really never not had enough room and lifting power, but I can tell you that I have felt pretty cramped on a number of occasions.

Good luck with your decision. Those darn kids, change everything don't they!!

Regards, Larry

[akhunter offline]

I agree with most everything said. You asked for a 6 place aircraft. I wouldnt call a 185 a 6 place aircraft, its more like 4 and once in a while 5 or 6. The other nice thing about the 185 is manual flaps. They have made my takeoff have a little less pucker factor a few times.
IMHO you need a belly pod to use the entire useful load of the 185 especially if you have 4 people on board. What sold me on the 185 was ski flying. If I didnt want to do any ski flying I would have stuck with the 206.

[lowflyinG3 offline]

I believe you have to look at your particular mission profile's to make an objective decision on which airframe to buy.

My little 6 place, extended baggage 180 happens to work great for my particular operation 97.5% of the time.

BUT it would be nice to have cargo doors sometimes, and it would be nice to be a little wider for room sometimes.

Lucky for me I can fly a P206 whenever I want to or need to.........I haven't flown it in three years.

Twinkie sleds are cool for workin' unless it's a place you need a 185, but that's probably less than 10% of places unless we're talking skis. 'Cause if you feel you need a 185 you prolly need a Cub, Husky, Scout, Maule, Helio, Wilga, or helicopter. Most proficient twinkie sled drivers can put a twinkie sled most places if they focus a little. They sure fly the hell out of 'em in the backcountry here in Idaho.

My 2.

Whichever one you get it's cool that you'll enjoy it with your family, good for you.

[moppready offline]

Thanks all for the comments. I specifically haven't outlined my mission because I'm trying to first outline the difference in the two airframes. I've already taken a profile of my family's most frequent and most demanding mission from historical data as well as projections of what I will be doing. I've assigned weights the attributes I need and want. Once I'm clear of the attributes of each airframe based off of book data and subjective comments here, I'll rate each airplane's ability to accomplish what I want. I'm nerding it up because I just took a course from Emry Riddle on corporate aircraft acquisition.

Thanks again for the comments all. I hope this story ends with me finding a good airplane at the right price.

Brett

[DonC offline]

Twinkie sleds are cool for workin' unless it's a place you need a 185, but that's probably less than 10% of places unless we're talking skis. 'Cause if you feel you need a 185 you prolly need a Cub, Husky, Scout, Maule, Helio, Wilga, or helicopter. Most proficient twinkie sled drivers can put a twinkie sled most places if they focus a little. They sure fly the hell out of 'em in the backcountry here in Idaho.

Skis are good.............

[gbflyer offline]

Lots more room in the 206, will get in and out as short or shorter with more payload than the 185. Bigger flaps and ailerons than the 185. Cruise 135kts, maybe 140 with the small tires. Small horizontal from '67 back, '68 has the highest useful and is very desirable with the working outfits. 206 gets real doggy operating above 6K, in my opinion.

Both your mechanic and your fuel provider will love you for either.

gb

[flynbeekeeper offline]

I really miss my 180, but... My '73 TU-206 is really quite the machine. Way more cabin room, really can't overload it, #1700 useful. Flint tips give me 108 gal useable fuel. Robertson STOL is really useful. 50 KIAS on final at gross makes places like Mexican Mountain a piece of cake.
I have mixed feelings about the big aft doors. Really nice for loading stuff. I worry about ending up in a ball and the people in the back can't get out. I brief every flight on how to open the aft doors with the flaps down. It can be done, but it is not just a matter of throwing the latch and opening up. It is something they need to be taught and be thinking about. You can't have the front aft door open prior to touchdown and full flap extension 'cause you just disabled the flap system. I also make sure the right seat pax know that they have to climb over me to get out.

[lowflyinG3 offline]

Yeah, I know Don!!! But you guys are waaaay harder core than most nose-dragger pilots.

By the way, I'm refurbing the Thrush this winter and it'll be a pumpkin when it gets back! More like Clyde's new 207 scheme but a pumpkin none the less! I'll get some pic's to you when it's done in a month or so or maybe you'll see me ripping around the neighborhood this summer if you get up on the north side one day. You won't miss it.

[denalipilot offline]

'73 TU-206 is really quite the machine. Way more cabin room, really can't overload it

I thought this guy dispelled that myth already:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5535

[Skydive206 offline]

The resale value of a C model or newer U206 will keep going up. I believe that there will be fewer and fewer pilots competent to fly the 185 over time, reducing your option for sales and getting price. I disagree that old 135 U206s are overpriced, they didn’t loose 30-40% of value during this down turn like many other aircraft. Barnstormers has just posted 5 planes out of AK. Their ability to work keeps the price up. The older small horizontal stab 206 prices get your attention but don’t have the Backcounty / 135 values. When I bought my first 206 I went out to buy a 180 and build a hot rod, for the same operating cost I got more airplane in the 206. I also think that a person needs to fly an aircraft like a 185 150-200 hours a year min to stay proficient enough to fly when you and how you want, Winds / STOl . The 206 is more forgiving but could give 90% of the STOL performance of the 185 and has a larger resale market. Now if this is going to be your last plane, need the tail dragger, strong pilot, I would by the 185. The 185 has ramp appeal, the 206 is like showing up in a mini van.

[Skydive206 offline]

You are asking for book data on 206 vs 185. The 185 will win against a stock 206 any day. The 206 really benefits from STOL kits, Prop and engine upgrades, then they can perform near 185 territory. Not a lot of hard data available look at what is popular in the field and what mods are done. Cessna still makes 206s. Low Lead could make your 180 the plane of choice in the future.

[mtv offline]

Go with the 206. You'll never look back.

Performance? I'd put a good strong 206 up against any 185 carrying the same load. Takeoff or land.

Need a tailwheel? Really? Why and where? There was a fuel haul going on, and they were using a 185, cause "a 206 couldn't land there". They took the gear out of the 185. I went in with a bigger load in a 206 a couple days later. That strip was rough, but the 206 was a far better airplane for that strip in any case. We had a big nose fork and an 8.00 nose tire, 8.50 mains.

I agree with pretty much everything that's been said here, except the 206 will GENERALLY be a little faster at the same fuel burn in my experience. Part of that is 185's start fast, but slow down as you add tabs for skis, floats, etc.

If you want a fire breathing back country load hauler, find a good 206 with the IO 550. You can go to 3800 GW in a 206 with the 550 or one with wing extensions.

185 cockpit is a LOT smaller, width and length.

The 185 is NOT, in my opinion, a 6 place airplane under almost any circumstance.

We lost our 185, which I had flown over 3000 hours. My boss wanted me to provide an assessment of the relative benefits of 185 vs 206 for replacement. I did a fair job, and much to my dismay, they picked a U206F with a 550. It took me about one flight to realize how much better an airplane that thing was than the 185, in so many ways.

Landing in 40 knot gusting winds? 206 = no sweat 185 = go somewhere else.

A good 206 may be hard to find, but they're out there. Lots of them around that have sat a lot and not been working airplanes, if you look around. I have the feeling, however, you'll find prices pretty strong on 206s.

Good luck.

MTV

[z3skybolt offline]

I own a Maule...

...no slackard in it's own right . BUT...I also am a volunter pilot for a charity which operates, among other aircraft, a C-206, IO-550 with a Robertson Stol kit. We use it for our free air ambulance service..... but is set up to go to the bush in South America soon. I just flew it 16 hours during the last three days. Always am impressed.

What a performer!! Wish they would let me take it to Idaho and play. I wouldn't even miss the Maule.

Good luck with your decision.

Bob

[Oregon180 offline]

Come on, man. Dream big! Get a Beaver.

The last few times we've stopped in McCall on the way to go camping with the whole family packed in the 'Wagon, my wife's noticed how much more room there is in the 206's McCall Aviation is operating... No argument there. Those are great planes.

I usually take the opportunity to argue that there would be even more room in a Beaver. Heck, you can strap a canoe to it. I have to quickly change the subject though when she asks how much one of those would cost...

Yeah, I'm a dreamer. Otherwise I wouldn't be flying in the first place.

[4Whitey offline]

I do like my RSTOL TU206 for flying here in the mountainous west. A TW 206 would be nice to add some more aggressive BC such as gravel bars and shallow water touchdowns.

Found/aka Expedition may have the TW 206 answer with the Bigfoot:
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraf ... ports.html
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraf ... gfoot.html
Although I think an RSTOL 206 with a 550 or Turbo would edge the Found in the takeoff and landing contest.

Just a bit of creep here I'm currently running 6.00 front and 8.00 mains. Would the 8.00 front and 8.50 mains give me significantly more BC strip capability on my 206?

[Supercub offline]

Old Thread Quotes: Still feel the same today.

Postby mtv » Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:53 am
You can load a 206 and certainly a 207 LEGALLY where without a pilot in the front seat, the airplane will rest on its tail. So, it's no trick to get the nosewheel off quick on takeoff. The trick is to climb aboard once it's propped up on its tail.

40 Mile some years ago sold their last 185 to the government. At that time, they were using only 206's and going in and out of some really rough strips with them. There are a lot of merits to the 206 that makes it a much better load hauler than a 185, not the least of which is the cargo door. I think 4MA now has a 185 again, but not sure.

But, back to the point of this thread....it always cracks me up when folks talk about that "last 5%" of the plane's capability. Not many, if ANY pilots work in that last 5% of an AIRPLANE's capability, ever. And, those who do on occasion, wreck airplanes pretty regularly. Watch someone who's working an airplane really hard sometime, and chat with them about what they are doing. I think you'll find that even the best of the best have a pretty serious margin that they keep in their pockets for the day when a gust of wind interferes, etc.

The limiting factor on most airplanes in the backcountry is the pilot not the plane.

As to landing nosewheel airplanes in rough spots, the right airplane will go places a lot of tailwheel pilots would fear to tread. As Don C noted....let's get out there and see what they'll do.

BUT....I guarantee that a mediocre helicopter pilot can land in a lot of places where the Ace of the Base couldn't land in a 206. So what? You need to keep the airplanes comparable in their basic size and load carrying capability. It makes little sense to compare a 206 to a Super Cub, for example, though I'll tell you that a pilot who's handy with a 206 will go a LOT of places that a lot of big city Super Cub owners with huge tires would fear to tread.

It's the pilot, folks.

As to tri-gear airplanes on skis....they are out there. Properly loaded and rigged, they will actually turn around tighter than most tailwheel designs. Problem is, you always have to have some serious weight back aft to help you lever the nose ski off the snow to turn. That can be problematic, for certain. Then again, I've been PLENTY stuck in several flavors of tailwheel airplane on skis. Deep snow doesn't discriminate.

Crosswinds--yeah, I'd take the bet on a day when the wind is howling, and put a 185 up against a 206 in a direct crosswind. That's about the time that I would be finding somewhere I could point that 185 into the wind, land across the runway, on a taxiway, or.... The 206, the Lance, etc.....piece of cake.

It's the pilot, folks.....

MTV

Re: Taildragger an "antiquated design"?

Postby Supercub » Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:27 am
I have a very good friend who's a single plane 135 operator in Alaska. I have flown hundreds of hours with him in everything from Cubs to Beavers. For the last six years he's owned a 206. It has the big nose gear and 33" Mickey Thompson Racing Slicks on the mains. He uses it everywhere from the Alaska Peninsula to the Brooks Range. Moose, Bears, Caribou and yes, sheep hunts with it. You would have to see it to believe where he can land that airplane! After 18000 hrs and all of it in Alaska and 90% of that time is off airport, "guide" type flying in every tail dragger type airplane known to Alaska, he's convinced he's flying the best machine for the job. For the reasons MTV said; The 206 is a load hauling machine. With that cargo door, you can load them faster and get more in then a 185. At the end of the day, he's been more places, hauled more gear and moved more hunters then you could ever dream of doing in a 180/185.

Roger