The Cessna 205

OkieFlyer

OkieFlyer

En-Route
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,225
Location
Lindsay, OK
Display Name
Display name:
Andrew L.
I've been thinking, maybe, about the possibility of possibly, at some point, perhaps getting my family into something a little bigger than ye ole C-182. The headcount in the Lyon household is up to 5 and the 182 has accommodations for 4. While my children are still small (1,3, and 5), and can cram in there for relatively short hauls, I think we're going to need to upgrade pretty soon if we ever expect to fly more than a couple hours together. So.....we need a 6 seater. The obvious choices are Cherokee 6/Lance or Cessna 206/210, but my attention was drawn to the C-205 when Jesse flew one down to Gaston's last year. It appears to be a truck-like stretch 182 with the aforementioned desired seating and a few more ponies under the hood, that would slice through the sky with the same blistering speed as the venerable Skylane. Is this about right? Do they handle about like a 182? It also appears that there weren't many made, or at least there aren't many for sale. What gives? Are they any good? What say you? Gimme the straight skinny.

Before anyone mentions it, I can't afford a 206. Them thangs is high dollar.

Realistically, of the options I listed above, a Six 260 or a 205 are probably going to be the only six placers that I could afford to get into at this time (or in the foreseeable future). Might be able to do an old C-210, but I worry that my boys would outgrow those tiny back seats pretty quick. I sure would love the speed though. Not sure about MX costs either. The Six 300 and Lance/Toga are probably a bit pricey for me also, although I would really, really, really, really love a Lance.

Anywho, seems like the 205 would be a big slow truck, but fairly simple and affordable to maintain like my trusty 182.

I guess there's not really a specific question in there, but I just want opinions. Lay it on me.
 
I thought the 205 was a welded gear predecessor of the 206...same airframe?
 
GRG55 said:
I thought the 205 was a welded gear predecessor of the 206...same airframe?
Click to expand...

I suppose it would be more accurately described as a 210 with welded gear. The early 210 with struts, that is. Same funky looking chin as well. The 206 looks a little different (bigger) to me, but I could be wrong.
 
If you can fly a 182 then you can fly a 205. It will be heavier, but the power is night and day different.
 
My only experience is in the 206/7, but my understanding is a 205 is almost the same as a 6, if that's the case it should be great, I have nothing but good things to say about the 206/7s.

I'd also ask on backcountrypilot, think there are a few 205 drivers on there
 
Zeldman said:
If you can fly a 182 then you can fly a 205. It will be heavier, but the power is night and day different.
Click to expand...

I figured that was probably the case.

James331 said:
My only experience is in the 206/7, but my understanding is a 205 is almost the same as a 6, if that's the case it should be great, I have nothing but good things to say about the 206/7s.

I'd also ask on backcountrypilot, think there are a few 205 drivers on there
Click to expand...

Thank ya. I'll check out the backcountry folks.

If I recall correctly, I think all the 206s have 285 or 300 hp Cont. 520s. The 205 is a 260 hp IO-470. Which brings me to the question of whether anyone thinks it's underpowered.
 
I have also always been under the impression that the 205 was essentially a 206 with less power.

As for whether or not it is underpowered, I can't say. The fact that Cessna only made them for a limited time might be an indicator though. I only have flown 206s, and power in those is adequate. I've never heard anyone complaining about an airplane with too much power though, so I'd buy something with as much power as you can afford.
 
Narrow as they are I would expect them to be faster than a Six-260. otherwise might as well go for the six. More prevalent and significantly wider.
 
mondtster said:
I have also always been under the impression that the 205 was essentially a 206 with less power.

As for whether or not it is underpowered, I can't say. The fact that Cessna only made them for a limited time might be an indicator though. I only have flown 206s, and power in those is adequate. I've never heard anyone complaining about an airplane with too much power though, so I'd buy something with as much power as you can afford.
Click to expand...

Good points.

hindsight2020 said:
Narrow as they are I would expect them to be faster than a Six-260. otherwise might as well go for the six. More prevalent and significantly wider.
Click to expand...

As I've done a bit of research tonight, the book speed numbers look pretty darn close to the Six-260. Those Sixes sure do have a lot of cabin room, which I like, A LOT, but I've heard some negativity about their performance, particularly in climb and service ceiling. Don't know if it's true at this point, but I've heard it. I certainly wouldn't count the Six-260 out at this point, BUT there are some features about the high wings that I prefer. So if the performance is comparable, and price is comparable, I might give up a little cabin space for the preferred features the Cessna provides.

Good point about prevalence. However, I would assume that parts and maintenance would be very close to 182s and 206s. I would think there are lots of shared parts between them.
 
OkieFlyer said:
As I've done a bit of research tonight, the book speed numbers look pretty darn close to the Six-260. Those Sixes sure do have a lot of cabin room, which I like, A LOT, but I've heard some negativity about their performance, particularly in climb and service ceiling. Don't know if it's true at this point, but I've heard it. I certainly wouldn't count the Six-260 out at this point, BUT there are some features about the high wings that I prefer. So if the performance is comparable, and price is comparable, I might give up a little cabin space for the preferred features the Cessna provides.
Click to expand...

What are you seeing/hearing for service ceiling on the PA32? I have a little time in a 260, but have only ever flown it fairly lightly loaded. The guy who owns it though overloads it and sometimes can't get it over 5-6,000' MSL in the summer. The 206 at gross (or maybe slightly above) on the other hand will get off the ground short and will make it to around 10,000' MSL in the summer, although it is going to take you a while to get there.

Of the two, I'd definitely favor the 206. But the space of the Cherokee is nice. Especially if you're taking bigger sized adults.
 
I've got a fair amount of 205 & 206 time. The 205 is an excellent personal airplane. The 260HP is not anemic but actually quite spirited. If you're consistently hauling heavy loads a 206 would probably be the better choice.

One thing I never understood is why Cessna left that boat-hull looking lower cowling. I believe its where the old 210's tucked their nose wheel.

The 205 is a sleeper in the marketplace.
 
The Cessna 205 (also known as "Model 210-5" in company documents and FAA paperwork) was introduced in 1963, essentially a fixed-gear Model 210C -- same 260 hp Continental IO-470, and same C-185-style wing. Eliminating the main landing gear wells in the aft cabin allowed a lower floor, with room for six seats. Like the 210C, it had two front doors, but the baggage door in the left rear was somewhat larger on the 205.

Screen Shot 2017-04-28 at 10.29.11 PM.png Screen Shot 2017-04-28 at 10.29.27 PM.png

The 205 was in production only for the 1963 and 1964 model years. The '64 was called "205A". The 206 ("Super Skywagon") was introduced for 1964, and was built side-by-side with the 205A that year. The initial 206 had a 285 hp Continental IO-520, and a sparse, utilitarian cabin, with large double cargo doors in the right rear, and no co-pilot door. Only the pilot's seat was standard equipment. The 206 wing was the same as that introduced on the new 1964 210D Centurion, with wider-span flaps, and shorter-span, longer-chord, ailerons, along with a larger horizontal tail. Gross weight of the '64 206 was 3,300 lb., same as the 205A, but went up to 3,600 lb for the 1966 model year.

Screen Shot 2017-04-28 at 10.29.45 PM.png

For 1965 the 205 was replaced by a new "passenger" version of the 206, called the P206 Super Skylane. It combined the 206's engine, wings and tail group with the 205's more conventional cabin and door arrangement. The utilitarian version became the U206. P206 and U206 were built concurrently through 1970; from 1971 onward, only the U206 (with cargo doors) was offered, now under the name "Stationair".

Unlike the 206, the 205 was never certified for floats.

Why the bulbous chin on the cowl? No reason other than using the same tooling as for the 210 cowl. The 210 lost the chin in 1969 (redesigned oil pan made room for the nosewheel to retract higher), and the P206 and U206 followed suit in 1970.

An enthusiastic 205 owner is singer/songwriter Livingston Taylor, brother of James Taylor:

 
Last edited:
So does the 205 have the U206 large tail?
 
Having flown a 205 for several years I'd say they are a fantastic plane. Same speed and fuel burn as a 182 or really close. I've had one with 4 people to 17000 ft. Nothing but good things to say for one and the 260hp is perfect for the plane. Has great takeoff and climb. If you can find one you will really like it. My useful load was over 1500lbs.
 
mondtster said:
What are you seeing/hearing for service ceiling on the PA32? I have a little time in a 260, but have only ever flown it fairly lightly loaded. The guy who owns it though overloads it and sometimes can't get it over 5-6,000' MSL in the summer. The 206 at gross (or maybe slightly above) on the other hand will get off the ground short and will make it to around 10,000' MSL in the summer, although it is going to take you a while to get there.

Of the two, I'd definitely favor the 206. But the space of the Cherokee is nice. Especially if you're taking bigger sized adults.
Click to expand...

I've just heard basically what you stated about the service ceiling and that the climb rate is pretty slow. I think the book number is in the neighborhood 14,000 msl. I do live on the plains, so service ceiling isn't a huge deal normally, but I would like to go to Colorado from time to time, and I'm not sure the Six 260 would do that job with much of a load. Plus it gets really hot here for a good portion of the year and I'd like a plane that can get off the ground and climb decently when hot an heavy. Frankly, I really like how my 182 get's off the ground pretty quick and climbs good under pretty much any condition, and if the 205 performs similarly, I would dig that very much.

saddletramp said:
I've got a fair amount of 205 & 206 time. The 205 is an excellent personal airplane. The 260HP is not anemic but actually quite spirited. If you're consistently hauling heavy loads a 206 would probably be the better choice.

One thing I never understood is why Cessna left that boat-hull looking lower cowling. I believe its where the old 210's tucked their nose wheel.

The 205 is a sleeper in the marketplace.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear that. I suspected that the 260 hp would be okay, but wanted to hear from actual experience. Although it's fewer ponies than the later 206s, if figured the 205 was lighter. I know the earlier 182s like mine were lighter than later ones.

Theboys said:
Having flown a 205 for several years I'd say they are a fantastic plane. Same speed and fuel burn as a 182 or really close. I've had one with 4 people to 17000 ft. Nothing but good things to say for one and the 260hp is perfect for the plane. Has great takeoff and climb. If you can find one you will really like it. My useful load was over 1500lbs.
Click to expand...

Sweet. I really love the 182, so I was hoping the 205 performed similarly as far as takeoff, climb, and ceiling with the added useful load. I really love the Cherokee 6, but I'm thinking I'd need a 300 hp variant to achieve similar performance to the Cessnas, although the 6 300 would be faster in cruise, I think. Unfortunately, the 300 hp version, the Lance, and Toga are going to be out of reach financially. And as you said, the 205, from what little I've seen, seems like a bit of a sleeper.
 
I flew a six 260 for a while...great useful load but climbs like a dog when full and hot. She'll get there, just slowly.
 
Looking at the POH looks like the 205 at 100# gross weight ligther than the Six-260 climbs 190fpm better (965 vs 775). It's actrually probably closer to 150fpm delta at the same gross weight, for perfect airplanes and without speed mods. You gap seal the six and you might even beat the 205 climb numbers. Of course, you could presumably do the same for the 205 and get yourself even better climb. Wing loading is lower in the 205 and power loading also slightly lower. Not by a significant amount .

Where the wing of the 205 starts to make the difference is at high altitude. Service ceiling for otherwise comparable weights is significant. 16.1k versus 12.8k. Maybe add 500 feet for the six for same-weight comparison. It's not until you get into Six-300 that you match the ceiling. That's because the cherokee hershey bar wing sucks for altitude (no wingspan). The 205 has close to 4 feet bigger wingspan. That's significant.

Cruise speed is also similar to a 182 for about 1GPH more. Faster than a 260 for sure. But that's to be expected, the Six is way wider.

So if you're cool with the narrower cabin width (closer to a PA28/182), it comes down to whether you can find a 205 that's not beat to snot. Don't discount the Six-300, remember it's asking prices, not selling prices. :D Good luck.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Looking at the POH looks like the 205 at 100# gross weight ligther than the Six-260 climbs 190fpm better (965 vs 775). It's actrually probably closer to 150fpm delta at the same gross weight, for perfect airplanes and without speed mods. You gap seal the six and you might even beat the 205 climb numbers. Of course, you could presumably do the same for the 205 and get yourself even better climb. Wing loading is lower in the 205 and power loading also slightly lower. Not by a significant amount .

Where the wing of the 205 starts to make the difference is at high altitude. Service ceiling for otherwise comparable weights is significant. 16.1k versus 12.8k. Maybe add 500 feet for the six for same-weight comparison. It's not until you get into Six-300 that you match the ceiling. That's because the cherokee hershey bar wing sucks for altitude (no wingspan). The 205 has close to 4 feet bigger wingspan. That's significant.

Cruise speed is also similar to a 182 for about 1GPH more. Faster than a 260 for sure. But that's to be expected, the Six is way wider.

So if you're cool with the narrower cabin width (closer to a PA28/182), it comes down to whether you can find a 205 that's not beat to snot. Don't discount the Six-300, remember it's asking prices, not selling prices. :D Good luck.
Click to expand...

Thank ya, boss. Good info.

I don't discount anything. Just contemplating at this point. Truthfully, if it came down to a choice between a Six-260 and a 205, I think I'd lean toward the 205. If the choice was between Six-300 and 205, I'd probably lean toward the Six. The only real downside to the Six-300 is that it's pretty thirsty. I like 'em all, just not sure the Six-260 will handle everything I want to do as well as a 205, and unfortunately, price is going to be a factor.

Thanks again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top