207 for Personal Use?

A

AA5Bman

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
792
Display Name
Display name:
He who ironically no longer flies an AA5B
Doing a little office-chair dreaming this morning, but does anyone have any experience operating a 207 for personal use?

Here's the thought process: I've determined that a legacy (pre-restart) turbo 206 is really the right plane for my family, but they have been incredibly difficult to find (I think there is only a single TU206 for sale in the United States right now that isn't on floats, which we don't want, and there hasn't been more than a couple in the last two years that I've been paying attention to the market). Since legacy T206s are so hard to find, maybe it makes sense to buy a 207?

I imagine a lot of people would say it's crazy to buy a 207 for personal use. But if you're going to buy a T206, is a 207 really any more expensive? They have the same engine so that should be a wash, they should be roughly the same fuel-for-speed and distance as the 206, and don't have any more complicated systems, as far as I can tell (retracts, etc), than the 206.

I've read 207s are considered dogs. Is that true for a turbo model, and compared to what?

Other than being the ugliest plane ever produced and probably hard to find an example that hasn't been beat up pretty good from years of commercial use, is there a reason not to buy a 207 if you're already committed to a 206?
 
Having flown numerous 207s around SE Alaska and after more than 1500 hrs in them, I'd own one if mission demanded it. But I think I'd rather own a 206. You'll have a better chance of finding a nice example than you will a 207. 207s were made to work and most of them have had or still do have jobs. I'd also venture a guess that a large percentage have had more than minor damage or been ditched in salt water, dried out and are flying again. I've flown one with over 30k hrs on the airframe and it's still flying in Alaska. Also, Cessna has said they will stop supporting 207s at some point, though I'm not sure when that might be. One thing I prefer about the 207 over the 206 is the back doors can be opened with the flaps down. May be useful in an emergency exit situation. They also have 2 front doors. Not all 206s do. I never considered a 207 a dog, but there could be a 5 kt cruise difference between one to the next. Figure 120 knot cruise at 16 gallons/hr. One outfit I flew for had 3 of them. Current employer has 2. In my experience, a 206 is faster than a 207 by 5-10 kts.

Rule 1 of 207 flying: load the nose baggage first. Rule 2: If the tail isn't sitting on the ground after you load, it'll fly. I may or may not have flown a bit over gross occasionally. Just not sure. :rolleyes::cool:

I think @Zeldman has a fair amount of 207 time as well.
 
No first hand experience, but in the avionics shop I go to there was a 207 for personal use. It was an ex Alaskan bush pilot that was nostalgic for the Sled, so he bought one for himself, redid the paint, interior and panel. It's a very nice looking airplane.
 
Any reason to not consider a 205 as well? Not sure if they are equally uncommon for sale. I think it was only made for a couple of years. However it has both Pilot and Co-Pilot doors :) But a much smaller pilot side loading door :( Maybe a bicycle could fit in it. To me it looks a bit nicer than the 207 and nice seating for (4) people. More 206 like except the bigger baggage door. Saw this one on controller as a reference:

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/194723281/1963-cessna-205
 
Sinistar said:
Any reason to not consider a 205 as well? Not sure if they are equally uncommon for sale. I think it was only made for a couple of years. However it has both Pilot and Co-Pilot doors :) But a much smaller pilot side loading door :( Maybe a bicycle could fit in it. To me it looks a bit nicer than the 207 and nice seating for (4) people. More 206 like except the bigger baggage door. Saw this one on controller as a reference:

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/194723281/1963-cessna-205
Click to expand...
There was also the P206 Super Skylane (1965-70), which combined the 206's engine, wings and tail group with the fuselage and cabin of the 205. That way you have better performance than with the 205's 260 hp IO-470, and you get the normal two front doors.

2528571.jpg

PICT0330.JPG
 
I would be difficult to purchase a 207, since Rob Goethals/ Robair http://www.robairrepair.com/ buys every one that comes across...............and then manufactures/owns about 100 PMA'd parts for them.

Just off the top of my head, I'd estimate the average TT of a 207 is 35,000 hrs.
 
I have about equal time in a 206 and 207.

C-207 is a work horse. Not fast, but not 172 slow. Load it up and go. A 207 is not the best short field plane. The shortest I have flown out of was a 600 foot dirt runway and I still needed a few feet more for take off in the middle of summer so I had to restrict weight.

The controls have a heavy feel compared to a 172. I think the 207 would be a good IFR platform. (I have never flown a 207 in the clouds...;);)) I have iced up a loaded 207 a few times, once enough that I could hold airspeed or I could hold altitude, but not both. Fortunately on that trip there was a nearby landing strip where I landed and knocked off the ice and continued when the icing conditions went away. I have loaded up a 207 to the point I barely had room to sit. I know of a person (thats my story and I'm sticking with it) that took out the pilot and copilot seats in a 207 and loaded the plane with lumber. He then sat on the lumber to fly the plane. One time I transported a complete dead moose. It actually went as US Mail, complete with postage. I tried to get the Post Office to start a new slogan, ''If it fits, it flies'', but no go on that.

The long nose of the 207 gets in the way of flaring to land. What I mean is the nose blocks vision from looking down the runway during the flair. It takes a few tries to get used to that. Also airspeed is important. Carry a little too much speed on final and miss your landing point and it will take up more runway. That is really important of short fields.

As Htaylor said, I would own a 207 if I had a need for one. But for a personal plane my favorite is a 206. I have landed on beaches and off airport in 206s and it was a great plane for that. With proper tires and wheels. The 206 is also a load it and go plane. I have loaded a 206 up to the roof and then flew. I once flew the band, (5 folks) their instruments including the drum set, their bags, 30 pizzas and several cases of adult beverages to a lodge in Denali National Park. I had passengers holding cargo in their laps. The owner was really impressed that I got it all in one trip.

I have flown one turbo 207. The only difference I noticed was that with the turbo once I set climb power, I never had to adjust the throttle until I reached cruise.

At one time the FAA considered the 206 and 207 as the same. If you did a checkride in one you were good to fly the other. I don't know if that is still the same.

I have some very fond memories flying a 207. But you gotta call the 207 by it's proper name.

Sled.

Called so because the 207 replaced dog sleds as the main way to travel in real Alaska.
 
Some C-207 trivia ...

Cessna Manager of Flight Test and Aerodynamics Bill Thompson wrote, "The author recalls his disappointment over a cost-savings decision to splice additional sections to the existing [C-206] fuselage and cowl without relofting the fuselage contours. Thus from a top view, one would be aware of curvature discontinuities at the old and new firewall locations and, to a lesser extent, at the new intersection of the cabin and tailcone. The reasoning for this unprecedented decision was that very few of these outsized models would be purchased, and, therefore, expensive retooling could not be justified. [...] The C-207 had, indeed, a crude looking fuselage that only an accountant could admire."

Likewise, the C-207 and the C-150/152 were the only strut-braced, high-wing Cessna piston singles of the day that were never built with the "Camber-Lift" wing leading edge. As to the C-150/152, the modified leading edge mucked up spin characteristics; while as to the C-207 Cessna simply decided the type's low volume didn't justify the R&D and flight test expense for a modification of such questionable benefit.

C-207 serial number 1, N9100D, still earns its keep hauling sightseers out of Page, Arizona.

cessna_207_1969.jpg

N9100D.jpg
 
Sinistar said:
Any reason to not consider a 205 as well? Not sure if they are equally uncommon for sale. I think it was only made for a couple of years. However it has both Pilot and Co-Pilot doors :) But a much smaller pilot side loading door :( Maybe a bicycle could fit in it. To me it looks a bit nicer than the 207 and nice seating for (4) people. More 206 like except the bigger baggage door. Saw this one on controller as a reference:

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/194723281/1963-cessna-205
Click to expand...

Because I already own own... I fundamentally need a turbo which makes me lean towards a T206, but since those are so rare these days and since we're summer doldrums jawin', how about a T207?

@Zeldman good stuff. Thanks for the info. Can you elaborate on "not the best shortfield" plane? I'm assuming that they do fine at light to mid weights. How does 1,000 feet at 5,000' density altitude in the backcountry sit with you as a for-instance? Yes, I know that's a serious "ask" of the plane (and pilot).
 
A couple of thoughts:
Seems like finding a good 207 would be at least as hard if not harder than finding a 206, less of them, and high demand for Alaska, scenic tours, etc.
And, I wonder if there's an insurance penalty for the extra seats. I know there's a threshold in premiums between 4 and 6 seats, don't know about the jump to 8.
 
MountainDude said:
Why not a T210?
Click to expand...

I do too much rough field stuff, but I have really seriously considered them because they’d probably do 95% of the strips I go in to.

Jim Carpenter said:
Seems like finding a good 207 would be at least as hard if not harder than finding a 206, less of them, and high demand for Alaska, scenic tours, etc.
Click to expand...

I’m sure you’re right, I’ve just seen about the same number of interesting 207s as T206s in recent years.
 
C-205 with a IO550(Texas skyways) engine. No pesky turbo failures like we had on our T182T. You can find a C-205 for around 100k or less, and upgrade the engine. Probably be equal to a T206 and certainly less that a 207.
https://www.txskyways.com/services
 
AA5Bman said:
Because I already own own... I fundamentally need a turbo which makes me lean towards a T206, but since those are so rare these days and since we're summer doldrums jawin', how about a T207?

@Zeldman good stuff. Thanks for the info. Can you elaborate on "not the best shortfield" plane? I'm assuming that they do fine at light to mid weights. How does 1,000 feet at 5,000' density altitude in the backcountry sit with you as a for-instance? Yes, I know that's a serious "ask" of the plane (and pilot).
Click to expand...

I should rephrase that to include that I mostly flew 207s at or very near gross weight, and near sea level. Also the planes were fitted with STOL leading edge on the wings. And mostly operated off dirt landing strips. With that said 1000 ft with 5000 DA I would probably start restricting TO weight. Until I can find my T207 generic POH, I really can't get a complete answer for you.

One thing to pay attention to on a 207 is the fuselage length. For short field operations I am really tail low in the flair for landing. More than a couple times I have hit the tail skid on the ground.
 
Geosync said:
C-205 with a IO550(Texas skyways) engine. No pesky turbo failures like we had on our T182T. You can find a C-205 for around 100k or less, and upgrade the engine. Probably be equal to a T206 and certainly less that a 207.
https://www.txskyways.com/services
Click to expand...

I already own a 205. The IO-550 is an $80k+ upgrade - don’t forget you have to buy a prop too. In my opinion you’re better off selling and buying a T206 (or T207 as long as we’re at it), if you want the horsepower and altitude performance.

@Zeldman thanks - more good info there. I’m surprised you say you’d only have to “start” limiting TO weight! Are we talking NA or turbo? I assume you’re talking NA given that’s where it sounds like the bulk of your experience is, which makes your statement even more notable.
 
AA5Bman said:
Are we talking NA or turbo?
Click to expand...

NA.

The majority of that was at sea level airports. I think the highest elevation was at 3500 feet and the runway was 3000 feet. No problem there on warm days. I did lean for best TO power.
 
207 just went up on hangar67.com via fb. They are nice. 0time engine.
 
Can you take a Chevy Express van with 300k miles and use it as your daily driver. Sure !
 
weilke said:
Can you take a Chevy Express van with 300k miles and use it as your daily driver. Sure !
Click to expand...

LOL you almost got me, but it only has 210k miles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top