Cessna 206 vs 185

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

I was looking at Cessnas for sale and noticed that the 185's were pretty close in price to the 206. In my uneducated mind, the 206 seems like a far superior plane that would command a much higher price. Why do people want so much money for 185's?? Do they come with a complimentary Asian prostitute??

 

[COFlyBoy]

Some folks think a taildragger is "far superior" to a trike and therefore the prices reflect that.

Might be able to negotiate on the prostitue.

 

[ISUHawkeye]

I have been dreaming about both lately. The 185 has a better reputation as a bush plane.

 

[dmccormack]

I have a couple of hundred hours in a 205 -- 40 degrees of flaps, huge wings, struts, tough spring steel gear.

Only way to make it better would be to add a tailwheel.

 

[tonycondon]

185 makes a kick ass towplane

 

[alaskaflyer]

I was looking at Cessnas for sale and noticed that the 185's were pretty close in price to the 206. In my uneducated mind, the 206 seems like a far superior plane that would command a much higher price.

Let me educate you then

The 206 is a great plane. So is the 185. Neither is "superior" unless of course you want a newer one, in which case the Stationaire is the only choice.

The 206 has only one front door. A clear disadvantage in the seaplane department, and a relative one in the landplane department, for passengers. On the other hand the 206 has a great loading door second only to the Cherokee Six (or the Maule ) There are STC's to add a right front door to the 206 on floats, for lots o money.

I have been >told< that the 185 is the superior performer on floats but I don't know if that is true, or not.

You can fly a trike on snow skis. You can also push a turd uphill with a sharp stick - the question remains as to why you would want to? The taildragger is far superior for this mission.

The 206 has more cargo space, but not that much more - only really important if you are flying with 5 or 6 passengers. You can fly with 5 or 6 passengers in a properly equipped 185 but then there will be no cargo space.

Insurance on the 206 will be lower, by a bit.

Empty weight on the average 185 is less than an average 206 on a year-by-year basis.

Off airport ops on wheels is so tied to pilot skill that I always hesitate to throw rocks at tricycle gear planes. Certainly there are 206's and 182's going places where I would never personally take a Supercub. But in the same pilot's hands the 185 will be more capable than the 206 in this area.

They are both great and it really comes down to whether you want a taildragger or not and if you will be flying on skis as much of us do here.

I chose the 170 and paid a premium over a similarly-equipped 172 because I wanted a taildragger, and because I thought I needed a taildragger (does anyone here really need an airplane...well, let's not go there!) If I left Alaska and moved to a location where ski flying was not likely, off-airport ops was not likely, would I keep it? My insurance on the 170 is about the same as the insurance on a 182 with a higher value. For the purchase price of a nice 170 I could just about have a nice, early 182. Easier landings in a tricycle gear airplane. I'd have to think about it very hard. I like the classic looks of a taildragger and it would be hard to go back to a boring old nosewheel airplane

 

[wabower]

FWIW, my friend George Mandes in Homer just put floats on his 206, says it is a much better floater than his 185 also on floats.

Let me educate you then

The 206 is a great plane. So is the 185. Neither is "superior" unless of course you want a newer one, in which case the Stationaire is the only choice.

The 206 has only one front door. A clear disadvantage in the seaplane department, and a relative one in the landplane department, for passengers. On the other hand the 206 has a great loading door second only to the Cherokee Six (or the Maule ) There are STC's to add a right front door to the 206 on floats, for lots o money.

I have been >told< that the 185 is the superior performer on floats but I don't know if that is true, or not.

You can fly a trike on snow skis. You can also push a turd uphill with a sharp stick - the question remains as to why you would want to? The taildragger is far superior for this mission.

The 206 has more cargo space, but not that much more - only really important if you are flying with 5 or 6 passengers. You can fly with 5 or 6 passengers in a properly equipped 185 but then there will be no cargo space.

Insurance on the 206 will be lower, by a bit.

Empty weight on the average 185 is less than an average 206 on a year-by-year basis.

Off airport ops on wheels is so tied to pilot skill that I always hesitate to throw rocks at tricycle gear planes. Certainly there are 206's and 182's going places where I would never personally take a Supercub. But in the same pilot's hands the 185 will be more capable than the 206 in this area.

They are both great and it really comes down to whether you want a taildragger or not and if you will be flying on skis as much of us do here.

I chose the 170 and paid a premium over a similarly-equipped 172 because I wanted a taildragger, and because I thought I needed a taildragger (does anyone here really need an airplane...well, let's not go there!) If I left Alaska and moved to a location where ski flying was not likely, off-airport ops was not likely, would I keep it? My insurance on the 170 is about the same as the insurance on a 182 with a higher value. For the purchase price of a nice 170 I could just about have a nice, early 182. Easier landings in a tricycle gear airplane. I'd have to think about it very hard. I like the classic looks of a taildragger and it would be hard to go back to a boring old nosewheel airplane

 

[EdFred]

All Cessnas are floaters, and should be flushed.

 

[alaskaflyer]

FWIW, my friend George Mandes in Homer just put floats on his 206, says it is a much better floater than his 185 also on floats.

My god he has a 206 too?

I've seen his 185, and heard the story. Unbelievable airplane.

 

[kgruber]

FWIW, my friend George Mandes in Homer just put floats on his 206, says it is a much better floater than his 185 also on floats.

Only if you have miles and miles of water in front of you for takeoff!

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

Only if you have miles and miles of water in front of you for takeoff!

That's why you add a Robertson STOL kit. :wink2:

 

[wabower]

And another 185, two Huskies, a Bell helicoptor and a CJ-3 among others.

My god he has a 206 too?

I've seen his 185, and heard the story. Unbelievable airplane.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

I have been dreaming about both lately. The 185 has a better reputation as a bush plane.

Ah, so the 206 wasn't made to replace the 185 like the 177 was supposed to replace the 172?

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

Let me educate you then

The 206 is a great plane. So is the 185. .... I like the classic looks of a taildragger and it would be hard to go back to a boring old nosewheel airplane

Thanks for that post, learned a lot!! :wink2:

 

[kgruber]

That's why you add a Robertson STOL kit. :wink2:

N14C...My 206 seaplane HAD a Robertson kit. A 206 will NEVER get off the water with a 185.

N2764J, N185KG, My 185 seaplanes...no Roberton Kit

N9628B, My 180 Seaplane was the first 180 WITH a Robertson kit. I should have paid to take it off, but had to live with it and all its warts.

 

[bigred177]

I saw a Cessna STOL kit one time that put little baby canards on the cowling. I was always curious about how effective those were since 1) they're tiny 2) every canard plane I've seen takes gobs of runway compared to other planes.

 

[dmccormack]

The 205 with 265 HP full tanks, and light load (2-3 pax and light bags) will be airborne in 1300' and land in less.

Up the HP and you'd have a real neat bush plane.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

N14C...My 206 seaplane HAD a Robertson kit. A 206 will NEVER get off the water with a 185.

N2764J, N185KG, My 185 seaplanes...no Roberton Kit

N9628B, My 180 Seaplane was the first 180 WITH a Robertson kit. I should have paid to take it off, but had to live with it and all its warts.

What are the drawbacks to the Robertson (and other) STOL kits??

 

[Dan Thomas]

I saw a Cessna STOL kit one time that put little baby canards on the cowling. I was always curious about how effective those were since 1) they're tiny 2) every canard plane I've seen takes gobs of runway compared to other planes.

That was the Wren 460. Now done by someone named Peterson. Very good short field performance. Not at all related to true canard airplanes, and not done by Cessna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson_260SE

Dan

 

[W. Stewart]

That was the Wren 460. Now done by someone named Peterson. Very good short field performance. Not at all related to true canard airplanes, and not done by Cessna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson_260SE

Dan

How I wish that Peterson (or Cessna?) would put those canards on a 206 (or, even better, on a 210!). Talk about a fabulous airplane!

Wells

 

[bigred177]

Those are some pretty amazing numbers.

 

[Dean]

I have been dreaming about both lately.

Airplanes and prostitutes?

 

[AirBaker]

Let me educate you then

The 206 has only one front door. A clear disadvantage in the seaplane department, and a relative one in the landplane department, for passengers. On the other hand the 206 has a great loading door second only to the Cherokee Six (or the Maule ) There are STC's to add a right front door to the 206 on floats, for lots o money.

IIRC - The U-206 was for utility and thus had the single front door and double doors in the back. There was a less common P-206 (P for passenger) that had the two front doors.

 

[Everskyward]

IIRC - The U-206 was for utility and thus had the single front door and double doors in the back. There was a less common P-206 (P for passenger) that had the two front doors.

That's true. I have flown both.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

Perhaps I should've set up a poll to ask which is the better floatplane.

What are maximum usefull loads for each plane? about the same?

 

[ISUHawkeye]

Airplanes and prostitutes?

Those too

 

[wabower]

My light-weight 180-C has a ~275 hp Pponk 470-50 and uses about half that much runway.

The 205 with 265 HP full tanks, and light load (2-3 pax and light bags) will be airborne in 1300' and land in less.

Up the HP and you'd have a real neat bush plane.

 

[dmccormack]

My light-weight 180-C has a ~275 hp Pponk 470-50 and uses about half that much runway.

That's 50' obstacle distance. Ground roll is about 700'

 

[AviatorThump]

I have been dreaming about both lately. The 185 has a better reputation as a bush plane.

Which would be a better 'first' airplane for a guy with 400 hours and all the tickets but no tail dragger time? Flown off a grass strip (2900x60) and kept in a hangar...

 

[Henning]

I just had a float ride in a 185 with a 550 the other day, what a cramped plane, and it didn't get off the water noticeably quicker than, if at all over the 206 I was in a couple weeks earlier. 206 is considerably roomier.

 

[wabower]

Both have their talking points. You should nose around and get a feel for which you like best. Bob Bement and I are both over 6-2 and 230 and flew a 2,500 nm trip quite comfortably in my C-180 in April.

 

[Silvaire]

The 185, like the PA-18 has a "legendary" status attached to it so it goes for more money. They certainly aren't slam dunk better than a 206 for every scenario you can think of but for the most part, the guy who is looking for a 185 isn't comparing them with or even considering a 206. He wants a 185, he wants the legend. Those are the people that push the price of a 185 up because really, when was the last 185 built?

 

[wabower]

A friend in AK has two "his and hers" 185's and a 206 as a hauler. With tundra tires the 206 is very capable in the bush.

The 185, like the PA-18 has a "legendary" status attached to it so it goes for more money. They certainly aren't slam dunk better than a 206 for every scenario you can think of but for the most part, the guy who is looking for a 185 isn't comparing them with or even considering a 206. He wants a 185, he wants the legend. Those are the people that push the price of a 185 up because really, when was the last 185 built?

 

[Silvaire]

Absolutely, go to Alaska and see what the real workhorses are. The way they load those things up they may as well be taildraggers. Plus, isn't the 206 still in production? That tells you something right there.

 

[Henning]

Absolutely, go to Alaska and see what the real workhorses are. The way they load those things up they may as well be taildraggers. Plus, isn't the 206 still in production? That tells you something right there.

Just got back, hands down winner: The Beaver.

 

[Silvaire]

Now your talking!

 

[NineThreeKilo]

The "2 oh sux" and the 185 eh?

If you're talking a real 206, your talking a U206 (60s era) tip extensions, STOL leading edge, VGs and the IO550 and black Mac prop.

Whip has a STC to put a right side door on.

The big advantage with the 206/7 is the rear door, for a working plane this is a HUGE advantage over the 180/5. The draw back is the 206 is a dog when loaded compared to the 185, especially on floats.



The 185 is a great plane, good cruse but still can get dirty slow for good backcountry work, on tundras, skis or floats it does the job well and has a good payload. The lack of rear door can be a issue for some commercial ops.

Also check out the helio, great plane, rear door, BUT that geared engine has it's draw backs.

 

[Henning]

The "2 oh sux" and the 185 eh?

If you're talking a real 206, your talking a U206 (60s era) tip extensions, STOL leading edge, VGs and the IO550 and black Mac prop.

Whip has a STC to put a right side door on.

The big advantage with the 206/7 is the rear door, for a working plane this is a HUGE advantage over the 180/5. The draw back is the 206 is a dog compared to the 185, especially on floats.



The 185 is a great plane, good cruse but still can get dirty slow for good backcountry work, on tundras, skis or floats it does the job well and has a good payload. The lack of rear door can be a issue for some commercial ops.

Also check out the helio, great plane, rear door, BUT that geared engine has it's draw backs.

The Helio has STCs for many different engines, I've even seen one with an M-14 on it. If you want a 550 in a 185 you need an STC for that as well.

I've spent the last couple of months watching 206s, 185s, Beavers and Super Otters working on floats. I didn't see any real performance difference between the 185s and 206s.

 

[Tim]

This is a old thead! Tastes better! Less filling! Ford! Chevy! What is the mission?

 

[Dan Thomas]

185 is easier to work on. The 206's nosegear tunnel and engine support, and the non-removable left side of the lower cowl, really makes access difficult for some stuff. And the fuel strainer is in a really dumb spot.

Dan