Cessna 206 vs Cessna 207

[FlightTraker]

Anyone ever flown both the 206 and 207? Are there any major differences in handling between the two?


Thanks,


FlightTraker

 

[Lead Sled]

Anyone ever flown both the 206 and 207? Are there any major differences in handling between the two?

I've flown both aircraft quite a bit, but it's been over 25 years since I've flown either one of them. The 207 was actually my favorite of the two - it would do anything the 206 would, but it had an extra seat and much more baggage space. Handling was about the same, but maybe the 207 handled a tad better when loaded.

'Sled

 

[imacdog]

They have the same systems and wing but the 207 needs a little more speed on takeoff and landing. The 207 has a bigger nose so visibility during climb isn't as good as the 206, but the extra baggage space comes in very handy. The 207, equipped with six seats, has substantially more room inside than the 206. The 207 is also slightly more stable during cruise than the 206. The 206 is a better plane for short fields - their weights are not much different but the 206 will get off the ground quicker and lands at a slower speed. If you have an older 206 or 207, a seaplane V-brace really stiffens the plane up well and makes it a much better flying plane.

 

[00Dog]

I've flown both aircraft quite a bit, but it's been over 25 years since I've flown either one of them. The 207 was actually my favorite of the two - it would do anything the 206 would, but it had an extra seat and much more baggage space. Handling was about the same, but maybe the 207 handled a tad better when loaded.

'Sled

I see it a little differently. They feel almost the same empty but I'll take a loaded 206 any day over a 207. The 207 felt very sluggish close to gross where the 206 had less change in feel from empty to gross. Many co-workers claimed it was easier to land a 207 but I disagreed with them too. The non-turbo 207 doesn't have enough engine when it is loaded.

 

[Lead Sled]

I see it a little differently. They feel almost the same empty but I'll take a loaded 206 any day over a 207. The 207 felt very sluggish close to gross where the 206 had less change in feel from empty to gross. Many co-workers claimed it was easier to land a 207 but I disagreed with them too. The non-turbo 207 doesn't have enough engine when it is loaded.

The 206s/207s I flew were canyon tour airplanes by day and flew illegals back to Mexico (actually El Centro) by night for the INS. We always flew them loaded. The 207s handled as well as, if not better, than the 206s. Landings were easier in the 207, it took a stronger arm to get the nose up and hold it on the 206. They also had enough of oompf. Like I said, the 207 was actually my favorite of the two. They were working airplanes for us and we got paid by the body so the extra seat made all of the difference in the world. The problem with them is that most of them are getting pretty long in the tooth now. At least you can get a new 206.

'Sled

 

[FN FAL]

Anyone ever flown both the 206 and 207? Are there any major differences in handling between the two?


Thanks,


FlightTraker

If you want to get rellllly confused, toss the 205 Cessna into the mix.

 

[mcjohn]

Can't say I've heard of a 205.

 

[FN FAL]

Can't say I've heard of a 205.

A friend of mine had one. From what I understand, they are a fixed gear 210 with six seats and struts. Remember when the early 210's had struts and their retracts were not tubular like they are now, but were spring steel like a 182?

 

[mcjohn]

No....

 

[FN FAL]

No....

Well, I can't help you out any more than that...they came from the factory with IO-470's and they look exactly like a 206. Maybe some Cessna historian can help us out with how that all shook out. From what I remember, the 205 was a fixed gear 210 and then they developed the 206 from the 205. 205's had that stupid looking hump in the nose and they had the little door on the right side for the aft most row of seats.

 

[propsarebest]

We used to have a 205 as a photo plane, and man was it bitchin.

It is basically a early 210, with struts and fixed gear. It does have that hump in the nose cowl where the nose gear retracts on the 210.

Very stable platform.

 

[B-J-J Fighter]

Isn't the 207 the same thing as a mexican learjet?

 

[Lead Sled]

We used to have a 205 as a photo plane, and man was it bitchin.

It is basically a early 210, with struts and fixed gear. It does have that hump in the nose cowl where the nose gear retracts on the 210.

Very stable platform.

The other difference was that it had a smaller horizontal stabilizer and elevator. It could be a real handful when it was light and you had a forward CG.

'Sled

 

[clickclickboom]

More Confusion

And the Early 206's were actually called super skylanes..

Also there was the P 206 and the U 206

and yes the 205 is actually a great plane..

 

[Rowsign]

205 vs. 206 vs 207

The 205 actually shares the type certificate with the 210. The official moniker is 210-5. It is a great plane and can be a great value in the six seat market. Kinda rare so it doesn't have all of the mods of the 206 and I don't think they have any type of provision for floats.

I own one of the first 206's off the line. The older 206's (pre '68?) have the smaller horizontal stabilizer and elevator. You have to use some power in the flare if you come in lightly loaded with two up front and full fuel.The cabin is also a bit smaller than the later models. You have to tweak these a bit to get them on floats. They are basically the 205 with an IO-520 rated at 285HP (continuous) vs. the IO-470 (260?) in the 205.

After 1968 the tail feathers got bigger and the engine was boosted to 300Hp for 5 minutes (285 contiuous). They were Super Skywagons (U version) or Super Skylanes (P version) until around 1970 . In '71 they got full time 300 HP
and became the Stationair. All the controllers call me a Stationair, but I want to go back to Super Skywagon.

The 207 is an awesome hauler; however, I like to think of it as a 6 seater with lots of trunk space. It is a bit slower than the 206, but I would make the trade if anybody offered. One big advantage of the 207 is that it has two forward doors (pilot and co-pilot) AND the cargo doors in the back. NICE!

Chris

 

[av8rbama]

Well, I can't help you out any more than that...they came from the factory with IO-470's and they look exactly like a 206. Maybe some Cessna historian can help us out with how that all shook out. From what I remember, the 205 was a fixed gear 210 and then they developed the 206 from the 205. 205's had that stupid looking hump in the nose and they had the little door on the right side for the aft most row of seats.

We've got one, but it's not a 205. It's a 1969 model TP-206D. It looks just like those early 210s, same funky hump on the nose and has a huge void where the wheel well should be (talked to the A&P about it one day), spring steel gear, and has a full-size door on the right front side, no barn doors on the right and a tiny door on the left rear.

Even though it's a 206, it's not a "Stationair" but a "Super Skylane." I still call up as stationair.

Ours also received a 310hp Continental TSIO-540 when it had it's first overhaul... the original book says TSIO-470.

Dang... Bama's down by 8 with 7:48 against UCLA... we've been holding with them for a while, gotta pick it up!

 

[av8rbama]

And the Early 206's were actually called super skylanes..

Also there was the P 206 and the U 206

and yes the 205 is actually a great plane..

Whoops, I guess my addition would be more meaningful if I weren't 3 sheets to the wind and wrapped up in the basketball game.

Yeah, the P model had the right-front door and small left-rear door, the U model has no right-front door and the barn doors on the right-rear.

Our TP206 is a very stable platform but I much prefer our 210... it's like driving a mustang (210) vs an old ford f100 (206). The 210 controls are much tighter, it stays right where you put it but the 206 has much more positive dynamic stability and will right itself to straight & level regardless of the attitude, you have to fight it at times.

 

[FN FAL]

Whoops, I guess my addition would be more meaningful if I weren't 3 sheets to the wind and wrapped up in the basketball game.

Yeah, the P model had the right-front door and small left-rear door, the U model has no right-front door and the barn doors on the right-rear.

Our TP206 is a very stable platform but I much prefer our 210... it's like driving a mustang (210) vs an old ford f100 (206). The 210 controls are much tighter, it stays right where you put it but the 206 has much more positive dynamic stability and will right itself to straight & level regardless of the attitude, you have to fight it at times.

You know what? I made a goof...imagine that? Now that I think about it, my friends plane had both front doors and the little one on the left side.

It was a nice bird and before my friend passed away, he offered it to me for a really good price. Unfortunately, I was buried with the aftermath of a twin partnership that had gone "apocalypse now" and was unable to buy it.

 

[Singlecoil]

I think the 206 had more flaps than the sled as well. Wasn't it 40 on the 206 and 35 on the 207?

 

[crash-proof]

Cessna 208

Didn't Cessna for a very brief period have a Cessna 208? And no I'm NOT talking about the Caravan. It was basically an 8pax 207. I tried looking it up but all 208 searches come up with the Caravan. I coulda sworn I saw it in an old Jane's book years ago.