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.