Cessna 206 vs Cessna 207

[Singlecoil]

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.

I think some of the 207's were "Stationair 7's" and others were "Stationair 8's".

 

[imacdog]

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

That is right, I believe the 206 had 40 and the 207 had 30.

 

[Lead Sled]

That is right, I believe the 206 had 40 and the 207 had 30.

Some (the later ones) may have had 30 degree flaps. The three that I flew all had 40. I think that Cessna resticted the flaps on several models around the time the retricted the flaps on the 152. As for the Cessna 208, I remember reading and article or seeing an ad in the flying magazines. I think you're right.

'Sled

 

[ReverseSensing]

Here's another little known fact (best Cliff Claven impersonation) about the 206's and 207's: The landing gear in the 207 (tubular steel) is much wider and squatter than the 206 (spring steel). The 206 landing gear is actually narrower (!) than a 172's, but the airplane is 1,000 lbs heavier at gross than a 172. With the tall, narrow gear and all that fuel in the wings, the 206 is relatively top-heavy compared to the 207.

In my opinion, the 207 is a much better cross-wind airplane than the 206, but with a 200 lb. gross weight increase with the same engine, it doesn't perform as well in T/O, climb, cruise, or landing (distance). I always felt it was much easier to get consistently good landings in the 207. Along with the difference in landing flaps (30 v. 40), I could swear that the wings look different, even though the conventional wisdom is that they are the same. To me, the 207 wing always looked more like a 210 wing.

You hardly ever see 206's flying out of Bethel, AK and the YK Delta, for example, where stiff crosswinds are common. In fact, my last month up there, an operator from ANC (I believe) who was filling in for the hovercraft moving bypass mail, flipped two (2!) 206's on the ramp while taxiing, one at BET and one at one of the Tundra villages.

I also much preferred loading the 207, pax or boxes. The right front door and all that volume, along with the nose baggage area (120 lb. limit) are nice.

 

[Wang Chung]

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.

Yep, I've seen pictures and a short historical blurb about this thing in an old Cessna booklet. Looks like a monster 207...I'll dig out the booklet and check it out but if my vague memory is correct, Cessna developed the early "208" chiefly for the military as a small STOL transport back in the day, but the military chose the DHC-2 instead. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

[Cary]

The 205's aft most seats were for kiddies (or paraplegics), and it had to be one of the noisiest Cessnas ever made. My very first GA trip into old Denver Stapleton was in one, and the noise was tremendous (we weren't wearing headsets back then, but I did have earplugs in).

There's an STC available to put a passenger side front row door on newer 206s--one of the float manufacturers holds it (Wipaire, maybe?).

The only P206 Super Skylane I can remember seeing had doors on both sides of the front row and a smallish single door on the right for the rear seats. The U206 is a lot easier to get into in the back rows, with those double barn doors.

Cary

 

[Wang Chung]

Cessna 308!

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.

Found the book, and I'm not sure if this is what you were thinking about but Cessna developed the "308" in the early 50's. According to the booklet, in 1951 the Army needed a light transport but Army regs at the time limited the MTOW of such an aircraft to 5000#. The Beaver was the Army's choice but it weighed over 6000# so it wasn't considered. Cessna decided to produce the 5000-lb 308, which was a 6-seat taildragger powered by a 375-HP 8-cyl Lycoming. It looks like a HUGE L-19 in the picture. In 1952, After 6 months of development and some demo flights for the Army, the regs suddenly changed and the Army was allowed to fly heavier aircraft; they immediately purchased DHC-2's and the Cessna 308 faded into history. Only one prototype was built. It's probably in a crate someplace in Kansas.

Random fact of the day: Cessna built furniture under a military contract between 1947 and 1950.

 

[crash-proof]

Actually, no this isn't the Cessna I'm referring to...but here's a pic of the monster 308, from aerofiles.com (I love that site!)
http://www.aerofiles.com/ces308.jpg

No the Cessna I'm referring to was developed in the late 70s/early 80s, and looked just like the 207 but with one extra seat. I'm not sure if dimensionally it was any larger or not. Now I'm obsessing, I have to find a link on this. Even if that means ripping the page out of the Jane's from the public library.

 

[crash-proof]

Arghh I answered my question....it was the Stationair 8 I was thinking about, not 208. It was in fact an 8-pax 207. Don't think it did that well commercially.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/399156/L

 

[Wang Chung]

I've got quite a bit of time in a TP-206 from my aerial photography days. The pax door is a great feature - too bad it's not more common.

One day I landed at a little airport so that the camera operator could change film, and so I could top the tanks. I was parked with the engine idling (letting the turbo cool down for a minute) as the camera guy hopped out the little aft door on the left side, and walked back to the FBO to hit the restroom. Some Feds were hanging out near the FBO and they were in a ramp-checking mood, so they walked out to the plane, assuming that guy who walked into the FBO was the "pilot" since he had emerged from the left side of a 206. When they came up to the left side and saw me, they were a bit baffled and basically asked who I was and what I was doing in the left seat since they clearly saw the pilot walk away from the plane. That's when I explained that it was a P-206 with little left-hand suicide door and the 'pilot' they saw was actually sitting in back working the cameras...

 

[brokencrow]

I flew a 207 in AK and have also launched Meat Missiles (jumpers) from a 206. The 206 had an IO 550 and the 207 a 520 so the 206 had a little power and weight advantage. An empty 207 would however climb 2000fpm at about standard temp and I am told that the 520 is a better built and cheaper to operate engine. The 207 has a luggage compartment in front and if you try to drag it into a short strip using a little power the world just disappears behind that big nose... it's a big surprise believe me! The 207 can get overloaded easily, it’s just real big inside. Anyway, if I had my pick of airplanes, I’d choose the lead sled (207) any day. Thing is, it’s just balanced nicely something about the longer fuselage or a different tail I guess. I’ve heard that some jump zones have turbine 207s that would be an awesome mod. Yea baby yea!!!!

 

[LAZYB]

The 207 was more of a rotate and fly off, while the 206 would mostly pop-off the runway. I thought the 207 was nice and stable and the 206 was a little more sporty for getting in and out of tight spots.

My first job was in the Bristol Bay area. We had an elaborate "loading schedule" in lieu of W&B. You put a worn-out tire under the tailcone, and after you filled it to the roof with pop, canned goods, and other associated grocery/mail, if the nose came down when the pilot boarded you were good to go. If not, if after you started it the nose came down - again good to go. And finally, if you got the nose down with about 1800 RPM - good to go. Worked good, lasted a long time...

 

[ReverseSensing]

We had an elaborate "loading schedule" in lieu of W&B. You put a worn-out tire under the tailcone, and after you filled it to the roof with pop, canned goods, and other associated grocery/mail, if the nose came down when the pilot boarded you were good to go. If not, if after you started it the nose came down - again good to go. And finally, if you got the nose down with about 1800 RPM - good to go. Worked good, lasted a long time...

Amen, bro! Good memories there. The natives would always giggle when, after trying one loading arrangement of 6 folks, the tail came down, and we'd try another loading arrangement. I'd joke that someone had been eating too much, and they'd all laugh and laugh. Man, those Yupik are some great people, especially the older ones.

Scared myself a couple of times when 1,000 lbs of pop in triple-mailers would slide aft a foot or two on rotation. That made things interesting. Never did like the plywood cargo floors for just that reason: a little too slippery.

 

[DieselDash]

Just my opinoin but the turbo 207 is the best single engine piston cessna ever made and I've flown almost all of them. I flew one for a season over the canyon fully loaded with 6 fat Germans or 7 Koreans every flight. It handeled the turbulance as good as an otter and dirt strips and high cross winds were never a problem. I learned a lot flying that plane and would love to own one.

 

[FreightGod]

Aye, memories are coming back now...

Flew the C-207 in Bethel a few years, also C-206, C-185s, etc.

The 207 can indeed be forced to land in higher crosswinds:

In my opinion, the 207 is a much better cross-wind airplane than the 206,

Fully loaded I put one down at some dirt strip with a 30 knot direct x-wind:
No flaps, 110 on the clock, gravel flying from locked wheels...Them were the days.:nuts:
(Hard to taxi and turn 'em around in that kind of wind)

Flew sky divers in various C-206s also.
Agree with previous posters on the differences, nose-heavy when empty, slightly better performance, etc.

Never had a 207 disappoint me, but interesting stories to tell from Alaska and the big singles.

 

[Lead Sled]

Aye, memories are coming back now...

Flew the C-207 in Bethel a few years, also C-206, C-185s, etc.

The 207 can indeed be forced to land in higher crosswinds:



Fully loaded I put one down at some dirt strip with a 30 knot direct x-wind:
No flaps, 110 on the clock, gravel flying from locked wheels...Them were the days.:nuts:
(Hard to taxi and turn 'em around in that kind of wind)

Flew sky divers in various C-206s also.
Agree with previous posters on the differences, nose-heavy when empty, slightly better performance, etc.

Never had a 207 disappoint me, but interesting stories to tell from Alaska and the big singles.

Ahhh... the memories.

We flew into Bethal years ago and took a 207 out to some place on the Quinhawk (spelling ?) river. It was a great trip and I have never looked at prop nicks in quite the same way since.

A lot of my time in 207s was spent flying "public service" government contracts for the INS - 10 passengers and baggage wasn't unheard of. CG was respected, max certified takeoff weights weren't. The 207 was pretty amazing actually, as long as it didn't fall on its tail you were within CG limits.

I'll second the comment about landing in 30 knot plus crosswinds. Been there done that.

LS

 

[FreightGod]

Aye and yes there was a CG problem on the C-207.

Had 'em go on the tail many a times: Crank up and give it some RPM with down elevator: IF the tail came up, ya were good to taxi and take off.

One of the strong memories from those days was hauling 2 dead moose and 2 native hunters from somewhere to Bethel...It may have been Holy Croos or a similar village with a 3000' gravel strip.

I was new up there then, and had not found the limits for myself or the 207.
We put all the seats in the tailcone, then loaded moose meat untill it was up to over the windows. One hunter in the f/o seat, the other one laying flat on top of the meat, unable to move around between the ceiling and the meat bags.
The tires was flat and the plane sitting kind of low. Tail on the ground of course.

It took full power to taxi and that should perhaps have been a clue.
On t/o we used every inch of the strip and somehow got the thing airborne, but it was in no mood to climb. At the far end of the strip there was a river with trees on both sides. I managed to turn and follow the river more or less in ground effect, but was unable to climb above the trees for about an hour.

The eskimo hunters was laughing and giggling because they had saved on charter cost: Insteading of chartering 2 planes for the 2 mooses, they got away with one plane.

We finally got over the trees and could set a course for Bethel.
At this time I was painfully aware that I had screwed up and was hoping there was no Fed around Bethel.

The landing was pretty uneventful, but the approach speed was in the 737 category to stay airborne.
As soon as we taxied in and shut down, the tail fell on the ground.

Got away with it due to large amounts of luck and a forgiving airplane.
Guessing we were about 2000 lbs over, perhaps more..:0

 

[avbug]

Loading procedure for the 206 or 207 was the same; load up the passengers front to rear, and stand at the back by the right door, ands in the small of the back, palm beneath the horizontal stab, when it started squatting down enough that finger pressure wouldn't hold it, start moving weight forward. In the 207, stuff the nose baggage, and whatever was left went on or between the passengers. If day light was showing between the pax, the airplane wasn't loaded yet.

Both airplanes were great rough field airplanes. If the field wasn't too rough, set the flaps by matching the aileron down angle, and go. If the field was rough with loose chips, slow roll with slow power application, and lower the flaps late in the takeoff to protect them. We often fueled with jerry cans, and used 2X6's or branches to climb on top of the wing with the fuel can. If it wasn't a long turnaround, we'd land, put the airplane on the left mag, chock the wheels with a rock, and load.

The 207 I thought was a better flying airplane, but the 206 and extra power and climb due to same engine power and propeller, but smaller, lighter airframe and sometimes lighter load. Either one is a truck. Great airplanes.

 

[NW_Pilot]

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?

Yes,

210 With Struts Salem, IN to Fort McMurry, Alberta, Canada http://www.aircraftdelivery.net/ferryflights/1.jpg


I flew a 206 Standard and a 207 with a Full Robertson STOL including Drooping Ailerons talk about an easy lander and more stable in flight compared to the 206. But the 207 had an advantage "STOL kit" never flown a 206 with a STOL kit so my data is tainted hahahaha.

 

[belchfire]

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.

Yes.

The 207 had a different wing from the factory than the 206 though many of them have been cuffed to give them better short field performance. The 207 is easier to handle in crosswinds mostly because of the lower stance and wider tube steel gear. The 206 is quicker to get off the ground, cruises faster (even with the pod installed) and lands shorter. In the menagerie that I operated there were as big a differences between aircraft of the same type as there were between the 206 and the 207's, but they had all been upside down in the tundra at some point...at least once!

Honestly, except for crosswinds in excess of thirty knots or so I prefered the 206.