Cessna U206G vs. Cherokee Six

[ShyFlyGuy]

Gentlemen (and ladies),

I have a conundrum. I'm looking to purchase a six-seat fixed-gear aircraft with a partner. We are in the $200,000 price range, and while the Six is cheaper than the 206, I want quality and safety.

I've got tons of time in the Six and Saratogas, but never flown a 206 (but I love the way they look). I'm leaning toward the 206, and he's leaning toward the Six. Initial purchase cost notwithstanding, what are the other pros and cons for these two aircraft?

Most of our flying will be East of the Great Plains, so not a lot of mountain flying or unimproved fields. Also, 40% of our flying will be <2 hours, while 60% will be more than two. The 206 we're looking at has club seating, so don't give me the seating arrangement argument, either. From my research, it's almost a tie. Opinions are like butts, everyone's got one, so I'd like you to explain your answer when you give me your vote.

Thanks,

Shy

 

[avbug]

I don't think it makes a lot of difference one way or the other. I can tell you that the 206 will take a heck of a beating on rough mountain airstrips and that it's a truck. The cherokee 6 has a good long work history, too. I prefer the Cessna, but it's really up to you.

If you do get the Cessna, pay attention to your vertical stab attach brackets during the prebuy...I've seen a LOT of them cracked. They should have been replaced with steel brackets and it shouldn't be a problem, but check. Check the firewall for buckling and damage, too...sure seem to be a lot of people who think they can land them, but can't, and end up dropping them on the nosewheel. That's not necessary.

 

[ShyFlyGuy]

Thanks AvBug. what about the room in the back? Are they comprable? Performance? Cruise?Thanks! Shy

 

[avbug]

I don't know what the numbers are so far as square footage, but I suspect they're close. My perception is that the 206 has a lot more room, but it may just be the shape. I think it feels more comfortable. I've never thought of either one as a long range passenger airplane; both are really a tradeoff of utiity for comfort. I think of 206 in the same vein as a F250 in 4 wheel drive, and a cherokee six as an airplane with poor paint, half its instruments, a door that won't seal, and only flying after dark filled with little brown packages tied up with string.

 

[deadstick]

My 2 cents....

1) Based on Blue Book data, the PA32 (pre-79) and the U206G are comparable in performance and stock useful loads.
2) What are the airframe and engine times? Who did the overhaul? When was it done? Since they are comparable machines, this is something to look at. If the 206 has a factory reman engine with 300 hrs on it vs the PA32 with a “fresh” Joe Smith’s special field overhaul, the decision is easy. Buy the Beech. Kidding. The Cont will have a lower TBO and might need a top before the overhaul, but this could happen with an old Lycoming engine, too.
3) The high wing is really nice in the summer because the 32 is a greenhouse. It's easier to close a window than reach across the person in the right seat to close a door.
4) I think the 206 will hold its value better because they are used world-wide as “working planes.”

 

[svcta]

Excepting recent crank A.D.s I'd rather own a lycoming than a continental. They take a beating a little better and do have higher TBOs
. I think you'll find that things like cylinder changes and general cost of ownership is easier with a Lycoming. I've had good luck with Continentals in the past, but in my experience they require more TLC.

I would consider myself more a fan of the piper. I used to own a part of a Cherokee and just never had any trouble with it. This makes me a little biased. This really is a Chevy Vs. Ford discussion, like Avbug touched on.

The only thing I can come up with scientifically is the powerplant. I think that for Joe Q. Pilot the lycoming is generally a better choice. One man's opinion.

 

[ShyFlyGuy]

Thanks AvBug. what about the room in the back? Are they comprable? Performance? Cruise?Thanks! Shy

Sorry about this post, gentlemen. I was using my PDA, which isn't an excuse, but I didn't want my Capt. to think I was screwing around on my phone while we were #14 in line at LGA, so I didn't take the time to proof-read.

Anyhow, I appreciate everyone's input. I absolutely agree that this is a Ford vs. Chevy issue for the most part, with a curve-ball when it comes to the engine. I am slightly biased toward the Cessna, and biased even stronger toward Lycoming. Since the 206 has a Continental and the Six has the Lycoming, I'm stuck. On the bright side, we'd be replacing the engine at some point in the future and there is a diesel engine that's already been TSO'd for the 206. Nice. I think I'm leaning toward the 206 even more now, but I am curious as to why the Six is such a popular cargo plane. I have found that for the most part, only the best planes survive to be cargo planes. I have a few hours in a C-310R, and I'd trust that thing with my life (actually, I did trust it with my life). If I were going after a twin, I wouldn't hesitate to buy that airplane. I love it. And it seems that it worked hard for the cargo guys. Why don't we hear about the 206 being such a great cargo plane? Too expensive?

Shy

 

[svcta]

Man, I'd be even more careful with the diesels. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they throwaways? As in no TBO, just TBit'strash? I remember seeing that somewhere, but maybe it's not the case with them anymore. Admittedly I'm kind of a tech. dinosaur, but I wouldn't buy an a/c with a diesel motor. This may be subject to change, but not right now.

 

[deadstick]

Man, I'd be even more careful with the diesels. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they throwaways? As in no TBO, just TBit'strash? I remember seeing that somewhere, but maybe it's not the case with them anymore. Admittedly I'm kind of a tech. dinosaur, but I wouldn't buy an a/c with a diesel motor. This may be subject to change, but not right now.

You are correct about the engines. They have a TBR--Time Before Replacement. Centurion Engines are something else. On the Duke Conversion, the 85% Power (310 hp) fuel flow is 25 gph TOTAL. FADEC, single lever control, cheaper fuel, lower fuel burn -- it's kinda nice. Check out the warranty. Cont and Lycoming can't touch it.

 

[avbug]

The Thielart diesel engine has an initial TBO of 1,000 hours, but is anticipated to have a 3,500 hour TBO...just as good as a PT6. Diesels lope long and go forever. The FAA feels confident enough in them to issue a type certificate for the engine and for aircraft using the engine, and now a STC for their use in certificated aircraft, such as the Cessna 172. With rising avgas costs and decreasing avgas availability...diesel engines burning Jet A or eventually other approved fuels are very likely part of the wave of the future.

So far as lycoming vs. continental...lycomings haven't just been plagued with crank problems, with historically with valve train problems starting with the overhead camshaft and working out to the valve guides, with uneven oil distribution and wear being a comon issue at overhaul time.