Cessna 206 vs. 182

Profile picture for user PhantomII

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,989

Okay so sometime in the future I'd like to own an airplane. Something that would be fun for weekend trips and/or just general flying on a nice day. I'd like to something that's fun, but has some practicality in it. The two types that most appeal to me are the 206 Stationair and the 182 Skylane. I feel like going the turbo-charged route with either would be a smart choice although I do realize it's certainly a more expensive option. What do others think? Again this is something I won't be able to really look into for quite a few more years as I simply don't have the finances available at the moment. Both types seem great with the 206 having great payload and the 182 being more affordable. Thoughts?
Original post
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 9,617

Both types seem great with the 206 having great payload and the 182 being more affordable.
That about says it all. How many people or how much gear will you be taking? That, along with your budget, will probably dictate what you buy. I've never heard anything bad about 182s, great high performance single. RE the 206: Do you need six seats? Do you want to feed a 206's 285/310 (T) hp? That's a lot more engine that the 182's 230 hp engine. Operating and maintenance costs will be higher so you'd really want/need the extra capacity if you're paying the bills. If you're looking at used aircraft, keep in mind 182s are usually (fairly wealthy) owner flown, it would be easier to find one with lower hours and in better shape. BTW: If you're going to fly backcountry airstrips, older 182s are sometimes found with STC'd STOL kits...Wren, Robertson or the newer Katmai. I have a couple of hours of right seat time in a 206, I never could get it trimmed right. But it was over the Idaho mountains on a warm summer day, so that may have played a part.
Profile picture for user Moggy C

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 16,831

Something that would be fun for weekend trips and/or just general flying on a nice day.
I can think of several dozen aircraft I'd choose before either of those for similar or lower cost. The key question really is "How many seats do you genuinely need?" If you mostly need one or two, but would like four / six from time to time, you might be far better off owning a permit (UK) or experimental (US) type and freeing yourself from the more onerous requirements of full certification, in return for renting a four / six seater on the odd occasions you need that much space. Moggy
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 9,617

I can think of several dozen aircraft I'd choose before either of those for similar or lower cost.
I don't disagree, but by naming two specific aircraft, it sounds like PhantomII has narrowed his search and has particular missions in miind. But recall that North America, with greater distances, higher temps (I had to take off at dawn in a 150 from Phoenix in the summer..waiting later in the day is just not an option), higher altitudes (there are some very high strips in the inter-mountain west..I was just reading about one in Utah at 9000+ feet) and a ready environment for aircraft-based adventures (camping, "bush" type flying, etc.) makes GA here a bit different than the UK. Simply put, there is a greater need for higher performance aircraft for a greater proportion of GA pilots. For safety (and practicality...it's not as easy to rent some types as it used to be) it's best to have too much capability than too little..as long as your wallet can support it.
The key question really is "How many seats do you genuinely need?" Moggy
Yes, as Shakespeare said..that is the question. If you want to do local recreational flying, a basic homebuilt, trainer or LSA is fine. That's all I need... But if you want to get somewhere (again keeping in mind the North American requirements and opportunites) then a 182 (or other high performance single) is a great choice. If you want to fly into back country strips, a 180/182/185 is the minimum requirement if you need more space/seats than a Super Cub/Husky/Scout/Cub-type homebuilt.
Profile picture for user PhantomII

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,989

Indeed moggy, there are many types out there that could probably fit my needs well, but when it all boils down to it, I feel like Cessna's high-wing designs are what I'd enjoy the most. In short I'd like to do both local flying for fun (i.e. just myself or perhaps me and a friend or family member), but I'd like something that I can pack a fair amount of bags in and go on a cross-country deal across a few states...something along those lines anyway. Of course it will be sometime before my finances are such that I can afford an airplane as I'm certainly not naive enough to think that the initial purchase price and gas is all I'd pay for. An airplane would be an investment unlike any I've ever had and the thought of it actually scares me a bit. I just thought I'd get some commentary from others who might be able to provide me with a different perspective on things. I have friends who own airplanes like RV-4's, RG Mooneys, and even a Lancair. With the exception of the Mooney, none of those types interest me all that much because as fun as they are, I don't see as much practicality out of the designs. They are just toys that are a lot of fun, but I can't really do anything with them other than just fly locally. As for the Mooney, it's a nice bird, but despite being a bit slower, I kinda prefer the simplicity of a fixed-gear design. I'm not sure if it is because I learned to fly in a Cessna (both 152 & 172), but the 182 just seems like the best choice for me. I'm a fan of what Cessna produces though I have no doubt there are those who would disagree with me.
Profile picture for user Moggy C

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 16,831

We each make our own choices and whilst those aircraft wouldn't be my preference that doesn't mean they wouldn't be perfect for you. I think though you underestimate the permit aircraft like the Lancair. I'd certainly be very happy to do long distance touring in one (But then I have done UK > Italy three times in an 80kt Piper Colt.) An easy route in though is if you can find a group-operated aircraft (syndicate). Sharing the costs and the chores can be a gentle introduction to ownership Moggy
Profile picture for user PhantomII

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,989

Agreed that Lancair would be fun to fly, and it sure is fast, but there is virtually no room for baggage of any significance...especially if more than just one person has bags. I am going to want something that's both fun, but also practical.
Profile picture for user Bograt

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 589

A 182? Well, this little puppy is for sale.....you'd certainly have the only one on your street:eek:
Attachment Size
4724K.jpg 134.02 KB
Profile picture for user PhantomII

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,989

Wow...care to run through the modifications for me? Looks like some fairly extensive stuff.
Profile picture for user Bograt

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 589

Quite a lot, according to the ad; IO-550 in place of the original engine, three blade prop, a Peterson canard, 29 inch bushmaster tires and an aux fuel tank. Hell of a beast but at $175,000 it wants to be! Always did like the old 182, very smart and comfortable. We used to look after one at Cambridge airport in the mid 1980's
Profile picture for user PhantomII

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,989

Man, he musta had some work for that thing to put all those mods into it? Canards?? I didn't even know you could do that for Cessnas. What do they enhance? I can't imagine they give you even more slow speed capability. I mean do you really even need any in a Cessna? The things can land on a postage stamp as it is.
Profile picture for user keithnewsome

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 2,322

Here's a Cessna 182Q landing at Norwich August 2010, with carnards but looks like a standard prop ? Keith. http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii58/keithnewsome/DSC_0028-3.jpg
Profile picture for user PhantomII

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,989

Very pretty bird there! I'm still baffled as to why you would put canards on a 182. Perhaps it's for some reason that's not as obvious?