View Full Version : Bonanza vs 206 vs 210


solowflyer
21st Jul 2010, 05:36
From an operational point of view which one is the most cost effective single Bonanza 206 210 or something else most sectors no more than 150nm into bush strips. My prefrence is for the 206 as a good alrounder. Company I work for is looking at getting a new plane and looking at all options just thought I would ask the folk on prune for there views.

Thanks



The Green Goblin
21st Jul 2010, 05:43
A36 = 150
C210 = 150
C206 = 120

1.0 60L burn of fuel
1.0 60L burn of fuel
1.2 75L burn of fuel

C206 will be more expensive and time consuming to get there.
C210/A36 increased costs with retrac especially the A36 which is expensive to maintain and carries a smaller payload than a 210/206.

C206 would be the winner IMO

Considered an Airvan?

The Bunglerat
21st Jul 2010, 05:49
Agree. Go the C206 - at least for the purposes you've got in mind. That said, if I had the spare cash for a personal aeroplane, it'd be a Bonanza for sure (it's a Beechcraft - 'nuff said); beautiful handling, good performer, etc. However, as already mentioned, not the most practical aeroplane for bush ops. The C206 may not be as pretty or as fast, but it's a good workhorse - and a proven aeroplane.

solowflyer
21st Jul 2010, 06:10
Airvan would be nice but $$$$ to get one

The Green Goblin
21st Jul 2010, 06:15
And the 206 is cheap???

Couple of ex Alligator Vans that are back at Gippsland as trade ins. Might be able to pick one up cheapish.

aileron_69
21st Jul 2010, 06:21
I'd search for a 206 that goes pretty quick and put an IO550 in it. The overhead induction one tho not the standard. Handles the hot weather a lot better and gives you a nice increase in speed, and climb/takeoff performance. Throw the Stol Kit on her and you'll be away laughing. Being only short hops you wont need long range tanks and they are a lot tougher that a 210 for the steep, rough bush strip. I dont know anything about the A36 but with retractable gear they prob arent ideal. The airvan is tough, but as slow as the second coming of Christ. Good, easy to maintain machine tho.

The Green Goblin
21st Jul 2010, 06:28
The airvan on a 150 mile sector is only 0.1 slower than a 206. You can carry 2 extra punters (more payload/revenue), burn a similar fuel figure and spend less on the maintenance with fixed gear and manual flaps.

Wanderin_dave
21st Jul 2010, 06:42
Cherokee 6/Lance if you need the extra room? Cheaper up front too (not without reason though)

Stationair8
21st Jul 2010, 07:32
Go for the PA-32RT-300T Turbo Lance, it must be a magnificant aeroplane as DOT used it in the BAK exam in the 1980's.

maverick22
21st Jul 2010, 07:47
Cherokee six is a good machine for bush strips, but when you have punters in the back you may as well be flying a C185 as the nose sits that high you feel as though you're in a tail dragger.

As Wally eluded to, Turbo lance is a dog of an aircraft :yuk:

ForkTailedDrKiller
21st Jul 2010, 08:07
most sectors no more than 150nm into bush strips


C206 would be the go but finding a good one can be a challenge!

Dr :8

Jabawocky
21st Jul 2010, 08:17
C206 would be the go but finding a good one can be a challenge!

Dr http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/nerd.gif

I do not agree with that statement......

Not hard to find at all.
http://www.cessna.com/MungoBlobs/380/15/sin_sta_ban.jpg

Stationair (http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/stationair.html)

I am sure the aeromill folk will help you part with some cash ;)

gassed budgie
21st Jul 2010, 08:42
A36 = 150
C210 = 150
C206 = 120



Havn't flown a 206 for a while, but the last one I did fly used to TAS at 140kts. Flown both the 210 and A36 during the last week, with the A36 making good 168ktas and the 210 winding out to 171ktas. Both have stock airframe and engines.

KRUSTY 34
21st Jul 2010, 09:06
Cold weather will do that 'budgie.

Most A/c get around 10-15% better TAS in Aus over Winter compared to Summer!

The Green Goblin
21st Jul 2010, 09:36
Quote:
A36 = 150
C210 = 150
C206 = 120
Havn't flown a 206 for a while, but the last one I did fly used to TAS at 140kts. Flown both the 210 and A36 during the last week, with the A36 making good 168ktas and the 210 winding out to 171ktas. Both have stock airframe and engines.

They are just rough planning figures. Obviously with height the TAS will increase.

Most A/c get around 10-15% better TAS in Aus over Winter compared to Summer!

Are you sure about that 'ole boy??

bushy
21st Jul 2010, 09:39
And many pilots don't bother calculating a tas anyway, so just use the ground speed on the GPS.

puff
21st Jul 2010, 10:41
YouTube - Soloy Cessna 206 engine start (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNLtyzHkUw)

Now that sounds like a nice 206 :)

solowflyer
21st Jul 2010, 11:03
now that would be a beast and a half:)

gassed budgie
21st Jul 2010, 12:29
Most A/c get around 10-15% better TAS in Aus over Winter compared to Summer!


In something like the 210 that's a difference of around 20 knots or more and in 35 years of flying I've never ever seen a discrepancy that big whilst in the cruise regardless of what the temp is.
Someone might be able to work the numbers in the pics to give us a TAS for the 210.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/9728/p10005201000.jpg

IAS 150kt, 9,500', QNH 1025, OAT 26f.

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/2488/p10005411000.jpg

IAS 152kt, 8,500', QNH 1026, OAT 35f.

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/232/p10006141000.jpg

Have to say though, I was cheating. It was a cool day and I had a big load. Me, Mrs.GB (All 54kgs of it), fuel and bags. From the nanny state to Broome in 9 hours. Not to shabby.
Apologies for the thread drift.

keenav8tor
21st Jul 2010, 12:39
c206 model h
normally aspirated io540
same speed as c210 . more payload than old 206. autopilot and glass cockpit. AU$250,000 to AU$350,000 in states.

Brand new airvan also a good choice if you have work for it.

rigpiggy
21st Jul 2010, 12:50
Haven't flown the others but an old 206 I used to fly had phenomenal moneymaking capabilities. GHDQ a 1964 206w/pod had an empty weight of 1825 with an GW of 3600. it trued about 135 at 23/23, and flew hands off. the newer planes weigh more, have more useless crap. My thought would be something like this AIrcraft for sale and aircraft brokers (http://www.aircraft2buy.com/aircraftforsale/cessna206b.php), pull out the extra radios a/p and stuff get a belly pod, and go to work.

gassed budgie
21st Jul 2010, 12:55
A cool day indeed.

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/4130/p10005091000.jpg

Sorry Solowflyer, I won't do it again.

rigpiggy
21st Jul 2010, 13:03
Guy who owned the flightschoolI went to painted all the leading edges a dark color, ie: darkest trim color. Made it easier to see, and heated up more, got rid of ice faster.

SOPS
21st Jul 2010, 13:12
Budgie..I am amased it still flew!!!!!!:ok:

Tmbstory
21st Jul 2010, 19:18
Sops:

At least the pitot heat seemed to be working.

Tmb

Stationair8
21st Jul 2010, 23:14
Valid comment rigpiggy.

Pound for pound some early model Cessna 206/7's and Piper Pa32, could carry a very good payload.

Particularly the utiliner C206 with the two blade prop, basic interiors and VFR instrumentation.

tail wheel
22nd Jul 2010, 00:10
Try this in a Bonanza, Cessna 210 or any Piper.......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Woomera/PPRuNe/NiceRunway.jpg

Then go buy a man's work aircraft, a Cessna 206!

solowflyer
22nd Jul 2010, 00:46
Is good, fun often fly off strips like that but in a Fletcher:ok:

j3pipercub
22nd Jul 2010, 01:54
You're a brave man posting stuff like that on a public interent forum budgie...

The Green Goblin
22nd Jul 2010, 02:03
My thoughts too :=

While you can accidently get ice in an IFR twin not certified for icing conditions I think a VFR single means only one thing......

Jabawocky
22nd Jul 2010, 03:50
wot GG :eek:........ you accidently found some unknown icing!

Unknown ice does not discriminate between single and twin! :}

The Green Goblin
22nd Jul 2010, 03:54
wot GG ........ you accidently found some unknown icing!

Unknown ice does not discriminate between single and twin!

Im implying there 'aint to many IFR 206s floating around being used on commercial ops.

Think about it Jaba :ok:

Jabawocky
22nd Jul 2010, 05:47
........not thinking outside the square:suspect::oh:

Lasiorhinus
22nd Jul 2010, 06:06
Who says it wasn't IFR? Looked like a private flight to me:ok:

j3pipercub
22nd Jul 2010, 06:20
Whether it was private or not, in icing conditions in a non equipped aircraft... You must have been in it a while to get a build-up like that. But hey, what would I know.

j3

The Green Goblin
22nd Jul 2010, 06:24
Sorry, it's a C210 VH-XXI

It's got some IFR bits in there, VOR x 2, ADF, DME and a striker. I'd love to see the MR :}

VH-XXX
22nd Jul 2010, 07:12
Based on that pic, I'd be interested to know how much ice one could "get away with" before it starts to fall out of the sky.

Pontius
22nd Jul 2010, 07:54
I have to say, I'm not normally too impressed by the stories of derring do in GA, especially as they have a habit of getting embelished with the passage of time. BUT, by the power of Greyskull, that's an impressive photo by Mr Tail Wheel. My gob has been well and truly smacked, especially by the the fact that (a)this is not a 'one off', judging by the number of tyre tracks and (b)one would have to land there before taking off and that looks like it would take a good deal of skill (an attribute I am not known for crediting others with :)). I've jumped off lesser gradients in my hang glider and I reckon my Landcruiser would even have something to say about going up that hill.

Yes, I am impressed. Now, do I have the steak, fish, chicken or vegetarian option on this evening's flight :ok:

Edited to add. PS: C206.

maverick22
22nd Jul 2010, 08:27
Based on that pic, I'd be interested to know how much ice one could "get away with" before it starts to fall out of the sky

Considering the tail would have just as much ice on it, probably not a lot more. There would have been a considerable loss in IAS

Old Akro
23rd Jul 2010, 01:16
I'm not sure that you aren't being a bit hard on gassed budgie.

We don't know the circumstances in which the ice got there or what actions the gassed budgie took to get out of icing conditions. In fact its possible that the aeroplane is in positive temp air and the ice is diminishing at the time of the photo.

In the photo the aeroplane is in clear air - so its not in icing conditions (which requires water). Its over about 4 oktas, so it can descend in clear air without entering icing conditions.

It has maybe 50 times more ice than I'd be comfortable with, but the the fact is that if its flying happily and it stays in clear air with the ground in sight (ie can descend without further icing), then its probably OK.

Great photo but.

rioncentu
23rd Jul 2010, 02:24
Yes I am intrugued to hear more about the photo GB.

I have never picked up ice (it's not cold in these parts) and wouldn't know what is "a lot of ice"

That looks like "a lot of ice" to me but I'd be keen to hear how the 210 was performing at the time.

Cheers

tail wheel
23rd Jul 2010, 08:21
Pontius. The aircraft is a Missionary Aviation Fellowship Cessna 206 taking off from a Mission ALA. Not sure where the photo was taken, may be an airstrip south east of Chimbu in the PNG Highlands, or in West Irian. The slope is accentuated or exaggerated slightly by a telephoto lens - but is still steep enough you would need low gear in your Landcruiser. The steepest commercial stip in PNG serviced by RPT services was Omkalai, 14% from memory, now closed.

Waghi Warrior
23rd Jul 2010, 23:25
The C206 is certainly the best workhorse from what I have flown. I know nothing about airvans as they weren't around in my day.

However, as far as a private touring aircraft goes the Bonanza is my favourite.
If I was ever going to purchase a plane to tour around in, I would get a V tail with tip tanks, if there were any good ones left. TAS at ISA at 160 + kts with about 8 hours endurance from memory. I was once planning to fly one from Melbourne direct to the Sunshine Coast many years ago, unfortunately the trip didn't eventuate.

As far as GA aircraft goes, Beechcraft always have been the Rolls Royce of the skies, they are built like brick sh!t houses, fast and very reliable if maintained correctly, not to mention extremely beautiful to fly. They wouldn't be that suited to charter if you were going to try and get 5 or 6 POB in them with bags as they go out side the aft C of G limit very easily when you put a passenger in a back seat.

rutan around
24th Jul 2010, 01:06
I have to agree with Krusty 34 re TAS variation due to temp change. I have approx 4000 hrs on 210's and do trend monitoring every 10 hrs. On reviewing these sheets I see my TAS varies 11.6% from best to worst. Weight is another factor that needs to be included in the speed equation. My 210M varies by 5 knots lightest weight to heaviest weight in egual conditions. It's speed range is 155 K TAS hot and heavy to (not very often) 173 K light and cool . Adding wing tip tanks made it a different aircraft for climb and speed above 8000 ft. Down low it climbs at 500-900 fpm at 120-125 indicated at gross and even on 37 degree + days will go to 13500ft reasonably easily. With it's Gami injectors it burns 45 lph @<hidden> 13500 ft and gives a TAS of 157 knots It wouldnt do that when it had standard short wings. I just have to persuade the Minister for War and Finance to allow me to install a Continental IO550P and I'll have the perfect aircraft.
Cheers RA

The Green Goblin
24th Jul 2010, 01:34
Your engine and aerofoil will perform better in cold weather (denser air) however TAS is higher in warmer air than colder air for a given Airspeed or mach number.

Think about the speed of sound, it is faster in warmer air and slower in cooler air. :ok:

Capt Fathom
24th Jul 2010, 02:44
That's what I was thinking GG.

And the TAS doesn't vary that much with temp changes.

Eg.
At 8000' ISA +0 CAS 150kts = 169 kts TAS
At 8000' ISA+20 CAS 150kts = 175 kts TAS

NNB
24th Jul 2010, 09:18
a couple of questions ...
1...is this to be a cruising machine for hire or private use?
2...or, is this to be a freight hauler?
3...or, senics?
4...or, skydivers?
5...what runways are you wanting to operate off?
comment - if you want a faithfull workhorse to carry anything off most anything I would steer you in the direction of a C206.
ie..C206 vs GA8 - jollies/short haul freight, the GA8 will make you more
money but is very expensive to buy in and is too slow a climber with jumpers
C206 vs C210 - longer sectors suit the C210. If you can find a "good"
one and can put an experienced operator in it not a pup, then go with
the C210.
Bonanza vs Cessna - refer to previous comment re longer sectors.
Chereokee 6 vs C206 - similar speeds and weight carrying but where
are you wanting to put the aircarft? low wing may
become an issue!
There are some very learned/experienced hands who wander througn these threads from time to time and I look forward to reading their thoughts but as a work horse I'm a big fan of the C206.:ok:

Stationair8
26th Jul 2010, 06:10
Are you carrying freight, passengers or a mix of payloads?
With freight will you be cubed out before your MTOW?
Will the floor space in all three aircraft allow you the uplift required?
Might be better with an Islander?

The Green Goblin
26th Jul 2010, 06:22
You could always ask Dunza, he may have a spare Caravan or two around looking for some work :p

swaziboy
2nd Aug 2010, 08:23
Islander will probably hurt you cost wise... much respect to an awesome machine but just way expensive to operate...

43Inches
2nd Aug 2010, 09:08
Regarding the TAS debate all the data I have points to increased TAS with increased temperature, however the manifold pressure must be increased to maintained the same percentage power.

The only similar data I have at hand is for the Piper Lance,

0 degrees C @<hidden> 6000ft and 65% (22.3 MAP @<hidden> 2300RPM) = 142 KTAS

30 degrees C @<hidden> 6000ft and 65%(23.3 MAP @<hidden> 2300RPM) = 147 KTAS

For the Chieftain,

ISA @<hidden> 10000ft and 65% (29.8 MAP @<hidden> 2300RPM) = 184 KTAS

ISA +20 @<hidden> 10000ft and 65% (30.9 MAP @<hidden> 2300RPM) = 187 KTAS

This was just some quick POH research, in the real world there are lots of other variables.

If you maintain one power setting (manifold pressure/RPM combination) for all temperatures you are not maintaining a constant percentage power output and at higher temperatures your TAS will suffer.

Weight will definately have an impact on any aircraft TAS for a given power due to the increase in angle of attack required to generate more lift to balance weight.

Jober.as.a.Sudge
2nd Aug 2010, 09:31
...Islander will probably hurt you cost wise... just way expensive to operate...

Since when??? The BN-2 has always been regarded as the "accountants machine" for the low operating costs and revenue generated on a seats/kg per hour basis!

You must have been operating the Lamborghini BN-2 Laguna designed by Pinafarina...
:}

The Green Goblin
2nd Aug 2010, 09:33
If you maintain one power setting (manifold pressure/RPM combination) for all temperatures you are not maintaining a constant percentage power output and at higher temperatures your TAS will suffer.

Which is why you should consult the POH for the correct power settings for ambient conditions.

Weight will definately have an impact on any aircraft TAS for a given power due to the increase in angle of attack required to generate more lift to balance weight.

Of course, but regardless TAS will always be higher with a higher temperature as the air is less dense and therefore offers less resistance to an aerofoil passing through it.

The Green Goblin
2nd Aug 2010, 10:55
Quote:

Of course, but regardless TAS will always be higher with a higher temperature as the air is less dense and therefore offers less resistance to an aerofoil passing through it.
However, such TAS will be harder to establish due to engines inefficiency at high Temp. So not quite true their GG

:ugh:

Ah no actually, a higher temp will always result in a higher TAS

Back in ya box :=

Oh and if you're trying to pull the inefficiency debate in with regards to the engines, if you run as per the POH's scheduled 65% power graphs (or whatever power setting you are using for cruise) will result in a higher power setting for a given percentage :)

You had better get all your basic aerodynamic theory in your head for all those airline interviews :D

j3pipercub
2nd Aug 2010, 11:23
Did someone say BN-2? :}

lilflyboy262
2nd Aug 2010, 14:56
I think Maun is a good way to prove that the BN2 is too expensive, it is cheaper to run and maintain a caravan than a BN2, hence why ours is parked and now operating 3 vans.
Also looking at selling the 206's in favour of the GA8's

Torres
2nd Aug 2010, 21:44
Jober.as.a.Sudge.

The BN2 is only an "accountants machine" in that category of operation for which it was designed - STOL, short haul, bush operations. Taking into account all cost factors - speed, maintenance costs, ultimate airframe life etc - the Islander's seat/mile (or ton/mile) costs are higher that other ME GA aircraft and significantly higher that a comparable C208 or DHC6 on similar operations.

Biggles78
2nd Aug 2010, 23:37
Should the 1:60 Rule be applied to this thread drift? :uhoh:

TheRedBaron01
24th Nov 2011, 14:28
@<hidden>: That is in Long Puak, East Kalimantan, Indonesia, on the island of Borneo. Though this airstrip is now closed due to erosion, I fly over it all the time, and into neighboring Buduk Kubul.