C206 on Floats

[rocket66]

Hi fellow Pruners

I'm looking for a C206 on floats to lease or buy from anywhere in Aus, I have gone through the CASA register and can only see ONE C206 on floats. I know there are a few more out there but the register obviously isn't up to date.

If anyone knows of an owner that might be interested in making a few bucks form their machine please let me know.

Cheers
Rocket

[TrimSet]

Which one do you already know? Sydney Seaplanes has one in Bankstown they use for training and endos.

TS

[FoolCorsePich]

On the topic of VH-PXT I always wondered whats the advantage of having a turbocharged seaplane given the fact that it will be almost always be operating at low altitudes?

[Frank Arouet]

Hot humid weather?

[Squawk7700]

FCP,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

Are you thinking of a turbo "normalised" set up?

Otherwise, why does a turbo charged WRX go faster than a non-turbo one at sea level ?? :-)

[FoolCorsePich]

Hot humid weather?

Yeah, I can see that being the most plausible reason however will a few ponies difference make that much of a difference when operating from sea level anyway and not being limited to a physical runway ? Pardon the ignorance, not a seaplane pilot, maybe one can chime in and add their 5c. I'm just wanting to educate myself.

FCP,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

Are you thinking of a turbo "normalised" set up?


Don't worry mate, I won't take offence to the condescending link.

Bare in mind the NA 540 makes a rated 300HP and the one discussed makes 310HP. From my limited understanding(I could be wrong) despite running at higher manifold pressures its only making 310HP because the compression ratio is dropped thus reducing the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine.

Its a pity turbo normalized hasn't been a more popular solution out of the factory for that reason.

I guess my question becomes a bit clearer now. Aircraft operates low most of the time. One engine makes an extra 10HP plus density losses. The other engine is more efficient and cheaper to maintain. Is there a factor that I'm simply oblivious to thats more specific to sea plane ops? Again, just trying to be curious rather than ignorant.

It's also a breath of fresh air to have a technical discussion on here rather than having to scroll through endless walls of text about 'wat flyin skool iz gud?' or 'f**k cazza'.

why does a turbo charged WRX go faster than a non-turbo one at sea level

Does it though? I have not seen a non-turbo WRX so I can't comment. :}

A WRX does actually have a large power advantage over a normal Impreza. Whereas the two aero engines compared here don't have quite the large difference which forms the basis of the discussion.

[OCTA]

There is a simple answer as to why PXT operated by Sydney Seaplanes in Turbo Charged.... Cessna do not produce normally aspirated 206's anymore! The aircraft is a 2006 model on the new model wipline floats. Almost a different machine compared to the old U models the new Lyc engine and prop combination make significantly more torque and the new floats perform much better.

[rocket66]

Hi all

I found VH-MGK owned by Kimberley Air but no others. I also know of NTK on the Gold Coast but it shows on the register as normal Tricycle Gear.

My next option was to look at buying one and maybe fitting a nice set of Aerocet floats for the weight saving.

I also know of VH-FKS but it is on amphibs and has a small useful load, no good for a scenic float operation.

Cheers
Rocket

[FoolCorsePich]

There is a simple answer as to why PXT operated by Sydney Seaplanes in Turbo Charged.... Cessna do not produce normally aspirated 206's anymore! The aircraft is a 2006 model on the new model wipline floats. Almost a different machine compared to the old U models the new Lyc engine and prop combination make significantly more torque and the new floats perform much better.

Simple it is then. Well that wasn't as much fun as I was hoping it to be... :{

[Lumps]

I've wondered the same. Asked and answered thanks OCTA.

The turbocharged Airvan8 is almost 50kg heavier than the NA model, I'm assuming the new 206s suffer the same penalty or have they upped the gross weight?

I don't know the numbers but my guess would be a new amphib 206 mustn't be a great lifter, lugging around 50kg of basically useless turbocharging equipment at the low level these aircraft normally fly.

rocket66 there's another up in Cairns, privately owned but the owner used to hire it out to Cairns seaplane operators. If you're up that way (seeing as no one else is these days...)

[PhillC]

VH-MQX

Almost new engine, new paint, SIDs completed. No idea if it's available for lease or sale.

[Hasselhof]

Is there still one operating out of Williamstown in Melbourne?


----


Nevermind, just saw that it is a 185

[OCTA]

Amphib 206's have never been good lifters but the H has even less useful load. Engine is heavier, interior is significantly heavier. They up gross the weight when it's on floats by 85kgs but still suffers. Funny thing is though it will actually lift the same as the old U models as the old ones may have been able to legally take more load but could not physically get themselves out of the waster at max gross. Just ask the doctor in Cairns.

[Lumps]

legally take more load but could not physically get themselves out of the waster at max gross


Is that primarily due to float design on the new ones?

How does an aircraft/STC get certified for a weight it cannot even take off at!

[iPahlot]

There's a couple of 185's going at the moment, why not check them out?

What happened to the Amphib Beaver you were chasing a few years back? I vaguely remember suggesting MQX a few years back and being told in no uncertain terms that you wanted a Beaver :ok:

Are you planning on putting the 3400's on the 206 or is the amphib requirement no longer so critical?

[Konev]

if you ever get desperate enough to import a 'fixer upper' there has been one sitting in a hanger in Invercargill NZ for a while now. could probably get it dirt cheap.

think this is it here. RegoSearch | ZK-DWM New Zealand Aircraft Registration Details (http://www.regosearch.com/aircraft/nz/DWM)

[OCTA]

Lumps, They may have been able to get airborne (just) when they where new but once they are worn in there is no hope. I wouldn't be surprised if it also has something to do with the liberal empty weights that some of the older aircraft have that are around due to there being no mandatory reweighs after certain time frames anymore

[Lumps]

oh. Makes sense

[rocket66]

Things have changed slightly since I last posted. A couple more hurdles had to be overcome but all seems to be good now. Does anyone have Brian Finns contact details for MQX in CNS?

[Piano Man]

Things have changed slightly since I last posted. A couple more hurdles had to be overcome but all seems to be good now. Does anyone have Brian Finns contact details for MQX in CNS?

For a commercial operation, I would avoid MQX. If you want to get yourself a Cessna float machine, then maybe talk to Bill Lane.

[Ejector]

C206 are water hogs, (complete pigs on the water).

In oz they are often operated on lumpy water as well. Oh, and that flying coffin rear emergency door, good luck the pax opening that with the electric flap down if it rolls. A C185 all the way then a beaver.

[yr right]

Honestly stay away from any Cessna on floats bar a C208. They just not built for it. If you won't to go piston stick with aDHC-2. Built and designed for floats from the start. Plus great pax appeal.
I've got heaps of time on float planes. But the end of the day your $$$$$.

[iPahlot]

185 over a 206 for sure! Same engine on a slightly skinnier fuse = performance (well, relatively speaking).

Operating either on open water is far from ideal. A beaver will take conditions that would see a 206/185 throwing bracing wires and spreader bars.

If you stay within the protected bays then you should be alright, but I'd still go the 185 over a 206.

MQX is also an amphib so there goes any real hope of payload to make a profit. Plus with your experience (or lack there of), getting insurance on an amphib will be near impossible, regardless of whether it's a beaver or a 206.

Now if you want to burn cash a little more slowly a 172XP is always another option. Bill had operated many a 172XP and if memory serves me correctly so did Akuna. You'll have to fill less seats to turn a profit and burns less juice than a 182.

I'd talk to Bill Lane though on true operating economics of each of the 172XP, 182, 185 and 206, he's operated them commercially for decades so knows what he's talking about. :ok:

Though I'm sure given that you've got a business plan and have been talking to the banks you've already employed the services of an experienced consultant to get true operating costs for your financial forecasts. :cool:

Don't fall for the trap of "I want to get the biggest plane I can afford".

[Ethel the Aardvark]

I thought the 172 and 182 had a habit of bending the firewall if you hit a little too hard. the 206 with a 550 engine was a joy to fly on floats, what's the bad issues? The manual flaps in a 180 can be very helpful if needed and a beaver if they were affordable who wouldn't have one.

[yr right]

All the Cessna,s will damage far more easily than the beaver. Float attachment in the beaver carrys threw to both sides by heavy structure. Cessna don't. Their attach fittings only go into light ribs which crack easier and also suffer from corrosion as well. Like I said. The beaver was designed from the start to use floats.

[Ethel the Aardvark]

From memory the 206 floats bolt onto little stub legs that replace the main undercarriage legs, always thought the 206 had a pretty sturdy frame.
Nothing compares in strength to a beaver of course. Has anyone who operates bigger Cessna floatplanes had any major issues?

[iPahlot]

Caravan can also bend the firewall if you take it in to water that is too rough due to the long nose. However they'll take quite a bit.

Now it should be noted the Beaver is far from indestructible.

Rocket, what will be your areas of operation and have you considered the "other" Cessnas?

I know Strahan used to run Maules as well (maybe they still do?), haven't had any dealings with Maules but that may also be another avenue to investigate.

[OCTA]

Knowing where you are going to operate the aircraft the only thing suitable is beaver. You could run a 206/185 but you will be canceling a lot or bending your's (someone else's) airframe. The problem is starting with a new product and a Beaver leads to big cash flow problems.

As always I wish you good luck with the venture, would love to see it up and running after your years of hard work towards it.

[yr right]

Float planes are the second hardest working aircraft behind Ag. Whilst a dhc-2 has its problems they are also so far above anything else on the market still. Perhaps only thing equal is the single otter fitted the pzl engine.
As for a maule. They ok on fresh water but never ever put them on salt and expect them to last and not have a huge maintenance bill. The C208 has problems with corrosion and fire wall bending. The beaver for all those interested its pick up points for the fwd and rear are heavy structure that goes between both sides of the airframe. The smaller Cessna don't. They may pick up on heavy structure for one point but not for both.

[Squawk7700]

C206 are water hogs, (complete pigs on the water).


I'll take your 206 water hog and raise you a Cherokee 140 :ok:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc75/140.jpg