Cessna 206 / Yak 18 T

[osud]

Hello,

I am a FAA ppl pilote, with low experience with about 250 hours.
I am looking for my peferct plane... Robuste / Secure / easy to fly ...I am not loloking for speed but more for short take of and landing.

I found a very clean U206 G 1979 with engine and prop at 0 hours. I know very well the seller, Tha avionic is basic and I might add an autopilot in the future,

I also found a YAK 18 T... who could me give you more info about this plane... I loooooove it :

- What is the average fuel burn ?
- How much you count for the annual standard maintenance ?
- Are the mecanic easy to maintain.What about the parts ? Possible to find everywhere ?
- How much hours since major overhaul ? How much hours remains ?

YAK 18 T 1981 vs Cessna U206G 1979... plus and minus of both ...

Thanks for your help...

Alain

[Pilot DAR]

Welcome Alain,

I would recommend a Cessna 182, over a 206. The 182 is much nicer to fly, and will comfortably operate from a shorter runway, and less cost. Unless you need to carry 5 or 6 people, avoid the 206, they're more expensive, and less comfortable to fly.

[18greens]

Nice choice. I'm not an expert in either but I would consider the preflight requirements of a radial engine (lots of pulling through to clear the oil from the cylinders) . I seem to recall they are a lot less 'turn key' than an American engine. Having said that lots of people seem to like them

[rifruffian]

treat it as a transport tool; go for utility...206.

[n5296s]

A friend of mine had an aerobatic Yak (54) for a while. He said it was a love/hate relationship - he loved flying it but hated everything that was involved in keeping it flyable, including long periods when it wasn't - up to 6 months. If you want a plane where you can go the airport and "just go fly", go with the Cessna/Lycoming. If you want a hobby that may sometimes let you fly it, the Yak may be a good choice.

[340drvr]

You should also include insurance costs in your inquiries. I don't know about Europe, but in the US there is quite a jump in premiums between 4-seaters to 6 seats.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Cher Alain, first of all: be welcome to this place!

I have zero experience of either type, but would heartily recommend to talk to owners/operators near you. The seller of the 206 is also its owner and operator so you are ok there, but is there anyone near flying the Yak18T? You might perhaps find one at Bremgarten in Germany, not that far from your country.

Purely from hearsay, I feel that the comments of n5296s might be very valuable. More specifically, the USSR planes existed in an environment where cost-of-labour was not counted.

[Piper.Classique]

It all depends on your use for the aircraft, not to mention your budget and what maintenance arrangements you can make. I can only suggest that you make a list of pros and cons for each type. Consider them carefully, and as long as neither proves impossible then tear up the list, ignore all wise advice, and go with your heart's desire. Whichever you get, fill your boots. Enjoy!

[Jhieminga]

Silly thought, but go and talk to your local maintenance shop and ask them (assuming that they will carry out any maintenance for you) this same question. They are the ones you'll be asking to sort out any problems, and it would be interesting to hear what they have to say about the two types.

[Squeegee Longtail]

I’ve owned a Yak 52 (same engine as Y18T) and can confirm high fuel consumption, high oil consumption, high maintenance costs, but fun to fly. If you enjoy cleaning oil off your aircraft every time you fly it (it covers underneath and wing roots on start up) and worrying about running out of compressed air if you don’t get the start procedure juuust right, then the Yak is for you. An enthusiasts aircraft, as has been said. If you want an easier (and cheaper) aircraft to own and operate, go for the Cessna.

i loved my Yak, but was pleased when it was gone.