C206 on Floats
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 $$$$$.
I've got heaps of time on float planes. But the end of the day your $$$$$.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Don't fall for the trap of "I want to get the biggest plane I can afford".
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.
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.
Don't fall for the trap of "I want to get the biggest plane I can afford".
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back too the hot bits again
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back too the hot bits again
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Nothing compares in strength to a beaver of course. Has anyone who operates bigger Cessna floatplanes had any major issues?
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: where ever they tell me
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
C206 are water hogs, (complete pigs on the water).
