Hey guys! I wanted to let you know I just launched an "Insiders" Newsletter where once a week I'm sharing an important lesson I've learned in aviation, links to my latest content so you don't miss out, and links to any other interesting or helpful content I've found. I'm also working on a HUGE project I can't announce yet but I'm going to be sharing more behind the scenes info with Insiders first - Subscribe (it's free) at: airplaneacademy.com/insiders
I always get in ah when I watch a demo of new aircraft. Our club has a 1968 C172I and it is a great trainer but at 6"4" its cramped. But the price tag on new GA's aircraft is not for middle income folks. Great video.
We have a 2009 T206H (bought new) with tip tanks and TKS ice protection (since we are in the northeast US). With a few inexpensive (for aviation) mods such as GAMI injectors and flap gap seals, we can carry 6 of us, for 4 hours at 150 without O2. The benefit for us over the G36 was the purchase price and operating costs (15% higher insurance for G36, more maintenance for the gear, and we got a better deal on the 206 since we had previously owned a n/a 182T). Would love to someday have the DA50 with the jet-a fueled engine, but can’t quite swing more than $1m. That is a lot of fuel for the 206.
If you like the 206 because of the performance and capabilities meaning useful load and speed, you might also like his brother the Cessna Turbo 210 Centurion. It is not as new and modern as that 206 you flew but the main diference is the retractable landing gear and cantilever wing which makes it faster and with just 200lb less useful load, carries 90 gallons of gas.
@@okiegrandboater true I completely agree with you it is a much more capable airplane than the Columbia, I’m sure a lot of folks do too and we would love to see it in production again unfortunately the 210 would be very expensive to bring back and wouldn’t make the cut for Textron…
This is why Cessna retains return buyers especially in the citation series, you can tell they are sewn from the same cloth. Also type certified in very little time graduating from one to another at flight safety.
Looks like an enjoyed flight . I get how nice those double doors would be for cargo days/missions , but frankly I don't know that " I " would be willing to give up the passenger door . guess I'd need to see just what it takes to climb over and into the passenger seat . Bob from Calgary
I have about 500 hours in a naturally aspirated 206. I could get about 140 true at 10,000 and 16-18 gph. Never had an issue with 2 people and all our bags with full fuel. Accelerated really fast on takeoff roll, climb rate was kinda bad in the non turbo though. A lot better than a 172 though, 172s suck.
If you can land the 172....the 182 and 206 will make you smile. They settle in so much better. Great video, these planes can't be overlooked for just how incredible they really are. 210 is the only thing that is better, but those unfortunately are going to be a lot more mx
Yeah Cessna is completely asleep at the wheel nowadays. They sell these things for the same price as a Cirrus and a good 3-400k more than a Diamond DA40. I think the flight schools are keeping them in business, but even they are moving towards Diamond now. Hopefully this is a wakeup call for them because there is no way they're going to keep selling these things at a million dollars (new) when you can get better plans for less.
But if you are comparing a 206 to a cirrus or a da40 they definitely don’t carry what a 206 will and that’s why you buy it. On the price I can’t disagree I think all aircraft manufacturers are smoking crack and using pcp.
Da40 can't haul what a 206 can. It's silly to compare a cruiser to a hauler utility plane. You also aren't consistently landing a Da40 on unimproved strips.
The love of Cessna’s is nauseating. Just go fly a bonanza one time. You’ll never want to go back. I’ve got 100s of hours in 172s and g1000 182s. Still no comparison. Factory AC in 206 I did a demo in sucked compared to G36. With Cessna not allowing leaning in the lycoming 206 the bonanza kills it on efficiency. 19 gallons to go 160 knots is ridiculous.
If 206 only had a more reliable and more efficient engine. Turbine would be great for reliability but not so much for efficiency. Aviation definitely needs a new type of engine with superb reliability and great efficiency. If we did not spend $800 billion annually on war machines and countless other nonsense we more than likely would have such engines already.
You realize that air is thinner at higher altitudes, meaning NA aircraft can’t physically fly as fast or as high as turbos. Same thing with cars in mountains: the turbocharged engines always outperform naturally aspirated. Now imagine 25k’ instead of 5’. There’s no piston engine flying that high without a blower. All the money in the world can’t make a NA engine suck more than outside air pressure allows.
@@andrewahern3730 OK tell me something I don’t know. I was thinking Turbine engines are very reliable but not very efficient we need an engine that possesses reliability of turboprop but with much grater efficiency. If we stoped spending money on endless wars that only benefit oligarchs and spent that money on research and development we would have such engine and many other things that would benefit humanity.
@@BrianOgilvie79 I did say turbo instead of turbine, yes I am very familiar with turbochargers and turbines, but since I am an imperfect human, occasionally my fingers run faster than my brain, so I do make mistakes in typing. Since I am an instructor who started flying in 1970, I did learn a little about aviation over the years, definitely nowhere near as much as you.:)
Hey guys! I wanted to let you know I just launched an "Insiders" Newsletter where once a week I'm sharing an important lesson I've learned in aviation, links to my latest content so you don't miss out, and links to any other interesting or helpful content I've found. I'm also working on a HUGE project I can't announce yet but I'm going to be sharing more behind the scenes info with Insiders first - Subscribe (it's free) at: airplaneacademy.com/insiders
I had a 152 acrobat for 3 years. Traded up to dual engine about 8 years ago. The 152 was so fun to fly, miss my old high wing.
Wow. I don’t get to check in with you as often as I’d like, but your enthusiasm for GA is palpable. You continue to spread the joy.
Thanks so much! It's an easy hobby to get excited about :)
I always get in ah when I watch a demo of new aircraft. Our club has a 1968 C172I and it is a great trainer but at 6"4" its cramped. But the price tag on new GA's aircraft is not for middle income folks. Great video.
We have a 2009 T206H (bought new) with tip tanks and TKS ice protection (since we are in the northeast US). With a few inexpensive (for aviation) mods such as GAMI injectors and flap gap seals, we can carry 6 of us, for 4 hours at 150 without O2. The benefit for us over the G36 was the purchase price and operating costs (15% higher insurance for G36, more maintenance for the gear, and we got a better deal on the 206 since we had previously owned a n/a 182T). Would love to someday have the DA50 with the jet-a fueled engine, but can’t quite swing more than $1m. That is a lot of fuel for the 206.
Dam need to learn from you in life
You are exactly what general aviation needs! Keep up the great effort on your videos.
Thanks so much, really appreciate that!
Great content and production.
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed!
Love your posts dude!!!
Not too geeky but thorough !!
If you like the 206 because of the performance and capabilities meaning useful load and speed, you might also like his brother the Cessna Turbo 210 Centurion. It is not as new and modern as that 206 you flew but the main diference is the retractable landing gear and cantilever wing which makes it faster and with just 200lb less useful load, carries 90 gallons of gas.
Cessna should have brought back the 210 instead of buying the Columbia brand
@@okiegrandboater true I completely agree with you it is a much more capable airplane than the Columbia, I’m sure a lot of folks do too and we would love to see it in production again unfortunately the 210 would be very expensive to bring back and wouldn’t make the cut for Textron…
This is why Cessna retains return buyers especially in the citation series, you can tell they are sewn from the same cloth. Also type certified in very little time graduating from one to another at flight safety.
Great video brotha i wish i could fly that 206
Charlie it’s great to see you back on my UA-cam suggestions. You’ve been gone for a while buddy.
Awesome info 👍✈️
Looks like an enjoyed flight . I get how nice those double doors would be for cargo days/missions , but frankly I don't know that " I " would be willing to give up the passenger door .
guess I'd need to see just what it takes to climb over and into the passenger seat .
Bob from Calgary
I have about 500 hours in a naturally aspirated 206. I could get about 140 true at 10,000 and 16-18 gph. Never had an issue with 2 people and all our bags with full fuel. Accelerated really fast on takeoff roll, climb rate was kinda bad in the non turbo though. A lot better than a 172 though, 172s suck.
If you can land the 172....the 182 and 206 will make you smile. They settle in so much better. Great video, these planes can't be overlooked for just how incredible they really are. 210 is the only thing that is better, but those unfortunately are going to be a lot more mx
What's the cost as configured in your video? Compared to 182?
Nice informative video
At 20,000 feet, Cessna advertises 164 knots TAS at 75 percent power. It's a 80 year old airframe...
Yeah Cessna is completely asleep at the wheel nowadays. They sell these things for the same price as a Cirrus and a good 3-400k more than a Diamond DA40. I think the flight schools are keeping them in business, but even they are moving towards Diamond now. Hopefully this is a wakeup call for them because there is no way they're going to keep selling these things at a million dollars (new) when you can get better plans for less.
@@Nathan-qo9kg The DA40 is a dream compared to a 172, and 25 knots faster same engine, safer.
But if you are comparing a 206 to a cirrus or a da40 they definitely don’t carry what a 206 will and that’s why you buy it. On the price I can’t disagree I think all aircraft manufacturers are smoking crack and using pcp.
Da40 can't haul what a 206 can.
It's silly to compare a cruiser to a hauler utility plane.
You also aren't consistently landing a Da40 on unimproved strips.
@@publicmail2 CCP Owned
you need to get your hands on a 337, and let us know what it is like!😊
In comparing speed, you weren’t comparing apples to apples, non turbo 182 in comparison to a turbo 206, if you compare turbo 182 they are real close
“Dude… you are getting a Cessna 206”🤣
what is average cost of a new plane? seems like an important thing not to mention
Flying the brand new Cessna 206; I presume we have all been transported back to the 60s
How high have you need to be in order to need the oxygen support and how often do you use it, and how much costs to refill it
If you had a new choice of engine (latest greatest in your 182. What would you get? Im thinking of getting 182 and curious
Owned T206 for 8 years and loved it. AC would be a great add and that panel if great. However, the price is a major draw back.
Take it to KOSH and sleep in the back!
Great idea. It turns into a motor home. 😉
I really like the cargo doors. With power it turns into a mini Caravan (if you really squint).
i fly T206s for work, wait until you get into a T210. basically the 206 but better and faster
What I can't understand, why the 182 makes 972 nm and the 206 only 702 nm. Yes bigger and the engine .... the 206 with more nm would be perfect.
Nice👍✈️
Fly a Mooney next time!!
That's gotta cost at least 15 GRAND !! 😂😂😂
If I won the lottery I wouldn't tell anyone.... But there would be clues😊😊
That’s a Yukon 😂
Price of the 206 that you flew ?
And
The Price of your 182 ?
Bad video !!!
Beautiful plane. Too bad it’s really only priced for the highly wealthy or financially immature 😢
No one can afford it , its vabor ware
Imagine calling an aircraft designed in the 1960's "new".
The love of Cessna’s is nauseating. Just go fly a bonanza one time. You’ll never want to go back. I’ve got 100s of hours in 172s and g1000 182s. Still no comparison. Factory AC in 206 I did a demo in sucked compared to G36. With Cessna not allowing leaning in the lycoming 206 the bonanza kills it on efficiency. 19 gallons to go 160 knots is ridiculous.
Not allowing leaning? Of course you can lean if you pull it out of boost... but you don't lean something MP at >=SLP.
If 206 only had a more reliable and more efficient engine. Turbine would be great for reliability but not so much for efficiency. Aviation definitely needs a new type of engine with superb reliability and great efficiency. If we did not spend $800 billion annually on war machines and countless other nonsense we more than likely would have such engines already.
You realize that air is thinner at higher altitudes, meaning NA aircraft can’t physically fly as fast or as high as turbos. Same thing with cars in mountains: the turbocharged engines always outperform naturally aspirated. Now imagine 25k’ instead of 5’. There’s no piston engine flying that high without a blower. All the money in the world can’t make a NA engine suck more than outside air pressure allows.
@@andrewahern3730 OK tell me something I don’t know. I was thinking Turbine engines are very reliable but not very efficient we need an engine that possesses reliability of turboprop but with much grater efficiency. If we stoped spending money on endless wars that only benefit oligarchs and spent that money on research and development we would have such engine and many other things that would benefit humanity.
@@mikeabc5355its clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. A turbocharger is different than a turbine engine.
@@BrianOgilvie79 I did say turbo instead of turbine, yes I am very familiar with turbochargers and turbines, but since I am an imperfect human, occasionally my fingers run faster than my brain, so I do make mistakes in typing. Since I am an instructor who started flying in 1970, I did learn a little about aviation over the years, definitely nowhere near as much as you.:)
Hom many of those did biden and general mary miley leave in Afghanistan?
Many, many,many