Cherokee 6

This is true. I know a mechanic who fitted a smoke system in the back of a T67 Firefly, then threw his tools in the back and went up to see how it worked. They were very lucky they didn’t pebble dash themselves into the ground when they tried to spin it that day. The owner died during impromptu aerobatics not long after.

The CC Pocock water ballast method he’s talking about, is about trying to find the minimum speed that you can trim the aircraft to fly hands off at, in a full flap, power off configuration. The aft c of g allows you to get a slower speed for this trimmed out configuration. His STOL videos are impressive. Maybe 40kg in the back of a six seater does lead to shorter landings. I’ve not tried it.

WilliamF wrote:

“Optimum aft CoG is better than a forward CoG as it leads to:

lower stall speeds,
lighter elevator control,
less drag,

Yes, but….

The more aft the C of G, the more challenging the recovery, should the airplane be errantly spun. 5% behind the aft limit, and recovery is not assured in a certified single. Overloading plays a role in this too. Spin recovery ease is a major factor in defining the aft C of G limit. I have done aft limit C of G spin testing in a number of types, and the recovery can be much less “confident” than the same plane loaded to the forward limit. Spin testing the Cessna 206H and Cessna Grand Caravan at the aft limit is pretty alarming compared to a 152/172. Yes, I know that no one will deliberately spin their Cherokee Six, so everyone will be safe, but, airplanes still do end up in a spin every now and then, and it would be assuring to know that recovery is not overly demanding. Yes, you can load to the aft limit, but a little ahead of the aft limit might be more confident!

Interesting bit in CC Pockcock book on Bush Flying.

“Optimum aft CoG is better than a forward CoG as it leads to:

lower stall speeds,
lighter elevator control,
less drag,
better lift generated by wings.

…..I have found that in most 4-seater aircraft you need approximately 20kg of ballast and 40kg in a 6-seater. The ballast should be as far aft as possible in the baggage compartment

So cheapest stol mod for any aeroplane may be water ballast. It’s a good book, I’ve only copied in the highlights…..

https://m.youtube.com/user/motoadve

Thread drift, but this pilot gets max utility from a relatively stock 182

The video posted earlier was from the Amazon – a garimpeiro is an illegal/irregular miner

Also for being out in the sticks, the high wing is nicer for obstacle clearance (and you can camp under it).

https://www.instagram.com/p/BwrgLtXl2LZ

Here’s a good video showing something I’d say might be tight in a PA32. The landing gear and the flaps are the magic of the 206, hence the price delta.

Snoopy wrote:

Why are the Cherokees/Saratogas priced lower than the 6 seat Cessnas

Am not sure I would agree with @pilot_DAR, parts availability from Piper is good and the potential wing spar AD is a recent event, and yet the Six always was cheaper than the 206, and arguably had a more comfortable cabin. They were used commercially, including in Alaska. Apparently they were good transporting coffins for funeral parlours! As a low wing, pretty impractical on floats, which arguably is the big advantage for the 206.

The 206 is so prevalent as a bush plane that I wonder whether this gives it a premium image, a bit like the Defender (go to the outback in a Defender, come back in a LandCruiser :)). The Six owners I know love their Six (with a preference to the 300HP version), and passengers have a very nice ride in club seat comfort.

Snoopy: no concern with the aircraft when I sold it. But it was in 2011, I have zero idea what happened to it since.