There are very few of this type in Europe but they are now regarded as a thinking man’s option on the 206.
The accountant’s hand can be detected in the parts bin philosophy to the design. The aircraft is a combination of the upgraded Cessna 210B (pre cantilever wing) airframe with Cessna 185 wings and the Continental 470 in injected form (same engine as the similar vintage Cessna 310). The roots in the 210 are reflected in the type designation as a 210-5 and not a 206.
Being fixed gear it has three doors, with a third row port side passenger door. The U206 which replaced it has a port side passenger door and starboard cargo doors, which are fine, but are not easily opened in an accident as they are foiled by the flaps. There was a short lived P206 with a similar arrangement.
Unlike the 182 the nose strut is attached to the beefed up engine mount and not the firewall, a more robust design which allows a bit more abuse by ham fisted drivers.
The injected 470-S produces 260 HP which hauls around 1400 lbs in useful load, some are closer to 1500 lbs. Fuel consumption is around 1 usgph more than the carburetted 182, but you are getting 25-30% more useful load and a useable third row of seats (for short sectors).
The aircraft has a good reputation as a performer and doesn’t suffer from anaemia like the Cherokee Six above FL70, mainly due to having a better wing. FL100 is easily reached where it can cruise at 130 KTAS on 12-13 usgph. Standard tanks are 63 usg useable, so typical range with solid VFR reserves is around 500nm. But if you do the maths you can fill the seats and full tanks.
It is not available for floats which means they are less prized than the 206, but the airframe can get the IO-550 engine upgrade.
The stabilator is smaller than the 206 so when flown light (forward CG) it is best to use some power in the flare. Vfe is somewhat limiting at 110 mph IAS, and the flaps are electric, unlike the Johnson bar on the 180/earl 182/185.
Flown with a 182 useful load the 205 appears to be a very good performer with a 1200 fpm rate of climb.
Comments on the 207 thread and Stephan’s Maule thread made me resurrect this. Good ones now go for $110k. Given how values of 180/185 are now toppish, and the robustness of the 205/206/207 build, and nose gear in particular these 1,400~1,500 lbs useful load workhorses (400 lbs more than the lardy new generation T206H), I expect they will continue to appreciate.
The mission aviation specialists preferred the 206 to the 185, as the 185 main gear box is prone to failure under side load and ideally should be replaced every 4,000 hours, and the 206 cargo space was much larger. The 205 and P206 is a more friendly passenger version, with two front doors and a third row port passenger/baggage door.
A low time 205, less than 6,000 hours, might be built as a very capable personal SUV with a new generation MT 2-blade composite propeller, helping with forward CG by reducing empty weight at the spinner by 20lbs ($12k). An IO-550 would make it smoother and give it improved STOL at weights of 2,800 lbs (900+ lbs useful load), and would cost approximately $25k over an overhaul of the 470-S ($30k). Airframes these age probably deserve new wiring, new control cables, new windows, new hoses, new alternator, new vacuum pump and new starter. A Sportsman STOL kit updates the leading edge cuff. Airframe reconditioning probably $30k. Am not a great believer in dumping many AMU in avionics, for non turbine aircraft. The mission capability is light IFR. All the old stuff could be junked and replaced with a K-165 or GNC255, GTX335, and a second hand KLN94 or Garmin 400. ($10k).
You have purposely steered clear of a para drop sample, so cosmetics are usually a solid 7/10, but fitting four point BAS to the first two rows would be a good safety enhancement ($5k).
With the IO-550 and limiting to 2,800 lbs, you have an aircraft that can operate out of 300 metres, climb at 1,500 fpm, and cruise at 150 KTAS at FL90 (which you only took around 7 minutes to get to) on 15 usgph. IFR endurance of 3 hours, 3 1/2 hours at 55% and 140 KTAS. At 3,300 lbs gross you need a longer runway, and you give up some rate of climb. Fitting larger tyres and an Air-glas nose fork would knock off 5-10 KTAS, but would allow operating on dirt/gravel, but not boulder strewn 31 inch Alaska Bushwheel Super Cub surfaces.
Excellent info, thanks robert! But where can I find one?
There were around 550 205 and 750 P206 (P for passenger) made in the early mid ‘60’s. There is one 205 on the G registration but hasn’t flown for a dozen years.
I would be surprised there is more than half a dozen of the type 205/P206 in Europe. Estimate of possibly 600 still around worldwide. Around 5,000 for the U206.
The 206 has a better wing, the 205 uses the 185 wing, with wider flaps and improved ailerons. The 206 also has the Continental 520 285HP engine. Some parts may be hard to find on the 205, so the 206 deserves the ca. $50k premium a decent 206 airframe commands. The P206 is usually at a discount to the U206 (U for Utility), and the 205 at a discount to the 206.
Trade-a-plane and Barnstormers are your best bet. The European aircraft tend to be high time para drop airframes, so expect to import from Africa or North America. A private owned P206 from the USA would be the ideal.
Here is a typical stateside 205.
…and an Australian example
There is a 205 for rent at Bremgarten, Germany. Not advertised in the internet, but in German flying mags.
Thank you Boscomantico, have you flown it?
Nope. 4 hours of driving away from me. Also, I don‘t have any use for a 6-seater.
In fact, my club will also get a 210 in May. One with a very rare mogas STC for the Continental IO-520. but again, I have no real use for so much useful load.
I view it as a more robust 182, and it was known as a Super Skylane. Limiting it to old 182 MAUW with the Sportsman STOL and either a IO-520 (P206) or IO-550, you have a very capable aircraft. Most would take out the third row or one of the third row seats.
The 210 and new generation 206 weigh in empty several hundred pounds over the early 205/206, so the concept of a 10lbs/HP power ratio is un achievable.