Sure. It can’t hurt to ask.

Increasing gross decreases performance.

Increasing gross decreases performance.

Increasing gross decreases performance.

In west Africa we used a TU206G as our support aircraft for our helicopter fleet. It was a great airplane. Heat was a problem with the Gill 28V battery as they just didn't last. Today there will be a better AGM battery option available and that is something I would go for without a second thought.

One of the most critical considerations with the 206 is the very large, glaring flaw in the aircraft's safety design. The 206 design has killed far too many people, particularly in floatplane operations, because you can't get the rear doors open when the flaps are lowered.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada has come down hard on this long-standing, well-known safety defect. Transport Canada seems to be taking the TSB's safety recommendation seriously, for a change, after decades of doing nothing.

Cessna knew the design was deficient the moment they introduced those double doors. The FAA knew they were deficient and still certified the airplane for filling all the seats. Transport Canada accepted the FAA certification without turning their brain on or asking any questions. All three of these parties bear some culpability in all the drowning deaths that have resulted from those rear doors not opening. It's a stupid design that could be easily and cheaply solved, but nobody will do it. All it would take would be a hinge line in the door to allow it to fold down as it passes the extended flap. A high school shop student could design it, but nobody in officialdom will even try because it will cost money and will ultimately mean they accept the original design as being just plain wrong. This might cost a lot of money in lawsuits, so instead of fixing it, we kill more people.

I know this sounds like a rant against the airplane. It's more of a rant against the designers and the regulatory agencies that approved the design.

The 206 is a great airplane in just about every other respect. It hauls the goods in and out of tight spots. The turbo gives terrific hot/high performance (I tested that regularly in Africa). The airframe is tough and not terribly difficult to maintain. The airplane flies relatively well for a flying pickup truck. All this is good. It's just those darned doors. If you're thinking of putting it on floats, think twice about filling the seats in a 206.

EDIT - included the link to the TSB report.
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-inve ... w0129.html

Ours was an '84, & at first glance it had all the advantages of your list (above) without the UL decrease of 1998. Just curious, do you know of some negatives from '79 to '86?

Gary S.

I was in a partnership in a 1971 TU206E for about 6 years.
It could carry a lot of stuff and was stone simple to maintain (even the turbo) and fly.

But man, she was slow. 128ktas on 17.5 gph. when heavy. Somewhere along the line they changed the wing, 1977? I think they are a little faster.

Great plane for its intended purpose. Wife said to get something faster, so I did.

Since you'll end up with two, get one with a turbo for ID and one NA for LA.

Reading the mission on page one of this thread, how well would a Twin Bonanza fit the mission? Rugged, roomy, airstair door, and cheaper than a 206. Oh, and it’s a Beech. I believe there’s a supercharged model with both airstair and over wing door for sale on the forum right now.

Just sayin’

I loved my Twin Bonanza. Great on grass strips. But, that 47-foot wingspan sure won't fit in my hangar these days.

The only thing I noticed about the 206 I looked at was that deployed flaps would restrict the rear door from opening. So in the unlikely event of an emergency, my family might have trouble un-assing the rear seats if I was able to have a somewhat normal landing with flaps down. Also, the middle seats being forward facing made egress less ideal.

Another feature of that door / flap interface is that if the door isn't closed such that the switch is depressed, the flaps are locked out.

Can you put a chute on the 206?

Don’t know. I looked at putting a chute in a 182.

80 pounds! That’s a nonstarter.