R1830 Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Does all that stretch make them fly any different from the basic 150/2/72 type stuff or is it just the same beast with a bit more bulk to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N2 Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Basically they all fly like a Cessna! I didn't notice much difference betweent the 172 or the 182 just a little heavier and faster that's all. Again that seems to be the norm for the other models as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R1830 Posted October 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 I've flown basically everything from 150 up to 185 but those bigger ones sure have quite a bit of stretch, I pretty much figured same deal but thought there might be a few quirks that someone might be aware of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schteevie Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 "stretch"? what do you mean by that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R1830 Posted October 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 They are pretty much a 172 thats is very very long..or at least that is my basic understanding..lots more cabin..sometimes similar airplanes have different tricks, I was simply trying to find out any quirks associated with either type.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swamp Donkey Posted October 15, 2003 Report Share Posted October 15, 2003 The 206 has the same cabin width as a 182...but is stretched and given more power. If my failing memory serves me correctly, they were known as "Super Skylanes" and later renamed "Stationairs". The 206 in the right hands with the right STOL kit is quite a performer for short strips with good loads. It flys like a smaller Cessna, but with a little more jam. The 206 and 207 have the same engine, but have different gross weights. 3600 for the 206 (with standard wingtips) and 3800 for the 207. Just watch out for those tail heavy loads...especially in the 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic_front Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 very true on the 207.....easy to aft-load them!. the most reliable airplane I've ever worked on was an old, beat-up 207, 14,000 TTAF and never skipped a beat.... pilots used to a 206 consider a 207 underpowered, but they will out-work a 206 hands down. they NEED a horton or a sportsman STOL cuff to give them the ability to get off the ground with any kind of respecatability, but they haul more, are tougher and more versatile than a 206 with a dense or heavy load in the fwd baggage compartment to off-set the aft load, they are not so bad....I've taken off out of strips so short that a helicopter pilot would be nervous many many times....its a slow climb, but its confidence inspiring....it just does its job, out hauling a 206....without much fanfare. They have been called "crowd-killers" because of the extra seats and a slick wing ( no stol kit) makes them a bit sluggish with a gross load. Put a good STOL cuff on them and, as my old boss used to say "it stalls when the AIS needle is on the second "E" in speed", on the lettering on the guage....and thats 40 MPH! there can't be too many 207's left out there, but operators who know how to make money will pick them over a 206 if they carry many pax. they are just too good of an airplane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.