206 STOL

[DeltaDeltaDelta]

Does anybody know what are the takeoff and landing rolls (fully loaded) on a
soft field for a normally aspired STOL conversion-equipped 206 (any popular
conversion)?

Thanks

Triple Delta

[Darkwing Duck]

"DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote in message
...
> Does anybody know what are the takeoff and landing rolls (fully loaded) on
a
> soft field for a normally aspired STOL conversion-equipped 206 (any
popular
> conversion)?
>
> Thanks
>
> Triple Delta
>
>

Are you wondering what it is fully loaded with pot?

[Rick Durden]

Tridelt:

That information is not published in any handbook that I've found as
"soft field" has never been defined. In general, the STOL 206 I fly
from time to time will come off the ground in well under 1,000 feet
and most of the time in well under 800 feet, however, temperature
makes a significant difference and a truly soft runway may mean that
the takeoff roll is infinite. On landing plan on slowing to about 55
KIAS on very short final as you start the flare. If you go slower and
use power to flare you can shorten things up substantially, however, I
routinely go into a 1,700 foot strip (no obstruction) and make the
mid-field turnoff with moderate braking. It is paved.

As a rule of thumb you can plan on using a 1,000 foot runway (no
obstructions) if you have a moderate skill level and fly the airplane
as it is capable of being flown and don't overload it. If
obstructions are involved increase the length accordingly.

All the best,
Rick


"DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote in message >...
> Does anybody know what are the takeoff and landing rolls (fully loaded) on a
> soft field for a normally aspired STOL conversion-equipped 206 (any popular
> conversion)?
>
> Thanks
>
> Triple Delta

[Dale]

In article >,
"DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote:

> Does anybody know what are the takeoff and landing rolls (fully loaded) on a
> soft field for a normally aspired STOL conversion-equipped 206 (any popular
> conversion)?

I fly both normally aspirated and turbo-charged P206s hauling skydivers
off of a grass strip. The airplanes have the Sportsman STOL leading
edge, WingX Stol extended wingtips and vortex generators. Most takeoffs
are within 100-200 pounds of gross weight and field elevation is 250MSL.
Ground roll is around 600 feet.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[DeltaDeltaDelta]

Well, that was the puprose of the plane I was thinking of; skydivers off a
grass strip :). However, I've been to Cessna's site and compared the
performances of the 206H and T206 and other than the small increase in speed
and double cruise altitude, I found no differences in landing and takeoff
performance and in capacity in general. Since you fly both versions, could
you, from experience, outline any differences in TO and LDG performance
between the two?

Triple Delta

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote:
>
> > Does anybody know what are the takeoff and landing rolls (fully loaded)
on a
> > soft field for a normally aspired STOL conversion-equipped 206 (any
popular
> > conversion)?
>
> I fly both normally aspirated and turbo-charged P206s hauling skydivers
> off of a grass strip. The airplanes have the Sportsman STOL leading
> edge, WingX Stol extended wingtips and vortex generators. Most takeoffs
> are within 100-200 pounds of gross weight and field elevation is 250MSL.
> Ground roll is around 600 feet.
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk
>
> There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
> as simply messing around with airplanes.
>
> http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dale]

In article >,
"DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote:

> Well, that was the puprose of the plane I was thinking of; skydivers off a
> grass strip :). However, I've been to Cessna's site and compared the
> performances of the 206H and T206 and other than the small increase in speed
> and double cruise altitude, I found no differences in landing and takeoff
> performance and in capacity in general. Since you fly both versions, could
> you, from experience, outline any differences in TO and LDG performance
> between the two?
>

The airplanes I'm flying are '68 models. From the literature I've seen
the new 206s have a higher empty weight....I don't expect as good of
performance from them.

At sea-level there won't be a great difference between the two since
they put out the same amount of power at sea-level. If you're working
off of a higher field elevation the turbo-charged airplane should show a
little better performance...the difference being greater the higher you
go.

For the two airplanes I fly the normally aspirated model comes off the
ground just a little quicker...why I don't know. The difference isn't
enough to make me choose one over the other if doing any short-field
work.

The big differnce you'll see is in the climb rate at altitude. When
doing formation loads I let the normally aspirated 206 takeoff and get
to 1500' or so before I launch. By 7-8000 I'm tucked in tight and have
the power reduced to stay with him. <G>

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[karl gruber]

This discussion is right down my alley.

I flew a T206 seaplane commercially and owned my own straight 206 seaplane.

The T206 I flew for Rivers Inlet Resort on the British Columbia coast.
http://www.riversinletresort.com/

We flew out of the Will Rogers-Wiley Post Seaplane Base.
http://www.ci.renton.wa.us/pressrel/seaplane.htm

This T206 seaplane was brand new in 1978 and normally was loaded with four
fat fishermen, and their gear. We'd leave with about half fuel to be at
gross and go through customs and fuel at Victoria B.C.

I gained a lot of respect for the T206 seaplane. It was a great airplane.
One thing not normally discussed is how nice the flying qualities of these
airplanes are. They have "frise" ailerons.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1085/

The 206 has a great feel, much better than a Cessna 180 or 185. It also has
a huge horizontal stabilizer and powerful elevators. We often left Rivers
Inlet with a full load in high winds and rough seas. The wind was often
20-25 knots and seas of 2-3 feet. The bad part of takeoff was the smashing
waves. The good part was the wind was strong and takeoff run was short. The
first big wave to hit the T206 on takeoff would splash into the prop and
almost bury the airplane in water. By the next wave the seaplane would be on
the step and the wave would still catch the prop and water would stream over
the windshield and on back, the floats and airplane taking a severe beating.

It took full forward elevator at times to keep the airplane from bouncing
into the air. The flaps were set at 20 deg. The next thing to happen was to
wait till the stall warning horn came on. At that time full flaps were
extended and the airplane would bounce off the next wave and stagger into
the air. Then the nose was lowered and the airplane accelerated in ground
effect and the flaps retracted. Those 206's are really built, and can take a
beating!

The T206 has 310 horsepower. The 206 has 300. It makes a BIG difference,
especially in hot temperatures. The straight 206 seaplane is a DOG compared
to the T206. My straight 206 seaplane even had a Robertson kit, which makes
virtually no improvement in performance, especially on floats. Power is what
gets a seaplane up on step. And power is what counts to accelerate the
airplane.

I could go on but I'm going to fly to BFI, beg a crew car and Christmas shop
at Nordstrom.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG
please don't grammar check this post!!!

[Rick Durden]

Tridelt,

> Well, that was the puprose of the plane I was thinking of; skydivers off a
> grass strip :). However, I've been to Cessna's site and compared the
> performances of the 206H and T206 and other than the small increase in speed
> and double cruise altitude, I found no differences in landing and takeoff
> performance and in capacity in general. Since you fly both versions, could
> you, from experience, outline any differences in TO and LDG performance
> between the two?
>
The normally aspirated 206 will slightly outdo the turbocharged
version until you get to about 6,000 feet in the climb, it's also
slightly faster in cruise below 10,000 feet.

For your operation you may not want to waste the weight of a STOL
conversion. Aggressively flown a post 1974 206 (when it got the
cuffed leading edge) only stalls about a knot faster than a STOL mod
airplane and can be operated off of fields nearly as short. The
difference is largely in pilot technique and the STOL mod airplane
floats like crazy if you come in fast. The STOL mod is more
comfortable to fly when you approaching at 60 KIAS, so if you have
inexperienced pilots they will probably prefer it. If your pilots
know what they are doing they'll make an unmodified airplane perform
very close to the STOL mod without the extra weight.

All the best,
Rick

[Montblack]

("karl gruber" wrote)
<Great info snipped>

>please don't grammar check this post!!!

Drat! :-)


The Baron had Snoopy dead in his sights
He reached for the trigger to pull it up tight
Why he didn't shoot, well, we'll never know
Or was it the bells from the village below.

Christmas bells those Christmas bells
Ringing through the land
Bringing peace to all the world
And good will to man

http://www.xmasfun.com/Lyrics.asp?ID=90


--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Dale]

In article >,
(Rick Durden) wrote:


> If your pilots
> know what they are doing they'll make an unmodified airplane perform
> very close to the STOL mod without the extra weight.
>

Depends on the mod. The WingX extensions are well worth the money. We
saw about a 20-30% decrease in ground roll on takeoff along with
a100-200fpm gain in climb.

STOL modified airplanes can be fun when landing at light weights in
gusty winds. <G>

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Rick Durden]

Dale,


> Depends on the mod. The WingX extensions are well worth the money. We
> saw about a 20-30% decrease in ground roll on takeoff along with
> a100-200fpm gain in climb.

Not familiar with that mod, but if it adds length to the wing and
changes the aspect ratio, everything should be positive, although it
makes it tough to fit in a hangar, I suppose.
>
> STOL modified airplanes can be fun when landing at light weights in
> gusty winds. <G>

No kidding. You have to be willing to put the ailerons to the stop,
or just land across the runway <g>.

All the best,
Rick

[[email protected]]

DeltaDeltaDelta > wrote:
> Does anybody know what are the takeoff and landing rolls (fully loaded) on a
> soft field for a normally aspired STOL conversion-equipped 206 (any popular
> conversion)?

> Thanks

> Triple Delta

Book values or actual values with pilot technique.

In my normally aspirated, non-conversioned, stock C206F, I am
successful in a touchdown to stop in 450 feet. I have a 500 foot
paved runway to practice on, with 2000 foot over-runs on both
ends. :-) I practice before I go to Idaho. :-)



Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO, USA
CELL/VM: 970 231-6325 CELL Message: (100 char)
EMAIL: WEB: http://www.frii.net/~jer
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane & Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 197 Young Eagles!