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