Floats: Turbo Beavers vs Turbo 206's

[gregs]

Ignoring cost-to-purchase (and the usual which-is-more-fun-to-fly), is there any significant reason a passenger float plane company would choose to fly Turbo Beavers over Turbo Stationairs (Cessna 206's)?

I know the Beavers are built to last, and you can still get parts from Viking, but I have to think 99% of customers would rather have a "newer" plane. And while the Beavers have far more horsepower, I assume they also suck far more fuel for that.

I ask because I never see 206's in the inventory of west coast float plane companies, but they certainly list the larger (and more expensive) Caravans.

Thanks.

[Tommyr]

One reason I would go with a Beaver is that when the flaps are down in a 206 I am pretty sure they block the back door. Maybe something to consider on the side of safety, incase anything was to happen.

[Jerz]

206 - worst float plane ever build
Turbo Beaver - best float plane ever build

[deafbob]

Hows the PC-6 on floats?
I've saw it in PNG on wheels, no Turbo Beavers there, also lots of PC-6 in Libya and Algeria, Mauritania and Eithopia, in fact most countries other than Canada have the PC-6, No Turbo Beavers at all. HMMM wonder why??

[rigpiggy]

Absolute shite, it is lightly built, and spent more time in the hangar than flying. take an airplane, that is built for a 16" gear travel, and take away all shock absorption. we leased the Turbo beaver, and never looked back.

[208Drvr]

Putting the 206 on floats was thought of after cessna designed it for wheels, the beaver was designed to be put on floats from the start.

[phillyfan]

There are reasons why you don't see many Turbo 206's or Turbo Beavers flying commercially in Canada. Get yourself a DHC-3T with a 9000lb upgross.

[Bede]

What about a 206 as a 185 replacement. Same wing, same power. Just load it like you would a 185. How would that work?

[Northern Flyer]

206's can be a death trap on floats. The cabin is so big that when loaded to gross allot of the time they still look almost empty. This can be tough when loading away from base. Also the engine mounts on a 206 are designed like a cradle that come out the bottom of the firewall and hold the bottom of the engine. This is a weak point on floats, they like to bend down after awhile whenever you get into rougher water. I would take a 185 over a 206 any day.

[angry inch]

Ignoring purchase cost, it boils down simply to operating cost. Dollars per pound. The fewer dollars it costs to carry the most pounds is usually the most desirable choice. (Provided the aircraft is suited to the operation) So, as Philly has more less stated, you can buy a turbo beaver for about the same price as an otter & probably very similar operating cost, however the Otter can carry more. Some operators are approved for up to 14 pax I believe. On short hauls, it is very popular & economically viable.

I can only think of 2 commercial operators who use Turbo-Beavers & 1 that used to, but no longer uses a turbine 206 on the west coast. (In Canada)

So, although very few commercial operators use Turbine powered Beavers or 206's, if those were the only choices, one would have to choose the one with the best economics that suited the operating environment. As far as Caravans go, they're tough to beat on longer hauls.

You must have the right aircraft for the job just to stay in business, let alone make a profit....

[kevinsky18]

What about a 206 as a 185 replacement. Same wing, same power. Just load it like you would a 185. How would that work?

And that's what makes the 206 a nasty floatplane. It has the same wing and power but a cabin twice the size. "Just load it like a 185," doesn't work in the real world. Out in the real world you show up with a plane half loaded (206) and the customer thinks he is seriously getting ripped off. Show up with a plane stuffed right full (185) and the customer figures they got a great deal even though the loads are actually the same weight.

In short it's just easier to run a 185 then to fight with customers every time you show up with a 206 half loaded.

As someone already said a 206 on floats was an afterthought. I would go further and say a 206 on floats and a turbine is just a nasty combination of both. I don't think you get anymore gross weight and the small fuel tanks make the 206 turbine a very short haul machine.

+1 on the skip the turbine Beaver and go for an Turbine Otter. The only reason to consider either the Turbine 206 or Beaver is possibly private use where the fewer seats would help to reduce your insurance and the machines would be a bit more managable to a private float pilot / less skilled pilot at the dock (The Otter is a bit of a hand full in windy docking conditions). For commercial ops go turbine Otter.

[gregs]

Awesome replies, thanks folks!

So, by order of preference (given the appropriate load), it sounds like:

1. 1. Turbo Otter
   2. Cessna 185
   3. Turbo Beaver
   4. Cessna 206

[railker]

Drag Race: Turbo Beaver vs. Cessna Turbo 206

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af0yzuagtZQ

[cncpc]

206 - worst float plane ever build
Turbo Beaver - best float plane ever build

Actually, I think the Cessna 207 was the worst float plane. I remember having it described to me as "...the fastest boat on the lake".

[rigpiggy]

I thought the 207 was only certified with the soloy conversion on floats

[iflyforpie]

What makes the Beaver so successful is that they designed the airframe for a much less powerful engine, the Gypsy Major. I would imagine with this engine it would have been retired (or modified) years ago.

The installation of more powerful engines to existing designs has made lots of planes really good bush planes, like the immortal Super Cub.

Another good one going on the same principle but a slightly different was (is) the Aztec. J-3 wing with flaps and ~500HP. On floats as the Nomad it outperforms the piston Beaver in every single category except takeoff and landing distance (not hugely necessary for much of the coast) and ease of loading/docking.

But the 206 is a 185 with a fat fuselage. The wing area and flaps are slightly bigger, but you can add Flint Tips or Wing X and STOL kits to both and still get more out of the 185.

Even the 185 has its limitations. We sold a 185 on Wip amphibs to a private guy. He was beaming ear to ear as he loaded two of his buddies on board and took off from Chilliwack. He did a circuit and came back down, his smile turned to a frown. He said there must be something wrong with the engine because it didn't really want to take off and climb. We told him that he had fat amphibs, half tanks, and three big individuals on board--more than enough to make a 185 struggle on a warmish day.

[Jerz]

The original question was Turbo (not Soloy turbine) 206 vs Turbo (as PT-6 powered) Beaver. That's like comparing Honda Civic with a pick up . Except Civic does good job at it’s design mission and 206 doesn’t.
C207 was never certified on floats with the exceptions of Soloy Turbine conversion. 207 even on wheels is a crowd killer, so I don’t expect Soloy 207 being any good.
Turbine Otter is a conversion, not an original design. It is a great aircraft, but unless grandfathered in, is limited to 9 paying pax , no different then Turbo Beaver under current rules (originally certified for 10pax). It offers better comfort (more room), but less performance, at least compared to Beaver with -27 or better -34 ( same as Otter) engine.
Any Cessna, including 208, start showing signs of fatigue (smoking rivets, cracks) at about 2000hrs TT on floats. Any DHC product is barely broken in at 20 000tt.
Hands down, the best Cessna float plane is a 185.
I have seen the drag race video between Turbo Beaver and C208. Unless the Beaver had the original -2 engine (don’t think any exist in that configuration anymore) it is joke. I’m willing to bet a bottle of your preferred poison on that.
Also the early, much lighter 208 were way better performers than the new ones. But of course they had more structural issues – no tray reinforcement of the fire wall. I would still take an early one over the new miss piggy.