C206 VS Beaver

[waverider]

I've already made arrangements to talk to a couple of operators that fly both of these aircraft but on a quick note which one would be the better fit for a commercial operator utilizing it for short hops performing passenger transportation based on their hourly operating cost. I know the 206 looks a bit cramped but for short hops it might be forgiving.
Your experienced thoughts will be appreciated.

waverider

[TeePeeCreeper]

Apples and Oranges.

The C-206 wins hands down on speed but lacks the STOL capacity on floats and is behind the -2 on wheels by a long shot. With that said and despite what most will tell you she's an honest bird with a load on wheels...

The -2 is slow in comparison to the 206 but it will out haul the Cessna and get you and a load in and out of places at gross that you simply wouldn't consider bringing a 206 into...

As for operational costs per seat mile, I'll leave that one to the bean counters... I hate bean counters they are usually the ones that give the boss a justification to periodically decline my attempt at a raise in salary!

Just one man's opinion having flown both extensively on wheels and floats...

All the best,
TPC

[letsfly]

If the purpose is to only fly guests then the 206 is not bad, better if turbo charged. If you need to move freight at times then the Beaver is the better option. The operating and charge out rate for the Beaver is higher, but it will also perform must better. As for comfort, the Beaver is spacious and does not give passengers the sardine feeling.

[Meatservo]

Also if the trips are "short hops" then speed won't be much of an issue either. I used to work at a place with a Cessna 185 and a Beaver. The Cessna was faster than the Beaver, but one day we flew together to a lake that was about 100 miles away. The Cessna pilot hadn't been there before and decided to circle once before landing (we were on skis). I had been there earlier that day and decided to go straight in. We landed at the same time. The extra speed of the Cessna allowed it to get far enough ahead to do a circle over the lake, that's all.

The only disadvantage to the Beav would be the cost of operating it, in my opinion. I would prefer it to the 206 in all other respects. Besides on a short hop you can carry more people, I think. Definitely more cargo by weight and by volume. Might make up for the extra expense, depending on your business.

[DareDevil]

From a professional float drivers point of view Dehavillands always win! Go with the Beaver or if you can afford it, go to the single otter....a C206 with that thin wing and underpowered engine makes it no fun for passengers or pilots. Cessna is just not made for the water.

always love this video...mind you its turbine vs turbo. Get the drift

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

[collegeboy]

I will attest to teepee creeper. The 206 is a great machine on wheel, especially with a pod, it really helps keeping the c of g forward. Tighter spots the beaver wins hands down water or wheels. As for room it is kinda a toss up I'd say for room side to side the three across is kinda tight in the beaver and the two across in the rear of the 206 is also tight. What you save on time in the 206 will not make up for going back to get that one extra person that it cannot carry, unless it is a lapper .

[Meatservo]

God I hate that "Boss Beaver" conversion. The cowling is ugly and Wipline tries to make it look like they invented the whole contraption, which they did not. They quite obviously avoid using the words "DeHavilland" in any of their literature and try to erase any sign of DH in the cockpit as well, right down to the unnecessarily different engine control quadrant. And the paint job on their demonstrator looks like Wonder Woman's underpants.

Anyone who refers to the Caravan as the "next step", in the literature they are using to try and sell their Beaver mods, is missing the point entirely, in my opinion. I do not like Wipaire. I consider most of their "innovations" to be vulgar and obvious, and without elegance.

*Whew* I feel better getting that off my chest.

[Redneck_pilot86]

Everyone here has assumed you are talking floats, but you never specifically mentioned that...is that the case?

[waverider]

Everyone here has assumed you are talking floats, but you never specifically mentioned that...is that the case?

yes floats

[Redneck_pilot86]

I would have to vote for the 206, unless lake size or volume justify the beaver. Consider your costs when it is not flying...insurance on the 206 will be significant;y cheaper, and parts are much easier to come by which will reduce down time for maintenance. Fuel burn will be lower on the 206, and much as I hate to say it, so will pilot wages.

[waverider]

I would have to vote for the 206, unless lake size or volume justify the beaver. Consider your costs when it is not flying...insurance on the 206 will be significant;y cheaper, and parts are much easier to come by which will reduce down time for maintenance. Fuel burn will be lower on the 206, and much as I hate to say it, so will pilot wages.

thanks redneck pilot for the valuable info, much appreciated. I plan to use the aircraft quite a bit so it will be flying more than 500 hours a year so the beaver for my purpose is what will work best. I did communicate with a couple of insurance companies regarding insurance for the beaver which I am still waiting to hear from, so I am curious to find out from other commercial day vfr operators that use both the 206 and the beaver what the annual costs to them for insurance is or has been .

thank you

waverider