Today’s Top Pick is a 1980 Cessna 207 Skywagon.

We do not encounter Cessna 207s every day. Its relative, the six-seat 206, is much more popular.

That is in part because six seats are enough for the missions many private pilots fly, especially family trips with more people and baggage than a four-seater like the Cessna 182 could carry. But some families are significantly larger than average.

Many of us can recall a few families in the neighborhood or at school with broods of children for whom the full-size station wagon was not quite big enough. In the days before large SUVs—we are talking about the 1970s—such families drove large vans, like the vehicles used as airport shuttles, for church field trips or transporting high school athletic teams.

Think of the Cessna 207 as the flying version of those vans, with the size, strength, and range to handle big loads and long distances.

The opportunity to acquire one of the relatively rare 207s could generate excitement among pilots who might otherwise have to consider a more expensive, complex turboprop utility aircraft to carry their families and friends. The 207 can do the job with less complication and easy handling that will be familiar and comfortable for pilots who have flown smaller Cessna piston singles. 

This 1980 Cessna 207 has 16,500 hours on the airframe, 100 hours on its 300 hp Continental IO-520 engine, and 944 hours on its Hartzell propeller. The aircraft has a maximum takeoff weight of 3,800 pounds and a useful load of 1,729 pounds. The VFR panel includes dual Icom A210 radios, P7000 audio panel, and Garmin GTX327 transponder.

Pilots with large families who need more space than the typical six-seat piston twin can offer should consider this 1980 Cessna 207 Skywagon, which is available for $235,000 on AircraftForSale.

If you’re interested in financing, you can do so with FLYING Finance. Use their airplane loan calculator to calculate your estimated monthly payments. Or, to speak with an aviation finance specialist, visit flyingfinance.com.

• Plane & Pilot: Cessna 207
• Plane & Pilot: Cessna Stationair 8/Skywagon 207
• FLYING Magazine: Cessna T206 Turbo Stationair
• FLYING Magazine: Overloaded Takeoff in the Outback
• FLYING Magazine: Cessna Grand Caravan EX
• The Aviation Consumer: Gippsland Airvan

The post This 1980 Cessna 207 Skywagon Is a Large, Family-Friendly ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

It’s no secret that pilots of complex and high-end aircraft have been dealing with the trend of higher rates and even non renewed policies, especially older pilots and those with limited experience in type. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you have to sunset your flying career once you reach 70—the point in life where underwriters consider you a “senior” pilot. Moreover, with a savvy approach, some compromises and hard training requirements, insurance can be available for younger and green pilots stepping into tailwheels and turbines.

Plus, insurance pros unanimously say to find an insurer you’re happy with and stick with them for the long term because loyalty matters. At the same time, show the underwriter you’re doing everything possible in the name of safety, and that includes sourcing quality flight training and on a regular basis.

Here’s a general insurance guide, with tips and advice from those who write the policies and pay out the claims.

Old Plane, Older Pilot

Making matters worse is that companies are putting limits on insured value. Just because you have $350,000-plus invested in your refurbished piston single typically valued at $125,000 doesn’t always mean you’ll be able to insure it for its full upgraded value without solid proof it has all the upgrades. These days, with avionics, paint, and engine upgrades, it’s easy to get upside down from an insurance standpoint.

Marci Veronie from Avemco Aviation Insurance said the company writes policies based on what it calls “stated” proof of equipage.

“If you can prove to me you have it in what you want covered, and we can agree, that’s what we’ll write the policy for,” said Veronie, noting that clients send photos, videos, and equipment specs that are cross-checked against the company’s reference guides.

• READ MORE: Aircraft Insurance Market Has Stabilized—Somewhat

Essentially, do your best to prove what you think the aircraft is worth. If you sold the aircraft tomorrow, what would you get for it?

The other issue is maintainability. The parts availability issues for some older airplanes are trickling down to the insurance market, which means you’ll be paying more out of pocket for repairs.

In the insurance world this is called a component parts schedule, which means insurers will only pay out a percent of the loss of a flap or wing or tail section, as some examples. It’s a snag for uncommon experimentals and certified aging aircraft alike.

Scott Smith from Iowa-based Scott “Sky” Smith Insurance said that these days it’s not just the age of the pilot but the age of the aircraft that concerns insurers.  Some companies have stopped insuring Cessna piston twins older than 30 years—a major chunk of the fleet. Others have walked away from turbine conversions.

There are a few underwriters who say claims can sit in limbo for many months because of parts shortages. For others, where it’s impossible to source parts, the aircraft becomes a loss, the insurer pays it out and unloads it to the highest salvage bidder. Part of the reason for rate increases is the increasing cost of replacement parts. Think about that before buying something rare, exotic, or classic.

It has taken a while for the underwriting world to sync up with the huge jump in value of used aircraft, though prices do seem to be stabilizing. Still, while an older Skyhawk might sell for big money, that doesn’t mean an insurer will write a policy with limits that match the value. Good insurers will routinely ask what improvements were made to the aircraft, including the big ones like avionics upgrades. Plan on providing proof of equipage (make sure all equipment is registered with the manufacturer) and keep tight engine logs.

Speaking of engine time, one FAA inspector advises that insurers deny claims if the aircraft’s engine is beyond TBO and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report cites engine failure as a probable cause of the crash. We call that nonsense. Engine TBO is not a requirement in Part 91 ops, but instead a suggestion from the manufacturer.

Who Is This Guy?

Part of the problem that’s frustrating for aging pilots is the stereotype. Not all senior pilots are hobbling around with a cane and short of breath, because in general, aviators tend to keep themselves in reasonably decent shape.

Insurance pros agree that for an underwriter sitting at a desk in Big City USA, it is difficult to evaluate an aging pilot’s risk. As one insurer put it: “How do you know if you are writing [for] the 60-year-old 80-year-old, or the 80-year-old 60-year-old?” The companies really don’t because people age at different rates. Some lag behind their chronological age, and some are way ahead of it. Some are fit enough to compete in endurance events, while others can’t walk a mile without falling over.

Some also argue that with age comes more sound aeronautical judgment, and for career aviators, lots of real-world experience. That may be true, but is it canceled out with declining situational awareness and reaction time? The low-hanging fruit is accident history. Almost every company did tell us that they experienced a slightly higher accident rate among the senior pilot customers. As a result, a 77-year-old pilot with two gear-up landings in the last three years, or who ran one tank dry and made an off-field landing with 40 gallons in the other tank, is probably not a good bet when it comes to risk.

• READ MORE: Airplane Insurance Trend Could Be Bad for Us All

Two areas of human thinking that researchers say suffer the most and the soonest from aging are working memory and reaction time. Working memory is defined in different ways, but we use it here to mean the part of transient memory used to temporarily store and manipulate information, such as reading back an approach clearance or running a checklist from memory. Underwriters have relied upon medical certification to give them some reassurance about the physical fitness of their clients and in some cases require additional FAA medical exams because it’s more data that they can put in the pilot’s files. The annual FAA medical including electrocardiogram (EKG) has been a favorite for years.

Another clue that underwriters look at is how much time a pilot has in the same type of airplane in which they are looking to be insured. Some aging pilots can easily tackle the challenge of a different airplane with lots of new features and complex systems, but many cannot. One underwriter said that while his company insures many older pilots, it tends to avoid older pilots who were making transitions, especially large ones—such as from a piston to a turbine. The required learning of new systems may be a challenge—and insurers know it.

What Scares Them?

Insurance underwriters consistently tell us that assessing the risk factor is easy simply because they have years of data, proving that pilots continue to bend aircraft the same way they always have, despite huge leaps in tech with layers of automated backstop.

We concur. Over at sister publication The Aviation Consumer magazine, we’ve been studying monthly NTSB accident reports for more than 50 years and come up with the same stats, again and again. Whether it’s runway loss of control (RLOC), continued VFR into IMC, loss of control in IMC, botched instrument approaches, low/reckless flying—the list is long—crash patterns are predictable, especially for taildraggers.

For prospective tailwheel owners and current owners 70 or older, the hard market means doing some homework before applying for insurance or renewing an existing policy.

Mike Pratt, an aviation insurance broker with Foundation Risk Partners, a large brokerage with offices in 14 states (he’s been a tailwheel owner and pilot for years) had some good advice. According to Pratt, a high number of claims because of careless prangs and the lack of pilot training are what is driving the insurance market for tailwheel airplanes above and beyond the hard market. There are only about a dozen insurance companies that write for aviation and not all will insure tailwheel airplanes, so it’s up to the owner to put their best foot forward when seeking insurance.

What are red flags to underwriters? In the tailwheel world, it’s little airplanes with very high hull values. That means that if you haven’t yet obtained a tailwheel endorsement, don’t buy a brand-new Husky, Scout, Maule, or XCub, to name a few, and expect to get insurance with one simple phone call. If you can get it at all, it could cost at least $15,000 for the first year.

Moreover, get time in the type of airplane you intend to buy—even if it’s only five hours—before you apply for insurance. Putting down a zero in the time type box in the insurance application means that some of the companies will not even look at you. Also, plan on completing as much dual instruction as the insurer requires in your new airplane before you fly it solo. It’s amazing that some owners don’t want to part with a couple thousand dollars for training after spending a couple hundred thousand for the airplane.

Pratt said he sees pilots become cheap about training way too often and believes it’s one of the most foolish things they can do. Truth is insurance companies have had their financial faces rubbed in the value of training for years. They know it keeps claims down. Plus, do you want to deal with having to repair your new bird when quality training might have avoided it altogether?

If you are 70 or older and have been able to get insurance for your tailwheel airplane, don’t rock the boat. Do not change insurers. Don’t get huffy in response to a big premium increase—the odds are that no one else will insure you, and the insurance company that has been loyal to you may drop you. We hear from senior pilots on a regular basis faced with nonrenewals, regardless of their claim histories. The bottom line with taildraggers is get an insurance quote before making a deal on one, while accepting that at some age, if you want insurance, you’ll have to switch to a nosewheel airplane.

Underwriters also look at what kind of airplane their older customer is flying and the amount of liability coverage they carry. Bear in mind that the insurer has in effect promised to pay for the airplane, and the limit of liability, if things go really badly—as it certainly sometimes does. Underwriters treat this as very real money. So, the older pilot in a Cessna 172 insured for $90,000 who carries $1 million of liability coverage limited to $100,000 per passenger causes an underwriter much less concern than the older pilot flying a Piper M600, as one example, worth $4 million and toting liability limits of $5 million.

Last, senior pilots flying retracts and twins seem to be attention-getting for many underwriters, even though the available evidence is confusing and even contradictory. Many of the studies based on accident analysis include only NTSB-reportable occurrences, which are only a fraction of all aircraft insurance claims. And how do we tell whether a gear-up landing is just an “oops’’ or was caused by age-related factors? Plenty of youngsters have committed the $60,000 slide, and plenty of younger pilots do some pretty stupid things.

Training, Currency, Medical Certification

This includes earning a new rating or two, which underwriters see as a good thing. So is the client who goes out for additional recurrent training on their own. Currency can be a good gauge for risk because the pilot who is flying 100 hours a year, getting periodic training and proficiency checks, plus maybe doing an FAA WINGS phase, should look good to an underwriter concerned about that aging pilot keeping his head in the game.

On the other hand, insurers have said that the mere issuance of a medical certificate does not provide the underwriter with much information about either gradual deterioration of a pilot’s skills, nor does it provide much ability to predict sudden medical incapacitation—as rare as it may actually be. So it’s easy to wonder how belt-and-suspender safety backstops (including Garmin’s Emergency Autoland and other autopilot-based equipment) will affect the insurance underwriting landscape. From what we can tell, it helps sell airplanes to aging pilots.

Avemco offers sizable discounts for pilots who go the extra mile in the knowledge- and skill-building department.

Seaplanes, Turbines, Experimentals

Unanimously, insurance pros admit that rates for these aircraft can be extremely high, and some might not be insurable at any cost. Avemco said it can help ease the pain if the floats are taken off and wheels installed during the offseason, if you operate in northern climates. Yes, skis are the same as wheels in the eyes of Avemco and most insurance companies, so they won’t alter the cost.

Got a fresh seaplane rating in your wallet? Resist going out and buying a high-performance model like a Cessna 206 or big-engine Maule on amphibs. Instead, consider something you can insure yourself for any physical damage. Maybe something pretty simple, such as a Luscombe or even a Cub on floats, until you get some time in your logbook.

Building an airplane from a kit? The advice is to stick with ones with large fleet sizes. Almost every underwriter recognizes models from Van’s, Sonex, and Zenith as being good choices. Replacement parts are a big concern for underwriters, and so is complexity, so it might be best to build a fixed-gear airplane (with a tricycle configuration) and avoid rare or one-off kits. Unless you have serious amounts of turbine time in your logbook, an experimental turbine will have your underwriter laughing.

Speaking of turbines, they’re certainly doable, but be realistic. As one underwriter put it, “the owner-flown jet and turboprop market is where all the hand-to-hand fighting is. Liability limits are being cut in half, premiums are doubling, and it’s sort of a failure of the insurance business to get this far behind the curve that we can’t provide the product at a reasonable price.” Another made a good point: “High-performance aircraft, including turbines, may be the big-buck business insurance companies want, but they may not want the pilot that goes along with the policy.”

Stepping into the world of an owner-flown turbine means you’ll need to spend quality time with your insurance broker to find out whether you can get a policy that covers you in the airplane and limits of liability that you need to protect yourself, as well as the conditions and its cost. Accept that your age and experience are the two drivers that determine your insurability when stepping up to turbine machines.

It may be that you will be unable to buy insurance to fly a dream airplane single pilot at any price. We’ll say it right here: If you are over 65, the current market means there’s little likelihood that you can get insurance for a first-time step-up to a turbine.

Wrapping It Up

Who knows when we’ll see another soft insurance market, but for now the best thing anyone—old or young—can do to stay insured for the long haul is simply don’t crash. That could mean piling on extra layers of training, being realistic with yourself on your skill set, and for aging pilots staring down age 70, accepting that downgrading to a simpler aircraft is the simplest way to keep flying. No matter what you fly, show your insurer that you’re serious about training and proficiency with a well-kept training log.

And simply prepare for the payout. By that we mean keeping all of the aircraft’s maintenance paperwork in order, including sign-offs for annual inspections and airworthiness directive (AD) compliance. While insurers will police it before writing a new policy, you don’t want to be scrambling to get the paperwork in order after an accident.

Last, if you’ve been a longtime customer to one company, keep it that way. Now is not the time for aging pilots to jump carriers, because in a hardened insurance market, loyalty matters.

This feature first appeared in the Summer 2024 Ultimate Issue print edition.

The post Ultimate Issue: Staying Insured Encompasses Training, Loyalty, and Downsizing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1975 Piper PA-32-300 Cherokee Six.

Many pilots I know regard the Piper Cherokee Six as one of those airplanes that was pretty much right from the beginning. Introduced in 1965, the big six-seater changed little over its decadeslong production run, which ended in 1990 but restarted in the early 2000s. The aircraft’s straightforward design, with fixed gear, big cabin, and lots of power, appealed to owners more interested in carrying big loads than in setting speed records. Still, with 300 hp (a 260 hp version was also available), the Six is no slouch.

If we had to pick one word to describe the PA-32-300’s appeal, we might choose “wide.” The cabin is famous for measuring 4 feet wide and 4 feet high, so passengers do not have to rub shoulders. There is also a lot of space for cargo, especially if you remove the rear seats, which does not require tools.

This 1975 PA-32-300 has 3,774 hours on the airframe and 1,799 hours on its 300 hp Lycoming IO-540-K1A5 engine since the last major overhaul. The engine has 542 hours since its last top overhaul. The aircraft’s Hartzell propeller has 367 hours since overhaul.

The panel includes a Narco Nav/Com, Garmin GN 250 Nav/Com, GMA 340 audio panel and 6-place intercom, Narco AT150 transponder, uAvionix ADS-B SkyBeacon, 6-point EGT and CHT, Davtron M655 digital display, and Piper AutoControl IIIB autopilot. Additional equipment includes aileron and flap gap fairings, Knots 2U wheel pants, SureFly electronic ignition, dual toe brakes, and dual push-to-talk switches.

Pilots looking for a straightforward, utilitarian, fixed-gear airplane with room for six and a useful load many retractables cannot match should consider this 1975 Piper PA-32-300 Cherokee Six, which is available for $149,900 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: The Practical Endurance of the Piper Cherokee Six
• FLYING Magazine: Getting Sucked Into Aviation with a Piper Cherokee Six Owner
• FLYING Magazine: A New Take on the Faithful Cherokee Six
• FLYING Magazine: Best Used Six Seaters
• Plane & Pilot: Piper Cherokee Six 260/300
• Plane & Pilot: Choosing A Six-Seat Single

The post This 1975 Piper Cherokee Six Is a Winged SUV and an ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1964 Cessna 205 Super Skywagon.

Cessna used its capable, all-around 182 Skylane as the basis for new models starting with the first 210s in 1960, which essentially were retractable 182s. The company also attached 182 wings and tail to a larger fuselage to make the 205, a fixed-gear model with six seats that performed well as a family transport, thanks in part to its 260 hp engine that gave it more muscle than the already-brawny 182.

The 205 lasted only a couple of years before Cessna replaced it with the 206, which had a new, more sophisticated wing design and even more power. The 206 became the go-to aircraft for pilots who wanted a flying utility vehicle and grew to be so popular that it remains in production. Aircraft shoppers often forget about the 205 but should not because it offers a lot of performance and utility in an economical package.

This 1964 Cessna 205 has 2,250 hours on the airframe, 332 hours on its 260 hp Continental IO-470S engine, and 290 hours on the McCauley C490 two-blade propeller since overhaul. This aircraft has front pilot and passenger doors,  rear cargo door, six seats, and BAS inertia-reel shoulder harnesses. It carries 84 gallons of fuel and comes with Monarch gas caps and an STC for unleaded fuel.

The basic VFR panel includes an Icom radio, Stratus Appareo ESG ADS-B Out transponder, Garmin GDL 49 ADS-B In, and Softcom six-place intercom.

Pilots interested in an economical six-seat traveling aircraft with a substantial useful load should consider this 1964 Cessna 205, which is available for $190,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: FLYING’s Air Compare: Cessna 206 vs. Cessna 210
• FLYING Magazine: Cessna 206 Stationair
• Plane & Pilot: Cessna 205/206 Stationaire

The post This 1964 Cessna 205 Super Skywagon Is a Heavy-Lifting, 6-Seat ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 2017 GippsAero GA8 Airvan.

GippsAero got its start during the 1970s as Gippsland Aeronautics, an Australian company specializing in maintaining and modifying aircraft. During the late 1980s, the company developed an agricultural crop-spraying aircraft called the GA200 followed by the GA8 utility aircraft, which first flew in 1995. Indian industrial conglomerate Mahindra Group acquired a controlling stake in GippsAero in 2009 but halted production in 2020. Last week, company co-founder George Morgan announced that he had bought out Mahindra’s interest and plans to restart production in Australia.

Airvans are rare sights in the U.S., but I spotted one last summer on the ramp at Hancock County/Bar Harbor Airport (KBHB) in Maine. Its wide fuselage and high, strut-braced wing helped it blend in with the Cessna Caravans and 206s operating there. That seems appropriate as the GA8 was designed to fill a perceived gap in the market between the six-seat piston 206 and 10-seat turboprop Caravan.

This 2017 GA8 has 1,000 hours on the airframe, its Lycoming TIO-540 engine and its Hartzell propeller. The panel includes Garmin G500 flight display, GTN 750, GTN 650, and an engine analyzer. The aircraft’s interior is set up in an eight-seat configuration for passengers.    

Commercial operators can find many uses for the GippsAero GA8 easily, but so can everyday pilots. If you want an airplane that can haul your immediate family plus a few cousins or close friends, or a family of four with lots of baggage, you should consider this 2017 GippsAero GA8 Airvan, which is available for $800,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: GippsAero GA8 Airvan
• FLYING Magazine: Mahindra’s Airvan 10 Turboprop Certified
• FLYING Magazine: Caravan-Lite: Gippsland GA-8 Airvan
• Plane & Pilot: Gipps Airvan: Don‘t Call It A Caravan
• Plane & Pilot: Micro AeroDynamics Offers VG Kits For Airvan
• Plane & Pilot: GippsAero Airvan Gets the Axe
• AVweb: GippsAero Founder Buys Back Company

The post The 2017 GippsAero GA8 Airvan Is a Utilitarian ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 2001 Cessna T206H

Cessna’s 206 is one of those airplanes that everyone seems to want because it performs most tasks very well. It has six seats, making it ideal for families, and can carry lots of cargo, which you can load easily thanks to double cargo doors on the right side of the fuselage. Plenty of horsepower and a Sportsman STOL kit translate to impressive short-field performance, while sturdy fixed landing gear with Alaskan Bushwheels and heavy-duty brakes make it easier to turn that short takeoff and landing capability into success in the bush.

This T206H has 957 hours on the airframe and the Lycoming TIO-540, and 720 hours on the three-blade McCauley hot prop. The aircraft carries 92 gallons of fuel in its main wing tanks and 30 additional gallons in two wingtip tanks for extra endurance and range. Recent engine service and replacements include magnetos, spark plugs, fuel lines, air filter, exhaust gaskets, starter motor, and vacuum pumps.

Inside the cabin, all six seats come with headrests, seat belts with shoulder harnesses, intercom and oxygen outlets, air vents, and reading lights. Useful load is 1,150 pounds. Interior upholstery is original, and exterior paint in a factory scheme was applied in 2016.

Pilots who thrive on versatility and might fly the family to a resort one week and land on a hunting guide’s strip cut into the Maine wilderness the following week, should take a look at this powerful, no-nonsense T206H, which is available for $430,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the airplane through FLYING Financial Group. For more information, email info@flyingfinancial.com.

• FLYING Magazine: Textron Launches Cessna Turbo Stationair HD
• FLYING Magazine: FLYING’s Air Compare: Cessna 206 vs. Cessna 210
• FLYING Magazine: We Fly: Cessna 206
• Plane & Pilot: Textron Aviation Launches Cessna T206 Turbo Stationair HD
• The Aviation Consumer: Cessna 206 Stationair
• The Aviation Consumer: Used Aircraft Guide: Cessna 206

The post Today’s Top Aircraft For Sale Pick: 2001 Cessna T206H appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The pilot of a Piper Pawnee was killed Saturday, Sept. 2, when the aircraft broke up during a sharp pull up for a gender reveal stunt in Sinaloa, Mexico. 

Video of the crash shows the aircraft approaching the expectant couple spraying pink powder or fluid, signifying the birth of a girl. When the aircraft pulls out of a shallow dive overhead, the left wing folds into the fuselage and the airplane rolls into a crash beyond the couple’s party site.

News outlets reported that the 32-year-old pilot, Luis Angel N., was found in the wreckage but later died at a hospital. 

This is the second fatal gender reveal crash in as many years in Mexico. In April 2021, two pilots were killed when the Cessna 206 they were flying in a gender reveal stunt crashed into the water in Cancun. Two occupants of an Air Tractor were luckier when the aircraft got slow, stalled and crashed during a gender reveal stunt in Turkey, Texas. The pilot wasn’t injured and a passenger suffered only minor injuries.

The post Pilot Killed In Gender Reveal Stunt appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

After Cessna discontinued production of the big radial-powered 190 and 195 taildraggers in 1954, the company was left with the 180 and 185 to fill that category and saw there would be a market for large, capable piston singles with tricycle gear. Their solution? The retractable-gear 210, introduced in 1960, and the fixed-gear 206, introduced as the 205 in 1962, and in earnest as the 206 in 1964.

Over the course of their production runs, both the 206 and the 210 went through several evolutions. The 206 primarily saw minor changes, whereas the 210 saw significant revamps during its run. Production of both types was suspended in 1986, and only the 206 would be resurrected in more recent years. Today, the pre-1986 family of 206 and 210 series of aircraft provides a compelling blend of capability, comfort, and familiar, predictable flight characteristics.

As with any types of the vintage, each comes with a smattering of pitfalls and ownership challenges. As Cessna added features like turbocharging and pressurization, the airplanes became more challenging to own and maintain. Here, we explore the legacy 206 and the 210 and evaluate the capability of each while considering their respective pros and cons.

Design and Evolution

The earliest models of the 206 and 210 had significant overlap, visually and in terms of their capabilities. The two types diverged over time, but they share several fundamental similarities. Both used Cessna’s familiar high-wing, all-metal airframe design from the beginning. Both also offered similar dimensions and load-carrying capabilities, and both utilized six-cylinder Continental engines, with a “T” prefix indicating the presence of a turbocharger on models like the T206 and T210. The two types differed primarily in their landing gear, wings, and doors.

The 210 was introduced first as a 1960 model. The 1960 and 1961 models had four seats and were essentially 182s with retractable gear and 30 additional horsepower. 1962 brought rear windows and a 4 inches wider cabin. The 1962 to 1966 210s are essentially retractable-gear 206s with less available space in the back because of the main gear wells in the aft cabin. 

In 1964, a third row of seats became available as an option. These initial seats were diminutive affairs with backrests that unfolded out of the raised baggage area floor. Most owners consider these to be most suitable for small adults and children. Performance-wise, Cessna upgraded the engine from the 260 hp IO-470 to the 285 hp IO-520, and the horizontal stabilizer was increased in span by 8 inches, improving pitch authority when landing with a forward CG.

The 210 lost its wing struts in 1967 when the strutless cantilever wing made its first appearance. Three years later, a switch to more compact tubular steel landing gear provided more space in the aft cabin, enabling full-sized seats to be used in the third row.

The most significant change during the cantilever-wing era was the addition of the P210, with “P” denoting cabin pressurization. Easily the most complex version of the 210, the pressurization provided comfort and capability during longer trips. With a relatively low 3.35 psi differential, however, the cabin altitude can easily exceed 10,000 feet, so many owners still utilize oxygen. Nevertheless, the pressurization provides a notably quieter, more comfortable cabin.

The Cessna 205, produced during the 1963 and 1964 model years, is essentially a fixed-gear 210. Because there was no need for bays to house the retracted main gear, the aft floor was flat and sported full-sized seats in the third row. The bulge in the cowl remains, however, making the 205 difficult to distinguish from a 210 visually.

With fixed landing gear, the 206 is simpler to operate, insure, and maintain than the 210. It was introduced in 1964 and took over the fixed-gear duties from the 205. As it was optimized for transporting people and cargo, cruise speed took a backseat to basic economy and reliability. Floats, skis, and belly pods for additional cargo capacity were available options. Legacy 206s are available in two versions: passenger, indicated by a “P” prefix, and utility, indicated by a “U” prefix.

The passenger-biased P206 models provide three separate entry points to the cabin. Each front seat has its own door, and a third smaller door provides access to the left-side back seat. Opinions vary based on spryness and flexibility, but one P206 owner with whom we spoke describes this rear door as somewhat more difficult to utilize than that of a Cessna 150. The door lacks a footrest to assist ingress and egress, and the door opening is relatively small. For many, it’s a feature best utilized for children and baggage. 

For owners interested in hauling larger cargo or simply desiring easier access to the aft half of the cabin, the U206 provides large double “clamshell” doors on the right side of the fuselage. So massive are these doors that passengers can easily board both the second and third row of seats.

The ease of entry and egress of the U206’s double doors strongly appeals to owners who regularly transport elderly or disabled passengers, and thanks to the low sill height, outsized cargo is easily loaded and unloaded. A supplemental type certificate (STC)available from Wipaire allows for the installation of a right-side front door.

Compared to the 210, the 206 line saw far fewer changes during its production, the design remaining relatively consistent from year to year. One notable change came in 1968 when the horizontal stabilizer was increased in span for additional pitch authority at forward CGs. The P206 was discontinued in 1971,leaving the U206 as the sole version in production.

Market Snapshot

A recent survey of 206 and 210 variants listed for sale on six of the most popular online classified sites at the time of this writing provides some interesting takeaways.

Most notable is the scarcity of 205s and 206s on the market. This supports the chatter among owners that charter operators—particularly those in Alaska—snatch up many examples for their fleets. With only 14 listed for sale at the time of this writing, the fixed-gear variants appear to be in far higher demand than the 210s.

Additionally, the median number of airframe hours among the 206s represented is notably higher than the 210s, further bolstering the claims that the type sees heavy use in commercial operations. While regular use can be a good thing for the health of an airplane and especially an engine, owners advise using caution when considering a 206 that has been used commercially. The life of a cargo airplane can be harsh. Many have led hard lives and have been kept outdoors for decades, whereas their privately-owned counterparts are more likely to have been babied by doting owners and kept in climate-controlled hangars.

The higher median price of the 206 also suggests an overall preference in the market for fixed landing gear. The cost to maintain the retractable gear of the 210 family is not inconsequential. Neither is the amount of time and effort required to develop a thorough understanding of the components involved and closely monitor the entire system’s health. Add increased insurance premiums to the list of retractable gear concerns, and for most, it would take a significant pay-off to absorb the costs involved.

Fortunately, there are indeed some payoffs at play.From the very beginning, cruise speed has been one of them. At the same power setting, an earlier 210 with wing struts cruises approximately 25 mph faster than an equivalent fixed-gear 206. Alternatively, one can select a lower power setting and enjoy lower fuel burn due to decreased drag.

However, reduced drag isn’t enough to make up for the aforementioned higher cost of ownership, and this is evident in pricing. With asking prices of normally-aspirated 210s hovering at less than half the price of comparable 206s, buyers in the current market seem to place higher value on the simplicity, reliability, and lower operational cost of the 206 versus the speed and performance of the 210. For potential buyers regularly hauling people and cargo, the improved cabin access likely plays a part, as well.

With fewer than 600 examples built, Cessna 205s are relatively scarce and can go unnoticed. Like the Cessna 175, fewer people know what they are, so fewer people think to search for them on classified sites. For this reason, it’s not uncommon to find a 205 lurking deep in the listings that others have yet to discover. Presently, only 172 examples remain active on the FAA registry, and only two were listed among the major aircraft classified sites surveyed at the time of this writing.

Flight Characteristics

Speak with 206 and 210 owners, and their most noteworthy takeaway is just how unnoteworthy they found their transitions into the types. With relatively consistent operation and handling qualities across the Cessna model line, owners reported virtually no red flags or concerns involved in the transition.

One owner progressed from a 172 to a 182 modified with a 285 horsepower upgrade, and finally into his turbo 206. He felt that the transition from the 172 to the 182 was far more demanding than the transition from the 182 to the 206. Other owners echo this sentiment, describing the 206 as nothing more than a slightly larger 182.

Both the 206 and 210 provide excellent IFR platforms. The overall stability requires little effort on the part of the pilot to maintain headings and altitudes, and eases approaches as well. Handling and stability remain relatively consistent, whether light or heavy. A light, unloaded example can be something of a hot rod when it comes to acceleration and climb performance. But even loaded to maximum takeoff weight, the books indicate a 210B requires only 1,210 feet to clear a 50-foot obstacle on takeoff, and a P206E requires only 1,800 feet.

In cruise, 206 owners report cruise speeds of around140 to 150 mph while burning around 13 to 14 gallons per hour. The 210s vary based on the wing and presence of main landing gear doors, which can be removed to simplify maintenance, but a strutted 210 will cruise in the neighborhood of 180 mph, with turbocharged versions capable of more. 

When it comes to approaches and landings, a 206 or 210 owner will again invariably describe their airplane as “a big 182.’’ Those we surveyed reported final approach speeds of 85 to 90 mph and honestlanding characteristics, with only one caveat—elevator authority at light weights. With only one or two individuals on board, especially with full flaps, it can be difficult to flare. Using trim can alleviate the need for back pressure on the yoke, but one must be prepared to retrim quickly in the event of a go-around.

While this is generally just a nuisance for most 206s and 210s, it’s a more serious concern with models that came from the factory with smaller horizontal stabilizers—pre-1964 for the 210, and pre-1968 for the 206. Owners of these models will commonly keep weight in the aft baggage area to alleviate the issue and prevent running out of elevator authority in the flare.

Overall, owners cherish the predictable, familiar flight characteristics of both models. They enjoy the rock-solid stability in cruise, particularly for instrument work. With the exception of the forward CG when light, they report no red flags or items of concern,describing the airplanes as honest and straightforward.

“When the Super Skywagon Debuted…

In the December 1964 issue of FLYING, we compared the new Cessna Super Skywagon 206 to the then- current Cessna Centurion 210B, noting what the company had leveraged to make the new sibling a real change from its older sister.

“This new Super Skywagon shares its wing with the Model 210D Centurion, but is approved for an allowable gross weight of 3,300 pounds, fully 200 pounds more than its faster sister, and as a floatplane it goes to a whopping 3,500-pound gross. It is a new wing, more gull-shaped in its planform. The flaps extend a full 18.9 feet, and are electrically operated Fowler type and contribute to a marked increase to lift when extended. Shortening the ailerons was made necessary by the broad span of the flaps, but this has been offset by increasing their chord. They are Frise type with hinges at one -third chord position for reduced control forces. The wings are manufactured to accept Cessna Nav-O-Matic autopilots.

“The tail group, similar to that used on the 210D, is of adequate size to control the forces created by the oversized flaps. At no time during our flight was a lack of elevator control evidenced…”

Ownership

As the legacy 206 and 210 fleet consists of aircraft now at least 37 and up to 63 years old, the primary concern of ownership is the age of the airframe and its components. Corrosion is a concern with most aircraft of this age, and it pays to do some digging to determine where it has spent its life. An airplane that has spent decades on the coast will likely present more airframe issues than one that has lived in the Arizona desert.

Beyond airframe corrosion, much of the discussion around owning and maintaining a 206 or a 210 will revolve around the retractable landing gear of the 210. While it isn’t something to be scared of, and while there are many very happy 210 owners, the system and its components demand respect. To ensure the gear will operate reliably, an owner must become something of a landing gear enthusiast, eagerly learning the intricacies and only permitting mechanics who are intimately familiar with 210 gear to work on it.

In general, the newer the 210, the more reliable the landing gear and easier to maintain. The first examples in 1960 and 1961 incorporated a complex hydraulic system with components that, should they fail, maybe impossible to source for significant lengths of time.Additionally, these early models are subject to an airworthiness directive (AD) that can require an owner to seek out equally scarce replacement parts. 

Subsequent generations of the 210 incorporated better landing gear designs, such as the simplified 1970 model year and the 1972 model year that tran-sitioned to a far superior electro-hydraulic system. Best of all is the 1979 and newer gear design, which has proven remarkably reliable and trouble-free.

More than one owner has cautioned that the turbo engines have a habit of heating the engine compartment enough to significantly reduce the lifespan of cylinders and engine accessories, even when carefully monitoring the engine and using recommended power settings. While they appreciate the capability of the turbo, they question whether it’s worth the headache.

Some of the most significant concerns of the 210 are wing spar ADs that affect cantilever-winged (i.e.strutless) wings. These are one-time ADs that require an inspection of the spars and carry-through assembly. Should these components require replacement, the cost is steep at $20,000 or more for the necessary parts, excluding labor. But whether the components pass inspection or are ultimately replaced, you can forget these ADs once completed and documented.

Except for the spar ADs, both the 206 and 210 are generally unburdened with recurring ADs that plague other types, and maintenance comes down to routine annuals and the replacement of parts that wearout. The 206 owners with whom we spoke plan for a baseline figure of $2,000 to $3,000 for a typical, uneventful annual inspection with no surprises. Predictably, 210 owners report a higher baseline of around $3,000 to $5,000 for a similar annual. 

The Cessna Pilot ’s Association is the go-to owner’s group for the 206 and 210, offering systems and procedures courses both online and in-person to educate owners. Those who have taken these courses rave about them, particularly one taught by Paul New at Tennessee Aircraft Services in Jackson, Tennessee, a de facto 210 expert. For around $1,000, owners are brought up to speed on the most recent issues encountered by others around the country.

Insurance expense can be a significant concern for the owner of any six-place airplane. For a few points of reference, a P206 owner with 146 hours total time and a hull value of $150,000 reported annual premiums of $3,800. On the other end of the spectrum, a P210 owner with thousands of hours of tactical fighter experience and a hull value of $327,000 reported an annual premium of $4,600 per year. Some owners have found a creative way to reduce their premiums. By removing the aft two seats, they can insure their airplanes asfour-place aircraft. By doing so, some saw reductions in insurance premiums as high as 30 to 40 percent.

Our Take

When it comes to six-place piston singles without a new-aircraft price tag, there are only a handful of alternatives to the 206 and 210. The most direct competitors, both in terms of cost and capability, would be Piper Cherokee Six, Saratoga, and Lance. The Beechcraft Bonanza A36 is a well-loved option that comes with a premium price. And if useful load is less of a concern, certain Beechcraft Musketeers and Sierras are equipped with a third row of small seats primarily suitable for children.

Overall, the 206 and 210 offer a balanced set of strengths, including payload, speed, and range. Less quantifiable but perhaps equally important are the familiar handling and ease when transitioning from 172s and 182s. One of the more interesting aspects of the two types is the flexibility to shift the expense from acquisition to operation or vice-versa. The 206 commands a higher purchase price but costs less to maintain, while 210s can be had at a relative bargain provided the maintenance budget is increased. 

Whichever model is selected, a buyer will undoubtedly appreciate the strengths of the type, and will enjoy a level of real-world capability matched by few other aircraft on the market.

This article was originally published in the February 2023 Issue 934 of FLYING.

The post <i>FLYING’s</i> Air Compare: Cessna 206 vs. Cessna 210 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The Traveller is a newer high-wing, turbocharged twin-engine design that has seats for nine passengers and one or two pilots. Its interior is well-appointed and includes comfort and convenience features, including in-seat power, generous legroom, and storage space under the seats. For operators, the aircraft’s TKS de-icing system and durable design make it well-suited for service in Alaska’s challenging environment. As a piston-powered airplane, it can also turn quickly, and is not subject to the same cycle limitations as turboprop aircraft.

• READ MORE: Alaska’s Kenai Aviation Expands Into Scheduled Passenger Service

 “We have finally found an aircraft that is perfectly suited for our commuter markets in the state of Alaska,” said Joel Caldwell, Kenai Aviation owner and CEO. “The P2012, designed specifically to meet the needs of our scheduled commuter markets in South Central Alaska, has exceeded our expectations.”

Kenai added the first P2012 to its fleet last year to help it respond to growing demand for commuter air service. The company’s other aircraft include a Cessna 206 and a Beechcraft King Air 200. 

The acquisition of a second P2012 will allow it to offer more frequent flights to better serve its local communities in a part of Alaska where people depend on small aircraft for basic transportation.

Kenai Aviation has been in business since 1961 and became a fixture in Alaska aviation. The Caldwell family acquired the company in 2018 and has gradually increased its capacity to serve customers with a wide range of missions.

The post Kenai Aviation Adds Tecnam P2012 to Alaskan Fleet appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I thought I might look for a 185 like the one he flew in his spare time. That model had the interior space, load carrying capacity and short-field performance I felt my family of four needed for traveling to northern Maine and other remote destinations. I also figured I could easily mount skis when the snow got deep. We were destined for backcountry adventures, after all.

But my friend suggested a Cessna 206 instead. He felt that people like me, who might push ourselves by flying for hours to reach a vacation spot with a short runway after a long day of work, simply do not need the added complication of a tailwheel. The 185 can be squirrely, especially during crosswind landings, he warned. A 206 would perform the same missions and is relatively easy to fly, he said.

I almost felt insulted but quickly realized he was right. My family typically got late starts on trips to Maine in the car, and we often arrived in the wee hours, tired and less alert than we should have been. That’s bad on the road, worse in the air. I placed “easy to fly” near the top of the list of qualities I would seek in an aircraft.

Years passed before my wife and I were ready to buy, but we did a lot of shopping, and I kept my friend’s advice in mind. I strayed a couple of times when tempted by Stinson 108s but only briefly.

We considered a number of sensible Cessnas, including 206s, 210s, and 182s, a Piper PA-24 and several Beechcraft Bonanzas. Then, quite by surprise, we found Annie, our 1992 Commander 114B that checked most of the boxes for us, including being easy to fly. 

Certainly my previous training in another Commander helped ease the transition to a complex, high-performance airplane after years of flying a docile 172. But Annie has been an especially gentle flier so far. The airplane handles well on the ground and its wide, trailing link gear have made straight, stable  landings the norm. Those links are famous for making rough landings feel smooth.

It is still early, we have had the Commander just a few months, but I have yet to elicit an unpleasant reaction from it in the air. The airplane seemingly has no desire to stall unless the pilot ignores the buffeting and forces the issue. While it does not lead the four-seat-retractable category in performance measurements like cruise speed, climb rate, short-field operations, or fuel economy, it has an all-around feeling of comfort that my passengers appreciate. The roomy cabin is part of that, but so is the airplane’s forgiving, no-surprises behavior.

I believe the Commander’s smooth handling, more than its cushy seats, is the reason my wife can fall asleep before we reach cruising altitude.

The post Your Ideal Aircraft Might Be the One That’s Easy To Fly appeared first on FLYING Magazine.