Honest Debrief After Flying the New Cessna 206

Рет қаралды 71,492

Күн бұрын

Note: Cessna is not a sponsor of this channel and I was not compensated by them for making this video. All opinions are my own. Big thanks to @CessnaAircraftCo for allowing me to experience this incredible airplane and share it with others!
I was fortunate to fly the new Cessna Turbo 206 for two days and I wanted to share my honest reactions to it in this video. We flew from Dallas Love Field (KDAL) to Gastons White River Resort (3M0) in Arkansas and get a feel for the wide range of capabilities of this aircraft. Leaving the busy Class B airspace and flying into the back country was a really fun two hours. But I wanted to answer these questions first hand... does it fly like a boat? Are the double doors that big of a deal? What's the inside feel like? How fast is it and at what fuel burn?
And if you'd like to see the full vlog of our trip, the video is here: • Flying the New Cessna ...
Video Chapters:
0:00 - Does it fly like a boat?
0:40 - Takeoff Experience
1:20 - Climb Performance
1:53 - Cruise Stats
2:07 - Landing the 206
3:05 - Useful Load, Seating, Cargo Doors
4:31 - Range and Fuel Burn
5:37 - Avionics
5:51 - Electronic Stability Protection (ESP)
7:43 - FlightStream iPad Sync
8:16 - Standby Instruments
8:39 - Performance... What it's like to fly
9:47 - Link to Full Flight Video
I want you to become a pilot and own your own airplane. Get my free resources to help with that at airplaneacademy.com
Looking for 1:1 help? Check out airplaneacademy.com/hire-charlie and we can talk anything aviation or entrepreneurship related.

Пікірлер: 60

@AirplaneAcademy Ай бұрын

Hey guys! I wanted to let you know I just launched an "Insiders" Newsletter where once a week I'm sharing an important lesson I've learned in aviation, links to my latest content so you don't miss out, and links to any other interesting or helpful content I've found. I'm also working on a HUGE project I can't announce yet but I'm going to be sharing more behind the scenes info with Insiders first - Subscribe (it's free) at: airplaneacademy.com/insiders

@Mark_317 Жыл бұрын

I had a 152 acrobat for 3 years. Traded up to dual engine about 8 years ago. The 152 was so fun to fly, miss my old high wing.

@Jmnp08 11 ай бұрын

Love your posts dude!!! Not too geeky but thorough !!

@gracelandone Жыл бұрын

Wow. I don’t get to check in with you as often as I’d like, but your enthusiasm for GA is palpable. You continue to spread the joy.

@AirplaneAcademy Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! It's an easy hobby to get excited about :)

@nothingtoseehere4026 Жыл бұрын

Great content and production.

@AirplaneAcademy Жыл бұрын

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed!

@johnnunez17 Жыл бұрын

Awesome info 👍✈️

@charlesfrantz230 Жыл бұрын

I always get in ah when I watch a demo of new aircraft. Our club has a 1968 C172I and it is a great trainer but at 6"4" its cramped. But the price tag on new GA's aircraft is not for middle income folks. Great video.

@ericrohani199 5 ай бұрын

You are exactly what general aviation needs! Keep up the great effort on your videos.

@AirplaneAcademy 5 ай бұрын

Thanks so much, really appreciate that!

@oscalealvisl 10 ай бұрын

Great video brotha i wish i could fly that 206

@gregggay477 Жыл бұрын

Nice informative video

@renoguy25 Жыл бұрын

Looks like an enjoyed flight . I get how nice those double doors would be for cargo days/missions , but frankly I don't know that " I " would be willing to give up the passenger door . guess I'd need to see just what it takes to climb over and into the passenger seat . Bob from Calgary

@dennisnbrown Жыл бұрын

Charlie it’s great to see you back on my KZfaq suggestions. You’ve been gone for a while buddy.

@dbow3784 Жыл бұрын

We have a 2009 T206H (bought new) with tip tanks and TKS ice protection (since we are in the northeast US). With a few inexpensive (for aviation) mods such as GAMI injectors and flap gap seals, we can carry 6 of us, for 4 hours at 150 without O2. The benefit for us over the G36 was the purchase price and operating costs (15% higher insurance for G36, more maintenance for the gear, and we got a better deal on the 206 since we had previously owned a n/a 182T). Would love to someday have the DA50 with the jet-a fueled engine, but can’t quite swing more than $1m. That is a lot of fuel for the 206.

@zer0coolninja887 11 ай бұрын

Dam need to learn from you in life

@JSFGuy Жыл бұрын

This is why Cessna retains return buyers especially in the citation series, you can tell they are sewn from the same cloth. Also type certified in very little time graduating from one to another at flight safety.

@kohersh Жыл бұрын

If you can land the 172....the 182 and 206 will make you smile. They settle in so much better. Great video, these planes can't be overlooked for just how incredible they really are. 210 is the only thing that is better, but those unfortunately are going to be a lot more mx

@michaelgill7248 Жыл бұрын

What's the cost as configured in your video? Compared to 182?

@publicmail2 Жыл бұрын

At 20,000 feet, Cessna advertises 164 knots TAS at 75 percent power. It's a 80 year old airframe...

@Nathan-qo9kg Жыл бұрын

Yeah Cessna is completely asleep at the wheel nowadays. They sell these things for the same price as a Cirrus and a good 3-400k more than a Diamond DA40. I think the flight schools are keeping them in business, but even they are moving towards Diamond now. Hopefully this is a wakeup call for them because there is no way they're going to keep selling these things at a million dollars (new) when you can get better plans for less.

@publicmail2 Жыл бұрын

@@Nathan-qo9kg The DA40 is a dream compared to a 172, and 25 knots faster same engine, safer.

@MattMorris481 Жыл бұрын

But if you are comparing a 206 to a cirrus or a da40 they definitely don’t carry what a 206 will and that’s why you buy it. On the price I can’t disagree I think all aircraft manufacturers are smoking crack and using pcp.

@daricksta08 Жыл бұрын

Da40 can't haul what a 206 can. It's silly to compare a cruiser to a hauler utility plane. You also aren't consistently landing a Da40 on unimproved strips.

@lcprivatepilot1969 Жыл бұрын

@@publicmail2 CCP Owned

@SauloMogi Жыл бұрын

How high have you need to be in order to need the oxygen support and how often do you use it, and how much costs to refill it

@johnnunez17 Жыл бұрын

Nice👍✈️

@Micg51 Жыл бұрын

I have about 500 hours in a naturally aspirated 206. I could get about 140 true at 10,000 and 16-18 gph. Never had an issue with 2 people and all our bags with full fuel. Accelerated really fast on takeoff roll, climb rate was kinda bad in the non turbo though. A lot better than a 172 though, 172s suck.

@MozMozzie 11 ай бұрын

you need to get your hands on a 337, and let us know what it is like!😊

@tc6984 8 ай бұрын

If you had a new choice of engine (latest greatest in your 182. What would you get? Im thinking of getting 182 and curious

@tomasscherer Жыл бұрын

If you like the 206 because of the performance and capabilities meaning useful load and speed, you might also like his brother the Cessna Turbo 210 Centurion. It is not as new and modern as that 206 you flew but the main diference is the retractable landing gear and cantilever wing which makes it faster and with just 200lb less useful load, carries 90 gallons of gas.

@okiegrandboater Жыл бұрын

Cessna should have brought back the 210 instead of buying the Columbia brand

@tomasscherer Жыл бұрын

@@okiegrandboater true I completely agree with you it is a much more capable airplane than the Columbia, I’m sure a lot of folks do too and we would love to see it in production again unfortunately the 210 would be very expensive to bring back and wouldn’t make the cut for Textron…

@dtsh4451 Жыл бұрын

“Dude… you are getting a Cessna 206”🤣

@kevinbarry71 Жыл бұрын

Flying the brand new Cessna 206; I presume we have all been transported back to the 60s

@danielrrainey1 Жыл бұрын

Owned T206 for 8 years and loved it. AC would be a great add and that panel if great. However, the price is a major draw back.

@okiegrandboater Жыл бұрын

In comparing speed, you weren’t comparing apples to apples, non turbo 182 in comparison to a turbo 206, if you compare turbo 182 they are real close

@josephsener420 Жыл бұрын

Take it to KOSH and sleep in the back!

@baomao7243 Жыл бұрын

Great idea. It turns into a motor home. 😉 I really like the cargo doors. With power it turns into a mini Caravan (if you really squint).

@heyitsaph Жыл бұрын

i fly T206s for work, wait until you get into a T210. basically the 206 but better and faster

@av8tore71 Жыл бұрын

Fly a Mooney next time!!

@cippo1 8 ай бұрын

What I can't understand, why the 182 makes 972 nm and the 206 only 702 nm. Yes bigger and the engine .... the 206 with more nm would be perfect.

@21trips 11 ай бұрын

Same wing, same length not bigger.

@martinleicht5911 11 ай бұрын

That's gotta cost at least 15 GRAND !! 😂😂😂

@retiredpd 6 ай бұрын

If I won the lottery I wouldn't tell anyone.... But there would be clues😊😊

@davidcrawley4357 3 ай бұрын

That’s a Yukon 😂

@roddog24 2 ай бұрын

Beautiful plane. Too bad it’s really only priced for the highly wealthy or financially immature 😢

@zackriden79 10 ай бұрын

No one can afford it , its vabor ware

@mikeabc5355 Жыл бұрын

If 206 only had a more reliable and more efficient engine. Turbine would be great for reliability but not so much for efficiency. Aviation definitely needs a new type of engine with superb reliability and great efficiency. If we did not spend $800 billion annually on war machines and countless other nonsense we more than likely would have such engines already.

@andrewahern3730 Жыл бұрын

You realize that air is thinner at higher altitudes, meaning NA aircraft can’t physically fly as fast or as high as turbos. Same thing with cars in mountains: the turbocharged engines always outperform naturally aspirated. Now imagine 25k’ instead of 5’. There’s no piston engine flying that high without a blower. All the money in the world can’t make a NA engine suck more than outside air pressure allows.

@mikeabc5355 Жыл бұрын

@@andrewahern3730 OK tell me something I don’t know. I was thinking Turbine engines are very reliable but not very efficient we need an engine that possesses reliability of turboprop but with much grater efficiency. If we stoped spending money on endless wars that only benefit oligarchs and spent that money on research and development we would have such engine and many other things that would benefit humanity.

@BrianOgilvie79 5 ай бұрын

@@mikeabc5355its clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. A turbocharger is different than a turbine engine.

@mikeabc5355 5 ай бұрын

@@BrianOgilvie79 I did say turbo instead of turbine, yes I am very familiar with turbochargers and turbines, but since I am an imperfect human, occasionally my fingers run faster than my brain, so I do make mistakes in typing. Since I am an instructor who started flying in 1970, I did learn a little about aviation over the years, definitely nowhere near as much as you.:)

@Nacwing Жыл бұрын

The love of Cessna’s is nauseating. Just go fly a bonanza one time. You’ll never want to go back. I’ve got 100s of hours in 172s and g1000 182s. Still no comparison. Factory AC in 206 I did a demo in sucked compared to G36. With Cessna not allowing leaning in the lycoming 206 the bonanza kills it on efficiency. 19 gallons to go 160 knots is ridiculous.

@mkosmo 6 ай бұрын

Not allowing leaning? Of course you can lean if you pull it out of boost... but you don't lean something MP at >=SLP.