206 STOL

In article ,
"DeltaDeltaDelta" wrote:

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 airplanes I'm flying are '68 models. From the literature I've seen
the new 206s have a higher empty weight....I don't expect as good of
performance from them.

At sea-level there won't be a great difference between the two since
they put out the same amount of power at sea-level. If you're working
off of a higher field elevation the turbo-charged airplane should show a
little better performance...the difference being greater the higher you
go.

For the two airplanes I fly the normally aspirated model comes off the
ground just a little quicker...why I don't know. The difference isn't
enough to make me choose one over the other if doing any short-field
work.

The big differnce you'll see is in the climb rate at altitude. When
doing formation loads I let the normally aspirated 206 takeoff and get
to 1500' or so before I launch. By 7-8000 I'm tucked in tight and have
the power reduced to stay with him. G

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html