Big difference between 182RG, 206, 210?

A1FlyBoy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Posts
682
Total Time
Enough
I have a lot of time in the C-182RG and some time in the 210. An operator wants me in the 206. Never flown it - what can I expect?
 

captjim

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Posts
461
Total Time
9000
I never gotta chance to fly a 210, but I remember the 206/207's were heavy as hell on the controlls, trim!
 

TurboS7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
2,261
Total Time
19,210
Wonderful airplane, I have flown it off gravel bars, little patches of "blow out " on the tundra. Off of beaches, landed it on modified ski jumps in the tropics, flown it with 3 inches of clear ice hanging on it. Shot approaches down to 500RVR and landed no sweat. Flown it countless hours 20 feet over the beach with everything hanging out at 55kts in 1/8 mile in fog.Landed it at night on the beach, and departed too, just a great airplane. Flown it so far over gross I can't talk about it but it will lift its own weight in cargo. I can get it off the ground in 150feet consistantly, and land in the same distance. Put it on floats, it does great, put it on ski's it does even better. Put tundra tires on it and you can land anywhere. Need to haul a refigerator, its the airplane. Got a 1200lbs box that needs to go somewhere the 206 is the answer. It can haul 4 full fuel drums and 5 empty ones. To check the cg if you can push the tail to the ground and it comes up on its own she is good to go. Just be sure that you tie all your cargo down, a cargo shift is a nasty thing and will push you as a pilot to the limits.Standard approach speed 80 kts, you can use 60kts all day, and fly it indicating zero for a real short strip. I figure when I am done with 121 I will go back to Alaska and finish my flying days flying one, I look forward to it.
 

A1FlyBoy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Posts
682
Total Time
Enough
I've noticed the 182RG is a bit nost heavy, the 210 even more so. How does the 206 fit in there.... more like the 182?

Thanks for the info TurboS7, it sounds like a great bird.
 

RichardFitzwell

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
347
Total Time
7500
More like the 210...

A1FlyBoy,

To compare the two, I'd say the 206 is much closer to the C210. I have just over 1000 hrs in the C210 M/N, about 40 hrs in the C182 and about 20 in the 206. The 206 is much closer to the 210 in feel. Both are very heavy on the controls but the 206 has a little less performance than the 210. You'll enjoy it.

R.F.
 

TurboS7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
2,261
Total Time
19,210
The 206 is slow compared to the 210. You will see about 130kts at 24x24. The 210 cruises at about 160 to 165kts depending on your load. The 206A is very nose heavy empty.From the F model on they put about 8 degrees more elevator which took care of the problem. The best way to land it empty is just a slow power approach at about 65kts.
 

414Flyer

Down with Chemtrails!
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Posts
4,948
Total Time
4200
Well the 210 was just an outgrowth of the 206, so you could call it a 206RG. That might have been its original designation when it was being designed but I cant remember.
 

jetdriven

restraint order pending
Joined
Dec 23, 2001
Posts
517
Total Time
6600
the original 210 was a 182 basically with retracts. about 1966 they used the 206 style fuselage, and in 68 they got the cantilever wing with a new fuselage again .
so basically the 68 210G is a completely new plane.
i fould the 206 to be nose heavy as hell and difficult to land with 40 deg flaps and empty. half flaps is a lot better, easier to keep the nose up.
 
Top