Should I buy a TR 182 or a Cessna 206?

  • STEVE ELLS's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
1 year 9 months ago #1875 by STEVE ELLS
Should I buy a TR 182 or a Cessna 206? was created by STEVE ELLS
Hello Steve,
I wanted to wish you a wonderful year for you and your Family.
I came back from Crystal River Florida where I passed my FAA PPL. It was a great experience and I ll definitively come back for my Instrument.

I am now back to Europe and I have 2 interesting opportunities to buy a plane .
1) CESSNA RT 182 Turbo RG - 1980 -
I will go to see the plane on Tuesday. It has been totally overhaul (Turbo, gear , engine) I will get all document .
I have some question about this plane :
- easy to pilote ? compare to a 206 ?
- managing the turbo is that complicated ?
- Would it be possible to add a sportsmann kit stol ? Any advise on it ?
- I read a lot's of bad comment about the landing gear ? What about your opinion ? Is it less robust than a fixe gear model ?

2) CESSNA 206G - 1979 -
Also this one has been Overhaull with 0 hours but has a very very basic avionic without any auto pilote or GPS. I think it is very expensive to up date. I sent you some weeks ago some pic of it

What do you think ? I do not need the 6 seat but I am hesitating between the both,.

Have a good day

Hi Alain;
Hi Alain;
Congratulations on getting your PPL. Very exciting.

With any airplane purchase, the first step is defining your mission. The best way is to brainstorm what you're going to doing with the airplane the majority of the time. No airplane can fulfill every mission but you'll be happiest with the airplane that fits your needs the majority of the time. If you are flying airport to airport with your wife and small children, the TR 182 would probably be best; if you're hauling 4 guys and golf clubs to Scotland or plan to fly to less developed areas and go camping or exploring, then the 206 would be better.

There is a large difference between the TR 182 and the C-206. The 206 is like a pick up truck. Large door for bulky items, has a large useful load and can operate easily in and out of unimproved airstrips (grass, gravel, etc.).
The TR182 is more like a Mercedes sedan. Due to smallish tires that can't be upgraded to larger tires due to the need for the tires to fit into the wheel wells when retracted, is limited to operating off of paved runways or smooth grass and gravel strips.

The Information Manual (identical to a Plots Operating Handbook except that it's not issued with the airplane) for a 1982 TR 182 cites an average empty weight of 1850 pounds and a maximum take off weight of 3100 pounds. This yields a useful load of approximately 1250 pounds. Fuel capacity is 88 gallons so with full fuel less an hour safety margin (and an average leaned fuel consumption of 15 gph) the endurance is 5.2 hours before you get into the reserve. I've flown in the TR 182 and experienced speeds of 155 ktas at 10,000 feet.

A C-206 has a maximum take off weight (MTOW) of 3600 pounds and an average empty weight of 2020 pounds. Useful load is 1580. Maximum fuel is 88 gallons. 206s cruises slower (Information manual cites 147 knots ate 75 percent) than the TR 182.

Here's the biggest difference. The 206 is a very sought after airplane around the world. It can be fitted with floats and is known as a heavy hauler; a belly mounted cargo pod can be fitted. It can even be put on skiis. Every commercial operator wants a good 206. Therefore I think that alone would make the 206 more desirable due to its resale value.

Both the Lycoming (in the TR 182) and the Continental engine (in the 2016) are proven engines. Lycomings aren't quite as smooth as Continentals but are reputed to be "tougher"

The retractable landing gear system on the R and TR 182 airplanes are examples of the last (and simplest) iterations of the Cessna retractable gear systems. The systems are very simple and dependable. If there's a weak point it's that what are called the pivots and the housings the pivots are mounted in, do crack from time to time. If a crack is discovered, there is no approved repair--the parts must be replaced. And the parts while still available, are expensive.
I have attached the Cessna service bulletin that applies to the pivot inspections.

The turbo charger system on the TR 182 is singular to the TR 182. It's actually a turbo normalizer since the system is designed to maintain sea level (plus 2 inches to simulate normal losses) manifold pressure. Hence, the redline is 31 inches. The system operates like this. The turbocharger wastegate is fully open ( and only a small amount of exhaust gasses are directed to the "hot" side of the turbocharger) until the throttle butterfly in the carburetor is fully open. After the butterfly is fully opened, pushing the throttle knob farther forward starts to close the turbocharger wastegate, which causes more exhaust gas to push against the turbo charger wheel "hot side." This causes the turbo to "push" filtered filtered pressurized into the carburetor.

The key to making this system work is in a mixing set of plates that are mounted on and next to the carburetor. Push the throttle in until full throttle then the plates start to pull the wastegate closed using a small steel cable. And, it's a manually controlled wastegate so the pilot must be aware that he controls the wastegate--and must be aware of the need to make adjustments when changing altitude and/or when atmospheric changes occur. It's unlike any other Cessna turbo charging system and the turbocharger unit itself is small compared to the displacement of the engine. But the system is robust enough to provide 75 percent power up to 18,000 feet MSL if the air temperatures are near standard.

This ability to cruise between 15000 and 20000 feet MSL has lots of advantages. First off, it's too high for other piston powered propeller airplanes and too low for turbine powered airplanes so, at least here in the States, air traffic control is often willing to give direct routings, which saves time and money. Secondly, the high altitude capabilities expand the operating envelope since the engine power does not drop off when operating out of high altitude airports.

The TR 182 is on the approved models list (AML) for the Sportsman STOL leading edge modification. Contact for more details and for videos of the installation process.

My choice, since I live in California which is part of the mountainous west of the United States and because I like utility aircraft operations, would be the C-206. However, I own and fly a retractable landing gear Piper PA 24 Comanche, even though it is more similar to the TR182 than to the 206. It would be a lot of fun to own a STOL airplane but I haven't made that move yet.

There are page after page of FAA approved modifications to the 206; it is found in every corner of the world and has been adapted to fulfill many missions.

So your choice; a pick up truck or a Mercedes sedan. Sedan is a little faster and sleeker looking but slightly more complex; while the pick up truck is slower but can be adapted to do many more tasks than the sedan.

Since I 've never flown in European airspace I don't know if how often the high altitude capabilities of the TR 182 would be a decided advantage over the normally aspirated 206. That's for you to figure out.

Unfortunately the link to the TR 182 did not work for me so I can't comment on the avionics, etc.

Please let me know how I can help further,

Best regards,


This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF


Please Log in to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.114 seconds