Dave Higdon/WITCHITA
Could ITBE third time lucky for Cessna Aircraft? Might the 206 Stationair be the model that avoids the post-certification problems that plagued the reintroduction of the company's 172 and 182?
Flight International was invited to evaluate the revamped, updated and upgraded 206 and given access to the prototype, N9954S, for one entire day in mid-November. The resurrected Stationair felt the most rounded of the four new Cessna piston single models flown by Flight International over the past two years: the 120kW (160hp) Skyhawk, the 135kW Skyhawk SP, the Skylane and now the Stationair.
Roomy and comfortable, the 206 delivers ample load and speed with a responsiveness that belies its size. In some ways, the latest 206 feels more nimble than the Skyhawk, yet more solid than the Skylane.
Cessna has also equipped the resurrected Stationair with the same higher level of standard features in new 172s and 182s, making the base model better equipped and more capable than previous incarnations of the 206. Yet, at the same time, this Stationair somehow lacks the air of civility that marks the new 172R and 182S.
Most notably, compared with the problems encountered in reviving the Skyhawk and Skylane, the development hurdles cleared by Cessna in bringing the 206 through certification to production were larger. So, perhaps, the 206's rebirth is past the worst.
If so, the Stationair programme could avoid the turbulence that Cessna suffered when production, quality control and supplier problems forced multiple service bulletins and several airworthiness directives on the 172R and 182S.
Cessna won praise for its support effort, and incurred considerable costs in making good the problems under warranty, but the teething troubles detracted from the company's achievement in reviving piston aircraft production in a short period of time. Between the summer of 1994 and the spring of 1997, Cessna picked a city, built a factory, hired and trained a novice workforce. Simultaneously, it redesigned, flight tested, certificated and started production of two aircraft, and built the prototype of a third.
Neither the 172R nor the 182S entered production on time, and the 206 has matched that tradition. The 206, and its turbocharged kin the Turbo 206, reached certification only in September, several months late. Customers had to wait a further three months for first deliveries, which took place on 4 December.
ENGINE REJECTED
Why the tardiness? The biggest reason, but not the only one, is Cessna's rejection of a new engine for the 206 designed at its request by sister company Textron Lycoming. The new IO-580 failed several attempts to pass a 500h endurance test, comprising consecutive 150h test runs. Cessna opted instead to use the existing 225kW (300hp) Lycoming IO-540.
At that point, with months of unavoidable delay ahead, Cessna committed itself to getting this one right, issuing an assurance that production and supplier problems experienced earlier would not be repeated.
Problems with durability and reliability, even of the proven Lycoming, with powerplant vibration, and with avionics and systems integration all contributed to the lateness of the 206. Cessna is at last delivering aircraft, however. Whether the 206 falls victim of the same post-certification problems as the Skyhawk and Skylane remains to be seen.
What is apparent from flying the 206 is Cessna's success at delivering a well-rounded, well-equipped aircraft with the potential to make buyers and pilots happy.
Many aircraft developers have failed in their efforts to deliver a true multipurpose machine. As often as not, the most successful multimission types have been blends of solid trainers and budget family aircraft - machines like the best-selling Skyhawk and the Piper Cherokee.
The Stationair of today blends utility capabilities useful to the bush pilot with appointments and flying habits welcomed equally by business owner/flyers, charter companies and rental operators. The 206 promises to be at home in the jungle or in front of an executive terminal, to be useful in either role, and to be flyable by most competent aviators.
Offering not a hint of attitude, quirk or bad habit, the 206 helped me feel at home quickly. One reason was an instrument panel laid out almost identically to that in the Skyhawk and Skylane, from the avionics to the instruments, gauges, and their placement, plus the location of critical switches and controls.
After my first 30min leg in the left seat, I felt competent enough to navigate across a continent and back, let alone complete our little hop to Ponca City, Oklahoma. The 206 behaved impeccably throughout Flight International's valuation; whether launching in unusual circumstances, flying a pattern, cruising near its limits, or landing under pressure, the 206 responded with unexpected enthusiasm.
As an overall impression, the Stationair reminded me most of a Skyhawk in its handling and control harmony. The 206 seemed lighter and more responsive than its smaller sibling, the 182S, although at cruise, and in stable climbs and descents, the Stationair felt more substantial than the Skylane and just as stable.
My best example of the 206's responsiveness arose when we flew from northern Oklahoma to Wichita Mid-Continent Airport to pick up a Cessna factory pilot and some packages.
The tower expedited my arrival by clearing me to land from the base leg - while still at pattern altitude of 2,330ft (710m). The 206 helped me quickly bleed off the excess 1,000ft with a full-flap, engine-idling descent rate of 1,500ft/min (7.62m/s), delivering me directly above the runway numbers with enough altitude to arrest our descent with a full-flare touchdown. In the space of a few feet, the Stationair's stall horn hit full volume just seconds before touchdown.
A pilot flying the Stationair at lighter loads - it has an empty weight of only 974kg (2,146lb) - and only 10° of flap may find the trim insufficient to slow much past 80kt (150km/h) indicated airspeed. However, enough elevator authority remains to slow the 206 further.
At each addition of flap through to full deployment, the big Stationair responds much like its smaller siblings and pitches up more with each extra notch. Lacking enough trim to hold the slower speed settings, the 206 does not fight the flyer with overly heavy elevator loads.
Straight-ahead stalls at 3,500ft, no flaps, brought the indicated airspeed down into the 40kt range; it seemed reluctant to break, but finally nosed down from what seemed more a mush than a break. Keeping the skid ball centred proved no problem and the Stationair showed no tendency to drop a wing. Power-on stalls naturally come at lower airspeeds and higher angles of attack; the 206's controllability remained positive throughout.
UNUSUAL REQUESTS
When you visit a busy commercial airport that is also home to two busy aircraft factories, air traffic requests can be a little unusual. So it was when we landed at Mid-Continent and taxied to Cessna's ramp.
Our pick-up at Cessna was pretty routine: another pilot and some boxes of fire extinguishers and brochures weighing 135kg. The extra weight put the 206 at a more realistic operating weight of about 1,435kg. We still had room for more, with a further 205kg to spare before we hit the maximum 1,640kg take-off weight.
Then traffic and circumstances demanded some operating flexibility. With a company pilot working the radios, I accepted the offer of an intersection departure that left behind us most of Runway 19L.
Although not a typical practice, experience with the 206 led me to believe that eschewing several thousand feet of concrete remained a practical, safe decision - and it would speed up our arrival at the next stop. But leaving quickly would put us into conflict with some other traffic, so the tower requested we make an early turn-out, with traffic behind us from the afternoon airline rush into Mid-Continent.
Ahead of us lay McConnell AFB, where KC-135Rs were departing to join the air-refuelling bridge the US Air Force was creating to support the latest anti-Saddam military build-up. There was a lot going on, none of it exactly standard.
But our test aircraft needed less than half the 915m of wide concrete that remained ahead of us on Runway 19L. With all 225kW from the Lycoming IO-540-AC1A powering us through the turn from Taxiway G, the 206 surged down the centreline and rotated as we passed 60kt in about 245m. By the time we would have passed over the departure end of Runway 19L, the 206 had lifted us more than 1,000ft aloft.
Cessna's big single carved easy climbing turns, first to 085í, our heading for Augusta Municipal Airport, and then almost immediately back to 140í, when the departure controller vectored us around traffic leaving McConnell.
While not exactly a short take-off and landing standard-setter, the Stationair has respectable runway performance, solid slow-speed handling and payload capability that long ago made it a favourite of operators in remote locations around the world, including missionaries, medical services personnel, explorers and scientists.
As built today, the new 206 carries a 700kg maximum payload, which translates into 460kg of people and cargo with the four rear seats removed and a full 333 litres (88USgal) of fuel to make the maximum range of 1,260km (680nm).
Cessna even offers the 206 with a utility interior without the corporate-style upholstery. With leather seats and human amenities, however, the 206 has in the past proved attractive to business and personal flyers too. Cessna expects the new aircraft to have similar appeal among flyers with the resources and need to fly with all six seats filled - more than 408kg of people and goods - at cruise speeds up to 143kt.
For a group of four travelling to, say, a resort in Canc£n, in Mexico, the 206 could easily serve as the aerial equivalent of the family minivan. Pulling the fifth and sixth seats out leaves space for all the travel trappings for two adult couples.
The key to the Stationair's past versatility, and its success, was in its balance of a sturdy, mission-oriented airframe with a proven, reliable powerplant. Cessna sought to improve the aircraft in a number of areas and succeeded in all but two - the engine and its ignition system.
Cessna originally wanted to use Unison's new Lasar electronic ignition system on all its piston singles, but was forced to drop those plans after the manufacturer ran into unpredictable certification delays.
Cessna originally planned to use larger-displacement engines running at lower speeds in all of its resurrected models, because the lower full-power redline simultaneously cuts noise and wear-and-tear on the engine.
The manufacturer succeeded on the 172R and 182S because there was already a larger, mature engine for those models. For the 206, however, Cessna had previously used the largest six-cylinder Lycoming available. To get to the lower RPM, something bigger was needed.
Lycoming developed the new IO-580 for the 206. The -580 would have produced 225kW, just like the -540, but at a redline of 2,400RPM, 300RPM below that of the -540. However, after the new Lycoming failed several 500h endurance tests, Cessna chose the IO-540.
Although far from the noisiest single I have flown, the Stationair at 2,700RPM generates considerably more noise than at 2,500RPM - 100RPM faster than the redline of the IO-580. My response to high sound levels is usually to use the slowest RPM for a desired power level, greatly reducing sound pressures. So I dialled in 2,500RPM and 635mm (25in) of manifold pressure as quickly as safe operations allowed.
That also meant trimming the nose down to a climb rate of 750ft/min from the 1,000ft/min observed at full power. The view ahead improved, the noise level dropped adequately and our airspeed edged up into "cruise-climb" territory - about 115kt indicated.
Against that mild criticism about sound levels, it is worth noting the powerplant's smoothness. Credit goes to McCauley's big three-blade Black Mac scimitar-style propeller, plus the stiffness of a monocoque-cradle engine mount integral to the fuselage structure. By contrast, cantilevered steel-tube mounts are used on the 172R and 182S.
The McCauley also deserves some credit for the Stationair's respectable climb capability. Cessna lists a standard-day, gross-weight climb rate of 985ft/min. The 206 easily exceeded 1,000ft/min and even delivered 1,100ft/min in the 10°C air of late afternoon.
Conversely, the 206 comes down as easily as it goes up and transitions smoothly to touchdown attitude for landing - without gliding past lots of usable runway. Unfortunately, we ran out of daylight before I could try the 206 on a truly short prairie runway. But given that both the 172R and 182S handled it, there's no doubt in my mind that the 206 in the rough would outpace either sibling.
The Stationair does not care what you are carrying, but its admirable handing traits should be as much a comfort to passengers as they are a confidence-builder for pilots. And as a travelling machine, the Stationair consumes the kilometres at a comfortable rate in cruise.
My experience with 206 speed came on a second leg starting from Oklahoma. Flying level at 4,500ft on about 75% power - at the lowest RPM possible - and lightly loaded to 1,316kg including 227 litres of fuel, the Stationair settled at 147kt true airspeed on 60 litres/h.
Cessna's book specifications set 150kt as the maximum sea-level speed, and 143kt as the maximum cruise on 75% power at 6,500ft. Either the book speed or my faster cruise make for comfortable cross-country flying. Such speeds pale in comparison with those of other 225kW aircraft, but most of those are high-performance, retractable-gear machines with bigger price tags than the Stationair's $290,000. And none of them possesses anywhere near the bush-plane attributes of a Stationair, which include a tall, sturdy fixed tricycle gear and optional oversize tyres and wheel covers.
The Stationair excels in its access. On the left forward fuselage, a large door gives access to the front and centre-row seats. An aft cargo double door opens up access to the centre-row and aft seats as well as the aft-fuselage luggage space.
Luggage space tight? No problem: remove anything from one to four seats - with a gain in useful load of an even 32kg to more than 450kg with all four rear seats out.
Cessna has also made sure the Stationair equals its siblings in safety improvements and creature comforts, continuing to apply standard-equipment decisions the manufacturer made for its product line well before the first new Skyhawk was delivered in January 1997.
To enhance safety, for example, the Stationair has as standard a dual-pump vacuum system to power flight instruments, an alternate static source, strobe lights, individual and flood lighting for instruments in the panel, seat belts with shoulder harnesses for all six seats, and even a padded instrument panel with an integral annunciator panel that warns of low fuel, vacuum, voltage or oil pressure.
The standard-price Stationair lacks nothing in avionics and panel amenities: an all-AlliedSignal Bendix/King panel with dual KX 155A navigation/communication radios, one with glideslope, and matching indicators; KLN 89 visual flight rules global positioning system; audio panel with three-light marker-beacon receiver; KT 76C transponder; and even a single-axis autopilot, the rate-based KAP 140.
A package priced at $9,200 upgrades the Global Positioning System (GPS ) to the instrument flight rules approach-certificated KLN 89B, upgrades the KAP 140 to two axeswith electric trim, adds a KR87 ADF system and upgrades the nav-selector panel to a selector/annunciator, as required for certification of a GPS for IFR approaches.
Cessna also offers a $3,200 built-in floatplane kit that adds four hoisting rings installed in the cabin roof, a V-brace for the one-piece windshield and reinforcement of the fuselage float-attachment points.
You can add leather to the seats for an extra $4,000; an electrically heated propeller for $4,580; a 0.45m3 (16ft3), 136kg (300lb)-capacity cargo pod for $6,950; and oversize wheels, tyres and gear fairings for $2,500. There is no charge for a utility interior kit that finishes the aircraft out as a small freighter, and no charge to exchange the standard fabric seats for vinyl.
Cessna resurrected the 206 for much the same reasons as it did the 172 and 182: it has a proven record and remains in demand with its fans. So is the Stationair a "perfect aircraft"? No. Is it a well-rounded, versatile machine? Yes. As it was, so it is again - better in some aspects, and in others not up to its potential.
The Stationair still has room for improvement. The engine change would have been better, if only in sound; Unison's electronic ignition system would cut engine fuel consumption; and visibility from behind the 206's big wing may still be the worst in any Cessna single.
But with more space, more load capability and slightly more speed than the 182, and handling closer to the 172, the Stationair should fare as well in the market as it did before. Like the other models Cessna has resurrected, the Stationair loses a few kilos of load to the older 206s. That is the price you pay for improvements like dual-pump vacuum systems, six-place belts with inertial-reel harnesses, sound insulation and heavier, energy-absorbing seats.
Other aircraft in the price range offer more in speed and cruise efficiency, but tend to lack the payload, cabin volume and operational flexibility - and the ability to use unimproved runways, water on floats or snow on skis. The future looks good for the 206, particularly as the orderbook is as balanced between export and domestic US sales as the 206 is itself in personality.
Source: Flight International
