Of these three which one is best. Tell me about performance, load, reliability, cost of operation, short field and bush flying capability ect.

The 206 is the gold standard in our neck of the woods in terms of commercial operations into the backcountry... usually to deliver hunters, rafters and supplies to the various lodges.

207's look great but I've only seen one available.

Would help to know more about your mission. How far? How many pax and what are you carrying?

I've flown both C206 and Cher Six-300. The Six-300 is going to do 140-145kts vs 130-135 kts on the C206. Fuel burn will be similar in the 15-17 gph range.

UL will be highest in the Six-300. Mine had 1450 lbs UL. The loading flexibility in the Six I find to be much better with the nose compartment which is a game changer for hauling people / stuff. The C206 back row of seats are about useless for anything but very small children and you cannot easily access the baggage area behind those seats. If you take the aft row of seats out, you've got a VERY roomy 4 seater with ample baggage space in the back.

You can land either on short strips but the 206 may have a slight advantage. I regularly flew the Six on less than 3,000 strips no problem even fully loaded.

Downward visibility is of course going to be best on the C206, making it nice for scenic backcountry trips.

The (4) separate fuel tanks in the Six is a PITA at first but once you get the hang of it it's not a big deal.

The 207 is so good that most are 135 in Alaska with 35,000 hrs on them.

I had a late model Turbo 206 that was trouble free. Put the Flint tips on it and the UL (I had AC and all the bells and whistles) is around 1,380. I would regularly cruise at 150 KTAS in the high singles/low teens. Lots of gas, though. Around 18-19 GPH. I would make the analogy, as many have before, it's an oversized 172. I miss it when I am trying to fit enough gas to carry four people any distance in my 182.

The service ceiling is 27,000 feet if your mission requires airdrops to upper camps at Mt. Everest.

Finally, and I personally think it matters, it's the only one of the three you mentioned that's still in production.

When I had my 182 I started looking at 206's. There are two types, the U206 with the big door in the back but no passenger door and the P206 with two normal front doors and a smaller but still sizable rear door. The P206's are not that desirable and will always be cheaper.
Also know that like the 182 the 206 have large and small tails. I forget the year they went to the big tail but you don't want the small tail. When you hear talk of folks putting weight in the baggage area so they can use full flaps you are listening to folks with the small tail. The large tail does not need that in either the 182 or 206. I was very disappointed in the 206 when I got to fly one. It gets off the runway in about the same distance as a 182. I was expecting a good rate of climb, it is rather poor. The only thing a 206 does well is carry a load. If you need that then you want a 206.

My mission is a family of 5 (we are all small), in and out of a 2000ft grass strip with lots of hunting, fishing and camping gear with 4 hours of fuel. I would like to be able to land on grass, dirt, gravel ect without much concern. It would also like to use the plane to teach my children to fly when they are ready. I really like the 207 but there are just not any available but what a great plane with those rear seats removed.

I have a little time in a turbo 206 and Lance. I hated the Lance and thought the 206 flew like a 182. I am really interested in the comparison with the 207 v six 300.

Below is the takeoff performance chart for the Six-300. It can easily be landed in less than 1,500 ft. Takeoff perf is pretty good but depends on what obstacles you have and DA.

With 5 pax and any amount of baggage, I cannot even begin to imagine doing that in a C206. Cher6-300 wins in that comparison. I don't know much about C207 but sounds like they are going to be a hard find.

206 better for weight carrying and rough fields. The Cherokee cabin is much more comfortable for passengers and the front baggage area is a must have also.

I owned a TU206G with Sierra extended bladders (139 gallons), turbocharged, belly pod, club seating, G500 / GTN750, Robertson STOL... great airplane. Me, a buddy, of our sons loaded up hiking gear... you tube below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18ivNsVpkNM

My plane was heavy with mods. I never pushed that big bore turbo continental very hard... often flew at 26", 2400 RPM at 8-10'k feet and got 141 TAS, usually heavily loaded. I ran 100F RoP so that was 18.9 to 19.4 gph.

It was a trouble free plane, solid, easy to fly but had to keep the fuel coming to keep the CHT's down during climb out. Club seating in the 206, if you can find it, was very comfortable for passengers. Very roomy both up front and in back.

Two other things,

My 182 does seem to outclimb the 206, but I had 65 hours TT when I moved to the 206 and now that I am slightly more experienced and not so far behind the airplane that I can note power settings and watch trends. On paper they are supposed to climb roughly the same.

Supposedly the 2015 206 is getting club seating, but like much of Cessna's not-jets lately, it could be vaporware. The pictures made it look awesome and I wish someone would STC rails to mount the center seats in the 206 backwards for rear club seating.

Hint to anyone out there in the STC business. Cessna has delivered a lot of six place airplanes.

It really depends on your mission.

http://www.airport-data.com/images/airc ... 805896.jpg

An old friend from the 80s, it was crashd and rebuilt.

The 207 is the ultimate for hauling people and stuff.

It has a left and right door up front and a big door in back (that extended flaps don't block) with a nose baggage compartment.

The the seats all fit in the back leaving lots of room for cargo.

As another poster said:

Most are used by air taxis, and have been for their lives.

Cherokee 6 has the nose baggage compartment.

The 206 handles nice but the flap blocks the rear door when it's extended.

Less room than a Cherokee 6.

Cessna 206G or TU206G with Flint Tip Tanks (200lbs gros weight increase to 3,800lbs) and Robertson STOL. You will really want a STOL kit of some kind for such a short grass strip at heavy weights. The tip tanks increase lift as well.

A Cessna Turbo 210N with would be another option, 4,000 lbs max gross, with RSTOL and perhaps Flint Tips (more lift but no gross weight increase). You can get a FIKI model while you're at it for not much more money.

The Cessna 210 landing gear is very strong. See YouTube videos of rough field landings in Africa.

-Pascal

The PA32-260 is actually better on UL, some of the older ones are up to 1550. For a -260 with a full load, better bring a long runway and patience.

The C206 is the standard for backcountry work worldwide. All six seats are usable. They are used daily here to haul people and supplies and heading out they are almost always all seats filled plus full cargo.

I have often flown along in my friends C206 and I hate the fact that the copilot has no door in the most common model (U206).