Yeah, but there’s no STC for anything other than the G1000Nxi. I’m not sure I’d hold my breath that there will be, either. It’s a relatively small fleet size, so the economics don’t support Garmin or a 3rd party developing an STC.

If I was in charge of Textron/Cessna piston singles, I would put the 210 cantilever wing on the 206 and find some aerodynamic modifications to make it as fast as possible. Then I’d market it against Cirrus as a six-place, load-hauling beast with decent speed. Screw the parachute.

And in honor of the 421, I’d call it the model 221 “Condor”.

I’m a freakin’ genius.

The 206 wing with struts is used to withstand rough field operations that a cantilever wing on a 210 wouldn't, not to mention the landing gear. For a hauler used in rough conditions, speed is secondary, no point in trying to make it go faster; it would never be the speed of a 210.

That parachute on the Cirrus sold the decision maker in the family, the wives, on the purchase of an airplane, when they might not have otherwise supported buying a plane.

Yeah, but there’s no STC for anything other than the G1000Nxi. I’m not sure I’d hold my breath that there will be, either. It’s a relatively small fleet size, so the economics don’t support Garmin or a 3rd party developing an STC.

They haven’t so far. What makes you think they will in the future?

They haven’t so far. What makes you think they will in the future?

Paul, I get what you're saying, but I don't think the logic is sound and the evidence we have so far is that avionics companies are not interested.

Sure, folks spend six figures on panel upgrades. But only a small fraction of that is the flight display panel. The rest is labor, autopilots, EIS, etc. And Garmin's take from that is even smaller still.

I just looked at the FAA database and there are roughly 1700 G1000 182s. That's small potatoes for Garmin. Some percentage are going to be wrecked before they need an upgrade and some percentage will be flown with obsolete panels absolutely as long as possible.

Maybe Dynon would do it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. They've been slow to add planes to their AML and seem to be focusing on other market segments.

So, back to the OP's needs... Whether you think someone will invest money in developing an STC or not, there's currently no upgrade path. If you're betting whether or not there will be in the future.

Well, nobody interested now because the G1000 is still supported. Besides the G1000 182s are the 172s, T206s and Grand Caravans. That makes a larger market number for Garmin or somebody to support down the road if the G1000 is allowed to go obsolete.

The 206 wing with struts is used to withstand rough field operations that a cantilever wing on a 210 wouldn't, not to mention the landing gear. For a hauler used in rough conditions, speed is secondary, no point in trying to make it go faster; it would never be the speed of a 210.

That parachute on the Cirrus sold the decision maker in the family, the wives, on the purchase of an airplane, when they might not have otherwise supported buying a plane.

I would say it's because Cessna decided to stop making & supporting the retractable gear on the 210.

If you measure the struts (length, chord, and thickness) on a 206 for me, I’ll calculate how much of a speed penalty they impose. I bet it’s 5 knots or less. Also, if they allow the fuselage to be less tall by not putting a spar in the cabin, and if they allow the wing structure to be lighter by not having to resist all the moment at the root, it shrinks the speed advantage even more.

I would say it's because Cessna decided to stop making & supporting the retractable gear on the 210.

Both great airplanes…if you need 6 seats, 206 obviously…I’ve had both,currently own 210 which is by far more expensive to operate,but faster…I would like to trade for either a 206 or 182 because my of my age, insurance is becoming an issue. 182 and 206 prices are too inflated for my liking right now though.

The prices do seem to be inflated, but how much would they come down in a recession? The supply equation wouldn't change except can only get fewer, but if the cost of new planes came down, then probably the used prices would come down.

If you are in the need for a 182 or 206 due to insurance costs, buying now and capturing the insurance premium savings would probably make up for any temporary future decline in airplane prices. My insurance with me soon to be 80 on the '75 182 is $1,100 annual. $1M liability with $100K per passenger, $100K hull. My friend, a couple of years older than me with a 172 RG had to sell because the premiums were going past $2500. Remember ,the number of seats affect premium.

Edit: My hangar neighbor with a 210 says the gear saddles are becoming as rare as hen's teeth because they aren't being made anymore, and there is some hoarding going on.

The 206/207 models have the nose wheel attached to the engine mount. All of the other Cessna nose draggers have the nose wheel attached to the firewall. The latter creates a weakness if they are not flared appropriately causing the strut and engine mount to break if there hard landing on the nose. Possibly not that big of a deal if trained correctly but it something I discuss when checking someone out in a 182. The Pponk'd and 550'd 182s fly super nose heavy especially if there is no ballast in the back seats or baggage compartment. Worse with full flaps. The 206 is more rugged overall and was meant to be used as a workhorse. Most of the fleet of pre H models have been used this way. Occasionally you'll find a gem. Having the double door mod is huge for the 206 for ease of cargo loading. I have seen one particular 206 load 2 motorcycles (250s) in the cargo area (seats removed). Pretty easy loading. I doubt you could do that in an A36.

So if your mission requires something particular for cargo space and you want a rugged solid performer - the 206 isn't a bad airplane but it is hard to find one in good shape now unless you go with one of the newer H models.