Two Cessna load-haulers: the big-door 206 Stationair built for payload and access against the lighter, cheaper-to-run 182 Skylane.
The 206 earns its higher burden only when its doors, cabin volume and useful load are used. It carries awkward equipment and additional occupants in combinations the 182 cannot accept, which is why commercial and utility operators tolerate its thirst. The 182 is faster on these data, travels farther, needs less runway and covers the common family mission with less cost and complexity. Do not buy reserve capacity for one imagined trip a year. Measure the largest recurring load and how it enters the aircraft; if it fits a Skylane, the 182 is the better ownership decision, and the rare oversized mission can be solved another way.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
| Decision factor | Cessna 206H StationairView aircraft profile | Cessna 182T SkylaneView aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2008 | 2023 |
| Estimated purchase | €523k | €580k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €53k | €43k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €787k | €797k |
| Cruise speed | 142 kt | 145 kt |
| Advertised range | 730 nm | 915 nm |
| Seats | 6 | 4 |
| Realistic payload | 457 kg | 365 kg |
| Runway need | 570 m | 461 m |
| Landing gear | Fixed tricycle | Fixed tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | None beyond the certificate | None beyond the certificate |
| Data confidence | Normalized for direct comparison | Normalized for direct comparison |
| Main trade-off | Excellent doors, cabin and payload, but fuel burn and high acquisition prices reduce private-use economics. | A strong real-world four-seat traveller, but fuel burn and nose-heavy handling demand more budget and discipline than a 172. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Cessna 206H Stationair is the cheaper of the two at every utilisation from zero to 300 hours a year, on purchase and running cost together, so there is no break-even point to find. That is worth knowing plainly: on cost alone this is not a trade-off, and the case for the other aircraft has to be made on mission, cabin, speed or access rather than on eventual savings.
| Five-year cash, including purchase | Cessna 206H Stationair | Cessna 182T Skylane | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $801k (€742k) | $811k (€751k) | $10k (€9k) to Cessna 206H Stationair |
| 100 h / year | $874k (€810k) | $886k (€820k) | $11k (€11k) to Cessna 206H Stationair |
| 200 h / year | $996k (€922k) | $1.01m (€935k) | $14k (€13k) to Cessna 206H Stationair |
The gap widens as utilisation rises, which is the part a headline price comparison hides. Every figure uses the same planning model as the rest of the site: indicative market prices, a fixed annual base and a direct hourly cost, before financing, depreciation and tax.
Advertised range is a still-air, best-case number. With 4 people aboard and realistic reserves, plan on about 489 nm from the Cessna 206H Stationair against 613 nm from the Cessna 182T Skylane. On a return trip without refuelling, that is the radius that decides which destinations are on the list at all.
Against the 28,815 airports in the PlaneFit database that publish a runway length, the Cessna 206H Stationair has enough runway at 25,402 of them and the Cessna 182T Skylane at 27,184, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,870 ft and 1,512 ft against the longest runway on the field.
This is a planning comparison, not a statement that any particular operation is legal or advisable. It ignores surface, slope, elevation, temperature, obstacles and how heavily the aircraft is loaded, all of which extend the requirement. It also compares take-off distance only: landing distance is frequently the binding constraint and PlaneFit does not hold approved landing distances, so a field in these counts is not necessarily a field you can get back out of, or into.
Nothing separates them here. Neither carries an endorsement or rating requirement of its own beyond a pilot certificate for the category and class.
Six-seat fixed-gear utility and touring aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: Excellent doors, cabin and payload, but fuel burn and high acquisition prices reduce private-use economics.
Planning snapshot: $565k (€523k) indicative price and $57k (€53k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profileFour-seat high-performance touring and utility aircraft. Its central ownership trade-off is: A strong real-world four-seat traveller, but fuel burn and nose-heavy handling demand more budget and discipline than a 172.
Planning snapshot: $626k (€580k) indicative price and $47k (€43k) annual cash cost at 80 hours.
Read the full aircraft profile