A REAL 6 seater

flyingpreacher

flyingpreacher

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
495
Location
KIPT
Display Name
Display name:
flyingpreacher
One of the things that has drawn my attention to the Vans RV-10 is its claim to be a REAL 4 person aircraft, that is being able to hold full fuel, 4 adults, plus some baggage. I have also read through some threads that if you want to take 4 adults, you should just buy a Cherokee 6 or something of that sort, so I got to thinking, what if I have a family of 4 and want to take a friend or two along? Now I need a six seater.

So what 6 seater could hold full fuel, 6 adults, plus a bit of baggage? Or do I have to upgrade to a cabin class cruiser for that?

Since I haven’t even gotten started on my 10, sell me on the plane after that!
 
The older Cherokee Six 300s will carry six full size adults and their bags, or seven with the extra seat. The club seating and huge doors make it easy.

Cessna 205 and 206s can handle the weight, but require gymnastics and body folding to get in the back seats.
 
My Lance has 1520 useful. Full fuel is 600 lbs. That's about six hours worth. A more reasonable 4 (3 with reserve) hours is about 360.
That leaves 1160. 100lbs baggage, and you're at 960.
So if your average adult is 160lbs or less, you're good to go.
I know a few adults under 160, but not many. I'd struggle to find six lol.
Leg room will also be an issue.
I have seen early Sixes with 1600lb+ useful loads.
To get a bigger cabin, you're looking at a 400 class Cessna, Twin Commander, Navajo.
310 is about the same size with only one door. Seneca is the same cabin, Baron/Bonanza smaller. 210 also smaller.
A 207 is bigger, but rare and not much more useful load. Gipps Airvan...also rare. Two of the ugliest airplanes ever built.
 
IK04 said:
Cessna 205 and 206s can handle the weight, but require gymnastics and body folding to get in the back seats.
Click to expand...
That clam door or door in rear (P206/205) means no gymnastics required unless you're talking people over 6' or big, chunky in the back.

If you want to talk gymnastics, Aztec takes the cake. It will hold 6 fat people no problem and still have load to spare. One door, though.
 
IK04 said:
The older Cherokee Six 300s will carry six full size adults and their bags, or seven with the extra seat. The club seating and huge doors make it easy.

Cessna 205 and 206s can handle the weight, but require gymnastics and body folding to get in the back seats.
Click to expand...

The P206 and 205 can be hard to get in for the rear seat due to the small door, not so true for the U206s, but an adult friend actually prefers the back seats as being more reclined and comfortable than the middle seats, despite the conventional wisdom that they are only suitable for kids.
 
flyingpreacher said:
One of the things that has drawn my attention to the Vans RV-10 is its claim to be a REAL 4 person aircraft, that is being able to hold full fuel, 4 adults, plus some baggage. I have also read through some threads that if you want to take 4 adults, you should just buy a Cherokee 6 or something of that sort, so I got to thinking, what if I have a family of 4 and want to take a friend or two along? Now I need a six seater.

So what 6 seater could hold full fuel, 6 adults, plus a bit of baggage? Or do I have to upgrade to a cabin class cruiser for that?

Since I haven’t even gotten started on my 10, sell me on the plane after that!
Click to expand...
I don't understand the fascination with carrying full fuel. You load up your people and bags, and as long as you can then carry enough fuel to get to your destination, plus reserves, you're good. The concept of "full seats and fuel" is a carryover from automobiles, and doesn't translate to airplanes.

With the exception of a few light GA models, in general if you could carry full seats (with adults) and fuel, the fuel tanks would be too small. Most airplanes, at all levels from small 2-seaters to airliners, cannot do full seats and fuel. Does this make them not "real X-seater" airplanes? Of course not.

As you get into larger airplanes, you need to get out of the mindset of always filling the tanks. That's not a reasonable expectation. You put on what you need given the load you're carrying and the distance you're flying.
 
Last edited:
I owned a c206 for 40 years and stopped calculating weight and balance unless common sense suggested it might be a problem. It never was and I usually flew with full fuel in the long range tanks.
 
I’m lucky that most of the six people I usually carry are small. I’m the biggest one, and I’m “FAA average”.
 
RussR said:
I don't understand the fascination with carrying full fuel. You load up your people and bags, and as long as you can then carry enough fuel to get to your destination, plus reserves, you're good. The concept of "full seats and fuel" is a carryover from automobiles, and doesn't translate to airplanes.
Click to expand...
true enough, but I think there's a little sumthin' to be said for full tanks. There's certainty in it.

The second best is "to the tabs", if so equipped. You KNOW how much you've got.

But for any other level.... Do you really have that many gallons? Do you trust the gauges or dipstick? How precise is it really? How out of level is it when you dipped? How do you know?

....and then there's the other can of worms of having to offload fuel if you have too much for the load you want to take today.

Full fuel is just easier.
 
RussR said:
I don't understand the fascination with carrying full fuel. You load up your people and bags, and as long as you can then carry enough fuel to get to your destination, plus reserves, you're good. The concept of "full seats and fuel" is a carryover from automobiles, and doesn't translate to airplanes.

With the exception of a few light GA models, in general if you could carry full seats (with adults) and fuel, the fuel tanks would be too small. Most airplanes, at all levels from small 2-seaters to airliners, cannot do full seats and fuel. Does this make them not "real X-seater" airplanes? Of course not.

As you get into larger airplanes, you need to get out of the mindset of always filling the tanks. That's not a reasonable expectation. You put on what you need given the load you're carrying and the distance you're flying.
Click to expand...
Me and my 5 friends want to go further than our bladders can handle!
 
Brad W said:
true enough, but I think there's a little sumthin' to be said for full tanks. There's certainty in it.

The second best is "to the tabs", if so equipped. You KNOW how much you've got.

But for any other level.... Do you really have that many gallons? Do you trust the gauges or dipstick? How precise is it really? How out of level is it when you dipped? How do you know?
Click to expand...
Tabs aren’t any more certain than a dipstick for exactly the reasons you noted with the dipstick PLUS how do you know that the tab hasn’t been bent to a position that makes it inaccurate.

Then, of course, “full” on a Baron, for example, can be as much as 20 gallons short.

Bottom line, whatever method you use, it’s your responsibility to ensure its accuracy. Which is pretty easy to do, quite frankly.
 
Frankly I don't have 6 people I enjoy flying with. I've done it but had to put the audio panel on isolate to function.
 
RussR said:
I don't understand the fascination with carrying full fuel. You load up your people and bags, and as long as you can then carry enough fuel to get to your destination, plus reserves, you're good. The concept of "full seats and fuel" is a carryover from automobiles, and doesn't translate to airplanes.

With the exception of a few light GA models, in general if you could carry full seats (with adults) and fuel, the fuel tanks would be too small. Most airplanes, at all levels from small 2-seaters to airliners, cannot do full seats and fuel. Does this make them not "real X-seater" airplanes? Of course not.

As you get into larger airplanes, you need to get out of the mindset of always filling the tanks. That's not a reasonable expectation. You put on what you need given the load you're carrying and the distance you're flying.
Click to expand...
I think if you can fill the tanks and your seats, your tanks are too small.
 
Old97 said:
I think if you can fill the tanks and your seats, your tanks are too small.
Click to expand...
In general I agree, but there are a few notable exceptions. For example, I think some models of the 182 you can fill with adults and fuel and fly for 5 or 6 hours. That does seem sufficient.

You could also word this other way, that if you can't fill seats and fuel, you have too many seats...
 
We need a poll. How many here (say, over 45) can comfortably go more than 3 hours? I start getting rigor mortis at about two hours. I know some planes are more comfortable than others, not much relief from chair movement allowing one to stretch, if you don’t have autopilot etc
 
Randomskylane said:
We need a poll. How many here (say, over 45) can comfortably go more than 3 hours? I start getting rigor mortis at about two hours. I know some planes are more comfortable than others, not much relief from chair movement allowing one to stretch, if you don’t have autopilot etc
Click to expand...
I’m not in your target age group (35) but even for me, 3.5 hrs is getting long. TBH, that’s one of the other things I like about the RV10. I can get further in less time than in my 172.
 
I actually wish Vans made like piper and stretched the Rv10. Then put the ie2 up front.

We're talking make believe money right?
 
RussR said:
I don't understand the fascination with carrying full fuel. You load up your people and bags, and as long as you can then carry enough fuel to get to your destination, plus reserves, you're good.
Click to expand...
What if your hobby is airplane camping at dirt strips that don't have a fuelling station?
 
I like the idea of purchasing a piper Navajo money permitting.
 
Tankering fuel leaves options, in the air and at port when fuel is $3 or more per gallon (think Signature or Atlantic).

With bladders, we are advised to keep them full, lest rubber life is reduced by not keeping it moist with fuel. However, some of us can’t predict the next flight “mission” and it limits options for pop-up ideas.

Oh the worldly dilemma…
 
asicer said:
What if your hobby is airplane camping at dirt strips that don't have a fuelling station?
Click to expand...
You’re often going to be weight-limited for takeoff anyway, so a short(er) leg to somplace where fuel is available is pretty normal regardless.
 
flyingpreacher said:
…. I got to thinking, what if I have a family of 4 and want to take a friend or two along? Now I need a six seater.
Click to expand...
You know how I know this is a hypothetical? When you get to a family of four you never want to take both kids and a friend for each because the stars of availability and parental permission won’t align.

The closes we’ve come is us, grown son and wife on a trip. If a grandkid comes along, it’s neat to think about taking off, picking them up along the way, and heading to Destin, but the logistics just won’t work out.
 
TCABM said:
You know how I know this is a hypothetical? When you get to a family of four you never want to take both kids and a friend for each because the stars of availability and parental permission won’t align.

The closes we’ve come is us, grown son and wife on a trip. If a grandkid comes along, it’s neat to think about taking off, picking them up along the way, and heading to Destin, but the logistics just won’t work out.
Click to expand...
You’re probably right. Right now, it’s my wife and I with our 6 month old son, so you’re right: extremely hypothetical.
 
flyingpreacher said:
You’re probably right. Right now, it’s my wife and I with our 6 month old son, so you’re right: extremely hypothetical.
Click to expand...

The RV-10 is likely all you’ll ever need, but a Comanche would fill the squares for six seats.
 
Our 310 has six seats and a UL a bit over 2,000. The comfort level of the third row seats for adults limits duration, so you don’t need full fuel on any leg with full seats. I have done long legs with full seats, but 3 of the occupants were aged 3 to 9. If I load 6 x 200 lb people I have room for 800 lbs fuel, which isn’t quite full tanks but close. 130 gallons is enough for 4.5 hours plus IFR reserves. For ease at the gas pump, leave the aux tanks empty and fill the mains for 100 gallons, or 3.2 hours plus IFR reserves. And that gets you a budget of 230 lbs per seat.

I personally tanker a lot of gas around because extra gas means more options to divert and I rarely need so many seats. But if I go somewhere with five adults, I just have to run it like an airline and spend some more time planning my fuel needs.
 
The real thing you sound be interested in an aircraft is a range payload graph. How far can you go with a certain weight onboard. As you go higher up the food chain, fuel gauges become accurate, so you don't have to top or tab to know fuel onboard. If you have a plane that holds a lot of fuel, unnecessarily filling the tanks worsens every aspect of aircraft performance such as take off and landing distance, climb rate, cruise speed, stall speed, and fuel burn. So best to carry trip fuel and adequate reserve fuel for the trip, but extra fuel is just leaving performance on the table.
 
I like full fuel when flying IFR. So many times Chicago routed me to nomans land and back wasting time. But other than that I’m fine with it.

3 hours and a toilet and stretch break is ideal.
 
TCABM said:
You know how I know this is a hypothetical? When you get to a family of four you never want to take both kids and a friend for each because the stars of availability and parental permission won’t align.
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention that. My first ever GA flight was when I was in middle school with a friend's family of 5 where the dad owned a T210. It was ~1600nm each way.
RussR said:
You often go airplane camping with 4 people in a 4 seater or 6 in a 6?
Click to expand...
I've gone 4 in a 4 but not 6 in a 6.
 
I’ve always thought stretching an rv-10 for 6 seats would compete nicely against the a36 bonanza with the benefits of being an experimental. I’m sure the idea will get ripped apart here though.
 
Randomskylane said:
We need a poll. How many here (say, over 45) can comfortably go more than 3 hours? I start getting rigor mortis at about two hours. I know some planes are more comfortable than others, not much relief from chair movement allowing one to stretch, if you don’t have autopilot etc
Click to expand...
I can go 5 hours, as long as I have a snack and some way to pee… all good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top