4 Seaters to save for?

scarpozzi

scarpozzi

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
47
Display Name
Display name:
SCARPOZZI
I'm 6'4, 235lbs. I'm thinking 4 passengers will be 380lbs front seat and a maximum of 300lbs in the back. Add 160-200lbs of luggage + fuel...what should I be looking for?

I've only flown C152/C172s, so I don't have any low-wing experience...(I'm not opposed). I'm looking to buy maybe in 3-5 years and trying to set my sights on savings goals. I'm not opposed to buying sooner, but would like to put a bunch of cash down and get something nicer or buy new avionics and upgrade something.

Thanks.
 
RyanB said:
Cessna 206 or Piper Lance is where I’d start, but I’ve got to ask...160-200lbs of luggage? That’s a lot of weight.
Click to expand...
Yes. I can do a backpack most of the time for 4 day trips, but am thinking about camping gear...ie. max needs.
 
Sounds like you might want a 6 seater if you need 1,200 lb useful load.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
Cluemeister said:
Sounds like you might want a 6 seater if you need 1,200 lb useful load.
Click to expand...
I want a jet, but I'm poor. I looked at Piper Dakota's and basically figure I need a minimum of 230/235hp would cover the weight. I was trying to avoid a 6 seater based on increased costs.






bt

Btw....this is all goals for financial planning. So it's bang for my buck and that includes cruise speed vs gph burn.
 
I know of a really nice 206 for sale...

https://pilotsafety.org/206

Says sale pending, but worth making contact if you are interested

cr=w:1164,h:582


cr=w:1164,h:582


Avidyne 550/440/AudioPanel/ADS-B In/out
Genesys STEC 55-X AP with GPSS
Aspen PFD & Epic Optix HUD
 
scarpozzi said:
Yes. I can do a backpack most of the time for 4 day trips, but am thinking about camping gear...ie. max needs.
Click to expand...

FYI we go pretty deep on gear when camping and don’t limit ourselves on much, but even carrying 5 gallons of water it’s pretty hard to break much over 150 pounds of gear for four people, two of which are little kids. Weigh your stuff before you make a decision predicated on 200 lbs of gear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
PS if you’re camping with four, if you end up in a four seater, if you don’t max out on weight (there are some 182s that will do it) you will absolutely max out on space. We are typically stuffed to the gills in our 205, and that includes extended baggage.

Not camping, but traveling for Xmas we were like the flying clown car - strollers and pack ‘n plays, presents, packages, boxes and bags [parents - see what I did there? ;)] all spilling out all over the ramp. Big black lab laying on top of gear, unfolding itself out of the baggage compartment. Pretty funny.
 
Last edited:
A 182P or Q model will (just barely) handle the weight, but yeah, you may run out of space if you have that much camping gear. Our full-fuel payload is 812 lbs (182Q, with a paperwork-only STC to increase MGTOW to 3,100 lbs). It might fit, but you'll have to try it to find out. You'd also need to burn fuel off before landing (150 lbs, or about 90 minutes), or depart with less-than full tanks. Range would still be adequate for most situations though.
 
scarpozzi said:
I want a jet, but I'm poor. I looked at Piper Dakota's and basically figure I need a minimum of 230/235hp would cover the weight. I was trying to avoid a 6 seater based on increased costs.
Click to expand...


Lance or Chrokee 6 maintenance won’t differ that much from a Dakota, IMO.

roominess inside is worlds apart
 
No way you are gonna get 200 pounds of luggage and four adults and then use the phrase “bang for buck”.

Just to break the ice, I’ll say Bonanza but definitely an A36 and it’ll cost you.

I agree. 200 pounds is a lot of gear.
 
I'm looking for a 73-77 235 Charger/pathfinder for much the same reason. The Dakota's go for a premium and have a roughly 50lb less useful load. They also qualify for Mogas STC if it's available near you, Dakota is not. The 73-77 have the fuselage stretch that would make carrying 4 adults for any length of time not as cruel and unusual punishment like in the Cherokee.

With that said, you really can find a Lance or a Six for about the same as the Charger/Pathfinder. Maintenance cost wise I'd be willing to bet its pretty negligible. But it also depends aircraft to aircraft. Time, frequency of use, maintenance etc. I wouldn't rule out a 6 if maintenance costs rule out the retractable of the Lance. Still got a 540 the 28-235. Only difference is the 32 is an IO (if it's 300hp) and 28 just an 0... I suppose putting in a new interior would be a couple bucks more but that shouldn't be prohibitive.
 
Last edited:
I'm in a similar boat. I'm nowhere near planning a purchase but me and my wife together are about 500lbs. 90% of the time it would be just us 2 but occasionally may want to take 2 adult kids with us. Probably not much baggage on those trips though. Kids are maybe 325lbs combined so 825lbs in passengers. And on a budget...lol. I'll be watching this thread
 
What is your budget like? And how fast do you want to go?

A G5/G6 SR22 has 1,328 useful and is plenty comfortable both in the front seat and back for tall people .. and you'll be doing 165+ true (depending on altitude and how hard you want to run it.. up in the flight levels you'll be well over 200)
 
Otherwise, yes go with one of the big pipers.. Lance is what I'm thinking. Big, rugged, comfortable.. the back feels like a living room
 
Tantalum said:
What is your budget like? And how fast do you want to go?

A G5/G6 SR22 has 1,328 useful and is plenty comfortable both in the front seat and back for tall people .. and you'll be doing 165+ true (depending on altitude and how hard you want to run it.. up in the flight levels you'll be well over 200)
Click to expand...

What part of “saving for a four seater” and “bang for you buck” screams Cirrus G5/G6 to you, I’m curious lol.

oh, and “camping”.
 
Last edited:
AA5Bman said:
What part of “saving for a four seater” and “bang for you buck” screams Cirrus G5/G6 to you, I’m curious lol.

oh, and “camping”.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'm looking 5+ years out. Maybe a Cirrus will drop in price some time before now and then. I don't have the kind of income to afford a plane outright (I should have picked a more lucrative career or larger city that at least has rentals or more shares available), so I'm starting a savings fund to cover a chunk of the plane and maintenance. I figure I'll fly for 6-10 years and sell back out.

The Pipers look like the best option, and that's what I was leaning toward, but the C182 looks appealing too based on the cost over the C205. High wings just aren't as sexy as low wings.
 
More power to ya - affordability is relative, but a G5/G6 Cirrus is a $600k to $850k airplane used and does no camping whatsoever (on dirt at least, unless you’re a savage). Just sayin’.

I’d seriously be looking at a Cherokee 6 in either the 260 or 300 hp versions. Potentially a Lance or Saratoga, trading off expense for speed. They will say the 260 is underpowered. Take that comment with a grain of salt. They have more room than the 205/206, aren’t high wings if you don’t like high wings, and will go to every destination you could possibly want to go, including every camping/backcountry destination a sane family-man could conceivably be interested in. A lot of people will vocally disagree with that last point and tell you it must be a 185, and they are wrong.

Oh, and you will not have room for your gear if you go with a -235 even if it can lift the weight. I am totally confident in that comment.
 
For camping, if that means flying to grass fields and/or unimproved strips, the 206 is your machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
haha for a minute I forget this was PoA were the right answer is always "Bonanza" and the wrong answer is always "Cirrus" D'OH!

AA5Bman said:
saving
Click to expand...
I have no idea what people's incomes are, but I did preface my question with what his budget was. Most people of various incomes need to save for toys. For some that can be $30K-$50K for an older PA28/150/etc and for others that means $4M+ for a brand.spanking.new.TBM.

AA5Bman said:
bang for you buck
Click to expand...
Over 1,300 useful, comfortable cabin, 180 ktas, excellent support from a solvent company.. sounds like a much better "bang for buck" than a sub 150 knot 60 year old plane riddled with squawks and a dubious support network

AA5Bman said:
oh, and “camping”
Click to expand...
camping in a Cirrus?! Blasphemy. for what it's worth before pandemic we were doing almost monthly camping trips with the SR22
..unloading gear at Oceano.. at 2,325 feet the runway is not an issue for a competent pilot. at max gross with camping gear and 4 adults
upload_2021-1-21_10-15-43.png

..navigating the tiny taxiways at Columbia O22
upload_2021-1-21_10-17-21.png

scarpozzi said:
Maybe a Cirrus will drop in price some time before now and then
Click to expand...
It would be worth an honest shake. There's a G1 SR22 NA I've been flying that has ~1,200 useful.. trues somewhere in the 168-172 range, and they're not million dollar planes, at least not anymore. This one can be yours for $189K https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...model=SR22&listing_id=2390013&s-type=aircraft

With a composite frame you're free of most corrosion issues and the two doors make loading and unloading very easy..
 
scarpozzi said:
The Pipers look like the best option
Click to expand...
The big Pipers are hard to beat, comfortable and not overpriced. There's a guy on YouTube (I think he posts here too) who bought a bargain Cherokee Six and seems to be having a blast with it. If you want to stay under $100K then Piper is the way to go. Save the high wings for the flight schools and commercial ops folks

scarpozzi said:
High wings just aren't as sexy as low wings
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
For what a decent PA32 may cost, it would be cheaper to by an Aztec which will handle the load and space needs. Sure the operating costs are higher, but you'd likely save a significant amount of money on purchase cost versus a similarly-equipped PA32 or C205/206.
 
A 206 with the rear seats removed would take care of everything you want to do. 206 prices are kind of nuts right now, but finding a partner or partners could help make it more financially viable. Who knows, 5 years from now it could be a different story, but 206s are in demand for bush and float plane operations, highway patrol, and other government contractors, so the prices may not budge much. I’ve had one for 6 months and it isn’t the fastest or the prettiest, but it carries a lot of people and bags in relative comfort and has no problem getting in and out of tight strips. I’m about your size, and the 206 and SR22 are about the only piston singles that I’m really comfortable in for 2+ hours. If Cirrus made a six seat single with double doors in the back, I’d buy it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
EdFred said:
If you're landing on a paved runway, you ain't camping.
Click to expand...
Trust me.. I was tempted to take the grass at O22! But one of the few times I listened to the other voice in my head that advised me against it.
 
Tantalum said:
Trust me.. I was tempted to take the grass at O22! But one of the few times I listened to the other voice in my head that advised me against it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd want more that 0.005mm of clearance between the edge of wheel pants and the turf. And I'd want 6" wheels (at least) all the way around.
 
EdFred said:
If you're landing on a paved runway, you ain't camping.
Click to expand...

Cirrus can land on grass. A lot of them do, especially outside the USA. In the USA, we just have so many paved runways and planes which are "tuned" for unimproved fields that it is not well known or discussed.

Tim
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
tspear said:
Cirrus can land on grass. A lot of them do, especially outside the USA. In the USA, we just have so many paved runways and planes which are "tuned" for unimproved fields that it is not well known or discussed.

Tim
Click to expand...

Everyone I know that has one says no way for fear their wheel pants get damaged. And then there's the guy that taxied into the grass here locally and tore his to shreds.
 
EdFred said:
Everyone I know that has one says no way for fear their wheel pants get damaged. And then there's the guy that taxied into the grass here locally and tore his to shreds.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The wheel pants on my RV-6 are extremely low - like 1" or so of clearance from the ground. Never had a problem taxiing or flying off reasonably smooth grass. Even unreasonably smooth a time or two, although I didn't like that much. That said, there are scuff marks on the bottom of the wheel pants from rotten landings and minor bumps like runway and taxiway reflectors. I wonder why Cirrus' pants would be any different?

upload_2021-1-21_11-16-43.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
kyleb said:
Interesting. The wheel pants on my RV-6 are extremely low - like 1" or so of clearance from the ground. Never had a problem taxiing or flying off reasonably smooth grass. Even unreasonably smooth a time or two, although I didn't like that much. That said, there are scuff marks on the bottom of the wheel pants from rotten landings and minor bumps like runway and taxiway reflectors. I wonder why Cirrus' pants would be any different?

View attachment 93397
Click to expand...

Weight and field characteristics
RV6: 1650 Gross
SR22: 3600 Gross (~2300 empty)

Get on something a bit spongy, and get ready for some not so good noises.
 
kyleb said:
Interesting. The wheel pants on my RV-6 are extremely low - like 1" or so of clearance from the ground. Never had a problem taxiing or flying off reasonably smooth grass. Even unreasonably smooth a time or two, although I didn't like that much. That said, there are scuff marks on the bottom of the wheel pants from rotten landings and minor bumps like runway and taxiway reflectors. I wonder why Cirrus' pants would be any different?

View attachment 93397
Click to expand...

A standard size wooden chock at any FBO can crack Cirrus or Diamond wheel pants if you load the plane with the chock in place, and a flat tire will result in shredded carbon and fiberglass. I don’t understand the need to manufacture wheel pants with such tight tolerances.
 
Cervieres said:
I don’t understand the need to manufacture wheel pants with such tight tolerances.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. We have to carry our own little miniature chocks as the FBOs often have ones that are too big and risk damaging the pants. I'm not even talking big rubber jet ones, many of the basic wood blocks that work fine on most GA pistons are too big for the Cirrus

For a fixed gear plane to hit kinds of true airspeeds the Cirrus does I imagine the tight tolerances are aerodynamically driven but I tend to agree, I wonder how much drag an extra inch of clearance would yield. My other gripe is finding the air fill hose.. it's a tough job alone opening the tiny door (or popping the plug out) and having to gently move the plane back and forth a few inches to get the nozzle to line up
 
Tantalum said:
I'm with you. We have to carry our own little miniature chocks as the FBOs often have ones that are too big and risk damaging the pants. I'm not even talking big rubber jet ones, many of the basic wood blocks that work fine on most GA pistons are too big for the Cirrus

For a fixed gear plane to hit kinds of true airspeeds the Cirrus does I imagine the tight tolerances are aerodynamically driven but I tend to agree, I wonder how much drag an extra inch of clearance would yield. My other gripe is finding the air fill hose.. it's a tough job alone opening the tiny door (or popping the plug out) and having to gently move the plane back and forth a few inches to get the nozzle to line up
Click to expand...

Retract FTW!
 
Cervieres said:
A standard size wooden chock at any FBO can crack Cirrus or Diamond wheel pants if you load the plane with the chock in place, and a flat tire will result in shredded carbon and fiberglass. I don’t understand the need to manufacture wheel pants with such tight tolerances.
Click to expand...

A standard size chock won't come close to fitting under the RV's wheelpant, even unloaded. I use 3/4"x3/4" aluminum angle, which I keep in my flyaway toolkit.
 
Tantalum said:
camping in a Cirrus?! Blasphemy. for what it's worth before pandemic we were doing almost monthly camping trips with the SR22
..unloading gear at Oceano.. at 2,325 feet the runway is not an issue for a competent pilot. at max gross with camping gear and 4 adults
View attachment 93393

..navigating the tiny taxiways at Columbia O22
View attachment 93394
Click to expand...

Well, I stand corrected - that is one serious camping machine!

Tantalum said:
It would be worth an honest shake. There's a G1 SR22 NA I've been flying that has ~1,200 useful.. trues somewhere in the 168-172 range, and they're not million dollar planes, at least not anymore. This one can be yours for $189K https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...model=SR22&listing_id=2390013&s-type=aircraft
Click to expand...

Right, but you recommended a G5/G6, not a G1. I agree a G1 might theoretically be in the zone of "budget" aircraft, but G5/G6? Well, for some, I suppose that's a budget aircraft. Like I said, cost is relatively but it's an interesting recommendation to say the least.


EdFred said:
If you're landing on a paved runway, you ain't camping.
Click to expand...

Hahaha. My man...
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
EdFred said:
Everyone I know that has one says no way for fear their wheel pants get damaged. And then there's the guy that taxied into the grass here locally and tore his to shreds.
Click to expand...

Wheel pants on the Cirrus are optional. Assuming I recall correctly, you lose about five knots in cruise if you take them off.
However, you actually see that in the midwest some where they take off the wheel pants to avoid ice/snow issues and also all over Europe, Africa and Australia where there are mostly dirt/grass runways.

In the USA, as a "travel" plane, there just are too many paved runways around to bother accepting the performance hit.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top