C182RG vs Cherokee 6/300 for big guy

G

GAITAPilot1

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
6
Location
Roseville, CA
Display Name
Display name:
GAITAPilot1
I want to first thank everyone in advance for any responses. I am 6'5" 300lbs. I am looking to fly my wife and two kids around the country, literally, as a way to see the country. I am looking at the Cherokee 6/300 due to the decent speed and great useful load. I am also looking at the 182RG. I know the maintenance costs will be higher on the RG but so will insurance on the 6. This will be my first purchase so all feedback is greatly appreciated because I have read the nightmare stories. Lastly if anyone knows of a reputable broker for a west coast buyer, I would greatly appreciate it.
 
Payload wise, the Six is going to be better. Room wise in the front-office, the 182 is hard to beat.

Otoh, in the Six, your wife would probably sit in the back with the kids leaving you maneuvering room up front. In a 182RG, she (or one of the kids) would have to travel up front with you.

If you are thinking about 182 vs Six, take a look at 205s and 206s. The 206 has a driver side door and you would have 2 back rows for the pax.
 
Lots of big guys fly around comfortably in Cessnas, so don't immediately think you must buy something else based on your size. With the seat-backs offset, which is simple in Cessnas with their long seat rails, shoulder room and girth aren't a significant problem. Cessna probably has more head room as well, especially if equipped with articulating seats that are fairly common or available at any junkyard.

You may also find that the climb-drop-scrooch, reach routine required for mounting the 6 is more trouble and effort than it's worth. I don't particularly lke any of the airplanes with that configuration, and I'm a couple inches shorter and ~70# less heft.

Spend some ramp time with each airplane, checking out the way the planes are built and configured. The 6 has pax door on left but pilot door on right, so it's not particularly easy to work with insofar as loading is concerned. Forward bag door is on right side as well.

Some people like club seating, some don't. I thought my family would like it when we flew an A-36, but they hated it and said it was worse than a kids dance recital as a shin-kicking contest.

If you bump into useful load in the RG, check out a 210. More room, better load, better speed. IMO, much better traveling machine than either of those you mentioned and same price range and cost to own/op.
 
Hey GaitaPilot, Welcome to the POA!

Your plan of flying around the country with your family sounds like a lot of fun... and you've come to the right place-- you'll get a lot of good info here!

Keep us posted!
 
I hate to bring up the High Wing vs Low Wing thing, but if you are flying the family around the country to see it, I would think everyone would see more in the High Wing.
 
I think the 182RG would be better for him, especially having a pilots door and not needing to do the slide across, but with the family to cross country he'll get pretty limited, the Cherokee 6 would serve him better. A Cessna 206 or 207 would be more optimal, but the prices double+.
 
stagecoachco said:
I hate to bring up the High Wing vs Low Wing thing, but if you are flying the family around the country to see it, I would think everyone would see more in the High Wing.
Click to expand...

Passenger door in the Six is aft of the wing, with club seating the second and third row pax have a very good view. Piper twins first row: not so much.
 
Depends on how he/they want to do it. If long legs and "wow, look at that!" while looking out the window from 10,000' is the standard, maybe so. If a 2-3 hour leg followed by a day or more at various destinations is the method, the load issues will become an afterthought.

Henning said:
I think the 182RG would be better for him, especially having a pilots door and not needing to do the slide across, but with the family to cross country he'll get pretty limited, the Cherokee 6 would serve him better. A Cessna 206 or 207 would be more optimal, but the prices double+.
Click to expand...
 
You are located, of course in the central Valley, between the Sierra and the San Gabriels. I think altitude is of some importance.

Remember that the PA32s are not great above 12,000- of course you can get a lot more out of them by flying LIGHT.

A loaded-up C182 will up to 16,000 without much fuss....the last 4,000 wil take a while, but no fuss.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
Depends on how he/they want to do it. If long legs and "wow, look at that!" while looking out the window from 10,000' is the standard, maybe so. If a 2-3 hour leg followed by a day or more at various destinations is the method, the load issues will become an afterthought.
Click to expand...


True true, he was talking about long trips and most people climb out for those to take advantage of leaning and TAS though. There's also the likelyhood that if dad is 300lbs, the rest of the family is also going to be heavier than designer standards.
 
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Wouldn't that depend on whether they are 6 and 4 vs. 16 and 14? Or boys vs girls?

PS: I understand why you're single. If you told my wife that my weight is in any way proportional to hers, she would put you out of your misery with one well-placed hit with a skillet.

Henning said:
There's also the likelyhood that if dad is 300lbs, the rest of the family is also going to be heavier than designer standards.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Wouldn't that depend on whether they are 6 and 4 vs. 16 and 14? Or boys vs girls?

PS: I understand why you're single. If you told my wife that my weight is in any way proportional to hers, she would put you out of your misery with one well-placed hit with a skillet.
Click to expand...


LOL, yeah I know it's not a 'for sure' thing, but the odds are good, so without evidence to the contrary, it's safer when figuring requirements to go on the heavy side.
 
Only in your warped world of thought process.

Henning said:
LOL, yeah I know it's not a 'for sure' thing, but the odds are good, so without evidence to the contrary, it's safer when figuring requirements to go on the heavy side.
Click to expand...
 
My advice. Put your family in each and see which they prefer. Have them get in and out, sit for a while, etc.

They both fly just like airplanes. The 182RG will probably be more efficient (more speed on less fuel), the Cherokee 6 won't have landing gear issues to worry about. Maintenance-wise they'll probably be similar if they're assumed to be in good shape.
 
TMetzinger said:
My advice. Put your family in each and see which they prefer. Have them get in and out, sit for a while, etc.
Click to expand...

That's really the long and short of it. All the other differences between like capability planes are going to have like costs and like block times. There are handling differences between them but they are completely insignificant to the ability of the plane.

The main thing you want to find is the plane that your family wants to get in. That is the plane that will provide your best value because it will see far more use.
 
For summer flying in TX, the winner is the one with the air conditioner.
 
I think you need a twin.


:devil: :popcorn:
 
Happy Easter and thank you to all of you for your input. I will now look into the 210 as well because I would like to fly into Tahoe, and the peaks around the airport are pretty high. Yes I am 6'5" but my wife is 5'2" and 120, son 10 and 80lbs and daughter 4 and 40 lbs. They are way more average than their biggun' father. lol I was worried about the retrac gear but it sounds like a maintenance fee that will just have to be dealt with if I want altitude and performance. I am also going to be an Angel pilot so those flights will most likely be myself and whoever is being flown. But when that is not happening I would like to load up fuel, my wife and kids and enough luggage for a weekend somewhere. The nightmare stories of uneducated buyers really freaks me out so I hope to find a good reputable broker who is a buyer advocate and not just looking for a buck. I don't mind paying a fee as long as I get a good solid plane that I won't grow out of. Thank you all again and I'll keep checking in on this and letting you all know how it goes! Have a great day!
 
Anthony said:
I think you need a twin.


:devil: :popcorn:
Click to expand...

:idea::idea::idea:
beech_18.jpg

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Anthony I would love a twin but aside from the cost of the plane, I have been told that the per hour cost will be about $350 for a Baron and maybe a bit less for something like a 310. But if you have better data and accurate costs, I'm completely open to a twin. Thanks!
 
GAITAPilot1 said:
Anthony I would love a twin but aside from the cost of the plane, I have been told that the per hour cost will be about $350 for a Baron and maybe a bit less for something like a 310. But if you have better data and accurate costs, I'm completely open to a twin. Thanks!
Click to expand...

I'd tell you my 310 actual costs, but nobody believes it. All it takes is discipline, the discipline to go slow (which is still faster than most HP singles).
 
GAITAPilot1 said:
Anthony I would love a twin but aside from the cost of the plane, I have been told that the per hour cost will be about $350 for a Baron and maybe a bit less for something like a 310. But if you have better data and accurate costs, I'm completely open to a twin. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Twins are going to be in the $350 per hour and up range, if you add it all up, especially with $6.00+ avgas. 25-30 GPH multiply fuel cost by 3 and that will give you a pretty good idea of operating costs. Put the family in all the types you are considering, the 182 RG is pretty comfortable for big guys, I have a 182 that my son, 6'3 220 and I, 6'0 280 fly together all the time. The low wing airplanes are more difficult to enter and exit, especially for bigger guys.;)
 
If you're open to sending me a private message or an email to cunninghamsteveng@yahoo.com I'll listen for sure. The ins and outs of the plane, what to look for equipment wise, what insurance costs are like due to the notorious landing gear issues (I'm sure this also comes into the discipline part). I love the 310 and would gladly purchase one.
 
GAITAPilot1 said:
I want to first thank everyone in advance for any responses. I am 6'5" 300lbs. I am looking to fly my wife and two kids around the country, literally, as a way to see the country. I am looking at the Cherokee 6/300 due to the decent speed and great useful load. I am also looking at the 182RG. I know the maintenance costs will be higher on the RG but so will insurance on the 6. This will be my first purchase so all feedback is greatly appreciated because I have read the nightmare stories. Lastly if anyone knows of a reputable broker for a west coast buyer, I would greatly appreciate it.
Click to expand...

I would go for a Turbo C206. Forget about the RG--you need altitude out west, not retract. You need room and a C206 has a lot of it, and a lot of useful load.
 
Henning said:
I'd tell you my 310 actual costs, but nobody believes it. All it takes is discipline, the discipline to go slow (which is still faster than most HP singles).
Click to expand...


It also helps being an A&P, and doing your own maintenance.
 
GAITAPilot1 said:
Anthony I would love a twin but aside from the cost of the plane, I have been told that the per hour cost will be about $350 for a Baron and maybe a bit less for something like a 310. But if you have better data and accurate costs, I'm completely open to a twin. Thanks!
Click to expand...


I was being a bit facetious, but if you buy it right, which right now many twins are priced right, you might be at least looking down that road.

There are many twin experts here, that can give you a range or OpEx which you can apply to your financial model, and see if the potential acquisition cost "savings" can offset future ESTIMATED OpEx. I emphasize estimated due to the maintenance wild card. You've got almost two of everything with a twin, so twice the potential headaches.
 
Anthony said:
I was being a bit facetious, but if you buy it right, which right now many twins are priced right, you might be at least looking down that road.

There are many twin experts here, that can give you a range or OpEx which you can apply to your financial model, and see if the potential acquisition cost "savings" can offset future ESTIMATED OpEx. I emphasize estimated due to the maintenance wild card. You've got almost two of everything with a twin, so twice the potential headaches.
Click to expand...
True, while any airplane can hand you a very expensive surprise at anytime a twin can surprise you twice as often.:yikes: You can fly a twin relatively cheap, sometimes and sometimes they will eat your lunch and dinner! They will average out more than double the cost of a similar single.;)
Estimated costs are just that estimated, your's could end up a little less or a whole lot more, Cessna twin torque tubes are $6K for a pair, plus installation!:mad2: pretty common the replace them on the electric gear airplanes after 3-4000 hours.:rolleyes:
 
N747JB said:
Twins are going to be in the $350 per hour and up range, if you add it all up, especially with $6.00+ avgas. 25-30 GPH multiply fuel cost by 3 and that will give you a pretty good idea of operating costs. Put the family in all the types you are considering, the 182 RG is pretty comfortable for big guys, I have a 182 that my son, 6'3 220 and I, 6'0 280 fly together all the time. The low wing airplanes are more difficult to enter and exit, especially for bigger guys.;)
Click to expand...
I'm in the $250/hr range.....Seneca II.
 
GAITAPilot1 said:
If you're open to sending me a private message or an email to cunninghamsteveng@yahoo.com I'll listen for sure. The ins and outs of the plane, what to look for equipment wise, what insurance costs are like due to the notorious landing gear issues (I'm sure this also comes into the discipline part). I love the 310 and would gladly purchase one.
Click to expand...

The first thing you look for regardless the plane you're looking for is airframe condition. Airframes repairs are expensive and time consuming, typically small repairs = months in the shop. The best part about them is that you never see a dime back out of them and can actually devalue/make it harder to sell the plane.

Engine's value pretty much prorate from cost to core (typically $7500) with the install cost being a dead loss. Avionics take your pick, if I was going to fly IFR unpaid again I would not do it without SVT, and that's just my life at risk. If I had a family it would be more so.
 
Henning said:
I was going to fly IFR unpaid again I would not do it without SVT, and that's just my life at risk. If I had a family it would be more so.
Click to expand...

If you stay proficient there is nothing unsafe or hard about flying an airplane with a standard 6-pack in the clouds. Pilots have been doing it for years. Throw in a decent GPS for situational awareness.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
If you stay proficient there is nothing unsafe or hard about flying an airplane with a standard 6-pack in the clouds. Pilots have been doing it for years. Throw in a decent GPS for situational awareness.
Click to expand...


Sorry, no. Proficiency does not equal the advantages SVT provides, not close. Besides that, there are very few people not flying for a living that actually stay proficient. I'd say if you aren't in actual or under the hood at least 100hrs a year, it is impossible to remain fully proficient. Now, even a fully proficient pilot if bling folded will take 10 times as long to take in the information and make an assessment than with SVT. SVT there is no instrument interpretation to be done because it supplies the information in the format we've seen thing since we first opened our eyes, it requires no conscious thought. As for flying around big terrain, nothing gives the warm fuzzies like seeing where it is.
 
And you have sufficient history and maintenance cycles to provide credible information, as opposed to the SWAG's and puff from others.

bbchien said:
I'm in the $250/hr range.....Seneca II.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top