Cockpit comfort

CT4ME said:
My W/B sheet shows you could fly with two 175lb'ers, plus 30 gals fuel (5 hrs plus 1 hr reserve), plus 40 lbs baggage. With a 'chute.
Click to expand...
If it were two 175 pounders, that would be great... other than the 40 pound baggage limit. I tip in at over 260. I have not yet seen an LSA that will do what we will want it to do.

The more I look at different aircraft for what I think we'll be doing, the muddier the picture gets -- but only as it applies to piston singles. I've pretty much eliminated twins (WAY too expensive to operate), turbines (WAY too expensive, period) and LSA (just don't carry enough, plus no IFR). And helos, for a variety of reasons.

This is why I'm glad I joined a club...
 
DaleB said:
If it were two 175 pounders, that would be great... other than the 40 pound baggage limit. I tip in at over 260. I have not yet seen an LSA that will do what we will want it to do.

The more I look at different aircraft for what I think we'll be doing, the muddier the picture gets -- but only as it applies to piston singles. I've pretty much eliminated twins (WAY too expensive to operate), turbines (WAY too expensive, period) and LSA (just don't carry enough, plus no IFR). And helos, for a variety of reasons.

This is why I'm glad I joined a club...
Click to expand...
I think you'd be happiest in a Cardinal. Comfort, spacious, decent speed, plenty of useful load, excellent visibility, relatively affordable to maintain.

Damn fine airplane for the money.

See if you can find one to take a flight in for some gas money. I think you'll be sold.
 
It's hard to choose, when you really don't know the mission. Many of my friends have 4 seaters (that can realistically hold two), and they can't remember the last time they flew with 4.
Between the wife and me, we're 385. We can still do 40 lbs luggage and 4+1 hours @120kts. That 25 gals @$3.90/gal. Some on your list couldn't do that... especially at DA 10,000 ft.
 
DaleB said:
If it were two 175 pounders, that would be great... other than the 40 pound baggage limit. I tip in at over 260. I have not yet seen an LSA that will do what we will want it to do.

The more I look at different aircraft for what I think we'll be doing, the muddier the picture gets -- but only as it applies to piston singles. I've pretty much eliminated twins (WAY too expensive to operate), turbines (WAY too expensive, period) and LSA (just don't carry enough, plus no IFR). And helos, for a variety of reasons.

This is why I'm glad I joined a club...
Click to expand...

Another plus for the Apache ^_^
Aggressively LoP I burn 10 to 13gph (total, not per side) depending on how fast I want to go, usually slow. Just did the W/B for 260lb pilot, 200lb right seat, full fuel (for me, 72gal) and that leaves 275lbs for the back seats plus 40lbs for luggage.

Edit: I'll add, this was that operating costs aren't that high. Maintenance costs can be a pain. I'm pretty sure in the next 5 years I'll end up with a new plane which happens to look like an apache, but I bought her old and used.
 
Last edited:
CT4ME said:
It's hard to choose, when you really don't know the mission.
Click to expand...
At least partially true. I know what the planned mission is. Frequent shorter (< 150 mile) X/C, a few longer trips in the 600-800 mile range per year. Punching holes in the sky and $100 hamburgers, sure, some. Eventual IR training.

Some of that depends on how comfortable Wifey gets with the whole flying thing. She's never so much as sat in anything smaller than an ERJ145, other than the time I did coax her into sitting in the right seat of the 172 in the hangar. Funny she said how tiny the airplane is... it's 4 times the size of her car.

She did say the other day she'd go up with me and the instructor (have to check and see if that's legal or not, come to think of it). But we've put a lot of miles on the motorcycle, so I hope she gets used to flying quickly. If not, flogging the club's 172 a couple of times a month will probably do the trick.
 
DaleB said:
She did say the other day she'd go up with me and the instructor (have to check and see if that's legal or not, come to think of it). But we've put a lot of miles on the motorcycle, so I hope she gets used to flying quickly. If not, flogging the club's 172 a couple of times a month will probably do the trick.
Click to expand...

You can bring passengers along in the backseats when your instructor is on board so long as they are okay with it because they are the PIC when you're a student. I've done that quite a bit.
 
I think a 182 with standard range tanks will fit your mission well.

I am a large man. 6' 2" and not quite 300#. I find the 182 to be much roomier than the 172. Even with a 200# buddy right seat there is no elbow rubbing.

I wanted a 177RG in the worst way. But the one I sat in was just not as roomy-feeling as the numbers would seem to indicate. Go sit in one and if you fit then you have your plane. If it is tight, come up to the land of 182s and fly relaxed!
 
Come to ASH and I'll give you a ride in my Cardinal RG. It is a real 140 knot airplane or pull the power back and use less gas. BUT, not all Cardinals are rigged right, some have three bladed prop STCs, and these things were all built by hand so cruise speeds vary. 140 knots true at 7-8k feet is typical for a properly rigged Cardinal RG.

It is very comfortable. I haven't put two in the back seat yet but it is quite wide. The doors are so huge you can load a big guy in the back without even moving the front seats. Unlike the 172 where I always had to move the pilot's seat back to get in the front I hardly move the pilot's seat at all. But, it's not a 182 or a 206! There is a roomy feeling but you need to be careful about weight and balance! Also be wary of an additional caveat of the RG: The baggage area is split in two by a "hump" which is where the main gear goes when retracted. This takes up some baggage space but more than anything else it is awkwardly positioned relative to the door and so it makes it harder to carry large rigid items. Of course, often you can just load it in those giant Cardinal doors and toss it over the back seat.

Browse Cardinal Flyers Online or even subscribe (reasonable yearly fee) to learn more than you will ever care to know about Cardinals. I found mine through the classifieds there.
 
I see you are in Nebraska so perhaps Nashua, NH is a bit far. But I was able to locate a nearby Cardinal owner via the CFO site before I made the decision to search and ultimately purchase the 177RG so I suspect you will have no problems finding a friendly Cardinal flyer near you.
 
Dale, look into a Glastar. A friend just bought one and he is 270 pounds. He and his wife just took a 220 mile XC and did 135 knots on less than 8 gph (320 with CS Prop). The baggage area will hold 250 pounds. They are fast, roomy, climb great, and are good looking. Here's one on Barnstormers.
 
Have you considered a C-130? :) Seriously who ever mentioned mission is right on target. Wayne had a question he asked purchasers a out their mission something like list ever trip you plan to take and then subtract all but one of them or something like that Anyway I don't think you can go wrong with a 182 or a cardinal.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
Dale, look into a Glastar. A friend just bought one and he is 270 pounds. He and his wife just took a 220 mile XC and did 135 knots on less than 8 gph (320 with CS Prop). The baggage area will hold 250 pounds. They are fast, roomy, climb great, and are good looking. Here's one on Barnstormers.
Click to expand...

Why did the Symphony 160 fail if the Glastar was such a fantastic airplane? Not trying to be argumentative--just wondering.

If you're looking for that kind of performance and are willing to buy an airplane of which fewer than 100 (probably closer to 60) were made, the Symphony might be for you. Some are IFR certified, and some have a Power Flow exhaust system that puts cruise up around 133 with a fixed pitch prop. Though I'm not sure how many were ordered with that option before the company went belly up.

Not sure what your price range is, but here's an IFR one asking $92k: http://tinyurl.com/7g4ldyg

And here's another IFR one asking $59k...not sure why so much less. http://tinyurl.com/74hh47m
 
Apache123 said:
You can bring passengers along in the backseats when your instructor is on board so long as they are okay with it because they are the PIC when you're a student. I've done that quite a bit.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: I got some "extra training" at the end of my XC phase, which allowed me to experience flying a rear seat pax at night. New years eve 2010.

I later brought a co worker along for an afternoon/ night flight. Instructor put me under the hood for some of it.
 
jpower said:
Why did the Symphony 160 fail if the Glastar was such a fantastic airplane?
Click to expand...

Don't know, and I've often wondered why myself. Only Symphony negative I remember was about cooling in the climb. I remember them having some financial issues, and management/distributorship issues kept cropping up, but otherwise, it appeared to be a solid airplane, and I sure lusted over them when they first came out. But today, to me, the Glastar is much more valuable than the Symphony simply because one can add non-certificated avionics, keeping it modern forever on the cheap.
 
I have flown all over in my 172 and I consider it fairly comfortable. It's not fast, but that means I can spend more time in the air. I've done 9.5 hours in a day going to Florida, and have had a couple 8 hour flying days in the last week going to Prescott, and then Gastons.
 
DaleB said:
That's because you're roughly half my size.
Click to expand...


Sometimes it is better to make ourselves fit the plane, (i.e. drop some weight) instead of making the plane fit ourselves.

:D
 
DavidWhite said:
I have flown all over in my 172 and I consider it fairly comfortable. It's not fast, but that means I can spend more time in the air. I've done 9.5 hours in a day going to Florida, and have had a couple 8 hour flying days in the last week going to Prescott, and then Gastons.
Click to expand...

I remember that day...:)
 
Anthony said:
Sometimes it is better to make ourselves fit the plane, (i.e. drop some weight) instead of making the plane fit ourselves.

:D
Click to expand...
Yeah, working on that... but I'm also realistic about it. I suspect that even after hitting my target weight I'll still have my left arm pinned against the door. I'll probably find out before it's time to make a buying decision.
 
DavidWhite said:
I have flown all over in my 172 and I consider it fairly comfortable. It's not fast, but that means I can spend more time in the air. I've done 9.5 hours in a day going to Florida, and have had a couple 8 hour flying days in the last week going to Prescott, and then Gastons.
Click to expand...

11.5 to Dallas
/flex

6.5hr legs

/doubleflex
:lol:

I could do it in a 172 solo, add a passenger and my long arms appreciate the extra elbow room
 
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Piper Comanche. It's one of the more comfortable singles out there for bigger folks, and the 250hp version has pretty nice price/performance numbers.
 
It was mentioned in one of the posts Kent, but the OP does not yet have his pp so a Comanche may not be his best bet for a first plane. You are correct it is a darn fine plane though!
 
jpower said:
Why did the Symphony 160 fail if the Glastar was such a fantastic airplane? Not trying to be argumentative--just wondering.

If you're looking for that kind of performance and are willing to buy an airplane of which fewer than 100 (probably closer to 60) were made, the Symphony might be for you. Some are IFR certified, and some have a Power Flow exhaust system that puts cruise up around 133 with a fixed pitch prop. Though I'm not sure how many were ordered with that option before the company went belly up.

Not sure what your price range is, but here's an IFR one asking $92k: http://tinyurl.com/7g4ldyg

And here's another IFR one asking $59k...not sure why so much less. http://tinyurl.com/74hh47m
Click to expand...


That's weird...all of a sudden my fancy TinyURL links won't work. Though I guess I could have just linked them through here. Silly me. If anyone wanted to see the pages, you can find them here: First one ($92k) and second one ($59k)
 
AdamZ said:
And probably half your age. :D

Amazing what you can do when your young.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he's well under half my age. When I was his age I was a little more than half my present size, too.

flyingcheesehead said:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Piper Comanche. It's one of the more comfortable singles out there for bigger folks, and the 250hp version has pretty nice price/performance numbers.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is my personal opinion that the Comanche is just about one of the prettiest airplanes out there. It's just dead sexy. I'm not afraid of flying it, after the appropriate transition and HP/complex training and all, of course. It's the owning it that scares me.

Here's what puts me off of them a little. I would want an updated panel, and it would be nice to have fuel injection and enough engine instrumentation to run LOP. A Comanche with a well done updated panel is relatively pricey, and they haven't made them since dirt was new so annuals are probably not going to be kind to me.

I could pick one up cheap (this applies to anything really) and treat it as a project. Replace the interior, paint it, clean up wiring, replace antique radios, add a GPS, etc. Of course I'd have to shell out a considerable sum for A&P and IA and avionics shop and all of that, but I'd end up with what I want. I could do that with a 182 or even a Bo, I suppose. But it seems like an awful lot of work and time and money to spend on something that's still going to to be a 40 year old airplane, with all that goes along with that.

For the work and expense involved, though, and I really had not even considered this seriously until just recently, but building an RV from the quick-build kit is looking better and better.
 
Run about 65% power and you don't really need instrumentation to run LOP. Or fuel injection. A basic EGT would be nice, though not required
 
dell30rb said:
Run about 65% power and you don't really need instrumentation to run LOP. Or fuel injection. A basic EGT would be nice, though not required
Click to expand...
OK, there's 10% of the problem solved. :)
 
DaleB said:
Actually, it is my personal opinion that the Comanche is just about one of the prettiest airplanes out there. It's just dead sexy. I'm not afraid of flying it, after the appropriate transition and HP/complex training and all, of course. It's the owning it that scares me.

Here's what puts me off of them a little. I would want an updated panel, and it would be nice to have fuel injection and enough engine instrumentation to run LOP. A Comanche with a well done updated panel is relatively pricey,
Click to expand...

How much are you looking to spend? Here's a pretty nice example of a Comanche 260C (the 260's are fuel injected) with Garmin and JPI toys already installed for $89K asking:

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...HE-260C/1969-PIPER-COMANCHE-260C/1238673.htm?

and they haven't made them since dirt was new so annuals are probably not going to be kind to me.
Click to expand...

I think total airframe time is maybe a bigger issue. You don't want too much, you also don't want too little. And one that's been taken care of won't eat your lunch.

For the work and expense involved, though, and I really had not even considered this seriously until just recently, but building an RV from the quick-build kit is looking better and better.
Click to expand...

Until you realize that it's going to take you several years of hard work ('quick' still requires you to do your 51%), during which time you'll be spending lots of time and money and won't have something (or even time) to fly... Or if you do both, it'll be more time and more money.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
How much are you looking to spend? Here's a pretty nice example of a Comanche 260C (the 260's are fuel injected) with Garmin and JPI toys already installed for $89K asking:

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...HE-260C/1969-PIPER-COMANCHE-260C/1238673.htm?
Click to expand...
That's a very nice looking example. It's that cheap because the engine and prop both have pretty high time, almost 1900 hours. I'd need a partner for that one, which I'm fine with... or 2 partners and plan on a major pretty soon. It is a nice one, though, with most of the stuff I'd want done, done. GPS, AP, Gami, JPI and all. It's not really an $89K airplane, though, it's more like a $130K airplane less whatever negotiating you can do on the front end.

Cheaper if you partner with an A&P if course.

flyingcheesehead said:
Until you realize that it's going to take you several years of hard work ('quick' still requires you to do your 51%), during which time you'll be spending lots of time and money and won't have something (or even time) to fly... Or if you do both, it'll be more time and more money.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say several. Maybe two. But you're right; it's going to cost something to keep flying while building so you don't have a shiny new airplane and a rusty pilot. I never said E/AB was right, I just said it's looking better.
 
Well Dale. One of my planes that I actually am thinking of selling is a fuel injected comanche! You are in luck. And I'll sell it cheaper than the one you guys are talking about. Has low airframe hours and not even half way to tbo on engine. We can fly it sometime this summer when you come down.
 
Theboys said:
Well Dale. One of my planes that I actually am thinking of selling is a fuel injected comanche! You are in luck. And I'll sell it cheaper than the one you guys are talking about. Has low airframe hours and not even half way to tbo on engine. We can fly it sometime this summer when you come down.
Click to expand...

"and the next thing you know your son is playing for money in a pinch-back suit . . .":wink2::D
 
DaleB said:
Actually, it is my personal opinion that the Comanche is just about one of the prettiest airplanes out there. It's just dead sexy.
Click to expand...
If you think the Comanche is sexy, you should try the Twin Comanche.....even better!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
This is the cockpit of one of the Comanche 250s I have owned, they have plenty of elbow room and are fantastic travelling machines.

picture.php
 
If you aren't afraid of EAB a RV10 is a great airplane. Has a really roomy cockpit and a large useful load. Cruise 160-170kts on 13gph. My friend got a nice one for $120,000 that had a 530 in it but a Blue Mountain EFIS. He put a Dynon Skyview with 2 axis autopilot and synthetic vision and complete engine monitor for less than $10,000. It would cost well over $50,000 to do the same in a certified airplane. An A&P can sign off the annual inspections and there are no insanely priced repair parts. Plus the 10 is a great flying airplane and fun to yank and bank around if you want. Don
 
Another vote for the Cardinal. Besides the physical comfort once seated, it is the easiest plane ever made to get in and out of. Your preliminary research said slow, but you put fast for a 182?

If you want comfort and reasonable speed, get the Cardinal RG. Similar, if not better, speed than a fixed gear 182, but less fuel burn.

I am 6'5", and was 240 when first got mine (lost 20 lbs to increase my payload!). I owned the 177RG for 7 years before moving to a 210. I absolutely loved the plane. (I moved up for more speed and useful load). I never moved the pilots seat. It remained at its aft setting the whole 7 years I owned it. One just sits on the seat and then swings one's legs around into the plane. Much easier to get in than even the 210, due to the huge doors.

Wells
 
These threads are hilarious. Buy what you want to fly. If you haven't flown it, you won't know. ;)

My usual comment that the 182 will do a whole crap-ton of missions from load/butt hauling, to mild backcountry stuff, to being a decent IMC platform, to just putzing around for $100 hamburgers -- but do none of them perfectly, while having no particularly bad mannerisms or super-human pilot skill requires, inserted here. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top