Good Plane For Handicapped Passenger?

a close second to my first recommendation.....PC -12. The air-stairs could be doable.
 
Stephen Poole said:
The obvious choice seems to be a high-wing airplane, Cessna, Tecnam, or the like. But it looks like to me -- being ANYTHING but an expert at this point -- that many of the more highly-rated planes are low wing.
Click to expand...
I do not understand the comment about highly-rated low-wings. What is wrong with Cessnas or other high-wings? Got a source of that information?

And I whole-heartedly agree with the C177(RG) recommendation. One of the best small Cessna designs. The in/egress is unbeatable. Much better than 172s or 182s too.
But in general, high-wing aircraft with two doors is your best bet.
I actually know of a few families with a disabled family member who own Cardinals for that very reason.

(and for the record, I sympathize with your plight, wife's knees aren't what they used to be so when we were upgrading from our previous Cherokee, she demanded something she can get into like a car/SUV and I happily obliged)

And of course, have fun training! :thumbsup:
 
BigBadLou said:
I do not understand the comment about highly-rated low-wings. What is wrong with Cessnas or other high-wings? Got a source of that information?

And I whole-heartedly agree with the C177(RG) recommendation. One of the best small Cessna designs. The in/egress is unbeatable. Much better than 172s or 182s too.
But in general, high-wing aircraft with two doors is your best bet.
I actually know of a few families with a disabled family member who own Cardinals for that very reason.

(and for the record, I sympathize with your plight, wife's knees aren't what they used to be so when we were upgrading from our previous Cherokee, she demanded something she can get into like a car/SUV and I happily obliged)

And of course, have fun training! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

As a general rule, if you want speed, range and a more modern (think automotive) styling, you are talking low wing airplanes. There is nothing (except the styling aspect) that makes low wing better; it just happens that low wing airplane companies focused more on those criteria.
That was my take on the OP comment.

Tim
 
Have to go with the group,the 177 would seem to fit your mission.
 
tspear said:
As a general rule, if you want speed, range and a more modern (think automotive) styling, you are talking low wing airplanes. There is nothing (except the styling aspect) that makes low wing better; it just happens that low wing airplane companies focused more on those criteria.
That was my take on the OP comment.

Tim
Click to expand...

Exactly. You said it better than I .
 
frfly172 said:
Have to go with the group,the 177 would seem to fit your mission.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of them available at good prices, too. I looked at the RV8 and some Tecnams, but not many available. Of course, I'm patient and I can wait.

Lots of good used Pipers out there, but all low wing.
 
tspear said:
As a general rule, if you want speed, range and a more modern (think automotive) styling, you are talking low wing airplanes. There is nothing (except the styling aspect) that makes low wing better; it just happens that low wing airplane companies focused more on those criteria.
That was my take on the OP comment.

Tim
Click to expand...
Gotcha, thank you.
It just highlights that airplanes are different and one needs to consider the factors for THEIR needs instead of having the Ynterwebs people decide for them.

We, for example, were willing to sacrifice a little bit of speed for comfort. Getting older, we are starting to value things that we didn't when we were younger.
So I'd rather sit in a comfortable cockpit for 2 hours instead of being cramped in a tiny can for 1 hour 55 and then having to climb out like from behind a cannon. We all have different preferences so choosing the right airplane should be based on those.
 
My wife has bad knees and a back fusion. She found it REALLY hard to get up and into our Archer which led to us selling it. It was the bending and stepping in and that I had to get in first was the problem. I was resigned to high-wings until I thought about the Tiger. We tried one on. It was easy for her to step up on the wing and she LOVED that the canopy slid back and she could just step in and drop down into the seat. And with the canopy I could get out first to help her down.
 
pigpenracing said:
View attachment 64030 I'll sell my Breezy..... Its easy to get on.
Click to expand...

I vote for whatever is attached the round motor behind that Breezy. A Hoyer lift and some yankee ingenuity will take care of passenger boarding and deplaning issues!

Seriously though, A gentleman a couple hangars away from me bought a 177 for just the exact same circumstances. I see him and his wife flying regularly now.
 
Stephen Poole said:
I'm nearing retirement and I'm thinking about learning to fly and buying a plane. (I'll ask some questions about the first one in another thread). My wife is disabled: she has to walk with a cane.

The obvious choice seems to be a high-wing airplane, Cessna, Tecnam, or the like. But it looks like to me -- being ANYTHING but an expert at this point -- that many of the more highly-rated planes are low wing.

So: how hard would it be for my wife to get in an out of a low-wing? You Mooney owners can correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, the M20 would probably be a bad choice. The Diamond DA40 and the Cirrus SR20/22 also look very nice, but I'm concerned about her being able to get in and out without a lot of trouble.

I can tell you this: there's no way that she'll be able to "step up onto the wing root, duck your head under the gull-wing door, then swing into the cabin ..." Not going to happen. :)

Thanks very much in advance. Just getting started, so I appreciate your patience. I'm a 62-year-old newbie. :)
Click to expand...
I would look at a Cherokee six (PA32) with club seats. If your going to be a new pilot the fix gear six is the suburban of the skies. I fly the retract gear PA32 Saratoga. I take my mom to see her sister in it. She uses a walker. It is easy for her to sit in the back. The seats lay back and she takes a nap during the trip. Also I think the Cherokee Six is faster than the 177.
 
Scott@KTYR said:
I would look at a Cherokee six (PA32) with club seats. If your going to be a new pilot the fix gear six is the suburban of the skies. I fly the retract gear PA32 Saratoga. I take my mom to see her sister in it. She uses a walker. It is easy for her to sit in the back. The seats lay back and she takes a nap during the trip. Also I think the Cherokee Six is faster than the 177.
Click to expand...
Careful to avoid comparing apples to oranges.
I don't disagree that the 6 is a great powerful airplane.
Just different size and engine. What airspeed would you see at 7.5gph?
Fuel burn is a factor to consider. It is negligible to some and very important to others.
Again, not dissing the 6, it is a good airplane. Just pointing out the flaw in the comparison.
 
BigBadLou said:
Careful to avoid comparing apples to oranges.
I don't disagree that the 6 is a great powerful airplane.
Just different size and engine. What airspeed would you see at 7.5gph?
Fuel burn is a factor to consider. It is negligible to some and very important to others.
Again, not dissing the 6, it is a good airplane. Just pointing out the flaw in the comparison.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Plus, a 177RG is only a few knots slower than a Cherokee 6, but burns a heck of a lot less fuel to do it.
 
BigBadLou said:
Careful to avoid comparing apples to oranges.
I don't disagree that the 6 is a great powerful airplane.
Just different size and engine. What airspeed would you see at 7.5gph?
Fuel burn is a factor to consider. It is negligible to some and very important to others.
Again, not dissing the 6, it is a good airplane. Just pointing out the flaw in the comparison.
Click to expand...
All true but my post was not intended to be a comparison. I was just trying to give Stephen Poole another plane to look at and to share my personal experience with my plane and my handicapped mom in it. The last line in my post was an after thought about speed if that was an interest to Stephen. I like the 177. It is a sexy plane that looks like it is speeding while it is parked.
 
Scott@KTYR said:
All true but my post was not intended to be a comparison. I was just trying to give Stephen Poole another plane to look at and to share my personal experience with my plane and my handicapped mom in it. The last line in my post was an after thought about speed if that was an interest to Stephen. I like the 177. It is a sexy plane that looks like it is speeding while it is parked.
Click to expand...
Np. I was just pointing out the apples and oranges. (I myself prefer oranges :) )
I liked your car-world comparison of the 6 to a Suburban. I think it's apt.
Can't think of a good comparison model for the 177RG. Maybe a Civic? :) Not really fast but economical with enough legroom. *shrug*
If I ever end up in Tyler again, we can compare notes on those two, I'd be curious.
 
Stephen Poole said:
I'm a radio engineer (FCC General Class and other certifications), so I originally thought of retiring to a part-time job at an airport just to be around aviation. From what I've seen, though, I'd have to get my A&P just to get Avionics certification,
Click to expand...

You should be able to work under someone else's repair station certificate. Legacy aircraft have lots of conventional radio technology installed. Someone who knows which end of the soldering iron gets hot and with a general FCC license should have value. Chances are you are going to be better off consulting in your field and using the money to fly rather than 'work at the airport'.
 
BigBadLou said:
Np. I was just pointing out the apples and oranges. (I myself prefer oranges :) )
I liked your car-world comparison of the 6 to a Suburban. I think it's apt.
Can't think of a good comparison model for the 177RG. Maybe a Civic? :) Not really fast but economical with enough legroom. *shrug*
If I ever end up in Tyler again, we can compare notes on those two, I'd be curious.
Click to expand...
I think the 177 is more of a DeLorean, not very fast but Great to look at.
PM me if you ever come to Tyler, Lunch is on me.
 
A Bonanza or Baron would work well for this. The barn door works nicely.
 
Thanks to all y'all (as we say in the South) for the suggestions. Man, the 177 looks good, and it's not that expensive! And apparently, 177 owners baby and TLC their stuff, so I'm not afraid to buy a used one. (Edit: of course, I mean a "used plane in general," but the 177 in particular, even though the youngest ones have been around for decades.)

I would have replied sooner, but as I said, I'm a radio engineer, and we got hammered by lightning. (You guys avoid towers; my towers have to avoid lightning. Heh.) This one came in via the power line, made it through a TVSS and an LEA suppressor and said "om, nom, nom" in the equipment for 5 radio stations. I've been running.

But again: I deeply, deeply appreciate the suggestions and comments. And yes, I will take up the lunch offers once I'm in the air. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top