Good Plane For Handicapped Passenger?

Stephen Poole

Stephen Poole

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
369
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Display Name
Display name:
Professor31
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. :)
 
My biggest problem with a PA-28 type is getting back up and out of them. You can hitch your butt up the wing and swing your feet over and slide in, but getting out isn't simply a matter of reversing the process.

If she can walk, it would be easier for her to get into and out of some thing like a C-170 or 180/5
 
Hi.
If you can get a 3rd class. or basic med, you have more options, otherwise you need to look at just the makes / models you mentioned. You can also add CTLS, Remos, C162 and a couple of others to the list, but it is very likely that a high wing would be the best option.
I am not sure what gave you the impression that low wing are better, but I can tell you that you can find just about everything in a high wing that you find in a low, and much more stable and easier access.
In most of the ones you, and I, mentioned you can just turn around and put your behind on the seat, and swing your legs inside, if you are 5.3 or somewhere in that area.
 
Heh. Actually, my budget will doubtless mean that I'll buy used instead of new, and I've been looking at the 177s. They ... intrigue me. They seem to offer unseemly Creature Comforts as well. :)
 
bluesideup said:
Hi.
If you can get a 3rd class. or basic med, you have more options, otherwise you need to look at just the makes / models you mentioned. You can also add CTLS, Remos, C162
Click to expand...

I won't have any problem with the med, according to my doctor. Thank the Lord.

I'm not familiar with the Remos. Since it will just be my wife and I, I have looked at the 162.
 
Sounds like a good candidate for a 177. Hook up with the group mentioned above. Different years of the cardinal have different quirks.

If your wife doesnt mind riding in the back, either an A36 or a Pa32 could be an option.
 
Kansas Flyer said:
:yeahthat:

No strut and huge doors = super easy to get in and out.
Click to expand...

Shame Cessna didn’t get it right the first year. If not for the bad rep from tail strikes and not the friendliest stall characteristics which were remedied within the next couple years, there would probably have been a lot more sold and a lot more of them around today.
 
Kansas Flyer said:
Where are you located? I'll give you a ride in ours if you're relatively close.
Click to expand...

I live in Alabama. Might be a bit of a drive, especially as I don't have a license yet. :)

But you are a gentleman and a scholar for making the offer.

Right now, for us, "flying" means "Delta." :)
 
Stephen Poole said:
I live in Alabama. Might be a bit of a drive, especially as I don't have a license yet. :)

But you are a gentleman and a scholar for making the offer.

Right now, for us, "flying" means "Delta." :)
Click to expand...
If you check out Cardinal Flyers you might be able to find someone down there who could at least let you sit in one.
 
luvflyin said:
Shame Cessna didn’t get it right the first year. If not for the bad rep from tail strikes and not the friendliest stall characteristics which were remedied within the next couple years, there would probably have been a lot more sold and a lot more of them around today.
Click to expand...
Mine is a 1st year model and it handles beautifully. I had just over a hundred hours when I 1st flew it so I figure if I can fly it without issue most should be able to. You can't treat it like a 172 though which is where the bad rep seems to have come from.

As for stalls, I did some a couple of weekends ago and found that she would drop a wing if you forced her to stall but she also gave me several seconds of warning before that so you should be able to avoid stalling unless you just want to.
 
A bit more info. (Sorry.) We will be using this plane to fly shorter trips of 200 NM or less. Very occasionally, we might fly 500 NM (though I don't anticipate it). It does need to be comfortable (see: Cessna 177!), but fast enough to keep flight time reasonable for my wife.

Of course I looked at the TBM-900, Pilatus PC-12 and stuff like that while I was still in my "dreamin'" stage. The Mooney M201 or higher really caught my eye, because of bang-for-buck, but that low wing is the killer.

Naturally, I also looked at Cirrus and Diamond. They're faster than the older Cessnas, more expensive (so I'd have to save up a little longer), but again: a low wing. Thus, I deeply appreciate the suggestions here.

By the way, I'm not inherently opposed to experimental/homebuilt, but I'd like to get my CFI and train beginning pilots. (I've also done a LOT of teaching in my career, and I love it.)

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, and the pay really isn't that great (which surprised me). I am not boasting, but folks, I work on equipment every day that's quite complicated, and I doubt seriously if I'd have any trouble with a Garmin glass system. But I'm digressing now ...
 
Stephen Poole said:
A bit more info. (Sorry.) We will be using this plane to fly shorter trips of 200 NM or less. Very occasionally, we might fly 500 NM (though I don't anticipate it). It does need to be comfortable (see: Cessna 177!), but fast enough to keep flight time reasonable for my wife.

Of course I looked at the TBM-900, Pilatus PC-12 and stuff like that while I was still in my "dreamin'" stage. The Mooney M201 or higher really caught my eye, because of bang-for-buck, but that low wing is the killer.

Naturally, I also looked at Cirrus and Diamond. They're faster than the older Cessnas, more expensive (so I'd have to save up a little longer), but again: a low wing. Thus, I deeply appreciate the suggestions here.

By the way, I'm not inherently opposed to experimental/homebuilt, but I'd like to get my CFI and train beginning pilots. (I've also done a LOT of teaching in my career, and I love it.)

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, and the pay really isn't that great (which surprised me). I am not boasting, but folks, I work on equipment every day that's quite complicated, and I doubt seriously if I'd have any trouble with a Garmin glass system. But I'm digressing now ...
Click to expand...
Based on this, IMO a mooney and 162 are ruled out. The mooney is probably the hardest plane to get in and out of, and the 162 isn't easy either unless you are tall and limber, and it's SLOOOOOW.

Maybe a 182?
 
Stephen Poole said:
A bit more info. (Sorry.) We will be using this plane to fly shorter trips of 200 NM or less. Very occasionally, we might fly 500 NM (though I don't anticipate it). It does need to be comfortable (see: Cessna 177!), but fast enough to keep flight time reasonable for my wife.

Of course I looked at the TBM-900, Pilatus PC-12 and stuff like that while I was still in my "dreamin'" stage. The Mooney M201 or higher really caught my eye, because of bang-for-buck, but that low wing is the killer.

Naturally, I also looked at Cirrus and Diamond. They're faster than the older Cessnas, more expensive (so I'd have to save up a little longer), but again: a low wing. Thus, I deeply appreciate the suggestions here.

By the way, I'm not inherently opposed to experimental/homebuilt, but I'd like to get my CFI and train beginning pilots. (I've also done a LOT of teaching in my career, and I love it.)

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, and the pay really isn't that great (which surprised me). I am not boasting, but folks, I work on equipment every day that's quite complicated, and I doubt seriously if I'd have any trouble with a Garmin glass system. But I'm digressing now ...
Click to expand...
You'd have to find something a lot faster than a Cessna to save a bunch of time on a 200 NM flight. I can do such a trip in about 1:50 and my bird is only 150hp with a climb prop and the original draggy cowling, find a 182 or 180hp Cardinal w/ a constant speed prop and you can cut that down to 1:30 or so. Mooney speeds will save another ~10 minutes on top of that.
 
What? No RV-8 suggestion?

Yeah, Cardinal is going to the the best bet. 210 probably a decent choice too, but if you're only flying 200nm most of the time, the 210 is overkill.
 
my vote is something along the lines of a C-17....with a deployable loading ramp in the rear. One where she can drive her electric cart up into the cargo bay.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
my vote is something along the lines of a C-17....with a deployable loading ramp in the rear. One where she can drive her electric cart up into the cargo bay.
Click to expand...

OV-10? I think you can rear load those, and they are a little smaller than the C17. :D
 
Stephen Poole said:
A bit more info. (Sorry.) We will be using this plane to fly shorter trips of 200 NM or less. Very occasionally, we might fly 500 NM (though I don't anticipate it). It does need to be comfortable (see: Cessna 177!), but fast enough to keep flight time reasonable for my wife.
Click to expand...

I have a 177B, and I love it. At those distances you are talking about, the increased speed will make negligible differences in flight time. Given all of the travel time to the airport, and pre-flight procedures, it will make a very negligible difference in the total trip length. If speed is important though, you can look into the retractable gear version. They not only have the aerodynamic advantage of retracted gear, but they have a larger engine (200 HP vs. 180 HP in the A or B versions, or 150 HP for the original version), and its fuel injected vs. carbureted.
 
No PA32 suggestion? The rear door is low and large.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
drotto said:
No PA32 suggestion? The rear door is low and large.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I’m a bit surprised it hasn’t been mentioned yet as well.

The PA32s are excellent airplanes for a handicapped passenger. The only other single engine airplane that is that easy to get in is a Cardinal (177).
 
That's going to be a back seat only though, right?
 
177 or a 210 if she wants to ride up front. 172/182 would also do a serviceable job, though they sit a bit higher than the 177 and the doors don't open all the way due to the struts.

A36 Bonanza or a PA32 (with club seating) if she doesn't mind riding in back.

Anything with an over-wing entrance is going to be tough for someone with mobility issues.

Once you get some experience, a 58 Baron or a Piper Seneca are good "upgrades" into the Twin World that provide the same level of access to the back.
 
luvflyin said:
Shame Cessna didn’t get it right the first year. If not for the bad rep from tail strikes and not the friendliest stall characteristics which were remedied within the next couple years, there would probably have been a lot more sold and a lot more of them around today.
Click to expand...

172 pilots killed the 68 177...

I just let a guy that had never flown one in his life, maybe 500 hrs of Cherokee/Bonanza time fly the 68 177. Not only did he do well, I let him fly it home solo after 4 landings and one full break stall. Its super easy to fly. Everyone thinks they are overweight too, well they are because they hold 72 pounds more fuel than a 172 of the same year. I do wonder how the pre slotted tails handled tho, i don't think more than 20 or so were deliered that way before they "cardinal rule" mod was an AD.

I gotta say, Dad's 182L is alot bigger PITA to get in/out of than the 177. Even with the wheel pants off the 182 still sucks. If the seat tracks were 4 inches longer it would be a heck of an improvement.
 
Last edited:
In the smaller plane segment, you're definitely looking at a high wing, but a 172 or 182 would probably also work well. They have the advantage of being plentiful. I've only seen a handful of 177s around airports in 30 years of flying.

I think that once you look at what most of the 2 seat models can carry, you'll find you really need a 4 seater.

In aviation, we have the concept of Useful Load, which is essentially how many pounds of fuel, baggage, and people the plane can carry. The 2 seat models mentioned have useful loads around 500 pounds, burn about 50 pounds of fuel in an hour, and fly relatively slowly. A 150 mile trip could easily take two hours with head winds,
and you'll plan on having reserve fuel.

I like an hour of reserve, so I'd take 3 hours of gas at minimum, leaving me with 350 pounds of people and baggage. I was 220 when I was learning to fly in a 2 seater and almost always wound up flying at the maximum allowable weight.

A 172 or 177 will have a useful load around 900 pounds and be faster. Two people, bags, and fuel for a 4 hour trip is no problem.

A 182 will carry even more, and is probably the entry into good cross country machines. It's not fast, but it's fast enough that a lot of places are in easy reach. And you'll pretty much always be able to take two people, all the bags you can fit, and full fuel tanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If 110 knots is fine, two people most missions, lower elevations, than the 177/177B/177RG is about perfect, even the 150 horse ones.
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...

The biggest unknown you should fill in is airport elevations. Flying in Kansas is a lot different than western Colorado.
 
bnt83 said:
172 pilots killed the 68 177...

I just let a guy that had never flown one in his life, maybe 500 hrs of Cherokee/Bonanza time fly the 68 177. Not only did he do well, I let him fly it home solo after 4 landings and one full break stall. Its super easy to fly. Everyone thinks they are overweight too, well they are because they hold 72 pounds more fuel than a 172 of the same year. I do wonder how the pre slotted tails handled tho, i don't think more than 20 or so were deliered that way before they "cardinal rule" mod was an AD.

I gotta say, Dad's 182L is alot bigger PITA to get in/out of than the 177. Even with the wheel pants off the 182 still sucks. If the seat tracks were 4 inches longer it would be a heck of an improvement.
Click to expand...

So there were 172 Cardinal accidents that first year? LOL. Even after the ‘stabilator fix’ you had to be be careful about manhandling it lest you put it down nose wheel first. But yeah ‘it’s just a really a cool looking 172 without struts’ thinking was the problem. They should have placarded them with ‘not to be flown by C172 pilots without proper C177 training’
 
luvflyin said:
They should have placarded them with ‘not to be flown by C172 pilots without proper C177 training’
Click to expand...
That might have solved a lot of problems. I trained in a Cherokee and transitioned to the Cardinal in an hour with no problems, a friend that owns a 172 flew with my Dad and had all sorts of problems learning not to over control.

PPC1052 said:
I have a 177B, and I love it. At those distances you are talking about, the increased speed will make negligible differences in flight time. Given all of the travel time to the airport, and pre-flight procedures, it will make a very negligible difference in the total trip length. If speed is important though, you can look into the retractable gear version. They not only have the aerodynamic advantage of retracted gear, but they have a larger engine (200 HP vs. 180 HP in the A or B versions, or 150 HP for the original version), and its fuel injected vs. carbureted.
Click to expand...
What kind of cruise speed do you get with your B model?
 
luvflyin said:
So there were 172 Cardinal accidents that first year? LOL. Even after the ‘stabilator fix’ you had to be be careful about manhandling it lest you put it down nose wheel first. But yeah ‘it’s just a really a cool looking 172 without struts’ thinking was the problem. They should have placarded them with ‘not to be flown by C172 pilots without proper C177 training’
Click to expand...

Or at least reading the POH. A lot of the problem was not flying the correct airspeeds. They assumed the same airspeeds for a 172 applied. If you do that, the only thing you need to know is that you can't try to force the nose down when you float on landing, or if you bounce. You just have to keep flying straight and wait for it to settle down on its own. Keep the nose up, and give it a shot of power if you start to sink too fast to avoid the bounce. If you try to point the nose down, you will cause a bounce, followed by porpoiseing down the run way.
 
I’d say 177 or, if she wants Limo style a PA32. The rear door on those is easy access.
Is copilot of status important to get?
 
PPC1052 said:
I have a 177B, and I love it. At those distances you are talking about, the increased speed will make negligible differences in flight time. Given all of the travel time to the airport, and pre-flight procedures, it will make a very negligible difference in the total trip length. If speed is important though, you can look into the retractable gear version. They not only have the aerodynamic advantage of retracted gear, but they have a larger engine (200 HP vs. 180 HP in the A or B versions, or 150 HP for the original version), and its fuel injected vs. carbureted.
Click to expand...
All that is true, and you would expect the 177RG to be a speed demon with all that it has going for it plus its sleek, sporty look, but alas, it isn't. Some people claim 140 KTAS regularly, but the best I ever saw was 135 with the throttle firewalled, and that was when the engine was brand new. Today, with 600 hours on the engine, 130 KTAS is the best I ever see. I would expect 5-10 kts better than the comparable 180 hp B model, but no better than that. The RG is a very nice, stable instrument platform and has great visibility, but it will not break any speed records and Mooney gets much better performance out of the same engine.

For the OP's needs though, I think some model of Cardinal would probably be the best choice.
 
If you want two seat limo, you need to think bigger like a PA-46.
Many variants with full fuel really are two person planes. Wife get's an airstair door, and a nice place to relax in back. Easy to get in/out...

Tim
 
Low wings...Pffft! Problem with low wings is you have to step *down* into the plane, which I could see may be difficult for someone with leg or mobility issues. A high wing with no struts to stop the door from opening wide is probably better. Easier to pull up a step and step *up* into the plane then swivel to face front.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top