Is There a True 6 Person + Luggage Light Twin?
- Thread starter Ken H
- Start date
denverpilot
Tied Down
I have some 210 time. I wouldn’t put six full sized adults in one. Nope.
Ken H
Pre-Flight
Do you prefer all seats facing forward or the club style?
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I'm partial to all facing forward.. only because sitting "backwards" seems awkward to me.. although I feel like many, if not most, prefer the club make the cabin feel more spacious, Bonanza loves that little table thing to make it feel "cabin class" .. sitting backwards in a crash is probably also (marginally) safer
But to answer your question, I prefer all facing forward
Rgbeard
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2017
- Messages
- 4,343
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
- Display Name
Display name:
rgbeard
I'll vote for Club.
But we don't ever plan for six people in our plane, but a max of four people (not a twin). My MIL went with us to San Diego this past Sat/Sun, and she sat in the rear seat, with her feet up on the seat in front of her and was as happy as could be.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
You're welcome!
The fuel management is really only tough on the 183-gallon system that has a nacelle tank on only one side. If you have 100, 130, 140, 163, or 203 gallons, it's very easy.
I'm not seeing where it doesn't? Basically 1000 pounds for 500nm, which is about 3 hours, so 4 hours with reserve plus climb is about 114 gallons/624 lb. I bet there's more 310s out there with a useful load higher than 1624 than lower...
Well, here's what Cessna had in their 310 brochure in 1964:
CharlieD3
En-Route
Older Aero Commander? "Upgraded to "shrike"... I know NOTHING about twins (well, my daughters are twins.... And high mx. But that's a different story)
Just always thought Bob Hoover's was cool
Just always thought Bob Hoover's was cool
Lies. Mother in laws are never happy.
k9medic
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2018
- Messages
- 920
- Display Name
Display name:
ATP-H, CMEL, CSEL, CFI/CFII Airplanes and Helicopters
...
I really love the layout of the Cherokee 6, but it's a little shy on useful load and the max zero fuel weight. So I started looking at twins. The Seneca II looks great, but same problem; useful load would require a lot of air in the tanks and a fuel stop.
...
I'm starting to think we need to reel in our expectations and think about the Cherokee 6 with 4 souls + baggage. It seems perfectly suited for that - but we hate to leave the older kids or parents on the ground.
Thanks!
Ken
Okay, what am I missing here? I fly a Cherokee 6. With full fuel (6 hours worth) I have 997lbs. of additional weight I can carry. For my family of 4 that means we can drag along another 300lbs of bags.
If I wanted to put six 200 lb adults into the plane, I could drop the fuel load a bit. I have flown 7 people plus baggage by doing just that.
Think of it like this - 3 hour of fuel in a 6 is 45 gallons on average (I am at 12.5 gph myself). For my plane that means I have 1501 lbs of useful load. 45 gallons of fuel gives me a range of over 400nm and I can still stick 1231 lbs in the plane...
Ken H
Pre-Flight
Got it! So, I should tell my wife: “Honey those aren’t 4 seats. It’s 2 seats and 2 ottomans.”
RussR
En-Route
For the PA-32 series, when considering club seating, realize that if the pilot or copilot are tall, the front seats will be at or near the full-back position, and will be pushing the middle row seatbacks down. This makes them unusable. I have flown them quite a bit, and this really means that nobody can sit behind the pilot's seat if I'm flying. And I'm only 6'2". I imagine the same would be an issue with any pilot over about 5'10".
Now, most of my flying in the PA-32 is with one passenger stretched out in the back, feet up, asleep, so it works perfectly for that.
Now, most of my flying in the PA-32 is with one passenger stretched out in the back, feet up, asleep, so it works perfectly for that.
James_Dean
Pattern Altitude
I'm not sure you're giving the 310 enough credit. It really is roomy.
My brother, on the left, is 6'5" and the other guy is 6' and pushing 300lbs.
My son in the back left was right at 5' when this was taken.
Ken H
Pre-Flight
I’ll never get the kids to dress up like that for a plane ride. So, I guess the 310 is out.
Ken H
Pre-Flight
Thank you for your numbers! What’s your empty weight?
k9medic
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2018
- Messages
- 920
- Display Name
Display name:
ATP-H, CMEL, CSEL, CFI/CFII Airplanes and Helicopters
Empty is 1903.7lbs.
Useful is 1496 lbs
Plan cruise at 130kts at 7000’ 65% power. 12.5 gph average.
Useful is 1496 lbs
Plan cruise at 130kts at 7000’ 65% power. 12.5 gph average.
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
Why do folks assume this.??
In the 7 years I flew 414/421 the biggest problem was ham fisted new to the plane pilots.
The major problem I ever had with pressurization in a 414/421 was the out flow valve sticking. A little mouse milk squirted in the right area took care of that. And yeah, the 414 might be more than you are needing.
I loved flying the Chieftain, a real flying truck that still did dirt strips.
Mine too.!!! Looks like the G8 Airvan is starting to be the replacement of the sleds.
Ken H
Pre-Flight
Thank you!
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Gross on mine is 5200. I don't have the exact empty weight, but its about 3300. I would have to go to the hangar to get the exact figure.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Hopefully the turbo model. They’re pigs.
Ken H
Pre-Flight
3300 is close enough for some back of napkin W&B ciphering. Thanks!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
even in the Toga....the legs are woven together. It's still tight back there....
k9medic
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2018
- Messages
- 920
- Display Name
Display name:
ATP-H, CMEL, CSEL, CFI/CFII Airplanes and Helicopters
Like I said, in my (260 powered) Cherokee 6, I have had seven people a dog, luggage and fuel.
RussR
En-Route
Always love that picture. That guy in the back of the PA-32 must be pretty short. Copied from a previous post of mine on this subject:
Here is me in the back seat of a 2006 PA-32R-301T (Saratoga II TC). I am 6'2" and reasonably normal proportions.
The first picture is the with the seat in the "full, upright position" and the second is with it reclined one notch (I didn't do 2 notches since that is really leaned back).
Headroom is, clearly, not great. I do wonder if this is dependent on model year/interior.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Got it! So, I should tell my wife: “Honey those aren’t 4 seats. It’s 2 seats and 2 ottomans.”
I often have the RH middle row seat out of the plane to make it a five seater with incredible space and ease of ingress/egress.
What strikes me is the rear seat passengers are practically sitting on the floor. Reminds me of those silly "3rd row" baggage compartment seats Beech added to the short body (55) Barons. I'll take and post a few pics of the seating in my Aztec tomorrow. There's storage space under the third row seats accessible from the baggage compartment. We use it to store rolled up items such as air mattresses, sleeping bags, etc on trips to OSH.
I'm pretty certain Beechcraft had to use club seating in the 6-place Bonanza due to CG range limitations. Even with club seating the rear seat row in the Bo is weight limited; see pic of the A36 placard below:
Last edited:
schmookeeg
En-Route
The people parroting the pressurization = high costs are, almost by definition, the people who will also hamfist turbo engines and particularly GTSIOs.
Do you think they will exit a bout of ownership telling everyone how they ham-fisted their plane around in their first years of ownership, or do you think they'll hand-wave and say "durn pressurizations, so expensive" to anyone who will listen to them?
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Yes! That's the one. I'm saving it this time. Thanks!
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
you're not normal...no one ever had that problem with mine.
Always love that picture. That guy in the back of the PA-32 must be pretty short. Copied from a previous post of mine on this subject:
Here is me in the back seat of a 2006 PA-32R-301T (Saratoga II TC). I am 6'2" and reasonably normal proportions.
The first picture is the with the seat in the "full, upright position" and the second is with it reclined one notch (I didn't do 2 notches since that is really leaned back).
Headroom is, clearly, not great. I do wonder if this is dependent on model year/interior.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
The people parroting the pressurization = high costs are, almost by definition, the people who will also hamfist turbo engines and particularly GTSIOs.
Do you think they will exit a bout of ownership telling everyone how they ham-fisted their plane around in their first years of ownership, or do you think they'll hand-wave and say "durn pressurizations, so expensive" to anyone who will listen to them?
The argument that an increasingly complex airplane is no more costly to operate and maintain is simply nonsense.
Just because one owner, with one airplane of a given type, didn't have to repair one particular pressurization system over a comparatively short ownership period doesn't mean the aggregate cost of maintaining piston engine pressurized hulls is the same as a non-pressurized aircraft.
Every effing system on an airplane costs money to maintain properly. Constant speed compared to fixed pitch, retractable gear compared to fixed undercarriage, turbocharged compared to naturally aspirated, and on it goes. The more of these complicated systems you have the more you are going to spend to keep it airworthy, even if you leave the airplane sitting in the hangar all year.
Last edited:
RussR
En-Route
You been talking to my wife?
I've wondered if there is some difference in the newer ones vs the older ones as far as seat mounting, or seat thickness, or overhead design, or something. Because this one is a 2006, and I can't sit comfortably back there. Have you had anyone 6'2" back there?
I occasionally fly a few ~1980 models, next time I will try the back seat in one of those.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I personally don't find club style very useful if seating 4 in back until you get into a cabin class like a Navajo. When you're in a Saratoga/Seneca or 58 Baron everyone's feet just get in eachother's way. When you get into a Navajo/414/421 or larger then it gets better. All forward makes more sense.
@Ken H assumes it because it is 100% true. The 414 and 421 are maintenance hogs. In 7 years of being on the Twin Cessna forum there was never a time without one forum member (this was a small forum, by the way) having a 421 with a cracked crankcase. The 340s, 414s, and 421s all ranged $150-300/hour higher than 310s to own and operate in the owner surveys. My personal experience was that the 414 was quite the maintenance hog compared to the very reliable 310 and Aztec I had before it - and when you compare my experience to that of others, it really wasn't that bad.
To the question of the 310 vs. the Aztec, a 310R is closer to an Aztec, but you are still talking about a cabin that's not nearly as wide. The 310R's nose baggage is of similar proportions to an Aztec's nose baggage (not quite the same size but close). The wing lockers are nice, but you have to pack duffel bags that are smaller in there, and the baggage behind the third row is pretty minimal. The Aztec has no wing locker storage, but it has an expansive baggage area with a huge baggage door behind the third row, and like I said there's a cheap STC (something like $500 for the STC plus whatever it costs to pay the A&P to install it, I think I paid about $1000) that gives you even more room.
If you plan on flying 6 people with any regularity, an Aztec will be more comfortable in terms of space.
That said, I had a few years where I flew veterinarians and vet techs up to northern Quebec in the Aztec and 310. On one trip I dropped everyone off in the Aztec and I picked them all up in the 310. At the end of the trip I asked them which plane they preferred, and they all said the 310 because the heater was much more effective. However, they were all smaller women and so the physical space of the 310 was sufficient and being comfortable temperature wise mattered more.
That brings up another good point. Aztecs will be cold in anything below about 55F, bring your blankets and your ski clothes. But they will also be comfortable in the summer even at lower altitudes. A 310 will roast you out in the summer, but will be comfortable even in very cold temps if you have a C&D heater.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Here’s my grandmother and my then-17-year-old son (about 5’9”) in the cheap seats of a 1984 Saratoga SP.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Clark, where’s the dog?
schmookeeg
En-Route
Agree it's nonzero, but by itself, pressurization is a smaller step than the Turbos, retract gear, heavy airframe, etc. that act as prerequisite. It just gets lumped in as the villian a lot.
I mean, it's a controller, a few valves, and a 20% premium on avionics work. Chasing leaks is something you might not be as vigilant about in an unpressurized bird, so maybe those count too.
It's a bummer that most of the P birds come with seriously high-strung and fussy engines. 340/414 excepted, probabaly others I dunno about.
I still want one.
My GTSIO-destroying ham-fists are gripping the checkbook pen, waiting for the right one to come along and lead me merrily into financial ruin. (Actually I miss reverse-thrust a lot more than anything else. I need some other suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpartners to join me in that endeavor though)
RussR
En-Route
Here’s my grandmother and my then-17-year-old son (about 5’9”) in the cheap seats of a 1984 Saratoga SP.
I remember that picture from the last thread!
It does seem like your son is leaning toward the center, and of course doesn't have a headset on. So 2-3 more inches of sitting height for someone 6'2" would pretty much run out of headroom. Still doesn't look like it would be as tight as my picture though. So I wonder if the newer models have thicker seat upholstery that makes the difference.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Since when is 6-2 not normal? It's well within 95%.
That’s what my recommendation would be.
