jumping the gun a bit thinking about getting a bigger plane

K

kujo806

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
188
Location
St. Charles, IL
Display Name
Display name:
kujo806
So I think I am getting ahead of myself here, but I can't help getting excited about shiny new things like airplanes. The current situation is that I am in a PA28R-200 partnership. It is currently a tight fit with my wife and 2 year old. We have to try to pack light whenever we want to go somewhere. It really isn't a weight issue, but more of a volume issue. With full fuel and the three of us, we are still 200lbs below gross in the arrow. It is fitting the pack and play, diapers, clothes, toys, dinner seat, car seat, etc. that becomes the limiting factor. Well we have another one on the way, and I don't see any way of getting the 4 of us in the arrow for anything more than a trip around the airport. It is unfortunate, because the partnership has worked out quite well otherwise. I started looking at the cherokee 6 / lance line as the obvious choice for hauling stuff. I like the A36 a lot, but don't really want to spend that kind of money on a plane at this time. I was surprised to see how pricy the cherokee 6 and lance were. In order to stay below 100k and get something pretty nice, it seemed like you had to limit yourself to the 260's. For the same price as a mediocre 6 300, there are really nice Beech V35's out there. I know the S35/V35 has "unusable" 5th and 6th seats in the back, but if you remove those, is the cargo area significantly larger than the arrow's? It is hard to tell without seeing one in person. I don't know anyone locally who has one that I could look at. I know they have CG issues, but weight isn't really a concern. Anyone with experience in these types have some words of wisdom? Can I fit baby stuff for two and our own baggage in a V35 or is the 6/lance the way to go? For the higher fuel flows, I would much rather fly something like a bonanza at 160-170knts than a 6 at 135knts, but I'm sure the wife would like the room. I know I am probably jumping the gun a lot here, but it has been on my mind lately. One of the things I want to do with my PPL is fly with the family to visit new places and family and friends. I don't see how that will happen in the arrow with 4 of us. I appreciate any comments you have. I don't mean to start a Piper vs. Beech debate as I think I know the positives and negatives of both. I am just trying to determine what meets my needs the best without getting way more plane than I need or use.

PS...If your suggestion is learn to pack lighter, I will forward them to my wife :yes:
 
In boating this is called twofootitis. And it is just as expensive.
I am not going to pick an airplane for you.
What percentage of your flying hours are done with the family and baggage? I am willing to bet it is significantly in the minority.
So to handle that minor percentage you are all hot to increase your cost per hour by a factor of 5 to 8 times what it is now - yes, those ratios are real world in going from a quarter of an Arrow to owning a $100,000+ airplane on your own.

1. I am going to suggest that you are vastly better off moving to a club/partnership in a bigger airplane as opposed to buying one
OR
2. Get checked out in a bigger plane at an fbo and rent when you want to do the family trips (probably the smartest choice)

From your description a twin will struggle to do the job. I'm thinking there has to be some change in the manifest.
 
I'm trying to think of that plane ad where they were loading the spinet piano. That got my attention.

Although not as fast as a Bo, you might think about a Maule. They also have big baggage area, but aren't the fastest in the world. For me, I would surely get an S35 and learn to fit the stuff you need. They go like stink and your wife will like that there is no yoke in her way, and the rudders fold flat to the floor on the right.

Getting in an out with kids is a bit of a trick but with planning it's not too bad. We got good at it after a few tries. Here was my method, best as I can remember; We stage all the stuff that we don't need during the flight in the baggage bay. Stuff we do need during the flight we put on the right wing near the door. I pre-flight, wife plays with the kids, and gets new diapers on, and ready. I grab a car seat, and get in first then fix car seat in back. Wife hands next car seat to me, and I fix that one in. Then the kids come in one at a time and get belted in by me. Wife hands me stuff for kids, and it goes on the rear floor, behind my seat. Wife locks car, hops in, and we go.

During the flight, if it's not bumpy my wife could turn around in the seat and tend to the kids real easy without the yoke over there. She has changed diapers, and fed kids in flight. I had a short-body plane, so we just took less stuff, which is a completely different discussion.
 
Understood and solid advice. I wish I could find a partnership around here with a larger/high performance airplane available. Maybe I just don't know where to look. As far as how much we all hop in the plane currently, you are correct in that it is not much. Now there are several factors to that which hopefully will be changing moving forward, but again, it is a valid point. I am from Chicago originally, and I have my whole family and most of my friends out there. The plan is to fly out there rather than make the 4+ hour drive each way every few weeks. We have done that a little so far, but between the weather being what it has been, and the previously mentioned cargo situation, it hasn't happened as much as I'd like. We have also run into aircraft availability issues with the partnership. I plan to work on my IR this year which will help a bit with questionable weather, and obviously if I owned the plane I wouldn't have to worry about who has it reserved or who damaged it recently. I appreciate your comments and understand that I don't "need" a plane. I am an engineer by trade so rationalizing getting a used car or even a new outfit is not generally an impulsive move. I have no intentions of making a move in the near future. We have enough on our hands at the moment with the baby situation. I would like to get some insights on the size of the baggage area of the V35 compared to an arrow though.
 
That was a Cherokee 6 ad with the piano.

If you want to stay under $100k and in a single, the S-35 Bonanza will be your best bang for the buck moving the family around. Pretty good luggage space with 4 seats installed. Want more cabin space, I've got a 310....
 
Since I've never been in an Arrow, I'm no good on the comparison. I have a S35 next to me at the airport, and I"m going over there now, I'll try to get some measurements if the plane is open, and it usually is. You can then match up to the Arrow.
 
Well, I know of a '55 310 for $35k that will fit the mission and budget well and includes a 530 and STEC 50. :)

Beyond that, a Bo would work, but if you have one kid and think you may have a second, you'll be happier with a 6-seater or, like the '55 310, a spacious 4 seater with large baggage area.

When we take family trips in the 310, there is never packing light.
 
The Cherokee 6 and the later versions (Lance, Saratoga), have fairly big cabins, and with three people should have more than enough room for bags, especially if you pull the rear seats.
 
Modern parents are a gas, their kid stuff expands to fill the size of the container. Buy a Kingair or learn to live a wee bit different. We road tripped with our daughter all over creation and only threw one or two diapers and a pack of wipes in the car. Sometimes one set of spare clothes. Yea occasionally we had to pay extortionate convenience store prices for extra diapers, but only a few times. And yes once or twice the kid came home nakid except for a diaper, no harm no foul. Tell your wife what it will cost if she doesn't change her ways, maybe explain in terms she will understand like new kitchens or inground swimming pools.
 
I have an identical mission to yours and the same airplane (arrow II) I don't have any 'volume' problems in doing that. I can see where having a second infant would make you feel as though a 6 seater cabin is required in order to negotiate the duplicity of child gear.

I did a similar research and the answer came back: Comanche. Wider cabin (yes, wider than a 182RG, which is only as wide as a pa-28 btw), 250-260HP and a solid 150ktas on 12gph. The 33/35s fall aft of their CG on my aft-loaded momma/baby/bags mission setup. A36 would work as I was educated on in a prior thread. Turns out in the 36 Bo, 15 of the total inches of stretch occurs forward of the wing, making it more aft loading tolerant. Alas, out of the price range. 182RG, cult-priced (like cardinals). I rather buy an A36 for 182RG money. So yeah, Comanche.

Now, in all reality I'll tell ya, I'm extremely gun shy about doing another trade for a Comanche because the performance increase is only incremental. It's not substantive enough for me. In order for me to go through the kabuki again I'd have to go full retard and get myself rolled up in mid-vintage IO-470 powered 310 and just pray to God the folly doesn't eat my lunch (which it probably would). We tolerate the arrow because the proposition of blocking 130 only costs me 8-9gph. But if Im gonna be dragging around the sky at that 135 on 14gph pa32 style or 145 at 16gph for a cool 100K, that'd just cure me. I rather burn 22 and go 170 on a 48.5 inch cabin. I can't believe I'm saying that but it makes more sense to me for some reason.

I feel like a zombie, slowly turning into the inoculation of the "twin", a proposition I know would sink me yet I continue to come up with iterations for which it would "make sense, actually". I need to stay away from you Cessna 310 peddlers, you wicked vultures of the young and innocent. I have a family to feed don't you people get that, stop preying on me :D
 
Thanks for the perspective 2020. Any special tips on squeezing into the arrow? There is no doubt about the financial benefits of the status quo. I also have a feeling that if we lived 250miles away from her family, she would do everything she could to fit into the arrow.
 
I have no experience in an Arrow, but I owned a '68 V35 for about 17 years. During that span, we went from no children to two teenagers. Baggage space was never a problem. During the later years we drove a Lexus RX350 to the airport. The limiting factor as to volume of luggage was what we could fit in the car, not the airplane. If we could get it to the airport in one vehicle we had no trouble getting it in the plane.

The problem eventually became CG. As the children got bigger, and therefore we started getting more weight in the rear seats, it became increasingly harder to stay within CG limits. Mind you, staying below gross weight was rarely a problem - weight distribution was the challenge. For that reason, and because I wanted a twin, we bought a Baron.

Long before the V35, I put about 75 hours on a 260 hp Cherokee Six. Great weight hauling machine but as you have noted, it is much slower than a V35. If you put me back in the position of young family of three with another on the way, I'd go with the V35 over the Six - baggage space in either would not be a factor in that decision.
 
I've got around 70 hours or so in a PA-28R-200. While you have a space problem now, it will only get worse as your youngster grows. I've never flown it with more than 2 aboard (including myself) as I've never taken anyone flying that I disliked enough to put in that back seat. To me that is a 2 person plus a reasonable amount of cargo space airplane. Given your future needs I don't think you are wrong in thinking ahead for something with more room. The Arrow doesn't hurt for load carrying, but legroom in the back seat is a serious issue.

Have fun looking. :D
 
hindsight2020 said:
I have an identical mission to yours and the same airplane (arrow II) I don't have any 'volume' problems in doing that. I can see where having a second infant would make you feel as though a 6 seater cabin is required in order to negotiate the duplicity of child gear.

I did a similar research and the answer came back: Comanche. Wider cabin (yes, wider than a 182RG, which is only as wide as a pa-28 btw), 250-260HP and a solid 150ktas on 12gph. The 33/35s fall aft of their CG on my aft-loaded momma/baby/bags mission setup. A36 would work as I was educated on in a prior thread. Turns out in the 36 Bo, 15 of the total inches of stretch occurs forward of the wing, making it more aft loading tolerant. Alas, out of the price range. 182RG, cult-priced (like cardinals). I rather buy an A36 for 182RG money. So yeah, Comanche.

Now, in all reality I'll tell ya, I'm extremely gun shy about doing another trade for a Comanche because the performance increase is only incremental. It's not substantive enough for me. In order for me to go through the kabuki again I'd have to go full retard and get myself rolled up in mid-vintage IO-470 powered 310 and just pray to God the folly doesn't eat my lunch (which it probably would). We tolerate the arrow because the proposition of blocking 130 only costs me 8-9gph. But if Im gonna be dragging around the sky at that 135 on 14gph pa32 style or 145 at 16gph for a cool 100K, that'd just cure me. I rather burn 22 and go 170 on a 48.5 inch cabin. I can't believe I'm saying that but it makes more sense to me for some reason.

I feel like a zombie, slowly turning into the inoculation of the "twin", a proposition I know would sink me yet I continue to come up with iterations for which it would "make sense, actually". I need to stay away from you Cessna 310 peddlers, you wicked vultures of the young and innocent. I have a family to feed don't you people get that, stop preying on me :D
Click to expand...

You can grow tomatoes in the back yard for the kids to eat, and the pound is full of dogs. Food is kinda optional anyway, you need a 310...:D
 
I think if you ran the numbers, a 310 vs a Cherokee 6/Lance might not be as bad as you think, especially with a partner. The PA32s are just not efficient.
 
Keep in mind too - once you're beyond the need for B.S.E. (Baby Support Equipment) your volume requirements will diminish.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Keep in mind too - once you're beyond the need for B.S.E. (Baby Support Equipment) your volume requirements will diminish.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it also gets replaced with camping gear, sports gear, folding bikes, beach stuff, mountain hiking stuff, dive stuff, golf stuff, shopping stuff...
 
A person who really wants to use aviation as an integral part of family transportation is likely to end up with a cabin class plane. A 310 is the insurance preferred transition plane for the 340-421 series. They all fly the same and the same basic numbers.
 
I have a Comanche (3-way partnership) and have the same volume issues as the OP when I travel with the wife, toddler and in-laws.

I'm (long term) eventually thinking 2-3 way Malibu partnership would be good.
 
dans2992 said:
I have a Comanche (3-way partnership) and have the same volume issues as the OP when I travel with the wife, toddler and in-laws.

I'm (long term) eventually thinking 2-3 way Malibu partnership would be good.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you'll be load or range limited with a Malibu.
 
The S/V35 baggage lays out like this: A trapezoid of 40" width just behind the rear seats. Tapering to 33.5" width at the aft bulkhead. 38" long, but with the rear seat backs it tapers a bit as you go up. Typical height for a plane, and it also tapers lower as you move aft toward the bulkhead.

It's all usable, flat floor and I think the load would be limited by aft CG, and not what the dataplate says about the load limit. I probably have the most sensitive Bonanza for CG with the very old version, and once in a while I have to fit a small bag up under the front seat. This isn't a problem as my wife just rests her feet on it, and the rudders on that side are folded down. This happened maybe twice in all the flights I've done with the family, and it was during the later years as the kids were teens that we moved aft CG as fuel was burned off.
 
Henning said:
Sounds like you'll be load or range limited with a Malibu.
Click to expand...


With everyone plus bags on board, I'd need to limit fuel to 90 gals.

That's factory numbers for a mirage though. Believe the straight malibu is lighter...?
 
to answer the original question, some of the "4 seat" bonanzas have much longer baggage than others. In general if you see one with the longer last window it will have a much longer baggage compartment. It will seem enormous compared to the arrow and with the situation you describe W&B will not be an issue in any way. If you fly much, cost per mile of a V35 will be much lower than the PA32.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top