Largest non-complex single engine aircraft?

Chrisgoesflying

Chrisgoesflying

Cleared for Takeoff
PoA Supporter
Joined
Dec 7, 2018
Messages
1,343
Location
The Lone Star State
Display Name
Display name:
Chrisgoesflying
I'm currently flying around a little Cessna 150 which is perfect for my current mission. However, eventually I will need to upgrade (came to the realization after a 2.5 hour flight with an average ground speed of 70 mph this past weekend lol). I was wondering, what would be the largest, non-complex (fix pitch prop, non-retractable landing gear), SEL aircraft that flies like a regular ol' Cessna 150 or Cessna 172? Or would I absolutely need something complex (constant speed prop, retractable landing gear, etc.) if I really want to go places and have decent useful load (1,500+ lbs)?
 
weilke said:
Antonov AN2.
Click to expand...

Not fixed pitch. Although still not complex by FAA standards. Unable to be used in USA either in any practical manner
 
Why do you even care about it being fixed pitch? Your biggest problem will be 1500lb useful. Not many(any?) SE pistons would do that
 
Let's see....fixed gear, fixed pitch prop, no flaps, payload >1500 lbs, legal to fly in the US. Ford Tri-motor. But I don't think that they fly quite like a 172...and there aren't too many listed on trade-a-plane.

Complex is a fun add-on. You don't need a special reason to get it. Just go get it.

edit: I missed the "single engine" part. I'll change my answer to the F-106. Easily exceeds your payload requirement, but it's going to be difficult to get passengers into it.
 
Last edited:
Cessna Caravan will haul 1500lbs + 6 hours of fuel. Flies just like a 172. Kinda.
 
1500 pounds is more massive than decent. CS props aren't considered complex. Really the only fixed gear with close to that useful is a Cherokee Six. There's a few out there with fixed pitch. For something a little more dainty and better handling I'd look at the Cherokee 235. Still damn good useful. But apparently 1400 pounds isn't even decent.
 
What you ask for does not exist. With just a CS prop you can get somewhat close(ish) with a Cherokee Six or Cessna 205/206/207
 
Two reasons to stay away from complex. Your ability, and “simple” means less to break. =<$$$. You should stay learning. Get complex endorsements. Fly them a bit. Then going back, things slow down (mentally, SA wise) even more as you were used to managing more. It serves you to progress even if your long term goals are to fly simple slow airplanes.
$$ though. I get that. I was set to buy a Cherokee 6 FG when the market went nuts. Now I have to plan my money for a while. But I want a FG so it’s one less system to maintain owner wise.
 
Complex is retractable AND constant speed prop AND flaps. Are you wanting a non complex (missing one of these) or a non retract + fixed pitch prop (and no flaps?).

For example, a Cirrus is not complex. It has fixed gear and technically a CS prop. But you don’t manage the prop, it’s set by a cam based on the throttle position.
 
genna said:
Not fixed pitch. Although still not complex by FAA standards. Unable to be used in USA either in any practical manner
Click to expand...

Aren't there a few on the exp exhibition register ? It's not complex by FAA standards, it's high performance and tailwheel and may require that 800hp experimental warbird sign-off.

Won't be much faster than a 172....
 
The serious answer are 182 and Cherokee 235/236. Both are stone simple to fly and are not complex from a insurance and FAA perspective . 1500 is aiming a bit high, but 1300 is doable in both.
If you want 1500, you care talking early Cherokee Six and 205/206 .
 
A new Cessna T206H Stationair HD has a base useful load of 1,441Lbs. So for people saying it’s not possible to get close in a single piston of reasonable size, I say see here! It is indeed possible. But you’ll pay for it of course. And the plane is not complex

but for the op the above would be the closest thing to a 172 flying style. The 206 flies like a bigger 182, which flies like a heavier bigger 172. It is not complex but it does have a CS prop. As others have mentioned I believe it’s easy to get close to your mission requirement not complex, but I believe you’re going to at least need a CS prop to do it
 
weilke said:
Aren't there a few on the exp exhibition register ? It's not complex by FAA standards, it's high performance and tailwheel and may require that 800hp experimental warbird sign-off.

Won't be much faster than a 172....
Click to expand...

Yes, there are a few. This is a very limiting category, is it not? In any case, the definition of complex(notwithstanding FAA definition) was given by the OP as Fixed Pitch Prop and Fixed Gear. AFAIK, there are no 1500lb UL SEL planes that fit that category.

But while I perfectly understand why one wants fixed gear, I fail to understand why one would insist on a fixed pitch prop. Sure it adds some expense, but it's a really simple system to use with very few drawbacks. Once you allow CS prop, you have a couple of options.
 
Last edited:
Chrisgoesflying said:
I'm currently flying around a little Cessna 150 which is perfect for my current mission. However, eventually I will need to upgrade (came to the realization after a 2.5 hour flight with an average ground speed of 70 mph this past weekend lol). I was wondering, what would be the largest, non-complex (fix pitch prop, non-retractable landing gear), SEL aircraft that flies like a regular ol' Cessna 150 or Cessna 172? Or would I absolutely need something complex (constant speed prop, retractable landing gear, etc.) if I really want to go places and have decent useful load (1,500+ lbs)?
Click to expand...
Don't be afraid of the Constant Speed propeller. It's just a blue knob that goes between the black and red ones. Avoiding the complexity of retractable landing gear is probably a good idea though.

Go fly a 182. It's the natural progression. 150 - > 172 - > 182. I started off in a 150 for the first half of my private. Then I stepped up to a 172 to finish. (don't ask, long story). Now I'm in a club flying a 182. I've been able to take my dad, two sons and completely stuff the back with camping gear and still be within weight and balance. The 182 holds 92 gallons (88 usable). It will go far, it will go fast, and if you don't want to carry 552 lbs of fuel, you can carry quite a bit of load as well.

Edit

The 182S I fly has a 1160 lbs useful load. That's not 1,500 lbs, but as others have stated, that number is going to be difficult to hit, unless you go with a Cherokee six. But those are gonna have CS props.
 
Last edited:
This is probably the only plane that meets your exact criteria.

https://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/pistons/six-seat-stalwart-used-pa-32-review/

However...

"The original Cherokee Six had a six-cylinder 260 hp Lycoming with a fixed-pitch propeller as standard. The fixed-pitch prop produced barely enough thrust to lift the Six off the runway, but the weight savings allowed Piper to claim a useful load greater than the empty weight for the basic model. Few, if any, Sixes flew with the standard fixed-pitch propeller, which was replaced by the optional constant-speed prop. The engine also has a carburetor, so carb ice is always a threat. By the second year of production, the Six was offered with a fuel-injected 300 hp version of the Lycoming 540 engine with a constant-speed prop standard."
 
I think seeking a large trainer aircraft is going to be somewhat non productive. Trainers are built small because you don't have to carry that much to train. Airplanes that are built large to carry a lot of stuff tend to have more complex systems to let them do it. My best guess is a Cherokee 6. I think there are some with fixed pitch props, and they'll carry pretty much whatever you put in them. Don't know about 1500 lbs though. I think to do that you need to burn kerosene.
 
maybe I'm wrong but I don't think this was meant to be a serious search for a fixed pitch option (or in any way meant to imply wanting to stay away from CS props)
I think it was more of a trivia question.....
and it is an interesting one.....

I don't have tons of experience but I think a 172 is the largest fixed gear fixed pitch single engine airplane I've flown...and I can't think of anything bigger
 
Boil it down to:
  • Want to fly like a 172
  • Decent load
  • "Fly somewhere" - faster than a 150 at 70 MPH
Fixed Gear 182 or 206 is what comes to mind.
 
If you're unable to grasp the blue lever, try an Archer.

If you think you're able to get the concept - try a PA32/C182/C206/C207.

Only you know if you're capable of the huge leap to a blue lever.
 
I see some suggestions of aircraft that aren't "complex", but they are considered high performance (>200hp). If the OP isn't wanting to pursue the complex endorsement, what makes you think he has any interest in the high performance endorsement?

The complex endorsement literally takes no more that a few flying hours. If I remember correctly, I believe I added the high performance endorsement in one additional flight. From what was stated in the original post, there is no plane that fits the bill without a complex and/or high performance endorsement.
 
again.... I don't think the OP was saying anything like
not being able to understand the blue knob
or not interested in an endorsement
or even anything about the money really....
 
azpilot said:
Don't be afraid of the Constant Speed propeller. It's just a blue knob that goes between the black and red ones. Avoiding the complexity of retractable landing gear is probably a good idea though.

Go fly a 182. It's the natural progression. 150 - > 172 - > 182. I started off in a 150 for the first half of my private. Then I stepped up to a 172 to finish. (don't ask, long story). Now I'm in a club flying a 182. I've been able to take my dad, two sons and completely stuff the back with camping gear and still be within weight and balance. The 182 holds 92 gallons (88 usable). It will go far, it will go fast, and if you don't want to carry 552 lbs of fuel, you can carry quite a bit of load as well.

Edit

The 182S I fly has a 1160 lbs useful load. That's not 1,500 lbs, but as others have stated, that number is going to be difficult to hit, unless you go with a Cherokee six. But those are gonna have CS props.
Click to expand...
My R is at 1313lbs right now. Vacuum system is about to get removed, so that’ll add a little more
 
I am not sure the OP is that familiar with the meaning the different terms have.

Why 1500lb UL ? I have used 1500 lbs once and that was taking 4 guys, tools, heater, blankets and snow shovels to pick up a plane in ND in January.

Normal family travel, the 12-1300lb you get in a 182 is plenty. Take the CFI to pick up the plane, get the HP endorsement as part of the insurance checkout. Non-issue.
 
ktup-flyer said:
My R is at 1313lbs right now. Vacuum system is about to get removed, so that’ll add a little more
Click to expand...
Wow! What did you do to 'skinny' it down so much? Is the R just inherently lighter than the S?
 
azpilot said:
Wow! What did you do to 'skinny' it down so much? Is the R just inherently lighter than the S?
Click to expand...
Yes. I also have new(ish) upholstery in mine, battiflex flooring, all the old insulation removed and new closed cell installed, and have cleaned up behind the panel some.
 
Seems like a look of questions like this end up with "C 182".

And the obligatory "Bonanza".........
 
When in doubt, you can always just leave the blue knob in all the time. Won’t hurt a thing.
 
Salty said:
When in doubt, you can always just leave the blue knob in all the time. Won’t hurt a thing.
Click to expand...

I was going to say that, but can't this force you to use less power(MP) on some planes in cruise? Or put you into some forbidden MP/RPM ranges?
 
Rgbeard said:
If you're unable to grasp the blue lever, try an Archer.

If you think you're able to get the concept - try a PA32/C182/C206/C207.

Only you know if you're capable of the huge leap to a blue lever.
Click to expand...
Our lever (kno) is black so it was even easier to learn LOL!
 
Rgbeard said:
Cherokee Six 260 fits this REALLY WELL, just sayin'.
Click to expand...
Yup…mine would do that. But, it was also high performance…..if that matters. And a low timer with no IR would pay dearly in insurance.
 
genna said:
I was going to say that, but can't this force you to use less power(MP) on some planes in cruise? Or put you into some forbidden MP/RPM ranges?
Click to expand...

I was in a Chieftain climbing for cruise altitude at climb cruise settings, 2500 rpm. As I went to pull the props into cruise settings, the right engine prop control cable broke. I just synced the left engine to the right one and ran at reduced MP on both engines per the engine cruise settings chart and no problem, except the extra noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top