Planes with easy access

W

wiregoat

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
14
Location
SW MO
Display Name
Display name:
wiregoat
Hello all. First time poster. My father has pretty severe arthritis. He can barely bend any joints, but, he is looking forward to flying with me. He can sit in my Jeep Cherokee pretty easily but then I have to pick up his legs and tuck him in. What aircraft would have the access we need to tuck him in there? I am about to take my check ride for my sport pilot license. However, my instructor believes I would have already been finished if I had gone for my private pilot license. I have been training on a tail-dragger that is tougher to fly than the Piper Cherokees the school has. So what is the easiest plane for some of you old-timers to get in and out of?
 
MAKG1 said:
Cessna 177 is better, especially the RG version. The doors are bigger and they sit lower.
Click to expand...

They actually sit so low that you have to crouch under the wing. That's not an issue if you transfer from a wheelchair, as long as you still walk up to the plane, I don't find the 177 very comfortable.
 
Well, you're a Sport PIlot, so you'll need a LSA for now. I recommend a Remos GX or a CTSW (or CTLS). Those should allow for ease of entry, though you'll need to help him get his leg over the stick.
 
Grummans, AA1 for a 2 seater AA5 for a 4 seater, the whole canopy slides back and you just step in, easy.

Also great aircraft.


If he wants something a little more fancy, navions are similar with the canopy, but are retracts and a little bigger plane.


Not sure about the little LSAs, outside of tailwheels like 7ACs, I don't have much experience with the LSA offerings. I'd look for something with a opening bubble canopy.
 
I would think the Cessna singles would probably work best. With any of the low wings he would still need to climb unto the wing then some gymnastics to get through the door. Not easy for someone with a disability and hard for another person to assist. Much less complicated with a high wing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Much as I hate the airplane for being hostile to tall people, I'd look at the Cessna 162 for its "stoke" that may be easier to navigate around than a conventional stick. The CTLS/CTSW is a good idea if throwing a knee over the stick is possible.

There's also a curious oddity WAC Spirit. It is an all-metal high-wing LSA that features folding sticks for ease of boarding. Unfortunately it's a rare bird. I only saw it twice ever.

For private pilots, the Cessna 177 is a good idea.
 
Perezhr said:
With any of the low wings he would still need to climb unto the wing...
Click to expand...

Yeah, that (W.R.T. Grummans).

The 177 is a good suggestion, but I'd also think about the back door of a Cherokee 6/Saratoga with club seating.

Or maybe a Piper Malibu :)

piper%20mirage%20entry%20cabin%20n3154j%20sale%20skysales.JPG
 
Last edited:
Lol. Thanks for the suggestions. It might take awhile for this poor boy to get that rating.
 
To ride up front, a Cessna 177, and it isn't even close. The doors swing WIDE open and there is no strut to climb around.
 
weilke said:
I don't find the 177 very comfortable.
Click to expand...

That confuses me. Not sure what's not comfortable. There is a lot of shoulder room, so you are not cramped with another passenger next to you.
 
PPC1052 said:
That confuses me. Not sure what's not comfortable. There is a lot of shoulder room, so you are not cramped with another passenger next to you.
Click to expand...
The back seat is huge.
 
+1 on the 177. Wide doors, easy loading.

I took my Stepmother (mid 70's) in a 172 while she had her foot in a boot. Took a couple tries to get the foot going in the correct direction, but when we stopped for a break she got out and back in without about the same amount of effort of getting her into the Mercury Sable. That's a good thing.

I wouldn't try the front seats of the six, but the rear would be a snap.
 
I don't think any of the Grumman aircraft would be easy to access for anyone with severe arthritis,the step up onto the wing and then over the side into the cockpit would be very difficult.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
yeah...yeah....it had to be that. ;)
Click to expand...

They had a rep for tailstrikes, not unlike 182s and bent firewalls.

If you ever fly one of either, you'll wonder how the heck people do those sorts of things to their airplanes. It takes some pretty poor flying to bend a 182 firewall, and 177s seem like dreams to land.

Like the old "no slips with flaps" issue in 172s, there were control authority issues in the very first 177s. Those have all been repaired, or are flying illegally (it's an AD). If the latter, you have bigger worries.

They may not have sold well out of the factory, but the used 177RG market is EXPENSIVE, more than a 182 of similar vintage.
 
I'll throw in another vote for a 162. It sits low and the strut is behind the upswinging door. Viz in that plane is like a helicopter.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
they certainly didn't sell like a thing of beauty. :D
Click to expand...
Actually, they did for the first year. Of the 2,752 fixed-gear Cardinals built from 1968 to 1978, 42% of them were built and sold the first year. Once those 150 hp '68 Cardinals got out in the field, chatter quickly spread that they were underpowered and had sketchy handling. After 1968 they never sold more than 208 fixed-gear Cardinals in any given year, despite the fact that Cessna quickly addressed the stabilator stall issue, and within a couple of years (1970 C-177B) it was a well-refined airplane.

Full disclosure -- Minutes after the examiner signed off my private pilot checkride in August 1968, I got checked out in a brand new '68 Cardinal (before the stabilator modification). Several of my first trips as a private pilot were in N3120T and N3340T. I enjoyed them, and never had any trouble with their handling. Yes, they flew differently from C-150s and C-172s, but I'd also trained in Cherokees, and the Cardinal seemed more similar to those.

upload_2016-12-23_10-13-54.png
 
MAKG1 said:
They had a rep for tailstrikes .
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of tailstrikes being an issue. I am aware that when it floated, pilots would try to push the nose down in the early versions just like they could safely in a 172. But wth the big stabilator, it caused the nose to drop much more than the pilot that was used to the 172 characteristics would expect, resulting in a the porpoise, thus the bent firewalls. Early versions were modified to prevent this, and the later versions had slots added to the stabilator to prevent this. It's called the "Operation Cardinal Rule." When you fly a cardinal and it floats on you, you just have to hold the nose, and resist any urge to push forward. Just give it a shot of power if it's going to drop out on you.

The biggest reason that they didn't sell well initially is that they had the same engine in the early models as the 172, while it was a bigger airframe. Thus it had sluggish performance. Also, I thought I read somewhere the book numbers were different, but people tried to fly it by the 172 numbers. When people flew them by the 172 numbers, it supposedly hurt their performance. If you fly an unmodified 177 (not an A or B model) by the 177 book numbers, it supposedly helped the performance. But too many people didn't use the right numbers, and the early versions got a bad reputation that wasn't cured even with substantial upgrades to the later year models until well after they stopped making them.
 
Jeff I'm happy for you bro.....but, many of us see them as the Karmann Ghia of planes....and lots of those were sold and many still like em. :D
Pilawt said:
Actually, they did for the first year. Of the 2,752 fixed-gear Cardinals built from 1968 to 1978, 42% of them were built and sold the first year. Once those 150 hp '68 Cardinals got out in the field, chatter quickly spread that they were underpowered and had sketchy handling. After 1968 they never sold more than 208 fixed-gear Cardinals in any given year, despite the fact that Cessna quickly addressed the stabilator stall issue, and within a couple of years (1970 C-177B) it was a well-refined airplane.

Full disclosure -- Minutes after the examiner signed off my private pilot checkride in August 1968, I got checked out in a brand new '68 Cardinal (before the stabilator modification). Several of my first trips as a private pilot were in N3120T and N3340T. I enjoyed them, and never had any trouble with their handling. Yes, they flew differently from C-150s and C-172s, but I'd also trained in Cherokees, and the Cardinal seemed more similar to those.

View attachment 50046
Click to expand...
 
Doesn't get any easier than this. IMG_1299.JPG
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
I'm not aware of tailstrikes being an issue. I am aware that when it floated, pilots would try to push the nose down in the early versions just like they could safely in a 172. But wth the big stabilator, it caused the nose to drop much more than the pilot that was used to the 172 characteristics would expect, resulting in a the porpoise, thus the bent firewalls. Early versions were modified to prevent this, and the later versions had slots added to the stabilator to prevent this. It's called the "Operation Cardinal Rule." When you fly a cardinal and it floats on you, you just have to hold the nose, and resist any urge to push forward. Just give it a shot of power if it's going to drop out on you.

The biggest reason that they didn't sell well initially is that they had the same engine in the early models as the 172, while it was a bigger airframe. Thus it had sluggish performance. Also, I thought I read somewhere the book numbers were different, but people tried to fly it by the 172 numbers. When people flew them by the 172 numbers, it supposedly hurt their performance. If you fly an unmodified 177 (not an A or B model) by the 177 book numbers, it supposedly helped the performance. But too many people didn't use the right numbers, and the early versions got a bad reputation that wasn't cured even with substantial upgrades to the later year models until well after they stopped making them.
Click to expand...

Pushing forward on the yoke during a "bounce" is a bad thing on just about any tricycle airplane. The 152 I did my first flight in was totaled that way. Smushed nosegear, prop strike, bent firewall, and a student pilot in a whole lot of trouble (he was flying in winds well beyond his solo endorsement limits).
 
MAKG1 said:
Pushing forward on the yoke during a "bounce" is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I did not say on a bounce. I said when it floated, like when you come in too fast and/or pull back too much in the flare.
 
I've never seen that one, that is slick. We have a stair climber for the Gulfstream and it is a little cumbersome. Do you carry that on board?
 
I've taken several AngelFlight passengers with mobility issues in my Cardinal RG. All have said that it's the easiest plane for them to get into and there companions have said they are comfortable in the back seat. I've never sat back there so I will take their word for it.

It's also fairly common for the patient to fall asleep. Everyone that has slept on the flight has
told me when they landed that they had never had that happen on a flight home before. Either I'm really boring or the Cardinal is more comfortable than other planes they've flown in.

Ask around and you're likely the find someone that will take you and your dad for a ride. With the wheels down my 177 RG flies very similar to the 172 I had before. It has more power so it climbs much better but if you can fly an LSA my guess is you could pick up how to fly a 172 quickly.

The big difference between my RG and my 172 is the stabilator on my 177RG is a lot more effective than the elevator on my 172. It took a bit to get used to using small inputs to control the RG. If you tug on the yoke like you do with a 172 you see some pretty fast changes in the aircrafts attitude. Use your fingertips and everything goes well.

Gary
 
My sister takes care of a quadriplegic. He wanted to go for a small airplane ride. Friend has a Cherokee 6 with club seating. Worked perfectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top