single engine & 5 or 6 seats??

georgewdean

georgewdean

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
26
Location
Denton DFW Texas
Display Name
Display name:
George Dean
ONE day, My goal is to own my own airplane and take my family on little quick trips on the weekends and what not.

Could you make a couple airplane recommendation for a SINGLE engine plan that seats 5 or 6???

I don't think I can afford a ME.

Thanks!
George
 
the only real option that springs to mind is a Cherokee 6. unless you want to get into single engine turboprop money. but you can usually run a twin piston for that. save money at the grocery store and keep the kids skinny and you'll be happy with the 6.

and welcome to PoA!
 
Cessna 206/210. A-36 Bonanza. Piper Lance/Cherokee 6/Saratoga. Those are the mainstream options. But keep in mind they aren't really true 6 place planes. Cessna 207's may be an option if you need a scosh more weight room.
 
We have put 6 adults and baggage for those 6 people in a Cherokee Six-300. It's a dog for speed compared to the fuel burn, but we were all able to get in and not be overly cramped. The plane we were flying didn't have the club seating for the rear pax, which would have made the comfort level much more acceptable for them.

Pros: Non retract (less mx usually), 'big' plane that handles bumps a little more smoothly than shorter winged planes, room for 6 people and a decent amount of 'stuff'.

Cons: Fuel burn for the big engine, slow speeds for that heavy fuel burn (130-140kts IIRC), 'heavy' plane - not quite as docile as the 4-seater 182's.

EDIT: To be able to post this pic of us in the Cherokee Six (and not get killed for doing so), I must add a disclaimer -- my wife (blue jacket and glasses on left side of pic) has lost about 30 lbs since this pic was taken. ;)

main.php
 
Last edited:
CJones said:
We have put 6 adults and baggage for those 6 people in a Cherokee Six-300. It's a dog for speed compared to the fuel burn, but we were all able to get in and not be overly cramped. The plane we were flying didn't have the club seating for the rear pax, which would have made the comfort level much more acceptable for them.

Pros: Non retract (less mx usually), 'big' plane that handles bumps a little more smoothly than shorter winged planes, room for 6 people and a decent amount of 'stuff'.

Cons: Fuel burn for the big engine, slow speeds for that heavy fuel burn (130-140kts IIRC), 'heavy' plane - not quite as docile as the 4-seater 182's.
Click to expand...

Dude you weigh like 24 lbs and are no thicker than my index finger. Your wife is skinny too. the OP ain't fat but if thats his photo he is a big boy.
 
I think there are Sierra's that have 5 seats not sure about their useful load and EdFred thinks they are so slow they fly backwards but if its just short hops as you say it may be worth a look see.
 
AdamZ said:
Dude you weigh like 24 lbs and are no thicker than my index finger. Your wife is skinny too. the OP ain't fat but if thats his photo he is a big boy.
Click to expand...

But my pockets were full of bubble gum when we flew it, so that counts for something, right!? :D :D
 
AdamZ said:
I think there are Sierra's that have 5 seats not sure about their useful load and EdFred thinks they are so slow they fly backwards but if its just short hops as you say it may be worth a look see.
Click to expand...

They also use more runway that a Grumman. :D
 
CJones said:
EDIT: To be able to post this pic of us in the Cherokee Six (and not get killed for doing so), I must add a disclaimer -- my wife (blue jacket and glasses on left side of pic) has lost about 30 lbs since this pic was taken. ;)

main.php
Click to expand...

Now you can put 5 more gallons in it :D
 
georgewdean said:
I have a wife and three girls. 5 seats is all I really need.
Click to expand...
For fixed gear, PA-32 series (Cherokee Six, Saratoga, 6X) or Cessna 206 are about the only reasonable choices; for retractable, PA-32R series (Lance or Saratoga HP), Cessna 210 (limited baggage space -- an issue when traveling with four females), and 36 Bonanza (remove 6th seat for expanded baggage area). The 36 Bonanza and PA-32 have the huge advantage over the C-206 of having the big aft door for loading, and the fixed-gear PA-32 will have the best available fuel load after putting the family and their luggage aboard (BE36's often have small full fuel payloads, especially the later models).

C-205's will work, but there aren't many around.

Whatever you look at, check the actual, current W&B sheet to see what useful load you have to play with.

And a Beech Sierra won't even come close to handling this mission.
 
And if you don't have your IR, you will need it to get insurance you can afford, that's if you find a company that will even quote you.
 
EdFred said:
You also need the ability to carry 836 pounds of baggage in addition to the passengers. :D
Click to expand...
My brother-in-law only two girls plus my sister. He ended up with an Aztec. They were teenagers
 
I flew an A-36 for several years. Took three nieces and stuff and was fine, but there is a gross weight increase for tip tanks that can be used in the cabin if not in the tips. This adds a couple hundred pounds to useful load. The standard A-36, as Ron said, wouldn't have a lot of range with the kind of load you're talking about. If you go that direction, get the IO-550. It will make a real difference with a full load. If you get one that is turbo normalized, there can be a 400 pound gross weight increase from GAMI/TAT.
I have an weight and balance sheet for my old plane somewhere if you really get into the A-36.

Best,

Dave
 
alaskaflyer said:
I sure would like to know where they got those fur covers for their inertia reel shoulder harness. Or rather, my wife would like to know.
Click to expand...
Sorry, the picture is from the internet so I don't have any clue where they got the fur covers. They do look comfy though. :)
 
EdFred said:
They also use more runway that a Grumman. :D
Click to expand...



Yeah, but most Grumman pilots and pax are pretty svelt. For example, I'm 170 lbs. The women in that Six pic prolly weigh, what, twice what I way, plus their steamer trunks. Gotta account for that somehow.

I still need the 10K runways though, but those are the ones with good services. :D
 
tonycondon said:
the only real option that springs to mind is a Cherokee 6. unless you want to get into single engine turboprop money. but you can usually run a twin piston for that. save money at the grocery store and keep the kids skinny and you'll be happy with the 6.

and welcome to PoA!
Click to expand...

The Cherokee Six and it's derivatives is really the best choice if all pax are "full sized" adults and you're bringing the typical 30-40 lbs of baggage per person. It has a nose baggage compartment ahead of the aircraft's CG range.

Some 36 series Bonanzas will carry 6 adults but the pax would have to "wear" the baggage or at least sit on it to keep the loaded CG acceptable. To a lesser extent the same is true of a 210.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I sure would like to know where they got those fur covers for their inertia reel shoulder harness. Or rather, my wife would like to know.
Click to expand...

I got mine from Checker Airplane (aka Auto) Parts. IIRC they were around $15/pair and made of sheepskin. I had to modify the velcro attachment so they would stick to the tabs already on the BAS belts.
 
Straight tail Piper Lance. I've owned 2. Honest 150 knots at 65 percent power/8000 feet/15 gph. Full fuel (98 gal) and still put 750 pounds in the cabin. Nose and rear baggage bays mean loading flexibility for CG purposes -- and to get stuff like oil and cabin covers out of the cabin area.

Handles like a truck and is not particularly fun to fly, but for utility it's hard to beat.
 
I looked back at my A-36 weight and balance chart. My standard A-36 could hold full fuel and 550 pounds of stuff (payload), but my plane was heavy. With the Tip tank STC, I could hold an additional 240 in the tips or cabin. So, with tips empty and full fuel I could carry almost 800 pounds in the cabin. I later got the TAT STC which increased payload farther. I did have the TSIO-550 engine. The plane was very flexible. Even with the cabin full, I had over a four hour range without tip tank fuel. Add another 1:30 if tips were full and reduce the cabin load. That was at 65% power. Usually trued out about 190 at FL180. A bit slower, lower. Of course, it was turbo normalized.

Best,

Dave
 
Ken Ibold said:
Straight tail Piper Lance. I've owned 2. Honest 150 knots at 65 percent power/8000 feet/15 gph. Full fuel (98 gal) and still put 750 pounds in the cabin. Nose and rear baggage bays mean loading flexibility for CG purposes -- and to get stuff like oil and cabin covers out of the cabin area.

Handles like a truck and is not particularly fun to fly, but for utility it's hard to beat.
Click to expand...
D_mn, Ken, that's a profile of my Seneca II. 750 in the cabin with 6 hours and a few minutes' fuel, 150 knots 12,000 feet/20 gph.

How is that possible with two engines? You've gotta be doing better than that.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
I looked back at my A-36 weight and balance chart. My standard A-36 could hold full fuel and 550 pounds of stuff (payload), but my plane was heavy. With the Tip tank STC, I could hold an additional 240 in the tips or cabin. So, with tips empty and full fuel I could carry almost 800 pounds in the cabin. I later got the TAT STC which increased payload farther. I did have the TSIO-550 engine. The plane was very flexible. Even with the cabin full, I had over a four hour range without tip tank fuel. Add another 1:30 if tips were full and reduce the cabin load. That was at 65% power. Usually trued out about 190 at FL180. A bit slower, lower. Of course, it was turbo normalized.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave,

Doesn't the tip tank STC add 200# to Useful load as long as it's fuel in the tanks?
 
TBM-700. PC-12. :rolleyes:

(OK,OK, I know - but he did say "single engine"). ;)
 
There are a few C205s out there. They were only built in 63 and 64, but it's a hauler, with very good short/soft field capability for a larger SEL aircraft.

Plus, the fixed gear helps keep the insurance rates reasonable....
 
georgewdean said:
ONE day, My goal is to own my own airplane and take my family on little quick trips on the weekends and what not.

Could you make a couple airplane recommendation for a SINGLE engine plan that seats 5 or 6???

I don't think I can afford a ME.

Thanks!
George
Click to expand...

for 5 ?

can't beat this

CESSNA 195 • ASKING PRICE SLASHED • 1952 C195A, N1567D, Approx 5000TT, 857SMOH, 250 prop. Narco 12D+&12D w/DME&GS, Comp 70-78, rebuilt tail wheel, avionics cooling fan, Davtron time, new AI, extended baggage. 100% stock FWF $7500 recent maintenance work, 11/08 annual many extras, Never ground looped Reduced to 62K, Best value 195 on the market George 310 373 4005 • Contact George W. Renfroe, Owner - located Torrance, CA USA • Telephone: 310-373-4005 • Posted August 4, 2009
 

Attachments

  • 195-3.jpg
    195-3.jpg
    101.5 KB · Views: 24
  • 195-2.jpg
    195-2.jpg
    65.1 KB · Views: 31
  • 195-1.jpg
    195-1.jpg
    51.5 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
OR.......

1953 CESSNA 195 • $84,000 • AVAILABLE FOR SALE • N4494C S/N 16078, Airframe Total Time: 3000, Engine: Jacobs R755B2 (275hp)-375 SMOH, Avionics: 2-KS155, 1-KR96, txpr/encoder, Intercom: PS PN501, Modern Panel, New breaker panel/switches, Southwind heater, Tip strobes, Locking T-wheel, Clevelands, Wheel Pants, Light Gear, 2 Landing lights, Cessna spinner, Paint/interior-very nice. Owner: Pat Wilson. • Contact John Collett - BUTTERFLY AVIATION, INC., Friend of Owner - located Goodland, KS USA • Telephone: 785-890-7531 . • Fax: 785-890-7539 • Posted July 21, 2009 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad • View Larger Pictures
 

Attachments

  • 195-4.jpg
    195-4.jpg
    36.7 KB · Views: 18
Although there are 5 sets of seatbelts in a 195, (provided the center set in the back seat has not been removed) a 195 cannot in any practical way be called a 5 place airplane. It does not take very long at all for the kids to outgrow the back seat.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Although there are 5 sets of seatbelts in a 195, (provided the center set in the back seat has not been removed) a 195 cannot in any practical way be called a 5 place airplane. It does not take very long at all for the kids to outgrow the back seat.
Click to expand...

And here I was, wishing I had an extra $80K and a medical...
 
Ron Levy said:
You checked the payload on one of them? Definitely not a 5-6 person airplane.
Click to expand...

He owns one. I would hope so.

That said: 1420 useful load. Minus the standard FAA 5*170 leaves you 570 pounds of fuel/baggage.
 
EdFred said:
He owns one. I would hope so.

That said: 1420 useful load. Minus the standard FAA 5*170 leaves you 570 pounds of fuel/baggage.
Click to expand...
That's the "standard" useful load, not "as equipped." P&P's test flight in one was "within 150 lb of max gross" with three adults, "nearly full fuel," and no bags. I don't see this as a good "5 people+bags" traveling machine unless you make short trips with limited fuel reserves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top