Six seater planes

I hate to call in artillery on my own position, being the owner of a Bo, but in head to head - it pains me to say the mid and later models of the 210 seem to be the better plane.

I have no love for the A36, although the seating might be a bit more generous, and the visibility might be a bit better. I think the 210M is equal or better.

But - I have nothing to real base it on except load and comparable speed. Maybe the Beech is built a little better, but with the spar AD on both of them, it seems a wash.
 
Bonchie said:
Only issue with the Bonanza is you'll have to put a lot of time on it to get insured. I think most require 25 retract or maybe a little less in type?

But if you are going to ever upgrade, you are gonna need the complex time anyway. Might as well get it now and in your own plane.
Click to expand...
OWT, plenty of people have done their primary training in a bonanza
 
labbadabba said:
Could go with a PA28-235/236

Comparable useful load to a PA-32 and easier to insure.
Click to expand...
I would say just the opposite. The 235 makes no sense, it doesn't have enough cabin room to take advantage of the load hauling capability. If you're considering a 235 wou might as well just get a PA32, big picture it costs the same to buy and maintain, any insurance and fuel differences are rounding error
 
kgruber said:
Cherokee 6 if pavement to pavement. Terrible feel, if that matters. Great load hauling capability. Weak landing gear.

Cessna 206 if any bush operations. Better control feel, much stronger landing gear.

Either will go on floats, although you'll never see a "6" on the water. 206 is a proven floatplane workhorse.
Click to expand...

First time I've ever heard anyone say a six has weak gear. Please elaborate.
 
JHW said:
yeah, the idea that you're going to rent a 6-seater for travel on-demand doesn't pass the straight face test



the whole reason to own a plane is to go places when you want to. Renting only works for flying in little circles around the airport.
Click to expand...

True for most places, but not always. In San Diego, for example, there was really no reason to own a six seater. Our club had a PA32, 210 Aztec and a few 4 seat twins that could haul a load.

It was perfect for those that only needed the 6 seater for a couple trips per year.

Now, when we moved to Virginia, I was seriously hating life when I couldn't find a single 6 seater for rent anywhere near driving distance. That is when the Baron started looking good.
 
gitmo234 said:
I had completely written off the 182, I'll have to look into it. We're planning on 2 kids and she won't be happy with 2 of us, 2 kids and no bags. The O-300 doesn't seem to have the pick me up for it. I have about 800 useful load and I don't enjoy that with the trees at the end of the runway.

That Cherokee six is really nice. I'm gonna look at the 210 is well.

How do these larger aircraft handle the bumps compared to a 172?
Click to expand...

If you're only gonna have 2 kids -- and they're not even both born yet, you won't outgrow a 182 for a loooooong time - if ever. You could manage in a 172 for quite a while also. Babies require seats but they don't amount to squat for weight. Nor do kids until maybe age 12. My 8 year old is 55 lbs (he's definitely low end of the distribution) - same as my 6-yr old.

If you want to carry more people than just the family then a sixer is in order - if you will want to do that often.

For us, the turbo 182 RG has been a hauling machine - hauling the family of 4, dog, bags, full fuel, and much ass. For $100k you can have a nice example of a 182, TR182 or even an Arrow II or turbo Arrow II. I'm a fan of folding gear for speed and the insurance hickey and extra maint. haven't been bad. I like Cessna because they are common as sh**, every mechanic knows them, and parts and STCs abound. Same for Piper of course.

But yeah for a 6er maybe a C210 or 206 or the PA-32 (love the Saratoga but the ones I want but the $100k mark).
 
Last edited:
I'm kinda rethinking some of the points... if it goes high-performance + complex, I want to buy it. Even with my 172, if I go a month or two without flying there's a few minutes that it feels foreign when I hop in. (thank god for checklists)

I dont want that with a complex airplane.

It should also be noted that I've been somewhat obsessed with a cherokee six since I started flying. I have no good reason for it... I've never even seen one in person. I saw an ad for one for sale and got stuck
 
petrolero said:
If you're only gonna have 2 kids -- and they're not even both born yet, you won't outgrow a 182 for a loooooong time. You could manage in a 172 for quite a while also. Babies require seats but they don't amount to squat for weight. Nor do kids until maybe age 12. My 8 year old is 55 lbs (he's definitely low end of the distribution) - same as my 6-yr old.

If you want to carry more people than just the family then a sixer is in order - if you will want to do that often.

For us, the turbo 182 RG has been a hauling machine - hauling the family of 4, dog, bags, full fuel, and much ass. For $100k you can have a nice example of a 182, TR182 or even an Arrow II or turbo Arrow II. I'm a fan of folding gear for speed and the insurance hickey and extra maint. haven't been bad.

But yeah for a 6er maybe a C210 or 206 or the PA-32 (love the Saratoga but the ones I want but the $100k mark).
Click to expand...

He won't need the weight hailing capability for a long time, but unless his wife is willing to travel light, you are going to want the space of a six seater to haul all the stuff.....stroller, diaper bags, pack and play, extra baby stuff...etc.

I have literally maxed out the space of a 210 but had plenty of useful load raining when my girls were 4 and 1.

Nowadays (7 and 4) we use less room, but take more weight.
 
High performance + complex is something you'll get used to through practice and experience. Not to be feared IMHO.

I don't think the folding gear makes it any harder, it's just another thing on the checklists. But if you're doing long XCs (mine are 600 to 800 nm) you'll want the speed or at least an autopilot.
 
When I recommended renting for the step up missions requiring seats/load/range I didn't imagine it would be the ONLY time you should do so.

Obviously you'd want to have recent experience before you load up and go trucking off with the family. That includes you flying the particular plane AND having some history with her to know when things don't look "normal"

I fly MY plane most every weekend. I fly my club planes monthly, and I when I'm out in California I always rent from the same operator and I call him the week before just to check on what's going on with his planes before I select the one I actually use.

Sorry to hear there are availability issues out there. I live in the DFW metro area and it's easy to find rentals and/or clubs. (Which might be why I suggested it in the first place?)
 
I was in the same place you are planning to be last year.

Owned a 172 and when the kids were little, we did not have any problems.(please keep in mind that I did not own the plane when they were toddlers)

Last year we started running out of useful load. I have 2 boys, one 13 & one 10.

I, like you, was concentrating on 182's, but the premium you pay to own one just did not make sense. I wanted a true 4 place.

I ended up buying a nice Piper Comanche. While it has 4 seats it is very roomy with a large baggage area, plus with the tip tanks, it has 1200 lbs of useful load, with no CG issues.

75% is 155 knots burning 14.5 GPH, 65% 145 knots burning 12.5 GPH, or econo mode, 55% is 135 knots burning 10.5 GPH. Hauls a load and with the tips, carries 90 gals of fuel so you can go ALONG time. Great flexibility.

Over all I am truly happy with the move.

Flav
 
Gitmo, If your short list doesn't include a Beechcraft Bonanza A36...then your not looking hard enough! Sincerely Sidney Wakeham...Bonanza's ROCK!
 
Welcome to POA.

Where a Bo is the answer to every question

And any job aside from being a engneer or a computer guy, isn't a "real job"

:lol:
 
sidneyfw said:
Gitmo, If your short list doesn't include a Beechcraft Bonanza A36...then your not looking hard enough! Sincerely Sidney Wakeham...Bonanza's ROCK!
Click to expand...
ya but....those two rear seats ain't taking two big guys.:no:

...and where's all the bags and stroller gonna go? :yikes::goofy:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
ya but....those two rear seats ain't taking two big guys.:no:

...and where's all the bags and stroller gonna go? :yikes::goofy:
Click to expand...

Exactly. I like V-tails and Debs fine, but if you can't do the job in a -33/35, you need a Baron.

So now that we've crossed that bridge....it's time to sell this dude a Duke!
 
How far are you going? The 182 is a payload beast with some pretty good range. Drop a little range and its more about can you close the doors. Investing in some techy stuff that lets you be more accurate with your fuel burn and engine management may be a better choice for you than a whole new plane.
 
sidneyfw said:
Gitmo, If your short list doesn't include a Beechcraft Bonanza A36...then your not looking hard enough! Sincerely Sidney Wakeham...Bonanza's ROCK!
Click to expand...

Perfect plane for a family of 4.

Usually my wife and one kid in the back, the other one up front to 'help' me ;) . If it is just me and the kids, I turn the middle row around, leaves a cargo bay big enough to store assembled bicycles. Still a small and nimble enough plane that it is fun to fly alone, (unlike a PA32 for example).
 
Echo'ing another comment above...don't over look Cirrus SR22. If you're like me, the parachute will give you that extra degree of comfort, knowing that you are human and engines can and do fail.

There is a surplus of older SR22's out there. My theory is that folks who can afford at new one (now pushing $700K) can also afford to upgrade every few years. My like-new 2004 SR22 cost $187K. That's in the same range as a good PA32 with decent avoinics (and they can go way up from there).

I take friends and family up all the time. I feel good knowing I've got a plane that now has the lowest fataility rate in the industry, partly due to the 'chute and partly due to advanced avionics and the amazing Cirrus training program.
 
Although he chute is a wonderful option to mitigate risk, you may want to post the source of that safety data for the Cirrus. I believe the fatality rate is no different than any other GA aircraft.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Although he chute is a wonderful option to mitigate risk, you may want to post the source of that safety data for the Cirrus. I believe the fatality rate is no different than any other GA aircraft.
Click to expand...

From what I remember, Cirrus actually had a worse safety record then the rest of the GA fleet initially. It is only now that it has fallen to be inline or possible slightly better than average.
 
I have two six seat airplanes. I very seldom have six in them but do haul 5 pretty often. I have had and have 2 and 4 place airplanes. I find that I don't burn much more fuel if I want to putt around in the sky with a six place than the smaller ones. For any trip I usually end up taking the biggest fastest one which also ends up being the less fuel burn for the trip. At this point if I could only have one airplane it would be one of the six place ones.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Although he chute is a wonderful option to mitigate risk, you may want to post the source of that safety data for the Cirrus. I believe the fatality rate is no different than any other GA aircraft.
Click to expand...


It's more of a psychological comfort factor. Same with twins. Not really safer.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Echo'ing another comment above...don't over look Cirrus SR22. If you're like me, the parachute will give you that extra degree of comfort, knowing that you are human and engines can and do fail.

There is a surplus of older SR22's out there. My theory is that folks who can afford at new one (now pushing $700K) can also afford to upgrade every few years. My like-new 2004 SR22 cost $187K. That's in the same range as a good PA32 with decent avoinics (and they can go way up from there).

I take friends and family up all the time. I feel good knowing I've got a plane that now has the lowest fataility rate in the industry, partly due to the 'chute and partly due to advanced avionics and the amazing Cirrus training program.
Click to expand...

Size wise the SR22 and the PA32 are two diffrent aircraft.

I also wouldn't even fly if I thought that ether my aircraft or skills were lacking to the point of needing a parachute. Like the other said the SR22 has a less then ideal saftey record, mainly because of the people who it appeals to.
 
James331 said:
Size wise the SR22 and the PA32 are two diffrent aircraft.

I also wouldn't even fly if I thought that ether my aircraft or skills were lacking to the point of needing a parachute. Like the other said the SR22 has a less then ideal saftey record, mainly because of the people who it appeals to.
Click to expand...
yup...and if we get into icing we can turn on the juice....and if that dun work we'll pop the chute. :goofy:
 
James331 said:
Size wise the SR22 and the PA32 are two diffrent aircraft.

I also wouldn't even fly if I thought that ether my aircraft or skills were lacking to the point of needing a parachute. Like the other said the SR22 has a less then ideal saftey record, mainly because of the people who it appeals to.
Click to expand...

+1.......
 
James331 said:
Size wise the SR22 and the PA32 are two diffrent aircraft.
Click to expand...

For a family with two small kids, any generation of SR22 would offer enough room and payload.

I also wouldn't even fly if I thought that ether my aircraft or skills were lacking to the point of needing a parachute. Like the other said the SR22 has a less then ideal saftey record, mainly because of the people who it appeals to.
Click to expand...
Do you wear a seatbelt while driving ? I mean your driving skills are so lacking that you need a seatbelt, you probably shouldn't get behind the wheel :rolleyes2: .
 
Having just recently gotten some stick time in a SR22, I agree that it's a fun and capable aircraft. That being said, he did mention he flies out a 3000 ft strip with trees at each end. On a hot day at max gross that might be a little tight for an SR22.
 
It also up a pretty reasonable hill, and we use that runway unless there's an incredible tailwind. Fully maxed in my 172 in the winter I thought I might catch some leaves in my wheels.

I'm going to give it all a look. The good news is that I've gone through all the suggestions...including the repeated calls for a bonanza and the wife is opposed to none.

Still have some time before purchase though.
 
Spend the time you have before purchase trying to at least get you and your wife opportunities to enter/exit/sit-in the various airplanes you are considering. I think you may rule out some of them because either you or your wife won't like one (or more) of these aspects.
 
somorris said:
Spend the time you have before purchase trying to at least get you and your wife opportunities to enter/exit/sit-in the various airplanes you are considering. I think you may rule out some of them because either you or your wife won't like one (or more) of these aspects.
Click to expand...

Best advice in the thread.
 
Sounds to me like your mind is halfway made up already, and in my opinion, it's absolutely the right choice. PA-32 is the way to go!

I would go for the Lance for the little bit of extra speed, but I would also be happy with the Six. Definitely avoid the T-tail Lance though. Someone mentioned club seating earlier, but I personally prefer the standard seating arrangement by a large margin. Kids, however, would probably like it.

We are a family of 4, with 2 small children. Our 182 is great for now, and will be for several more years, but we are going to outgrow it eventually, without a doubt. We will be looking to the PA-32 to take care of us in the future.
 
OkieFlyer said:
[...] Our 182 is great for now [...]
Click to expand...

Today my wife an were invited to tag along in a 180. Now I want one. :yes:
Or at least the version on which they put the third wheel on the wrong end which they therefore sell will a discount: The 182. :D

Even though we were just below gross, we were off the ground after only around 950 ft.. At 110 kts, the fuel flow was just above 8 gal. / h.

I understand, that the room for the baggage might be a bit tight for a family of four, though.
 
The wife and I have 2 kids now 10 and 12. I learned in a Piper 180, transitioned right to a 1969 PA32-300. Flew the six approx 350 hours and never had any gear issues, despite a few crappy landings. He gear on the six are mor Ethan adequate!

Quit flying for 8 years then bought the T182T 2 years ago when I started up again. The 182 wasn't too bad with the family loaded but when it came time to replace the cam due to its AD I purchased a Saratoga II TC. Wider body then the bonanza (I was shoulder to shoulder when I test flew the bonanza). I have pretty liberal CG and useful of 1107 pounds. With family loaded up I fill with 80 gallons and can fly 3 hours at 175knots. The wife had her ACL repaired 7 weeks ago. We traveled from Colorado to San Diego with her and her knee brace lounging in back with my daughter. My kids love sitting back there before moms injury. They watch movies and play games on the little table and love it.

Both the six and the toga offer me enough space to recline the seat and stretch my legs out anytime I need too.

I always looked at the 210's, they are fine planes with good amt of space and quite fast! However the gear issues ways bothered me and parts are just going to get outrageous with limited support. My AP said get one if you don't mind putting $100 aside every time you reach for the gear handle.

Only thing I miss is playing in the sky a little however the toga can be a joy to fly! Lastly if your not able to stay in the sky on a regular basis stay simple!

Good luck!
 
German guy said:
Today my wife an were invited to tag along in a 180. Now I want one. :yes:
Or at least the version on which they put the third wheel on the wrong end which they therefore sell will a discount: The 182. :D

Even though we were just below gross, we were off the ground after only around 950 ft.. At 110 kts, the fuel flow was just above 8 gal. / h.

I understand, that the room for the baggage might be a bit tight for a family of four, though.
Click to expand...


Indeed!

I don't have any time in a C180, I've been very impressed with my 185, got to love the manual flaps and utility of those planes :yes:
 
I've done some more research... continuing to look. Found a couple (various models) I'm looking at... the plan was to explain the situation and offer to pay the owner for an hour or so (provided they can legally accept money for the flight) to go up together with my wife and I to see which models we like the feel of.

Believe it or not, I'm having a harder time finding someone to answer the phone/email than I am finding models im interested in
 
One of them is a piper cherokee six - much older than 83. Also eyeing a Lance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top