Tall pilot roll call (6'5"+), advice for a beginner

S

sixeightpilot

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
1
Display Name
Display name:
sixeightpilot
Hi all,
I'm looking for a little advice, I just started my journey to obtain my pilots licence. I'm a big guy, built like a telephone pole, I'm 6'8". I know most people have issues with elbow room in aircraft but my issue is head and leg room. The flight school I chose fly's 70's warriors. After a few hours under my belt I can see space is really at a premium. I really don't fit in a warrior at all, I'm flying pretty hunched over and my legs just barely clear the yoke. Performing controls check and 45 degree turns make me kind of contort myself to keep my legs from hitting/blocking the flight controls. There is another flight school in my area that fly's 172's but it would be significantly more expensive for me to train with them. Should I suck it up and pay to fly in the 172s or should I deal with the tight quarters until i can get something of my own? If you're a tall pilot, what did you train on?

My second question is what do you tall pilots fly and fit comfortably in? My mission is going to be cross country travel. I live in New Jersey and would like to travel down to Florida, the Bahamas, and out west to Colorado and SoCal. I'd like to find something that will work for me and not break the bank. I would consider spending up to $150k and I'm not afraid of taking on an experimental build. Piston twin isn't totally out of the question but I would prefer a single 4 seater with ifr capability.

TLDR; Is there any hope for us tall guys looking to get into GA without bottomless bank accounts?
 
Cessna 182 and find an independent instructor to train you in it.
 
I'm also 6' 4". Most light GA planes are designed for people smaller than me. You won't find a 172 an appreciable improvement over a Cherokee.

Another vote for the 182. I think that's your best bet to train in.
 
Rent an hour in a 172 and see how it feels. My guess is that it won't be enough of an improvement to be worth it, but you might fit differently.

I'm 6'3" and I fit decently in my Cherokee-235 ('73, with the 5-inch fuselage stretch). But, just barely, with the seat all the way back.

I agree with the other recommendations for a 182. Or maybe a Commander, if you can find one. I haven't sat in one but I gather they are roomy. (This would be to rent or buy if thet's where you want to go later -- I'll be really surprised if you find anyone using a Commander for primary training.)
 
Just keep in mind the later 172 models have more seat adjustability than the early ones. Visibility can be affected. I presume that may be true for 182 as well.
 
I'm 6’5”

172's are ok.. The seats slide way back....I did my primary training in one

182's are great.

Cirrus are good leg room wise for me and the sidestick means your knees are clear, but head room is marginal with a headset.. If you're tall in torso it might be a challenge.

I also tried a Bellanca Viking - that wasn't good at all.

I currently own an RV 8A - with the tall pilot option it gives me plenty of room all over, you can get a really nice one for your price range, but it only has two seats of course.

Good luck, GA is hard on tall folk.
 
6’5” here.

Cessna 172 or 182. If headroom is tight, get a Halo or clarity aloft headset.
 
Mooney has plenty of leg room (front seats), if you you don’t mind the sports car seating (low, like sitting on a stool).


Tom
 
I had to pull the 6'7" guy I'm teaching out of the Pipers and put him in the 172. It's a lot better but still not the perfect situation. I told him after he gets his license he needs to buy a Mooney.
 
I’m 6’6” and quite comfortable in my Cirrus. But your extra 2 inches could be a factor if you have a very long torso. What is your leg inseam? If 36” or less, you might have headroom issues in a cirrus. Otherwise, you’ll be fine.

I learned to fly in C152s. Of course, I started flight training when I was 13 so I wasn’t full grown yet!
 
I’m only 6’ 4” but checked out a lot of different planes before I bought my Cardinal RG. All of the cessna’s from the Cardinal RG to the 210 that I flew were comfortable. Plenty of leg and head room and they handle my girth as well.

For just straight head and leg room the Mooney’s I checked were great. They were the only planes that I could slide the seats so far back that I couldn’t reach the pedals. They were much narrower than the Cessnas, and since my wife and I wanted wanted a plane for long trips when we upgraded from our 172, we went with a Cessna.

I never tried a Cirrus because I can’t afford one. I ended up with the 177RG and it’s been a good fit for the trips I take with and without my wife.

Gary
 
sixeightpilot said:
My second question is what do you tall pilots fly and fit comfortably in?
Click to expand...
At 6'6" I am noticeably shorter than you are, although I'm somewhat familiar with the issues. I fly a Mooney M20E, which is okay, but borderline. 2 more inches may be prohibitive for you, depending how you're built (my inseam is 36"). I think your best bet is a 182 and then modify the seat by replacing the cushion with a thinnest possible one. As far as training goes, 172 will force you crane down a lot when you look under the wing to the sides. You are in a pick-your-poison situation. If you can squeeze into a Warrior at all, I'd stick with that. At least you can see the runway when turning in a Warrior.
 
sixeightpilot said:
Hi all,
I'm looking for a little advice, I just started my journey to obtain my pilots licence. I'm a big guy, built like a telephone pole, I'm 6'8". I know most people have issues with elbow room in aircraft but my issue is head and leg room. The flight school I chose fly's 70's warriors. After a few hours under my belt I can see space is really at a premium. I really don't fit in a warrior at all, I'm flying pretty hunched over and my legs just barely clear the yoke. Performing controls check and 45 degree turns make me kind of contort myself to keep my legs from hitting/blocking the flight controls. There is another flight school in my area that fly's 172's but it would be significantly more expensive for me to train with them. Should I suck it up and pay to fly in the 172s or should I deal with the tight quarters until i can get something of my own? If you're a tall pilot, what did you train on?

My second question is what do you tall pilots fly and fit comfortably in? My mission is going to be cross country travel. I live in New Jersey and would like to travel down to Florida, the Bahamas, and out west to Colorado and SoCal. I'd like to find something that will work for me and not break the bank. I would consider spending up to $150k and I'm not afraid of taking on an experimental build. Piston twin isn't totally out of the question but I would prefer a single 4 seater with ifr capability.
Click to expand...

I'm "only" 6'4"... So I'll page @CJones to the thread, since he's 6'7" IIRC. He built a pair of RVs with his dad, so those are probably OK though I've only flown one once so I'm far from an expert on them.

Are you proportional, or are your legs longer, or your torso longer? That'll make a difference.

I think you'll find the 172s a lot more comfortable than the Warriors. I did my primary training in a 172 and my instrument in an Archer (basically a Warrior with 180hp). The 172 was comfortable. The Warrior gave me a backache by the end of every lesson because if I had the seat far enough back that my knees weren't in the yoke, I had to lean forward to reach the panel.

These days, I fly a Mooney M20R Ovation. Ignore the old wives' tales about them being tight: Al Mooney was 6'5" and he built himself an airplane. The seating position is similar to the Warrior, with your legs out in front of you more, but the panel is much closer to you and the yoke only goes 45º either side of center for full deflection. It's also an excellent cross-country plane, maybe even the best certified option: At 9,000 feet I get 175 KTAS on 12 gph.
 
As @flyingcheesehead said, I'm 6' 7" myself. I did my initial training (including checkride) in a C-152. When I walked in for my checkride, a guy at the FBO counter said "How the heck do you get in that thing!?" I said "I don't really 'get in', I kind of 'put it on'." So it CAN be done in smaller planes, although that was 20 years ago and I'm not sure my knees would be very happy with me if I logged many hours in the 152 these days.

Since the 152 days, I have logged time in PA11, PA28, PA32, 172, 177RG, 182, 182RG, RV-7A, and RV-10.

By far the most comfortable for me both as pilot/co-pilot AND as backseat passenger has been the RV-10. The 182/182RG comes in a close second (though I've never been a backseater in the 182). IIRC, the 182RG had controls that would actually lower the seat straight down as well as forward/backward. That helped keep my head from bonking the ceiling in turbulence. The 177RG was pretty good too. It has a bit of a different cockpit style and is longer than tall, so you can kind of stretch our your legs without encroaching on the backseaters too much. The 172 was tolerable and would actually feel 'roomy' to you if you have only been in PA28's so far. I'm somewhat broad shouldered as well, so in winter in Iowa with big coats on, you better like the person you're flying with 'cause there's going to be contact.

As you've already learned, the PA28's are knee-knockers for anything other than very basic control movements and unfortunately the PA32 is pretty much the same - not to mention having to maneuver knees around cables, controls, knobs, etc. trying to get from the door to the left seat! What a pain!

TLDR; It CAN be done in small plane just to save cost, but 172 will almost feel 'roomy' to you comparatively. Once you look for real travel planes, there are even more options out there that you can actually be happy with.

EDIT: I noticed someone mentioned headset choice - good thought. That can save quite a bit of headroom as well.
 
Fly the 172 / 182 if you can, comfort is important and you don't want to end up resenting flying.

Also, everyone here knows this, but I've flown with all shapes and sizes of people in the Cirrus and the comfort is king. Looking at objective numbers you get the best combination of cabin width and height. What I will say, is that if the headroom is short in the plane it's likely because the seat is not back far enough. Many people (like myself) like to sit very close to the panel, but the way the Cirrus seat is tracked that will also put you up higher

Good luck! I love the PA28 and low wings in general but if you are not comfortable ditch and go with the 172 / 182 if you can
 
The 182 may well be your best bet, or buying a Mooney and doing your primary in it (people do it more than you think). If you can find a place around you that trains in Grumman Cheetahs or Tigers, that might be a good bet as well (or just buy one), as my plane is one a lot of very tall guys find quite comfortable. 172s aren't much roomier than Cherokees up front.
 
PS.. don't the C182 and C172 have identical cabin width and height? The documents I have both show then as 48" cabin height and 42" cabin width

Compare these:
-Mooney: 44 inch height and width... a little wider, much shorter. People say it's "comfortable" but that's if you like laying down low-rider style with a panel in your face. Assuming you wouldn't buy new you'll be doing one door gymnastics

-Tiger: 48 inch height but 41 inch width.. it will be the narrower of the lot so far, but doesn't actually feel that narrow for some reason. Easy to get in and out of, I think, esp for a tall person

-Trinidad: 47 inch cabin height but a whopping 50+ inch width.. plus it's French and looks cool

-Cirrus: 50 inch height, 49 inch wide.. two comfortable doors.. "bubbly" cabin gives you a good feeling of interior space. Seat is on angled track so you'll have to push it way back to get headroom

-didn't mention the PA28 since you already said it wasn't comfortable..

**Granted, the positioning of the seat, panel, fuselage shape, ease of entry / exist etc., all factor in to a relative perception of comfort. Unfortunately, at someone your height most planes will have some kind of comfort compromise
 
Later 182 cabins must be at least 3 or 4 inches wider than the 172's (going from memory - should be verified).

For the OP I learned in our 182. I am only 6'2" but I have had taller and larger people ride with. Once you sit in a 182 and see the amount of seat travel (feels like almost a foot) you will understand why it is being recommended!!! At 6'2" I can move the seat back so far that there is no way I could reach the pedals....and thus the seat track lock issues...where it wouldn't always lock in and slide back so far you would have trouble still controlling it (very dangerous...and fixed!).

Also the pilot seat can be adjusted up and down a fair amount and if it doesn't have an adjustable seat it is usually quite low.

The 182 panel is very tall but for someone like yourself you will have no issues seeing over it.

Keep in the mind the 182 seat is more like a kitchen chair - very upright vs slung back but the cabin is so tall its not an issue. You will also like having your own door.

Often people your height, even in great shape (unlike me LOL) are gonna be heavier so the 230hp engine of the 182 vs the 160hp engine of the 172's will also be welcome.

The trouble is finding a 182 to train in that won't break the bank.

Have you been able to sit in a 172 to see if it will work? If the 172 works I would pay more and finish up that way.

DO NOT sit in 182 before you try the 172 :)

If you live anywhere near the Twin Cities you are welcome to come and sit in ours and we could take a flight if the wx is in our favor.
 
@Sinistar yeah I wonder if the data I had on 172 / 182 was dated or something because the 182 definitely feels much bigger inside
 
Tantalum said:
-Trinidad: 47 inch cabin height but a whopping 50+ inch width.. plus it's French and looks cool
Click to expand...

Don't know whether thats some metric conversion error. I am only 6'3" but I had to wear an in-ear headset to fit. Also, legroom and rudder pedals are made for a 5'6" frenchman with size 8 Gucci loafers. Never struck me as a good choice for a tall pilot. You do have a lot of elbow room and the panel and control wrap around you in a ergonomic layout centered on a single pilot.
 
Im 6’6

Recommend you try on a few until you find a good fit. I also think it will end up being a Cessna 182. I have found all of the piper aircraft to be uncomfortable from the j-3 all the way up to a Cheyenne. I think their engineers did not have legs....
 
weilke said:
Don't know whether thats some metric conversion error. I am only 6'3" but I had to wear an in-ear headset to fit. Also, legroom and rudder pedals are made for a 5'6" frenchman with size 8 Gucci loafers. Never struck me as a good choice for a tall pilot. You do have a lot of elbow room and the panel and control wrap around you in a ergonomic layout centered on a single pilot.
Click to expand...
I checked a few sources and it's "correct" but I think the way they position the seat makes for an uncomfortable cabin height fit. Wide is all hell but feels short

Once you're over 6ft cabin comfort becomes a real issue for a lot of people.. seems most planes are best for a Tom Cruise sized person!
 
Regarding your mission....I am thinking a fixed gear 182 will not be fast enough in the long run. And you probably don't want to be doing your PPL and initial hours in a retract 182 unless you master greaser landings after 5hrs LOL!

So, if a 172 and/or Mooney don't work and you've tried a 182 and it does work then....

If you can budget 150K for a plane and are 100% sure you want to be a pilot I would recommend buying a fixed gear 182 (do not spend 150K - maybe spend $90k) and train in it and build up 150hrs or so. You will find out that just traveling across the country isn't as simple and effortless as it seams in YouTube. After that 150hrs and a few first "trips" you will probably also have your instrument rating. And then big if.....IF plane prices stay the way they are the old 182 you buy now (prices are high) should only loose the motor time cost. By then you will know what you want and its possible the old 182 might be your first and last plane. If that's the case, upgrade the avionics and interior. If you know you want a larger faster plane then go shopping...the 182 should be very easy to sell.
 
Go to a fly in and sit in a bunch of planes. An acquaintance brought a checklist and went through the motions of the checklist. He said it was rather illustrative.
This process will eliminate a fair number easily.

Then I suggest you think long and hard about commitment level. If super committed, look to buy and train in your own plane. If unsure, or have any doubts, look for a crash course flight school that uses a plane that is the closest in comfort.
When done, you can decide if you want to drop 150k on a plane.

Cirrus, Columbia/TTx/Corvalis and the Tecnam are really the only planes I can think of which have been designed in the last twenty years for the new larger (width and height) of pilots and passengers.

Otherwise go experimental. The guy who first gave me a demo in a Velocity had an XL and he had to 6'6" or higher and there was plenty of room.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
Go to a fly in and sit in a bunch of planes. An acquaintance brought a checklist and went through the motions of the checklist. He said it was rather illustrative.
This process will eliminate a fair number easily.

Then I suggest you think long and hard about commitment level. If super committed, look to buy and train in your own plane. If unsure, or have any doubts, look for a crash course flight school that uses a plane that is the closest in comfort.
When done, you can decide if you want to drop 150k on a plane.

Cirrus, Columbia/TTx/Corvalis and the Tecnam are really the only planes I can think of which have been designed in the last twenty years for the new larger (width and height) of pilots and passengers.

Otherwise go experimental. The guy who first gave me a demo in a Velocity had an XL and he had to 6'6" or higher and there was plenty of room.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It depends, as a previous poster said, on leg to torso ratio. I'm 6'3" and tried a Velocity XL on at the Livermore AOPA Fly-In, and I barely had any head room. Plus, the center console (because of the keel) eats a lot of horizontal space. A thinner seat cushion would have helped, plus a reclining seat back would also help.

If you're flying solo, and don't have the need for speed, a Liberty XL with the Vanguard upgrade would be a good option. However, the IOF-240 engine is turning out to be an orphan, and barely supported by Discovery Aviation.
 
Crashnburn said:
It depends, as a previous poster said, on leg to torso ratio. I'm 6'3" and tried a Velocity XL on at the Livermore AOPA Fly-In, and I barely had any head room. Plus, the center console (because of the keel) eats a lot of horizontal space. A thinner seat cushion would have helped, plus a reclining seat back would also help.

If you're flying solo, and don't have the need for speed, a Liberty XL with the Vanguard upgrade would be a good option. However, the IOF-240 engine is turning out to be an orphan, and barely supported by Discovery Aviation.
Click to expand...

The problem with a lot of experimental airplanes. They are made for the builder... So in my example, this really tall dude built his plane to handle it. I never did asked what he customized on it; I did not know any better at the time.

Tim
 
So I am 6' 9". I cannot fly pipers, Bonazas, Cessna 310, 400 series. I think a Cessna Mustang would work. The 172 with an adjustable up and down front seat will work till you learn to land. You will find that your head is up in the top of the cabin. Your sight picture for landing and straight and level is different than your CFI. Here is a trick. Get some of the dry erasers and draw a line on the windscreen for straight and level. A Mooney will be a welcome relief as you can have a great view of all you have been missing. Heck is that not why we fly to see things.
 
I'm 6'4", lots of legs, and I'm pretty comfortable in a 172. Im still two or three notches from being as far back as possible on the seat adjustment. My older model does not have the adjustable seat height, and I can see that being a bit of a problem is I was much taller. I flew an M model for a while with the adjustable seat height and that was great.
 
6'5, got my license in a Warrior, found it ok. 172 had plenty of room. A newer model (N or up) probably is best. I had to bring the seat forward, and lots of them crank down for head room. Its always going to be tight though, just the way it is.
 
tspear said:
The problem with a lot of experimental airplanes. They are made for the builder... So in my example, this really tall dude built his plane to handle it. I never did asked what he customized on it; I did not know any better at the time.

Tim
Click to expand...
The Liberty is not an Experimental Plane. It is a certified plane. Its parent is now Discovery Aviation.
 
I am long waisted. I am 6'3" with a 6' 6" stretch finger tip to finger tip, so I have a 6' 6" torso. Which means I have 6 footer's legs. Even with those legs, when I sat in a Cessna Mustang's cockpit when I was a Cessna engineer, there wasn't enough leg room for me.

The standard built (experimental) Glastar had enough head, leg, and shoulder room for me, and it's younger (and bigger) sibling the Sportsman, has more shoulder and headroom than the Glastar.

You can pay $200K+ to build a Two Weeks to Taxi Sportsman in two weeks (who would have guessed?) that's a bare bones VFR plane. IFR, etc. is extra. Or, you can keep your eyes open and snag a used TWTT Sportsman IFR for around $150K. Glasair no longer sells the Glastar kits.
 
Gilgamesh said:
I'm 6’5”

172's are ok.. The seats slide way back....I did my primary training in one

182's are great.

Cirrus are good leg room wise for me and the sidestick means your knees are clear, but head room is marginal with a headset.. If you're tall in torso it might be a challenge.

I also tried a Bellanca Viking - that wasn't good at all.

I currently own an RV 8A - with the tall pilot option it gives me plenty of room all over, you can get a really nice one for your price range, but it only has two seats of course.

Good luck, GA is hard on tall folk.
Click to expand...

Turns out, a Lake buccaneer will also accommodate a very tall pilot...

Just saying
 
I'm "only" 6'2". Normal proportions (I guess). I'd strongly recommend that you forget the C-150/152. Our club had one ages ago. I've got 4.1 hours in that 150 and NEVER intend to increase that number. Run the seat all the way back and my knees were in the panel when I'd go for the brakes. I can only imagine how it would be for you.

The 172s we have and the 182 are different cats. I'll echo the strong suggestion made above that you try a 172 BEFORE you ever sit in a 182. If you fit in the 172 it will be less expensive to fly than the 182. I'm perfectly happy in the 172, but the 182 is noticeably larger, heavier and more comfortable. A great XC cruising machine. Learning in a 172 is better because there are some controls in the 182 that the 172 doesn't have (cowl flaps and prop come to mind). Learn in the 172, then later get the high performance endorsement in the 182 and learn about those extra controls.

The only other plane I have experience in is the Piper Arrow. I don't recommend it to you as you already have listed the same basic airframe as uncomfortable. Think of the Arrow as a Cherokee with folding gear (and a prop control). If you aren't comfortable in a Cherokee, you won't be comfortable in the Arrow.

Best of luck to you in your search. Have fun. We're all counting on you.
 
Ghery said:
I'm "only" 6'2". Normal proportions (I guess). I'd strongly recommend that you forget the C-150/152. Our club had one ages ago. I've got 4.1 hours in that 150 and NEVER intend to increase that number.
Click to expand...
I'm 6'5" and I'm mostly fine in a 150L or later, with the exception of the usual craning of the neck, which I have to do in all basic high-wing airplanes. The 150L came out in 1973 and brought lower seats.
 
I'm 6'9" 250lbs, I fit in the 172r/s/sp, but only just. Newer models seem to be worse for me. 182 and 206 are an easy fit.
 
Waco biplane... 3 place, not 4, but open cockpit so no worries about headroom! And you can even get them with full glass IFR panels... :biggrin:
 
6’4” with wide shoulders and second the 182 and SR20/22 posts. I barely fit in my DA40 with about an inch to spare between the canopy and a Bose headset. Never liked Bonanzas and Mooneys due to narrow cabin/lack of shoulder room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top