The Fluffy GA Pilot

Feassarian

Feassarian

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
19
Location
Wichita, KS
Display Name
Display name:
Feassarian
There has been some conversation in the past, but I am hoping to narrow the discussion and make it more current - newer PPL - working on finishing instrument now and then knock out the HP/complex - starting to think about owning a plane vs the renting.

This PPL is "fluffy" - the kind word for overweight and yeah, sure, losing weight is always a goal and always preferable for a number of reasons - but for now, the variables are what they are.

I am looking for GA planes that have more "space" in the cockpit. For comparison, the C172 I am still training in and rent - I fit - I can fly a couple hour XC without issue - but it is cramped, I am against the door and my right leg is against the trim wheel most of the flight.

I understand the C182 is wider by about 5-6 inches - not to mention the added useful load and power - everyone tends to recommend it as an option - and I am not opposed to it.

I have a preference though for low-wind aircraft - the Bonanza, Piper, etc.

So criteria being sought:
- Larger cockpit width
- Cruise at or above 130k
- Single or multi engine (single great for short trips, multi for longer xc)
- Useful load of 1000+ pounds

I was looking at the new Piper 100i - very similar specs to C172, low wing, but it's still snug int he cockpit and performance is on par with a C172. Dunno if Piper has something "comparable" to a C182.

Fluffy Pilot thanks you in advance!
 
EdFred said:
Singles:
Commander 114
Comanche 250/260
Lance/Saratoga/Cherokee 6

Twins:
Most any of em??
Click to expand...

I'll look at those and report back - twins is still a whole new world - since I haven't even starting the rating - anything you might suggest looking at from a maintenance perspective? I know some planes are most costly to maintain than others, especially when you get into the complex arena - or maybe the question might be better worded as - any suggestions on what to avoid since most will meet the requirements?
 
Feassarian said:
I'll look at those and report back - twins is still a whole new world - since I haven't even starting the rating - anything you might suggest looking at from a maintenance perspective? I know some planes are most costly to maintain than others, especially when you get into the complex arena - or maybe the question might be better worded as - any suggestions on what to avoid since most will meet the requirements?
Click to expand...

On this board I would ignore anyone who hasn't owned the plane and their comments about how horrible it is to maintain a complex.

"[Model airplane A] is the worst for gear maintenance, you should buy [model plane B I have]."

"Oh, have you owned a [model plane A] ?"

"Well, um, no."

As with anything, it's luck of the draw. In the 13 years I had a Comanche the gear related issues were replacing the cables and tubes over 10 years ago, and a few years back, the solenoid tripped my breaker. Less than $2k to fix over 13 years. I can't comment on Commanders. I've flown in them and they are super comfy and have 2 doors though.

*patiently waits for the Moonbats to arrive and mention how they are the roomiest GA single in the world, and the best bang for the buck airplane if you have the Johnson bar gear, except you get spatial disorientation while retracting it.*

Singles vs twins:
A former member here put it this way:
His twin cost 3x per year than his single (P-Baron vs Bonanza)
His King Air cost 3x per year what his twin did

Then he moved to a jet, and I didn't dare ask.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
A former member here put it this way:
His twin cost 3x per year than his single (P-Baron vs Bonanza)
His King Air cost 3x per year what his twin did

Then he moved to a jet, and I didn't dare ask.
Click to expand...

Hope the King Air might be in the future some day, but for now, gotta start smaller
 
Feassarian said:
I have a preference though for low-wing aircraft - the Bonanza, Piper, etc.
Click to expand...

Good man. Ed already mentioned the Cherokee 6 or Lance. Excellent choices. I'll throw the lowly Arrow into the mix here, too.... not the biggest in the world, but not terribly cramped, either.

- Larger cockpit width -- yeah... bigger than a 172...
- Cruise at or above 130k -- yep. All day long in mine.
- Single or multi engine (single great for short trips, multi for longer xc) -- single. So yeah, that meets the criteria that it's a single or multi..
- Useful load of 1000+ pounds -- Yep. I'm at just a touch over 1000 lbs.

Get yer instrument before you think about buying any of these. For insurance purposes, among other reasons.
 
EdFred said:
Singles:
Commander 114
Comanche 250/260
Lance/Saratoga/Cherokee 6

Twins:
Most any of em??
Click to expand...

You mentioned you've owned a Comanche for 13 years - have you had much experience with the Saratoga? I had been looking towards the Saratoga previously and seeing it show up in your list made me look further - it really hits the requirements really well, and from a price perspective, both purchase and operating - its kinda in a sweet spot. That's also looking at a spec sheet though and not the real world.
\
 
Feassarian said:
You mentioned you've owned a Comanche for 13 years - have you had much experience with the Saratoga? I had been looking towards the Saratoga previously and seeing it show up in your list made me look further - it really hits the requirements really well, and from a price perspective, both purchase and operating - its kinda in a sweet spot. That's also looking at a spec sheet though and not the real world.
\
Click to expand...

I've flown a Cherokee 6 and the width/comfort is on par with the Comanche. Big comfort items between the two really comes down to the seat padding and how YOU site in each one. It (the PA-32) will haul more. The fixed gear puts you in the 130s for speed. Retract 150s to 160s.
 
Deelee said:
Good man. Ed already mentioned the Cherokee 6 or Lance. Excellent choices. I'll throw the lowly Arrow into the mix here, too.... not the biggest in the world, but not terribly cramped, either.

- Larger cockpit width -- yeah... bigger than a 172...
- Cruise at or above 130k -- yep. All day long in mine.
- Single or multi engine (single great for short trips, multi for longer xc) -- single. So yeah, that meets the criteria that it's a single or multi..
- Useful load of 1000+ pounds -- Yep. I'm at just a touch over 1000 lbs.

Get yer instrument before you think about buying any of these. For insurance purposes, among other reasons.
Click to expand...

I'll take a poke at the Arrow - I mentioned above the Saratoga was actually one I had been looking at for a while. Definitely preliminary at the moment - for the reason you mentioned - I doubt I pull the trigger before I hit 250 hours - but if the right deal come along, take the opportunity when it comes and if it needs to be babied in the hanger for a bit - no problem - actually having it on the ground for a while wouldn't be a bad idea to get more familiar with the POH and learning from the community - too many young bucks things they can jump from a C172 into anything and be as proficient - they forget, we did our primary in the C172 and have a lot of hours in it compared to a new platform - just like off-airport landings - you get in a routine at your home airport and its all different when you venture out in the wild lol - good advice for sure!
 
I own a fixed-gear PA-32 now, and have flown most of the other models in the PA-32 line. They are exceedingly roomy, comfortable and docile, and carry a huge load with ample range and CG flexibility.

EdFred said:
I've flown a Cherokee 6 and the width/comfort is on par with the Comanche. Big comfort items between the two really comes down to the seat padding and how YOU site in each one. It (the PA-32) will haul more. The fixed gear puts you in the 130s for speed. Retract 150s to 160s.
Click to expand...

A '78 or later fixed-gear PA-32-300 or -301 with the big factory wheel and brake fairings can get into the low-to-mid 140s. A late-model fixed-gear PA-32-301FT "6X" has the low-drag cowl and will do 150, and the turbo PA-32-301XTC "6XT" version puts you into the 160s at altitude.
 
Last edited:
You should throw the Socata TB-20 into the mix as well. They are known to be wide and comfy. A little harder to find but Daher still supplies parts. It was on my shortlist before I found my Grumman. The TB-10 is the same airframe with fixed gear and is a bit slower than 130kts.
 
Rich Holt said:
You should throw the Socata TB-20 into the mix as well. They are known to be wide and comfy. A little harder to find but Daher still supplies parts. It was on my shortlist before I found my Grumman. The TB-10 is the same airframe with fixed gear and is a bit slower than 130kts.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha. No way. Not even close on (true) width. Marketing width maybe, but not in real life.
 
EdFred said:
Hahahahahaha. No way. Not even close on (true) width. Marketing width maybe, but not in real life.
Click to expand...
It was certainly wider than the 172 the op is trying to get out of by a lot. Not sure what marketing you are referring to, but my large carcass found it quite a bit wider than both the PA-28s and C172 I had been flying and the M20c I was stalking at the time.
 
Rich Holt said:
It was certainly wider than the 172 the op is trying to get out of by a lot. Not sure what marketing you are referring to, but my large carcass found it quite a bit wider than both the PA-28s and C172 I had been flying and the M20c I was stalking at the time.
Click to expand...

Compared to the PA32/PA24 series.
 
Hard to beat the PA32 line for elbow room, and other anatomy that might want to spread out. :D

Walter Beech was a dude of gravity, and so am I. I haven't had any trouble in any of the Beeches I've flown, even down to the Skipper. If you're also tall, then the 36/58 models will be more cramped than the 33/35/55/56 models.

While the Bonanza's width "on paper" is comparable to a C182, there's something about the shoulder room or other dimension that makes it easier for long flying days. Could be in my head, but I don't think so. Try it, though, you'll know the one you like best.

I even fit fine in the M20F/G/J Mooneys, but I get the jimmy legs after 2 hours.
 
I mean, how fluffy are we talking?
 
Lol, I've heard fluffy to describe passing gas, but never for someone's weight.
 
Pilawt said:
I own a fixed-gear PA-32 now, and have flown most of the other models in the PA-32 line. They are exceedingly roomy, comfortable and docile, and carry a huge load with ample range and CG flexibility.



A '78 or later fixed-gear PA-32-300 or -301 with the big factory wheel and brake fairings can get into the low-to-mid 140s. A late-model fixed-gear PA-32-301FT "6X" has the low-drag cowl and will do 150, and the turbo PA-32-301XTC "6XT" version puts you into the 160s at altitude.
Click to expand...
I've often wondered why piper, or someone hasn't done an stc to get the new style cowl or wheel pants on the older models. It's pretty crazy what guys have done with Cessna's and Beechcraft putting turbines in them and the piper crowd is pretty tame comparatively.
 
Racerx said:
I've often wondered why piper, or someone hasn't done an stc to get the new style cowl or wheel pants on the older models. It's pretty crazy what guys have done with Cessna's and Beechcraft putting turbines in them and the piper crowd is pretty tame comparatively.
Click to expand...

15k for a Lopresti cowl on the Comanche last I looked. Theres also the gear mod if you can find a single side gear yoke.
 
Racerx said:
I've often wondered why piper, or someone hasn't done an stc to get the new style cowl or wheel pants on the older models. It's pretty crazy what guys have done with Cessna's and Beechcraft putting turbines in them and the piper crowd is pretty tame comparatively.
Click to expand...

A DPE friend of mine recently bought a new Piper 100i for his flight school - new off the line - they had an open house to show it off and I dropped in to check it out - as he and I were setting in this brand new beauty, as he was showing off the new Garmin G3X, auto pilot and many other nifty toys in the avionics stack, I looked at him and asked him what this bad boy set him back - $300K - $300K?? That's nearly $200K cheaper than a fully loaded C172 off the line - the Cessna name is not worth $200K - and the specs between the Piper and Cessna, especially as a trainer, are nearly identical.
 
EdFred said:
15k for a Lopresti cowl on the Comanche last I looked. Theres also the gear mod if you can find a single side gear yoke.
Click to expand...
Lopresti cowls are no longer offered. I think the last time they were available for the PA32 they were talking 40k.
 
Wide? Cardinal. 130kts? Cardinal RG. But they are high wing.

Low wing will probably not give as much shoulder room apples to apples because the high wing planes square off / are more vertical from floor to wing, while the low wings are going to have more of a curve to the fuse where your head and shoulders are.

Think of the curve of the door on a low wing piper vs how flat the door is on your rental Cessna.
 
Last edited:
Meet Fluffy....

acdf3da0fdbb3cf56cffcda4c87d8292.jpg



Hint: Photo shop
 
So, I think some are saying Mooney isn’t your first choice. But, hey. If you are fluffy tall and not as fluffy wide, Mooney might be your jam. As Ed said, it is the best bang for the buck.
 
ktup-flyer said:
@SixPapaCharlie how big of a difference?
Click to expand...

The Comanche is the widest plane I have flown
Cirrus SR22
Socata TB9
Grumman Traveler
Cessna 172
Cessna 182

I don't know the actual measurement, I just know I perceive it to be the furthest I have been from my right seater than in any of the above.
I believe the square nature of the cabin plays a role. Socatas are wide and flat (Hit your head on the ceiling)
A lot of the others are wide at the shoulders and taper up
The Comanche is boxy on the inside and still manages to go as fast as the others.

It's just big inside.
 
EdFred said:
*patiently waits for the Moonbats to arrive and mention how they are the roomiest GA single in the world, and the best bang for the buck airplane if you have the Johnson bar gear, except you get spatial disorientation while retracting it.*
Click to expand...

[LITTLEBUCKEYE]Mooneys are the best bang for the buck, crash like a tank, and the Johnson bar keeps your right arm in shape. I true out at mach .92 on a thimble full of gas per hour, and you can buy one for the price of a happy meal![/LITTLEBUCKEYE]
 
I know you have a preference for low wing, but some of those have only one door on the passenger side. Did you have any problems getting into and out of the piper 100i? Something to think about. I often forget something and have to get out and back in. That would get old quick if I had to ask my passenger to get out then crawl over the seats. Then get back in. Especially here in south Florida during summer!
I've been spoiled by the sliding canopy of the Grumman AA5s. I won't recommend a Grumman because they are snug fit for me and I'm 6', 200#.
 
If the 130kt isn't set in stone and if you're somewhat budget minded...

Beech Sundowner. Wide cabin, 2 doors, but only hitting 130 in a dive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top