C182 vs PA-28 cabin width

George Mohr

George Mohr

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
695
Location
New Jersey
Display Name
Display name:
Gmohr
Hi all,

Word is that the 182 is relatively "roomy", but the overall width at 42" seems exactly the same as a PA-28. Can anyone with experience in both comment on the reality of the situation.

P.S. I'm rather more clear on the difference in back seat room, particularly on the short body PA-28s.

Regards,
G
 
As Wayne Bower (wabower) once told me....

The widest part of the cabin is where the wing root is.... So think about it... do you want that 42 inches close to your shoulders or close to your butt?​
 
As Mike sez, the 182 maintains cabin width just about up to the wing. Additionally the seating position in the 182 is more upright than in the PA-28. Dunno how relevant the Bower comment is since the PA-28 maintains cabin width up to the window sill.
 
The width factor is important, because I find the PA-28-161 to be quite comfortable, except perhaps in shoulder/elbow room. I'm just not convinced that the cabin is materially more narrow at elbow height than at spar height. It certainly does taper in at the bottom of the windows however. So if you are sitting in a 182, does it feel wider?

** I banish anyone who tries to turn this into a high/low wing debate to the abyss from whence you came! :) **
 
George Mohr said:
The width factor is important, because I find the PA-28-161 to be quite comfortable, except perhaps in shoulder/elbow room. I'm just not convinced that the cabin is materially more narrow at elbow height than at spar height. It certainly does taper in at the bottom of the windows however. So if you are sitting in a 182, does it feel wider?

** I banish anyone who tries to turn this into a high/low wing debate to the abyss from whence you came! :) **
Click to expand...

It may be a personal thing and how folks perceive the extra space around their head in a 182. I don't like the view forward in the 182 since it's difficult to get my eyes below the wing and yet still see the top of the cowl. Of course I can't get my eyes below the wing at all while in the Cherokee. :D
 
WannFly said:
doesnt matter what the dimensions say, 182 is roomier than PA-28. been in both.

** My comment is not to be used in high wing vs low wing debate**
Click to expand...
This. I have hundreds of hours in both. Subjectively, the 182 is a bit roomier. I think its because the PA-28 fuselage curves in towards you where the straight-sided Cessna does not.
 
182 hands down larger. The interior volume is larger overall. It's not just raw width, but ceiling height and interior volume of both forward & aft seats. The PA-28's are great planes and I've greatly enjoyed flying Arrow's and Cherokee's.

C177's are wider yet, but with less ceiling height since the wing spare is much thicker thus reducing interior headroom.

Really depends where you want the space a priority.
 
Last edited:
I tell ya, After all of my endless posts about what airplane has the most room the best advice given is to go out and sit in both. Make it out to SnF and/or Osh and ask two pilots of both types to sit in the airplane. People use to tell me Cirrus aircraft has the best room but for some reason I didn't find it that much comfortable compared to the others out there. What is considered roomy depends a lot on your body type.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
what you really want is a .....PA-32 :D
Click to expand...
I have plenty of glorious 48 inches in mine. Plus seats 6 in relative comfort. Well as long as you do not knock knees or need headroom in the very rear seats.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
I have been in both as well. My personal preference on room and comfort is the 182. I don’t believe you can just go out, find a couple of planes and spend a few minutes in each. Find a couple that you can take out and fly. Sit in that seat at cruise for a couple of hours and then make your own determination. Don’t rely on what the tape measure says, what does your butt say?
 
I actually prefer many things about the PA-28 series, namely the visibility as some have eluded to and they just look better. I agree with Clark about the 182 that I don't like having to bend down to look out the side windows if you sit high enough to see over the cowling.

But as others have said, I don't care what the book measurements say, the 182 has more room between the shoulders and it definitely feels roomier overall. In a PA-28, I often touch shoulders depending on who the passenger is. That's never an issue in a 182. That's the same thing I've heard from countless others.
 
Last edited:
Here are images showing the cabin width at the armrest of three aircraft I've flown: 182, 172 and PA-28R.
Conclusion:
182 is 44 inches (1978 Model)
172 is 39.5 (1978 Model)
PA-28R is 41.5 (1972 Model)

Cessna 172, 182 Cabin Width, December 2015 011.JPG Cessna 172, 182 Cabin Width, December 2015 019.JPG Arrow Interior Dimensions 005.JPG
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
It depends on the what year 182. They grew as they got newer, I believe.
Click to expand...
1961 (182D) and earlier have the same cabin as the C-180/185, just a skosh wider than a 172. 1962 (182E) was the year of the new fuselage, about four inches wider, and rear-facing windows.

Slight year-to-year differences in cabin dimensions after that likely have more to do with upholstery and interior trim than with changes to the basic airframe.
 
Some say the Pa28 is as wide as a 182. perhaps it is. Whatever the dimensions may be, the 182 feels much roomier to me. Every pa28 I've flown makes me lean toward the middle, which kills my back after a few minutes. i'm a big, broad shouldered guy, so YMMV, but that's the main reason I never considered the pa28 when I was in the market. while the 182 is not super wide, I can sit comfortably upright in my E model. As someone mentioned, thats the first of the wide bodies. The strait tail models are noticably more narrow. You got to just find what fits ya.
 
My 1982 C182R feels a darn sight roomier than our 1970s flying club Archer and Arrow.
 
I installed a full hot tub, sauna, and shower, in my 182, it’s so roomy!

The Bidet wouldn’t fit though. That’s more of a Cirrus thing I hear. :)

Of course the Bonanza drivers who have full wet bars and flight attendants serving coffee and snacks, that’s where it’s at.

I hear Mooney drivers have full surround sound theaters and the screen takes up the whole panel so they can watch Airplane!

PoA taught me all of this. :)
 
I have a PA28 and in a club with two 182’s. I gave a lot of time in both. The PA28 is more comfortable when I’m floating around by myself and one of my most flown flights I actually fly faster in my fixed pitch PA28 variant than I do the 182 but that is for another thread. If I am taking someone who has any sort of mobility issue or is a wide load, I always try to take a 182. The 182 feels like you are in a pickup (tall, wide, roomy). Also a step up is all you need to do to get in because it has TWO doors!

At the end of the day you need to sit in both. Luckily, both a PA28 and a 182 are likely to be at your airport and there is very little difference between a 181 model and a 235 model in the inside size.
 
I love PA-28s. I have over 1,000 hours PIC in them, but it was years ago. I flew a PA-28 (a gorgeous Warrior) yesterday for the first time since I qualified to order from the back page of the menu at Denny's. Now that I have a weak back and knees (to go along with my mind) it would not be fun any more for me to get in and out of such an airplane on a regular basis. :(
 
The Commander 114/115 laughs in your general direction w/47" cabin width. :) Although, the Commander's snickering stops a bit when cruise speed/fuel burn is brought up.
 
TheGolfPilot said:
...and one of my most flown flights I actually fly faster in my fixed pitch PA28 variant than I do the 182 but that is for another thread....
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear more about that! I can't imagine anything short of a Dakota or Arrow matching a C182 for cruise speed, and they all have CS props, no?
 
I think part of the issue is that Cessna and some others measure the 182 from the door posts, which are 42". I recently became a co owner of a K model 182 (1967) and did just what SoCalPilot did and also came up with 44" for the 182.
 
George Mohr said:
I can't imagine anything short of a Dakota or Arrow matching a C182 for cruise speed, and they all have CS props, no?
Click to expand...
C/S props were optional on pre-1973 Cherokee 235s. There are a lot of them around with fixed-pitch props. Piper quoted cruise speeds 2 mph faster with the fixed-pitch, though takeoff distance, climb and ceiling suffered a bit.
 
Skylanes are bigger inside. Been in both, and the Skylane wins the big inside award. Still don't want one, since big inside translates to slow outside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top