Search results

  1. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    I'm leaning to the pa32 I am a bit biased though, begun my initial training in a pa28.. and it's low to the ground.. at least the cabin...and won't have to trip on any struts.
  2. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    Will do more cross referencing and begin the cost analysis for both, it's an agricultural operation. Ferrying grow mediums, teas and tonics, small to medium sized vegetable/fruit trees, and produce. The pa32 has a great config as well, I can remove both rear seats have ample storage space for...
  3. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    Great to know.. as it's summer all year round here ... How about a pa32?
  4. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    Mmm nice to finally meet you our chief of ops
  5. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    Thank y Thoughts on a pa32?
  6. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    Looked at it.. though I'm leaning more to the pa32 if I'm able to source a fg model.
  7. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    I'm looking more and more into the 182s at the moment! Thank you.
  8. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    Well... ALRIGHTY THEN... Thought of the 206 and looked into the Cherokee 6 ... Will look some more. This .. your observations of us Agriculture consulting types is in retrospect a great show of knowledge and experience.
  9. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    Sound advice, that would be doable.
  10. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    Noted! I'm leaning more and more 182, just an overall better platform to utilize
  11. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    this looks quite nice, now, could i complete initial training in it?
  12. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    ah okay, i looked up cherokee 6 and saratoga came up at the same time, appreciate the clarification
  13. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    this is great to know! all of it, i'm about 6' 3" and have had that thought. yes, i'll be mostly cargo, with the option of taking 2 or 3 passengers for jobs. 1000 lbs is plenty for the moment!!
  14. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    is the saratoga basically the cherokee 6 with RG?
  15. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    I am not!!! I thank you!! to the webs again!!
  16. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    noted. I'm mostly going to be hauling a few hundred pounds of plants and agri-products. I'd love to have a 206 to a kodiak at some point but those are high performance and costly to run as a start up with a mirco budget. I see it as an opportunity to expand from. I'm mostly concerned about the...
  17. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    I've done my first 30 hours in cherokees.. love them, but im going into landscaping - agricultural consulting, loading plants into a cessna seems easier than a piper.
  18. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    Of course within reason we will fill the tanks, but if there's no reason to fill beyond 2/3s full there should be little issue with having to shed this extra weight, also, i'd imagine if there was a true emergency i wouldn't be worried about breaking the landing gear due to being over...
  19. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    i've looked into the 206 - 210 but am concerned with the cost of operations and whether or not i'll be able to complete basic training in them.
  20. D

    177 vs 182 For cargo

    well, i got it! lol the plant plug
Back
Top