A REAL 6 seater

Rein Hart said:
I’ve always thought stretching an rv-10 for 6 seats would compete nicely against the a36 bonanza with the benefits of being an experimental. I’m sure the idea will get ripped apart here though.
Click to expand...
Why would it get ripped apart? It’s experimental. Build whatever you want, sounds cool to me! But I get it, some people like to nay-say for sure.
 
I just put a T210N under contract. It has a UL of 1600lbs and full fuel is 522lbs. This one trues at 180-184 kts on 18.5gph at 11,000’. Figuring 20gph for 3 hours plus one hr reserve (80 gal) I’ll have a payload of 1,120lbs. Probably knock the TAS down 6-10kts fully loaded. That would give 525mi range with an hour reserve fuel at 175kts. Not too shabby.
 
For me a 3 hour flight requires 5 hours of fuel. 3 hours for the flight, 45 minutes FAR reserve,30 minutes for the alternate (miss approach and cruise to alternate), and finally 45 minutes for vectors, reroutes, holds, and higher than forecasted headwinds.
 
RussR said:
I don't understand the fascination with carrying full fuel. You load up your people and bags, and as long as you can then carry enough fuel to get to your destination, plus reserves, you're good. The concept of "full seats and fuel" is a carryover from automobiles, and doesn't translate to airplanes.

With the exception of a few light GA models, in general if you could carry full seats (with adults) and fuel, the fuel tanks would be too small. Most airplanes, at all levels from small 2-seaters to airliners, cannot do full seats and fuel. Does this make them not "real X-seater" airplanes? Of course not.

As you get into larger airplanes, you need to get out of the mindset of always filling the tanks. That's not a reasonable expectation. You put on what you need given the load you're carrying and the distance you're flying.
Click to expand...
This! I came here to say this.

My plane carries 7 hours and 20 minutes of fuel. I don't know a lot of people willing to be in a small airplane continuously for anywhere near that, especially with me. :D

So, I can take full fuel and go nonstop to Bangor, Miami, El Paso, or Missoula with reserves - Most of the ConUS. Or, I can leave fuel behind, fill the seats with adults and the baggage compartment with bags and do the same with a single fuel stop that the pax will welcome anyway.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
This! I came here to say this.

My plane carries 7 hours and 20 minutes of fuel. I don't know a lot of people willing to be in a small airplane continuously for anywhere near that, especially with me. :D
Click to expand...
I have about a 3.5hr rated bladder and tolerance for small GA aircraft seats; most small aircraft have a better range than I do.
 
I had multiple instances where a fuel pump wasn't working at a planned fuel stop. I live/fly mostly in southeast. So usually not far from an alternate with fuel. But out west, it could be a real problem.
I also like the Murphy Moose or Bearhawk 5 6-seaters. Those options are tailwheel though FYI.
At my club we return the plane with full fuel for the next person and I wouldn't go through the hassle of draining fuel to make weight. therefore I simply don't make plans to fly unless I can make weight with full tanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
farangutan said:
At my club we return the plane with full fuel for the next person and I wouldn't go through the hassle of draining fuel to make weight. therefore I simply don't make plans to fly unless I can make weight with full tanks.
Click to expand...

This of course, is typical, and almost unavoidable in the rental/club world. A club I was a member of had a 182, and we filled it to 60 gallons upon returning, not the 80 that it could hold, for exactly this reason.

But it does create the attitude or impression among pilots that taking off with full tanks is "standard" and anything else is unusual, which leads to the idea that being able to fill the seats and the tanks is a necessary and desirable aircraft specification.
 
farangutan said:
I had multiple instances where a fuel pump wasn't working at a planned fuel stop. I live/fly mostly in southeast. So usually not far from an alternate with fuel. But out west, it could be a real problem.
Click to expand...
I've had this happen twice in 20 years of flying.

The two times were on the same night, less than 10nm apart... Luckily, at the second stop it wasn't the pump itself that was inoperable, it was the card system and I found a way to reboot it which was luckily successful or I'd have probably been stranded.
 
Jim K said:
My Lance has 1520 useful. Full fuel is 600 lbs. That's about six hours worth. A more reasonable 4 (3 with reserve) hours is about 360.
That leaves 1160. 100lbs baggage, and you're at 960.
So if your average adult is 160lbs or less, you're good to go.
I know a few adults under 160, but not many. I'd struggle to find six lol.
Leg room will also be an issue.
I have seen early Sixes with 1600lb+ useful loads.
To get a bigger cabin, you're looking at a 400 class Cessna, Twin Commander, Navajo.
310 is about the same size with only one door. Seneca is the same cabin, Baron/Bonanza smaller. 210 also smaller.
A 207 is bigger, but rare and not much more useful load. Gipps Airvan...also rare. Two of the ugliest airplanes ever built.
Click to expand...
We had a Lance. Bang for your buck it was hard to beat---15 or so GPH and 150kts pretty much routine. Plus it had AC. Only on one occasion did I have any real concern about weight--but she was a fatty that had switched seats from the middle to the back on take off---you could feel the difference.
 
farangutan said:
Yes it does. Feels weird going flying without filling up, like riding a motorcycle without my helmet.
Click to expand...
Unless the load or the nature of the flight is simply a zero fuel concern---I tend to top it off. Even went out of my way and probably over budget to add on 30 gallons of AUX tanks. I don't like seeing the gauge needle read very close to 1/4 under any circumstance.
 
moparrob66 said:
Look at the murphy moose. Neat plane. I like the ones I've seen with aluminum V-8s. You could install removable seats and configure them for club seating. The bearhawk model 5 is meant to hold 6 also, and probably builds faster. Ive been looking at the BD-4C, and it looks like it could be stretched with relative ease and still be plenty ugly.
Click to expand...
They look awesome with the Russian radial. I have heard those radials are cheaper to replace that most of the alternatives.
 
PC-12. If you need to haul lots and go far. Pretty much purpose built for that.

As for the others, best use of the piston singles is pax = n - 2, where n is the number of seats in the marketing brochure. Safer and leaves some small amount of performance in the bank. Some 210s and some Piper Sixes (whatever marketing called them that year), can do it, but again, running at the limit.
 
I am in my 50s. What is the 3 hour limit people speak of?
I have flown non-stop 7 hours a decade ago, and 5 hours just a couple years ago. All it takes for most is some planning on what to eat/drink.

Tim
 
tspear said:
I am in my 50s. What is the 3 hour limit people speak of?
I have flown non-stop 7 hours a decade ago, and 5 hours just a couple years ago. All it takes for most is some planning on what to eat/drink.

Tim
Click to expand...
While also personally tolerant of very long legs, many men starting in about their mid-50s and depending on genitourinary health, have a short cycle between needing to void. Three hours is commonly cited by many I know. On the other hand, a camping gel bag can also solve the problem though not that easy to use.
 
There are several twins that will pretty easily haul 6 people and bags a pretty good distance. A lot of Aztecs have huge useful loads, so does the Twin Bonanza. My former Twin Bonanza had a ~1200lb payload after full fuel.
 
bradg33 said:
There are several twins that will pretty easily haul 6 people and bags a pretty good distance. A lot of Aztecs have huge useful loads, so does the Twin Bonanza. My former Twin Bonanza had a ~1200lb payload after full fuel.
Click to expand...
TwinBos are really something special. I don't know about parts availability and all that at this stage in the game, but they are really something. Came very close to buying a supercharged one ages ago---it just needed far too much in the way of updates.
 
I built and still own an RV-10, but we're continuously flirting with the idea of building something with a larger useful load. To that end I got to fly the E-AB prototype turbine Compair 6.2 (pic below) a couple of weeks ago-- they also have a flying piston engine version (350HP twin turbo IO-540) but it was down for maintenance when we visited or that's what I'd have flown instead of the turboprop. It was impressive. The airframe is cabin class so quite large, at least compared with my RV-10, and it was configured with 6 seats but can fit 8.
1758127949204.png
 
wheaties said:
That clam door or door in rear (P206/205) means no gymnastics required unless you're talking people over 6' or big, chunky in the back.

If you want to talk gymnastics, Aztec takes the cake. It will hold 6 fat people no problem and still have load to spare. One door, though.
Click to expand...
I presume you’re referring to the cargo door in a U-206? P-206s and 205s don’t have that.
 
Stewartb said:
I presume you’re referring to the cargo door in a U-206? P-206s and 205s don’t have that. The downside of the cargo door is there’s no passenger door up front. 205s and P-206s have front passenger doors.
Click to expand...

If I had to carry 6 full size people regularly? I’d buy a Beaver.
 
tsts4 said:
I built and still own an RV-10, but we're continuously flirting with the idea of building something with a larger useful load. To that end I got to fly the E-AB prototype turbine Compair 6.2 (pic below) a couple of weeks ago-- they also have a flying piston engine version (350HP twin turbo IO-540) but it was down for maintenance when we visited or that's what I'd have flown instead of the turboprop. It was impressive. The airframe is cabin class so quite large, at least compared with my RV-10, and it was configured with 6 seats but can fit 8.
View attachment 145207
Click to expand...
Looks pricey.
 
WJG-GMT-RootBeer said:
Looks pricey.
Click to expand...
~$500K for the piston version but there's a ton of variables involved here that could drive the final cost north or south of that . Probably double that for the turbine version. So expensive for an E-AB kit, not so much for a NEW standard certificated airplane with like capability.
 
tsts4 said:
I built and still own an RV-10, but we're continuously flirting with the idea of building something with a larger useful load. To that end I got to fly the E-AB prototype turbine Compair 6.2 (pic below) a couple of weeks ago-- they also have a flying piston engine version (350HP twin turbo IO-540) but it was down for maintenance when we visited or that's what I'd have flown instead of the turboprop. It was impressive. The airframe is cabin class so quite large, at least compared with my RV-10, and it was configured with 6 seats but can fit 8.
View attachment 145207
Click to expand...
Every time I see that thing I think it would solve all my problems. Seems like compair always had kind of a bad reputation, though from what little I've looked at it at OSH, it seems legit. The thought of building a fiberglass (okay, carbon but you're still sanding) plane just makes me itch. I also realize that by the time I could get one built, a couple of my problems will have moved out and the Lance will be more than big enough again. What do they claim for build time?
 
tsts4 said:
~$500K for the piston version but there's a ton of variables involved here that could drive the final cost north or south of that . Probably double that for the turbine version. So expensive for an E-AB kit, not so much for a NEW standard certificated airplane with like capability.
Click to expand...
Seems like what the world needs is a GA turbine for 50K.

Current turbine prices just seem like some other dimension.

Hats off to anyone who can swing the acquisition, love and feeding over the current turbine offerings.
 
Jim K said:
Every time I see that thing I think it would solve all my problems. Seems like compair always had kind of a bad reputation, though from what little I've looked at it at OSH, it seems legit. The thought of building a fiberglass (okay, carbon but you're still sanding) plane just makes me itch. I also realize that by the time I could get one built, a couple of my problems will have moved out and the Lance will be more than big enough again. What do they claim for build time?
Click to expand...
To my knowledge they haven't published any info on build times, and I haven't asked as I'm personally not concerned about that aspect of potentially purchasing a kit. They are offering builder assist.
 
Jim K said:
Every time I see that thing I think it would solve all my problems. Seems like compair always had kind of a bad reputation, though from what little I've looked at it at OSH, it seems legit. The thought of building a fiberglass (okay, carbon but you're still sanding) plane just makes me itch. I also realize that by the time I could get one built, a couple of my problems will have moved out and the Lance will be more than big enough again. What do they claim for build time?
Click to expand...
The look strikes me as highly awkward. Of course that is subjective, but it makes a Cessna 207 look like Cindy Crawford back in 1989.
 
WJG-GMT-RootBeer said:
The look strikes me as highly awkward. Of course that is subjective, but it makes a Cessna 207 look like Cindy Crawford back in 1989.
Click to expand...
Meh. You can only do so much in the looks department with a high wing. They look less awkward in person. I have to strongly disagree that a 207 looks better. The 207 is the Hummer H2 stretched limo of the aircraft world.
 
Jim K said:
Meh. You can only do so much in the looks department with a high wing. They look less awkward in person. I have to strongly disagree that a 207 looks better. The 207 is the Hummer H2 stretched limo of the aircraft world.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe so. Of course, one day after tying down the Lake 200, a couple of dads were watching planes come and go and had seen me land and taxi up and the little dude, around 4, said to his dad, "dad, that is one goofy looking airplane". The dad apologized but I said, "no, I see his point."
 
IK04 said:
The older Cherokee Six 300s will carry six full size adults and their bags, or seven with the extra seat. The club seating and huge doors make it easy.
Click to expand...
Thre is an old Piper ad where a Baby Grand (piano) is loaded into a Six. (Might be an interesting W&B.)
 
WJG-GMT-RootBeer said:
The look strikes me as highly awkward. Of course that is subjective, but it makes a Cessna 207 look like Cindy Crawford back in 1989.
Click to expand...
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder—it’s not for everyone. I really want to get back into a high wing as I get older. These are some pics I took from my demo flight.

IMG_0191.jpegIMG_2943.jpeg

IMG_2944.jpegIMG_0192.jpeg
 
bradg33 said:
There are several twins that will pretty easily haul 6 people and bags a pretty good distance. A lot of Aztecs have huge useful loads, so does the Twin Bonanza. My former Twin Bonanza had a ~1200lb payload after full fuel.
Click to expand...
Many if not all Cessna twins can hold six people and some bags. Have done it. Thought this was about singles though. Twin Bo is awesome, though not sure about ease of maintaining the geared engines at this point. What's odd is a Twin Bo is not really a Bo, but a Baron really is a twin engined Bonanza if I recall correctly.
 
I like the CompAir. If there were more out there I could be swayed into buying one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top