C182 vs PA-28 cabin width

George Mohr said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well the 182 gets about 135 true and the archer gets 126 true. The 182 is kept at full fuel and my archer is kept at the tabs. The flight is also only 60nm. It is easier to get the archer into landing config and can be on a one mile final making cruise speed and still land no problem. Maybe I’m just incompetent, but I can’t do that in the 182P without retarding the throttle (the way you aren’t supposed to)
Really though, If me and my friend with the Meridian show up to the airport at the same time, I’ll beat him to Modesto too...
 
TheGolfPilot said:
Well the 182 gets about 135 true and the archer gets 126 true. The 182 is kept at full fuel and my archer is kept at the tabs. The flight is also only 60nm. It is easier to get the archer into landing config and can be on a one mile final making cruise speed and still land no problem. Maybe I’m just incompetent, but I can’t do that in the 182P without retarding the throttle (the way you aren’t supposed to)
Really though, If me and my friend with the Meridian show up to the airport at the same time, I’ll beat him to Modesto too...
Click to expand...

My club has a 1996 Archer, and the armrest just barely lets my get my big butt all the way in the seat. Shoulder rubs the side of the plane the whole time. I don't have that issue in a 172. All of the 182 models after they widened the fuselage fit me just fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Eric Gleason said:
My club has a 1996 Archer, and the armrest just barely lets my get my big butt all the way in the seat. Shoulder rubs the side of the plane the whole time. I don't have that issue in a 172. All of the 182 models after they widened the fuselage fit me just fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don’t have that issue in my 1979 archer and I have a big butt
 
Eric Gleason said:
My club has a 1996 Archer, and the armrest just barely lets my get my big butt all the way in the seat.
Click to expand...
TheGolfPilot said:
I don’t have that issue in my 1979 archer and I have a big butt
Click to expand...

Careful guys, we've had a lot of dick measuring contests here but I've never heard of us having a butt measuring contest!
 
TheGolfPilot said:
I don’t have that issue in my 1979 archer and I have a big butt
Click to expand...

Apparently ur butt is not big enough, I have a 79 archer and a big butt ( I am aware it’s not something to be proof of, I am proud nonetheless) . The arm rest does create a problem that I didn’t have in a 182 ( albeit I have been in a 182 only twice)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I suffer no butt-armrest interference in the 'kota. I do have a long torso so that helps keep the seat height low and the butt-armrest interference coefficient equally low.
 
George Mohr said:
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
Click to expand...

Are you thinking about a new plane?
 
Eric Gleason said:
My club has a 1996 Archer, and the armrest just barely lets my get my big butt all the way in the seat.
Click to expand...
TheGolfPilot said:
I don’t have that issue in my 1979 archer and I have a big butt
Click to expand...
timwinters said:
Careful guys, we've had a lot of dick measuring contests here but I've never heard of us having a butt measuring contest!
Click to expand...
Also, I'm having a real hard time envisioning you guys looking at your respective wives and asking...

"Honey, does this plane make my butt look big?"

.....

:cool:

.....
 
George Mohr said:
Yup indeed. Finishing my IFR and looking for something with all around better capability.
Click to expand...
You sir could benefit from a turbo Dakota complete with Aspen, GNS 430W, Altimatic IIIc, and numerous other goodies. It can be yours today for the low, low price of (mumble, mumble, see ad in classifieds).
 
Clark1961 said:
You sir could benefit from a turbo Dakota complete with Aspen, GNS 430W, Altimatic IIIc, and numerous other goodies. It can be yours today for the low, low price of (mumble, mumble, see ad in classifieds).
Click to expand...

It really is a nice airplane. If we didn’t already have a 182 I’d be looking at the logs and talking to that Clark guy about it.
 
He carefully hid it in that sub-section titled “Aircraft”. Nobody can find it there. :)
 
It's nice. It isn't for everyone. I found it because I was looking for a specific airplane. I suspect the next owner will have a similar mindset.
 
I’m an east coast flyer, so turbo probably doesn’t make sense for me. Plus my wife is growing fond of the two door idea...
 
George Mohr said:
I’m an east coast flyer, so turbo probably doesn’t make sense for me. Plus my wife is growing fond of the two door idea...
Click to expand...
I bought it from a guy in Tennessee. It spent most of it's life in Indiana and Ohio. The airplane really performs well at sea level and optimum altitude by the book is 8,000 feet.

All that said, yup, wives and other pax like two doors. Add in the simpler operation of normally aspirated aircraft and the decision gets easier.

People who buy a turbo Dakota have specific interests in mind. It's a pilot's airplane and it has served me well.
 
Also... and the reason for this thread actually, is the fact that folks seem to like the “roominess” of the 182. Our PA28 is just a bit tight for longer trips (in her highly significant opinion ;) ).
 
Anyone who thinks the PA28 is as wide as the 182, stuck the tape measure out the vent window on the PA28 while they were measuring. It's no contest.

Now, the PA32 on the other hand... And the "twin PA32" (PA34)... Those are very nice and roomy.

For longer-endurance legs, the 182 is hard to beat in the four-seat market. And a 182 can do anything (except go fast and not be a pig on fuel). It's a very versatile aircraft, which is why they're so popular. They're not as fun to hand-fly as some planes, but it's hard to find something that can do everything the 182 can.
 
No comparison, test flew a 1966 182 with a buddy of mine last week, we are both big guys I’m 6’6” about 285 he’s 6’1” and as heavy as me. In the 182 we didn’t touch, fast forward 5 days I flew into FLL to ride with him in his Cherokee 180 to sun n fun. God, misery, we felt like sardines in there. There was no WAY we could not touch (let the smart ass remarks began). After 1:15 in the air my butt was sore and we both wanted the heck out of that thing, he claims 2hrs is about his limit, but again were big.

PS. I’m buying a 182 for this very reason. As I mentioned I’m 6’6” and both my sons want to learn to fly, they are 6’8” and 6’6”. they flew the local 1978 Archer and both commented their left leg made it difficult to turn left!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Anyone who thinks the PA28 is as wide as the 182, stuck the tape measure out the vent window on the PA28 while they were measuring. It's no contest.

Now, the PA32 on the other hand... And the "twin PA32" (PA34)... Those are very nice and roomy.

For longer-endurance legs, the 182 is hard to beat in the four-seat market. And a 182 can do anything (except go fast and not be a pig on fuel). It's a very versatile aircraft, which is why they're so popular. They're not as fun to hand-fly as some planes, but it's hard to find something that can do everything the 182 can.
Click to expand...
Once you go PA-32....there really is no comparison for roominess. :no:
 
Kent and I know that the Cherokee cabin is *cough* snug for two hefty pilots. Just say shoulder buddies.

I've heard a rumor that the door can be under enough pressure that it pops open.
 
mikea said:
Kent and I know that the Cherokee cabin is *cough* snug for two hefty pilots. Just say shoulder buddies.

I've heard a rumor that the door can be under enough pressure that it pops open.
Click to expand...

In the Mooney, I have an armrest that folds down between the front seats.

When I fly with someone else that's bigger than I am these days, it earns itself a new name:

The Gut Separator. :D
 
Believe it or not, a Cessna Cardinal 177 is wider than both the 182 and the PA-28. Sooooo much freaking room in these birds and they are sooo comfortable to fly.

My cabin width is 48". And the fuselage is sort of rounded with the widest part being right at your hips with the door panels having the same "bowed" effect making the cabin incredibly comfortable even for big butt, broad shoulder pilots like me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top