Cockpit comfort

DaleB

DaleB

Final Approach
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
6,906
Location
Omaha, NE
Display Name
Display name:
DaleB
Hi folks....

While I'm a student pilot and flying a club airplane right now, I'm aiming toward eventually owning either as a sole owner or in a partnership. One of the things I am looking at is cabin comfort for longer X/C trips. These would typically be done with my wife, and we're used to driving in vehicles ranging from pretty comfortable (Fusion hybrid) to downright decadent (new F150 super crew), with an occasional long ride on the "road sofa", a Harley Ultra Classic with a nice seat, thrown in. In short -- she can put up with about anything, but I'd like to make things as comfortable as possible so we can fly more and drive less.

So I'm looking at cabin dimensions. I got curious because I've heard Mooneys are cramped, but then read something about them having a wider cabin than a 182. I found a good pile of data at planeandpilotmag.com and did some figuring. Using some of the candidate airplanes I've been looking at for comparison, here's what I found, along with my thoughts:

C177: 48 x 46.5. Comfy, nice looking, not particularly speedy.
C182: 45W x 46H. Big, fast, expensive.
Sundowner: 44W x 48H. Comfy, but it's going to be a long trip.
M201: 43.5W x 44.5H. Fast, sexy, just pack very small bags.
RV-7/9: 43W x 42H. I hadn't considered E/AB before, but... hmmm.
C172: 39.5W x 48H. Neither fast nor comfortable, but available.
AA5B: 40W x 45H. About Cherokee sized, but faster.
PA-28: 40W x 44H. It'll get you there, just sweaty.

Of these, I have flown the PA-28 and the 172. I'm not a small guy by anyone's definition. Both are what I would consider cramped for shoulder room, though the 172 actually feels a little less so for some reason. I still find myself flying with my left arm pinned to my side. After a couple of hours that gets a little old.

Are there things I'm not seeing here? Neither of us has particularly long legs... I don't have the seat all the way back in either the Cherokee or the 172, so leg room doesn't seem to be an issue.

I would say, "Discuss"... but Captain probably has that copyrighted and someone would be sure to complain about it. :)
 
Reading and collecting all that stuff is mostly a big WOT due to all the variables that can't be captured, quantified or evaluated. If some guy has re-upholstered the seats and sidewalls to more comfortably accommodate his manly 5' 5" frame, the biggest (published) number can become the smallest actual number. Don't rely on them for anything other than fodder, and be sure to sit in any airplane you plan to buy for a trip of sufficient length so as to really understand the comfort for your particular physique (or in my case, the lack thereof.)

Cabin width is the most-misleading limitation, and only comes into play if you are mentally challenged to the point that you can't offset the seat spacing.
DaleB said:
Hi folks....

While I'm a student pilot and flying a club airplane right now, I'm aiming toward eventually owning either as a sole owner or in a partnership. One of the things I am looking at is cabin comfort for longer X/C trips. These would typically be done with my wife, and we're used to driving in vehicles ranging from pretty comfortable (Fusion hybrid) to downright decadent (new F150 super crew), with an occasional long ride on the "road sofa", a Harley Ultra Classic with a nice seat, thrown in. In short -- she can put up with about anything, but I'd like to make things as comfortable as possible so we can fly more and drive less.

So I'm looking at cabin dimensions. I got curious because I've heard Mooneys are cramped, but then read something about them having a wider cabin than a 182. I found a good pile of data at planeandpilotmag.com and did some figuring. Using some of the candidate airplanes I've been looking at for comparison, here's what I found, along with my thoughts:

C177: 48 x 46.5. Comfy, nice looking, not particularly speedy.
C182: 45W x 46H. Big, fast, expensive.
Sundowner: 44W x 48H. Comfy, but it's going to be a long trip.
M201: 43.5W x 44.5H. Fast, sexy, just pack very small bags.
RV-7/9: 43W x 42H. I hadn't considered E/AB before, but... hmmm.
C172: 39.5W x 48H. Neither fast nor comfortable, but available.
AA5B: 40W x 45H. About Cherokee sized, but faster.
PA-28: 40W x 44H. It'll get you there, just sweaty.

Of these, I have flown the PA-28 and the 172. I'm not a small guy by anyone's definition. Both are what I would consider cramped for shoulder room, though the 172 actually feels a little less so for some reason. I still find myself flying with my left arm pinned to my side. After a couple of hours that gets a little old.

Are there things I'm not seeing here? Neither of us has particularly long legs... I don't have the seat all the way back in either the Cherokee or the 172, so leg room doesn't seem to be an issue.

I would say, "Discuss"... but Captain probably has that copyrighted and someone would be sure to complain about it. :)
Click to expand...
 
Yes, sit in a few. I have a Cherokee and don't find it cramped, but I am not a big guy. A 60's Mooney was about the same for me. 182's are pretty room, but I felt like I was driving a bus. Some of it depends on your budget. I found the Cirrus SR22 real comfortable (but out of my budget) and my friend raves about the roominess of the Trinidad TB-20 (no personal experience). Those are going to get you over $100K, though.
 
DaleB said:
That's a non-starter. If I want her in the back sat we'll take the bike.
Click to expand...

Once she sees the roomyness of the back seat of a cardinal....

As Wayne says, don't base your decision solely on this. Sure, check those aircraft out for the performance characteristics, but there are many ways to deal with the narrower cabins. Simplest is to have the non-flying right seat moved a few notches back so their shoulder is behind yours.
 
Agree with Post#2. Gotta sit in them before making a decision. As PIC you can help make it easier by eliminating a few before she even see it, then the 2 of you sit side-side and see how it feels. LISTEN to her feedback. If she doesn't like it, move on.

I'm currently re-evaluating doing this after a strange fit issue that has come back around.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Simplest is to have the non-flying right seat moved a few notches back so their shoulder is behind yours.
Click to expand...

. . . where it will normally be positioned unless the pax feels a strong urge to move the seat forward in order to reach the pedals. When the other person in the plane has always been an instructor who may have felt it necessary to be in such position, the amount of actual shoulder room available may not be apparent to a soon-to-be, freshly-minted, bottom-feeding, pond-scum, low-time, cellar-dweller like most post-checkride PPL's. Present company excepted, of course. :wink2:
 
DaleB said:
C177: 48 x 46.5. Comfy, nice looking, not particularly speedy.
Click to expand...

If you would consider a 177 RG (with the 200hp fuel injected engine), they are essentially as fast as a 182, but burn less fuel. And while the 177 doesn't have quite as much of a hauling capacity, it is still pretty good.
 
In most small airplanes, whatever you gain, your going to have to give up something to get it. That something is usually money, but unless your spending in the big leagues, if you want comfort, your probably going to be giving up speed, and visa versa. Insisting on both can get turbine expensive.

-John
 
Agreed, sit in them and preferably fly them. For reference I am 6' and 175 lbs. My Tiger's cabin is 40 in. wide and 46 in high at the front seats, 45 inches high in the rear.

The nice thing about the Tiger is that it "feels" roomier due to the bubble canopy which bulges slightly at shoulder height. You also, sit a bit higher which also makes it feel roomier. The rear seat room is actually good also. Visibility is good all around.

I've done a number of very long cross countries in the plane over the 11 years I've had it, and moved it around the country when I moved in addition to taking vacations with it. I never feel cramped nor feel that I don't have enough room for stuff and pax. It is a really great two person, full fuel and full bags plane, or partial fuel 2 - 4 pax and small bags. All depends on the pax weight of course, and if they want to bring steamer trunks or not.

I have a lot of hours in most of the others on your list except the Sundowner and Cardinal, and never felt the Tiger was any smaller or felt more cramped.
 
wabower said:
Present company excepted, of course. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Geez! Thank goodness I enjoy your company!

walking_target_bulls_eye_on_back_tee_tshirt-p235267067313954316b24tr_400.jpg


I bet even once I do purchase an aircraft, this abuse will still continue! roflmao!
 
Well congrats on getting closer to getting your ticket. I've always considered what my primary mission when deciding what to buy.

First mistake after getting my ticket was buying a cherokee six. Expensive bird for punching holes in sky but incredible for comfort. The family plans for trips didn't materialize. I'm 6'3" and 200+ so space muy importante.

After retiring from flying for 7 years I'm in process of purchasing turbo 182 rg. Turbo to take me to Colorado where we have condo. I wish I had worked towards getting more complex time in my early flying.If funds allow this at least think about it.
Mooney was darn snug, 172 a little better, Cherokee 180 about the same. I have been impressed with the 182 fixed or retract if you plan on flying a few places. The 172 drove me crazy couple months ago when flying to Kansas city.

Anyway good luck, hope it works out in your favor.
 
Jthamilton said:
Well congrats on getting closer to getting your ticket. I've always considered what my primary mission when deciding what to buy.

First mistake after getting my ticket was buying a cherokee six. Expensive bird for punching holes in sky but incredible for comfort. The family plans for trips didn't materialize. I'm 6'3" and 200+ so space muy importante.

After retiring from flying for 7 years I'm in process of purchasing turbo 182 rg. Turbo to take me to Colorado where we have condo. I wish I had worked towards getting more complex time in my early flying.If funds allow this at least think about it.
Mooney was darn snug, 172 a little better, Cherokee 180 about the same. I have been impressed with the 182 fixed or retract if you plan on flying a few places. The 172 drove me crazy couple months ago when flying to Kansas city.

Anyway good luck, hope it works out in your favor.
Click to expand...

In what way, if I may ask
 
I usually fly a '99 172R and I find it a bit cramped with my instructor. To get a good sight picture, I have the seat all the way up and I feel like I'm driving a truck. I flew a '98 Archer and thought that was super comfortable. The seat was perfect, there was plenty of room in the plane for my instructor and I, and I sat a little lower. I felt like I was driving my car, which is a sporty sedan.

For reference, I'm 6'3" and pretty skinny at 180 lbs.
 
Was use to making trip in my Cherokee six. First run in 172 had headwind both ways and was so darn slow!!!! Maybe wouldn't have been so bad if winds were calm. Those conditions existed for a day a couple years ago here in Oklahoma and Kansas.

They are great for many I'm just little cramped in the one I fly and I made something like 106 knots at most.

Ok 6'3" and 240 pounds can fill a cockpit. Not bad if your copilot is tiny or my 9 year old.

If able to have some choices I wouldn't put at top of my list. But getting to fly anything is a gift.

Jon
 
Last edited:
HerrGruyere said:
I usually fly a '99 172R and I find it a bit cramped with my instructor. To get a good sight picture, I have the seat all the way up and I feel like I'm driving a truck. I flew a '98 Archer and thought that was super comfortable. The seat was perfect, there was plenty of room in the plane for my instructor and I, and I sat a little lower. I felt like I was driving my car, which is a sporty sedan.

For reference, I'm 6'3" and pretty skinny at 180 lbs.
Click to expand...

Does pistol Pete have any affiliation to the cowboys?

Jon
 
Try a couple of them on for size, just don't show the wife any that aren't in the budget, cause that's the one she'll fall in love with.;) A lot depends on your build and hers, if you're both built like offensive linemen, a 172 might be cramped,:mad2: if you're both built like swimmers, any plane will work.:D
Most everybody on here, including me will promote the plane they fly, I have a 182 and it's great as none of my family is...........petite.;) for even more room, try a 421! :rolleyes:
 
HerrGruyere said:
I usually fly a '99 172R and I find it a bit cramped with my instructor. To get a good sight picture, I have the seat all the way up and I feel like I'm driving a truck. I flew a '98 Archer and thought that was super comfortable. The seat was perfect, there was plenty of room in the plane for my instructor and I, and I sat a little lower. I felt like I was driving my car, which is a sporty sedan.

For reference, I'm 6'3" and pretty skinny at 180 lbs.
Click to expand...

I am a similar size, just a few lbs more and the archer has a great seating position. Especially with it lowered all the way to the floor.

The legroom/ space makes just as much of a difference for the taller folks. If I am in the Mooney there isn't much room for a passenger behind me.
 
wabower said:
. . . where it will normally be positioned unless the pax feels a strong urge to move the seat forward in order to reach the pedals. When the other person in the plane has always been an instructor who may have felt it necessary to be in such position, the amount of actual shoulder room available may not be apparent to a soon-to-be, freshly-minted, bottom-feeding, pond-scum, low-time, cellar-dweller like most post-checkride PPL's. Present company excepted, of course. :wink2:
Click to expand...
Hey, watch it buster. I highly resemble that remark!! Except for the post-checkride part. :)

I guess I should refine and re-phrase my question like this:

For those of you who have flown more than one, or more than a couple of these models... how do you find that overall cabin comfort relates to the numbers, if at all? And why?

I'm not a small guy... more lineman than swimmer, unless you count sea lions. Wifey is of about average size, 5-5 and well under FAA "standard person" weight. Of the two I've actually flown, I find that getting in and out of a Cherokee is a real PITA but I can move both arms (the left one somewhat less than the right). The 172 is challenging just because the front of the left seat is about 3" from the door frame with the seat all the way back (there's a stop screw in the seat track) and my size 12 gunboat shoes are wider than that. Once in it's reasonably comfortable, except for my left arm being pinned tight against the fuselage. Even solo.

I keep wanting to try out the seats in the club's 182, but people keep breaking it.
 
Pa-23 150/160 Apache... Hands down the most comfortable ride.. You will not rub shoulders with the passenger no matter how the seats are positioned... You sit straight up and not with your legs straight out in front of you and losing circulation like many I have been in......
Now, whether the airplane's other attributes meet your needs only you can decide...
 
Dr. O said:
Pa-23 150/160 Apache... Hands down the most comfortable ride..
Click to expand...
But for my purposes, it may as well be a DC-3. :) A twin is simply not in my future in any scenario I can envision.
 
DaleB said:
But for my purposes, it may as well be a DC-3. :) A twin is simply not in my future in any scenario I can envision.
Click to expand...


You will enjoy the 182, from one big footed lineman to another. However being able to scoot my seat back in my cherokee six and stretch during flights was priceless. However the gas bills were a little steep that's when fuel was $ 1.65 self serve. I can't imagine paying those bills now.:eek:
 
Have you looked at a Commander? When Bill Jennings sat in mine at one of the Raleigh fly-ins, he said "this thing is like sitting in a Buick!!!" :)
 
This may be the first time anybody flying a six has ever considered it faster than the alternative. :wink2::D
Jthamilton said:
Was use to making trip in my Cherokee six. First run in 172 had headwind both ways and was so darn slow!!!! Maybe wouldn't have been so bad if winds were calm. Those conditions existed for a day a couple years ago here in Oklahoma and Kansas.

They are great for many I'm just little cramped in the one I fly and I made something like 106 knots at most.

Ok 6'3" and 240 pounds can fill a cockpit. Not bad if your copilot is tiny or my 9 year old.

If able to have some choices I wouldn't put at top of my list. But getting to fly anything is a gift.

Jon
Click to expand...
 
Dr. O said:
Pa-23 150/160 Apache... Hands down the most comfortable ride.. You will not rub shoulders with the passenger no matter how the seats are positioned... You sit straight up and not with your legs straight out in front of you and losing circulation like many I have been in......
Now, whether the airplane's other attributes meet your needs only you can decide...
Click to expand...

If passenger comfort physically is your biggest consideration, Denny is spot on.

My Apache has more room for the passengers than most GA planes I've been in, and there's good room for a wide or tall pilot -- you won't be pressed against your right-seat buddy.

That said, I'm in a twin and usually cruise at 115kts. =)

If an Apache fits your mission due to comfort and the speed doesn't break the deal (or the maintenance costs of a twin), don't overlook it just because it's a twin. After getting used to the abundance of controls compared to a C-172, I found it to be easier to fly.

I'm about 35hrs in on my Apache and still no multi engine rating on me (All flying is solo or w/ instructor, I'm just not confident enough in gusty xwind and have delayed my checkride as such). In that time, I've done a few trips in her (less than 200nm), and my wife is already interested in us getting something faster after I get my MEL. Speed may not seem to be a factor "at first," but it will be at some point. =)
 
You really ought to revisit a tandem airplane - they're almost always more comfortable per person. RV-8 springs to mind.
 
Comanche cabins are quite comfortable as well.
 
Quality of the seat upholstery and cushions will be one of the biggest factors
 
Skylane81E said:
Quality of the seat upholstery and cushions will be one of the biggest factors
Click to expand...

Ayup, especially after a number of years in service has caused the cheap factory-installed foam to crumble into cornflakes.
 
DaleB said:
C177: 48 x 46.5. Comfy, nice looking, not particularly speedy.
C182: 45W x 46H. Big, fast, expensive.
Sundowner: 44W x 48H. Comfy, but it's going to be a long trip.
M201: 43.5W x 44.5H. Fast, sexy, just pack very small bags.
RV-7/9: 43W x 42H. I hadn't considered E/AB before, but... hmmm.
C172: 39.5W x 48H. Neither fast nor comfortable, but available.
AA5B: 40W x 45H. About Cherokee sized, but faster.
PA-28: 40W x 44H. It'll get you there, just sweaty.
Click to expand...
If comfort is the most important I would go with the 177.

Easiest to get in/out and easiest to load/unload baggage of what you have listed. It is the most comfortable and roomy of the 4 seat Cessnas IMO.

If you are concerned about the slower speed, I would suggest the 177RG. It is plenty speedy all things considered - will do 140 KTAS no prob. You are just going to pay a higher insurance premium early on due to the retractable gear.
 
DaleB. As you are only in omaha you should come down to klnk sometime. I have several planes we can try out. We can take them up and fly some and you can see how you fit and which one handles best. (From small to large cabins)
 
wabower said:
Ayup, especially after a number of years in service has caused the cheap factory-installed foam to crumble into cornflakes.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the seats that make my plane a 4-5hr leg plane. Better seats I could go longer.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Once she sees the roomyness of the back seat of a cardinal....
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you can't both fly in the back seat.

Err, wait a minute, what were YOU talking about?
 
The rag shop at Sparks (TUL) sewed sheeps into the back and seat cushion, using the existing sides and backs, then replaced the bad foam with tri-density with proper shape. Ahhhh!
Skylane81E said:
Yes, it's the seats that make my plane a 4-5hr leg plane. Better seats I could go longer.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
The rag shop at Sparks (TUL) sewed sheeps into the back and seat cushion, using the existing sides and backs, then replaced the bad foam with tri-density with proper shape. Ahhhh!
Click to expand...

Such a thing is on my short list
 
Theboys said:
DaleB. As you are only in omaha you should come down to klnk sometime. I have several planes we can try out. We can take them up and fly some and you can see how you fit and which one handles best. (From small to large cabins)
Click to expand...
Now, how could I possibly pass that up?? I'll PM you. :) Lincoln's not that far. Especially if I fly there.
 
'Not traditional thinking... but consider some LSAs. CT sw/ls has 49" width and can fit 6-footers with ease. Cabin is large, with great visibility. While they don't have as much cubic (baggage) space as a 172, they can carry as much, or more, for longer distances, as fast or faster, with much less fuel. Many CT Fliers do 4-5.5 hour legs (at 120KTS), putting in 1,000 mile days! They often have very modern avionics, and autopilots. No IFR, though.
Some CT owners have previously owned, or still own, some of the planes you've mentioned. A lot of them prefer tripping in their Cts.
My W/B sheet shows you could fly with two 175lb'ers, plus 30 gals fuel (5 hrs plus 1 hr reserve), plus 40 lbs baggage. With a 'chute.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top