Gotta have Useful Load

[OkieFlyer]

I've heard more than one pilot say that a Cessna 182 will haul anything you can fit inside it. Obviously that's an imbellishment, but will they safely fly a little overwight? The reason I ask is because I'm in need of a plane with a 1200 lb useful load, with plenty of leg room in the back, for less than 50K. The 182N has a great useful load at around 1300 lb, but the few that I've come across are too pricey. There are lots of earlier 182s on the market in my price range, but the useful loads aren't as good. Basically, I need to haul 850 lbs of people, some luggage, and enough gas for 2.5 to 3 hrs with reserves. I've learned that we large people are sure limited when it comes to airplanes. Any suggestions?

 

[jason]

I've heard more than one pilot say that a Cessna 182 will haul anything you can fit inside it. Obviously that's an imbellishment, but will they safely fly a little overwight? The reason I ask is because I'm in need of a plane with a 1200 lb useful load, with plenty of leg room in the back, for less than 50K. The 182N has a great useful load at around 1300 lb, but the few that I've come across are too pricey. There are lots of earlier 182s on the market in my price range, but the useful loads aren't as good. Basically, I need to haul 850 lbs of people, some luggage, and enough gas for 2.5 to 3 hrs with reserves. I've learned that we large people are sure limited when it comes to airplanes. Any suggestions?

Take a look at the big Piper series. Cherokee six, Dakota, Saratoga, etc.

 

[Tom-D]

I've heard more than one pilot say that a Cessna 182 will haul anything you can fit inside it. Obviously that's an embellishment, but will they safely fly a little overweight?

not really, the closer to gross weight you are the less safety margin you have.

The reason I ask is because I'm in need of a plane with a 1200 lb useful load, with plenty of leg room in the back, for less than 50K.

You need a C-185 or a 210, if not Cessna a PA 24

The 182N has a great useful load at around 1300 lb, but the few that I've come across are too pricey. There are lots of earlier 182s on the market in my price range, but the useful loads aren't as good. Basically, I need to haul 850 lbs of people, some luggage, and enough gas for 2.5 to 3 hrs with reserves. I've learned that we large people are sure limited when it comes to airplanes. Any suggestions?

Ya gotta remember the early 210 is a retract 182 .

 

[NotSure]

An early 210 (4 seats, with wing struts) could do it pretty easily, and would be in your price range. Much better choice than an overloaded 182 IMHO.

Better to be 50 pounds over gross in the 210 than 200 in the 182.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The 182N has a great useful load at around 1300 lb, but the few that I've come across are too pricey. There are lots of earlier 182s on the market in my price range, but the useful loads aren't as good. Basically, I need to haul 850 lbs of people, some luggage, and enough gas for 2.5 to 3 hrs with reserves. I've learned that we large people are sure limited when it comes to airplanes. Any suggestions?

In our 182N, you can put 903 lb in the cabin and 4 hours in the tanks and be right at gross. While some of the earlier ones have lower max gross weights, I think they were lighter, too, so the useful load probably isn't impacted too much... And I would suggest that it's probably safer to just plan on an extra fuel stop than to fly over gross. Note that even the 182N has a max landing weight, you need to burn 2 hours' worth of fuel before you land if you take off at max gross.

 

[Clark1961]

Take a look at the big Piper series. Cherokee six, Dakota, Saratoga, etc.

While the Dakota is a nice thought, it really doesn't have much back seat leg room. It is better than a 235 but that isn't saying a lot...

 

[Doggtyred]

An early 210 (4 seats, with wing struts) could do it pretty easily, and would be in your price range. Much better choice than an overloaded 182 IMHO.

Better to be 50 pounds over gross in the 210 than 200 in the 182.

Early 210's are supposed to have problems with the main gear saddles cracking. Do your homework before getting a D model or earlier. I don't have my book handy that called this out.

 

[Ted]

Sounds like you want a 210 or Cherokee 6 in a single, or an Aztec or 310 in a twin. The 36 Bonanza or 58 Baron would work also, but might be a bit cramped.

Flying over gross makes you a test pilot. While max gross weight may exist for a number of different reasons (performance, structural, etc.), what it ends up meaning is that you're testing the plane outside of the envelope it was certified to. This could mean nothing bad will happen, or it could mean you'll have a problem.

Additionally, I can't think of any plane that really likes flying at gross, and you'll likely notice a performance decrease, especially if over. That will make for a less than enjoyable flying experience.

 

[wabower]

Peter Garrison wrote an excellent article in Flying Magazine about the effect of increased weight. He concluded that they are minimal, if CG is not comprimised.

I have the military "overweight" charts for the B-200 that are instructive as to the actual "test pilot" nature of operations at slightly over max certified GW. They confirm Garrison's work, at least for that particular airplane.

I don't fly over gross weight and don't recommend it, but the solemnly delivered "now you're a test pilot" scare tactics are a bit over-blown IMO.

 

[EdFred]

1250 useful in my Comanche. If you're going to stuff 850lbs of people plus another 100 of luggage, that leaves you 300lbs of fuel. Which is right about 3hr+1hr reserve, and with no wind gives you about 450nm range. I paid 45k, but did spend another 8k to add the tip tanks. w/o the tips tanks my useful was about 1075.

 

[Ted]

I don't fly over gross weight and don't recommend it, but the solemnly delivered "now you're a test pilot" scare tactics are a bit over-blown IMO.

That depends. You or I would be a lot smarter about it (I hope) than someone with less experience. You are correct that the CG is the biggest issue, but takeoff and climb performance can be, too.

And it's not necessarily a scare tactic, just a statement of fact. Some people don't mind being test pilots. If I got called up and asked to work as one, I'd probably go for it. For that matter, I've been trying to work as one for a while now.

 

[Everskyward]

I've heard more than one pilot say that a Cessna 182 will haul anything you can fit inside it. Obviously that's an imbellishment, but will they safely fly a little overwight? The reason I ask is because I'm in need of a plane with a 1200 lb useful load, with plenty of leg room in the back, for less than 50K. The 182N has a great useful load at around 1300 lb, but the few that I've come across are too pricey. There are lots of earlier 182s on the market in my price range, but the useful loads aren't as good. Basically, I need to haul 850 lbs of people, some luggage, and enough gas for 2.5 to 3 hrs with reserves. I've learned that we large people are sure limited when it comes to airplanes. Any suggestions?

Older C-206? Not sure how much they cost, though.

 

[wabower]

All Aztec pilots meet that description, they just don't know it at the time.

That depends. You or I would be a lot smarter about it (I hope) than someone with less experience. You are correct that the CG is the biggest issue, but takeoff and climb performance can be, too.

And it's not necessarily a scare tactic, just a statement of fact. Some people don't mind being test pilots. If I got called up and asked to work as one, I'd probably go for it. For that matter, I've been trying to work as one for a while now.

 

[Ted]

All Aztec pilots meet that description, they just don't know it at the time.

That must be why I'd jump at the chance to be a test pilot in something else. I've already put my 700 hours of Aztec time on my resume.

Scary - about 60% of my total time is in that airplane. Another 20% in the 310.

 

[wabower]

Well, it sure beats trying to haul those dogs around in that Mooney you used to think was so great.

Did you ever dream you'd get that much experience flying all over the country in such a short time? Pretty impressive stuff for a guy whose primary claim to fame was wrenching on Jags.

That must be why I'd jump at the chance to be a test pilot in something else. I've already put my 700 hours of Aztec time on my resume.

Scary - about 60% of my total time is in that airplane. Another 20% in the 310.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Older C-206? Not sure how much they cost, though.

Probably won't find a good one for 50K.

206's have retained their value quite well.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Ya gotta remember the early 210 is a retract 182 .

Good point - I just saw my first early model 210 the other day on the ramp at MYF - and it was just what you described - a straight back 182 with retractable gear. Definitely not the 6 seater that we tend to think of today when talking about Centurions.

 

[Ted]

Well, it sure beats trying to haul those dogs around in that Mooney you used to think was so great.

I still like Mooneys. Their primary issue is that they're missing an engine.

Did you ever dream you'd get that much experience flying all over the country in such a short time? Pretty impressive stuff for a guy whose primary claim to fame was wrenching on Jags.

No way did I ever dream I'd get this much time this quickly, flying not just all over the country but the continent doing really fun flying in really cool (to me) airplanes. It's been quite the wild ride and I've been most fortunate to have the experiences I have.

No doubt driving old Jags for as long as I did helped prepare me for flying old airplanes.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Wow, thanks for all the quick replies guys.

When I started looking at planes, I was really focusing on C210s and Cherokee 6s. I had my eye on a '63 210, but a couple of pilots advised me to stay away from the older ones because it would eat me up on maintenance and because of the landing gear issues. A 210 would be perfect, but now I'm scared of them. I love the bus like load hauling ability of a Cherokee 6, but I've had other pilots tell me that they are real dogs, and on hot days, they'll hardly climb. I'd like to point out that I will be traveling into the Rockies some, so I want to be able to get off the ground when I'm there. I have seen some Cherokee 6 260s in my price range though. The Cherokee 235 is a great plane, but the back seat room is abysmal in the pre-1973 models, and the post 1973s are too high. I want to ask piper what good is a 1300-1400 lb useful load, if you can't fit anyone in the back? And that's pretty much true of all the PA28 Cherokees before 1973 when they streched the fuselage a bit. C206 is great also, but as someone mentioned, they have really retained their value well and are quite pricey. There is a C337 Skymaster available for sale locally and the guy only wants like 20K, but it's a bit of a fixer upper. I'm afraid it would take too much $$$ to get it flying, and when it does fly, I figure it will eat at least 25 gph at C210 speeds. But by golly, it will sure haul a load. So it seems like the best choices are:
1. C210 maintenance hog with iffy landing gear
2. Cherokee 6 that will haul a ton, but is a dog
3. Cherokee 235 that also hauls a ton, but you can't fit anyone in the back
4. C182 with plenty of room, but can't handle my loads

I guess the answer is to spend more money huh. I'd like to partner with someone and get exactly what I want, but it's hard to find partners here in small town Oklahoma. The guys around here that do fly don't have any interest in flying trucks like me. You little guys out there have it easy :wink2:

 

[Ted]

If you're talking about going to the Rockies, going over gross in a naturally aspirated aircraft seems ill advised.

T210. There you go. You'll have maintenance to deal with, yes, but it'll do the job.

Or Aztec. But then you'll be a perpetual test pilot like me.

 

[wabower]

Which small town? I'm from Elk City, hard to find much smaller than that.

Wow, thanks for all the quick replies guys.

When I started looking at planes, I was really focusing on C210s and Cherokee 6s. I had my eye on a '63 210, but a couple of pilots advised me to stay away from the older ones because it would eat me up on maintenance and because of the landing gear issues. A 210 would be perfect, but now I'm scared of them. I love the bus like load hauling ability of a Cherokee 6, but I've had other pilots tell me that they are real dogs, and on hot days, they'll hardly climb. I'd like to point out that I will be traveling into the Rockies some, so I want to be able to get off the ground when I'm there. I have seen some Cherokee 6 260s in my price range though. The Cherokee 235 is a great plane, but the back seat room is abysmal in the pre-1973 models, and the post 1973s are too high. I want to ask piper what good is a 1300-1400 lb useful load, if you can't fit anyone in the back? And that's pretty much true of all the PA28 Cherokees before 1973 when they streched the fuselage a bit. C206 is great also, but as someone mentioned, they have really retained their value well and are quite pricey. There is a C337 Skymaster available for sale locally and the guy only wants like 20K, but it's a bit of a fixer upper. I'm afraid it would take too much $$$ to get it flying, and when it does fly, I figure it will eat at least 25 gph at C210 speeds. But by golly, it will sure haul a load. So it seems like the best choices are:
1. C210 maintenance hog with iffy landing gear
2. Cherokee 6 that will haul a ton, but is a dog
3. Cherokee 235 that also hauls a ton, but you can't fit anyone in the back
4. C182 with plenty of room, but can't handle my loads

I guess the answer is to spend more money huh. I'd like to partner with someone and get exactly what I want, but it's hard to find partners here in small town Oklahoma. The guys around here that do fly don't have any interest in flying trucks like me. You little guys out there have it easy :wink2:

 

[OkieFlyer]

I would also like to point out the the 210s I'm referring to are B and C models, not the retract 182 type A model. The ones usually in my price range are B and C models with a slightly larger cabin, 4 seats, wing struts, and 260 hp. After that, the D and E models go to 285 hp still with wing struts and the price is higher. Then the models after that are the strutless ones and the price goes way up.

 

[wabower]

Which small town? I'm from Elk City, hard to find much smaller than that.

PS: Don't get spooked by the 210 nay-sayers. Most of them have zero time or knowledge about the airplane and are just repeating something they heard at the airport. I've owned two (a D and a T210N for 27 years and more than 7k hours, as well as all of the others. I spent a lot more on MX on other retrac singles than on the 210's.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Which small town? I'm from Elk City, hard to find much smaller than that.

Lindsay, OK. 1/4 the population of Elk City my friend.

 

[OkieFlyer]

PS: Don't get spooked by the 210 nay-sayers. Most of them have zero time or knowledge about the airplane and are just repeating something they heard at the airport. I've owned two (a D and a T210N for 27 years and more than 7k hours, as well as all of the others. I spent a lot more on MX on other retrac singles than on the 210's.

Thanks. It's funny how some guys can tell you all about the follies of the 210, yet they have never owned or flown one. On the other hand, I have no ownership experience, so I tend to trust the good ol' boys that hang around the airport who have owned a few planes over the years, whatever they may have been.

 

[EdFred]

The only thing that scares me about the 210 is how close that prop gets to the ground. A not so smooth surface looks like it would prop strike on a 210 a lot quicker that most other planes.

 

[skylanerg]

In my totally biased opinion I'd recommend the 182RG. However, your $50k budget precludes that. You do know, I hope, that you'll need $75k to own and operate a $50k hauler the first year. That $25k won't make it near "cherry" either.

 

[OkieFlyer]

In my totally biased opinion I'd recommend the 182RG. However, your $50k budget precludes that. You do know, I hope, that you'll need $75k to own and operate a $50k hauler the first year. That $25k won't make it near "cherry" either.

Yeah the RG is a little out of my budget. Nice planes though. I don't care if it's a beer can with wings, as long as it'll fly. I don't need "cherry". And no, I didn't have any idea I'd need an extra 25K. That sucks. If that's the case, I might as well just just give up then, 'cause I aint got it.

May I ask, just what in the heck do I need another 25k for?

 

[Clark1961]

May I ask, just what in the heck do I need another 25k for?

There's normal op expenses of fuel, insurance, hangar, annual inspection (do the pre-buy as an annual). Probably close to 10k if you fly 100 hrs.

Then there's repairs. The first year I probably spent close to 10k on autopilot repair, transponder replacement, and gyro rebuilds. Then spent about 5k on repairs the second year when I found a cracked engine mount, replaced a bunch of seals in the engine, rebuilt a mag, new plugs, corrosion repair under the battery, etc.

I've also spent too much on avionics and engine upgrades but that's another story entirely.

 

[TripleZ]

What about a Cessna 195?

 

[Fearless Tower]

What about a Cessna 195?

Under 50K??? Not likely.

 

[Fearless Tower]

May I ask, just what in the heck do I need another 25k for?

There will always be exceptions, but cheaper airplanes tend to come with larger maintenance bills.

25K may or may not be a high figure, but you will definitely want to factor in higher maintenance costs for the first year to be sure. I would say that with most planes, your first annual is likely to be the most expensive.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

You can get close to $50K list price (and probably @ $50K if you hunt/bargain/find a distressed seller) on a '63 or '64 Cessna 205 (the only two years they made them)... haven't seen that mentioned yet.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Yeah a 205 would be nice for sure. I've seen a couple, but there aren't many out there. That would probably be the ideal plane actually. I'll just keep patiently hunting until the right deal comes along. Good things come to those who wait right.

 

[OkieFlyer]

I mentioned the 337 Skymaster earlier. Does anyone have an opinion on that. It's a '67 model, will need interior panels, but the seats are okay, probably some new radios, and touch-up on the paint. Front engine is mid time and rear engine is pretty low time I believe. Front prop is brand new, not sure about the rear one. Istruments are good. I has a Robertson STOL kit as well. I think the guy would let it go for 20K or less. Anyone think it would be worth messing with? It's a lot of airplane and one heck of a hauler. Fuel burn is probably pretty steep as I mentioned before. Anyone know of any particular problems with the skymaster? The current owner is an A&P.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If you're talking about going to the Rockies, going over gross in a naturally aspirated aircraft seems ill advised.

+1. When you need climb performance, you need to consider either an airplane with a turbo (and the associated added purchase and maintenance expenses), or if you're staying normally aspirated, the important number is no longer gross weight, it's power loading.

Do NOT plan on flying ANY normally aspirated airplane in the mountains at max gross. The 182 as a 2-seater up in the mountains worked great (though the takeoff roll took seemingly forEVER). As a four-seater with bags...

Now, if your 4-people-plus-bags journeys are gonna be in the flatlands and your mountain journeys are gonna be 2 people, you'll be OK with something like a 182. I don't think you'll find an airplane in your price range with a turbo that isn't a maintenance nightmare. The Skymaster *might* work better than a single, but you'll have to treat it as a single, because if you lose an engine up there with that load, you're coming down.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Thanks. It's funny how some guys can tell you all about the follies of the 210, yet they have never owned or flown one. On the other hand, I have no ownership experience, so I tend to trust the good ol' boys that hang around the airport who have owned a few planes over the years, whatever they may have been.

Hey, old wives' tales have to come from somewhere, and they usually come from the good ol' boys that hang around the airport.

Now, some OWT's do have a ring of truth to them, but it usually is the pilot's fault, not the plane's fault. For example, the C177 Cardinal got a bad rep early on that (I've heard) was mostly due to pilots loading them outside the CG range and flying them at C172 V-speeds. But, if you fly it like it's meant to be flown, I've also heard that it's a delightful airplane that will outperform a 172.

So, when you hear OWT's, don't let it completely turn you off. If you're interested in a 210, I suggest you join the Cessna Pilots Association and ask some people who actually own 210's about them. You'll probably hear something to the effect of "Sure, they can break, BUT..." followed by a lot of excellent tips for inspecting them pre-purchase and taking care of them post-purchase.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I mentioned the 337 Skymaster earlier. Does anyone have an opinion on that. It's a '67 model, will need interior panels, but the seats are okay, probably some new radios, and touch-up on the paint. Front engine is mid time and rear engine is pretty low time I believe. Front prop is brand new, not sure about the rear one. Istruments are good. I has a Robertson STOL kit as well. I think the guy would let it go for 20K or less. Anyone think it would be worth messing with? It's a lot of airplane and one heck of a hauler. Fuel burn is probably pretty steep as I mentioned before. Anyone know of any particular problems with the skymaster? The current owner is an A&P.

"Need" interior panels? As in, they're missing, or just cracked to hell like all the other old Cessnas out there? If they're there, you probably don't "need" them. Likewise, the plane will fly fine with old radios and paint.

Is the airplane airworthy? That's the main question. If so, get a thorough pre-purchase inspection done (and NOT by the A&P who owns it!) and an estimate for all of the squawks to be fixed. If that still lands in the reasonable range, go for it! Make sure of those engine times, though, and make sure they're in good shape regardless of the number of hours on them. Be sure you have the financial ability to replace one at a moment's notice.

BTW, ownership is not for the faint of heart, or the faint of wallet! Just because you own the plane doesn't mean that you can suddenly just fly for the price of gas. Unless you're an A&P, or have a friendly A&P who will let you do most of your own work, plan on spending probably $60-$70 an hour in maintenance on the Skymaster, or $50 on the 182. Add to that an engine reserve ($29K/engine divided by 1500 TBO = ~$40/hr) and the price of fuel (22 gph @ $5/gal = $110), and that's what the rough variable costs will be. Of course, you have to consider the price of your hangar and insurance as well. If you're at a small-town airport the hangars are probably cheap, but chances are those two items will run you another $5,000 a year or more, and that's another $50/hr even if you're flying 100 hours/year. If you are flying 100 hours/year, you're talking roughly $265/hour and thus $26,500 per year for your flying - And remember, if you fly LESS, the hourly cost goes UP. If these numbers don't scare you away, you're probably ready to own.

 

[OkieFlyer]

"Need" interior panels? As in, they're missing, or just cracked to hell like all the other old Cessnas out there? If they're there, you probably don't "need" them. Likewise, the plane will fly fine with old radios and paint.

Is the airplane airworthy? That's the main question. If so, get a thorough pre-purchase inspection done (and NOT by the A&P who owns it!) and an estimate for all of the squawks to be fixed. If that still lands in the reasonable range, go for it! Make sure of those engine times, though, and make sure they're in good shape regardless of the number of hours on them. Be sure you have the financial ability to replace one at a moment's notice.

All of the interior is there, just in crappy shape. The paint isn't all that bad actually, but the leading edges are pretty beat up, the paint I mean. I just spent some time on the Skymaster forum, and I've determined that the operating expenses are more than I want to deal with. Sweet planes though.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

All of the interior is there, just in crappy shape. The paint isn't all that bad actually, but the leading edges are pretty beat up, the paint I mean.

Well, neither of those NEEDS to be done... It'll look better, and you might gain a knot or two with new paint, but it's not something you have to do.

I just spent some time on the Skymaster forum, and I've determined that the operating expenses are more than I want to deal with. Sweet planes though.

So... Was my $265/hr estimate in the ballpark?