Headroom bonanza v Saratoga/Cherokee

Ben2k9

Ben2k9

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 21, 2018
Messages
209
Display Name
Display name:
Ben2k9
Anyone have an idea of which of these has more headroom for a tall pilot?
 
depends on the seats.....I've owned both. The PA-32 has a vertical seat adjustment....the Bonanza seats do not. So, I'd bet there's more head room (vertical girth) in the PA-32. The PA-32 is a slightly wider too.

you really need to sit in both.....they each have a different feel. The first three pics are from my Six....the remaining are from my V35A.
 

Attachments

  • DSC06899 y.JPG
    DSC06899 y.JPG
    144.1 KB · Views: 89
  • DSC06898 y.JPG
    DSC06898 y.JPG
    150.9 KB · Views: 81
  • n3342 12.JPG
    n3342 12.JPG
    139.5 KB · Views: 84
  • DSC08594.JPG
    DSC08594.JPG
    103.9 KB · Views: 84
  • 773.JPG
    773.JPG
    152.7 KB · Views: 86
  • N135TB 7.JPG
    N135TB 7.JPG
    46.9 KB · Views: 75
Last edited:
Depends a bit on the type of bonanza. The old 'classic' ones dont have much headroom. Anything in age comparable to a Lance has decent headroom. 6'3" with a 34inseam and I can wear a headset. There is also a bit of room to have an upholstery guy make the seat cushion a bit flatter (the flip-side is that you will find planes that had the interior re-done where someone traded a plush pilot seat for headroom).
 
This 1980 Piper ad is pretty consistent with my recollection of 500 hours in a K35 Bonanza and over 200 hours in rented Saratogas. The Bo had more headroom, but there was still plenty in the Saratoga.

pa32-c210-a36.jpg
 
Saratoga sucky for the guys up front according to pics.
 
Pilawt said:
This 1980 Piper ad is pretty consistent with my recollection of 500 hours in a K35 Bonanza and over 200 hours in rented Saratogas. The Bo had more headroom, but there was still plenty in the Saratoga.

View attachment 68533
Click to expand...

Looks like Saratoga has all around more room for head and shoulders.
 
My wife and I got our Turbo Lance for the roominess and comfort. We sat in several planes and the PA32 won easily for us in several categories and overall passenger comfort was one of those.
 
Rgbeard said:
My wife and I got our Turbo Lance for the roominess and comfort.
Click to expand...
We've owned a Bonanza, and have rented several other types extensively. To this day my wife says if money were no object (hypothetical, because it really is an object), we would own a Saratoga. It's a wonderful family traveling machine.
 
In the Bonanza the front seats are on top of the spar, and that seriously compromises the headroom for people like me with tall torsos (that torso also the reason I have trouble in older Mooneys, despite the generous legroom). Combine that with the elegant curved cabin top and a fairly narrow cabin and I find the front seats of a Bo (or a Baron) quite a bit less comfortable than any of the five "slab-sided" Pipers I've owned. But for someone with the right dimensions I would think the Bonanza would be a fine fit, so you're best to try one on before judging.

Even in the A36 Bonanza the front seat cushions are higher than the second and third rows because of that spar.
Have a look at the relative seat height difference between the front and second row in the Beech advert pictures below:

IMG_0428.JPG

IMG_0426.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0423.JPG
    IMG_0423.JPG
    21.3 KB · Views: 32
Last edited:
Easiest way to find out is to sit in one. :)

But I can tell you that my experience has been that with the top of the Bo cross-section being relatively semi-circular, I tend to bump my head on the "corner" (ie top right or top left, depending which side I'm sitting on). :(

I assume you mean the PA32 line by "Saratoga/Cherokee" even though you didn't say "Six" after Cherokee. The PA32s (and 34s) are very roomy, much wider than any 4-seater and no problems with headroom either.

The PA28s aren't exactly known for being roomy, but if you really meant PA28 by "Cherokee", I can tell you that the problem I have in them is leaning forward to adjust things on the panel. I used to have a backache at the end of instrument lessons because of that. My Mooney is far superior in that area...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
...PA28 by "Cherokee", I can tell you that the problem I have in them is leaning forward to adjust things on the panel. I used to have a backache at the end of instrument lessons...
Click to expand...
You do realize the seats can be moved fwd.;)
 
Last edited:
I would probably own a bonanza if there was more headroom. They are terrible IMO. Toga is much better.
Six is great as well with more room up front than any single piston I’m familiar with. They are slooooow tho.
 
The cabin comparison pic says it all for me. At 6’6” I may not fit well in any of them, but PA32 seems most promising. If that doesn’t work I'll have to settle for a 5 seater Cirrus I guess.

There’s a Cherokee 6 nearby I can check out sometime soon.
 
Funny we mentioned the PA-28. Much to the chagrin of the -28 haters, turns out the 28 and 32 have identical cabin height and headroom dimensions for rows 1 and 2 (3rd row NA for the -28). Reference attached spec sheets. Don't shoot the messenger.
PA32
upload_2018-10-30_21-10-39.png

PA28
upload_2018-10-30_21-11-51.png
 

Attachments

  • Piper Cherokee 6-260 AND 6-300 Performance and Specs.pdf
    550.6 KB · Views: 2
  • Piper Dakota Performance and Specs.pdf
    618.4 KB · Views: 1
The first airplane I owned, a 1961 Cherokee 160 (serial number 30 off the line) was fine in the left front seat. No headroom, legroom or hiproom issues. Although not nearly as generous as my Aztec, it never felt cramped or uncomfortable for me. I logged my first two 2400 nm round trips to OSH in it.
 
Pilawt said:
This 1980 Piper ad is pretty consistent with my recollection of 500 hours in a K35 Bonanza and over 200 hours in rented Saratogas. The Bo had more headroom, but there was still plenty in the Saratoga.

View attachment 68533
Click to expand...

I have quite a few hours in PA-32s and A36's, and I have always found that ad pretty comical.

- That last row in the PA-32 is pretty short on headroom itself. Maybe not as quite as bad as the others (never sat in the back of them), but that guy in the picture is definitely less than 6' tall.
- With me sitting in the pilot's seat, I have the seat all the way back. I don't have really long legs (32 inch inseam), but even then I wish it had another inch of movement. But with it at the back stop, the middle row seat behind it is unusable due to seatback interference (it folds the middle seatback down). So passengers always sit in "economy seating" in the back row.

That said, for a pilot, the PA-32 is really a comfy airplane. No rubbing of elbows, room to stretch your legs, room to put things and store stuff. It's nice.
 
Ben2k9 said:
The cabin comparison pic says it all for me. At 6’6” I may not fit well in any of them, but PA32 seems most promising. If that doesn’t work I'll have to settle for a 5 seater Cirrus I guess.

There’s a Cherokee 6 nearby I can check out sometime soon.
Click to expand...

If an SR22 is an option, go for that. I too, am 6'6" and while I can 'fit' in Bonanzas and Pipers, I am much more comfortable in my SR22. It is nice having a little bit of extra space above your head and ahead of your knees vs. constantly touching/being jammed against some part of the airframe.
 
Im on the taller side of the bell curve (6'3") and find the Bo fine for headroom. I wish it had more legroom, for me its right at the unsafe amount of legroom. I can work everything but its tight. It could be the old cushions helping me but headroom isnt an issue.
 
On both of these planes, the passenger seats are close to the floor making leg room uncomfortable. I'm 6' and can't fly in the passenger portion of the cabin on either of these.

Just recently I was a passenger in a 2012 Baron G58 for an hour, and also flew the bird for 2 hours. I was the only person aft, and could never find a comfortable position to sit. Big difference over the 182 or first aft row of the 206.
 
Last edited:
paflyer said:
You do realize the seats can be moved fwd.;)
Click to expand...

Problem is, in the PA28 if I move the seats forward far enough to reach the panel without leaning forward, my legs are bent and may interfere with the yoke. Not to mention it's really hard not to land with the brakes on when your legs are bent...

hindsight2020 said:
For headroom? About the worst of all the offerings so far mentioned.
Click to expand...

Disagree. The PA24 (Comanche) was definitely better than the Bonanza for me.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Problem is, in the PA28 if I move the seats forward far enough to reach the panel without leaning forward, my legs are bent and may interfere with the yoke. Not to mention it's really hard not to land with the brakes on when your legs are bent...

The PA24 (Comanche) was definitely better than the Bonanza for me.
Click to expand...

See, people are different. Nothing of what you claim above makes any sense to me. In my experience, Comanche is not just uncomfortable -- it's impossible to fit in, completely. The Liberty XL2 level of impossible. The roof is just too low. I fit into Cherokees and Moonies with no problem, and I can reach everything with no issue. Yes, I need to pay attention not to land with brakes on Cherokee, but it's not that hard. Bonanza is hit and miss depending on the year and the kind of seats it has. In some of them, I have a significant control interference against legs and knees, but not in all of them. The headroom in Bonanza is adequate and way better than in Comanche.
 
The cabin height of the comanche is 47 inches, two inches less than the pa28 and -32, which have 49. That's not an insignificant shave for the headroom challenged. I've sat in a comanche. I fit fine, not an issue, but headroom is notably better in my arrow.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The cabin height of the comanche is 47 inches, two inches less than the pa28 and -32, which have 49. That's not an insignificant shave for the headroom challenged. I've sat in a comanche. I fit fine, not an issue, but headroom is notably better in my arrow.
Click to expand...
When we were planning to move up from a Grumman-American Cheetah to a retractable, we test-flew a Comanche. It was plenty wide enough, the legroom was fine and the headroom adequate (I'm 6'4"). But the Grumman's excellent visibility had spoiled us, and the Comanche's original-style windows were tank slits by comparison. The cabin, though spacious, seemed dark. The Bonanza was the only candidate with the openness we enjoyed in the Cheetah.
 
RudyP said:
If an SR22 is an option, go for that. I too, am 6'6" and while I can 'fit' in Bonanzas and Pipers, I am much more comfortable in my SR22. It is nice having a little bit of extra space above your head and ahead of your knees vs. constantly touching/being jammed against some part of the airframe.
Click to expand...

Yes I’ve flown in one and know they have good headroom. I’ve got a family of 5 though (3 sons) who could probably squeeze in the back row of a 5 seater Cirrus now but not for long as they grow bigger

Guess I need to start saving for a Piper Malibu...
 
Ben2k9 said:
Yes I’ve flown in one and know they have good headroom. I’ve got a family of 5 though (3 sons) who could probably squeeze in the back row of a 5 seater Cirrus now but not for long as they grow bigger

Guess I need to start saving for a Piper Malibu...
Click to expand...

Get a Cessna 310 or Piper Aztec. Real nice cabins, especially the Aztec.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Problem is, in the PA28 if I move the seats forward far enough to reach the panel without leaning forward, my legs are bent and may interfere with the yoke. Not to mention it's really hard not to land with the brakes on when your legs are bent...
Click to expand...
You must have really long legs and short arms.
 
Ben2k9 said:
Yes I’ve flown in one and know they have good headroom. I’ve got a family of 5 though (3 sons) who could probably squeeze in the back row of a 5 seater Cirrus now but not for long as they grow bigger

Guess I need to start saving for a Piper Malibu...
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you but the front of a PA46 is not going to be a good fit at 6'6"!

You will be happy with a TBM, Eclipse or Mustang though...
 
RudyP said:
I hate to break it to you but the front of a PA46 is not going to be a good fit at 6'6"!

You will be happy with a TBM, Eclipse or Mustang though...
Click to expand...
+1 you will not fit in a Malibu.
 
RudyP said:
I hate to break it to you but the front of a PA46 is not going to be a good fit at 6'6"!

You will be happy with a TBM, Eclipse or Mustang though...
Click to expand...
I had heard that about pa46 but was hoping it wasn’t true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top