Looking for more rear cabin

hindsight2020

hindsight2020

Final Approach
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
6,738
Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Had the opportunity to finally sample sitting on a Comanche 250. Thats the bench seat and enclosed bag compartment variant.

Noticeable wider space for the front seaters compared to the arrow, as advertised. Sweet. Then I sampled the rear seats and ruh roh. Cramped leg room. Made contact with the seatback at front seat settings congruent with my arrow flying setting. No go.

Was there a stretch to the Comanche cabin with the individual seat variants? I had to do a double take then run to my arrow immediately and compare. Sure enough. Wife said no dice. It has made us regain appreciation for the arrow.

So back to the drawing board. Upgrade criteria to make it worthwile remains the same. 150 knots true with no compromise in volume vice the arrow, OR 135kts minimun with significant improvement in rear Pax space. 65k or less acquisition.

Lance is our perfect bird, but budget blows by double looking at TAP. 60 Amu delta buys a lot of gas and consumables.

Currently considering Cherokee six 260, Seneca i only, apache, apache 235. questions looming are whether most of these make the cruise speed minimum at 7-10k where I'd be more likely to run at 65pct, and what the specific variances amongst the apache family are regarding rear cabins and width, as I have zero experience with the 23 27 line. I think the lance is great, but asking prices are out to lunch. Reminds me of cardinals. Cultish.

I should have never shown the wife the -32 cabin. I knew I'd pay for it lol.
Any insight into these models is appreciated.
 
Bro....I went from an Archer to the Lance. It's family approved.

What you are asking for doesn't exist. PA32, Bonanza is where you should be looking.
 
182s have plenty of legroom and width in the back.

It's gonna go as fast as your Arrow goes.

Otherwise, you need a Cherokee 6 or Saratoga.
 
what year is your arrow? I don't think the fixed gear cherokee 6's will meet your TAS requirement, but are nice and roomy. like u said, the lance should meet your speed, but def not acquisition cost.
 
Cessna 180/5?

On wheels I'll do the speed, and the length is there, it's been a while since I rode in the back of my own plane, but with the front seats adjusted for most any pilot, you'd have leg room
 
Twin Bonanza. Not a lot of them on the market at any given time, but there are a few good ones out there that can be had in your price range. TONS of room, 160kts or so, and quite a ramp presence.
 
What's your gas budget? Kinda hard to beat a PA32-260. Anything else in that size is gonna drink and eat more.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Had the opportunity to finally sample sitting on a Comanche 250. Thats the bench seat and enclosed bag compartment variant.

Noticeable wider space for the front seaters compared to the arrow, as advertised. Sweet. Then I sampled the rear seats and ruh roh. Cramped leg room. Made contact with the seatback at front seat settings congruent with my arrow flying setting. No go.

Was there a stretch to the Comanche cabin with the individual seat variants? I had to do a double take then run to my arrow immediately and compare. Sure enough. Wife said no dice. It has made us regain appreciation for the arrow.

So back to the drawing board. Upgrade criteria to make it worthwile remains the same. 150 knots true with no compromise in volume vice the arrow, OR 135kts minimun with significant improvement in rear Pax space. 65k or less acquisition.

Lance is our perfect bird, but budget blows by double looking at TAP. 60 Amu delta buys a lot of gas and consumables.

Currently considering Cherokee six 260, Seneca i only, apache, apache 235. questions looming are whether most of these make the cruise speed minimum at 7-10k where I'd be more likely to run at 65pct, and what the specific variances amongst the apache family are regarding rear cabins and width, as I have zero experience with the 23 27 line. I think the lance is great, but asking prices are out to lunch. Reminds me of cardinals. Cultish.

I should have never shown the wife the -32 cabin. I knew I'd pay for it lol.
Any insight into these models is appreciated.
Click to expand...

I would stay away from a Seneca I. Cherokee Six (ideally a 300) would be best.

Bob Gardner
 
James331 said:
Cessna 180/5?

On wheels I'll do the speed, and the length is there, it's been a while since I rode in the back of my own plane, but with the front seats adjusted for most any pilot, you'd have leg room
Click to expand...

Are you saying it'll do the 135 or the 150?? 180 or 185??
 
Ask Dr Bruce about his Seneca....... I think he'll be buried in it kinda like Mr Gaston sitting on top of his Harley in the restaurant.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
What's your gas budget? Kinda hard to beat a PA32-260. Anything else in that size is gonna drink and eat more.
Click to expand...
What kind of speed are we looking at 8k? Any speed mods worthwile? I prefer that engine over the 300. Much more expensive engine.
 
Unit74 said:
Ask Dr Bruce about his Seneca....... I think he'll be buried in it kinda like Mr Gaston sitting on top of his Harley in the restaurant.
Click to expand...
I believe he owns a II and like most people has nothing good to say bout the Seneca I. My interest in that airplane is limited to the Lycos 360 engine it uses, since it's the same engine I fly currently and I'm very comfortable and familiar with its operation and feeding. Let's just say turbo contis are not compatible with my operating behavior lol.
 
I think we're in the same boat, I've been looking for something with more cabin space than my Archer. I haven't found anything in the right price and operating cost range besides the PA-32 series aircraft.

I've thought about a twin commanche but with the cost of getting another rating plus the extra operating cost I'm just not sure that would be a good move.
 
If you guys are near south GA, come take a ride.
 
cowman said:
I think we're in the same boat, I've been looking for something with more cabin space than my Archer. I haven't found anything in the right price and operating cost range besides the PA-32 series aircraft.

I've thought about a twin commanche but with the cost of getting another rating plus the extra operating cost I'm just not sure that would be a good move.
Click to expand...

It's all fun and games till you realize you have two engines to MX.
 
Velocity173 said:
This is what you need! 77K and 175 kts.

https://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=1165729
Click to expand...

Nice!

But you'd have to get a new panel cut,

This is what happens when VFR pilots try to make IFR panels

.watermarked_c43c21ffaf4b1750cc973ecb38438ec6.jpg

Yeah, Bob, so...lets put the GNS430 in the middle of the frickin panel! Wtf lol




JCranford said:
Are you saying it'll do the 135 or the 150?? 180 or 185??
Click to expand...
My 185 does 120 with the amphibs, on the little wheels she'd do just shy of 150, think a big engine 180 would do about the same.

Plus having the ability to not need airports for take off and landing, that majorly changes the time from origin to destination factor.
 
James331 said:
Nice!

But you'd have to get a new panel cut,

This is what happens when VFR pilots try to make IFR panels

.watermarked_c43c21ffaf4b1750cc973ecb38438ec6.jpg

Yeah, Bob, so...lets put the GNS430 in the middle of the frickin panel! Wtf lol
Click to expand...

Yeah I noticed that also. It's like let's throw the 430 in a random spot on the panel. Still, it's pretty well equipped and has good performance. Not sure it meets the hauling requirement of 2020 though.
 
The panel has everything but a HSI, just needs some organizing, wouldnt cost too much at all, mainly elbow grease and few templates and a piece of aluminum if you're game to tackle it
 
Cherokee six with club seating.
 
hindsight2020 said:
What kind of speed are we looking at 8k? Any speed mods worthwile? I prefer that engine over the 300. Much more expensive engine.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't spend extra on speed mods....too expensive for the benefit IMHO.

My 260 saw 135-140kts true....with a 1,550lb payload. That extra 15-18 kts ain't gonna mean much. Maybe an extra 10-15 minutes saved for the normal 1hr flight. The extra HP in the 300 is nice for extra climb fpm though on hot heavy days.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
My 185 does 120 with the amphibs, on the little wheels she'd do just shy of 150, think a big engine 180 would do about the same.

Plus having the ability to not need airports for take off and landing, that majorly changes the time from origin to destination factor.
Click to expand...

What constitutes the big engine? I might hafta come crawl around in your 185 some time!
 
James331 said:
This is what happens when VFR pilots try to make IFR panels

.watermarked_c43c21ffaf4b1750cc973ecb38438ec6.jpg

Yeah, Bob, so...lets put the GNS430 in the middle of the frickin panel! Wtf lol
Click to expand...

Can you believe it? Another fool who didn't know the GTN series is the only way to fly :)
 
Ravioli said:
Can you believe it? Another fool who didn't know the GTN series is the only way to fly :)
Click to expand...

Don't twist my words trying act like you aren't being a douche. Keep it in the other thread and quit acting like a spoiled stepchild.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
I wouldn't spend extra on speed mods....too expensive for the benefit IMHO.

My 260 saw 135-140kts true....with a 1,550lb payload. That extra 15-18 kts ain't gonna mean much. Maybe an extra 10-15 minutes saved for the normal 1hr flight. The extra HP in the 300 is nice for extra climb fpm though on hot heavy days.
Click to expand...

That's not bad. I was led to believe six 260s can't make 130 downhill at 75% power. How was your bird configured?

If my experience in the warrior II holds true to bigger airframes, all the pre-78 pipers leave speed on the table due to the craptastic old school uncovered brake wheel pants. In the warrior II the modern wheel pants gave me 8 knots over the classic warrior. Same difference you can see when they cleaned up the 235 and turned it into the Dakota, though they did also clean up fairings and cowl. What power setting and fuel flow did you see in order to get 135-140true?

And agreed, the extra 40HP of the 300 doesn't strike me as relevant to cruise speed, especially when my mission is low useful load in nature so the climb rate can be normalized artificially from my end. I know the wife wants to go fast, but I think I can get her into a six if I could go just as fast as I do on the Arrow. That cabin is like crack to women.
 
You want a Mooney M20-F, much more rear seat legroom and baggage space than in my C model. Fs are in your price range, burn ~10 gph at 8-10K, and should run 150-155 KTAS while doing it. That's an IO-360, and full fuel should run six hours or more, so it's easy to trade fuel for payload.

Plus, you'll look good in the air and on the ground. :D
 
hindsight2020 said:
That's not bad. I was led to believe six 260s can't make 130 downhill at 75% power. How was your bird configured?

If my experience in the warrior II holds true to bigger airframes, all the pre-78 pipers leave speed on the table due to the craptastic old school uncovered brake wheel pants. In the warrior II the modern wheel pants gave me 8 knots over the classic warrior. Same difference you can see when they cleaned up the 235 and turned it into the Dakota, though they did also clean up fairings and cowl. What power setting and fuel flow did you see in order to get 135-140true?

And agreed, the extra 40HP of the 300 doesn't strike me as relevant to cruise speed, especially when my mission is low useful load in nature so the climb rate can be normalized artificially from my end. I know the wife wants to go fast, but I think I can get her into a six if I could go just as fast as I do on the Arrow. That cabin is like crack to women.
Click to expand...

My brother in law has a 6-260 and I fly with him on occasions including long X/C. I don't know about other 6-260s but his will not do 130 unless going downhill! We typically cruise at 120 and that's at 75% power with a fresh factory re manufactured engine with less than 250 hours. It is comfortable inside, however, and we've had 5 people plus luggage with no problems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
stock set up....I did spend some time rigging the flaps up as far as allowable (-2 degrees) and gained 3-4kts after that adjustment. Wheel pants were stock. If you don't mind running 15 gph it will do that (I'm thinking it was 25" 2,500 RPM at 8 K it was full throttle best power lean and 2,500 rpm)....I tended to pull it back and save when it was just me and do 130 and save a few gph. I was contemplating new wheel fairings....but for the cost I couldn't justify it.

I have a fast plane now....and it's fun....but honestly, most of my flying is $100 burger runs and the speed is not noticeable. I do notice the extra climb speed but the forward speed not so much (in the Bonanza I see +170 low and 195kts true high)

Rather than focus on speed if I were you I'd be more concerned with how the panel is configured. WAAS GPS and an good autopilot are a must if you will be doing much flying. Add those later and you will pay dearly....the additional cost in purchase is relatively small. Those are the reasons I sold my Six for the Bo....I wanted a better autopilot and better panel.....and I found I didn't need the bus like I once thought. The wife doesn't like to fly and we didn't use the Six as a family like I hoped.

The Six is a truck and flys like a big station wagon....nothing fancy.

Work some trips and do the numbers....for fuel and time....unless you are doing lots of trips greater than two hours that speed will be irrelevant and I wouldn't get too hung over it.

If I were to buy another Six I'd probably take another look at a 300HP....not for speed but for the climp performance. I believe it provides an additional 200 fpm....which is nice at gross and hot OAT. My 260 didn't have much left after 8-9,000 ft. It was pretty much maxed out...not sure how the 300 does up there.
hindsight2020 said:
That's not bad. I was led to believe six 260s can't make 130 downhill at 75% power. How was your bird configured?

If my experience in the warrior II holds true to bigger airframes, all the pre-78 pipers leave speed on the table due to the craptastic old school uncovered brake wheel pants. In the warrior II the modern wheel pants gave me 8 knots over the classic warrior. Same difference you can see when they cleaned up the 235 and turned it into the Dakota, though they did also clean up fairings and cowl. What power setting and fuel flow did you see in order to get 135-140true?

And agreed, the extra 40HP of the 300 doesn't strike me as relevant to cruise speed, especially when my mission is low useful load in nature so the climb rate can be normalized artificially from my end. I know the wife wants to go fast, but I think I can get her into a six if I could go just as fast as I do on the Arrow. That cabin is like crack to women.
Click to expand...
 
Good point on max altitude for the 6-260. With full fuel and 4 onboard we took off from an airport in north Georgia and tried to climb to 8500 to get over the mountains for a trip to Tennessee. We quit at 8k because she had little left. I think the 6-300 would do better in this regard. Being limited to 8-9 k is something that needs to be considered depending where you fly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
they'll go higher than 8K feet....just not with very much climb rate. I had mine up to 12-13,000 feet but it took some effort. Definitely not something you'll want to do mitigating towering cumulonimbus boomers. :eek:
Perezhr said:
Good point on max altitude for the 6-260. With full fuel and 4 onboard we took off from an airport in north Georgia and tried to climb to 8500 to get over the mountains for a trip to Tennessee. We quit at 8k because she had little left. I think the 6-300 would do better in this regard. Being limited to 8-9 k is something that needs to be considered depending where you fly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
Unit74 said:
Don't twist my words trying act like you aren't being a douche. Keep it in the other thread and quit acting like a spoiled stepchild.
Click to expand...

My, my. Touched a soft spot evidently.
Chill out. I thought it was funny...only because of the way you carry on.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Why?....why would I want a TCM in a Six? .....infact I'd rather have the TSIO-540 for the Bo. :D
Click to expand...

They are smooth, and all the working piston planes I've flown have had them, minus a few little trainers I CFIed in, and they have always dome everything I have asked of them.

My current plane has a conti, plenty of power, injected but I can start her even when hot in a few blades, works great for me.
 
James331 said:
The panel has everything but a HSI, just needs some organizing, wouldnt cost too much at all, mainly elbow grease and few templates and a piece of aluminum if you're game to tackle it
Click to expand...

Flying partial panel with that would be an interesting exercise...
 
James331 said:
They are smooth, and all the working piston planes I've flown have had them, minus a few little trainers I CFIed in, and they have always dome everything I have asked of them.

My current plane has a conti, plenty of power, injected but I can start her even when hot in a few blades, works great for me.
Click to expand...
yup....me too....but I just like Lycomings a lil better. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top