Low-wing capable of carrying four adults?

B

brafter

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
19
Display Name
Display name:
brafter
I'm looking for low-wing plane that can carry four adults and a full (or at least mostly full) load of fuel. Was thinking an Arrow since two of the passengers are teenagers and another is physically small, so we're only talking about a conservative total of 640 pounds plus the fuel. Is that sort of payload something the Arrow can accommodate? Would love any feedback that anyone familiar with the plane could provide. Do I need to bump it up to a six-place plane just to gain the ability to actually fill those four seats? What I'd like is the low-wing equivalent of a 182. So maybe what I need is a 182, a Sawzall, and a welder? Unfortunately high-wing planes are not an option because my wife hates them.

Ideally I'd like to be able to cruise at around 130kts so cross-countries are endurable. But at the same time, it would be nice to be able to putter around locally without burning 14+ gph.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations.

Brian
 
The Cherokee 235/Dakota is a low wing version of the 182. Older 235s can be found for a reasonable price
 
You need a Cherokee 6. It is a tank that can carry a huge load.
 
Mine will take one and full fuel and have around 800lbs payload remaining for whatever you want.
 
My arrow has a 1000lb useful load. Subtract full fuel and you have 700lbs for people and bags.
 
PA28-235 is the "182 Equivalent". The only catch is you need to find a "newer" one if you want adults that can stand long trips in the back seats, as legroom on the older pre~1973 (don't remember the exact year) is tight. Fuselage stretch in later years solved that problem.
 
Fantastic, thanks for all the info. I'll look into some of these ideas.

Mine will take one and full fuel and have around 800lbs payload remaining for whatever you want.
Click to expand...

What is it? Not an Arrow I assume...
 
jab3racer said:
My arrow has a 1000lb useful load. Subtract full fuel and you have 700lbs for people and bags.
Click to expand...

The Arrow remains a favorite, if for no other reason than that I've spent so much time looking for one. What are your typical airspeed and fuel burn in cruise? How would you describe its pros and cons?
 
My Cherokee Archer would be able to handle that mission with full fuel and 75lbs to spare.
 
brafter said:
The Arrow remains a favorite, if for no other reason than that I've spent so much time looking for one. What are your typical airspeed and fuel burn in cruise? How would you describe its pros and cons?
Click to expand...

I'd go for the later Arrows. They stretched the fuselage a few inches in the early 70's. I'm sure someone can chime in the specifics. It would give a little more room for your rear seat passengers.
 
For the money you can't beat the Dakota. Will carry whatever you can fit inside with full fuel.
 
frfly172 said:
For the money you can't beat the Dakota. Will carry whatever you can fit inside with full fuel.
Click to expand...

Like someone said, the Dakota is more comparable to a 182 than an arrow. The arrow is going to be a 4 cylinder with 180 or 200 HP whereas the Dakota/235 will have a 6 cylinder. More fuel burn but better useful load. Gotta decide on what your primary needs are.
 
brafter said:
The Arrow remains a favorite, if for no other reason than that I've spent so much time looking for one. What are your typical airspeed and fuel burn in cruise? How would you describe its pros and cons?
Click to expand...

10 gallons an hour at a cruise of 135 kts.
 
Comanche with tip tanks and filled to the top, is 700lb payload and 7 hours of fuel.
 
My '76 Tiger's useful load is 970 lb., or 665 lb with full fuel. Will cruise 4 hours (plus a one hour reserve) at a little more than 130 kt burning 10 gph. Throttle back to 55% power and it will cruise at 115 kts at 7.5 gph.

Nowhere as spacious inside as a Bonanza or 182, or as capable. But my mission description was the same as yours, and I concluded that a Tiger provided the best fit at the lowest cost (and most fun). Be aware that some newer model years can have higher empty weights. I saw some down near 900 lb when I was buying mine.

Some Archers and 180 hp Cardinals can also fit the specs (or at least close on speed).
 
All depends on what you want. My short-body Mooney has 969 lb. useful, or full fuel plus 657 lbs., but two people need short legs. I generally fill each tank to 25 gals instead of 26, for expansion room on sunny days; it also makes the math easier.

That's good [so far] for 4½ hours at 140 knots, with > 1 hour left on landing.

Get an F for extra HP and legroom, for not a whole lot more money.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
PA28-235 is the "182 Equivalent". The only catch is you need to find a "newer" one if you want adults that can stand long trips in the back seats, as legroom on the older pre~1973 (don't remember the exact year) is tight. Fuselage stretch in later years solved that problem.
Click to expand...

rbridges said:
I'd go for the later Arrows. They stretched the fuselage a few inches in the early 70's. I'm sure someone can chime in the specifics. It would give a little more room for your rear seat passengers.
Click to expand...

Arrow was first to get the stretch, for the 1972 model year ("Cherokee Arrow II"). The fixed-gear 180 hp and 235 hp models followed in 1973 (dubbed "Cherokee Challenger" and "Cherokee Charger", respectively, for '73 only, then renamed "Cherokee Archer" and "Cherokee Pathfinder" in '74).
 
mnewb1 said:
The Cherokee 235/Dakota is a low wing version of the 182. Older 235s can be found for a reasonable price
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the minimum plane for he mission. Obviously planes with more power (i.e., more than the 235 HP of the PA28-235/236) will generally be able to do the same, although late model PA32's and BE36's have so much extra stuff included as standard that they may only be able to carry three adults with full fuel.
 
Early Bonanza. 997 useful. 40 gal fuel, 8 qt oil leaves 745 payload. 3.5 hours @ 136kts @ 9GPH or a bit less with hour reserve. Auto fuel capable, and you can turn it up for more speed, but fuel burn gets ugly.
 
brafter said:
I'm looking for low-wing plane that can carry four adults and a full (or at least mostly full) load of fuel....
Click to expand...

It sounds like there is an early model PA32-260 (or 300) currently out there with your name on it waiting for you to come claim it. :D

When I bough my Six four years ago I needed something with quite a bit more load carrying capability than my 1975 C-172M. I regularly flew trips from Tennessee to Florida with my wife and two boys and I needed more cabin space, load capacity and definitely more range. The 182 was out of the question for me. Not because I didn't fully appreciate the Cessna line or the 182 in particular but it was just too similar to the 172 in terms of load capacity and cabin size for MY needs. Same was the case for the PA28s, wether it was the 161, the 180 or the 235 model. The C-206 was definitely high on my list but I liked the bigger cabin and smaller price tag of the Six. So...I bought a PA32-260...and I've never regretted it.

With an early model 32-260 you get LOTS of cabin space, especially with the middle seats removed, LOTS of baggage space (the nose baggage compartment is invaluable!) and it's nearly impossible to get the thing out of CG. Mine has a 1557 lb useful load, that's 1,053 lbs after full fuel (84gal, 504 lbs). Your kids will love sitting in the back seats with their legs stretched out as far as they want them. And you will enjoy the 49 inch wide cabin up front.

I regularly flew 5 hour, 620 NM flights with over an hour reserve left in the tanks. No, it's not fast, but it haul what you need with a good range and a very comfortable cabin.

The plane is easy on the bank account as well. Maintenance cost is definitely reasonable.

If there is a "downside" of the early PA32 it's with fuel management...or mis-management. To me it's very minor, if anything at all. To some it's a big disadvantage and to a few careless or lazy pilots out there it can be a real safety issue. With the four separate tanks you need to be careful to get all the fuel out of the tanks as possible on long flights, otherwise you won't get the range benefit that the plane offers. A fuel totalizer is an invaluable investment, and it's the first thing I installed when I bought the plane. A calibrated fuel dip stick is another invaluable piece of equipment (I made my own). Actually fuel management in the early Six is pretty straight forward...burn the inboards first, then the tips, but be careful to not starve the engine of fuel with fuel remaining in the other tanks.

My next ride will most likely be a Bonanza 35 but until then I love my Six!
 
docmirror said:
Early Bonanza. 997 useful. 40 gal fuel, 8 qt oil leaves 745 payload. 3.5 hours @ 136kts @ 9GPH or a bit less with hour reserve. Auto fuel capable, and you can turn it up for more speed, but fuel burn gets ugly.
Click to expand...

Bonanzas are great! But they run out of aft CG pretty darn quickly especially if you have any weight in the back.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Comanche with tip tanks and filled to the top, is 700lb payload and 7 hours of fuel.
Click to expand...

Yep.. With full tanks in mine (86 gal usable), I have 827 lb payload.

I can take 5 people and their luggage non-stop from Phoenix to Cabo San Lucas with fuel to spare. Love the Comanche!

With your tip tanks, how much usable fuel do you have? I just have the mains and outboard aux.
 
brafter said:
The Arrow remains a favorite, if for no other reason than that I've spent so much time looking for one. What are your typical airspeed and fuel burn in cruise? How would you describe its pros and cons?
Click to expand...


8.5-9gph @ 130
10gph @ 135

I like it, it doesn't break the bank for fuel burn and has decent speed. There is a huge knowledge base out there for the Cherokees and the landing gear system is very simple and reliable.

Cons: there is a wing spar ad out there that can be pretty costly if you find corrosion (not that common from what I understand). I wish I could carry more fuel at times (the arrow I and II have 50 gal, arrow III+ have 72 gal).
Only one door
 
dans2992 said:
Yep.. With full tanks in mine (86 gal usable), I have 827 lb payload.

I can take 5 people and their luggage non-stop from Phoenix to Cabo San Lucas with fuel to spare. Love the Comanche!

With your tip tanks, how much usable fuel do you have? I just have the mains and outboard aux.
Click to expand...

Same as you, 86. I get all 15 out of each of the tip tanks. Mine was only the 17th 250 ever built so my gross weight was lower than the later models.
 
Many thanks for all the ideas, advice, and information. Lots to look into.

One question: Which is likely to cost more to maintain, a Cherokee Six with its larger engine but fixed gear, or an Arrow with its smaller engine but retractable gear? Or are they roughly comparable?

And does bumping up to six seats come with a big insurance penalty?

Brian
 
brafter said:
Many thanks for all the ideas, advice, and information. Lots to look into.

One question: Which is likely to cost more to maintain, a Cherokee Six with its larger engine but fixed gear, or an Arrow with its smaller engine but retractable gear? Or are they roughly comparable?

And does bumping up to six seats come with a big insurance penalty?

Brian
Click to expand...

Tough to say, as the Arrow I work with is a trainer and all the Six's I'm familiar with are privately owned; that said, unless you want to loaf around slow the Six's fuel burn is probably going to eat up any potential maintenance savings and then some.

Assuming you are looking for economy, I'd either suggest the "right" Arrow (e.g. one on the high end of the useful load scale) or a Cherokee 235/Dakota. If your passengers are small, a 235 may have enough leg room. The early 70s model 235s (Pathfinder and Charger I believe) have a bigger cabin, but the worst performance of the bunch. If you want the big cabin, go Dakota, but be prepared to pay a premium for the late model aircraft.

Also, keep in mind there are two types of Dakota, the more common PA28-236 and the "Turbo Dakota". The 236 has a 235hp normally aspirated engine, the turbo has a 200hp turbocharged engine. There are lots of opinions on the turbocharged version (most mechanics I know don't care for the engine, but many owners argue with careful operation they are great), but most agree unless you are planning to fly high the normally aspirated version is as good or better.

When comparing the 235/Dakota to the Arrow, they are pretty much the same plane. The Dakota will burn 2-3gph more for the same speed, but carry more load and save you a bit on maintenance and insurance with the fixed gear; the Arrow carries less but goes about the same speed on less gas.

If you really want a speedster, a late model Dakota loaded with speed mods can approach 150 knots, but you are looking at nearly twice the purchase prices as a older Arrow or 235.

Also, if you really want to economize, some PA28-180 and -181s will have useful loads in the 1,000 pound range and beat everything else discussed on operating costs; however, you are giving up 10 to 15 knots versus the 235 or Arrow.
 
brafter said:
Many thanks for all the ideas, advice, and information. Lots to look into.

One question: Which is likely to cost more to maintain, a Cherokee Six with its larger engine but fixed gear, or an Arrow with its smaller engine but retractable gear? Or are they roughly comparable?

And does bumping up to six seats come with a big insurance penalty?

Brian
Click to expand...

I've never owned a PA28-200R but I have a hard time believing that the PA32 would be more costly to maintain vs the Arrow just because it has an O-540 vs the IO-360 and retractable gear in the Arrow. The engine overhaul might be a little more costly for the 540 vs the 360 but not the ongoing maint.

Insurance WILL be more costly because of the 6 seats. How much more depends on your flight time and ratings. I pay $1,229 premium for my six vs about $650 for my similarly valued 172. Because of my total flight time,ratings and certificates, etc. those rates were as low as they could possibly get.
 
I guess my opinion on the matter (and you know the story about opinions, right?) is, assuming you need a plane that will carry four real adults with space left over for bags and weight capacity left over for any kind of range (fuel) then why waste time worrying about a gallon or three/per hour and a few knots of cruise speed?! Get the plane that will do the job you need and if it costs you a few bucks more per hour and a few knots less in speed then WHO CARES! You (and maybe more importantly, your family) won't regret your purchase decision. They will not notice that it cost a few dollars more per hour or that it takes a few more minutes on a 3 hour flight but they most definitely WILL notice the lack of leg or stretch-out room and baggage capacity. Airplanes, no matter which one you choose, are simply expensive to own and operate, so get the one that will do the job!

BTW...for local flights I pull the power back on my Six to about 10-10.5 gph and just enjoy the ride. Makes it a little more economical for just flying around home.

Remember, small family members (especially boys) don't stay small for very long! And if you need a real four place plane, you should seriously consider buying a six place plane. Assuming you are in the market for a single this might include some variant of the PA32, Bonanza 36 or Cessna 2xx (with the Piper being, in most cases, the more affordable choice of the three).
 
Last edited:
brafter said:
One question: Which is likely to cost more to maintain, a Cherokee Six with its larger engine but fixed gear, or an Arrow with its smaller engine but retractable gear? Or are they roughly comparable?
Click to expand...
Comparable.
And does bumping up to six seats come with a big insurance penalty?
Click to expand...
Liability goes up due to the extra exposure of two more passengers with the Six, but hull goes down due to the elimination of the chance of an inadvertent gear-up landing which is a big part of Arrow insurance claims.
 
Ron Levy said:
Comparable.
Liability goes up due to the extra exposure of two more passengers with the Six, but hull goes down due to the elimination of the chance of an inadvertent gear-up landing which is a big part of Arrow insurance claims.
Click to expand...

I still maintain that the Six will be, on average, less than the cost of the Arrow in terms of on going maintenance. Just because the 540 has 6 cylinders vs 4 on the Arrow doesn't automatically make it more costly. If you have to start replacing cylinders then that's another story...they can both get expensive at that point. On thing I don't have to do every year is swing the gear...the Arrow does. That adds cost automatically. Comparable? Not necessarily.
 
Chris Mitchell said:
I still maintain that the Six will be, on average, less than the cost of the Arrow in terms of on going maintenance. Just because the 540 has 6 cylinders vs 4 on the Arrow doesn't automatically make it more costly. If you have to start replacing cylinders then that's another story...they can both get expensive at that point. On thing I don't have to do every year is swing the gear...the Arrow does. That adds cost automatically. Comparable? Not necessarily.
Click to expand...
Less? Quite likely, but still pretty much in the same ballpark, i.e., "comparable". IOW, if you can't afford the maintenance on one, you won't be able to afford the maintenance on the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top