Six seater planes

gitmo234

gitmo234

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Oxford, PA
Display Name
Display name:
gitmo234
So the other day my wife said "when we start having kids we need to upgrade from a Cessna to something that can haul a small family like a 6 seater, otherwise the Cessna is a toy and there's no point".

I interpreted that to "you have the green light to start looking at larger airplanes and even though it's early, if you find a steal, consider it"

So I've been looking at larger airplanes and I'm looking at older models that can be had for under $100k.

I've found plenty of Cherokee sixes, a few lances and no 206's in that range. Any other models anyone would suggest I look at?

I'm more or less looking for one with relatively low SMOH, a good GPS and the basic amenities and can realistically haul a small family that can also handle a 3000 foot runway (with trees on both ends) when relatively full. When it is time to pull the trigger I'll be getting rid of a 56 Cessna 172 which pains me to think about
 
Cessna 210?

How may kids do you have or gonna have? The 182 is only a four seater but has a great useful load and a great travel machine. It can easily handle a family of 4 and some bags.
 
Last edited:
I put two kids in the back of my 172...
 
When I was looking for Lances back about 6 months ago, I found them everywhere from $50,000 -> $125,000. The 50k ones are probably pretty close to original and the high-end ones are well refurbished.

The PA-32 is a great plane. I'm very happy with it.
 
I had completely written off the 182, I'll have to look into it. We're planning on 2 kids and she won't be happy with 2 of us, 2 kids and no bags. The O-300 doesn't seem to have the pick me up for it. I have about 800 useful load and I don't enjoy that with the trees at the end of the runway.

That Cherokee six is really nice. I'm gonna look at the 210 is well.

How do these larger aircraft handle the bumps compared to a 172?
 
Funny, I have a 56 172, and just said to my wife " I don't think I can ever sell this plane"...I know what you mean!
 
If it were me....I'd want to build off of a few things that are extremely expensive to upgrade....an autopilot and a nice WAAS GPS. Get those and build your dream list from there. I was able to sell my last plane (that had no autopilot and limited GPS)....for something twice as nice with a sweet autopilot and panel for less than what I was selling. So, you're gonna have to be willing to be patient and know and act quickly when the right one comes available.....or be willing to pay later. :yikes:
 
gitmo234 said:
I had completely written off the 182, I'll have to look into it. We're planning on 2 kids and she won't be happy with 2 of us, 2 kids and no bags. The O-300 doesn't seem to have the pick me up for it. I have about 800 useful load and I don't enjoy that with the trees at the end of the runway.

That Cherokee six is really nice. I'm gonna look at the 210 is well.

How do these larger aircraft handle the bumps compared to a 172?
Click to expand...

I just sold my T182T w/ only a 975lb useful load and flew often full fuel with my wife and 2 young kids along with almost as much as I could shove in the back for luggage. I could have done that for quite a few years. I wouldn't write off the 182 at all. In fact the older 182's have much more useful load than mine did. likely 1100-1200 lbs. If you can swing it, I would recommend an SR22. Amazing airplane!
 
If you like the Cessna family of planes, you can move right up to the 210. Beginning in 65 they had kiddie seats in back, and starting in 70(I think?) they had full size seats in back for full six seats. Avail in normally aspirated and turbo, although at that price point, most likely you'll be looking at a non-turbo.

I have no time in them, but they are popular planes, and seem to be reasonable to maintain for all that you get with the plane.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1017211_Cessna+210,+Century+2000+AP.html

No affiliation although I did buy a plane brokered there once, and the transaction was professional. They will take your 56 172 in trade.
 
gitmo234 said:
How do these larger aircraft handle the bumps compared to a 172?
Click to expand...

When it comes to handling characteristic and ride:

152 is like driving a VW Beetle (old school ones...not the new crap)
172 is like driving a Honda Civic
182 is like driving a Ford F-150
210 is like driving a Chevy Suburban

I would love a 210 but don't discount the 182's. As well as a great useful load they have the most interior passenger room for comparable airplanes. I would up with a 1973 P model as that seemed to be the sweet spot on price, space, and useful load for me as I wanted to be able to take 3-4 people and bags for a 250NM trip.

One of my last trips was two adults, two teenagers and bags for a four day trip and we were just barely at max weight with enough fuel and reserves for a 2.5 hour trip and could not have fit another thing in the baggage compartment if I wanted to.

The 182 is like USPS flat rate boxes..."If it fits, it ships!"
 
Last edited:
I'd get a U206 with a IO550, extensions, VGs and the pax door STC. Great aircraft, it'll suit your mission well and hold it's value.
 
docmirror said:
If you like the Cessna family of planes, you can move right up to the 210. Beginning in 65 they had kiddie seats in back, and starting in 70(I think?) they had full size seats in back for full six seats. Avail in normally aspirated and turbo, although at that price point, most likely you'll be looking at a non-turbo.

I have no time in them, but they are popular planes, and seem to be reasonable to maintain for all that you get with the plane.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1017211_Cessna+210,+Century+2000+AP.html

No affiliation although I did buy a plane brokered there once, and the transaction was professional. They will take your 56 172 in trade.
Click to expand...

Funny, that's where I bought my 172 I have now.

Thanks for the recommendations everyone. I have a lot to look at. Now I find myself wondering if there's a way I can just keep the 172 for myself and get something larger as well. I love the site picture in my airplane and the way it flies... especially the johnson bar flaps with 40 degree flaps as well.
 
Just a thought... but MOST of your flying won't be full gross with all seats filled. Why not keep your current bird (which you speak highly of) and find a good operator to rent the extra load when you need/want it?

I think I'm saving money with that option (not provable)

I've got 2 seats in my RV6 and am in a club with a Cardinal and a Cherokee 6-300. So it is mission by mission.

Don't buy for the most demanding mission, buy for the most common mission. IMHO.
 
rolivi said:
Just a thought... but MOST of your flying won't be full gross with all seats filled. Why not keep your current bird (which you speak highly of) and find a good operator to rent the extra load when you need/want it?

I think I'm saving money with that option (not provable)

I've got 2 seats in my RV6 and am in a club with a Cardinal and a Cherokee 6-300. So it is mission by mission.

Don't buy for the most demanding mission, buy for the most common mission. IMHO.
Click to expand...

I'll have to do some math on it. I would make out okay if I could get a multi-day rental (2-4 days) for actual hobs time, vs minimum of 4 hour rental hours per day or whatever the usual lingo is.
 
Assuming you're planning on 2 kids, any of the larger 4-seaters will work. A 6-seater will get you some more baggage space, which is beneficial. So the ones listed plus a Bonanza (35 or 36) are worth consideration.

If you're planning on 3+ kids (or end up with a 3rd like we did - got twins the second time around!) then you really want to look into a twin as the useful load and size will be necessary, or at least highly beneficial.

You also need to reconcile your family comfort. There are people on the Twin Cessna forum with a family of 4 (2 kids) who buy 421s because their wives and kids love it, and they hated the 210/Bonanza/whatever. But that's a ton of money to operate. I was afraid of needing to figure out how to make that cost equation work, but fortunately my wife is happy with the 310 setup, even with 3 small kids. They all sit in back while I get us there safely.
 
we used to have a cherokee 6 when we expected more kids. Once I was informed that 2 kids was it, i decided to drop back to a 4-seater that goes a little faster.
 
The only problem I have with the Cherokee six (our club has one) is that your turns MUST be coordinated! The swing of the back end is a lot I almost got sick sitting back in the last row.
 
rolivi said:
Just a thought... but MOST of your flying won't be full gross with all seats filled. Why not keep your current bird (which you speak highly of) and find a good operator to rent the extra load when you need/want it?

I think I'm saving money with that option (not provable)

I've got 2 seats in my RV6 and am in a club with a Cardinal and a Cherokee 6-300. So it is mission by mission.

Don't buy for the most demanding mission, buy for the most common mission. IMHO.
Click to expand...

From a safety perspective, it kind of bothers me that the plane he's mostly likely to fly long distances with his whole family in possibly challenging weather conditions is a complex, high performance airplane he only flies a few times a year. Between that, and the general lack of availability of 6 sweaters on the rental line (or in clubs) makes this recommendation a less than practical solution.
 
yeah, the idea that you're going to rent a 6-seater for travel on-demand doesn't pass the straight face test

the whole reason to own a plane is to go places when you want to. Renting only works for flying in little circles around the airport.
 
rolivi said:
Just a thought... but MOST of your flying won't be full gross with all seats filled. Why not keep your current bird (which you speak highly of) and find a good operator to rent the extra load when you need/want it?

I think I'm saving money with that option (not provable)

I've got 2 seats in my RV6 and am in a club with a Cardinal and a Cherokee 6-300. So it is mission by mission.

Don't buy for the most demanding mission, buy for the most common mission. IMHO.
Click to expand...

I see this suggestion often. Rent the extra when you need it. It sounds really good. Except there's nowhere to rent bigger airplanes where I live. And I live in a decent sized market with multiple airports: Orlando FL. I can rent twins for training, and smaller complex for training (Arrows) but nothing for traveling. The local clubs have 172s, a 182 and one had a Cirrus. No 6 seat aircraft at all.

How many of you have local rental (available for travel) or clubs with 6 seat airplanes?

John
 
Bingo....this is why I bought my Six. Then, later, after 5 years, sold it. The Mrs didn't think the Pres and VP should be flying together.

So I "down graded" to something a lil faster and sportier.
 
I've actually tried to buy into a 310 fractional ownership that my CFI has, but he declines to even give a cost to anyone. It has 3 partners and he's the only one qualified to fly it (only MEL that owns it).

There are lots of twins available for cheap but not sure I'm quite ready for start budgeting for the overhaul costs or annuals yet. With my Cessna I computed a "dry" cost, and i charge myself that per hour when I fly and throw it into a savings account. that would be a large figure for a twin, if I account for annuals and the overhaul. Maybe I'm wrong though. I just keep hearing stories of $70-80k overhauls.

One other question: I always hear "High wing aircraft are for passengers and anyone who wants a view, low wings are for pilots". Can someone elaborate? Is there a smoother ride or more efficient with a low wing?

I may get the enjoyment out of a 182 I have with my 172, there are several 1956 182s for sale...same setup...extremely large sight picture (by comparison), johnson bar flaps, straight tail, etc. I think the picture is a bit smaller but thats the trade off for dumping a shotgun panel
 
gitmo234 said:
One other question: I always hear "High wing aircraft are for passengers and anyone who wants a view, low wings are for pilots". Can someone elaborate? Is there a smoother ride or more efficient with a low wing?
Click to expand...
nonsense. airplanes have lots of traits that are good for passengers, where the wing is doesn't matter a lick.

the bonanza is often praised as being a pleasure to fly for the pilot and that is true, but IMO it's best feature is passenger comfort. The throwover yoke and fold-down rudder pedals give the front seat passenger a wide-open seat like in a car, and the back seats have a large footwell. Most other 4-seaters seem to assume that anyone sitting in the back seat will be a double amputee.
 
gitmo234 said:
I've actually tried to buy into a 310 fractional ownership that my CFI has, but he declines to even give a cost to anyone. It has 3 partners and he's the only one qualified to fly it (only MEL that owns it).

There are lots of twins available for cheap but not sure I'm quite ready for start budgeting for the overhaul costs or annuals yet. With my Cessna I computed a "dry" cost, and i charge myself that per hour when I fly and throw it into a savings account. that would be a large figure for a twin, if I account for annuals and the overhaul. Maybe I'm wrong though. I just keep hearing stories of $70-80k overhauls.

One other question: I always hear "High wing aircraft are for passengers and anyone who wants a view, low wings are for pilots". Can someone elaborate? Is there a smoother ride or more efficient with a low wing?

I may get the enjoyment out of a 182 I have with my 172, there are several 1956 182s for sale...same setup...extremely large sight picture (by comparison), johnson bar flaps, straight tail, etc. I think the picture is a bit smaller but thats the trade off for dumping a shotgun panel
Click to expand...

The word "cheap" makes me cringe. The market is very efficient and planes that are cheap to buy are often expensive to own. Figure out what works for you, and buy the best example within your price range. I bought a '75 182P. The difference between the stripped down models, and mine (which had an stec 55x autopilot, Garmin 530W, XM weather, TIS traffic, engine analyzer, etc.) was about $25k. I couldn't upgrade all of that for anywhere near $25k.

And yes, I agree the 182 is a very good family hauler.
 
Ok...so, now we've just upgraded to a twin budget. The Six or Toga is the cheapest 6 place plane to operate. :D


Twin prices? Better bring $300-500/hr to operate that beast. ;-)
 
A 310/Baron/Aztec will run you around $300/hr, give or take a bit. Less if you do a lot of owner MX, run LOP, and have an inexpensive shop. More if ROP, expensive shop, no owner MX. I'm right around there as I do very little owner MX, LOP, and an inexpensive shop. A partnership would do a lot for lowering your costs, provided you have the right partners.
 
Only issue with the Bonanza is you'll have to put a lot of time on it to get insured. I think most require 25 retract or maybe a little less in type?

But if you are going to ever upgrade, you are gonna need the complex time anyway. Might as well get it now and in your own plane.
 
Wife and I had one child and that kid went everywhere with us. We had a Hawk XP but wanted more space and ended up with a 6 passenger 180. I quickly gave the rear bench seat to a friend knowing I'd never use it. Our plane has spent most of it's life with only 3 seats installed and the empty nest years only 2 seats. Thinking we'd want to downsize I built my perfect PA-12 and had that for a few years along with the 180 but as time passed it became clear that even as a family of 2 we both preferred the bigger cabin of the 180 and sold the Cub. If I had had 2 kids I'd have required a 6-place airplane. There's comfort in having space and not feeling like a sardine in a can. With wives and kids comfort is often the difference between wanting to go and wanting not to. At least that's how it's worked for me.

A quick supporting story. After I finished the -12 I took my wife for her first ride. I kept asking what she thought. Was the seat comfy? Did she like the big view? How was the ride? I had created a beautiful plane and wanted her feedback. Her comment? It smelled new. Soon after the Cessna interior was stripped to zinc chromate, the interior painted, and refurbished from there including new panel and wiring. So it would smell new! :)
 
gitmo234 said:
Funny, that's where I bought my 172 I have now.

Thanks for the recommendations everyone. I have a lot to look at. Now I find myself wondering if there's a way I can just keep the 172 for myself and get something larger as well. I love the site picture in my airplane and the way it flies... especially the johnson bar flaps with 40 degree flaps as well.
Click to expand...

Hehe, small world. The plane I traded to them came back on the market about 14 months later. It was a good plane and I knew the history. They wanted $3500 more than I traded to them, so I offered the same price I traded for. We haggled a bit, and I could have got it for $1200 over what I paid. The owner fixed the seat backs, put in a new txp, and had the prop repaired well, all things it needed when I got rid of it. In the end, I decided not to buy it but maybe should have. It was a nice little bird.

Right now I'm considering a T210F. It's the last model with the non-laminar wing, and has the kiddie seats in back. Better climb performance with the T at altitude and the hi lift wing. It's the only year with that combo, the next year they went with the laminar wing and gained about 3 knots. I decided with my flight profile I needed the T/O and climb more than I needed a few knots of cruise.
 
I don't want to ruin the party and understand that shopping for planes is fun. I myself check out Barnstormers almost on a daily basis, even though I am currently not in the market. :wink2:

However - if you really like your 172 and since the children are not even born yet, why not keep the 172 for now and upgrade as the need arrises? As long as the children are small, a 172 should do just fine. This would also help you to gain a better understanding of what your typical mission with children will actually look like.

If it turns out that you are the only one in the family who wants to travel by plane, a 6-seater would be just a waste of money. For the occasional shorter trips a 172, possibly with a 180 hp engine, or a 182 would be entirely sufficient.
 
German guy said:
I don't want to ruin the party and understand that shopping for planes is fun. I myself check out Barnstormers almost on a daily basis, even though I am currently not in the market. :wink2:

However - if you really like your 172 and since the children are not even born yet, why not keep the 172 for now and upgrade as the need arrises? As long as the children are small, a 172 should do just fine. This would also help you to gain a better understanding of what your typical mission with children will actually look like.

If it turns out that you are the only one in the family who wants to travel by plane, a 6-seater would be just a waste of money. For the occasional shorter trips a 172, possibly with a 180 hp engine, or a 182 would be entirely sufficient.
Click to expand...

That was the original intent of the thread...in my brain. Just get ideas and save them for later. Reading responses has what not has made me get into buy mode. Realistically, I'll be waiting awhile before upgrading.

the 800lb useful is probably pretty accurate on my plane. I had my doubts until I took a look at the heaviest flight I took. Myself, my CFI, my younger brother, plus 37 gallons of fuel, and we were damn near max weight. Got a close up of the trees on take off. about 20 feet above them,
 
Could go with a PA28-235/236

Comparable useful load to a PA-32 and easier to insure.
 
Cherokee 6 if pavement to pavement. Terrible feel, if that matters. Great load hauling capability. Weak landing gear.

Cessna 206 if any bush operations. Better control feel, much stronger landing gear.

Either will go on floats, although you'll never see a "6" on the water. 206 is a proven floatplane workhorse.
 
Bonchie said:
Only issue with the Bonanza is you'll have to put a lot of time on it to get insured. I think most require 25 retract or maybe a little less in type?

But if you are going to ever upgrade, you are gonna need the complex time anyway. Might as well get it now and in your own plane.
Click to expand...

I doubt that more than 10 hours of dual would be required. And if upgrading from a 172, 10 hours of dual sounds like a good idea.
 
kgruber said:
Cherokee 6 if pavement to pavement. Terrible feel, if that matters. Great load hauling capability. Weak landing gear.

Cessna 206 if any bush operations. Better control feel, much stronger landing gear.

Either will go on floats, although you'll never see a "6" on the water. 206 is a proven floatplane workhorse.
Click to expand...

Has to be some serious backcountry flying if C6 landing gear is "weak".

I've flown a bit from grass strips in the UK in a RG Saratoga. Cherokee 6 landing gear is not weak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top