Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
My Pathfinder can carry 1,460 pounds. Empty weight is 1,550 pounds.
Can you name another 4-seat GA plane that can carry that percentage of its own empty weight?
Why the Pathfinder/Dakota is the Best 4-Seat GA Plane
- Thread starter Jay Honeck
- Start date
My Pathfinder can carry 1,460 pounds. Empty weight is 1,550 pounds.
Can you name another 4-seat GA plane that can carry that percentage of its own empty weight?
rainsux
Line Up and Wait
Musick's 2nd Law of Airplane Ownership:
The best airplane for you, is the one your wife likes.
-d
The best airplane for you, is the one your wife likes.
-d
Alexb2000
En-Route
See that's exactly my point, if the aircraft meets your needs and you like the way it flies then it truly is "the best for you".
I also believe it's a fine aircraft that any pilot could be proud of, but just like all of them it isn't perfect. Look at the service ceiling, fuel management, the door, etc.
To answer you question directly I can think of several 4 seaters. How about an F33A or V35B Bonanza? Easy to get similar useful loads, 35 knots faster, better after-market and factory support, STC's to do just about anything, etc.
I'm not casting stones at anything, rather I'm accepting that all design is a series of compromises. Find something with compromises you can live with, just like a marriage.
Are there V-tail Bonanzas with 1450 useful ?
As for STCs. Many of them cure a deficiency of the original design, an awkward unsupported engine, lack of fuel capacity etc. Piper got their planes right the first time, no need for STCs :wink2:
The only bad thing I can say about the PA28-235 is that it doesn't do anything that a PA32-260 wont do better*.
* with the exception of burning mogas maybe
Alexb2000
En-Route
Once more for the cheap seats, I am not bashing anything! There just is no such thing as one perfect airplane for all missions.
2 min search 1341 useful
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...ANZA/1967-BEECHCRAFT-V35-BONANZA/1169932.htm?
Lots of equipment on this one so I'll take back 100 lb.,but it's also much faster than a stock V.
Threefingeredjack
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 3,171
- Location
- Central Oregon/Hawaii
- Display Name
Display name:
Threefingeredjack
I have owned two Pipers, a Comanche 180 and a Comanche 250. Both flew like angels and were fine machines, BUT. I never liked the single door entry system. I always plan for the worst and hope for the best, and my one recurring thought was a forced landing/crash where the only door was blocked. The Cessna also keeps me dry in the rain, and the best plane I ever flew was a high wing,(although the door wasn't under the wing),so there you go.
Fly what you like and stay away from making every aspect of life a competition.
Fly what you like and stay away from making every aspect of life a competition.
Last edited:
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Quit taking this so seriously, dammit. This is supposed to be FUN.
The Bonanza doesn't even come close to the Pathfinder's useful load. The F33A you used only carries 1130 pounds -- fully 330 pounds LESS. Worse, they have to worry about weight and balance -- something the Pathfinder is virtually immune to. (Mary made a spreadsheet to figure our W&B, and it was so insanely difficult to load Atlas outside of those parameters that we stopped worrying about it.)
What's funny is -- now that our son is on his own, and his sister is soon to follow -- I don't NEED that huge useful load anymore. But, wow, it sure was nice to have when we were lugging them and their "stuff" everywhere!
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Boy, you guys just aren't in the spirit of this thing! This isn't a competition -- this is bragging rights!
I've flown -- and liked -- Cessna products. The only reason I didn't buy a 182 is because Mary and I split left-seat time, and she is, er, "height-challenged". In the 182, which has an abnormally (IMHO) tall panel, she simply could not raise the seat high enough to see where she was flying.
The Pathfinder has an articulating seat that, when she raises it all the way (and puts a pillow behind her shoulders) allows her to fly just fine. I, on the other hand, put the seat all the way DOWN, and all the way BACK -- which works just fine for me.
If Mary was able to fly a Cessna 182, we probably would have bought one, simply because they were easier to find and a tad cheaper. In the end, though, "if Mama ain't happy, ain't NO ONE happy" -- so we went with our beloved Atlas, and have never regretted it.
David
Pre-takeoff checklist
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
Isn't slow a bad thing
Every aircraft is a compromise. If you need to carry a lot the C-182 or PA28-235 are good choices. However, I don't need to carry that much, so prefer to go similar speeds with two less cylinders, and on 5 GPH less.
Isn't slow a bad thing
If someone wants to keep up with a Bonana, there is allways the Comanche
skidoo
Line Up and Wait
And some aircraft allows some option. I can go faster at 14GPH, or I can go slower at 8 or 9 GPH. Likely, at the similar GPH's, speeds are close for similar drag airframes.
CMTowner
Line Up and Wait
The Dakota is one of the few planes I remember that at full power would drag itself across our maintenance ramp.
Alexb2000
En-Route
Quit taking this so seriously, dammit. This is supposed to be FUN.
Sweet baby Jesus, I have seen the light!
I was lost all these long years, having to diet to fly, leaving luggage at home, taking all those chances by not bringing at least 4 emergency cases of Shiner Bock to any point North of the Red River.
Oh blessed mother of useful load, I see it all so clearly now..
THE PATHFINDER IS THE GREATEST AIRCRAFT IN ALL OF HISTORY!
Moma I'm pawning your wedding ring and selling your car. I HAVE to have a Pathfinder and soon.
How was that?
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Better, but you'll have to work on that South Texas accent.
Let's compare speeds, since my Atlas has been labeled as "slow". He has been blessed with every speed mod ever made for the Cherokee line, by a wealthy previous owner. As a result, we flight plan 142 knots, and can always count on 140.
The Bonanza F33A, from your earlier example, is fully 30 knots faster, at 170 knots. A huge difference.
Sadly, even with extended range tanks it only carries 74 gallons of fuel to feed that 285 horsepower engine, giving it an effective VFR range of just a smidge over 700 nautical miles. Some only have 50 gallon tanks, giving it a paltry 515 nm range.
Compare this to my Pathfinder, with 84 gallons on board, and it's astounding 910 nautical mile range. Sure, the Bo is going faster, but on an 800 mile trip, I will beat it every time. Sometimes the tortoise wins.
Then, that whole weight & balance thing. That aft CG problem with Bonanzas can really mess things up, and makes loading a PIA. You're always worried about keeping the heavy stuff up-front -- something that is only mildly concerning in the Pathfinder -- making it hard to use the Bonanza's 1100 pound useful load. In the Pathfinder, if you've got 1460 pounds of bowling balls, just roll 'em in. She'll fly.
Then there's that one-door thing. Oh, wait -- it was copied from the Bonanza, which stupidly also has only one door -- and on the wrong side, to boot! Thus proving that marketing departments can be dumb everywhere.
So, I'm still standing pat. If you're looking for the best compromise between speed, useful load, economy, looks, and all around comfort, IMHO the Pathfinder/Dakota is the best 4-seat airplane out there.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,014
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
btw, what's the service ceiling of your 235?
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Um, not sure -- the POH is in the plane. We've had it up to 13,500, which is about all the higher I would want to go. (We crossed the Rockies without having to ever go that high.)
Of course, I now live 12' above sea level, so the only time we fly high is to get in the cool air.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
I was just going to say that the Cirrus SR22 might give the Pathfinder a run for the money, but I see it only has a paltry 1150 pound useful load -- fully 310 pounds less! -- AND it costs an arm and a leg to buy.
Neal Howard
Cleared for Takeoff
Try out the Van's RV-10 for the best 4-seat ever! 
2 doors, roomy seats front and back, large baggage capacity and 160 kts on 12 gph. Push the throttle forward some more and you can have 175 kts for 14.5 gph
Best of all, you fly it with a stick, not a yoke, like God intended for pilots to fly airplanes
2 doors, roomy seats front and back, large baggage capacity and 160 kts on 12 gph. Push the throttle forward some more and you can have 175 kts for 14.5 gph
Best of all, you fly it with a stick, not a yoke, like God intended for pilots to fly airplanes
Last edited:
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Try out the Van's RV-10 for the best 4-seat ever!
2 doors, roomy seats front and back, large baggage capacity and 160 kts on 12 gph. Push the throttle forward some more and you can have 175 kts for 14.5 gph
Best of all, you fly it with a stick, not a yoke, like God intended for pilots to fly airplanes
I might agree, but they are scarce as hen's teeth, and I ain't got time to build no airplane.
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
I might agree, but they are scarce as hen's teeth, and I ain't got time to build no airplane.
I told my CFI/A&P I'd love to build an RV-10 but I can't even commit to green bananas.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I keep hearing RV's are great. Why can't they be built Certified?
The answer is, the Certification process is far too expensive and offers no additional liability protection.
If it did, that would be a concrete business reason to do it for the manufacturers.
Cessna's well-known seat-tracks were FAA Certified. So we're the killer gas caps.
Tort reform needs to start at the Certification. Otherwise, as many have pointed out, it's worthless.
The magic word "Experimental" makes aviation my risk again as it always truly was. That's why it's a much more successful business overall.
As someone pointed out, Cessna said they couldn't afford to put the 177 and 210 cantilevered wings through the Part 23 process and make a profit.
Would you build an experimental car? Most folks won't. Maybe if the Certified car vs. the Experimental were 1/2 the price...
The answer is, the Certification process is far too expensive and offers no additional liability protection.
If it did, that would be a concrete business reason to do it for the manufacturers.
Cessna's well-known seat-tracks were FAA Certified. So we're the killer gas caps.
Tort reform needs to start at the Certification. Otherwise, as many have pointed out, it's worthless.
The magic word "Experimental" makes aviation my risk again as it always truly was. That's why it's a much more successful business overall.
As someone pointed out, Cessna said they couldn't afford to put the 177 and 210 cantilevered wings through the Part 23 process and make a profit.
Would you build an experimental car? Most folks won't. Maybe if the Certified car vs. the Experimental were 1/2 the price...
David
Pre-takeoff checklist
Better, but you'll have to work on that South Texas accent.
Let's compare speeds, since my Atlas has been labeled as "slow". He has been blessed with every speed mod ever made for the Cherokee line, by a wealthy previous owner. As a result, we flight plan 142 knots, and can always count on 140.
The Bonanza F33A, from your earlier example, is fully 30 knots faster, at 170 knots. A huge difference.
Sadly, even with extended range tanks it only carries 74 gallons of fuel to feed that 285 horsepower engine, giving it an effective VFR range of just a smidge over 700 nautical miles. Some only have 50 gallon tanks, giving it a paltry 515 nm range.
Compare this to my Pathfinder, with 84 gallons on board, and it's astounding 910 nautical mile range. Sure, the Bo is going faster, but on an 800 mile trip, I will beat it every time. Sometimes the tortoise wins.
Then, that whole weight & balance thing. That aft CG problem with Bonanzas can really mess things up, and makes loading a PIA. You're always worried about keeping the heavy stuff up-front -- something that is only mildly concerning in the Pathfinder -- making it hard to use the Bonanza's 1100 pound useful load. In the Pathfinder, if you've got 1460 pounds of bowling balls, just roll 'em in. She'll fly.
Then there's that one-door thing. Oh, wait -- it was copied from the Bonanza, which stupidly also has only one door -- and on the wrong side, to boot! Thus proving that marketing departments can be dumb everywhere.
So, I'm still standing pat. If you're looking for the best compromise between speed, useful load, economy, looks, and all around comfort, IMHO the Pathfinder/Dakota is the best 4-seat airplane out there.
All F33A's have two 40 gallon tanks. The optional aux tank setup was eliminated in 1961. Extended range tanks on an F33A would typically be two 20 gallon tip tanks for a total of 120 gallons. The tip tanks also come with a 200 pound gross weight increase and only add a few pounds to the empty weight.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
My experience with the RV's (very limited) is that the handling characteristics that make them fun to fly and have great performance probably also make them un-certifiable.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
How so? I know most of them are aerobatic, but they also have pretty low stall speeds and are also good for short field use (depending on engine, and model of course)
I would love to go the RV route, but the time, and focus to build one while also having to work, and do life's other tasks is prohibitive. And if I have to buy one already built, I might as well just keep the Tiger.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, the equivalent would be to just pay a shop to build one for you.
Technically illegal, but done all the time. I knew a doctor in Iowa who would fly to Florida once a month, to some shop that was building an awesome Velocity for him. (Still the coolest homebuilt, IMHO).
They would hand him a piece of sand paper, tell him to go sand on that non-structural piece of aluminum for 15 minutes -- and then he'd go to the beach. That was enough to make him "the builder", apparently.
Personally, I don't know why that practice is illegal. Surely it will be built ten times better, and more consistently, than if you built it in your garage.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,736
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Yeah but you carry the fixed costs of maintenance on the bigger engine regardless of how you operate it. Running a bigger rig at smaller rig levels does NOT yield you small rig maintenance cost, year to year. Further amortize the capital cost premium and it's even worse a proposition.
A typical case study I make is the relatively inconsequential upgrade from warrior to archer. Identical airframes and similar maintenance cost (overhaul would be slightly higher for the -360), though the warrior is more efficient (NMPG). The added 20-30K capital outlay simply does not amortize very well over the gained 5 or even 10 knots (unlikely) and 3-500fpm (unlikely). Trying that with a piper Arrow (same airframe still) makes it even more so apparent. So it pays NOT to pay for performance you can't stack on the plus column. Flying a 182 undergross at 172 speeds would be akin to that.
You literally have to attain 200knot cruise speeds and turbine scale climb rates in order to start making the derivative of the "dollars per knot/fpm" function positive again from the baseline 100knot trainer.
Another way to potentially flip that ROI curve is to send them all owner-experimental. But as my A&P told me last weekend: "Just go ahead and go looking for that Glasair boss, cuz you'll never see the day you can run this warrior experimental...". And he's probably right. I ought to sell it before the upcoming boomer medical failures flood the market with scrap metal, but that's for another thread.
The only true net gains in speed are done by the grummans. Airframe drag. Maybe the mechanical gear mooneys, if they had a fixed prop, better cowling and weren't older than dirt and prone to corrosion. Otherwise all you're buying is the ability of lifting more folks at 172 times and speeds.
Well, the equivalent would be to just pay a shop to build one for you.
Technically illegal, but done all the time. I knew a doctor in Iowa who would fly to Florida once a month, to some shop that was building an awesome Velocity for him. (Still the coolest homebuilt, IMHO).
They would hand him a piece of sand paper, tell him to go sand on that non-structural piece of aluminum for 15 minutes -- and then he'd go to the beach. That was enough to make him "the builder", apparently.
Personally, I don't know why that practice is illegal. Surely it will be built ten times better, and more consistently, than if you built it in your garage.
I could not agree more. What am I missing?