IIRC Jean Delemontez was about 1.65 perhaps a few cm more.
MedEwok wrote:
I’m 1,92 m (6’4"?)
Ah – I’d describe that as a bit more than above average. I don’t know how reliable the data is, but this site suggests that for a German male 1.92m puts you in the tallest 1.3% of the population, which sounds about right to me.
I have friends who are that tall and I’ve not taken them flying because I’ve assumed it would be pretty much impossible for them to be comfortable. I am 1.73m / 70kg, and I find the seat of a GA aircraft a relatively confined space!
Any light aircraft is going to be quite a tight squeeze for you, no?
MedEwok wrote:
the PA-32 has emerged as the best candidate for a van-equivalent SEP
That’s exactly what it is. Lots of room! Read from one who even put a piano inside!
It’s like driving a Volkswagen Multivan. You have all the room, but it comes at a price. Of course, you can never have enough room in the cabin. But said that, the trade-in is speed or fuel burn. So as always, the plane to go really depends on your use-case.
I was looking very hard into the PA32 variants. If the use case are short-to-medium distance flights in VFR, it’s perfect. Kids love to take friends along, so better be prepared to have the plane fully loaded any time :-)
However, if you plan long-distance flights as the main purpose, say more than 3 hours, the priorities tend to shift. You will love to have all the speed possible. And good instrumentation, because you will fly IFR more often. This is why I ended up with my Comanche.
Peter wrote:
One type which I have seen work OK for a family with 3 kids was a Twin Comanche.
As you know, I love the Comanche. If I were however (and I am considering this) to upgrade to a twin I would almost definitely go for a Baron 58 for a variety of reasons.
- an engine faillure (handled properly) is a non-event with 2 -300HP engines
- it’s a proper 6 seater
- speed in comfort (cruise at 195kts – 23/23
- fully de-iced and real world FIKI
- very stable IFR platform
I think VFR family touring without an IR is complicated if you are on a timeline in Europe. On a timeline, without FIKI and radar touring is complicated either way ;-)
UdoR wrote:
However, if you plan long-distance flights as the main purpose, say more than 3 hours, the priorities tend to shift. You will love to have all the speed possible. And good instrumentation, because you will fly IFR more often. This is why I ended up with my Comanche.
+1 for the PA24
UdoR wrote:
However, if you plan long-distance flights as the main purpose, say more than 3 hours, the priorities tend to shift. You will love to have all the speed possible. And good instrumentation, because you will fly IFR more often. This is why I ended up with my Comanche.
How good is the Comanche as a 6 seater? What payload can you carry realistically, and how much with full fuel?
I agree that the PA32 fixed gear variant is quite slow. Not sure about the Lance though, it should be faster with retracable gear? Basically a single engined Seneca.
For a twin, I’d go Seneca II or III which is the best bang for buck if you carry 4-5. Otherwise Twin Comanche.
The PA24 has good useful load, but while, like the Bonanza 33/35, they stretched the baggage compartment and called it a six seater to compete with the later 210, in practice only the early Beech 36 and Lance/Saratoga are the honest six seaters.
The current G36 has the useful load of an Archer, and in effect is at best a 3 person aircraft.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
How good is the Comanche as a 6 seater?
Well although I have seen six adults in Comanches / Twin Comanches, you just cannot compare this to a Beech 36 or PA32. I had 6 POB several times, but of those for example 3 adults and three kids. It’s O.K., but it’s more like in a 5+2 seater car, not like in a van. You can transport people, and it’s legally ok. For example, I already thought on how to go to holiday in this configuration, and best way is to send the luggage via parcel service :-)
Mooney_Driver wrote:
What payload can you carry realistically, and how much with full fuel?
I have 550 kg (1200lbs) true and officially legal payload, which is “all in” including oxygen system, seats in third row and even some spare parts and so on. On full fuel of 90 Gal it is still 300 kg (660lbs) of payload. The Comanche performs very well on MTOW in terms of runway length and climb rate. And the airframe is very well proven to perform well even when heavily overloaden, see the Max Conrad flights for one example. Another example for this is any Twin Comanche, which lacks at least 150 kg of payload (and typically up to 250kg) over the Single, it has the same MTOW, the identical airframe and structure but two engines. Not an issue for the single – which was one of the main reasons for me against the TwinCo. Otherwise I would’ve loved one.
As a sidestory, I’m checking if I can install the Auxiliary Fuel Tanks on my Comanche, as with them I would get about exactly the advertised Payload of a PA32.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Not sure about the Lance though, it should be faster with retracable gear
The Turbo’ed is advertised as around 175 kts, the NA around 150 kts true. It’s O.K. but e.g. 20% slower than a Comanche and even burning a bit more fuel.
@MedEwok, what you need is C182. No issue with headroom, no need to climb up on a wing to crawl into your airplane, amazing payload. Can get in and out of pretty much any strip. Not the fastest airplane ever made, but the Swiss Army Knife of SEP aircraft. If you need more space and speed, you could of course go for a C210, but that’s a pretty big step up in price and insurance because of the retractable gear. A C206/207 would also fit the bill, but they are rather hard to come by, as they are in demand as utility airplanes for cargo and meat bombing (aka skydiving).
For info: I am 188cm / 6’2" and have ample space in a C182 (even more in a C210) and have repeatedly flown with a friend who is your height. He had no problems either.
172driver wrote:
amazing payload
Not sure I agree. There is a C182 on our field and it’s payload is only 10 kg above that of our PA28-181!
