Small planes for Big people?

[New_PIC]

I'm well on my way to finally finishing my PPL and I'm curious about my options. A plane of my own is likely out of reach but I thought I'd check the ads to see for sure. I also started looking up performance specs online to get a rough idea, and that's where I'm finding a problem. I'll need to know this for renting as well.

Between my girlfriend and myself, we weigh 530 lbs. Save the jokes, please. I'm working with the numbers I have. In a Cessna 152 that doesn't leave room for any fuel! A Piper 140 might carry us but only with partial fuel and the little woman has to sit in the back for balance. So we've got to consider larger aircraft like a Cessna 172 or a Piper 161/180, etc. I'm researching other planes too but does anyone have suggestions for less common but still reasonably inexpensive planes that might work and that I may have overlooked so far? A wider cabin would be a bonus too.

[co-joe]

Perhaps tandem seating might work better for you. That way you aren't overlapping. So something like a Bellanca Citabria or Scout. they're tail wheel so that brings other hurdles for your training and I don't remember them being particularily roomy but I flew the mighty 150 and had some bigger students and it's uncomfortable and impractable.

[AirFrame]

I know a couple in the same large-format boat as you and they happily fly a 172. He has a Rec Permit and they never take passengers, so their 172 makes a rather capable two-place aircraft.

For tandem seating (and a bit more money) you could look for an L-19 Birddog (or Cessna 305). It's basically a Cessna 170 that's had one seat removed up front and one removed in the back, leaving a tandem seat aircraft with lots and lots of shoulder (and hip) room. It's a blast to fly, too. As co-joe points out, the tailwheel would require further training, but hey, if you've spent 45 hours in a Cessna learning to fly, it's about time you learned what your feet were for.

If you're a little more ambitious yet, Van's Aircraft's latest amateur-built design, the RV-14, was developed specifically for your demographic. It's targeted at Americans, but the more amply sized Canadians can benefit from it as well.

[CpnCrunch]

You can get a nice 1950s/60s vintage 172 with an O-300 for around 30k these days, and it will carry about 650lbs of payload with full fuel. Just make sure you buy one that's been well maintained, otherwise you'll spend another 30k fixing it up

The older 172s are the best bang for your buck in my opinion if you want a 4 seater. Older cherokees are cheap too if you don't mind the cramped cockpit, single door and low wing.

[black hole]

Check out the piper PA-22 Colt. Best value for your money if you don't mind something a little older. The one I had had a 935 lb empty weight and gross at 1600.

BH

[iflyforpie]

A couple of things can help you out when choosing a plane

First, planes are too heavy. Most people add things to planes rather than taking them away. All you need is a nice slimline flip flop and a portable GPS, yet there are still tons of planes out there with ADFs, NAV radios, single-axis autopilots, LORAN-Cs, and older panel-mount, text-only GPSs. If you look for a plane that is bare-bones, chances are it will not only weigh less but cost less too. You can even get more extreme and remove the vacuum system and gyros provided it isn't required equipment on the Type Certificate (anyone flying a Cessna without a functioning $2000 SafeAir lift detector take note ) or for your type of flying.

Second, pick the smallest engine. The difference between 115 and 150HP, or 150 to 180HP is nothing to write home about.. ..especially when you have to tanker all of that extra fuel for the more thirsty engine. Your plane will go just a little bit faster, but not enough to compensate for the extra fuel burn.

Third, travel light. When I see people driving in SUVs or minivans I am absolutely perplexed at how much crap they feel they have to take with them. Larger airplanes are the same way..... doing an annual inspection and it is an extra hour of shop time just to unload and load their plane off all the junk.

Fourth, lose weight. I've hated diets and exercise most of my life, but being able to fit in a smaller plane and carry some extra stuff has motivated me.... plus the healthy side-effects.

[Dash-Ate]

Standard weights all the way
But Seriously how's the W&B. Is she like 125lbs...I might have said too much.

[Beefitarian]

That's the only reason I've really had to want to lose weight.

I have been obsessed with trying to reduce my portions for a few months this year before last week. Getting weird cravings. Exercising, I'm down two sizes in jeans, so 4 inches circumference. Finally got under 250 pounds but can't stay there.

Rental planes mostly 172. There used to be a couple of Warrior IIs here but they were sold to make way for diamond 20s. There is a DA-40 but it is pricey.

Hang in there.

[PilotDAR]

The most likely planes to realistically meet your expectations will be a 180HP fixed gear Cessna 177, or 182. Some 172's would be okay too, but some would disappoint you. Removing the back seat of any plane in which you do not expect to use it, will get you back 30+ pounds.

Avoid aircraft types which have the seat belts attached to the seat frame itself, you want the seat belts attached to the floor or other primary structure.

Fly before you buy.

[GGCC]

Perhaps tandem seating might work better for you. That way you aren't overlapping. So something like a Bellanca Citabria or Scout. they're tail wheel so that brings other hurdles for your training and I don't remember them being particularily roomy but I flew the mighty 150 and had some bigger students and it's uncomfortable and impractable.

Pretty hard to flare a Citabria on landing if you and/or your passenger have excessive baggage in the front....akin to "junk in the trunk"

[CFR]

Perhaps tandem seating might work better for you. That way you aren't overlapping. So something like a Bellanca Citabria or Scout. they're tail wheel so that brings other hurdles for your training and I don't remember them being particularily roomy but I flew the mighty 150 and had some bigger students and it's uncomfortable and impractable.

Pretty hard to flare a Citabria on landing if you and/or your passenger have excessive baggage in the front....akin to "junk in the trunk"

I can attest to that. When I had the worse case of "Dunlop's Disease" - (my belly Dun Lopped over my belt) pulling all the way back could be a challenge. It did however inspire me to begin my ARP - Ass Reduction Program, with the motto "Trading Ass for Gas - every 6 lbs is a gallon of gas". 35 pounds so far, over 50 minutes of extra fuel.

[Beefitarian]

Good work on the 35 pounds CFR. If it was easy I'd be 190 again, years ago. I have flown most of ny cross country hours after doing partial fuel calculations.

[Shiny Side Up]

Avoid aircraft types which have the seat belts attached to the seat frame itself, you want the seat belts attached to the floor or other primary structure.

I didn't think you could have seat belts not attached to the primary structure?

[jamesel]

Wasn't required in the old days. I remember Stearman(s) and Citabria's off the top of my head as having the seat belt attached to the seat frame. If you look at the seats of that "you'all" yellow Decathlon, you'll probably see one belt attached to the airframe, one attached to the seat frame. This was enough of a problem that Aerobatics Canada/International Aerobatic Club used to specify that in order to compete in any category, you needed two seat belts - one of which was not attached to the seat.

[PilotDAR]

I didn't think you could have seat belts not attached to the primary structure?

Sure you could. Lots of planes have seat belts attach to the seat frame, not the airframe. Most GA aircraft have seats which move within the airframe, or are removable, and thus might not be connected to the primary structure with the integrity one might expect. Having the seat belt attach to the seat rather than the airframe simplifies dealing with changing seat belt lengths with the seat moving.

In nearly all of these aircraft, those seats are only approved to hold safe a 170 pound occupant. The seat belt might hold a greater load, but if the seat structure (plus having to carry the loads of its own weight too) won't carry the loads that the seat belt imposes upon it, there's not much point!

One of my client's aircraft, involved in an accident, had seats break away from the floor, with the occupants still belted in. These are seats which I refused to load test, when such test was required for approval in that aircraft. I'm glad that I refused to test or approve these seats.

I have a Cessna 172 seat belt attachment fitting, which was bolted directly to the floor. It was pulled right out through the floor during the crash. The seats of that accident aircraft also broke away from the floor. The seats would have broken away a lot sooner if the seat belt loads went into them, rather than directly into the floor.

Our last line of personal defense against injury is remaining in place in the aircraft during the crash. Seat belts are the only way that is going to happen. Neither seat belts, nor seats were designed for occupants whose weight exceeds 170 pounds, except for some specific special purpose aircraft. Those occupants who exceed 170 pound (including me) have to remind themselves that their safety is reduced proportionately to the amount of their weight which exceeds 170 pounds, as that is all that the plane is designed for and certified to. So best to mitigate that risk by not allowing a weakened or damaged seat frame become a part of the path of load capacity for personal security. Belt to the primary structure, and bypass the seat....

This is only a bad idea when the seat belt is attached to primary structure which might be torn right away with the belts attached, during the crash. The old arrangement of attaching the back seat lap belts to the aft float fittings through the fuselage skin comes to mind. If the floats are torn off entirely the seat belts could go with them, and that would be very bad for the occupant!

[CFR]

Good work on the 35 pounds CFR. If it was easy I'd be 190 again, years ago. I have flown most of ny cross country hours after doing partial fuel calculations.

Thanks Beef, and it was/is indeed work. But the goal is 200 lbs (40 to go) so I can fly full tanks with a pax and a some bags.

cheers

[iflyforpie]

Gosh... I'd better get my butt into gear going to 200 from 220 (230 from October to April). The torrential rain hasn't exactly been conducive to my 12km uphill both ways bicycle commute.... and I hate exercise for exercise's sake....

[New_PIC]

Good work on the 35 pounds CFR. If it was easy I'd be 190 again, years ago. I have flown most of ny cross country hours after doing partial fuel calculations.

I was darned close to 190 myself, not that many years ago when I was doing ironman triathlons. People kept asking if I was sick. I started slacking off on the training because of a bunch of other life issues and then curtailed it completely when I started back too fast and hurt myself. The injury is proving tough to fix. My girlfriend is actually heavier than I am and a good cook. She's working on it too though, and even seeing a professional dietician lately. Still, I can't do a W&B calculation with the weights we hope to get down to.

Thanks everyone for all the great ideas!

[Shiny Side Up]

Sure you could. Lots of planes have seat belts attach to the seat frame, not the airframe. Most GA aircraft have seats which move within the airframe, or are removable, and thus might not be connected to the primary structure with the integrity one might expect. Having the seat belt attach to the seat rather than the airframe simplifies dealing with changing seat belt lengths with the seat moving.

Not that I'm doubting that they're out there, but I don't think its common, at least in GA aircraft. All of the Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcraft and Diamond models I've seen have the seat belts anchored to the primary structure. The seats aren't always anchored but the seat belts are. For example, the rear seat in the Cherokee series isn't even really attached, but held into its bracket by the weight of the passenger, the belts themselves still anchored to the structure. Every Cessna has the same seats on the same tracks and are interchangeable up to the point of new production (where they went to the better seat rail design, and heavier duty one as well) Belts in all cases still anchoerd to the airframe. Diamonds of course the seat itself is part of the airframe (and an uncomfortable part of the airframe at that).

I can't remember off hand if the belts are attached to the structure on the Boeing.. though I do remember examining it last I was on one. Inquiring mind and all that you know.

[iflyforpie]

I can't remember off hand if the belts are attached to the structure on the Boeing.. though I do remember examining it last I was on one. Inquiring mind and all that you know.

Stearman? Not sure.

If you are referring to the jet propelled ones, all seat belts including flight crew seats are attached to the seat frames themselves... with the exception of some F/A seats. Good thing they bumped up the certification standards to 16Gs.

[photofly]

Not that I'm doubting that they're out there, but I don't think its common, at least in GA aircraft. All of the Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcraft and Diamond models I've seen have the seat belts anchored to the primary structure.

Not true. In a C182, the front seat belts are anchored to the floor but the rear set belts are anchored to the rear seat frame. I believe that's the same for the C172.

[Beefitarian]

When I turned 37 My appetite went down but I conquered that problem.

Best advise I got was from a member here, Expat. Eat little old lady portions. I try to drinks as much water as I can too.

So what kind of loads can I get in one of those husky's.

[Shiny Side Up]

Not that I'm doubting that they're out there, but I don't think its common, at least in GA aircraft. All of the Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcraft and Diamond models I've seen have the seat belts anchored to the primary structure.

Not true. In a C182, the front seat belts are anchored to the floor but the rear set belts are anchored to the rear seat frame. I believe that's the same for the C172.

I stand corrected then, I had to go crawl under the seat to see. Not sure if that's the case for all of the 182s though (I'm going by the 180 I checked in the back of) I believe the later models (the 'S' for instance) its anchored to the airframe. The 172s are not anchored to the seat, this I am intimately familiar with.

Stearman? Not sure.

If you are referring to the jet propelled ones, all seat belts including flight crew seats are attached to the seat frames themselves... with the exception of some F/A seats. Good thing they bumped up the certification standards to 16Gs.

I was thinking the last time I was a passneger in a 737, I remember looking to see (and finding a disconcerting screw rolling around on the floor). Unfortunately I haven't had enough time to become intimately familiar with the Stearman, though it seemed the whole thing inside was just airframe, so not sure what else the belts might be attached to.

[Beefitarian]

Those Huskys must have me hypnotized. I meant to say, "American Champion".

[CFR]

Those Huskys must have me hypnotized. I meant to say, "American Champion".

American champion makes a number of models but the commonly called Citabria (the 7ECA Aurora) seems to be most available for rent.

A new 7ECA or an old one with factory new wings has a 420 lb payload with full fuel. I have flown aerobatics in it with 1/2 tanks and an instructor.

Nice plane, lots of fun and can be landed in some pretty tiny places. No flaps so you get a lot of practice slipping, but in a full slip it drops quite well. They were definitely on my list of planes to consider when I was looking to buy. The only thing that really held me back was the cruise speed. In a headwind it can be a long day getting anywhere!