Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By davef77
#1280195
Lefty wrote:In the air - the most stable of the aircraft mentioned is the Rockwell 114 followed by the TB20/21. Both have relatively high wing loadings compared to the others. However the downside is that they need more runway.


I am not going to add anything to the advice on specific types, not really my type of aeroplane, but on a technical note I think that Lefty's comment is important.

High wing loading is what you need to cut through turbulence. I think you are looking for a high wing loading rather than "stability". That is a pretty simple thing to calculate even for types that you don't know well, just divide the all up weight by the wing area.

Rockwell Commander 3260 lb/163.8 sq ft = 19.9 lb per sq ft

PA28 2150 lb/160 sq ft = 13.4 lb per sq ft

It is pretty clear why something like the Rockwell doesn't get bounced around as much.

FYI Wikipedia has the numbers for most common types so you can work it out yourself!
By AFSAG
#1356914
only me!!

How crazily daft would I be if I still needed to carry 6 people 700nm, and was thinking about an aztec half share?

Andrew
User avatar
By RobertL
#1356927
How crazily daft would I be if I still needed to carry 6 people 700nm, and was thinking about an aztec half share?


Not crazy as this is well within the Aztec's capabilities, although the earlier models have the better useful load which can be close to 2,000 lbs for a 'C'. The 'D' and 'E' have a useful load of 1,800 lbs depending on equipment. Zero Fuel Mass limitation may apply if you are planning 6 plus luggage.

Apologies for stating the obvious, but feeding and watering a fixed gear Cherokee Six of similar vintage is a fraction of the cost of running an Aztec, and your passengers might appreciate two passenger doors. If the 700nm 6-up mission is only for 10% of the time, the Six may be a better bet.The Six should be good for 600 nm with VFR reserves.
By IMCR
#1356993
But as illogical as it maybe the passengers are going to love that extra engine.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1357062
IMCR wrote:But as illogical as it maybe the passengers are going to love that extra engine.


Apart from the cost of running a twin due to maintenance, fuel, licence upkeep etc a further blow to the twin market by the advent of the BRS in the Cirrus airframe.

Unless you regularly have to fly with more than 4 people a Cirrus is much more practical and cheaper to run.
By wsmempson
#1357108
Joe Dell wrote:I've rarely flown with more than 4 POB, but I'd still go for the Cherokee Six over a Cirrus. Especially if the initial outlay was down to me. Versatility and costs.


I don't have a copy of a w&b for the various models of Cirrus, but I seem to remember that a FIKI equipped SR22 G3 Turbo, with full fuel, is a 2 seat aircraft, albeit able to deal with most of the weather that could be thrown at you.

The C6, with full fuel and bags, will still take four proper sized adults, but doesn't have the nice gizmos, brs or FIKI capability.

Having owned both a Saratoga and a C6, I reckon that the C6 is a better strip machine (which may be important given the rate at which the big tarmac airfields are falling by the wayside in the UK) and load carrier, but the Saratoga rides turbulence rather better, and is quicker.

As ever, you need to be clear about what the mission profile is.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1357151
wsmempson wrote:Having owned both a Saratoga and a C6, I reckon that the C6 is a better strip machine (which may be important given the rate at which the big tarmac airfields are falling by the wayside in the UK) and load carrier, but the Saratoga rides turbulence rather better, and is quicker.

As ever, you need to be clear about what the mission profile is.


Sorry, if the mission includes strips then the Cirrus is no good.

The closely spatted small wheels are in my experience only good for paved runways and really smooth short shorn well drained grass runways.
By Arnold Rimmer
#1357168
AFSAG wrote:only me!!

How crazily daft would I be if I still needed to carry 6 people 700nm, and was thinking about an aztec half share?

Andrew


Very if your need to carry 6 people 700nm is once in a blue moon.

Do you still have the Grumman? Won't that do for most things?? Then hire a twin for the longer trips with more pax and then you could go for hiring a PA-31?
By simon_gci
#1357181
We've got a Piper Comanche PA24-260c with a few speed mods, the most stable single I've flown, it's a 4+2 but we are insured for 5, it has 6 hrs fuel(no reserves) and does 155 kts at 23/23, if you can find one they are great.
By G-JWTP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1357194
I'm with Simon on this one the PA 24 260C is a delight to fly. If you can find one, the 180 is very good.

Steer well clear of the 400.

G-JWTP
By IMCR
#1357209
As always lest we forget 4 seats are not what they seem. Even the Cirrus is weight challenged when it comes to four adults, luggage and range. So its not quite as simple as how often do you need six seats. The advantage with an Aztec is you can load it with four proper adults, luggage and full tanks without a second thought and not feel all that compressed inside. So infact if you have need to fly with four up regularly and six occasionally the vast majority of singles will still not cut the mustard.