high performance 4 seater with good (~1200lbs) useful load and space for skis inside?

[-]

Euryheli@reddit

I understand you wanting to stay under max landing weight, but practically speaking it doesn’t make sense. You take off with the intention of flying somewhere, you’re not landing unless it’s an emergency, and that’s not going to stop you landing over weight. You’re just wasting money and capability treating that number as max gross weight.

[-]

HumbleOpposite8508@reddit (OP)

yeah logically it does make sense. practically i always have the weird fear of “ok if my engine is dying or my passenger is dying yes ofc i will do an overweight landing! but what if someone just have to pee, or need to throw up real quick?”

but no those have NEVER happened with the 50 passengers ive taken so yes youre right 😂 i should stop being such a wuss

[-]

Ancient_Narwhal_9524@reddit

An overweight landing in something like a 182 is also no big deal. There are certification requirements that the airplane has to withstand impacting the ground at a certain vertical velocity without damage. So as long as you don’t slam it in it won’t hurt anything and is a non-event.

[-]

Euryheli@reddit

Realistically, you tell people to pee before hand, and you don't have enough time if they are going to throw up. Also think about the logistics of taking off, and immediately returning so someone can pee. That's a lot of time and gas, better carry a gatorade bottle or the female equivalent. I bet you find that most people would find that they can hold it until you get where you're going or you're farther along the journey and have burned some gas.

[-]

primalbluewolf@reddit

Cherokee Six. Yeah its a "7" seater, not a 4.... but it has the space and the useful payload, and its high performance.

[-]

SavingsPirate4495@reddit

Yup! Flew a Cherokee 6 with the 280HP motor for Angel Flight…someone else owned it. If you can fit it in the door, you can take it. Excellent utility on that platform! 👍🏻👍🏻

[-]

primalbluewolf@reddit

Neat, don't know that one. Ours is a 300, I knew of the 260 also. So many different variations...

[-]

SavingsPirate4495@reddit

My apologies...I will have to crawfish on that, Primal.

I just looked and saw the PA-32 Cherokee Six was only available in 260hp or 300hp.

I KNOW for a fact it had the larger engine (and thought it was 280hp), so it was the 300hp Lycoming O-540...PA-32-300.

[-]

primalbluewolf@reddit

Ah, I assumed you had found some STC for an engine I didn't know of. The 300 is nice.

[-]

HumbleOpposite8508@reddit (OP)

it frankly looks awesome!!! i just feel like it’s a waste to fly it by myself. but then the fuel burn (and the selling price!) isn’t that different from a 182…

[-]

primalbluewolf@reddit

If you want the space, I don't think many singles beat it.

You can go quicker, or you can burn less fuel, but you can't go bigger or carry more without spending more - either on the plane, or at the pump, or both.

[-]

redditburner_5000@reddit

Later model 35 Bonanza with a ski tube.

Or buy a later 35 Bonanza and find the drawings for a ski tube to do a field approval.

[-]

equal2infinity@reddit

I wouldn’t go with a 35 series if you wanna carry 4 people and bags. I run out of rear CG before I run out of useful load.

[-]

redditburner_5000@reddit

Need a good CG. Mine was 76 and change. One of the best I've ever seen. I don't know who is buying the planes with an 82 or something. Lots of unusable useful load.

[-]

equal2infinity@reddit

Mines around 79 after the avionics update. Would be nice to have it a little lower.

[-]

mrb13676@reddit

How often will you need skis in the airplane? Is it not worth having something smaller and renting skis? It’s a boring answer but unless you need the ski space every weekend I’d be looking at the Dakota….

[-]

acniv@reddit

High performance? Like a jet?

Twin Comanches have around or over 1200lbs useful load, 4 seats and can handle 200 lb baggage compartment.

[-]

Mundane-Reality-7770@reddit

Pa32

[-]

N70968@reddit

I have a PA32, and it's a true 4 seater. You can go 4 adults + baggage + full fuel. We also made a cargo platform that can go where the rear seats are, giving a pretty spacious area for all kinds of stuff.

[-]

HumbleOpposite8508@reddit (OP)

quite the dream. yeah i was looking at 4 place planes bc there are a lot of scenarios where i just fly with 2 people haha, but now im intrigued enough to maybe jump on this cherokee 6 train. how do you guys think the pa32 compare to bonanzas?

[-]

N70968@reddit

The bonanzas will be faster, but you pay for that with room and useful load. I like the room and I’m not in a hurry. The pa32 is a versatile platform, and I’ve literally stuffed the back full and still been under max.

[-]

Mundane-Reality-7770@reddit

Agreed. Cherokee six driver here. A 4 place is really a 2 plus bags. A 6 is a 4 plus bags.

[-]

Rangeexpert3@reddit

A lot of aircraft will have higher takeoff loads than landing loads. The useful loads depending on the 182 model can highly vary. There's also an STC that increases the useful load in the 182 even further. Lookup the STC and see which models it applies to and go from there.

[-]

FlyingShadow1@reddit

The price you're going to spend on a 206 is going to be identical to a 182, especially if it's a non-turbo 206.

I'd go for the 206 and not overthink it.

[-]

iamkolya@reddit

Sounds like you need a Piper Cherokee 6/300. Tons of space, high power, good useful load. Very stable and comfortable airframe, reliable Lychoming IO540.

[-]

bhalter80@reddit

A36 Bo will do it. The skiis will be between the left and right pax

[-]

HumbleOpposite8508@reddit (OP)

ugh. bo would be the dream

[-]

bhalter80@reddit

If you take higher time or ones with old KDH they can be had in the 250s

[-]

blaztoff@reddit

Socata TB-20. I cruise 145 knots 1175 usefull load at 11.8 G

Such a smooth plane to fly. And beautiful

[-]

HumbleOpposite8508@reddit (OP)

wow that is beautiful. do you think it can fit skis inside somehow?

[-]

HumbleOpposite8508@reddit (OP)

interesting! i’ll look into this

[-]

gamefreak32@reddit

Some Mooney owners built a 'ski tube' that was basically a box that went from the rear baggage compartment back into the tail. You could slide skis or fishing rods inside the box. Also have seen them on Bonanzas.

I would imagine you could do the same for a Dakota.

https://www.sipesaircrafttulsa.com/specialties.html

[-]

theanswriz42@reddit

That's pretty neat! Though unfortunately you're unlikely to get a 1200lb useful load in a Mooney.

[-]

D-Dubya@reddit

There's been similar ski tube setups done in bonanzas as well.

[-]

CompassSwingTX@reddit

A36 Bonanza.

[-]

Sad-Umpire6000@reddit

PA-32. Big useful load, especially in the older fixed gear models, lots of room inside, easy to load with the double door on the left rear.

[-]

SubarcticFarmer@reddit

So to be clear, you don't want a useful load alone, but you want your useful load to keep you under any max landing limitations and not just takeoff?

As others have said, take 2 seats out of a 6 seat aircraft.

[-]

rawdawginskies@reddit

Comanche pa-24 250/260’s. 1200lb useful load, faster than a 182

[-]

Mustang_289@reddit

Errbody sleeping on the Comanche Tribe.

[-]

setthrustpositive@reddit

Cessna 205/206, Murphy Super Rebel, bearhawk or cessna 180 with ski tube

[-]

shrunkenhead041@reddit

The P and Q models have a paperwork STC available to increase MGTOW by 150# to 3,100#.

What most don't realize is that you rarely need full fuel in a 182. 75 gal usable is a lot. Cruise burn is 13 or less gph if you don't push it and know how to lean. Leave fuel on the ground and instant cabin payload increase. You're not going to get a 182 out of CG limits except with two big guys up front (in which case you put a case or two of water in the back).

[-]

EliteEthos@reddit

Kodiak 100 or 900

[-]

segelflugzeugdriver@reddit

Bear hawk

[-]

InvestigatorOne2@reddit

Why not buy a 182P?

I had no issues finding one with >1100lbs useful load. Mine has plenty of optimization left to be done (vacuum delete, remove legacy avionics and antennas, lightweight rear jump seats, etc).

You could probably get pretty close to your number if you're dead set on it.

[-]

HumbleOpposite8508@reddit (OP)

yeah it sounds like the best way forward rn, but just curious if there are better options out there that i’m not seeing!

[-]

perispomene@reddit

There are STC kits that can increase useful load on a 182.

https://www.wingxstol.com/

Given the 2950 gross weight mentioned, your friend probably had that one.

[-]

rFlyingTower@reddit

This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:

tldr: is there a plane with the space of a 182 and useful load of a dakota

recently took a ski trip in a 182P - it was awesome! we fold down one of the back seats, and it perfectly fit me+2 guy friends+our skis+4 hours of fuel. we were just below max landing weight (2950lbs) and everything worked out beautifully.

it was so great that i started looking on the market, but brutally i saw 182s with terrible useful loads (<1000lbs, or barely over 1000lbs if using the max takeoff weight instead of max landing weight). i might be a little too paranoid about staying around max *landing* weight for departure, just in case someone on board has a bladder emergency.

i then saw a dakota and thought heyyyy that magically solved my useful load problem! … until i went to see the interior space. no way for the skis to fit in there 😞

i’m not sure if there’s a plane out there that kinda has the best of both worlds, or maybe i should just stick to trying to find an older 182 model that’s lighter? i don’t really care about cruise speed but i do want a high performance plane for high altitude airports. bonanzas/cherokee 6s would work for this mission but since i don’t have a family, idk if i want a 6 seater for regular non ski-season flying…

Please downvote this comment until it collapses.

Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.