Most "confortable" oldie 4 seater

[tcas83]

Hello,

As young (well..recent :} ) pilot, I compared so far C152 , C172 , PA28, and my personal criteria to choose an aircraft to fly with is confort and handling in turbulence. Meaning a higher wing loading (or other argument). C172 I found it better than C152 , but are there noticebly better aircrafts in this category (max 160hp) regarding this argument? , AA5 an musketeer have been quoted here or there...
I prefer also high wing, but not an obstacle
thank you !

[The Ancient Geek]

Try a 182.
More stable and a better load carrier than the 172.

[Camargue]

a 177rg is comfy and quite but a bit of a tank to fly. reasonable load carrier

[Pilot DAR]

Welcome tcas83. Also consider the Rockwell 112/114. Very roomy, and nice ride. Maintenance support could be a challenge though, do your homework well on this...

[Johnm]

Not quite sure why you set a 160 hp limit. My Archer 2 PA 28 181 was a full four seater and very comfortable.

[300hrWannaB]

I'd also suggest the entire Robin range of aircraft, eg DR400 as a starting point.

They knock the Rockwell and the TB10 series into a cocked hat when you look at the data side by side. Better still, try flying them side by side. Cruise Speed, fuel consumption, take off distance, landing distance, load carrying capability.
Flying DR400 and similar? Rock solid, and great for IMC.

It's a personal decision, but the advice I would suggest is to get out and about and try to fly as many different types as you can at this stage. Go places. Have fun.

[louras]

And nearly all the airclubs in France fly the DR400 range. If that is your location that's a point to consider..

[tcas83]

that's a lot of good informations and opinions thank you :)
I'm a bit surprised that I didn't find this topic because in a 3 hours trip thermal or geographic turbulences is what disturbs more/ Or maybe I just have to get used and relax ...
rockwell , TB10 , DR400 should be easy to find. 177RG less (I find this one gorgeous .. but wing loading more or less like 172 ?)
182 .. I guess cost of use a little high, but worth trying

[India Four Two]

I'm clearly showing my age, but none of the suggested aircraft qualify as "oldie 4 seaters" in my opinion. ;)

On a more serious note, the 182 is great, but expensive to operate. The fixed gear 177 is very nice. I don't have any experience of the DR400, but I've always wanted to try one.

[Capt Kremmen]

Old, but very good. Not many around but still to be found. Retractable - 90%. Constant speed. prop. Full four seater, four up, full fuel and baggage; non stop Cote d'Azure. French aircraft; Gardan Horizon and won't cost you a fortune.

[DirtyProp]

A C-152 a 4 seater??
And may I ask why the limit to 160 HP?

[louras]

A C-152 a 4 seater??

a little DYI? :)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/motndAUzGgNdgpqL6IlNS1uyj6cmXosbtc1HYMnpVPobnTCthcE81u9p4vjk yPB2aJcV2HBj7VSeZCD7uJ2c0jDAB3BsEXf-xXTY-nduWiVVbU70eA28dnnCtpM

[dobbin1]

Jodel D140. It is like flying an armchair.

[tcas83]

A C-152 a 4 seater??
And may I ask why the limit to 160 HP?
I quoted C152 just because is one of the few I know, to compare for the criteria flight stability / rough air
160hp obviously because of cost of use. Have to set a limit (180 may still be fine)

[The Ancient Geek]

How do you count cost ?
Hourly running cost is not always a good measure, Time and fuel from A to B may both be lower in a faster and more capable aircraft. Cost per seat mile is another good measure but more apropriate to airline operations than private use unless you actually fill the seats.

[150 Driver]

There is an option of back seats for a C150 so I guess there probably also is for a C152.

Cessna even ran 1960 style ads showing how much space a 150 had with a Mom, Dad, and two All American children ready to pile in with their suitcases. Suspect it was shot with a wide angle lens and the door removed.

They didn't go as far as to say it would get off the ground though.


See below
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/343804/6017229/1267796732047/1966-Cessna-150-2page-Ad.jpg?token=WunaxxcFhSjH%2B9M7nkUiDyhPftk%3D

[DirtyProp]

I quoted C152 just because is one of the few I know, to compare for the criteria flight stability / rough air
160hp obviously because of cost of use. Have to set a limit (180 may still be fine)
Fair enough.
What is your standard mission profile?
Are you flying for pleasure, just bimbling around or to go places with friends/family?
Rent or own?

[Local Variation]

Not seeing any rear seatbelts in the picture of that 152 '4 seater'.

[wsmempson]

Actually, if you set the bar at 200hp, that is a more significant break-point. Most aircraft in the category you are looking at will have lycoming 320 or 360's in them, which is essentially the same 4 cylinder engine, albeit some have fuel injection and wobbly props, and others don't. The major jump up in costs is going from a 4 cylinder to 6 cylinder lycoming.

Personally, I far prefer the fuel injected engines, if only for the reason of getting rid of the carb-icing issue, which just seems a bit antidiluvian to me. The extra power is nice too, and learning how to operate the wobbly prop is a non-issue and is very nice to have.

FWIW, when most people work the numbers on their weight and balance sheets, they generally discover that for anything other than a 'plane loaded with naked light-weight midgets, with no bags, flying for no more than 1 hour, with almost no fuel reserve, most 4 seaters are actually 2 seaters, and to actually lift 4 90 kg adults with bags over a decent distance, you actually need a 6 seater....

Have fun shopping and just remember that when it comes to internet forums, words of advice are like a55holes - everyone has one....:ok:

[tmmorris]

Another good word for the DR400. The one I used to fly was underpowered though - I'm told the -180 is the one to go for. Ours wasn't really a four seater.

Only possible though if you can keep it in a hangar. They don't like rain or being kept outside due to the wooden construction.

[tcas83]

I fly mostly only 2 onboard. that's why a 4 seater seems adequate for my use, if I use for 3/4 hours trips
I didn't exactly hear your opinions about flight stability in turbulences ;)

[Maoraigh1]

The most stable aircraft I've flown was the Piper Archer 1, 180 HP. The second would be the C172, well behind. I've never flown a bigger Cessna. I mainly fly a Jodel DR1050, and don't mind turbulence.

[A and C]

You can have a fly of my DR400-180 when I get it finnished, don't hold your breath it's yet to get the silver dope put on.

As for comfort I regularly did south Oxfordshire to Perpignan non stop and felt OK at the end of the flight but fitting a pee tube would be the only addition to the aircraft that I would recommend.

[Sam Rutherford]

Maule MX7 180...

[tmmorris]

Why thank you A and C, I'll take you up on that :-)

[Rod1]

Another DR400 vote. The 160hp will lift 4 and is a good compromise. I owned one for 4 years:)

Rod1

[A and C]

The DR400-160 is indeed a very good aircraft and probably the best of the DR400 bunch for the average club flyer, the extra 20 HP of the -180 results in a cruise speed only a few knots faster but it climbs better flys higher ( better TAS ) and lifts more payload and can have an extra 50 LT fuel tank fitted making it the DR400 to have if your mission profile is for a longer range.

In short there is no way to get more performance out of a fixed pitch four seat SEP. If you want more performance you have to start investing in CS props and retractable landing gear.