[Eric Parks]

Eric Parks on July 29, 2024 at 9:04 pm #22667

Logan,

I’m going to “second” what Scott said. I advise staying away from the turbo unless you really need high density altitude performance. The turbo adds weight, higher fuel burn and additional maintenance. In return you get better speed and climb performance at higher altitudes. If you are going to be flying at 10,000 ‘ and below you will be fine with the normally aspirated engine. I know it sounds great to say you have the turbo but it most likely won’t “earn” it’s keep if you don’t fly above 10K. My little Apache has 150 normally aspirated horse power per side. So a total of 300 hp. Very similar to the Cherokee 6. I have flown it quite a bit in the 8,000 to 11,500 foot range and while it would be nice to climb faster as I get to the higher altitudes I don’t feel any need for a turbo. In fact one of the reasons I like the higher altitude is that with “full throttle” and about 2200 rpm I still get a reasonable airspeed at that approx 60% power setting due to the thinner air and that is a good power setting for saving fuel and getting a little quieter cabin.

Another reason to consider the Cherokee 6 is the room in the cabin. It is wide and gives you the extra elbow room you don’t get in a lot of the other planes you may consider. Also, it has a baggage compartment both in the rear of the cabin as well as the nose. So lots of room to carry “stuff”. Trust me, that’s important!

Eric

[Scott]

Scott on July 28, 2024 at 3:57 pm #22657

Don’t get me wrong, I love a good turbo, but for everyday flying in the flatlands, you will be just fine with a normally aspirated PA-32, especially the 300 hp models. My answer would be different if you were in, say, Denver, and planned to be going back and forth across the Rockies frequently. 

While the kids are small, you’ll be operating well below its MTOW, probably by several hundred pounds. And even when you start schlepping teenagers, mountain bikes, camping gear, etc, you’ll still have a hard time reaching MTOW in the early PA-32s.

That low operating weight means performance. Check out the attached spec sheet from a 1973 PA-32-300. The empty weight for this model is around 1900 pounds (the book says 1864). If you, your wife, and your kids (currently) weigh 500 pounds, and then you bring full fuel (84 gallons = 504 pounds), you’ll be at the 2900 number used in the performance chart.

1350 fpm climb at 2900 pounds is nothing to sneeze at, and those takeoff and landing distances are pretty short. And should you want to bring a few friends, you’d still have 500 pounds of useful load!

The one downside I see to a PA-32 is that the IO-540 is a bit of a fuel hog. My buddy with a PA-32-300 says he plans for 15 gph. The Owner’s Manual says 16 gph at 75% cruise power. You can go a little slower and burn less; 12.7 gph at 60% power. If you plan to use the airplane mostly for family trips, the high fuel burn is probably worth it for the extra capability.If you find yourself flying it solo a lot, with one or two trips with the family over the course of the year, that 15-ish gph burn may be harder to justify.

For what it’s worth, a normally-aspirated Cessna 182 drinks 14 gph at 75%, 11 gph at 60%. A 180 hp airplane like Steve’s Comanche 180 (or my former Cherokee 180) will do about 10/8 gph, respectively. 

Attachments:

• PagesfromPiper-PA-32-300POH.jpg

[Logan Lyon]

Logan Lyon on July 28, 2024 at 12:15 pm #22655

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your input and advice. I have not made a purchase yet, just researching everything I can right now and I’ve come around to the same conclusion re:PA-32s.

I think a fixed gear PA-32 would be a good fit for my mission. I am also considering whether or not to consider a Turbo-charged engine. I live at ~1,100’MSL and don’t anticipate doing much mountain flying or getting into the flight levels. I’m not sure the juice is worth the squeeze, but I don’t really know.

[Scott]

Scott on July 28, 2024 at 12:53 am #22654

Hi Logan,

Maybe you’ve already purchased an airplane, but if not, I’d encourage you to take a close look at the PA-32 series. The airframe will be very familiar for a pilot with time in Warriors and Dakota. Massive rear passenger and cargo doors make loading easy. And the PA-32 is perfect for trips with a family of four, even as the kids grow up and get bigger. .

If you stick with the fixed-gear versions (I like the PA-32-300 for ‘best bang for your buck’) , your maintenance and operating costs will be comparable to a Cessna 182. And in terms of pure load-hauling capability and cabin space, the PA-32 is in a class above the 182.

Takeoff and landing performance in the PA-32 isn’t quite as good as a 182, but I have a few buddies with PA-32s at my home airport which is 3,000 feet long. They’re able to operate out of there just fine, even on the hottest days and with full loads. I wouldn’t get a PA-32 if backcountry Idaho was my primary mission, but then again, I have seen a few of them at Johnson Creek and Big Creek over the years, so even that is doable with some planning and practice.

[Logan Lyon]

Logan Lyon on June 26, 2024 at 2:00 pm #22572

Thanks for your help, Steve! 

[STEVE]

STEVE on June 26, 2024 at 1:48 pm #22571

Hi Logan,
The following is an answer I received when I asked about child seats on another site:
“I have had two different carseats in my Twinco (NOTE: Twin Comanche–still has a single door on the copilots side).  For my younger daughter I used a Cosco Scenera for some time.  The cosco seats are super light weight and easy to move around between cars and such, they’re also pretty affordable.  .  The Scenera worked ok as there was a tunnel for the belt to run through and there was just enough space to grab the tail and keep the belt tight.  For my older daughter I used a Cosco Finale, it worked OK… it doesn’t have a dedicated belt tunnel so there’s a lump in the child’s back where the flip buckle is..

Research indicates it’s an FAA approved seat.

I’d be grateful if you’d let me know what you found that worked.

Best,
Steve

 

[STEVE]

STEVE on June 24, 2024 at 12:21 pm #22570

Hi Logan,
Yes, the single door and having to step down into Piper singles is not ideal for dealing with child seats. The dual doors and belt level seats in Cessnas are much more manageable. 

I started in Cessnas, and although I did fly a PA 28 in my flight school, I much prefer Cessnas. I owned a 1966 Cessna 182J for a few years. Very stable, good useful load, can be converted into a pretty capable STOL airplane without a lot of work, lots of experienced mechanics, lots of parts and a pretty strong engine. Many consider the 182 the best all around airplane ever made.

Having said that, my needs have changed and I have been the happy owner of a 1960 Piper Comanche for the last 18 years. It’s my little two place airplane since it only has a 180 hp engine. It fits my mission perfectly.

The most important decision revolves around determining what is your most commonly flown mission. 

This magazine is paired with the Cessna Flyer magazine. It has also been published for quite a while and its webpage also have a forum that is also chocked full  of Cessna-centric information.

If you’d like a couple look see articles on the 172 and 182, I’ll try to get them for you.

Steve

[Logan Lyon]

Logan Lyon on June 24, 2024 at 11:46 am #22569

Thanks Steve,

I’ve considered jumping straight into a PA-32 which would solve just about all the space/convenience requirements, but would introduce other potential issues (such as higher initial & operating costs, takeoff & landing distances, etc). 

I’m also still pondering whether to reach for a long-term solution or to look for a simpler, more entry level option to get my feet wet and then after gaining more experience decide what specs & features I’d like to look for in a long-term ownership situation. In regards to small children, the smaller option stills remains plausible to me in a way that will diminish as they bet bigger. However, that hassle of wrangling them & out of a cramped back seat strikes me as a concern.

[STEVE]

STEVE on June 24, 2024 at 9:20 am #22568

Hi Logan,

I am reaching out for feedback from flyers on this subject since my nieces and nephews are long out of child seats.
I’ll relay what I learn.

I’d especially like for all Piper Flyer readers to weigh in here with their experiences with child seats in Piper singles.

You might want to consider buying more airplane that you presently need–those kids are gonna grow and the family may well turn out to enjoy flying vacations and trips.

Take a look at this article: https://www.piperflyer.com/articles/art-cats/60-magazine/article-archive/piper-models/piper-other/989-the-best-pipers-for-personal-travel.html.

It outlines the PA 28 line.

As a member, you can also go back into the archives. Click on the “magazine” tab to access Online archives of published magazines, article archives and Featured articles.

Best,
Steve 

[Logan Lyon]

Logan Lyon on June 23, 2024 at 12:44 pm #22567

Hello Piper Flyers (1st Post),

I’m getting back into flying after a long hiatus, this time with a wife and two young kids (2 and 0). I got my PPL in PA-28-161s long ago and participated in a Dakota partnership as well (which was great while it lasted), but now looking to acquire my own plane outright.

My primary mission will be 1+ hr hops to visit or ferry grandparents to and fro.

I’d like to know how much a of hassle is it to haul two baby/toddler sized kids (carseats/boosters,etc) around in a PA-28? I’m open to the idea a Cessna 172/182 for this purpose (easier access with two bigger doors), but my initial inclination to to stay with the airframe I’ve logged all my time on.

-Thanks