Roomy high wing options?

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

PMD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
496
Location
Martensville SK
What's interesting to me is that weights and power are basically LSA numbers x 2, which makes sense if you actually want to carry four people and their stuff. Payload with full fuel is 457 kg/1005 lb, so you could actually carry four adults and their stuff. The kicker is that you won't win any races because you need a big, high-lift wing and low weight -- cruise speed is 140 mph.
We get LSA=like numbers because we apply LSA like aerodynamics and technologiies. I can only think of Celera results to be reminded how far our collective head is stored up one orifice.
 

PMD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
496
Location
Martensville SK
If you define "full size" as maybe 200 pound people, then:

Cessna 175
Cessna 172/180HP
Piper PA-22-160 180HP conv.

If you define "full size" as 240 pound people shaped like bowling pins then you have to go over 200HP, but the stock older Cessna 182 probably gets pretty close.
The only one of the above that gets to Tiger useful load is an early 172/180 conversion. You can put 4 adults into these things, but the back seat needs "light ladies" and the baggage rack will be empty - if you are going to meet the numbers in the manual or supplement. BUT: ever actually fly one of the C Spam cans at full gross???? Certainly not very nice thing to do and stretching safety in high country. I have flown my Tiger and several others with 4 adults and it CAN be done, but even with its next order of magnitude of performance above the Brand C and P stuff, only did so at relatively conservative denalt. I wish I had the chance to fly a 22 with 180 but all of my short wing flying has been in Pa20 - that HAS an STC for O-360. IIRC, though, the Tripe chin air brake...er...nose gear doesn't clear the induction of 360 and there were/are other airframe limits that make it a very rare one-off. I would love to see a stretched/widened supercub 4 place with a 390 and 3 blade - it is about the only thing I can think of that could do the load, but sure wouldn't deliver much for speed. The M4-180C DID promise such numbers due to 1000+ useful and only 42 USG of fuel, but again my only knowledge is of one on floats that didn't have that much payload left over.

(on edit) FORGOT BD made a 180HP 7....1,100 lbs payload. Doesn't exactly exploit modern engineering but DOES carry the load - and provide some nice fuel options (up to 73 USG). It looks like they still list the SMA engine, but wonder if they ever delivered any?????
 
Last edited:

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
13,590
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
BUT: ever actually fly one of the C Spam cans at full gross????
Yup, C172 with three adult skydivers, back in the day of 30+ pound rigs, with the door off and 200+ F. 3,000 ft takeoff roll. (It was free flying for me, which was all that I could afford.)

It sure helped to know where the thermals were.


BJC
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,419
Location
Memphis, TN
I would think it’s called robustness. Since people are too cheap to have disposable airplanes they want ones like 182s and Mooneys.

What if you did have a light efficient plane but it had a 20 year calendar life? Robinson helicopters have 12 years before they have to be refurbished. Even if you don’t fly it. Cirrus has a moving life span on data as flight hours are accrued. If you bought one of the first, you technically had a ridiculous short life span and your bet the envelope was enlarged.

One breakup and you are a foot note or an example in a history book. Cirrus and Diamond are porky airplanes with good aerodynamics. If they weighed as much as a Cessna and had the same aero, they really would be world beaters. People are clumsy. You can have a paper thin homebuilt that the owner guards; lots of performance numbers can be called out. Add to it what a couple of ten year olds sitting in the back can do with chocolate milk and really sharp pencils. Not worried about a Cessna. I know a Cirrus is good to. Had to clean it. People don’t sit like monks. They want to stretch. Twist. You going to pop a glue joint or bend a tube?

You can say you have an efficient 4 seater, but if it can’t be treated like a certified plane, you have a toy.
 

PMD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
496
Location
Martensville SK
In my rather i
Yup, C172 with three adult skydivers, back in the day of 30+ pound rigs, with the door off and 200+ F. 3,000 ft takeoff roll. (It was free flying for me, which was all that I could afford.)

It sure helped to know where the thermals were. BJC
In my even more ignorant youth, I believed what the locals were telling me you COULD fly 4 adults in a 145HP C172. One of two times in my life I was not sure I was going to clear the fence. Had to get it over cooler water to be able to climb out of ground (water?) effect. Could not imagine doing that more than once!
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
13,590
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
I had clear departures, and, in one direction, after clearing about 20’, two miles of water.

4830918C-599E-4770-8A2B-32C0F415CEC4.png

BJC
 

edwisch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2020
Messages
84
If you define "full size" as maybe 200 pound people, then:

Cessna 175
Uh, no. I used to own a Cessna 175 with 180 HP, constant speed prop. Lotsa power, lotsa thrust, but... it was the older style (straight tail) fuselage just like a Cessna 172, but the gross weight was only 50# heavier than a C172, and it held 10 gallons more fuel, which ate up the 50# and then some.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
15,419
Location
Memphis, TN
Now you are adding a caveat that you want to climb like a solo flown plane. It’s all in fun I hope for the discussion. Seats filled is advertising to a design. People can count people. 4 people is 4 people. You start talking weight and buyers have no clue what 834 pounds is. There only needs to be four GA airplane designs. J3 Cub, 172, big Bonanza, KingAir. Buy an airline ticket for anything else. You want anything in between, move up. That is what people are asking of a design. Sneaking between is trying to cheat the fact you need the bigger airplane.
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
578
I realy like the idea of a four place,cantelevered
high wing,thats sits high enough when parked to walk under the wing,(6’+),doors that fold up,or slide back,and basic car like amenities for
passengers.Cruise for me at 110 knots would be fast enough,as long as there was power enough to climb when overloaded.
And making it kid proof/safe could be seen as
an absolute requirement for any four place design.
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
5,246
Location
Mojave, Ca
...Mike is that still available?
Yep. No engine or prop, but the rest is ready for the taking. Have your guy contact me when he's moved past the 'hot air" stage (I'm flexible on price, but hot air is not a form of currency I need more of)
 

Apsco17

Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
9
Seems to me like this thread’s target was hit at the first mention of a BD-4. Just a wild guess but I bet there are a few knots to be found in it yet too...
I am building a BD-4C, having test flown the company plane in 2019 before buying the kit. With an IO-360, C/S prop and wheel (not nose) pants, we were truing 165 KTAS at 5500', 80+ degrees with two of us and about 20 gals of fuel. They've put a nose gear fairing on since I flew it. Bede is building a new demo plane with an IO-390 and C/S prop. They are also collaborating to have a source for an alternative engine/prop/cowl kit; IFR avionics kit; a ballistic parachute option and an interior finish kit.

Specs are a 2400 lb gross wt, a 1250 lb build weight (probably a bit more for most builds) leaving 1050 - 1150 lbs for fuel and people/bags. The rear seats doesn't have huge legroom, most planes don't but the width is there at 46".

I agree with you Tim that a BD-4C should hit more of the OP's requirements than most aircraft and they also have the builder assist option to get it done quicker.

Todd
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,636
Location
USA.
You are correct. The Piper Archer is a very good traveling machine. LG down and welded, fixed pitch prop for low cost. Rides good in turbulence and no problem with a strong crosswind.

My Falconar F-12 was a good traveling machine for a 2 seater with lots of baggage . -- 1700 fpm at GW of 1700 lbs with a EW of 937 lbs. Get to altitude quick for faster cruise speeds over the 150 mph at 75% down low. But, like any taildragger, had to stay awake on landing.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
9,569
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
My one experience flying a 145 HP Cessna 172 'at gross' was with three big people and full tanks. A friend of mine was stranded at an airport that I had visited with one other guy. His Lycoming starter took a s**t on the ramp at California City, and I had flown in for cheap gas with addicted2climbing from this forum. I had taken the rear seat out of the 172 and always operate it as a 2 seater, so poor A2C had to crawl in the back on the floor. Quite an indignity for the smartest guy in the room :)

So all three of us were well over 200 pounds, freshly stuffed with lunch at the airport restaurant, and I had mostly filled up the 172. I'm guessing it was at or slightly over gross. It was over 100 degrees, and my airplane has a cruise prop! Fortunately Cal City has 6300 feet of pavement; we used about 2/3 of it on the ground and the rest of it in ground effect, so I could get the RPM up to 2500. Then a slow climb a 90 mph to keep air flowing through the cooling system. Worked fine, even got up high enough to go over the hills south of Palmdale instead of through the canyons.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,636
Location
USA.
Daughter and son-in-law had a 1963 Cessna 172 with the Lyc-360 conversion, fixed pitch prop, battery moved from firewall to rear of the baggage area, stc 200 lb increase in GW. Good all around airplane. Great panel with autopilot coupled to everything. Only negative is the shorter range with the standard fuel tanks.
Latter they had a Piper Colt with the Tailwheel conversion, and the Lyc- 160 hp conversion. Fun airplane. Negative- cruised at 75% power was only 3mph below redline. Great ROC.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,636
Location
USA.
My one experience flying a 145 HP Cessna 172 'at gross' was with three big people and full tanks. A friend of mine was stranded at an airport that I had visited with one other guy. His Lycoming starter took a s**t on the ramp at California City, and I had flown in for cheap gas with addicted2climbing from this forum. I had taken the rear seat out of the 172 and always operate it as a 2 seater, so poor A2C had to crawl in the back on the floor. Quite an indignity for the smartest guy in the room :)

So all three of us were well over 200 pounds, freshly stuffed with lunch at the airport restaurant, and I had mostly filled up the 172. I'm guessing it was at or slightly over gross. It was over 100 degrees, and my airplane has a cruise prop! Fortunately Cal City has 6300 feet of pavement; we used about 2/3 of it on the ground and the rest of it in ground effect, so I could get the RPM up to 2500. Then a slow climb a 90 mph to keep air flowing through the cooling system. Worked fine, even got up high enough to go over the hills south of Palmdale instead of through the canyons.
Flew in a 1966 C-172 with 4 people with the C-300 , 145 hp engine Two in front seat at about 220 each, one is rear seat at about 140 lbs and the other at about 96lbs soaking wet. Night time and maybe 60 degrees AOT.
Few my straight tail C-172's with 3 people, my limit.
 
Top