Achim,
looking at that drawing I it would indicate that Cessna themselfs use less than the maximum they really have? Because all the Cessna values are straight of their own website (172,182 and 400).
I understand that most of the values I read out from manuals e.t.c. are for the forward seats, that is where we as pilots and a possible right hand seater are. That in some airplanes the backseats are considerably smaller is a given. if you want to compare, you need to define a given measurement. I took manufacturers figures for all of the above, which in the case of the 182 seem very realistic.
I think the only real way to determine this is to measure the width at shoulder height and position of the front seats. In the Cessna case, you lose about 5 cm or more either side by measuring from door post to door post.
The only thing I can confirm was that the size was very important for me.
I tried just about everything and the Commander was the clear winner with the Cirrus coming in second. My Commander seats are better though.
The TB20 was to small allthough there are several versions apparently. I even tried a King Air and found it very cramped (especially the width). With Cessna 182 the height is fine but the width is not and thus I tend to sit offcenter in the seat which is very uncomfortable.
I could not find good pictures so I included 2 pictures from when I did a prepurchase testflight. I am 6f6 and usually need a size 58 or 60 for jackets.. The guy in the left seat is not very big.
Just measured the TB20.
At the elbow height, it is 45" (114cm) in the front and 46" (117cm) in the back.
The measurements are the internal ones i.e. taking account of the trim material. If you measure the bare hull width it will be a few inches more.
Peter – is that a GT (generation two) TB20? The earlier cabins are a little smaller.
Yes, but the metal part of the airframe is the same, AFAIK. Only the roof is taller.
I didn’t measure the height – what reference point would one be looking for?
I measured my Rallye (MS 893E) today:
a) Approximately elbow height, at the level just below where the canopy meets the fuselage (including interior trim) = 99 cm (39"). This measurement was taken along a line formed by the front edge of the front seats.
b) Cabin width at shoulder height = 107 cm (42"). I took this measurement where my shoulders are, slightly in front of the seat backs. Higher up you have more room because of the shape of the canopy and lack of metal, fabric trim, etc.
FWIW I find the Rallye more comfortable for two adults up front than a 172.
Just browsed the thread – it seems that width numbers for PA-32 is not here? I would guess it is wider up front than even the Commander and Cirrus – and problably the widest SE around. Middle row width about the same as TB-xx back seat?
Oh dear! I knew the Extra 400 felt roomy but after checking the numbers, here’s what they claim 139 cm or 54.7 inches “max cabin width”. If only it could fly too…
huv wrote:
ust browsed the thread – it seems that width numbers for PA-32 is not here?
Mooney Driver wrote:
Next in the close ball park is the Piper Saratoga/Seneca cabin with 48.25 inches
I suppose the Cherokee Six should be similar to the Saratoga and Seneca Cabin
