I had long been wondering, and some recent threads make the subject current.
Comparing planes to road vehicles, I am out of the average more than even on most matters: my road vehicle is a Fiat Ducato van, with a homebrew bed and kitchenette. Diesel powered, of course. 3,0 litre, common rail, 180 HP. I’ve run the beast at 170 km/h and that wasn’t the limit but the steering began to feel very light. Solid, fast if I really want to and to hell with the fuel cost, but above all: spacious. I always believed my plane to be the exact counterpart: modest (it certainly is that, and looks like it!) slow (80 kts cruise) and cramped – but this last point I am beginning to doubt. I tried sitting in my club’s Cessna’s and was mainly surprised at the very upright position, I think that adds to the frontal area without any real need. In my microlight I feel seated a bit like an astronaut, my feet scarcely lower than my bum, yet quite quite comfortable. And when I once was kindly invited as a passenger on a PA32, I was quite surprised to have less room both sideways and above my head – the cockpit ceiling felt very close, and me not really tall at 1,83 metre.
So in what cockpit would I really feel at ease? I once visited a Pilatus Porter and that cockpit was like the Ducato’s, spacious and with amenities like a full width shelf – the salesman grinned about its most common use being to hold the crew’s lunchboxes. But such planes will not come within my budget unless I get targeted by a rather rich and equally mad widow. Not really likely.
Try the Commander. But then it’s comparatively slow for the horsepower obviously.
Cirrus is, for a fact, one of the most comfortable and spacious aircraft.
Bonanzas are much tighter, but still very nice, due to very good visibility.
Robins have very good visibility, thus convey spaciousness, but are effectively cramped.
On the lower cost side, I don’t know. One note is that whilst the C150/2 are very cramped, the PA38 (which does essentially the same thing), is quite spacious for two. I liked it when I once used it for touring through Texas a bit.
The P92 microlight always felt very cramped to me. The Eurostar SLW is much more comfortable and spacious.
In general, one shouldn’t underestimate the importance of cabin height, vs. cabin width. As I said, Bonanza cabins are narrow, but high, and that gives you a sense of spaciousness nonetheless.
TBs are the contrary: relatively wide, but with a low ceiling. Gives me a claustrophobic feeling.
I once visited a Pilatus Porter and that cockpit was like the Ducato’s, spacious and with amenities like a full width shelf – the salesman grinned about its most common use being to hold the crew’s lunchboxes
Sounds like the Pawnee 
More like a tractor inside, pedals wide apart, and very comfortable.
I have made similar complaints in the past. The Learjet is very uncomfortable for anyone above average height, and after about 2 hours in the seat you develop “Learjet arse” and no amount of shifting in the seat will make you comfortable. The 737 is nearly as bad, though the seat adjustment allows for more stretching, though you still can’t stand up straight in the flight deck.
Part of the issue is the also the seat width available. My VW hatchback is much more comfortable than any aircraft I’ve flown. and has nice side pieces. I suspect but don’t know that crash worthiness G requirements may have something to do with it too as your car seat is designed to withstand Gx not Gz whereas an aircraft seat has to withstand both.
If there’s one thing I love about the Cirrus it’s the cabin and the cockpit. The aircraft is smaller than a F33 Bonanza, but the cabin is really very roomy and comfortable.
No reason why aircraft seats can’t be properly padded and absorb G. If anything padding should help!
TBs are the contrary: relatively wide, but with a low ceiling. Gives me a claustrophobic feeling.
Only the pre-GT ones.
No reason why aircraft seats can’t be properly padded and absorb G
Some are. The SR22 ones have some sort of honeycomb in them.
My view on this is that most cockpits date back to an era when people didn’t care much for style. You get the same in most other areas. For example in industrial electronics, in the 1970s, you could package a product in a crappy anodised metal box. Today, to make it sell, you have to spend 50k+ on injection moulding tools.
The SR22 ones have some sort of honeycomb in them.
Yes, the front two seats have honeycomb blocks under the seat cushions. That’s the reason why you have to explain to not kneel on the seats (which they should already know but don’t …)
Probably the most comfortable plane I’ve flown is the Apache I did my multiengine rating in. The cabin was big and spacious, the seats comfortable. The drawback to the Apache was of course that it was euphemistically known as “a good timebuilder” (which translates to English as “slow”) so you needed that comfort as it took forever to go anywhere! That plane carried 7 hours of fuel. I did a 5.5 hour leg in it once.
The only comfortable cockpit I can remember was the Grob Twin Astir glider (G 103). Not as reclined as the competition gliders and well padded with plenty of room to all sides. The seats of “my” current Citations don’t even have headrests and one keeps banging against the sharp edges of the oxygen mask holder all the time. Almost as if this was done on purpose to keep the crew awake.
