Rear passenger legroom in arrow

[Dahlin]

I currently fly a 1969 140 and am considering buying an Arrow. Is there
more leg room for rear passengers in the Arrow than the 140? Is there a
difference in the pre 72 and post 72 Arrows with the longer fuselage as far
as legroom. I'm tall and need the seat back which doesn't leave any leg room
in the 140. I've been told the PA-28 line is all about the same but I have a
hard time believing a true 4 seater would have as little leg room in back as
the 140.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Dahlin" > said:
>in the 140. I've been told the PA-28 line is all about the same but I have a
>hard time believing a true 4 seater would have as little leg room in back as
>the 140.
>

Don't know about the Arrow, but since it's the same fuselage, I assume my
experience with the PA28-161, -181 and -236 would apply. All of these
aircraft have more leg room in the back than a -140. I'm a tall and wide
person and I've sat in the back of a -236 for a hour long flight, and it
was *not* fun. Possible, but not fun.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Why don't companies make second-person shooter games? I mean, we
have first-person, and third-person. Why not second-person?
-- Joe Moore

[Matt Whiting]

Dahlin wrote:
> I currently fly a 1969 140 and am considering buying an Arrow. Is there
> more leg room for rear passengers in the Arrow than the 140? Is there a
> difference in the pre 72 and post 72 Arrows with the longer fuselage as far
> as legroom. I'm tall and need the seat back which doesn't leave any leg room
> in the 140. I've been told the PA-28 line is all about the same but I have a
> hard time believing a true 4 seater would have as little leg room in back as
> the 140.
>
>
>

I haven't been in a 140, but the club I belong to owns a 67 Arrow and
the leg room in the rear is virtually non-existent, especially if the
front seaters have legs longer than 20". After owning a Skylane, the
Arrow is terribly cramped, especially in the rear. It really is
suitable only for kids.


Matt

[Nathan Young]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:00:53 -0400, "Dahlin" >
wrote:

>I currently fly a 1969 140 and am considering buying an Arrow. Is there
>more leg room for rear passengers in the Arrow than the 140? Is there a
>difference in the pre 72 and post 72 Arrows with the longer fuselage as far
>as legroom. I'm tall and need the seat back which doesn't leave any leg room
>in the 140. I've been told the PA-28 line is all about the same but I have a
>hard time believing a true 4 seater would have as little leg room in back as
>the 140.

I can't speak for the Arrow, but for the PA28-180, 1972 still has the
short fuselage, 1973 has the stretch.

-Nathan

[James M. Knox]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> I haven't been in a 140, but the club I belong to owns a 67 Arrow and
> the leg room in the rear is virtually non-existent, especially if the
> front seaters have legs longer than 20". After owning a Skylane, the
> Arrow is terribly cramped, especially in the rear. It really is
> suitable only for kids.

There was a "stretch" somewhere along the line. I know my 1977 turbo Arrow
III has it. Back seats are "ok" (none of them are going to be great).
Don't have my data books here to know exactly when the extra 18" or so were
put in.

[Bob Chilcoat]

According to "The Cherokee Tribe" by Terry Lee Rodgers (Cherokee Pilots'
Association, no date given), the Arrow 180 and 200 has a fuselage length of
24' 2" through 1971. The Arrow II has a length of 24' 7" starting in 1972.
The Arrow III has a length of 27'! I have trouble believing that last
number. Any Arrow III owners able to confirm that the tapered-wing Arrows
are over two feet longer?

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"Dahlin" > wrote in message
...
> I currently fly a 1969 140 and am considering buying an Arrow. Is there
> more leg room for rear passengers in the Arrow than the 140? Is there a
> difference in the pre 72 and post 72 Arrows with the longer fuselage as
far
> as legroom. I'm tall and need the seat back which doesn't leave any leg
room
> in the 140. I've been told the PA-28 line is all about the same but I have
a
> hard time believing a true 4 seater would have as little leg room in back
as
> the 140.
>
>
>

[Dude]

What light planes DO have nice backseats? Also, if you are below 200hp, you
are unlikely going to need much room back there.

I am just shy of 6'3". Most planes become 3 seaters with me up front.

So far, I see a 182 is okay for a small person behind me, a Cirrus is okay
as well.

I would have to adjust my seat for a Mooney to work well. Haven't seen the
long Arrows, but the regular ones - forget about it. 172, no soap.

Diamond wins by far in this category because the front seats have adjustable
rudders, not seats. The back seats are rather spacious. Unfortunately, the
new ones have gotten heavy and now you really only need 3 seats.

Have not yet tried the back seat of the Lancair.

[Aaron Coolidge]

Bob Chilcoat > wrote:
: According to "The Cherokee Tribe" by Terry Lee Rodgers (Cherokee Pilots'
: Association, no date given), the Arrow 180 and 200 has a fuselage length of
: 24' 2" through 1971. The Arrow II has a length of 24' 7" starting in 1972.
: The Arrow III has a length of 27'! I have trouble believing that last
: number. Any Arrow III owners able to confirm that the tapered-wing Arrows
: are over two feet longer?

It's True. About 14" added to cabin. "Spacious" rear seat, from a lightplane
standard. Even roomier than "economy" class airline seats!
(The Arrow 3 in question is not mine. It is a '77 Arrow 3, though. Boy,
would I like to have those 72 gal fuel tanks!)
--
Aaron Coolidge

[Matt Whiting]

Dude wrote:

> What light planes DO have nice backseats? Also, if you are below 200hp, you
> are unlikely going to need much room back there.

My 67 Skylane had lots of room in the back seat once the front seats
were adjusted to flying positiong (they go WAY back for getting into the
front). I'm 6' and once I'd moved the seat forward to a comfortable
flying position, my kids could kneel on the floor behind my seat and use
their seat for a table for their coloring books! In the Arrow, there is
about 6" between the seats vs. probably 16" in the Skylane.


Matt

[John Galban]

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message >...
> According to "The Cherokee Tribe" by Terry Lee Rodgers (Cherokee Pilots'
> Association, no date given), the Arrow 180 and 200 has a fuselage length of
> 24' 2" through 1971. The Arrow II has a length of 24' 7" starting in 1972.
> The Arrow III has a length of 27'! I have trouble believing that last
> number. Any Arrow III owners able to confirm that the tapered-wing Arrows
> are over two feet longer?
>

Terry used the manufacturing years instead of the model years. In
order to avoid confusion, the 5 inch fuselage stretch began with the
'73 model year, some of which were manufactured in late '72.

For the OP, this 5 inch stretch was almost entirely confined to the
back seat area. There is a big difference in rear seat legroom when
you go from a '72 model to a '73 model. And BTW, the -140 fuselage was
never stretched, so they all have crappy rear seat legroom, even after
'73.

I'm not sure if the 27' length for the Arrow III is correct. I'm
suspecting that the increase in overall length might have something to
do with the T-tail that was introduced with the III model. I believe
it sits back farther since it's mounted on the top of a rear-slaning
vertical stab. I know that interior space from the Arrow II to the
Arrow III was not noticably different.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Jay Honeck]

>> What light planes DO have nice backseats? Also, if you are below 200hp,
>> you are unlikely going to need much room back there.

Our '74 Pathfinder has a very spacious back seat. On the rare occasions
when I've ridden in the back (while Mary was flying with our daughter as
co-pilot) I have been very comfortable -- and I'm 6 feet tall, most of it in
the legs.

It's safe to say that our back seats are FAR more comfortable than any
modern airliners, sad to say. And the view is better, too!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>What light planes DO have nice backseats? Also, if you are below 200hp,
>>>you are unlikely going to need much room back there.
>
>
> Our '74 Pathfinder has a very spacious back seat.

Yep my 182 is really good also. After the front seat passengers get
squared away there is enough room to have a swing up foot rest
installed, just like your Lazy Boy.

[[email protected]]

On 21-Oct-2004, "Dahlin" > wrote:

> I currently fly a 1969 140 and am considering buying an Arrow. Is there
> more leg room for rear passengers in the Arrow than the 140? Is there a
> difference in the pre 72 and post 72 Arrows with the longer fuselage as
> far as legroom. I'm tall and need the seat back which doesn't leave any
> leg
> room in the 140. I've been told the PA-28 line is all about the same but I
> have
> a hard time believing a true 4 seater would have as little leg room in
> back
> as the 140.


I have an Arrow IV (1979 model), and I used to own a 1968 Cherokee 140, so I
feel your pain. I have also flown in earlier model Arrows and Cherokee
180s.

Early Arrows (pre Arrow II, i.e. before the 1973 model year), as well as
Cherokee 180s of he same vintage, are somewhat limited in rear seat legroom,
although they are certainly better in that regard than Cherokee 140s.
However, Piper added 5 inches to the rear seat area with a fuselage stretch
starting with the Arrow II. I believe other 4-place Cherokees (other than
the 140) got the same stretch around the same time. Anyway, these more
recent Arrows have quite adequate rear seat legroom. In ours, four adults
can fly very comfortably. It should be noted that the front seats have more
rearward travel than they really need -- well, maybe not for NBA centers --
and shoved all the way back they will encroach rather dramatically on rear
seat legroom, but this is a pretty common feature of 4-place light airplanes
-- and medium-sized cars, for that matter.
--
-Elliott Drucker

[Ben Jackson]

In article <caXdd.292677$D%.15084@attbi_s51>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>Our '74 Pathfinder has a very spacious back seat.

The back seat of my 65 Comanche is pretty comfortable, but I've never
gotten to sit there in flight. The front edge of the back seat is
constrained by the main spar, but the seat is very deep so that even a
tall guy like me is mostly sitting on the seat rather than hanging off.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Jay Honeck]

> The back seat of my 65 Comanche is pretty comfortable, but I've never
> gotten to sit there in flight.

Trust me -- it's a weird feeling.

And a very helpless one, after you've grown used to being within reach of
the controls...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dude]

I believe the new skylanes are a little less roomy than yours due to the new
padding, but still likely very comfortable with most pilots. I sit with the
seat pretty far back and high up. This gets me to where I can see, yet
keeps the yoke off my thighs.

I have been described as "mostly legs".


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dude wrote:
>
>> What light planes DO have nice backseats? Also, if you are below 200hp,
>> you are unlikely going to need much room back there.
>
> My 67 Skylane had lots of room in the back seat once the front seats were
> adjusted to flying positiong (they go WAY back for getting into the
> front). I'm 6' and once I'd moved the seat forward to a comfortable
> flying position, my kids could kneel on the floor behind my seat and use
> their seat for a table for their coloring books! In the Arrow, there is
> about 6" between the seats vs. probably 16" in the Skylane.
>
>
> Matt
>

[The Weiss Family]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> What light planes DO have nice backseats? Also, if you are below 200hp,
you
> are unlikely going to need much room back there.

I just bought a Beech Super III.
It is really roomy!
I'm 6'1" and keep the seat all the way back.
My Dad sat behind me with no trouble at all...

[zatatime]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:14:51 -0700, "The Weiss Family"
> wrote:

>I just bought a Beech Super III.
>It is really roomy!
>I'm 6'1" and keep the seat all the way back.
>My Dad sat behind me with no trouble at all...
>


You're just lookin' for an excuse to talk about your airplane aren't
ya? :)))

z

[The Weiss Family]

> You're just lookin' for an excuse to talk about your airplane aren't
> ya? :)))
>
> z

You bet! Just give me another ;-)

[Bruce Cunningham]

"Dahlin" > wrote in message >...
> I currently fly a 1969 140 and am considering buying an Arrow. Is there
> more leg room for rear passengers in the Arrow than the 140? Is there a
> difference in the pre 72 and post 72 Arrows with the longer fuselage as far
> as legroom. I'm tall and need the seat back which doesn't leave any leg room
> in the 140. I've been told the PA-28 line is all about the same but I have a
> hard time believing a true 4 seater would have as little leg room in back as
> the 140.

My 1969 Cardinal has 14 inches(just measured it) from the front edge
of the back seat to the back of the front seat with it adjusted for
flight. I am 5'11" tall. There is plenty of room for children to sit
in the floor and use the seat to play board games, as my niece and
nephew have done this. Cardinal RG's have the same cabin dimensions.
Cardinals are wide too. Beech Sundowners and Sierras are also very
spacious inside.

Regards,
Bruce Cunningham
N30464

[MC]

Bob Chilcoat wrote:
> According to "The Cherokee Tribe" by Terry Lee Rodgers (Cherokee Pilots'
> Association, no date given), the Arrow 180 and 200 has a fuselage length of
> 24' 2" through 1971. The Arrow II has a length of 24' 7" starting in 1972.
> The Arrow III has a length of 27'! I have trouble believing that last
> number. Any Arrow III owners able to confirm that the tapered-wing Arrows
> are over two feet longer?

According to the pretty picture in the POH for my '79 model
t-tail Arrow IV, the length is 26' 11.9"

Room in the back is ok, not great.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Dude" > wrote in message >...
> What light planes DO have nice backseats? Also, if you are below 200hp, you
> are unlikely going to need much room back there.
>
> I am just shy of 6'3". Most planes become 3 seaters with me up front.
>
> So far, I see a 182 is okay for a small person behind me, a Cirrus is okay
> as well.
>
> I would have to adjust my seat for a Mooney to work well. Haven't seen the
> long Arrows, but the regular ones - forget about it. 172, no soap.

A Mooney is designed a bit different though because its a "tall
person's plane". Al Mooney was pretty tall. I'm 6'4" and own an F
model (a bit longer than the E and other's before it). I can sit in
the front or the back. I have taken 4 adults up on short trips. I have
1000 lbs of useful load and only burn 10 gal/hr so with light fuel you
can have 4 guys. The difference in the seats in the Mooney is that
there is a HUGE distance between the front seat and the rudders. Short
people have to buy rudder extenders in the Mooney because it simply
was not designed with short people in mind. The Mooney is the only
plane I've ever flown that I could actually sit close to the panel and
not be out of leg room.

-Robert