So I got to thinking about airplanes after mentioning the C150 in another thread. Then I got to thinking about spirited threads we had over on GS re: tandem seating arrangements: do they suck or not? And I recall telling Mr. Gammyleg that I didn't think a cabin much narrower than what the Metros already have would fly. *edit* And I recall debating about the Opel Ecospeedster, as some were holding it up as the shape of things to come... it doesn't show in the photos I've found, but it is knee-high to a grasshopper and it sounds like I wouldn't physically be able to squeeze my carcass in there! (And I'm reasonably limber too.)
So now I looked up Cessna cabin width and the 150 is 38" wide. Well I recall flying in C150s and C152s and having to take jackets off for winter flying if I wanted to close the door and have room to move!
Quote:
|
The 152 also featured cabin size upgrades to accommodate larger pilots, though the 152 cabin is still fairly small and many large pilots are uncomfortable, preferring instead the more spacious 172.
|
The 172 is about 40" wide early model and 44" late model.
Seems all GA aircraft got a bit wider in the '60s and settled on about 40-44" width, but then when newer designs started coming out in the '80s they spread out to about 50". Seems may cars are about 58"; my Tempo is 53.9".
You'd think GA aircraft would represent the minimum acceptable cabin widths for side-by-side seating.
Metro shoulder room is listed at 48.9". Personally I wouldn't want it to be any more than 5" narrower if non-staggered side-by-side seating is retained.
Smart fortwo shoulder room is listed at 48". Aptera dimensions are what?