I keep telling my wife that our RV9A is wider then our C172, but she keeps saying that the Cessna is just more roomie. As noted the Cessna has a more upright entry and seating position.
I've gone through the issue of cockpit space and ease of entry at great length for family reasons and compared a lot of airplanes.
The 182 and, to a lesser degree, the 172 (a few inches narrower), are about the easiest airplanes to get in and out of. One to two steps and you're in, and there are good, obvious, sturdy places to step and hold. No wing to step up onto and over, no fueslage side to then step or crawl over. The cabin is square and uncluttered by consoles. The seats also adjust in fore/aft, height and rake and can slide way out of the way for getting in. Compare that to, say, the DA40, which is 4" wider, but has molded seats and a huge console in the center, and then there's the issue of the stick - some people who won't fit in the DA40 fit in the 182. However, the DA40 is surely safer in a crash because of the energy absorbing nature of the seats. But because of the fit issue, the DA40 went off my list.
None of this is to say that the -6/7/9 and -8 are hard to get in and out of per se, but for some anyway, they're harder than the Cessna. Also, despite being more narrow, the Cessnas have a surpriring amount of room because of the square cabin.
I can't say that the 182 is a fun to fly airplane, nor is the visibility great, but being to travel together as a family is a wonderful thing. I keep thinking that I need two airplanes, a -3 (for fun) and a 182 (for traveling).
TODR
