Buying A Real 4-Seater

[Jeff Helgeson]

That's quite an endorsement,

Grumman Tiger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pork Chop!!!

A fun choice

 

[Lead Sled]

I thought the Cherokee 6 was a good 4 seat aircraft?

Gosh guys, I thought that he was asking about 4 seaters that could carry 4 passengers inexpensively. How about a Cessna Caravan? We're giving suggestions like Vikings, Tigers, light twins, etc. That's not very useful help IMHO - just because an airplane happens to have 4 seats doesn't mean that you can legally put 4 passengers in it with enough fuel to make it a useful X-C airplane. Vikings, Bonanzas, Mooneys, Tigers, etc have 4 seats but when you top off the tanks they become 2 and 3 place airplanes. Are there any full fuel and legal 4 seat airplanes? Yes, but they are few and far between - like I mentioned earlier, the Cessna 182 can usually do it; same with the Cherokee 235/236; the Stinson 103-3 Station Wagons as well. Also, some of the Commanche 180s and 250s will do it.

If you move up the ladder to 6-seaters then about all of them will carry full fuel and 4 passengers but not 6 passengers. But that wasn't the question that was asked.

As for flying just a little over weight or out of CG, well let's not even go there.

'Sled

 

[Vector4fun]

the 300 hp Cherokee 6 would be the better choice out of the above. Fixed gear, less MX costs and room to grow.

True, but then the original post said "inexpensive", and the 260 hp Sixes are $20-40K cheaper than a 300 hp. And they make a good 4 place + bags. In fact, they don't run much more than a Dakota, if any.

Then we all found out "inexpensive" meant $110K or so, that is the low-average price for a decent 182RG. And if you're willing to pay $100k for an airplane, plus pay the insurance premium for a 100 hr Private Pilot to fly one, why the heck would you worry about the difference between 11 gph and 13 gph???? 200 hrs per year X 2gph X $3/gal = about 1/4 his annual insurance premium.

Heck, save yourself $20k on the price of a 182RG and buy a Commanche 250-260...


Compairing some of these aircraft via Vref at AOPA's web site;

(assume 5000TT and mid-time engine, typical period avionics and condition)

1980 C182, cruise 144 kts, average retail $99.9K

1980 C182RG, cruise 158 kts, average retail $104K

1978 PA32-260, cruise 138 kts, average retail $97.6K

1980 PA28-236, cruise 144 kts, average retail $96.8K

1970 PA24-260, cruise 157 kts, average retail $89.9K

 

[TDTURBO]

I still think a fixed legged 182 is the best bet. An RG gives you an extra 10 knots, but when it comes to insurance, a student pilot or low time private pilot will pay for it and then some.

Big D, I owned both, the RG is 18kts faster at 156 kts, and I never ever had a problem with the gear. It also costs 2 grand a year for insurance. I suppose a new pilot they would charge more but you can't beat it.

 

[bigD]

Big D, I owned both, the RG is 18kts faster at 156 kts, and I never ever had a problem with the gear. It also costs 2 grand a year for insurance. I suppose a new pilot they would charge more but you can't beat it.

You must have had a fast RG, or the one I've flown is a slow one, because I couldn't ever plan on faster than about 145 at 8000' or so.

 

[TDTURBO]

You must have had a fast RG, or the one I've flown is a slow one, because I couldn't ever plan on faster than about 145 at 8000' or so.

Actually, mine flys at 160kts. I do have gap seals and vaRIOUS SPEED MODS THOUGH.

I would strongly suggest you get that plane rigged!

80% chance that plane is way out of rig, if you need a good place, PM me!

 

[sstearns2]

I've got a client who is looking for a "real 4-seater" for a low price. Cost of operating is a factor, as it is always. Off the top of my head, I suggested the 182RG and the Twin-Comanchee, but he's a student pilot and the twin is not extremely feasable right now. What comes to mind to you's folks? Thanks for the advice in advance.

Shy

Grumman Tiger, real 4 seater, 140 KTAS, 10 GPH, fixed prop, fixed gear. Get an early 90s one if you can.

Scott

 

[Yellow Snow]

Usually hard to get a four seater that will actually carry four with baggage and full fuel. I think the 206 might be a really good choice. They actually fly a little nicer than a 182 ( the longer the cessna the better they handle ) and will carry anything you can pack in it.

 

[skid]

How about a baby bonanza?

Something around an early 60's be-33 Debonair. 225 HP, 150 knots easy, 12-14 gph, Auto Gas STC available. May have to spend a bit of $$ if you are looking for low time, but holds value and lots of support out there. Sure maint on Beech aircraft can get costly but we have hauled 4 people, bags and full fuel out of many high alt airports and she will take it.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

Grumman Tiger, real 4 seater, 140 KTAS, 10 GPH, fixed prop, fixed gear. Get an early 90s one if you can.

Scott

I agree, except I worked on them for a few years and would recommend a '79 with aviaionics upgrades.

 

[sky37d]

oH, you know, I have been reading this and I agree a 182 is a good plane.


I took my primary in a tri-gear Maule. That was a fun, useful plane. You could get into and out of most anywhere, it was tri-gear, so no tail dragger stuff. They have 3 passenger doors, and a cargo door. You can get the fixed prop 180 HP models cheap, however, I would recommend the C/S prop 180 HP (the plane I flew), it was much faster than a 172. For more speed, add more horsepower, get an MT7-235. Gets off the ground REALLY quick.

On a windy day, I used to hold it on the ground until I was up to 60, then pop the nose up, and climb like a banshee!!

 

[klingon67]

Dakota is a great plane. If he can spend a little more Beech f33/A or A36. easy to fly and dependable. Stay away from cessnas.

 

[Crizz]

Stay away from cessnas.

You're telling a first time aircraft owner and student pilot to stay away from the safest, most reliable, most stable, most cost efficient, most mechanic friendly line of aircraft ever concieved? As a student pilot presolo insurance on my 172 was $1100 a year. 182s are not much more.

Every mechanic in the country has worked on cessna's line. Even a piper.

Why the heck would you send this guy into a Beechcraft complex? (Beech makes a great product, but MX and insurance would be killer)

A 182 or Dakota seems to be the perfect choices for this very NEW and inexperienced aircraft owner.

What do you have to base this on other than ignorance?

"Stay away from cessna" says nothing.

 

[icefr8dawg]

Fixed gear 182's the best. Agreed that the Dakota has a better engine and can probably take more of a nose gear beating if he's not the best stick... I'd go with either one, probably the first one that met my price/location requirements.

 

[sky37d]

"Stay away from cessna" says nothing.

agree.
Depending on use, after the training, however, I think a 182 is a better plane than the 172. Bullet proof planes, both of them.

 

[Crizz]

agree.
Depending on use, after the training, however, I think a 182 is a better plane than the 172. Bullet proof planes, both of them.

Yah sounds like a 182 is perfect for this guy.

 

[Moonfly201]

I still think a fixed legged 182 is the best bet. An RG gives you an extra 10 knots, but when it comes to insurance, a student pilot or low time private pilot will pay for it and then some.

Right-on, bidD.

My 84 year old Dad recently lost his medical, and has asked me to relocate his 1976 creampuff C-182 to my hanger and sell it. Believe it or not, it is an immaculately maintained 11,000 hour airframe with no damage history. Almost 10,000 hours were put on by Mobil Oil as pipeline patrol and a test bed for Mobil One (now discontinued) synthetic aviation oil. Mobil stripped the plane down to almost bare metal every 2,500 hours and replaced parts as necessary, as part of their extensive maintenance program. The plane looks and flys like new. It has a factory new engine (200 hours), nice paint, new windshield and glass, decent interior and avionics. It's alway been hangered, and it shows.

Of course the high airframe time will be discounted in the price. If anyone is interested send me a PM.

 

[klingon67]

Crizz are we a little hostile? I just stated If he could afford it the Beech is a great plane; much better than any cessna. Im not ignorant I just think cessnas are tin can pieces of junk .sorry you get so offended . You probably drive a ford also Good Day

 

[Crizz]

Crizz are we a little hostile? I just stated If he could afford it the Beech is a great plane; much better than any cessna. Im not ignorant I just think cessnas are tin can pieces of junk .sorry you get so offended . You probably drive a ford also Good Day

No hostility at all. I just hate to see a whole thread encouraging a guy to get into a 182 (which I happen to agree would be a great plane) and then you just blindly say "stay away from cessna"



What does this have to do with Ford? I'd love to talk cars with you, but that might need to be in a different thread in a different category. (For the record, I think that Ford IS a tin can we can agree on)

 

[Dickensheets]

CE205/206 - I know it has 6 seats but it is one of my all-time favorites.

Also consider the R172K (210HP CE172) not terribly fast but good pull.