Good Used 4 Seaters

"real_name" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Newps wrote:

Apples and oranges. The six seaters are made with some pretty big gas
tanks which provides a tremendous amount of flexibility. A better
comparison is to fill the six seater with your max gas in the warrior
and then do the comparison. You will then see the six seater kills your
bird.

(fill with max gas in terms of range/endurance, not gallons).

HUH, what???

"Curt Fennell" wrote in message
...
Hi, Folks...

I've been recently researching aircraft that I might want to purchase
on a limited budget and I was wondering what the general consensus is
on inexpensive 4-seaters to own.

It seems to me that 4-seaters available in my price range are all
pretty old - Pacers, older 172s and Stinson 108's. I have no
objection to the aircraft being old, but I do want a safe one.

Consider this: If the airplane wasn't SAFE, it would not have lasted long
enough to be OLD.

(Bypassing al the gratituitous stuff about the biggest safety factor being
the pilot).

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

Matt Barrow wrote:

Consider this: If the airplane wasn't SAFE, it would not have lasted long
enough to be OLD.

Exactly. Buy a good (i.e. decently maintained with logbooks) older plane,
add some TLC combined with good piloting skills and you'll have a safe
airplane.

Curt Fennell wrote in
:

Hi, Folks...

I've been recently researching aircraft that I might want to purchase
on a limited budget and I was wondering what the general consensus is
on inexpensive 4-seaters to own.

Bought my 1976 Sundowner for 38K. It had a high time engine that I got
overhauled about 6 months later (partial engine failure help bump this up
to priority), but now it's pretty much a brand new plane for what I have
put into it.

The word limited budget and cheap in the same sentence very rarely computes
in the real world of ownership.

However the pride of walking out to YOUR plane on the ramp is priceless.

You can reach me at gmail with the addy of atlieb if you want / need more
info.

Allen

Curt,

have a look at Aviation Consumer's Used Aircraft Guide. You'll find
many models in your price range. The 172 tends to be more expensive
than others due to demand.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Looking also for a good second hand acft for a possible partnership here in
OZ (4-5 people). The Warrior II looks like the best value for money (much
more limited market). Bog standard systems, reasonable useful load, every
LAME and his dog has worked on one, reasonable cost of ownership, speed and
capability, reasonable (for me anyway) mission profile. Hard to get into
trouble in one, relatively forgiving, and not bad looking. Bits and pieces
easy to find, and Piper are still building the Warrior (albeit the III).
Mods available and still getting new accessories made. Entry cost for a
1970s something job with reasonable times much less than the LSA options.

Seems the advent of LSA might just be driving the costs of these certified
beasts down. As one poster pointed out, his club's quite nice Warrior II
went for US$35K, that's gotta be a better than average price point.

So my vote would be a Warrior II over a C172M,N,P. Of couse YMMV

Cheers,
Kevin

"Curt Fennell" wrote in message
...
Hi, Folks...

I've been recently researching aircraft that I might want to purchase
on a limited budget and I was wondering what the general consensus is
on inexpensive 4-seaters to own.

It seems to me that 4-seaters available in my price range are all
pretty old - Pacers, older 172s and Stinson 108's. I have no
objection to the aircraft being old, but I do want a safe one.

Does anybody have any thoughts on 4-seaters in the $30k-$40k range?
Am I completely fooling myself or can I get a decent older bird for
that price that will carry 4 people for a $400 hamburger on the
weekends?

Curt
--
"Captain Curt" Fennell

Well... I hafta agree.....

We have one, (PA28-151)

After tons of research, and some luck, we got a good one.

It is affordable.. and good mission profile.

Does the job at a cost of operation that enables us to just go
flying without thinking twice about the cost for an hour of flying
fun...

We had a 172 for two yrs before the Warrior..

Our Cessna was a good aircraft, about the same mission profile, but
definately NOT the same aircraft.

The Warrior is better at just about everything we like..

YMMV!



Dave



....On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:26:54 +1100, "KevinBlack"
wrote:

Looking also for a good second hand acft for a possible partnership here in
OZ (4-5 people). The Warrior II looks like the best value for money (much
more limited market). Bog standard systems, reasonable useful load, every
LAME and his dog has worked on one, reasonable cost of ownership, speed and
capability, reasonable (for me anyway) mission profile. Hard to get into
trouble in one, relatively forgiving, and not bad looking. Bits and pieces
easy to find, and Piper are still building the Warrior (albeit the III).
Mods available and still getting new accessories made. Entry cost for a
1970s something job with reasonable times much less than the LSA options.

Seems the advent of LSA might just be driving the costs of these certified
beasts down. As one poster pointed out, his club's quite nice Warrior II
went for US$35K, that's gotta be a better than average price point.

So my vote would be a Warrior II over a C172M,N,P. Of couse YMMV

Cheers,
Kevin

"Curt Fennell" wrote in message
.. .
Hi, Folks...

I've been recently researching aircraft that I might want to purchase
on a limited budget and I was wondering what the general consensus is
on inexpensive 4-seaters to own.

It seems to me that 4-seaters available in my price range are all
pretty old - Pacers, older 172s and Stinson 108's. I have no
objection to the aircraft being old, but I do want a safe one.

Does anybody have any thoughts on 4-seaters in the $30k-$40k range?
Am I completely fooling myself or can I get a decent older bird for
that price that will carry 4 people for a $400 hamburger on the
weekends?

Curt
--
"Captain Curt" Fennell

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Well... I hafta agree.....

We have one, (PA28-151)

After tons of research, and some luck, we got a good one.

It is affordable.. and good mission profile.

Does the job at a cost of operation that enables us to just go
flying without thinking twice about the cost for an hour of flying
fun...

We had a 172 for two yrs before the Warrior..

Our Cessna was a good aircraft, about the same mission profile, but
definately NOT the same aircraft.

The Warrior is better at just about everything we like..

YMMV!



Dave

Dave,

I realize much of what people value in their planes if often very personal
but I don't think I've read anything comparitive between the two that was
spawned from first hand experience.
Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
fits better?

TIA,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Jay Beckman wrote:

Dave,
snip
Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
fits better?

I'm not *that* Dave, but here's my q-and-d:

The capabilities of the two are very closely the same. The price of
Cherokees is lower due to lower demand from all the buyers who did their
initial training in Cessnas.

Dave

Dave Butler wrote:
: Could you possibly do a quick and dirty 172 Vs Warrior and why the Piper
: fits better?

: I'm not *that* Dave, but here's my q-and-d:

: The capabilities of the two are very closely the same. The price of
: Cherokees is lower due to lower demand from all the buyers who did their
: initial training in Cessnas.

I like to give a fellow pilot/cfi friend some ribbing about Piper vs. Cessnas (I have a PA28-180, he's got a straight-tail 172
and a 152 he does primary training in). As I like to put it, a Cessna is a pilot's airplane, and a Piper is an *owner's* airplane.
Everything about a specific Cessna design is pretty much from the ground up for that specific airframe. Piper on the other hand was
great about bolting on bigger engines, extending control surfaces, stretching fuselages, etc as incremental improvements. As such,
the Pipers a little big heavier, but also a little bit more overbuilt. Parts are a little more common, since they're used in a
variety of different models, often old and new.

Now before the Cessna crowd keel-hauls me, I'll say that the Piper might cruise slight faster, but the Cessna has a better
short-field and "overloading" capabilities. A Cherokee (my 180 at least) seems to have almost the same FPM climb whether it's empty
with just the pilot, or full fuel and three adults on board. It's not stellar, but it's enough... at least until you load it up a bit
much. Then the climb goes to crap in a hurry. The Cherokee wing has such a benign stall, it's not a very good trainer IMO. The
Cessna glides better, but the Piper handles crosswinds better due to its slight faster approach, more "cushioned" ground effect, and
*lower* wing in the crosswind.

Oh, and a PA-28 goes for around $5K-$10K less than a comparable 172.

-Cory
--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************