Good Used 4 Seaters

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.

I'll have to second Paul's recommendation on the Warrior and it's not
only because I own one. If you do the research, the Warrior has one of
the best useful loads for the price range. Typical full fuel payloads
hover around 600 lbs (give or take 50 lbs). That's the same as many
six-seater full-fuel payloads--albeit not as fast of course.

There are usually more Archers on the market than Warriors at any given
time but the Archers run about $20K-$40K more for similarly-equipment
airframes. The cruise speeds are only a few knots more but they have
about 100lbs more useful load. Again, pretty darn good.

Cessna 172's are of course good but similar models are usually about
$10 more than the Pipers.

As others have advised, the best place to find/get any aircraft is at
your local airport.

Marco

Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Curt Fennell said:
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?

Our flying club just sold our 1977 PA28-161 Warrior. We had it listed for
$43K but it ended up going for closer to $35K because the market is so
depressed. Except for the fact that it didn't have an autopilot, it was a
great plane and I was almost tempted to buy it myself. You can see from
the pictures at http://xcski.com/gallery/v/rfc/38290/ that it had great
paint and a good pre-GPS panel.

With full fuel, it could carry 595 pounds. Whether that's 4 people or not
depends a lot of the people.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Remember, you're dealing with developers. If they knew what they were
doing, they wouldn't be doing it.
-- Mike A

Marco Leon wrote:

I'll have to second Paul's recommendation on the Warrior and it's not
only because I own one. If you do the research, the Warrior has one of
the best useful loads for the price range. Typical full fuel payloads
hover around 600 lbs (give or take 50 lbs). That's the same as many
six-seater full-fuel payloads--albeit not as fast of course.

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.

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).

"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???

: 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???

What he's trying to say is that the "full fuel payload" is not necessarily a
good metric to compare different aircraft. It's much more useful to compare payload
for a specific mission. Some planes (like a friend's Piper Comanche) can hold 90
gallons of fuel, while it only burns 12-14 gph. Comparing the "full fuel payload" of
that aircraft to a 180 hp Mooney isn't a fair comparison, even though the speed is
similar.

Now, consider how much payload can be carried in aircraft A vs. aircraft B for
a 400nm cross-country flight. That's more fair. That's also one of the big reasons
why we chose to get a PA-28-180 instead of a Cessna 150 or even a 172. Having 50
gallons of fuel in a plane that burns 8.5 at 65% allows for lots of flexibility.

-Cory

--

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

wrote in message
...
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???

What he's trying to say is that the "full fuel payload" is not necessarily
a
good metric to compare different aircraft. It's much more useful to
compare payload
for a specific mission. Some planes (like a friend's Piper Comanche) can
hold 90
gallons of fuel, while it only burns 12-14 gph. Comparing the "full fuel
payload" of
that aircraft to a 180 hp Mooney isn't a fair comparison, even though the
speed is
similar.

Now, consider how much payload can be carried in aircraft A vs. aircraft B
for
a 400nm cross-country flight. That's more fair. That's also one of the
big reasons
why we chose to get a PA-28-180 instead of a Cessna 150 or even a 172.
Having 50
gallons of fuel in a plane that burns 8.5 at 65% allows for lots of
flexibility.

-Cory

OK, I see that. I had misread, thinking he had said to fill both with "max
gas". :-)

Allen

[Much Great Advice Snipped...]

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts. You've given me a lot to chew on...

Curt
--
"Captain Curt" Fennell

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

The Cherokee 140 I used to own is now again for sale. It used to be the
famous orange and white checkerboard Cherokee. It received a brand new
paint, interior, and tinted windows in January of 2006. The fellow who
I sold it to last year, tragically perished in the crash of another
aircraft a couple months ago, and I'm assisting with the sale of the
aircraft for the estate since I know a lot about this particular
airplane. It's one of the sweetest flying and dependable little
Cherokees in the country. I wish I was financially equipped to buy it
back myself because me and my father had probably what will be our last
great father-son adventure in her, but alas, I cannot afford another
plane for probably at least another six more months at best.

N4646R needs to find a new owner who'll cherish her as much as I did.

Ad with pics at TAP:
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/unprote...ecs/46996.html