best plane for 4 people

[topcop12]

Hello all. I am new to the boards here and have been reading old posts and getting some great information.

I am currently taking flight lessons in a Cessna 172. My eventual goal is to get licensed and then continue practicing and learning but in a year or two I'd like to buy a plane to haul the family (me, wife, and 2 kids) around. I don't have $100,000 to spend either.

I am looking for suggestions for such a plane and of course it has to be dependable. I've been looking at the Mooney M20J and M20k. I prefer the low wing but since I've been flying the 172 its not a deal breaker.

At the moment our combined weight is 540 pounds, but the kids are only 7 so they will continue to grow.

again any help would be appreciated.


thanks

[Jungle Jim]

topcop 12,

The Mooney looks good on paper but it you buy one you will have two awesome days that will stick out in your memory. These being the day you buy it and other being the day you sell it. They are expensive to maintain.

If you are happy with a 172, buy one. It is a good all around aircraft. If you want something that will perform better than the 172 and be more fun to fly, look at a Stinson. There are lots out there with Continental 0-470 engines or Lycomings that are good buys. I have a friend that has one and it burns the same amount of fuel as the Franklin did at the same speeds.( 8-10 USG/hr depending on speed)

Jim

[topcop12]

i dont think the 172 will have enough useful payload for 4 will it? How about the Stinson? thanks again I appreciate the input. BTW i've owned a boat and thats what they say about them too. Funny it was true.

[av8ts]

As the saying goes " if it flies, floats or f***s rent it don't buy it"

[slam525i]

Before you buy a Mooney (regardless of the short/medium/long body length model), try sitting in one, with a friend, with the seats adjusted for reaching the rudder pedals. With 2 "normal" sized males, your shoulders will overlap and all your dreams of speed & efficiency will be shattered with a simple "We don't fit..."

(I know, because I dreamt of a Mooney for a long time, until I sat in it.)

[cjpilot]

Navion

[topcop12]

Thanks this is exactly what I was looking for. People that have experienced what I'm going through. I will look up the models listed above but anyone else please feel free to post your thoughts and feelings. I will check into each and every model you guys list

[topcop12]

What are you guys think about the archer?

[oldtimer]

In total numbers produced, the most popular small single-engine airplanes of all times are the Cessna 172, the Cessna 150/152 and the Cessna 182. The Cessna 182 is slightly wider, more powerful and more costly than a 172 but is as safe and as easy to fly as a 172.
One problem with many privatly owned airplanes is that they sit a lot and any airplane with performance enough to carry 4 people will still incure expenses while parked so a 182 would be a great buy and meet ypur needs IF you fly it at least 150 - 200 hrs per year.
But as a previous poster has said, if it floats, flys or giggles in bed, you are better off renting.

[I_Drive_Planes]

What are you guys think about the archer?

The Archer is exactly what you need. I own its older brother, the Cherokee 180. My Cherokee 180 will haul 800 lbs in the cabin with full fuel doing between 115 and 120 knots. The only meaningful differences between the Archer and the Cherokee 180 are the longer wings (more prone to float on landing, better high altitude performance, harder to park) and the cabin stretch (more backseat legroom, which you won't notice but your passengers will appreciate).

With fixed gear, a fixed prop, and a four cylinder engine your operating expenses will be about as cheap as you can get in a reasonable travelling machine. Also, and Archer or Cherokee 180 can be had much cheaper than the equivalent (180 hp) 172, which is really the only competitor in terms of useful load and all around performance.

I wrote this back in May about my first year as an airplane owner: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 4&t=103201 It will give you some idea as to what the experience has been like for me.

<rant>

As the saying goes " if it flies, floats or f***s rent it don't buy it"

Blah blah blah.

if it floats, flys or giggles in bed, you are better off renting.

Blah blah blah.

Give it a rest.

Flying doesn't make sense. You are far better off not flying at all, just ask your financial advisor.

I own an airplane, it costs me a lot of money and that's ok. Owning an airplane has completely changed the experience of flying for me. Now that I own an airplane I can actually do things other than screw around on a 1 hour sightseeing flight or the occasional $100 hamburger. The freedom that comes from having MY airplane tied up and waiting for me to come fly it absolutely can not be matched by a rental. Not many rental outfits will let you go fly into an old abandoned airstrip for an afternoon of fishing. How about a 12 day international trip? They'll let you do that alright, but they'll charge you three hours a day and you'd better have that machine back on time. Driving home from work and get the urge to go for a rip? Sorry, but the flight school is closed, can't book the airplane.

My airplane is MINE. I know exactly how it is maintained, how it is flown, and how it is kept. Under cold financial scrutiny owning an airplane would never hold up, but that's not the point. Flying an expensive little airplane that is so easily hampered by weather and potential mechanical issues is a silly way to travel, it would be easier and cheaper to take Westjet, but that's not the point.

Because I own an airplane I fly about 4 times more than I ever used to when I was renting. I do more interesting things, go more places, and have become a much better pilot simply because the airplane is there, waiting for me.

If you like flying, buy a damn airplane. Don't let anyone discourage you, because they are wrong. Your banker will hate you for it, but he won't be able to knock the smile off your face with a shovel.
</rant>

[dirk82]

The mooney is a great little bird. Im 3 years into owning mine and still under 4 grand for both annuals and routine maintenance including avionics subscription. Up front is tight but ive flown 4 hour legs with 2 heavy boys up front and we did just fine, for my wife and I its perfect.

Every 4 banger piston plane is going to be small and they can all suck you dry if they start breaking. At least in a mooney your always the coolest guy on the field. Proven fact.

[CpnCrunch]

What are you guys think about the archer?

It's reliable, cheap, slightly faster than an older 172 (same speed as an S model 172) and has awesome climb performance (again, compared to a 172). However it has some disadvantages:

- It's still not terribly fast (only 120 or 125kts)
- Only one door, which makes it difficult for some people to enter/exit, and you have to wonder what you'd do in the event of a crash
- No "both" fuel selector.
- Low wing makes it poor for sightseeing, no protection against sun/rain, etc.

My choice would be a 182. It's cheap, simple, safe, easy to fly, somewhat fast (at least compared to a 172 or Archer), easy to find an AME to fix it out in the middle of nowhere, good weight+balance, and easy to sell.

[FenderManDan]

C172

Good
- Simple and easy to maintain and insure.
- Decent on fuel with Lyc 4 bangers.
- Inexpensive insurance
- If you get rusty from non flying you usually go "back on horse" in 15 min.
- It would do a great job of 90% of missions that are pilots flying for real. There is a lot of dreaming and not a lot of flying.
- Can keep it outside (this is a big + in the GTA due to the lack of hangar space).

No so good
- Once your kids grow up you will not be able to take all 4 to anywhere very far. Your (4 people) current weight + full fuel would get you to the max gross.
- Slow in cruise.
- Boring to fly after the novelty wears off.
- If you want to go high over the Rockies, you might have a problem.
- Limited performance for a long flights (by design).
- Easy to get rusty in the "stick and rudder" department because it was designed that way.

This is just some of the items that cross my mind. You can start with one and see how it goes and if you need a long x/c machine you go to C182 or older SR20 (still over 100K probably) or perhaps V tail bonanza.


Mooneys are cool but small cabin sucks. I tried it as well and at 6.4 its a no go. I flew the Maule M-7 and the older ones have the shoulder room but the seats do not adjust so again a no-go if you are tall.

My vote would be C182.

A lot of my friends from 'merica like C206 its like a dodge caravan with wings of you can spend more. You will not outgrow it and has a good payload.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 368423.htm

[dirtdr]

I owned a 172 before stepping up to a 310.

There are some days I miss the 172, specifically for:

2 doors. I hate having to pour everyone into 1 door (you can get into the back seats in the 310 through the baggage door if you are small and flexable. thankfully I never have to ride there)
View- cant beat the view from a high wing (I would love a 177 as a second plane - no strut)

The only other type I have flown in a cherokee - good two person airplane, but even the kids were cramped in the back seat.

I would rent the 172 out to a couple local chaps to help pay for some of the maintenance and hangar space and kept the plane flying steady when I couldnt fly her.

My vote would be for the 172 - it will haul your family (for now) and you will learn tons with it. After a year or two with it, you will get more of a feel for your mission and what plane suits you then.

My family grew from 4 to 6 while I was bombing around in the 172. The 310 fits the bill for me for now.... but someday will need pressurization, more load, faster, afterburner, etc...

[topcop12]

Well in the long run, I am looking to make the trip from Cleveland, Ohio to Fort Myers Florida on a semi-regular basis

[PAJ]

In that case you will quickly outgrow a standard 172/Archer etc. Nothing wrong with those (currently own an Archer) but you'll eventually want something that can go higher (means oxygen) and faster. A fairly capable IFR aircraft should be on your have to list as well. Suggest you look at a Beechcraft Bonanza F33A although I expect this is stretching your budget a bit.

Its easy to get caught up in trying to buy the perfect airplane for all missions. The key is to find that perfect balance between desire, usual mission and budget.

[JasonE]

I bought an early Piper 140 (64) because of the larger capacity over the later ones (910 lbs useful). However my kids have grown so much in the past year they almost refuse to sit in the back seat now!

If you want to do 4 person cross country plane you pretty much need a 6 passenger plane for baggage. The 140 is great for 2 people, or 4 if 2 are small. The 172 is a bit roomier inside but you still don't have enough capacity. If I were to do it again, I'd look at the 180 or Arrow to start.

[cncpc]

Get back to us after you have that one year of learning and practice in. Halfway through, buy the airplane you are going to take your family, or anybody else's family in.

No matter what airplane you are in, stay out the mountains. If you come to the mountains, get a thorough mountain check with a commercial pilot who flies in the mountains. Radium and Nelson are good places to start.

It's a positive sign that you acknowledge that after you have your license, you will need a year of learning and practice before you would take your family up with you. Apply that to anybody else's family as well.

The 182 is a very good airplane. I think it is the Cadillac of four seaters. You'll be fine with half a year's experience and learning in it before loading up your family. No matter what airplane, always remember this, engines hardly ever fail with nice green fields below.

I think the story, truth, urban legend, whatever is that there were 1200 V tail Bonanzas built and 500 of them have come apart in the air. There have been over 6000 C172's built, and not one has come apart in the air. The numbers may be a bit off, but the general picture is very accurate.

[photofly]

I own a 182. I can only just squeeze my family of 4 into it - not comfortably - and the two youngest are still under 2. The baggage compartment is much too small for the luggage a family of 4 needs. The Mooney is out of the question.

There are a couple of contenders for what you want: a Cessna 206 or a Cherokee Six. You could have a nice Six for under $100k.

http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-reports/ ... -32-review

[PilotDAR]

My vote would be a 182, preferably an older one - straight back. They are fast for the power, lighter, and nice to fly, though no back window, and not as wide as the newer ones. Same engine though... 182's are very common, so easy to insure and repair. Aside from the cowls, there are few airframe parts which cannot be "made" if need be, but in any case, parts are reasonably easy to obtain if needed, even for that vintage.

Be wary of the legacy Cherokees. They are great planes when they are in service, but a poorly supported for parts from Piper, and many parts simply cannot be made. I had to phone Piper for a primary structure airframe part for an older Seneca. When the Piper Tech Rep told me that Piper would not sell the part, the effect would be to ground the plane. The "Piper" response to me: "Sir, that's a 40 year old plane, we have not seen it for 40 years, and we don't want it in the air any more."

That attitude really alarms me, as there are a number of parts that are scarce. Since then, I have seen an Arrow grounded and scrapped for corrosion, which would have been reparable on other types. I was able to "save" a hail damaged Warrior, but it was not cheap for the owner. I will avoid Pipers, as support will not likely get better. Unless someone else starts making some special airframe parts, some will be grounded for defects which would be minor on other types.

I like 177 Cardinals, though some parts may not be so easily available, less common type. Avoid the RG version of any of these, as they are more expensive to maintain, and parts may be difficult to buy. I'm told that the 182 RG is very difficult to buy gear parts for.

Mooneys are tight inside - not for me.

I really like the Bellanca Viking, but lots of care is required for the wood wing, and probably expensive to maintain. Sure nice to fly though!

C-206 is not as pleasant to fly as the 182.

Odd types (like Navion) are charming, but do you want to pay the cost to insure and maintain a rare type?

I like the Grumman AA-5 types, nice to fly, and fast for the power. But, they are a different construction method, assure you can get it maintained, and repaired if need be.

Rockwell 112/114 are very roomy, and very nice to fly, but a bit more exotic, and expensive to maintain.

So, I bring myself back around to the C 182. For me, a 182A...

Fly as many types as you can, then ask about maintenance, repair parts availabiliy, and insurance costs before you choose....