best plane for 4 people

[BeaverDreamer]

I agree with all the people saying 182. For the guys saying you'll have issues with room I wonder what the heck you guys are bringing. I regularly take 4 adults with 4 large bags and still have enough weight for a comfortable 3 hours of fuel. And that's with 4 guys, trade 2 of them out for a pair of friendly females and I fill the tanks right up. 125kts at 12gph and 1200lbs of load with great (wayyy better than it gets credit for) off-strip capability is just awesome for 50-70 grand. I admit a 206 would be nice but I have yet to have a situation where I haven't been able to make the luggage work.

[Chris M]

If you're going to be hauling 4 people (especially as your children grow) regularly for decent distances you'll want something with a 6-cylinder up front.

However... Your kids are still small enough that buying a 4-cylinder plane now and planning on replacing it with something larger in 6-8 years when they grow up could be an option. It would lessen your cost of entry and give you a potentially less expensive airplane to learn ownership with. Who knows, when your kids are in their late teens they might be pursuing lifestyles that make full family plane trips a rarity.

An fixed gear 0360 Cardinal (Cessna 177) might do the job for you. They fit somewhere between a 172 and 182 but have a longer cabin than either and massive doors. Not very many 4-place planes have this much space inside:

[Boratt]

Socata TB-10, if you can get your hands on one. They are pretty rare and far between in N. America.
I did my PPL in the South Pacific before coming up here to finish training. After the PPL I got a check out on the TB-10 and never looked back.
I have yet to see an airplane that can come close to matching it (apart from it's big brother the TB-20, that is, but then you're looking at a bit more money).

It seats up to 5 people if you like. 4 people very comfortably. Payload is good. Very stable platform. Gorgeous looking panel. Looks just like a car on the inside (upholstery and ergonomy). Cruises at a nice speed. Look it up.

[PilotDAR]

Socatas are great planes, but much better if you're in France. The charms of these more rare types can fade very quickly when you have to buy repair parts. You must consider that if you can't fix it, you're not going to be flying it, but you'll still be paying for it. Dispatch reliability and ease (economy) of maintenance are very important. Buy the most common type you can, which suits your needs.

A Socata sat in one of my client's hangars for an extended period of time. It turned out that a rather simple collar in the nose oleo was damaged, and a replacement part was needed, and it was expensive and long lead time. The plane was of no use during that time, but still cost.

On the other hand, my C-150 has been unflyable when I wanted to fly it, exactly twice in 28 years (both times a stuck exhaust valve). Otherwise never sitting waiting for parts nor unscheduled maintenance. The only reason I'm okay owning the very rare Teal, is the Lycoming O-360, is simple common, and I have an ample supply of airframe spares which came with it. Unless you're very patient, a rare type should be the choice for your second or third aircraft, so it does not have to fly when you want to.

Choose simple, common and reliable....

[photofly]

If you're buying a plane to fly regular trips of 1000nm as you say you are, there's no point buying something simple, common, reliable and so slow you'd be quicker taking a bus, or with such short legs that you need to make 4 fuel stops.

The truth is there may just not be an aircraft that meets all your needs.

[photofly]

I agree with all the people saying 182. For the guys saying you'll have issues with room I wonder what the heck you guys are bringing. I regularly take 4 adults with 4 large bags and still have enough weight for a comfortable 3 hours of fuel.

Your 182 must have a bigger cabin than mine, then, because even one large bag won't fit through the baggage door, nor will four fit in the baggage compartment. Four large guys means two of them are going to have their knees around their ears, particularly the guy behind the pilot if they want the pilot (me) to have sufficient aft yoke movement to land.

Maybe we disagree on what large means, or at least on what comfortable means!

[AOW]

If you want to regularly fly 1000 nm, with passengers who may not be quite as in love with airplanes as you, a turboprop is probably the minimum machine to get the job done. If purchase price didn't matter, a single engine TBM-700 would make the most sense, with a combination of high speed and low fuel burn. Now that trip is less than 3 hours, but these planes are not cheap!

Slightly less expensive, but also slower and thirstier are the "short body" King Air 90s (The T-tailed F90 is probably the fastest in the series, while the conventional tailed E90 is slightly more affordable, but at the cost of less speed and poorer pressurization). Too bad you missed out on the fire sale a few years ago on Mitsubishi MU-2s, at one point they seemed to be just about giving them away! Controller doesn't list any cheaper than that one today, and while it is the cheapest of all the aircraft I have listed, it is still 4 times your budget, and while it will get to your destination a few minutes ahead of the King Airs above in theory, you may actually be a half hour behind because you had to make a bathroom stop along the way, unless you buy a long-body MU-2 which, like the King Airs, has an optional potty.

[PilotDAR]

If you're buying a plane to fly regular trips of 1000nm as you say you are, there's no point buying something simple, common, reliable and so slow you'd be quicker taking a bus

When I was 13 years old, I became able to bicycle the ten miles each way to King City airport to hang around planes and helicopters for the day. It was a vast improvement over walking, which simply would not have worked time wise. The bicycle was simple, common and reliable. It could carry my water bottle and my lunch. I was happy with that - as a new owner might be happy with a 172 or a 182 for a 1000 mile flight.

A decade later, I was flying a C 310, and right seat in a Piper Cheyenne. They could fly that 1000 miles in 5 or 4 hours respectively - But, I would not afford to operate them for myself, then or now. Yet, I can rely on either of my simple planes to fly that thousand mile trip, in 11 to 13 hours, and it's still faster than my bicycle!

Everyone begins somewhere, and of course some grow from there as they need... Me, I went from right seat in a Cheyenne, to left seat in my 150, and I'm still happy with that - my planes are paid for, and I don't worry a bit about their operating cost. I do have "for the gas" use of a 182RG, but you know, in two years, I have not gotten around to borrowing it again...I'd have to fly to Buttonville to get it!

Owning a plane which you can afford, and does most of your job adequately is plenty fine. You'll be the better pilot for the regular flying. You can still rent, if you need bigger/faster.

[photofly]

I heartily agree with owning a plane - any plane - even if it doesn't meet your stated goal - as a way to get experience and have fun. But own that plane with a healthy dose of realism about what it will and won't do for your family travel plans!

[BeaverDreamer]

I agree with all the people saying 182. For the guys saying you'll have issues with room I wonder what the heck you guys are bringing. I regularly take 4 adults with 4 large bags and still have enough weight for a comfortable 3 hours of fuel.

Your 182 must have a bigger cabin than mine, then, because even one large bag won't fit through the baggage door, nor will four fit in the baggage compartment. Four large guys means two of them are going to have their knees around their ears, particularly the guy behind the pilot if they want the pilot (me) to have sufficient aft yoke movement to land.

Maybe we disagree on what large means, or at least on what comfortable means!

Load through the cabin doors and drop the bags over the back seat! Makes it a hell of a lot easier with the bigger stuff. I'm the smallest guy in my family at 6'3 and we all fit pretty comfortably, sure a lot more room than a car. I'm also in my twenties so I would imagine what's comfortable for me now won't be down the road . I'll be needing heated seats in my plane by the time I hit 40!

[dirtdr]

I think a lot of people here missed a big part of the OP's original post:

"I DON'T have $100k to spend"

That leads me to believe that he has 30? 40? 50k?

In that price range I would pick a 177 Cardinal. If I could do anything different, that would have been my first plane.

Stay away from the $25000 Cherokees. There are a lot for sale right now and there is a reason for that.

[howard40]

Buy a 172 and trade to 182 when the kids are bigger. An instrument rating should be in your plans before a fast single, it will do you more good. That pretty well requires an autopilot for any real world utility. Save your retract stuff till you see how going forward works,as the kids age. Do a careful prebuy. It's cheaper to buy the radios and autopilot you want in a plane. Engines are cheap in my books. Lots of folks are flying behind 50 thousand dollar dashboards ( and more!)with 30 thousand dollar engines. Flying lots makes it all work. 30 hours a year makes it expensive, probably too much so, 100 makes it cheaper per hour and more doable.thats a lot of flying. Consider a partnership if at the low hour end.

[photofly]

I think a lot of people here missed a big part of the OP's original post:

"I DON'T have $100k to spend"

That leads me to believe that he has 30? 40? 50k?

In that price range I would pick a 177 Cardinal. If I could do anything different, that would have been my first plane.

Stay away from the $25000 Cherokees. There are a lot for sale right now and there is a reason for that.

Cardinals aren't available for $50k. Tatty ones are $70k+ - the reason I ended up with a 182 is because all Cardinals were $15k overpriced for what you get... the 182 was way cheaper.

[Rookie50]

Love our 182. There are three of us in our family, and is very comfortable cabin for anything we want to bring for even a cross continent trip. Easy to fly, easy to fix, great engine, reasonable speed, low stall speed which is a forced approach safety factor I considered -- very stable.

Note on the family thing there is a learning curve for them too. Over time (hopefully, as in my case) family does become comfortable and even enjoy the flights. Pilot can help this through reasurrance and building confidence.

I did buy an RG so if looking that way, shop carefully for a no damage airplane.

Pro to an RG: good 20 KTAS more. Con: no rough fields and higher maintenance.

[SuperchargedRS]

PA24s are one of the best bangs for the buck out there.

Good speed, good handling, hauls a decent load, not expensive to buy or operate and looks nice too

Plenty of flavors of PA24, from the 180hp to the 400hp monster, just pick the one that works best for you.

[oldncold]

A good plane is slotted between the 172 and 182 is a the hawk xp > 195hp with fuel injection carries 1000 pounds useful load good range and maintenance is strait forward. It gives you abit faster speed than 172 and no carb ice issues of the 182 there are good ones around average fleet times around 3500 hours used and because they burn a gallon more than a 172 they were not used generally in flight training

[AirFrame]

Coming to this discussion late, but someone waaay back on the first page already posted my reply: North American Navion. If I needed to go from a two place to a four place, that would be the first one i'd look at.

[dash8dave]

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

For one, I am very happy to see someone who wants to own their own airplane to fly their family around. Congratulations and I really hope that you are able to realize your dream some day. I'm still at the dreaming stage.

This post begs me to ask this question to all of Avcanada's best and brightest. Suppose I have in excess of $3,000,000 to spend on my own airplane. (don't ask me how I got it cuz its pretend for this illustration) and I want to buy a Be20/PC12 so that i can go a bit further and I have to transport a family of 6). Why do I need a POC that has a DFO, CP, PRMC, an Ops Manual an MCM and a functioning SMS and the OP doesn't? I am not transporting any 'workers'. Its just me and my family. The Be20/PC12 is a single pilot airplane, I'll get the type rating cuz i can afford it.

It seems kind of unfair for the one who really wants to use a plane 'privately' instead of the way S_nc_r and S_ncr_d_ types of operations (not them specifically) want to operate. Those types of Operations really need a 703/704 certificate. Seems they want all the privileges without the responsibility and requirements of a Commercial Operator. I realize they are playing within the rules TC set up and I don't begrudge them at all.

Any TC lurkers out there want to weigh in? Feel free to post here or PM me.

Thanks for your help. I am really just trying to understand this POC thing and mean no malice to any aforementioned companies. They are used for illustration purposes only.

[photofly]

Can't speak for TC, but I imagine that they decided that larger and more sophisticated aircraft cause more "why isn't the government doing something" reports when they crash into buildings and kill people and therefore need more maintenance and operations oversight than a Cessna 182.

Can't say if that's right or wrong... it's just Canada. If you complain enough about the inequity of it all they'll probably level the field by slapping the requirement for a POC on everything that flies, and we can all go home.

[dash8dave]

Can't say if that's right or wrong... it's just Canada. If you complain enough about the inequity of it all they'll probably level the field by slapping the requirement for a POC on everything that flies, and we can all go home.

Or, they can level the field by removing the requirement for people who only fly friends and family (such as in a 172) not workers to and from the field, and MORE people may start flying privately.

To the OP and Mods. This was not a Thread Hijack attempt. If it does go away from the OP please feel free to move it to a more appropriate thread.

Thanks.

[ogopogo]

Have you considered a tail dragger at all?

http://www.mauleflight.com/faq/M4.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLuSxJMsaIM

[photofly]

Or, they can level the field by removing the requirement for people who only fly friends and family (such as in a 172) not workers to and from the field, and MORE people may start flying privately.

I don't see any evidence that Transport Canada wants more people flying privately. The headlines are only bad, they don't have a budget to "oversee" it and GA is just a headache for anyone with a "regulatory" mindset. "People flying, all over the sky? Anywhere they want? At any time!? Horror!"

So, if you push for a level playing field - you're only likely to get it in a way that will make you wish you'd never asked.

[rigpiggy]

I really like the simplicity of the cessna fixed gears, but one of the best bargains are older"strutted" 210's 55K us will get you one with 400 tsoh. Expect at least 15K to import though. there is also a C205 on this forum for 85K,a bit steep offer 75 out the door

http://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php?mode=listing&main=
http://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php?mode=listing&main=