Best mid-range two-seater under $25 K

Rneuwirth said:
Moderately off subject, but is there a reliable source of information regarding the actual price paid for used planes, similar to "blue book" for autos? One poster mentioned that planes are often listed for a price that they will not bring on the market, so knowing the real present market value would help immensely.
Click to expand...
There is a "blue book" for aircraft, too, but it's not available online free -- you'll probably have to ask a dealer or appraiser for a peek. There's also the Vref system, which AOPA members can access without additional charge on the AOPA Valuation page. It's not as accurate a predictor of selling price as the "blue book," but it's a reasonable estimator for setting an agreed value for insurance purposes.
 
Ron Levy said:
BTW, what I haven't seen from the OP is a procurement budget. That would help. Also, I don't think he said anything about instrument flying, but trips like that pretty much beg for an IR unless you have lots of time to sit and wait for weather. Proper IFR equipment to either obtain or use an IR seems to me pretty important for an airplane for this mission.
Click to expand...

um, look at the thread title.

and in post #1: "8 - Get my IFR ticket (maybe)"
 
Doh. Yeah, under $25k. Tough finding something to do all that in that price range. You can maybe find a 140 Cherokee for that money, but putting two bikes in the back will be a real trick unless they're those special folding bikes. Sounds like either a reduced mission statement, a partner, or more money is in order
 
Hi Everyone -

As always all thoughts/insights/comments are appreciated, you've all provided a lot of food for thought. It sounds like the trifecta I originally mentioned are maybe a little less plane than what I need (or at least what I think I need).

Thanks!
 
Mike5250 said:
I flew an 0-300 172 the other night. I was really surprised and enjoyed how smooth that 6 cyl engine ran.

I think full fuel load on it was about 600 lbs. I'm not sure how you will get a full size bike in any of these choices.
Click to expand...

the six banger is a great engine, just two more cylinders to need work.

However some have argued that the smoother engine causes less fatuige, both of the pilot and the airframe
 
Skylane81E said:
the six banger is a great engine, just two more cylinders to need work.

However some have argued that the smoother engine causes less fatuige, both of the pilot and the airframe
Click to expand...

And if you have it dynamically balanced and it'll run so smoothly that you won't even notice an engine failure!
 
Last edited:
Random thought on the bike, even in my late(r) model 182 a full size bike requires dissasembly of the wheels and removal of the back seat. I have a feeling folders will be required of just about any plane in that price range.
 
Of the three you mentioned, I like the Tomahawk. Owned one after I learned to fly in a C-152. 105 knot cruise on 6.25 gallons/hr. Loads of baggage space, more elbow room than anything in its class, and great outward visibility. You could find a nice one for your price.

I flew numerous 400-600 NM trips in mine. The big issue was that I was typically loaded to the gills with a passenger and gear for camping, so we had to limit to about 20 gallons, which was 2+ hours plus reserves. With full fuel it is a 400NM mile airplane.
 
Skylane81E said:
the six banger is a great engine, just two more cylinders to need work.

No one reworks old Continental cylinders, a new one is about the same price, and the same as overhauling a Lycoming 0-320 cylinder.

However some have argued that the smoother engine causes less fatuige, both of the pilot and the airframe
Click to expand...

I have tracked the op costs of a 1966 C-172/0-300-D and a 1969 172/0-320-E2D, and the op cost per 1000 hours for the C-172/0-300 is about 70% of the cost to operate a 172/0-320-E2D.

There have been no upgrades to these two aircraft in the 10 years I have been watching/caring for these aircraft.

Fuel consumption is lower on the 0-300, and it has had no airframe components fail, but the 0-320- has 2 vac pump failures plus 3 gyro failures, and both elevator trim hinges replaced.

you figure it out.. that is 10 years service on 2 aircraft I service.

I'll take the early 172 every time, greater useful loads, less over all maintenance issues, and a smoother ride.

My last C-145/0-300 overhaul was just over $12k signed off ready to fly..

Charley Malot (Zepher engines) just sent me a 0-320 Superior kit engine ready to install price at sign off, just under $25k.

Yep……. I'll take the extra 2 cylinders every time. 4 spark plugs every 500 hours are cheap.
 
Ron Levy said:
There is a "blue book" for aircraft, too, but it's not available online free -- you'll probably have to ask a dealer or appraiser for a peek. There's also the Vref system, which AOPA members can access without additional charge on the AOPA Valuation page. It's not as accurate a predictor of selling price as the "blue book," but it's a reasonable estimator for setting an agreed value for insurance purposes.
Click to expand...

The best way to tell what is really selling, and for what, is to do a search on E-Bay for completed sales, the green are the ones that sold, and for what,, it's pitiful.

http://motors.completed.shop.ebay.c...pcats=6038,6000&_sofindtype=22&_sop=10&_rdc=1
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
Of the three you mentioned, I like the Tomahawk. Owned one after I learned to fly in a C-152. 105 knot cruise on 6.25 gallons/hr. Loads of baggage space, more elbow room than anything in its class, and great outward visibility. You could find a nice one for your price.

I flew numerous 400-600 NM trips in mine. The big issue was that I was typically loaded to the gills with a passenger and gear for camping, so we had to limit to about 20 gallons, which was 2+ hours plus reserves. With full fuel it is a 400NM mile airplane.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info (validation?). Sounds like our missions are/were pretty similar. Two hour legs are perfectly acceptable for us and we're going to use this a lot for camping. That being said, I'm guessing you couldn't get bikes in the luggage area even with wheels/saddle removed, esp. with camping gear.

Some folks raised a good point about indicated vs. true airspeed - is that 105 kt what's on the dial or were you actually moving at 105 knots? Door-to-door, including fuel/stretching stops, how long did you usually need for a 500 miler? Why did you pick the Tomahawk over the 150? Is it primarily the space benefits you outline above?

Happy to take this offline if you'd like....

Thanks again.
a
 
TexasAdam said:
Thanks for the info (validation?). Sounds like our missions are/were pretty similar. Two hour legs are perfectly acceptable for us and we're going to use this a lot for camping. That being said, I'm guessing you couldn't get bikes in the luggage area even with wheels/saddle removed, esp. with camping gear.
Click to expand...

You might get a folding bike in the back of a C150, Tomahawk, or Skipper.

That's 25 LBS.

Now add in people, fuel, headset bags, sleeping bags, ultralight tent....

Start working the Weight & Balance.....
 
I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but I think you should consider a partnership. Double the purchase price, and there's a bunch of airplanes that will work for your mission, except for the fuel burn, which is not doable. An RV-4 with a O-320 zips along at 180mph or faster...same fuel economy per mile, though.
 
You won't be able to get any bikes in it, but you could probably find an RV-4 in the ~$25k range.

Edit: Oops.. I took too long to respond - someone already beat me to the RV-4 suggestion.
 
Get your self a 150 or 152 with an acceptable IFR stack. By acceptable I mean dual nav/comm with DME.
 
Another vote for the Cherokee 140 here.

I had one for my first airplane... Gave $22K for it in 2001, flew it for 10 years, sold it for $26K, but had upgraded some of the avionics and new paint and interior about 5 years ago. Would cruise at 125 mph on 8.5-9 gph @ 2450 rpm, and it you really wanted to run it balls to the wall full throttle down low, would hit 140 mph @ 2700 rpm but guzzled like 11.5 gph doing that :rofl:

Climb wasn't too bad down here in the flatlands of Texas, it'd do the book rate of 660 fpm at gross on a cool day, and with two aboard and loaded modestly would make 800-900 fpm.

It was very comfortable in the front seats, and with 50 gallons fuel capacity, would stay in the air longer than you'd really want to.

All in all, it was a great first plane.
 
TexasAdam said:
Thanks for the info (validation?). Sounds like our missions are/were pretty similar. Two hour legs are perfectly acceptable for us and we're going to use this a lot for camping. That being said, I'm guessing you couldn't get bikes in the luggage area even with wheels/saddle removed, esp. with camping gear.

Some folks raised a good point about indicated vs. true airspeed - is that 105 kt what's on the dial or were you actually moving at 105 knots? Door-to-door, including fuel/stretching stops, how long did you usually need for a 500 miler? Why did you pick the Tomahawk over the 150? Is it primarily the space benefits you outline above?

Happy to take this offline if you'd like....

Thanks again.
a
Click to expand...

Ours had a true airspeed (that's across the ground speed, with zero wind) of between 100 and 105 knots depending on power setting.

As far as bikes go, I think you could fit bikes and camping gear. The Tomahawk's cargo area is big and the ingress/egress isn't bad either. As Dan pointed out, you have to watch your payload. Ours had a useful load of 510 lbs. So do the math for your mission. I think the placard limited the baggage area to 100 lbs, but it has been a decade or so, so my memory is a bit fuzzy on that. One thing I do remember is that it was virtually impossible to load the aircraft outside the fore and aft CG limits (as long as you followed the 100 lb of baggage placard), which was nice.

Would a Cherokee be a better airplane? Probably -you'd have more options. But you'd also burn more fuel, and I really like having two doors like on the Tomahawk. Also, I *think* you could buy a newer/better equipped Tomahawk for the same money, compared to a Cherokee, but you're starting to deal in apples vs oranges.
 
kyleb said:
As far as bikes go, I think you could fit bikes and camping gear.
Click to expand...
I have some time in T-hawks, and I just don't see any way to get two bicycles in the back of one unless they're the special folding types, and even if you do, the remaining payload after full fuel and even overnight bags won't allow for even FAA "average" adults. We had to limit fuel just to put me and the trainee and a nav bag in the plane, and I ain't big (165 dressed with headset and kneeboard). Check the actual W&B data from real T-hawks and try putting real bikes in the back of them before you commit to this route.

I still think the original mission description calls for something with at least O-320 power and a 4-seat sized cabin.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I have some time in T-hawks, and I just don't see any way to get two bicycles in the back of one unless they're the special folding types, and even if you do, the remaining payload after full fuel and even overnight bags won't allow for even FAA "average" adults. We had to limit fuel just to put me and the trainee and a nav bag in the plane, and I ain't big (165 dressed with headset and kneeboard). Check the actual W&B data from real T-hawks and try putting real bikes in the back of them before you commit to this route.
Click to expand...

The poster mentioned removing the wheels. I'm pretty sure a couple of bikes will fit if the wheels are off. I know had a pretty large dog kennel(complete with dog) in the back of my Tomahawk once, and that's a big 'ol box. Besides, there is a huge range of bike weights. Lightweight bikes can come in at 25 lbs each or less. The heavy steel frame jobs like my parents had? Probably 40 pounds apiece.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
The poster mentioned removing the wheels. I'm pretty sure a couple of bikes will fit they will fit if the wheels are off. I know had a pretty large dog kennel(complete with dog) in the back of my Tomahawk once, and that's a big 'ol box. Besides, there is a huge range of bike weights. Lightweight bikes can come in at 25 lbs each or less. The heavy steel frame jobs like my parents had? Probably 40 pounds apiece.
Click to expand...

Still going to be tight, was rough in a 4 seater with the back out.
 
I have a "special folding bike" I use to commute on Amtrak:

9FS_Orange_Standing.jpg

​

It weighs 27 lbs (which is about standard weight for a non-race adult bike).
 
dmccormack said:
I have a "special folding bike" I use to commute on Amtrak:

9FS_Orange_Standing.jpg

​

It weighs 27 lbs (which is about standard weight for a non-race adult bike).
Click to expand...

And if I want to haul bikes with my backseat in I'd need one of those.
 
CJones said:
You won't be able to get any bikes in it, but you could probably find an RV-4 in the ~$25k range.
Click to expand...


No. Freggin. Way. To the comment on RV-4 or Glasair I FT for 25K. Point me to where either of these samples are selling in airworthy condition for 25K and I have a wad of cash to take them off your hands. You won't find it. Those are both 40K+ samples.

I'm in the search for a similar mission as the OP, except I'm looking primarily at experimentals and no taildraggers; not landing in the bush (sts), don't care for the liability of landing in reverse, taxi visibility/crosswind-landing shortcomings, increased insurance premium and no benefit other than subjective aesthetics, but I'll gladly take an RV-4 for 25K...:rolleyes:

None of the trike RVs are anywhere near my budget. The only airplane that fits the mission and budget is the varieze but I wrote it off once I researched the corroding wing attach fitting time bomb problem.

I used to own a C150, and I knew I wasn't going to meet my mission profile at 95kts in no wind. Although in hindsight my ownership cost was low as advertised for the C150, certified aviation left a great deal of frustration in terms of unjustified parts and avionics price premiums.

Anybody care to speak about the Pulsar series or the Europa. Have instructed a guy in the Europa, so have some experience with it. Loved it except for that ridiculous finger brake setup (who comes up with that $%^^ anyways), but I figured it'd be easy to retrofit the airplane to toe brakes, particularly being experimental and actually being allowed to do so. They seem to be pricy last time I checkd but I cannot find them for sale much at all. Mostly a European market for these things (go figure).

Pulsars, nobody has been able to tell me anything reliable about their cruise speed. With an 80hp engine it can't go that fast or climb much at all. I'd only consider one if I could do 120KTAS, I know the Europa makes that. Pulsar is another one I cannot find much information at all in the market. These models aren't anywhere as widespread as the RVs.

Anybody care to throw these samples into the discussion. Or send me the link to that elusive RV-4/Glasair I for 25K...because at that point I can tell you I have FOUND my airplane. LOL
 
hindsight2020 said:
'm in the search for a similar mission as the OP, except I'm looking primarily at experimentals and no taildraggers; not landing in the bush (sts), don't care for the liability of landing in reverse, taxi visibility/crosswind-landing shortcomings, increased insurance premium and no benefit other than subjective aesthetics, but I'll gladly take an RV-4 for 25K...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The only RV I've seen crash was a 7 where the nose strut collapsed (granted the pilot slammed it down pretty hard). There are plenty of benefits with the tailwheel verison.
 
My comment was for the OP to consider an RV-4 as a partner...if his 25K was added to a partner's, there are plenty of RVs in the ballpark. There are plenty of fun airplanes for 25K - Luscombes, T-crafts, Champs, oh and I just thought of it, a Piper Clipper. I think it had 108hp or 135 hp. Lighter than the Pacer, and sticks, like a proper airplane (Pacer had yokes). No flaps, though. Euphemistic 4 seater, not so fast, but fun to fly.
As you may have gathered, there is no such thing as Bonanza utility on a champ budget. If you'll lower your mission statement to (just) having fun and maybe once in a while going somewhere, there are lots options. Otherwise, Mazda with a bike rack.
 
The only excuse for a tricycle gear airplane is one with retractable gear (so you're not embarassed to be seen flying it), otherwise, it's what I call a 'built-in headwind'. Most airplanes just don't look right with a nosewheel. Especially Van's. Love the idea of the RV-10, but I can't get past the nose wheel. Rant off, sorry.
 
Thanks again, everyone, this has been helpful. To clarify, the bicycles are a nice-to-have, not a need-to-have ("Room for two bicycles is a big plus") and I have calculated pax weight (around 350) and the baggage we'd need (50 w/o bikes, 100 with) for the trips we'd be taking in this plane. I did say that our trips would usually average 350-500 nm, but a more accurate statement would probably be that we're happy to do two or three 150-200 nm legs to get there; they don't need to be, nor do we really want them to be, direct.

As far as partnerships go, I'm definitely a big proponent of them. Problem is that my life is going to be somewhat transient in the next 6-12 months and I don't want to buy in to/create a partnership just to have to dissolve it or sell my share if/when we decide to move. When I get settled I plan to go the partnership route in order to get access to a high-powered, IFR, XC bird.

The two-seater would be more for just hopping around to go camping and the occasional day-trip for businesses. In the event of a move it would come with us.

Thanks again to everyone for their input!
adam
 
Late to the party, but since Ted mentioned it...

I own a Grumman AA1B, upgraded to Sooper Yankee status with O320 and gross weight increase STCs.

My full-fuel payload is 330 pounds.

It has 22 gal usable fuel, so I tend to limit legs to 2 hours. And, since there is no reliable way to visually ascertain what's in the tanks unless they're full, I generally start most trips with full fuel... I mean, this is just not a plane where you can plan on typically flying with less than full fuel - there'd be absolutely no range at all!

I do fly with a folding bike sometimes and could easily fit two of the model I use - it weighs 24 lbs and folds quite compactly then slips into a bag.

The plane works fairly well for me, but I only weigh 105!
 
TexasAdam said:
Thanks again, everyone, this has been helpful. To clarify, the bicycles are a nice-to-have, not a need-to-have ("Room for two bicycles is a big plus") and I have calculated pax weight (around 350) and the baggage we'd need (50 w/o bikes, 100 with) for the trips we'd be taking in this plane. I did say that our trips would usually average 350-500 nm, but a more accurate statement would probably be that we're happy to do two or three 150-200 nm legs to get there; they don't need to be, nor do we really want them to be, direct.
Click to expand...
I think you realize now that you can do a 2-seater only without the bikes, and you'll need a larger cabin to carry them (and the cabin of an RV-4 is smaller than the cabins of the production 2-seaters mentioned).

Also, since 350-400 lb is where the payloads of those production 2-seaters mostly fall, you'll want to check the actual useful loads of the planes at which you look, even within the same make/model, and remember that they usually have relatively small usable fuel quantities (22-24 gallons) compared to 40-50 for the 4-seaters), so offloading fuel to make weight-room for extra payload is not easy to accomplish without severe range penalties, especially under IFR.
 
JoeSelch said:
I own a Grumman AA1B, upgraded to Sooper Yankee status with O320 and gross weight increase STCs.
Click to expand...
The gross weight STC which Joe mentions only increases the MGW by the increased weight of the larger engine, leaving your useful load the same at best, but often less due to the additional weight of other necessary components such as the larger prop. "Mean" Gene Plazak at DMA Speed Mods, best known for his Yankee taildragger STC, has been promising for years to develop an STC for a 100-200 lb MGW increase for the big-engined Yankees, which would create a plane which really would do what the OP wants (at least with folding bikes, not just "wheels off"), but so far there have been no results.
 
jesse said:
The only RV I've seen crash was a 7 where the nose strut collapsed (granted the pilot slammed it down pretty hard). There are plenty of benefits with the tailwheel verison.
Click to expand...


Directional control on roll-in/roll-out, ground forward visibility, crosswind landing static stability, insurance cost, NOT being among those. :rofl:

Come on now, I fly with pilots from all walks of life at my squadron, many who own TW samples; I can vouch for these guys as good sticks and they all accept ground looping as a cost of doing business in tailwheel land. There's those that have and those that will. I rather not carry that opportunity cost with me...cuts into the dispatchability if you catch my drift. To each their own.

I'm just stirring the pot a little, I'm sure the aesthetics of taildraggers are very appealing to some, and indeed there are beautiful planes who would look less novel with a trike. I was simply relating my preference based on criteria I do not find subjective. The benefits of a taildragger are not relevant to my mission profile (unimproved surface landings), so I rather not carry the extra expense and challenge.

Can't we all just get along? :D
 
j1b3h0 said:
My comment was for the OP to consider an RV-4 as a partner...if his 25K was added to a partner's, there are plenty of RVs in the ballpark. There are plenty of fun airplanes for 25K - Luscombes, T-crafts, Champs, oh and I just thought of it, a Piper Clipper. I think it had 108hp or 135 hp. Lighter than the Pacer, and sticks, like a proper airplane (Pacer had yokes). No flaps, though. Euphemistic 4 seater, not so fast, but fun to fly.
As you may have gathered, there is no such thing as Bonanza utility on a champ budget. If you'll lower your mission statement to (just) having fun and maybe once in a while going somewhere, there are lots options. Otherwise, Mazda with a bike rack.
Click to expand...


Oooooh, certainly. My apologies. I read it as if you were suggesting single ownership. I agree with you then, it certainly is within reach with a partner.
 
John Baker said:
I've never seen an auto gas pump at an airport, at least not that I have noticed. Do they even have them, or do you have to schlep it in Jerry cans to your plane?
Click to expand...

HZX, TWM, LJF, SGS.... all airports with auto gas available at the pump. I paid $4/gal. for auto gas earlier this summer, I was like... :eek:


I don't own a plane, but if I did, I would happily hump jerry cans full of car gas to my plane. Non-ethanol car gas is pretty easy to find if you know how to look. Many of my car buddies run that stuff in their highly tuned, turbocharged cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top