Confused about used aircraft prices

ya but....too much and you'll go slower. :eek:

You'd just need to go really fast to have enough elevator authority to keep the back end of the plane from falling out from under you.
 
My 172n with the 180hp upgrade had a useful load of over 1,000 pounds, so you could haul 4 normal adults and luggage. And it was relatively economical.
But it was slow.
 
Find an ugly but mechanically sound PA32-260. Fix it up as the funds allow, interior, panel, paint etc. Won't cost more to operate than a 182 and you have both useful load and cubes to fit your growing family.

There are no cheap twins.
 
Thank you all for your inputs. You have definitely given me some other ideas to research and consider.
 
A Grumman Tiger, maybe, but not a Traveler. Most modern day Travelers are going to be somewhere around 1300-1400# empty, add 220# fuel, and your useful load goes down to about 600#. Plus, with the shorter horizontal stabilizer, you don't want too much aft loading with baggage and such.

The Traveler is really a two person plane, with room to throw stuff in the backseat. Maybe a Cheetah might be a better/cheaper consideration, until the kids get older.

...Grumman piece of sh...!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Can anyone explain to me why I can buy a loaded 60's-70's 310 for the same price as a VFR or barely IFR 60's-70's 172?
in a word "operating cost"

look for a well kept Piper Comanche 250/260

like this one

PA-24 250
 
Last edited:
...Grumman piece of sh...!

Now, what's up with that? My Tiger had a useful load of 961 lbs, with fuel to the tabs (38 gallons), I had a remaining payload of 733 lbs. Some of these planes have older avionics, ADF's etc, and if you pull that stuff out, you can get a bit more. I flight plan for 130 KTAS takeoff to touchdown, and that's flying between 65% - 70% power.
 
...Grumman piece of sh...!

Oh. I thought he just sneezed before posting. It's allergy season.
 
Back
Top