Four place airplane

Old Geek

Old Geek

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
1,888
Location
Northern California
Display Name
Display name:
Old Geek
I've decided that my light sport airplane can't fly the missions I have in mind and I'm looking to replace it with a used 4-place airplane for about $40,000. No retracts, relatively inexpensive maintenance and operating costs. It looks like it comes down to a 172 or a non-RG Cardinal. I'm leaning towards the Cardinal. Most of the used Cardinals seem to be better-kept than the average 172 and I like the increased load carrying ability.

Anyone have any comments or suggestions? Engines to avoid? Mods that are desirable or to be avoided?
 
Do you want 4 seats or ability to take 4 people?...big difference!

More details on your intended use and missions would be helpful.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
Do you want 4 seats or ability to take 4 people?...big difference!

More details on your intended use and missions would be helpful.
Click to expand...

Myself and two more, average weight would be about 170 each and 100 pounds of luggage. No or little high density altitude ops.
 
A 172 would suit you ok but a 182 might be better as an extra person might pop into the picture at times and baggage could be significantly higher depending on length of trip and what you might be doing, i.e. camping, golfing, etc.
 
On the other end of the spectrum; look at the Beechcraft Sundowner. Around $40,000.00. 180hp and 1000lbs useful load. 57gal fuel. Speed about 120kts. Reliable, easy to maintain.
 
Lol, the 172 was never a 4 seat aircraft, unless you're a group of midgets.

Look into Stinson 108s, easy mx, really 4 seater, handles like a caddy and fits your budget.
 
I like the Cherokee 180 a little more speed ,and can carry a little more weight. The cardinal does have easier entry.
 
172m or 172n with a 180 conversion. My 172n has 1,027 useful. So that would be 4 average adults, fuel, and some luggage.
 
Old Geek said:
I've decided that my light sport airplane can't fly the missions I have in mind and I'm looking to replace it with a used 4-place airplane for about $40,000. No retracts, relatively inexpensive maintenance and operating costs. It looks like it comes down to a 172 or a non-RG Cardinal. I'm leaning towards the Cardinal. Most of the used Cardinals seem to be better-kept than the average 172 and I like the increased load carrying ability.

Anyone have any comments or suggestions? Engines to avoid? Mods that are desirable or to be avoided?
Click to expand...

I like the Cardinal, I'd look for one with an O-360.
 
I think a C182 or Piper Dakota would serve you better in the long run.. However, I did a quick look on controller and found for the $40k price range, there's a 180hp Beech C23, Piper Archer II, and Grumman AA5 that you could get.
 
Yeah, the salvage yard may have a Dakota for $40k, but I think he wants to fly it. One has to work within budget.
 
Yea....on the cheap, either a low end Archer, decent Cherokee 180 or 172 with 180 horse engine is where you are at.
 
Too bad, my 235 was sold in march. Fit your mission perfectly. Would of saved you 10k also....
 
Old Geek said:
I've decided that my light sport airplane can't fly the missions I have in mind and I'm looking to replace it with a used 4-place airplane for about $40,000. No retracts, relatively inexpensive maintenance and operating costs. It looks like it comes down to a 172 or a non-RG Cardinal. I'm leaning towards the Cardinal. Most of the used Cardinals seem to be better-kept than the average 172 and I like the increased load carrying ability.

Anyone have any comments or suggestions? Engines to avoid? Mods that are desirable or to be avoided?
Click to expand...

I used to own a Cardinal. Cool airplane. They are an "Orphan" airplane. Do some serious research into parts availability and prices.
 
Old Geek said:
I've decided that my light sport airplane can't fly the missions I have in mind and I'm looking to replace it with a used 4-place airplane for about $40,000. No retracts, relatively inexpensive maintenance and operating costs. It looks like it comes down to a 172 or a non-RG Cardinal. I'm leaning towards the Cardinal. Most of the used Cardinals seem to be better-kept than the average 172 and I like the increased load carrying ability.

Anyone have any comments or suggestions? Engines to avoid? Mods that are desirable or to be avoided?
Click to expand...

Cardinal is more fun handling wise than a 172, holds more fuel, larger interior, better visibility and a very active club. They have a really nice headliner making it easy to remove the whole interior for inspection, something I recommend on a prebuy inspection for corrosion.

My dad bought kinda of beatup old 1968 177 years ago so I've gotten lots of wrenching on it over the years. Most of the wear type replacement parts are the same on other cessna so availability is rarely an issue. The engine is an o320e2d the same used in the 172 for many years.

I've flown a 177B with 180 and constant speed for 20 hours or so and it is nicer but have a hard time justifying its numerous expensive parts like a $9k prop, $1k prop governor, and being stuck burning avgas for the little performance increase that it offers.

If I had to chose between a 177 and a 172 priced the same with similar equipment I would pick the one in better shape. I do like being able to fly 5 hours nonstop and land with around 10 gallons remaining tho (177 has 48 gallons usable)

If I was out to buy another 177 it's would have to have an o-320.
 
Last edited:
AKBill said:
On the other end of the spectrum; look at the Beechcraft Sundowner. Around $40,000.00. 180hp and 1000lbs useful load. 57gal fuel. Speed about 120kts. Reliable, easy to maintain.
Click to expand...

We used to have a Sundowner for rent. Nice and roomy ride, but no way will it cruise at 120 kts. In fact, it was slower than the 160 hp Skyhawk that we have now.
 
Old Geek said:
I've decided that my light sport airplane can't fly the missions I have in mind and I'm looking to replace it with a used 4-place airplane for about $40,000. No retracts, relatively inexpensive maintenance and operating costs. It looks like it comes down to a 172 or a non-RG Cardinal. I'm leaning towards the Cardinal. Most of the used Cardinals seem to be better-kept than the average 172 and I like the increased load carrying ability.

Anyone have any comments or suggestions? Engines to avoid? Mods that are desirable or to be avoided?
Click to expand...

You could look at the B36 Bonanza, which is a 4-seater. Don't know if you'll find one for less than $40,000 though.
 
bnt83 said:
Cardinal is more fun handling wise than a 172, holds more fuel, larger interior, better visibility and a very active club. They have a really nice headliner making it easy to remove the whole interior for inspection, something I recommend on a prebuy inspection for corrosion.

My dad bought kinda of beatup old 1968 177 years ago so I've gotten lots of wrenching on it over the years. Most of the wear type replacement parts are the same on other cessna so availability is rarely an issue. The engine is an o320e2d the same used in the 172 for many years.

I've flown a 177B with 180 and constant speed for 20 hours or so and it is nicer but have a hard time justifying its numerous expensive parts like a $9k prop, $1k prop governor, and being stuck burning avgas for the little performance increase that it offers.

If I had to chose between a 177 and a 172 priced the same with similar equipment I would pick the one in better shape. I do like being able to fly 5 hours nonstop and land with around 10 gallons remaining tho (177 has 48 gallons usable)

If I was out to buy another 177 it's would have to have an o-320.
Click to expand...
A lot of that looks familiar. What's a FG 180 HP 177 burn and what's real life cruise like? I flew one as a student but I was behind it for the few times I was in it...
 
Old Geek said:
I've decided that my light sport airplane can't fly the missions I have in mind and I'm looking to replace it with a used 4-place airplane for about $40,000. No retracts, relatively inexpensive maintenance and operating costs. It looks like it comes down to a 172 or a non-RG Cardinal. I'm leaning towards the Cardinal. Most of the used Cardinals seem to be better-kept than the average 172 and I like the increased load carrying ability.

Anyone have any comments or suggestions? Engines to avoid? Mods that are desirable or to be avoided?
Click to expand...

Yesterday, I took my 12 yo, his friend, and my 9yo son out for a flight in a 172M. The guys before me did me the favor of topping it off, and with that load we were 80lbs shy of gross. No way I could have done it with adults. It was 95 degrees, and a DA a little north of 3000'. I was only getting about 450'/m climb, and it flew like an absolute pig.

I have flown this plane a lot, and even had the whole family in there before without noticing any issue. But it was astonishing how poorly it performed heavy and hot.
 
Frogs97 said:
Yesterday, I took my 12 yo, his friend, and my 9yo son out for a flight in a 172M. The guys before me did me the favor of topping it off, and with that load we were 80lbs shy of gross. No way I could have done it with adults. It was 95 degrees, and a DA a little north of 3000'. I was only getting about 450'/m climb, and it flew like an absolute pig.

I have flown this plane a lot, and even had the whole family in there before without noticing any issue. But it was astonishing how poorly it performed heavy and hot.
Click to expand...

Yeah but what airplane wouldn't under $40k?
 
bnt83 said:
Yeah but what airplane wouldn't under $40k?
Click to expand...

Bought mine for 29K with 400 hours left on the engine. Would haul 1417lbs.

It was really hard to load it to gross weight, but even close to gross during the summer it would climb 750FPM.


There out there, but if you want to stay below 40K, its not going to be in a cessna. They are typically 10K more for the comparable plane. Which is why I went with a 235 vs the 182.
 
Stay away from the first-year 150HP Cardinals. If you buy a Cardinal, learn to hold tightly onto the door when you open it in a wind. Other than that, fly both and buy the one your wife likes better.

And don't fly a Grumman Cheetah or Tiger -- you may find you don't ever want to fly a Cessna again. ;)
 
Ron Levy said:
And don't fly a Grumman Cheetah or Tiger -- you may find you don't ever want to fly a Cessna again. ;)
Click to expand...

No argument about the pilot's perspective, but first make sure the passengers are happy. Cessnas have a bit of an advantage over the Grummans in this area, especially the rear seats.
 
Don't mind Capt Ron's response on the 150 horse Cardinal. Him and many others like him do not understand that a 1968 cardinal holds more usable fuel than any 172 with standard range tanks built from 1956 to 1984 (excluding the Q & RG).

If you properly load a 150 horse Cardinal with the same load as a 172, they perform pretty much the same.

When the 1968 177 came out it held 72 pounds more fuel than the older 1966 172H.

Flying them both however is good advice.
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
No argument about the pilot's perspective, but first make sure the passengers are happy. Cessnas have a bit of an advantage over the Grummans in this area, especially the rear seats.
Click to expand...
You might want to recheck that -- the legroom, hip and shoulder width are larger in the AA-5x's than a 172's. And yes, from time to time, I do occupy the back seat. ;)
 
Ron Levy said:
Stay away from the first-year 150HP Cardinals. If you buy a Cardinal, learn to hold tightly onto the door when you open it in a wind. Other than that, fly both and buy the one your wife likes better.

And don't fly a Grumman Cheetah or Tiger -- you may find you don't ever want to fly a Cessna again. ;)
Click to expand...

Load it with fish and camp gear, and let's try to get your Grummie off a short grass strip.

How many hours do you have a a 68/ C-177? I've got about 50, and never had a problem with it. They will do every thing a 150 horse 172 will.
 
Ron Levy said:
You might want to recheck that -- the legroom, hip and shoulder width are larger in the AA-5x's than a 172's. And yes, from time to time, I do occupy the back seat. ;)
Click to expand...

I have. Numerically, the AA5's are better than 172's. However, the numbers don't tell the whole story. I haven't measured, but I suspect that the backseat on a Grumman is lower than the 172, which means long-legged people will want to stretch out and tuck their toes under the front seat so as not to have their knees pointed up the whole time. However, they can't tuck their toes under the front seat because the spar is down there. And speaking of space under the seats, not only is there none under the front but there also isn't any under the back either. In the Cessna, this is useful space for storing empty headset bags, dirty tissues, fuel receipts, etc. Gotta find other space in the Grumman for that stuff. Also, the Grumman has footwells in the back where Cessnas have flat floors. The flat floor allows more flexibility and a greater feeling of roominess. Look at rear-wheel drive sedans or coupes with transmission/driveshaft tunnels vs. front-wheel drive minivans with a flat floors.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Grummans are bad. But in some ways the Cessnas are better in this regard.
 
Piper Archer ALL DAY. Most have 700 pounds payload with full fuel, and fueling tabs, that if fueled to provide 34gallons or 3 hours of flying and almost 800 pounds of payload. That is 4 pretty substantially sized people.
Those fueling tabs to me are gold. So easy to ask to have it fueled to the tabs and 786 ish pounds of payload, with a solid cg ability, allows you to pretty much go where you want. 3 hours will take you 330 miles ish which is will get you to LA and all the further you'll want to fly nonstop with 4 people. My club in Concord has an Archer. Send me a PM if you want to take a look!

I can't vouch for a m20c because I have never been in one, but its my understanding that they can carry 4- 180 pounders and 3 hours of fuel too... Be a tight squeeze!
 
Last edited:
Old Geek said:
I've decided that my light sport airplane can't fly the missions I have in mind and I'm looking to replace it with a used 4-place airplane for about $40,000. No retracts, relatively inexpensive maintenance and operating costs. It looks like it comes down to a 172 or a non-RG Cardinal. I'm leaning towards the Cardinal. Most of the used Cardinals seem to be better-kept than the average 172 and I like the increased load carrying ability.

Anyone have any comments or suggestions? Engines to avoid? Mods that are desirable or to be avoided?
Click to expand...

You'd be hard pressed to find a better deal.
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1014137_1968+Cessna+177.html
 
It's about 100 inches from the instrument panel to the aft baggage wall (just forward of that yellowish/white battery box.

It's about 120 inches from the firewall to aft baggage wall.

The shiny part of the switch panel is about 42 inches across.

The armrest mounts for the back seat is about 43inches apart.

When I'm flying my head is just a couple inches behind the wing's leading edge






 
Last edited:
TheGolfPilot said:
Piper Archer ALL DAY. Most have 700 pounds payload with full fuel, and fueling tabs, that if fueled to provide 34gallons or 3 hours of flying and almost 800 pounds of payload. That is 4 pretty substantially sized people.
Those fueling tabs to me are gold. So easy to ask to have it fueled to the tabs and 786 ish pounds of payload, with a solid cg ability, allows you to pretty much go where you want. 3 hours will take you 330 miles ish which is will get you to LA and all the further you'll want to fly nonstop with 4 people. My club in Concord has an Archer. Send me a PM if you want to take a look!

I can't vouch for a m20c because I have never been in one, but its my understanding that they can carry 4- 180 pounders and 3 hours of fuel too... Be a tight squeeze!
Click to expand...

There are a couple of threads around here that go piper vs Cessna but since he didn't as about any low wings I'm not even going to dig for them. I assume he's looking for easy access for pilots, passengers and bags.
 
If you park a C-177 downwind make sure your passengers have a good hold of the door. Lots of them have patches on the lower hinge because the door got away from them and their is no strut to stop it from wrapping around the nose of the plane.:popcorn:
 
bnt83 said:
There are a couple of threads around here that go piper vs Cessna but since he didn't as about any low wings I'm not even going to dig for them. I assume he's looking for easy access for pilots, passengers and bags.
Click to expand...

wasn't looking for the Cessna vs Piper argument. I think both would fit the OP's mission and either model, in good shape, under 40k, he should really look hard at.

Leaving some fuel at home can take 4 and parts are abundant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top