unfortunateley there are NO 4 seaters in ths category.
I think this is not entirely true. For example, the Jodel DR250 has around 460 kg useful load, the Nose-wheel cousins (DR-253, DR-300 and DR-400Series) can haul equal masses, depending on the engine. The higher powered specimen sell a bit at the high margin of Nates budget, but it is possible to obtain a decent Robin or Jodel, if one is patient. The lower powered Robins are mere 2+2 seater. Don't bother about rag and wood, they can stay outside for a while. For best storage, I would recommend a wooden hangar (controls the moisture perfect for wooden planes).
Then, there are the Morane-Saulnier Rallye series. A good MS893 can haul around 480 kg and goes for less than 30k. Euros, that is. The Minerva goes for even less, but the Franklin engine, despite being a very nice power plant, is quite rare and so are the spare parts. There are many Rallys parted out today (mostly old tow planes) and so there are enough spare parts for the airframe on the market.
The Piper Tri-Pacer is another plane with good loading capabilities (a bit more than 400 kg useful load) and great value for money. The Rudder-Aileron linkage is a bit odd, but you can get used to it. This plane is the reason, Cessna dropped their 170c planes and built the nose dragger 172 instead).
The Cardinal is supposed to carry around 400 to 500 kg, depending on engine and undercarriage, so I would suggest it to be a true 4 seat airplane, too.
These are indeed full 4 person (well, depending on the "person" part ... ) VFR aircraft suitable to go places. And with the Moranes, you may visit nearly every of your great British and French farm strips. (With the Cardinals, not so sure, since they are a bit on the heavy side).
Truth is, 25 to 35k won't buy you a decent IFR plane, but it surely would buy you the (in Europe) necessary avionics, probably without installation. But you can get a decent VFR plane to go places. Don't look at 700 NM range to travel Europe, you probably can't sit that long in a plane anyway. And if the journey is its own reward, there is no necessity to torture yourself or your mates.
Depending on your usual travel party, a 2+2 may be the right choice after all. The early 172s (straight 172 to 172H, with the O-300) can take 4 Persons for a scenic flight (don't fill her up too much, then) or you can travel with two or three persons and good baggage through Europe (around 28 liters Mogas if leaned correctly at approx 90 knots is a realistic value for two plus baggage) . Same is true for the lower powered Robins, Moranes, (well, perhaps not the 100 hp versions), Pipers ... and most of them can be run on Mogas and won't despise an occasional sip of AVGAS, if no MOGAS is availiable. If you then need to travel with 4 big guys and baggage, you can rent for that trip (you'll need something quite bigger, then, anyway).
As to the avionics, I'd keep it simple and reduce yearly costs. A good Radio or a Garmin 430, a transponder and that should do it for VFR flying. To be honest, handheld GPS or iPhone/iPads are so common these days, I wouldn't bother with big avionic racks, witch just drive the costs of your annual. Should GPS fail, there would be pilotage or dead reckoning as backup. They just work, like, every time.
Don't let people disencourage (is that a word?) you to consider a plane around 20..30k€. If the Engine is well cared for, the airframe is solid, you can get yourself a good companion for that kind of money with much freedom and not so bad economics.
However, there are indeed a couple of planes, I definitely would not recommend, unless you have much fun in maintaining airplanes, as in flying them. One of those planes is the Morane MS894 Minerva. They are beautiful planes, carry a lot out of tight spaces and are (like any Moranes) fun planes to fly. But they have the Franklin 6A-350 up front with a constant speed prop. The Engine has a guite high compression and can not be operated with Mogas. But foremost, it is rare and the manufacturer is for sale (again). So it can be hard to get spare parts. PZL has built some of these engines for their Koliber series (a licence built Rallye), but does not support original Franklin engines. There was a fuel pump AD and our Minerva stood for more than a year until we were able to buy a pump.
Then, there is the Cessna 175. It is essentially the Airframe of a 172 D, but with a Conti GO-300 engine, witch is an even greater slow seller than the Franklin. They have built some 172D powermatic, with would be the predecessor of the 175. They are really cheap and perform well, but maintenance can be horror.
As a private plane, I would also avoid the C172N. With the N series, Cessna tampered with Lycomings art of building the O320, mainly to get the price down. Well, the outcome is the O-320-H2AD, an engine, that has to run in order to get to TBO. If you don't fly this plane for at least 250 hours a year (basis of experience), you'll get problems with the bearings, cams and lifters. Many of these engines don't make it to the TBO. Better go for the less powered O320 E2D versions (150 hp I-M) or the O300 versons (145 hp, straight 172 to H-model). The O300 is a bit more expensive to overhaul, because of its additional two cylinders, but it runs considerably smoother than the fourbangers.
Whatever you buy, none of the usual used planes of the "golden era of general aviation" is anything other than an easy to fly airplane, especially the nosedraggers. All of them have a good safety record, as safety in aviation is a bigger deal with the pilot, than the plane. At the end of the day, a plane is a plane and if you own one, you'll get used to the small differences anyway. Take your time for a thorough pre buy inspection and if the plane is good maintained, fly her and see, if you like her. Because that is the most important thing when owning a plane: You have to stand behind your decision, you have to have a good feeling to take her into the air. After all, you have to trust her.
Just my 2 cents, MH
Well, of course you can fly 4 people in a C-182 for 3 or 4 hours (and in the 310 hp SR22 I just bought :-)) .... But i thought the discussion was about more "basic" airplanes.
Hello boscomantico :-)
mh - that is from my point of view a very nicely done post, and should be useful to the OP. People have different reasons for flying and for owning aircraft. For me, at least half of the enjoyment is in sole ownership itself - I like owning and taking care of interesting stuff, as well as using it. I appreciate a plane that does exactly what I need, but on the other hand if I like the plane I'm happier to do my flying around its capabilities.
I think if I were looking for a plane to fly long distance, I'd look at a Bellanca Viking (I like it a lot, as an object to own) or a six-cylinder Comanche (less sexy, but very useful and still interesting).
Lower 'after purchase' ownership costs mean a Grumman Tiger weighs less on the mind and pocket book than either of those, and its fun too. The Tri-Pacer is a bargain buy, probably won't have 10,000 hrs of flight school use on it, and will carry more than its looks indicate. Nothing wrong with 172s and Cherokees either, they are good aircraft and not "boring" to me, just well rounded.
As Alexis says, there are no 4-seater 4-seaters The only plane that you can load 100% and full fuel is a 737 or above
No, there is another one, The Comanche PA24-260C. I flew with full tanks (90gl), 4 people (2 couples) and luggage, also full tanks with 4 men (well built) and still had 25lbs left for max. weight.
Ben
What is the empty weight and the MTOW, of that type?
The current issue of German magazine Pilot und Flugzeug has an article about 4 seaters that can carry 4 people can do at least 300NM with IFR reserves. The three types were Cessna 182, Cherokee 235 and TB20.
That article made the criteria to be able to carry 4 x 80kg people over 300 NM with reserve for an alternate and so on, iow full IFR reserves. That means, 320 kg of people, no bags.
It kind of rang a bell with me so I calculated it for my small Mooney M20 C and surprise surprise, it can do it. Minimum Take Off fuel is 34 USG for this with alternate and 45 mins fuel on top, that is 130 liters. With this figure and 4 guys with 80 kgs each as they fly I exactly reach my MTOW off 1168 kg.
Speed here is the factor. The faster a plane is at its destination with the same kind of consumption, the more there is space for load.
HOWEVER: what IS a standard person today and how much would they want to carry?
I reckon 80 kgs is VERY optimistic if not self denial. The usual male today is someplace between 90 and 120 kg in their clothes, the usual female around 70-80 kgs. Baggage: Not many people will agree to travel with less than what the airlines allow, which is 23 kgs each. In the airlines, we used to take an average planning weight of 100 kg per person, that is including baggage, I'd go as far and say that is too few today, for adults take 120 kg, which is 85 kgs average clothed weight plus 25 kgs of baggage. This does NOT include the nic nacs which can be found in any plane.
This would mean a "true" 4 seater needs to be able to haul around 500 kgs. And yes, it is true, they do not exist. Even most 6 seaters can't do this and take sufficient fuel.
So, if we are talking of a requirement for a 4 seater, the huge difference will be who will occupy these seats and what do they carry in terms of baggage!
I'd say, an average family with 2 adults and 2 children under 10 will weigh about 350 kg. (2 Adults at 100 kg plus 2 kids at 75 kg including baggage). Teenagers are adults in terms of load, so 400-450 kgs should be considered.
So the VERY FIRST thing a perspective buyer needs to do is to HONESTLY get his loved ones assessed for weight. For this puprose, put them on the scale in their normal travel attire, not for summer but winter. Then take them to a 2 week holiday with their bags with your station wagon you take and weigh that. The end result is your payload requirement.
I've seen LOTS of problems with (male) pilots who buy their pride and joy and have the first marital row when their spouse finds out that she's allowed 10 kgs for a 3 week holiday. Won't work with most of them. Those with a family will mostly stop there and then unless they have the budget for a Cheyenne or King Air, couples will need a 4 seater with the rear seats kept empty. For some families I've seen at check in for their holidays, an Antonov 26 would be the most realistic solution...
My airplane therefore is realistically a 2 seater with it's 280 kg payload at full tanks and maybe a 3 seater in the definition of that article. So are most PA28 and even the "Load wonder" Cessna 182.
BTW, if you wonder about airliners: I would say that 90% of fully occupied airliners today if put on the scales will be massively heavier than the loadsheet sais. The reason is, the airlines calculate with "standard pax weights" which were maybe accurate in 1950 but are science fiction in the McDonalds generation today. Yes, hold baggage is weighed, but you'd risk a riot at the gate if you'd really enforced that 7 kg / one piece hand luggage rule. I'd wager, additionally to the allowed 23 kgs of hold baggage, each pax carries at least 15-20 kgs of carry ons. That makes the current IATA weigts look very optimistic with around 80 kgs per adult and 35 kgs per child. I'd say, calculate with 130 kg per pax regardless of sex and age and we'd be more in the ballpark.
Best regards Urs
Nate,
as to your question of what to buy. There are several factors and all need to be considered very carefully. If you do that, then there is nothing wrong with buying even as a single owner as long as you really have made your homework.
Most people buy their first plane with totally false pretexts. Peter is the only guy I know who actually did the calcs and ended up with a plane which will last him for most of his career. Most people I know went with what they knew from the flight school and were back at controller or planecheck within a year.
The good news is, prices today are in a bottomless pit. That means, for you as a buyer, you might well get a LOT more for your 30k than maybe 2-3 years ago.Prices on the websites are science fiction today. Owners who wish to sell often enough find that if they can get half of what they imagined their treasure is worth, they can be happy. I've seen fully IFR equipped Mooneys change hands for under 20k euros recently, planes which would easily have fetched 200k a year or two ago.
Before you even consider any type, you need to be clear on what it has to be able to do and that means a lot more specific than just, oh, it needs 4 seats. There are worlds between what 4 seats and their occupants can mean. As I wrote in my message above this one, a standard family with Male/female and 2 kids and their baggage will weigh anything between 250 and 500 kgs. If you dream of carrying 4 males plus laptops, cameras, skis, e.t.c. well, make your own calc. I've seen enough in 18 years of load control to know there are folks who will overload a C5A given the chance.
If you have that, the choice is massive today.
Some of the nicer planes have been mentioned. I'd throw in my last 3 years of experience with the vintage Mooneys. They are, due to their sturdy and easy bulid as well as bullet proof engines of the best market value you can find. I know of at least 3 Mooney M20C and E's which are offered at around the price you mention or below. One of them is IFR and sports 9 hours endurance with Monroy tanks.
What you will get is a serious tourer for (with standard tanks) a range of about 500 NM at full fuel and 280 kgs of payload with that, or 300 NM and 320 kgs of payload. With the Monroys, they do become strict 2 seaters with about 170 kgs full fuel payload but will travel up to 1500 NM. Speed is about 150 kts for an "E" and 140 kts for a "C" Model, which is 40-50% more than a PA28 will offer at roughly 100 kts at the same fuel consumption of between 7 and 9 gph. Drawbacks are a pretty small cabin which you need to test sit with your regular passengers.
IFR is a must today. VFR has a dispatch reliability of maybe 10% these days, so it is really only good for unscheduled coffee trips. Planning vaccations or let alone biz trips VFR is a non starter in the horrible weather conditions we've experienced recently. Again, Mooneys are very good IFR Platform, so is the TB20 or Bonanzas, albeit at a much higher cost.
Best regards Urs
636kg for the Comanche is outstanding.
Take off full fuel (90USG=245kg) gives you a 391kg payload for people and luggage.
Whether that will take 4 adults depends on the "adults" of course 
But I wonder what level of equipment that Comanche had when those figures were produced.
A late-model TB20GT like mine can carry 500kg (266kg with full fuel; 86USG) and that is very good relatively to other modern types. The figure has shrunk since the 1980s, due to new avionics etc having been added. A KCS55 slaved compass system is probably 20kg, etc, so one needs to be careful to compare like for like. I know from an old instructor who used to ferry them from France to the UK that the ferried planes would sometimes not even have an AI so the ferry flight would have to be done in good wx. It is entirely possible for such a bare TB20 to have a payload of 550kg+.
The other thing is useful range on the "full" fuel. A TB20 will go much further on its 86USG than the Comanche (which is an efficient aircraft) will go on its 90USG. You could easily win the "full fuel and 4-up" competition by designing a plane with small tanks!
BTW, if you wonder about airliners: I would say that 90% of fully occupied airliners today if put on the scales will be massively heavier than the loadsheet sais
The pilots I speak to say, yes, but the runways are long enough so nobody worries about it. They are not going into Wangen-Lachen...
The usual male today is someplace between 90 and 120 kg in their clothes, the usual female around 70-80 kgs.
That may be true but (sticking my neck out here!) anybody of average height whose weight is in the top part of that range is well into the "clinical obesity" category and ought to do something about it ASAP if they want to have some quality of life as they get older, or indeed even live to old age. If one wants to haul four people of that size, with luggage, one needs a Cessna 421 or similar, and it's going to be awfully expensive.
VFR has a dispatch reliability of maybe 10% these days,
More than that, I would say. Taking random future dates, perhaps 50% if you fly 100% legal VFR. But it will be seasonal.
Non-deiced IFR lifts that to something like 75%; a bit more more if you are happy to go up to "have a look".
Most people buy their first plane with totally false pretexts. Peter is the only guy I know who actually did the calcs and ended up with a plane which will last him for most of his career.
You would be suprised how much luck there was in that choice
One massively important thing I didn't know the importance of back then was RANGE.
I did specify the avionics OK. The TB20 was the only type one could buy which has that. Cirrus (the UK main dealer) refused to fit a DME or ADF and wouldn't walk to me after I pointed out the plane would be illegal for IFR.
