Looking for a 2 seater, I know this is a lot to ask for...

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/october/pilot/budget-buy-grumman-aa1b#:~:text=The AA1B has a basic useful load of more than 450 pounds.
nikos1 said:
Hey everyone, me and a friend of mine are finishing up our multi engine commerical and are in the process of looking for an airplane to time build in for the airlines. Our criteria is an aircraft, experimental or certified, that burns very little fuel, preferably under 7 gallons, but the less the better (4-5 would be awesome), fast, and 2 seater, but more than 2 would be okay as well. Something that is fun, but affordable and can easily carry 2 people, that is fast. We have been looking hard at the Grumman AA1 Yankee, I also just mentioned possibly buying a 0-200 115hp Quickie. Does anyone have any advice or suggestions before 2 students make a huge financial decision like this? Any help or advice would be much appreciated, thanks!!
Click to expand...
The AA1 cruises at 108 mph at 7 gph or slightly less. That is not exactly fast, but it is an honest 100 kts or better in cruise. I think you should include 2+2 airplanes like the Cherokee 140 and the Mooney M20C or E. I used to cruise my Cherokee at 7.5 GPH ROP at about 102 kts cruise, and the Mooney C would do the same while sipping less fuel than that. I often putt around I'm my Mooney at 100 kts at 6 GPH or fly XC at 140 kts 8GPH LOP

Just a thought
 
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/october/pilot/budget-buy-grumman-aa1b#:~:text=The AA1B has a basic useful load of more than 450 pounds.
nikos1 said:
Hey everyone, me and a friend of mine are finishing up our multi engine commerical and are in the process of looking for an airplane to time build in for the airlines. Our criteria is an aircraft, experimental or certified, that burns very little fuel, preferably under 7 gallons, but the less the better (4-5 would be awesome), fast, and 2 seater, but more than 2 would be okay as well. Something that is fun, but affordable and can easily carry 2 people, that is fast. We have been looking hard at the Grumman AA1 Yankee, I also just mentioned possibly buying a 0-200 115hp Quickie. Does anyone have any advice or suggestions before 2 students make a huge financial decision like this? Any help or advice would be much appreciated, thanks!!
Click to expand...
The AA1 cruises at 108 mph at 7 gph or slightly less. That is not exactly fast, but it is an honest 100 kts or better in cruise. I think you should include 2+2 airplanes like the Cherokee 140 and the Mooney M20C or E. I used to cruise my Cherokee at 7.5 GPH ROP at about 102 kts cruise, and the Mooney C would do the same while sipping less fuel than that. I often putt around I'm my Mooney at 100 kts at 6 GPH or fly XC at 8GPH LOP 140 knots.

Just a thought
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
If you want more hours, doing two nice trips for 16 hours gets you more hours. You’re trying to maximize the trip count, not the hours count.
Click to expand...
Also, you can always pull the throttle back and go slower in the fast plane, can’t push the throttle further in on the slow plane.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/october/pilot/budget-buy-grumman-aa1b#:~:text=The AA1B has a basic useful load of more than 450 pounds.

The AA1 cruises at 108 mph at 7 gph or slightly less. That is not exactly fast, but it is an honest 100 kts or better in cruise. I think you should include 2+2 airplanes like the Cherokee 140 and the Mooney M20C or E. I used to cruise my Cherokee at 7.5 GPH ROP at about 102 kts cruise, and the Mooney C would do the same while sipping less fuel than that. I often putt around I'm my Mooney at 100 kts at 6 GPH or fly XC at 8GPH LOP 140 knots.

Just a thought
Click to expand...
The aa1 is more like 108kts not mph. I planned for 125 mph in mine at 6.5 gph. Mine had no wheel pants and the paint was rough as a cob. I think 130 mph would be reasonable for a clean example.
 
LSA or Experimental will likely have the lowest costs; both acquisition and operational.
Otherwise, for those fuel flows, you are likely wanting 200HP or less, e.g. at most an IO-360 sized engine.

That provides a fair number of options. Mooney's will likely be one of the cheaper items with the best speed in the certified space.
An SR-20 will be one of the more comfortable options.

Tim
 
If budget is a concern, find a club that has a C150 in the fleet, you're not likely going to find a cheaper time building ownership option. But in keeping within the constraints of your original post, an RV-12 checks a lot of your boxes...
 
Grum.Man said:
The aa1 is more like 108kts not mph. I planned for 125 mph in mine at 6.5 gph. Mine had no wheel pants and the paint was rough as a cob. I think 130 mph would be reasonable for a clean example.
Click to expand...
You are right. I wrote 108 MPH but I was thinking knots. My mistake. Thanks for catching that
 
I have a Cessna 150 that I fly up and down the east coast,you can certainly build hours if you throttle back to under 6gph. The faster you go the more fuel you burn.
 
frfly172 said:
I have a Cessna 150 that I fly up and down the east coast,you can certainly build hours if you throttle back to under 6gph. The faster you go the more fuel you burn.
Click to expand...

You can throttle it back to about 4.5 gph if you really want to build time.
 
Sonex is low cost to acquire and operate. I have a Jabiru 2200 (85HP) in mine and have flown with another 200 pounder. 4 gph and 120 mph. -Very- responsive so fun but not for
IFR.
 
This is a youtube series about someone that wanted to economically build hours etc. and chose an Ercoupe Rising Sun
 
frfly172 said:
I have a Cessna 150 that I fly up and down the east coast,you can certainly build hours if you throttle back to under 6gph. The faster you go the more fuel you burn.
Click to expand...
Mikey52 said:
You can throttle it back to about 4.5 gph if you really want to build time.
Click to expand...
No… you can throttle back if you want save fuel.
You can simply do another leg and keep the same logged time, albeit at an expense for fuel.
 
The buy-in will be on the higher side, but an RV-4/6/7/8/9 is fast, fun and burns 8-9 an hour. The downside is you won’t want to sell it.

I sold my -8 to get a bigger plane and am regretting it.
 
Mikey52 said:
You can throttle it back to about 4.5 gph if you really want to build time.
Click to expand...
“throttle it back”??? In a ROTAX 4.5 GPH is max power. —if you are into that whole fuel efficiency thing.

Rotax FTW
 
Mikey52 said:
You can throttle it back to about 4.5 gph if you really want to build time.
Click to expand...
Yep; a recent lunch run xc was 2.3 on the Hobbs and 11 gallons of E0. The burgers may soon cost more than the gas.
 
Any Tecnam, Jabiru, Arion Lightning, etc will fly rings around your old iron 2 seaters.
Except a Globe Swift with an engine transplant.
Gawd, what a machine.
 
Shepherd said:
Except a Globe Swift with an engine transplant.
Click to expand...
I don’t remember who it was, but back in the late 70s there was a guy doing air shows in an 85hp Swift…I saw it at Oshkosh and was hooked. Sent off for plans to build a model Swift, but apparently my order got lost in the mail…the check was never went through, and I never saw the plans.

I used to work with a guy who owned one in the 50s, and liked to tease the North Central DC-3s when they flew over his farm. He’d get a few thousand feet on them, dive alongside, and wave as he passed.

Swifts made the short list before I bought my first airplane, but I ended up picking the Maule for a little more utility.
 
Salty said:
Also, you can always pull the throttle back and go slower in the fast plane, can’t push the throttle further in on the slow plane.
Click to expand...
Doing two trips for 16 hours gives you more trips than one trip at 16 hours???
I guess I learned new math.
 
Kritchlow said:
Doing two trips for 16 hours gives you more trips than one trip at 16 hours???
I guess I learned new math.
Click to expand...
I agree with your point on going further, but if you only want hours and are going to stop at the same place you started, going farther serves no purpose. In fact, there’s something to be said for staying closer to home in the case where you have a mechanical problem.
 
Salty said:
I agree with your point on going further, but if you only want hours and are going to stop at the same place you started, going farther serves no purpose. In fact, there’s something to be said for staying closer to home in the case where you have a mechanical problem.
Click to expand...
You get the hours either way, but two trips or going farther makes it more interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top