A question about popularity of 2-place monoplane form factor

[HelloWorld]

Hi! I'm new to general aviation, and I am working towards PPL.

I'm also interested in buying a plane, so I am studying the aircraft market also.

I think that a 2 seater would work for the vast majority of my flying needs, and therefore it would be the optimal way to go: much less fuel burn than a comparably priced 4 seater for given travel distance and time (and therefore lower cost), or much faster than a comparably priced 4 seater for a given travel distance. On the occasions when I need to carry more passengers, I could rent another plane.

But I've noticed that 2-place mono propeller airplanes are prevalent only among LSA and experimental kit, and almost absent among certified. LSA has legally imposed upper speed limit, and experimental kit requires time commitment to learn/built a plane (not to mention likely difficulty in convincing uneducated passengers to come aboard). These are rather significant disadvantages, that I may choose not to accept.

Can anyone provide some insight as to why the market has developed this way?

 

[John221us]

There are plenty of certified two place airplanes. What is your typical mission (distance, purpose, number of passengers, amount of luggage). What is you budget (acquisition and operational)?

 

[frfly172]

I don't know my Liberty is a two seat ,certified aircraft. Most people believe it is LSA . By the way welcome to the forum.

 

[Non Compos Mentis]

Grumman Yankees were once on my short list. Pretty fast for the low horsepower, fun to fly.

 

[N3368K]

There are lots of certified two place single engine airplanes out there. It is simply that they are mostly older designs. In the 30-40s there were a great deal of manufacturers building single engine two seaters. As aircraft developed, manufacturers were able to produce bigger planes more economically and customers were asking for more capability.

Cessna 120
Cessna 140
Cessna 150/152

Aeronca Chief
Aeronca Champ
Aeronca 65-TL/TC series

Luscombe 8A thru F series

Bellanca Citabria/Decathalon/Scout

Piper PA-22-108 Colt
Piper J-3 Cub
Piper J-4 Cub

Taylorcraft BC series

Erco Ercoupe

Globe/Temco GC-1B Swift

And lots more; Monocoupes, Rearwins, Porterfields and the likes. Lots more if you want to talk about open cockpit types.









Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift

 

[alfadog]

Yes, but what is currently available new as a certificated 2-place airplane? Other than acro aircraft? That may be the OP's point. My guess is that the big companies do not believe that folks will buy a 2-seater when they can go LSA for 1/3 the cost or 4-place certificated for not much more.

 

[Henning]

Look into a Globe Swift with the IO-360 conversion and the Lo Presti cowl. There's a nice one on Barnstormers with sticks and several nice mods.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Hi! I'm new to general aviation, and I am working towards PPL.

I'm also interested in buying a plane, so I am studying the aircraft market also.

I think that a 2 seater would work for the vast majority of my flying needs, and therefore it would be the optimal way to go: much less fuel burn than a comparably priced 4 seater for given travel distance and time (and therefore lower cost), or much faster than a comparably priced 4 seater for a given travel distance. On the occasions when I need to carry more passengers, I could rent another plane.

But I've noticed that 2-place mono propeller airplanes are prevalent only among LSA and experimental kit, and almost absent among certified. LSA has legally imposed upper speed limit, and experimental kit requires time commitment to learn/built a plane (not to mention likely difficulty in convincing uneducated passengers to come aboard). These are rather significant disadvantages, that I may choose not to accept.

Can anyone provide some insight as to why the market has developed this way?

The market is the way it is because most people who want to travel want more room so the two seaters tend to be lower cost / performance. So Cessna builds 150s...

On the other hand, there is no reason to actually build your own E-AB aircraft unless you really want to build it for the sake of building it. In today's market aircraft like T-18s sell for about what the engine and avionics alone would cost - speed and economy (but not much room) plus you have more options when it comes to maintenance / upgrades. If someone doesn't want to ride along - that's their loss. But the average person doesn't really know all of the fine points about aircraft certification and tend to be satisfied when told that the FAA inspects the aircraft before it flies the first time.

Personally, it's the significant disadvantages of owning a type certificated aircraft that led me to by a used E-AB.

 

[N3368K]

Look into a Globe Swift with the IO-360 conversion and the Lo Presti cowl. There's a nice one on Barnstormers with sticks and several nice mods.

Swifts are great flying airplanes but sure don't have much room. Although mine has only an O-300, I love it for flight characteristics.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift

 

[Henning]

Swifts are great flying airplanes but sure don't have much room. Although mine has only an O-300, I love it for flight characteristics.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift

Well, if he wants a 2 seater with a bunch of room he can buy my 310 and take out the back seat, or even more room pick up a BE-18 freighter.

 

[FormerHangie]

If you look at the performance of the traveling machine style SLSA's it's better than most of the certificated 2 seaters, and there are some that have some artificial limits placed on them at sea level, and can get up and go at altitude. If I were in the market for a new 2 seater (I'm not) I'd go for an RV-12.

Think about what it will take to go faster: more power. More power requires more fuel. More fuel demands a bigger, heaver airframe, and most likely, more wingspan. Once you've gotten all that, it doesn't add much more weight or drag to extend the fuselage enough to add a couple of seats.

 

[drotto]

Diamond DA20 is a modern 2 seater.

 

[Henning]

If you look at the performance of the traveling machine style SLSA's it's better than most of the certificated 2 seaters, and there are some that have some artificial limits placed on them at sea level, and can get up and go at altitude. If I were in the market for a new 2 seater (I'm not) I'd go for an RV-12.

Think about what it will take to go faster: more power. More power requires more fuel. More fuel demands a bigger, heaver airframe, and most likely, more wingspan. Once you've gotten all that, it doesn't add much more weight or drag to extend the fuselage enough to add a couple of seats.

That's one side of the equation, the other side is drag/wing loading. Smaller wing = less drag = more speed for your power/fuel. The flip side to this is a higher stall/landing speed

 

[HelloWorld]

Thanks for input and welcome.

I guess I'll have to take another look at the market based on suggestions.

The mission I have on mind to make 1-day trip from Boise ID to Salt Lake City UT or Portland OR and back. It's important that I'm not exhausted by flight en route and the return trip does not require a lot of endurance. So I'm hoping the plane can make the trip within 3 hrs (shorter the better). I may make as many as 30-40 trips a year, possible with a regular passenger and sometimes a guest.

IFR is probably a necessity since VFR condition cannot always be relied upon.

My budget is 70k-80k. I don't want to consider planes built before 1980. I woul like to avoid future passengers freaking out over 'experimental' label.

I've seen plenty of 4-seaters that fit these conditions, but I thought why burn extra gas for 2 extra seats that will hardly ever get used? I have seen Liberty, but I thought it was a bit slow for what I have in mind (I could be wrong).

 

[frfly172]

The liberty has an honest cruise of 120 knots @ 6 gph. The airplane comes very well equipped for IFR flight,with auto pilot. The price range you show would buy you an early liberty without all the bells and whistles

 

[Henning]

Thanks for input and welcome.

I guess I'll have to take another look at the market based on suggestions.

The mission I have on mind to make 1-day trip from Boise ID to Salt Lake City UT or Portland OR and back. It's important that I'm not exhausted by flight en route and the return trip does not require a lot of endurance. So I'm hoping the plane can make the trip within 3 hrs (shorter the better). I may make as many as 30-40 trips a year, possible with a regular passenger and sometimes a guest.

IFR is probably a necessity since VFR condition cannot always be relied upon.

My budget is 70k-80k. I don't want to consider planes built before 1980. I woul like to avoid future passengers freaking out over 'experimental' label.

I've seen plenty of 4-seaters that fit these conditions, but I thought why burn extra gas for 2 extra seats that will hardly ever get used? I have seen Liberty, but I thought it was a bit slow for what I have in mind (I could be wrong).

On that route your options are even more limited to a plane with deicing capabilities. For $70-80k the only thing you will get that is deiced will have 2 engines like an Aztec or 310.

 

[FormerHangie]

That's one side of the equation, the other side is drag/wing loading. Smaller wing = less drag = more speed for your power/fuel. The flip side to this is a higher stall/landing speed

That's a good point. Since LSA's have to land at a slow speed, they typically have very low wing loadings. Some of the experimental amateur built aircraft have very high wing loadings because they aren't required to meet the maximum stall speed requirements that a certificated airplane does.

 

[teethdoc]

What's your mission? Most 4 seaters carry 2-3 and luggage. If you are thinking cross country for 2, probably not a lot of room for luggage. I don't like flying in circles and bought a plain to go places. It's all in what your mission is.

 

[teethdoc]

Thanks for input and welcome.

I guess I'll have to take another look at the market based on suggestions.

The mission I have on mind to make 1-day trip from Boise ID to Salt Lake City UT or Portland OR and back. It's important that I'm not exhausted by flight en route and the return trip does not require a lot of endurance. So I'm hoping the plane can make the trip within 3 hrs (shorter the better). I may make as many as 30-40 trips a year, possible with a regular passenger and sometimes a guest.

IFR is probably a necessity since VFR condition cannot always be relied upon.

My budget is 70k-80k. I don't want to consider planes built before 1980. I woul like to avoid future passengers freaking out over 'experimental' label.

I've seen plenty of 4-seaters that fit these conditions, but I thought why burn extra gas for 2 extra seats that will hardly ever get used? I have seen Liberty, but I thought it was a bit slow for what I have in mind (I could be wrong).

Do you mean 3h rt or each way? Mooney 201 will get you from point a to b without using a lot of fuel.

 

[RhinoDrvr]

Diamond DA20 is a modern 2 seater.

Which Diamond made useless by not certifying for IFR. I still think a DA20 would be my ideal personal airplane if I could shoot an approach through a thin layer to get home...

 

[poadeleted20]

The mission I have on mind to make 1-day trip from Boise ID to Salt Lake City UT or Portland OR and back. It's important that I'm not exhausted by flight en route and the return trip does not require a lot of endurance. So I'm hoping the plane can make the trip within 3 hrs (shorter the better). I may make as many as 30-40 trips a year, possible with a regular passenger and sometimes a guest.

Generally speaking, the 2-seaters mentioned above won't do for this mission. The 100HP-class 2-seaters lack the useful load to carry enough fuel for such trips along with two adults and baggage. You'll also find they're pretty short on cabin space for such flights with a passenger and baggage. But even more important, they are very marginal performers at the high elevations of the airports you propose and the terrain you'll be crossing. Of course, there are upgrades to some of these planes, such as the O-320 engine STC for the Grumman AA-1-series, and those help the high altitude performance issues, but generally speaking they do not increase payload significantly, and there aren't many post-1980 versions out there.

I'd say as a minimum you want something with 150HP. The aircraft that suggest themselves are all 4-seaters, but if you fly them with only two aboard (even with baggage), they have enough power to handle the elevations involved (and I've flown such planes through those areas with such loads). No doubt some will suggest retractable aircraft for their extra speed, but your longest stage length is under 300nm, and the difference between 120 knots and 150 knots isn't that significant on such flights. There are significantly lower maintenance and insurance costs, too. In your price range, you can find a nicer, better-equipped 150-180HP fixed gear single than complex airplane for the same price, and since you'll need good avionics for your mission, buying a bit less speed in order to get better avionics makes a lot of sense, especially if you limit yourself to post-1980 production airplanes.

All things considered, including mission and budget, I think your best fit will be one of the 180HP fixed-gear singles such as the following:

• Cessna 177 Cardinal or 180HP-converted 172 Skyhawk
• Beech Sundowner (more room, but slowest of the group)
• American General or Tiger Aircraft AG-5B Tiger (fastest of the group but hardest to find in the post-1980 time frame)
• Piper PA28-181 Archer

These are all simple, well-known aircraft, easy to work on, well-supported for parts, with no major quirks or surprises for a first-time airplane owner. As for which to pick, go find someone with each type and see if you can't snag a ride to see what they're all like, then buy the type you like best.

 

[alfadog]

A friend of mine bought a very nice 1992? Tiger in your price range. There is one now, a 1991, on ASO with 2k TTAF and engine for $43k. I think you can forget 2-seaters.

 

[Bill Watson]

Generally speaking, the 2-seaters mentioned above won't do for this mission. The 100HP-class 2-seaters lack the useful load to carry enough fuel for such trips along with two adults and baggage. You'll also find they're pretty short on cabin space for such flights with a passenger and baggage. But even more important, they are very marginal performers at the high elevations of the airports you propose and the terrain you'll be crossing. Of course, there are upgrades to some of these planes, such as the O-320 engine STC for the Grumman AA-1-series, and those help the high altitude performance issues, but generally speaking they do not increase payload significantly, and there aren't many post-1980 versions out there.

I'd say as a minimum you want something with 150HP. The aircraft that suggest themselves are all 4-seaters, but if you fly them with only two aboard (even with baggage), they have enough power to handle the elevations involved (and I've flown such planes through those areas with such loads). No doubt some will suggest retractable aircraft for their extra speed, but your longest stage length is under 300nm, and the difference between 120 knots and 150 knots isn't that significant on such flights. There are significantly lower maintenance and insurance costs, too. In your price range, you can find a nicer, better-equipped 150-180HP fixed gear single than complex airplane for the same price, and since you'll need good avionics for your mission, buying a bit less speed in order to get better avionics makes a lot of sense, especially if you limit yourself to post-1980 production airplanes.

All things considered, including mission and budget, I think your best fit will be one of the 180HP fixed-gear singles such as the following:

• Cessna 177 Cardinal or 180HP-converted 172 Skyhawk
• Beech Sundowner (more room, but slowest of the group)
• American General or Tiger Aircraft AG-5B Tiger (fastest of the group but hardest to find in the post-1980 time frame)
• Piper PA28-181 Archer

These are all simple, well-known aircraft, easy to work on, well-supported for parts, with no major quirks or surprises for a first-time airplane owner. As for which to pick, go find someone with each type and see if you can't snag a ride to see what they're all like, then buy the type you like best.

Yep, the 180hp 4 place sounds like a sweet spot for you.

I too was looking for a 2 place as my first airplane. Best thing that happened was my wife asking what we could do with it. She pushed for a 4 seater, which is a great 2 person airplane with enough "umph" for luggage and fuel.

Most 2 placers are great planes for one person's travel. Sounds like passengers are part of your mission. If so, the 4 seaters fit that bill best.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yep, the 180hp 4 place sounds like a sweet spot for you.

FWIW, after a lot of years of answering this sort of question, I'm coming the conclusion that when a low-time Private Pilot who's never owned an airplane asks "what plane should I buy?", at least 75% of the time the answer is "simple 180HP 4-seater". It's almost always a good fit with the mission of such a pilot, gets a lot of capability for the money, has a good resale market later, provides a good platform for instrument training and personal IFR flying, is easy to own and insure and maintain, and is well within the capabilities of such pilots.

 

[alfadog]

The mission I have on mind to make 1-day trip from Boise ID to Salt Lake City UT or Portland OR and back. It's important that I'm not exhausted by flight en route and the return trip does not require a lot of endurance. So I'm hoping the plane can make the trip within 3 hrs (shorter the better). I may make as many as 30-40 trips a year, possible with a regular passenger and sometimes a guest.

You are only talking 300 nm one-way so by 3 hrs, I am assuming you mean round-trip? Because even a Cessna 152 will come close to making this trip in 3 hours each way. So now you are talking a certificated 200 kt airplane built after 1980 for $80k. Tall order. A Mooney would probably come closest for a bit more $$.

 

[HelloWorld]

Really good feedback. You guys are great!

 

[HelloWorld]

If someone doesn't want to ride along - that's their loss. But the average person doesn't really know all of the fine points about aircraft certification and tend to be satisfied when told that the FAA inspects the aircraft before it flies the first time.

Yeah. I was skeptical about kit planes before, but the more I understand about them, the more they make sense.

Unfortunately, it won't be feasible to have this conversation with everyone I may have to travel, let alone prevail in the argument, and I'm afraid if I got an experimental plane, it will a plane for myself, alone.

 

[Henning]

Yeah. I was skeptical about kit planes before, but the more I understand about them, the more they make sense.

Unfortunately, it won't be feasible to have this conversation with everyone I may have to travel, let alone prevail in the argument, and I'm afraid if I got an experimental plane, it will a plane for myself, alone.

You will find that true whether experimental or not.

 

[Bill Watson]

You will find that true whether experimental or not.

That's true enough. People react more to fit and finish than the "e" word. Big is good, little is bad, etc.

I'm assuming you are talking about 3 hours one way. The legs you mentioned with only modest headwinds (say 20 knots) are more than 3 hours in a 150knot plane. Downwind is much more favorable obviously.

Those are not one day roundtrip flights in <200hp light planes if you actually plan to do something at the destination and work the next day. At least not comfortable RT flights.

On the other hand, they are great overnight trips with a capable plane and pilot. The freedom to come and go on your schedule is the reward and the time aloft can be pleasant with a well equipped 4 placer.

The best part is that it appears you have a mission and that's worth a lot. With a purpose or objective for a flight, flying is a real joy for me. And frequency pays off in proficiency.

 

[SoloEqs]

Well, if he wants a 2 seater with a bunch of room he can buy my 310 and take out the back seat, or even more room pick up a BE-18 freighter.

Why go halfway? The last DC-10 pax model is coming out of service.

 

[Tom-D]

Hi! I'm new to general aviation, and I am working towards PPL.

I'm hung up on this.

You should concentrate on step 1 square 1. In the process you will learn what you really need.

 

[poadeleted20]

I would point out that it was my assumption that these trips were not one-day out-and-backs. For that, you'd need something with a lot more speed than you can buy for $70-80K unless 1-2 hours on the ground at the destination is enough, and you have nothing else to do that day, and you can go to bed early the night before, and you can sleep late the next day to recover.

 

[Henning]

I don't know, you can get a turbo Mooney Exec for less than that, makes for a long day but not a killer. Gives the altitude and speed, but IFR over the mountains single engine isn't for me, and half the year he'll have ice to contend with.

 

[j1b3h0]

How'bout something you don't see on every street corner: Wing Derringer. Rare as a DC-5. Seriously speaking, RV-6.

 

[Witmo]

Symphony 160. Two place, O-320, mostly metal construction, plenty of room, stable instrument platform.

 

[jnmeade]

The mission I have on mind to make 1-day trip from Boise ID to Salt Lake City UT or Portland OR and back. It's important that I'm not exhausted by flight en route and the return trip does not require a lot of endurance. So I'm hoping the plane can make the trip within 3 hrs (shorter the better).

You never clarified if this is to be done in one day or each leg of the trip is to be done in one day. If it is to be done in one day, how long is the day at that latitude in December?

I may make as many as 30-40 trips a year, possible with a regular passenger and sometimes a guest.

Pax and you are more comfortable on a trip like this if you can reach in the back seat for a sandwich, a map, bottle of water. Would you rather make a three hour trip with a passenger in a tight sports car or a 4 passenger sedan?

IFR is probably a necessity since VFR condition cannot always be relied upon.

As others have said, you'll need de-ice if you are to count on this trip on a scheduled basis year round. Otherwise, you're going to either have to be able to pick your weather or you're going to have to take alternative transportation sometimes. And remember, getting there doesn't mean getting back so you have to plan for transportation for the round trip.

My budget is 70k-80k. I don't want to consider planes built before 1980. I woul like to avoid future passengers freaking out over 'experimental' label.

Budget considerations are not only on purchase (you can buy plenty of twins for under $50K) but also on maintenance and routine operations costs, landing fees and so forth that may be small but X 30 or 40 can add up.

I've seen plenty of 4-seaters that fit these conditions, but I thought why burn extra gas for 2 extra seats that will hardly ever get used? I have seen Liberty, but I thought it was a bit slow for what I have in mind (I could be wrong).

How much extra gas do you figure and how much does it cost? Remember that you can throttle back a big engine (most of us don't but we can). If you get an injected engine you can run it LOP at slower speeds and save fuel if counting by the hour (but of course you actually count gas by the gallon for the trip) A constant speed prop may let you manage the engine.

I respect the recommendation to consider a 180 hp fixed gear plane but you might also consider a plane like a C182 or equivalent Piper or other plane.

I'll be blunt. I don't think your hoped for plane even begins to meet your mission. I think if you spent the money to hire a plane and pilot for this trip a couple of times you'd quickly revise your desires.

 

[zaitcev]

Yes, but what is currently available new as a certificated 2-place airplane? Other than acro aircraft? That may be the OP's point.

Diamong DA-20 is still available.

ACA build 7xxx and 8CGC. I see you made an allowance for "acro aircraft", but parts of their line-up are positioned as utility and step-in aircraft.

Also, you can buy Sky Arrow 600 in certified form. It will cost you a fortune and it's only bought by police, but it actually is certified in U.S.

Finally, I _think_ you could harrangue RANS into building you a certified S-7. They don't build them regularly since there's no demand, but they have a type and production certificates and they build about 5-7 S-7S a year.

 

[zaitcev]

That's true enough. People react more to fit and finish than the "e" word. Big is good, little is bad, etc.

I think he should just find a used CTLS within he budget. That one doesn't have the e-word. I would definitely get that if I had $80k (as it is I'm flying an experiemntal single-seater because it was for sale for $10k). They have very nice interiors, they are not made before Carter was president, and the speed is about what can be realistically gotten without buying an RV anyway.

Honestly in OP's mission I'm mostly concerned about the weather. He'll be flying far north where they have icing, snow, mountains. The "IFR" is not going to deliver the required trip reliabilty there without a much, much more expensive airplane. A pressurised twin with FIKI, perhaps.

P.S. You know what I would do in OP's place? Put kibosh to the idea of ever carrying passengers and buy and airplane that I can fly on the mission, and go way, way cheap. For $40k I could buy a very nice Sonex with 120 hp Jabiru. That goes about the speed of a Tiger. Has 2 places, in theory (miniscule in practice). It's a rule of thumb that everyone underestimates maintenance. The "leftover" $40k will come very handy. Meanwhile, he'll have 5 years to figure out flying around weather, staying on the ground when he must, stuff like that. It's priceless and he would get it in a $40k airplane rather than $80k airplane that he can't afford to actually fly.

 

[LandSickness]

Look into a Globe Swift with the IO-360 conversion and the Lo Presti cowl. There's a nice one on Barnstormers with sticks and several nice mods.

 

[zaitcev]

Swift for a first airplane, are you guys raving mad? Firstly a Mooney with the same IO-360 will beat it anyway. Secondly he needs a hangar full of spare parts and the experience to take care of it. And he's going to wreck it.