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

N

nikos1

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 3, 2024
Messages
5
Display Name
Display name:
Niko
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!!
 
There aren’t many two seaters that are inexpensive, fast, and sip fuel. But I really liked my Tomahawk. Might take a look at those.
 
EdFred said:
Wants to build time but also wants plane that is fast. Does not compute.
Click to expand...
You'd think they'd be fine with something slow. If you want to build COM hours, it seems like it would work just fine to do it in a simple bug smasher that takes 4 hours to do a 250-mile XC, lol.
 
How about an RV-4? I'm not sure what the market looks like for them right now or what you consider inexpensive but depending on what engine the builder put in it you could easily see less than 7gph at cruise, it will carry 2 regular sized adults and it's relatively fast. I too don't understand why you want something fast if the goal is just to build time.
 
SoonerAviator said:
You'd think they'd be fine with something slow. If you want to build COM hours, it seems like it would work just fine to do it in a simple bug smasher that takes 4 hours to do a 250-mile XC, lol.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got a plane to travel. Counting all XC trips (not just the 50nm ones, but any flight that had a landing somewhere else) I've flown around the world ~6.42 times in a little over 1500 hours. I did ~4.6/900 hours of those trips in a Comanche. If I would have bought a 152 and did the same distance I did in a Comanche (for probably about the same amount of fuel) I would have probably had 1600 hours in place of the 900 for the same amount of fuel money. (More oil changes, but less annuals)

(the numbers are from shady memory, I'll double check later)

Edit: 4.47 around the world trips/761 travel hours in the Comanche
That would translate to roughly an additional 650 hours in a 152.
 
Last edited:
I’d say an RV-6/7 that has oplims that include IMC and is IFR equipped would be a good compromise.

An M20C might fit the bill, as do the Grummans.
 
Lancair 235 would fit most of those desired specs. I also have time in a Quickie. I hear the tailwheel quickie is prone to ground loops. The trike gear quickie I flew was an honest plane. It just had little room, little fuel, small panel, etc.
 
Sounds like the TLSA Sparker is made for you!
 
Tangent: do the airlines value complex time? I hear multi time is valuable for airlines, but is other type of much benefit? retract? conventional gear? etc...
 
FORANE said:
Tangent: do the airlines value complex time? I hear multi time is valuable for airlines, but is other type of much benefit? retract? conventional gear? etc...
Click to expand...
What about Turbine single time?
 
JATO Ercoupe.

First-JATO-assisted-Flight-NASA-JPL-GPN-2000-001538.jpg
 
Zenith CH650 with with a Viking 130 will do 140 mph while sipping fuel. Probably one of your cheaper options +/- $45k on the used market.
 
KR-2
Pietenpol (slow… )
+1 on T-18
Sidewinder

Right off the top of my head.
 
I consider my Bonanza V35 a fast 2 seater. Yes I can put more than two people in it, but W&B becomes an issue.
But with just two people I can carry a bunch of stuff and go fast. And maintenance on my Bonanza has been less in the past 9 years that my past C-172 was in 5 years. The bonanza doesn't break as often. It burns more per hour than my Cessna did, but MPG is about the same.
And did I mention that my Bonanza is fast?
 
Yes… define fast. If an AA-1 qualifies, then an RV-12 will do 120kt true burning 6 or less GPH of MOGAS. Not going to do IMC though.
 
If you want seats for two men you can about scratch that Grumman off the list when it gets hot. Not sure why you’d want fast but a Thorp or a Wittman would be the cheapest per knot you’ll find.
 
GeorgeC said:
They're going the distance, they're going for speed.

Also, Varieze.

Also also, save even more money by not buying an airplane.
Click to expand...
They're all alone, in their time of need.

I like the RV-4 idea.

Nauga,
who is building a religion
 
Kritchlow said:
For the same amount of hours, I would rather travel New York to Fort Lauderdale vs NY to Philly.
Click to expand...

If I were traveling from NY to Ft Lauderdale and wanted to build hours, I’d want a slower plane.
 
Travel and hour building are not mutually exclusive!
 
Half Fast said:
Because I would care about building hours, not building miles. I could do two different trips for more hours.
Click to expand...
But you get more trips per hour. I would rather do two nice trips with eight hours vs one nice trip.

I’m not sure your logic makes sense.
 
Kritchlow said:
But you get more trips per hour. I would rather do two nice trips with eight hours vs one nice trip.

I’m not sure your logic makes sense.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
16 hors is 16 hours… but with a faster plane, more can be done with the same 16 hors.
 
I like the recc of T 18, especially with a O290 or O320 that could burn auto fuel. They are alt more reasonable to purchase than RV’s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top