Purchase decisions- 2 place or 4?

J

John Bussard

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
63
Location
San Diego
Display Name
Display name:
John Bussard
All,
New forum member trying to sort out the decision on buying in the next year or so...
With a decent amt of time in a 7ECA Citabria I've become somewhat hooked on the fun of a tandem cockpit- Problem is there's 4 of us in the family!! I have enough time in a 170 to know I love it, but four seats are rarely "needed"...

Anyone with kids been able to balance taking out one at a time? Right now they're 8 and 5, and all the normal scheduling conflicts will amount to even less time for all 4 to get out together anyway, and in theory we could rent later on if need be.

Anyone with experience on "compromising" with a two place cockpit?
 
everything else being equal if it were me I'd rather have the 4-seats and not need them than have 2 and need 4.
 
Welcome, I think I would rather have the four seats. Like the post above states, I'd rather have the 4-seats and not need them than have 2 and need 4
 
John Bussard said:
I have enough time in a 170 to know I love it, but four seats are rarely "needed"..
Click to expand...
Get a 180 you'll love that too. pull the back seat when you don't need it, or get the jump seats that fold up so you can haul stuff.
 
Can't go wrong with a skywagon, minus the price tag and fuel burn.

For most folks I'd say if 75% of your REAL world flying is 2 or less people, buy a 2 seater, cheaper and you'll fly more, and just rent or join a cheap club for the occasional 4 seat need.
 
One more thing to think about. 4 seaters tend to be a bit bigger and heavier which often means a bit better in less than ideal air. Trained in a 2 seater and bought a true 4 seater and that 4 seater is more comfortable and less turbulence issues. Loaded or all by my self I prefer to fly it over a smaller plane.
 
Always buy 2 seats more than you think you need.
 
Go for the Citabria or something similar and rent a four place or larger when you actually need it.
 
This great country was built by bold and uncompromising men. I say don't compromise.....get one of each.

I know that doesn't help at all. Sorry:(
 
I have been having the same conversation with myself. One variable for me is the availability of a satisfactory rental with 4 places. In my case there is a very capable 180hp 172 for 125 per hour. Right now I'm leaning towards buying two seats and renting four. I can certainly see where this wouldn't work for everyone.
 
I sold my twin for a two seater,of course I would like four seats,however very seldom do I need more than two seats. Have gotten comfortable renting a four seater when needed. The choice is yours.
 
James331 said:
Can't go wrong with a skywagon, minus the price tag and fuel burn.

For most folks I'd say if 75% of your REAL world flying is 2 or less people, buy a 2 seater, cheaper and you'll fly more, and just rent or join a cheap club for the occasional 4 seat need.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is you have to manage currency very carefully. FAA may not care, but nearly all clubs have 90 or 60 day currency rules, depending on the complexity of the aircraft. I've even seen tailwheels as low as 30. That means that often when you want the 4-seater, you have to get current again with a CFI. That can really cause headaches.

If there's really four of you, I'd go with the four-seater, unless you know you'll be alone nearly all the time.
 
I grew up in a family of 6. When we (kids) were little, the V77 was big enough. But, as we grew Dad hadda get the T50.
But it would haul whatever the door would close on. Family of 6, to grandmas at Christmas, the return trip was more like a cargo run. :D
 
If you are like a lot of us, you will find out a lot of things in life keep your family from travelling a lot together. Also, a lot of flying is just maintaining proficiency. You will fly the 2 seater more for fun and proficiency because it will not cost you an arm and a leg to fly for an hour. I would go with the 2 seater and rent something bigger when you need it.
 
It's all about the mission.

What is your mission?

I don't care for beating the pattern up in a 172/182/Arrow/Cirrus. I'd rather be in something fast and maneuverable. Something slow and low. Something with multiple wings and no cockpit.

I'd say an easy 95% of my flying lately could be done with a single seat aircraft and I'd wager most people who fly for fun, do so solo.

I have a family of 4.. My kids love to fly. My wife only cares to fly if it means when we land, she gets a nice meal somewhere with salt in the air.

I own a 2 place, currently. When I head to the airport, it often winds up with a "Take one kid up for 20 minutes, take the other kid up for 20 minutes." Occasionally, I'll just head over with one of them and then next time the other kid gets to go.

I'd like to find a share in a 4-6 place aircraft, but don't see buying one alone, doesn't make financial sense for my mission.

Once or twice a year, I'll rent a Saratoga to take the family to the beach or something, but that is a bit of a hassle for me, as the Saratoga isn't local and by the time I jump through all the hoops to get it, I could have just driven to the beach and with the added expense of the rental car for the week and rental of the Saratoga, I can upgrade where we stay and what we do while we are there, so lately, we drive.

I'm currently stuck in a question of another airplane, I want something a little more exciting than what I currently own and the question of 1 vs 2 place has come up. I plan on keeping the RV and supplementing it with something, but can't decide how many seats. I've been spending some time flying a single seat bipe that while is a lot of fun, I can't take anyone with me....
 
Last edited:
arnoha said:
The problem with this is you have to manage currency very carefully. FAA may not care, but nearly all clubs have 90 or 60 day currency rules, depending on the complexity of the aircraft. I've even seen tailwheels as low as 30. That means that often when you want the 4-seater, you have to get current again with a CFI. That can really cause headaches.

If there's really four of you, I'd go with the four-seater, unless you know you'll be alone nearly all the time.
Click to expand...

60 or 90 days? Not the club I've belonged to for over 15 years. We had a currency requirement for the Arrow, driven by the insurance company, but that was 3 hours in a 180 day period. The 172s and 182 have no such requirement. We do require a flight review every year, rather than the every 2 years that the FAA requires. I can't speak to tail dragger requirements. The club doesn't have one of those.
 
Ghery said:
60 or 90 days? Not the club I've belonged to for over 15 years. We had a currency requirement for the Arrow, driven by the insurance company, but that was 3 hours in a 180 day period. The 172s and 182 have no such requirement. We do require a flight review every year, rather than the every 2 years that the FAA requires. I can't speak to tail dragger requirements. The club doesn't have one of those.
Click to expand...

That's sound a lot better

As someone who flys a 6place plane solo or +1 often, I would probably fly a bit more if I had 1/3 the fuel burn, only issue is that for my mission not many clubs, or any on my area, who have any 185/206/M7 amphibs.
 
Problem with a lot of low-fuel burn 2-seaters is they don't go very fast, or very far, depending on fuel/ payload.

I am now coming up on the second anniversary of my current 182, and I have only had three trips with anyone in the backseat.

But, if I had to rent to make those trips, I wouldn't have made them. The purpose of the trip would not have justified me spending $1200 to rent a 182 and hassle with checkouts, daily minimums, etc....

And, the extra horse power is nice, when needed.
 
Ghery said:
60 or 90 days? Not the club I've belonged to for over 15 years. We had a currency requirement for the Arrow, driven by the insurance company, but that was 3 hours in a 180 day period. The 172s and 182 have no such requirement. We do require a flight review every year, rather than the every 2 years that the FAA requires. I can't speak to tail dragger requirements. The club doesn't have one of those.
Click to expand...

I'd love that, but zero of the open clubs in the Bay Area are like that. Demand is high enough that they don't have to be. The 30-day currency was with Aerodynamic Aviation, which has 11 taildraggers and is the only club to really have that many around here. Most others have zero to three. It's all driven by the insurance requirements. For some clubs (like West Valley), it's strictly a time thing (one hour every 60/90 days with more complex similar aircraft covering for less complex as well. 162<152<172<182,172RG<210, PA28<PA28R,PA32, etc.). My current club, it's three takeoffs and landings every 90. Typically around here, 90 days for trainers, 60 days for anything with folding gear or props that twist.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Problem with a lot of low-fuel burn 2-seaters is they don't go very fast, or very far, depending on fuel/ payload.

I am now coming up on the second anniversary of my current 182, and I have only had three trips with anyone in the backseat.

But, if I had to rent to make those trips, I wouldn't have made them. The purpose of the trip would not have justified me spending $1200 to rent a 182 and hassle with checkouts, daily minimums, etc....

And, the extra horse power is nice, when needed.
Click to expand...

Wow, I haven't flown without someone else in the plane since last year. And that was a maintenance flight. Everybody's got a different flight profile!
 
JoseCuervo said:
Problem with a lot of low-fuel burn 2-seaters is they don't go very fast, or very far, depending on fuel/ payload..
Click to expand...

My "low-fuel burn 2 seater" will out cruise and distance a C-182 with the flaps down and I can feed my passenger and yours when we land on the fuel savings.. ;)
 
BellyUpFish said:
It's all about the mission.

What is your mission?

I don't care for beating the pattern up in a 172/182/Arrow/Cirrus. I'd rather be in something fast and maneuverable. Something slow and low. Something with multiple wings and no cockpit.

I'd say an easy 95% of my flying lately could be done with a single seat aircraft and I'd wager most people who fly for fun, do so solo.

I have a family of 4.. My kids love to fly. My wife only cares to fly if it means when we land, she gets a nice meal somewhere with salt in the air.

I own a 2 place, currently. When I head to the airport, it often winds up with a "Take one kid up for 20 minutes, take the other kid up for 20 minutes." Occasionally, I'll just head over with one of them and then next time the other kid gets to go.

I'd like to find a share in a 4-6 place aircraft, but don't see buying one alone, doesn't make financial sense for my mission.

Once or twice a year, I'll rent a Saratoga to take the family to the beach or something, but that is a bit of a hassle for me, as the Saratoga isn't local and by the time I jump through all the hoops to get it, I could have just driven to the beach and with the added expense of the rental car for the week and rental of the Saratoga, I can upgrade where we stay and what we do while we are there, so lately, we drive.

I'm currently stuck in a question of another airplane, I want something a little more exciting than what I currently own and the question of 1 vs 2 place has come up. I plan on keeping the RV and supplementing it with something, but can't decide how many seats. I've been spending some time flying a single seat bipe that while is a lot of fun, I can't take anyone with me....
Click to expand...

Your reasoning sounds like exactly what I'm describing. Having fun, being able to take either kid along and once in a while take Momma somewhere nice is the most fitting mission statement.

The only currency requirements I've seen in my club here in SD were for the 7ECA I HAD been flying- Until someone took it off-roading. Thank heavens he was current.
 
John Bussard said:
Your reasoning sounds like exactly what I'm describing. Having fun, being able to take either kid along and once in a while take Momma somewhere nice is the most fitting mission statement..
Click to expand...

RV-6... RV-8 for your tandem seating. ;)
 
John Bussard said:
Momma likes shade, hence PA-12 or Citabria. Likely Citabria for aero when the mood strikes- Also not with Momma...:)
Click to expand...


I've almost sold the RV to pick up a Citab in the past, but can't bring myself to do it. Tons of fun to fly though. Can't go wrong there.

For shade... ;)

5b5875243bbb31887b824273c15ce0fc.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JoseCuervo said:
Problem with a lot of low-fuel burn 2-seaters is they don't go very fast, or very far, depending on fuel/ payload.

I am now coming up on the second anniversary of my current 182, and I have only had three trips with anyone in the backseat.

But, if I had to rent to make those trips, I wouldn't have made them. The purpose of the trip would not have justified me spending $1200 to rent a 182 and hassle with checkouts, daily minimums, etc....

And, the extra horse power is nice, when needed.
Click to expand...

This describes our situation to a T. I looked at a two seater or small 4-seater (172) that would've been cheaper to buy and run than the 182. Problem was, the only suitable rental local enough to make sense for four plus gear was a 205, so between minimums, recurring CFI currency checkouts, etc it would've cost me several AMU's a year in rental just to make a couple trips. Plus with the 182 if the fam wants to go on a given day that option is open.
 
Without a doubt get a 4 seater. The old adage of owning a 2 seat and renting a 4 seat is impractical due to the currency requirement. Not to mention most certified 2 place aircraft are only two place for two very small people. If you want to carry 2 plus luggage and full fuel you are going to need a 4 place unless you are buying something fairly new.
 
Omalley1537 said:
This describes our situation to a T. I looked at a two seater or small 4-seater (172) that would've been cheaper to buy and run than the 182. Problem was, the only suitable rental local enough to make sense for four plus gear was a 205, so between minimums, recurring CFI currency checkouts, etc it would've cost me several AMU's a year in rental just to make a couple trips. Plus with the 182 if the fam wants to go on a given day that option is open.
Click to expand...
This is true, and if you want to cruise at the same speed as a 172, you can, while burning less fuel. And when you need the extra 70hp, it is there :), that is a huge advantage.
It's all a compromise. I bought a Tiger recently, have flown it 50 hrs. So far, about 1/2 of my flying has been alone and 1/2 with two aboard. Have never used the back seat. My home field is well above 6000ft with 8 to 10k density altitudes much of the time. Given this, the Tiger is effectively a two-place. With a 182, I'm sure I would have done flights with 3 or 4 aboard, occasionally. But, the 180hp Tiger is good for 90% of my desired missions and it certainly is economical. I've been averaging around 9gph since I generally have to fly at altitudes that makes 60% power the norm.
 
Sounds like a nice dilemma to have. My wife gets motion sickness in a car unless she is driving. As much as she would love the reduced travel time by air she simply cannot tolerate it. Even airline travel makes here queasy much of the time. The plus side is, I don't have to worry about 2 vs 4 seats. My wife has flown with me about ten times in 28 years. My daughters go on occasion, but more to humor me than anything else. The vast majority of my flying is solo, frequently in a flight of two or more where the other planes are single occupant as well.
 
John Bussard said:
Anyone with kids been able to balance taking out one at a time? Right now they're 8 and 5, and all the normal scheduling conflicts will amount to even less time for all 4 to get out together anyway, and in theory we could rent later on if need be.
Click to expand...

Rentals are a terrible way to do family outings, unless you are filthy rich and you live in a major market where you can rent a KingAir. The FBO will have a spare airplane for you in case of maintenance issues, and whatever fees they have for the airplane parked on the ramp, just put it on the bill please, my secretary will take care of it.

But otherwise, the competing use at the FBO will make you cancel 20-30% of the time, which is just too high. Not only they will take the plane from you if high-priority customer rolls in, but they can also hit maintenance incurred by simple use. The 50 or 100 hour comes up and if someone uses the plane in the time between you reserved it and the time you have to fly, you're screwed. And of course it can just break down. And the daily fees are unpleasant too: you're basically looking at $450 or so for basic singles, for every day you do not fly.

People like to grouse about the mechanical condition of heavily abused, poorly maintained rental airplanes. But in my experience, it is not an issue, at least in upstanding shops. If they release the airplane to you, it is airworthy. It may be filthy, the sun visors sag, and half the fancy avionics INOP, but it will fly safely. So, no problem. But the schedule unreliability is absolutely a killer problem.
 
BellyUpFish said:
My "low-fuel burn 2 seater" will out cruise and distance a C-182 with the flaps down and I can feed my passenger and yours when we land on the fuel savings.. ;)
Click to expand...


Yep, there are exceptions to every rule.

I rarely cruise my 182 with the flaps down, but congrats on owning that speed-burner that will do in excess of 60mph.....
 
Omalley1537 said:
This describes our situation to a T. I looked at a two seater or small 4-seater (172) that would've been cheaper to buy and run than the 182. Problem was, the only suitable rental local enough to make sense for four plus gear was a 205, so between minimums, recurring CFI currency checkouts, etc it would've cost me several AMU's a year in rental just to make a couple trips. Plus with the 182 if the fam wants to go on a given day that option is open.
Click to expand...

I spend a lot of time at 100' AGL with the altimeter 7-8000 ft in mountainous terrain. Not something I would attempt in a 150, a Tomahawk, or even a 172/Warrior class of plane. The horsepower is nice. At $34 an hour for fuel in the 182, not sure owning a 2 place would make any sense.

(Now that I say that, a SuperCub does hold a certain allure....)
 
What do you "want" to do? Mostly fly around locally? Many trips with the family? On trips will that be VFR only or IFR? If IFR will that be "gentlemen's IFR" (i.e. just to get through a ceiling ~1,000-1,500' AGL) or full IMC (outside of bad stuff such as ice and T'storms) with an approach at the end? Are you and your wife big? So, will the kids grow big too? I know one guy that's maybe 150 lbs fully dressed and his wife is lighter, which means even with kids they don't need much payload. We have girls and none of us are large, so we easily travel in a four seater.

All of that warrants different equipment. If you want to travel, then owning a four seater is much better. I much prefer to fly a plane regularly if I'm going to fly it in IMC, largely to be familiar with the avionics. If I'm traveling I'm planning on flying IMC and shooting an approach, and am happy when it's a nice sunny day and we get a great view instead.

Now, if you mostly want to fly locally for fun, then either a two or four seater is fine. A two seater just means you can only fly with one person at a time, which might limit your flight time.

If you want to travel much I'd think a four seater would be best. Renting one for a trip can get expensive with check-outs, currency and overnight minimums. Plus, if you fly IFR, then there is the issue of avionics that you may not be as familiar with, which can be dangerous in IMC.
 
The best travel machines are short winged 2 seaters, glasair, lancair, etc

Nice and fast, clean RG and efficient airframes, experimental so you can have proper avionics and autopilots without needing to be a millionaire.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Yep, there are exceptions to every rule.

I rarely cruise my 182 with the flaps down, but congrats on owning that speed-burner that will do in excess of 60mph.....
Click to expand...

I meant with my flaps down, but I was just kidding which is why I included the smiley face. Sorry to have offended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top