Two-Seat Options

M

mcmanigle

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
525
Display Name
Display name:
John McManigle
None of this will likely happen for about two years, but why not dream now?

My 90% mission is one or two people. Just me, maybe add a sibling or date or friend. (My maximum mission is four, and it's easy to find those to rent.) Sightseeing joyrides 25% of the time, 300-ish nm XCs 75%. I'd like to stick to two seats because I want the associated lower acquisition costs, fuel burn, etc. I don't need to go fast, but I also don't want a headwind to stop me dead.

Hard IMC probably won't happen much, but IFR certified is pretty close to required, and likelihood of finding a 430W or something would be great. I do love a good bubble canopy, or at least giant windows. I have a personal preference for low-wings (though not insurmountable).

In terms of 2-seaters, I've spent my fair share of time in Grumman AA1B, Piper Tomahawk, Cessna 152, and Diamond DA20-C1. (Also a bit of time in a Pitts and a Cub on floats, but that's not the point.) I absolutely love the DA20 for visibility and speed, but the no-lightning-strike-so-no-IFR is a drag. Otherwise, it would be perfect.

As I see it now, my options would be to look out for a nice AA1B or Tomahawk, or to go ahead and find a DA-20 and add "IFR" alongside "2 passengers" on the Times I Need To Rent list.

Am I missing anything? It looks like there are about half a dozen different engine STCs on AA1s and Tomahawks. Any in particular that turn them into better (even if still sluggish) cross country fliers? Other models I'm not thinking of? Do people even put 430s in 1970s 2-seaters?

Also, I know what I really "need" with these requirements is an experimental, but I won't have the time to build one myself for a long while, and don't know how to trust one somebody else has built. (Can a pre-buy really check every rivet, much less make sure the right kind of rivets were used?) Also, let's assume in this hypothetical a-few-years-from-now fairyland that I might want to give casual flight instruction or rent the plane to others.
 
The only thing I'd mention is that with a lot of "2-seaters", the payload can sometimes be somewhat limited. So if you plane on taking 2 heavy guys (200lbs+), then most of those 2 seaters won't allow full fuel, or baggage. So be wary of that.

My suggestion would really be to find something like a Mooney M20. Slieek, narrow, and high speed with low fuel burn. Back seat if you need it, but a decent amount of payload and plenty available with good IFR panels.
 
If you're taking your missus somewhere for anything more than a day trip, you need a back seat. If it really is going to be just you for all those XC's, I'd go experimental. Sonex or Vans, you get a lot of bang for your buck. Lots of those things are built with better quality than anything that comes out of a factory. Guy building for the MAN doesn't do what a guy building for himself does.

All that said I'd still get an airplane with a back seat. Doesn't cost that much more to get it and you get that much more airplane. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
 
You're missing something big time!

For that price range and your x-countries, glasair all day long.

GlasairIII-0703b.jpg


No one builds who likes to fly, you buy built for less than the cost to build.

You get a prebuy by someone who knows the type, just like anything else.

A certified plane from the 70 or 80s with chit maintenance is as bad as a experimental with bad mx. This is why you get a prebuy. Ain't rocket surgery.

Go buy a glasair, go fourth and aviate.

You're welcome :)
 
Last edited:
Plenty of traumahawks still up there
 
The 150-160 HP 4-seaters like the Grumman Traveler/Cheetah or Piper PA28-140/150/160/151/161 or the Cessna 172/177 or the Beech 19 Sport make excellent 2-adults+baggage traveling planes -- plenty of payload and room for baggage along with fuel for 300+ nm flights (even with a headwind and IFR reserves). We tried using an AA-1B in that role back when we were both much younger and much lighter, but those 100-118HP 2-seaters just don't give you much capability for "average" adults plus bags plus enough fuel to go much of anywhere.
 
Sounds like you want a Cherokee 140 -- 2+2 seating with "snap-in" rear seats, low acquisition cost, easy on maintenance, low wing, reasonably good visibility, comfortable, quiet, long range with 50-gallon fuel capacity.

When Piper was competing head-on with the C-150 in the late '60s and early '70s, they tried to show that the 150 hp Cherokee 140 was really not much more expensive to operate than a 100 hp C-150. At an "instructional cruise" power setting of 60% and 1800-lb operating weight, they claimed 118 mph at 7,000', at 6.7 gph.

Put that same 150 hp O-320 in an AA-1 or a C-150, you'll go fast -- but not far. No way to increase the modest fuel capacity of those.
 
Liberty xl2,120 kt cruise,5-7 gph,IFR.
 
If you are OK with E-AB have you looked at RV's?

An RV-6 would be good for a 2 seat side by side. Plenty fast too.
 
Simple Piper Colt. Well there is that low wing bubble canopy preference. :D
 
frfly172 said:
Liberty xl2,120 kt cruise,5-7 gph,IFR.
Click to expand...
...and no baggage with two average adults and 3 hours of gas. Did an IR training course in one, and we had to short-fuel the plane with just the two of us -- neither of whom was above average size.
 
:no:
Ron Levy said:
...and no baggage with two average adults and 3 hours of gas. Did an IR training course in one, and we had to short-fuel the plane with just the two of us -- neither of whom was above average size.
Click to expand...

Just did a trip this summer to AK with two males full fuel 42 lbs luggage. No problem,have the higher weight limit mods.
 
mcmanigle said:
None of this will likely happen for about two years, but why not dream now?

My 90% mission is one or two people. Just me, maybe add a sibling or date or friend. (My maximum mission is four, and it's easy to find those to rent.) Sightseeing joyrides 25% of the time, 300-ish nm XCs 75%. I'd like to stick to two seats because I want the associated lower acquisition costs, fuel burn, etc. I don't need to go fast, but I also don't want a headwind to stop me dead.

Hard IMC probably won't happen much, but IFR certified is pretty close to required, and likelihood of finding a 430W or something would be great. I do love a good bubble canopy, or at least giant windows. I have a personal preference for low-wings (though not insurmountable).

In terms of 2-seaters, I've spent my fair share of time in Grumman AA1B, Piper Tomahawk, Cessna 152, and Diamond DA20-C1. (Also a bit of time in a Pitts and a Cub on floats, but that's not the point.) I absolutely love the DA20 for visibility and speed, but the no-lightning-strike-so-no-IFR is a drag. Otherwise, it would be perfect.

As I see it now, my options would be to look out for a nice AA1B or Tomahawk, or to go ahead and find a DA-20 and add "IFR" alongside "2 passengers" on the Times I Need To Rent list.

Am I missing anything? It looks like there are about half a dozen different engine STCs on AA1s and Tomahawks. Any in particular that turn them into better (even if still sluggish) cross country fliers? Other models I'm not thinking of? Do people even put 430s in 1970s 2-seaters?

Also, I know what I really "need" with these requirements is an experimental, but I won't have the time to build one myself for a long while, and don't know how to trust one somebody else has built. (Can a pre-buy really check every rivet, much less make sure the right kind of rivets were used?) Also, let's assume in this hypothetical a-few-years-from-now fairyland that I might want to give casual flight instruction or rent the plane to others.
Click to expand...

I hear you on the DA-20, it's really a drag they did that, but OTOH, having flown the DA-40 in moderately turbulent clouds, I'm not sure the DA-20 would prove a good platform. That long wing is very active and very tiring to counter. Even the autopilot has its moments keeping up.

The best option for you is one of the RV series from the 4 up. These are well designed and simple to construct. Inspecting rivets is easy. You don't need to see each one, you need to look across an area for uniformity, the eye will pick out what is odd. Riveting isn't rocket science, and exact perfection of every rivet is not mandatory. Once someone learns how to drive and buck a rivet, it's not that difficult to reproduce the result.

A couple other things that go in Van's favor are the 'trial piece' program where they send a couple of little projects and a piece of the tail to build to teach you and provide you exposure and scale. This means that most of the people going forward with a kit had the requisite skill set to complete at least an airframe.
The other factor is that Vans is by far the most prolific line of Experimental designs out there, and there are a lot of professional builders and A&Ps out there that provide service to help you inspect the aircraft before you buy it.

With these things going,I would not hesitate to buy a flying RV, in fact, it's the only way I would get one.
 
An RV would be a great choice. Go get a ride in one and you'll see why!
 
Have to agree with Henning on the Diamond, really wouldn't have one as a personal plane. Mostly due to the fact that they really don't have much cabin space and they don't handle a load well at all.

I would also have to say the RV would be a great choice.
 
This! Whenever I ponder a 2 seater I come back to the Cherokee 140. Besides the single door thing, it's hard to come up with a downside to the Cherokee when compared to the usual 2 seaters.

Pilawt said:
Sounds like you want a Cherokee 140 -- 2+2 seating with "snap-in" rear seats, low acquisition cost, easy on maintenance, low wing, reasonably good visibility, comfortable, quiet, long range with 50-gallon fuel capacity.

When Piper was competing head-on with the C-150 in the late '60s and early '70s, they tried to show that the 150 hp Cherokee 140 was really not much more expensive to operate than a 100 hp C-150. At an "instructional cruise" power setting of 60% and 1800-lb operating weight, they claimed 118 mph at 7,000', at 6.7 gph.

Put that same 150 hp O-320 in an AA-1 or a C-150, you'll go fast -- but not far. No way to increase the modest fuel capacity of those.
Click to expand...
 
KSMooniac said:
An RV would be a great choice. Go get a ride in one and you'll see why!
Click to expand...

Concur. Just did 1200nm RT to Peoria on Monday. Normal wakeup, home for dinner, compared to the 0300 wakeup, home for Craig Ferguson option via the airlines. Plus, I could bring liquid refreshments and a Walther CCP!

Next day, had to warm the oil to change it, so low and slow to see the fading fall colors along the Chesapeake, then a little upside down time because it's fun.

Best of all worlds, IMHO.
 
I have to do the pitch. It's required when you join the club.:D

Consider a Mooney M20C through E. They're great two person planes. Technically a four seater, but like the Cherokee 140, more of a 2+2 and you can take the back seat out if you want. Unlike the Cherokee, it's fast and efficient. They are nearly as cheap to buy as a Cherokee these days too. If you get the E, you can run LOP.

If you insist on certified and don't mind the "four seats" technicality, Mooney M20C-E is the way to go.

If it must be certified and must be two seats, the Liberty XL-2 is the way to go.

If it must be certified and two seats, but on a budget, the Tomahawk, Skipper, or maybe the Alarus CH2000 might be the way to go.

If you can except experimental, the Vans RV-7, or 9 is the way to go.

Just my opinion.
 
KSMooniac said:
An RV would be a great choice. Go get a ride in one and you'll see why!
Click to expand...

I'd go RV-7 or 7A. Even a 6 or 6A would do. If you can handle a tandem the 8/8A would be fine. The Glassair is also tempting.
 
I owned and flew a Cherokee 140 for about a decade. It's a lot of airplane value for your dollar... purchase, maintenance, and operation. Probably the best value on the market right now for an entry-level first plane. You can even find some decent ones on the market in the low 20K's nowadays.

A couple years ago I upgraded to an RV-6 since most of my flying is solo and I could finally afford to buy one (cost literally 2 to 3 times what a PA28 can be bought for these days). My RV-6 is 160hp, fixed pitch prop (actually ground adjustable) and I'd say it's a two person plus very little baggage or a one person with a lot of camping gear and baggage kind of plane. A 2-seat RV really needs minimum 180hp and a constant speed prop if you want it to carry 2 persons with baggage. Especially if you intend to operate out of higher elevation airports.

There are both good and badly built used RVs out there. Fortunately there are enough of them in the fleet that there are also plenty of RV-specialist mechanics out there by now who can give you a proper and thorough pre-purchase inspection. Do not buy one without a pre-purchase inspection.

EDIT: The cabin width of an RV-6 can get a little "cozy" with two aboard too. It's nowhere near as tight, and shoulder-rubbing as something like a Cessna 150, but it's also more cramped than the ample elbow room space I had in the front seats of my old Cherokee.
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest the RVs as well. While I'm now an RV builder and flyer, I started out my airplane-to-buy search looking for a 2 place plane with roughly the same objectives. I eliminated experimentals from my search because I just didn't feel comfortable with the selection, buying, maintaining process. I ended up with a 4-place Maule that I loved and flew the heck out of.

That was a few years ago but even then it was a mistake. An RV-6/7 would have been perfect on practically all counts (except for hauling my petite wife and a lot of shoes).

I suggest spending sometime including experimentals in your dreaming. Get smart about the rules and regs. Get some flights in some. Then if you get convinced that it would be a good way to go and you've picked the hottest, sexiest most exotic type to buy, stop. For a first experimental buy, get an RV - 6 or any higher number. You will not be disappointed, in fact you will probably be ecstatic for years afterward.

Sweet dreams!
 
Bill Watson said:
I'd suggest the RVs as well. While I'm now an RV builder and flyer, I started out my airplane-to-buy search looking for a 2 place plane with roughly the same objectives. I eliminated experimentals from my search because I just didn't feel comfortable with the selection, buying, maintaining process. I ended up with a 4-place Maule that I loved and flew the heck out of.

That was a few years ago but even then it was a mistake. An RV-6/7 would have been perfect on practically all counts (except for hauling my petite wife and a lot of shoes).

I suggest spending sometime including experimentals in your dreaming. Get smart about the rules and regs. Get some flights in some. Then if you get convinced that it would be a good way to go and you've picked the hottest, sexiest most exotic type to buy, stop. For a first experimental buy, get an RV - 6 or any higher number. You will not be disappointed, in fact you will probably be ecstatic for years afterward.

Sweet dreams!
Click to expand...

Shoot, if you get rid of the boxes and use a cargo net, I bet you could get 50 pairs of shoes back there.:lol:;)

Does anyone do a sliding canopy for the RVs? Being able to crack open a canopy in flight is a huge benefit, especially if you're practicing beginner aerobatics.;)
 
Van has a sliding canopy option for the 6 and 7, maybe others to my knowledge. I'm not sure if the tandems have one, though.
 
RV models -6, -7, -8 and -9 all can be built with a sliding canopy but it is not designed to be opened in flight. Mine is a slider. The previous owner (also the builder) told me he once had a brainfart and took off with the canopy unlatched on a hot summer day and it opened up by itself only 3-4 inches from the airflow over and around it and would not go any further back, nor could he slide it forward any to try to latch it until he slowed to nearly a stall. Not wanting to risk stalling the airplane while fumbling with the canopy latch, he opted to just keep the airspeed under 100 MPH (Vfe) and go around the pattern and then come back to land and take care of the problem on the ground. He also said that there was a lot of turbulent wind inside the cockpit with the canopy partially opened.
 
Neal Howard said:
RV models -6, -7, -8 and -9 all can be built with a sliding canopy but it is not designed to be opened in flight. Mine is a slider. The previous owner (also the builder) told me he once had a brainfart and took off with the canopy unlatched on a hot summer day and it opened up by itself only 3-4 inches from the airflow over and around it and would not go any further back, nor could he slide it forward any to try to latch it until he slowed to nearly a stall. Not wanting to risk stalling the airplane while fumbling with the canopy latch, he opted to just keep the airspeed under 100 MPH (Vfe) and go around the pattern and then come back to land and take care of the problem on the ground. He also said that there was a lot of turbulent wind inside the cockpit with the canopy partially opened.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok, so the hardware exists, too bad not on the 4, that's the one I would want. The aerodynamic issue is easy to overcome with a small controlling vortex on the frame to lift and streamline the flow.
 
Well, the RV-4 IS experimental.... :D Have a go at it!
 
Henning said:
Ah, ok, so the hardware exists, too bad not on the 4, that's the one I would want. The aerodynamic issue is easy to overcome with a small controlling vortex on the frame to lift and streamline the flow.
Click to expand...

There has been at least one RV-4 slider built. I saw it personally at Oshkosh and took some pictures of it. IIRC, it was built back in the 1990's and was immaculately taken care of over the years. The builder had to fabricate pretty much the entire canopy frame and mechanisms from scratch. Looked like it took a lot of craftsmanship and work to do it. It was a beautiful aircraft and I found myself a bit in lust with it ;)
 
KyleT said:
Swearingen SX300.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine, (died in a bicycle crash of all things) built an SX-300 and flew it for many years. He always said it a wonderful airplane to fly but you'd better keep your brain well ahead of the plane or it would hurt you.
 
Neal Howard said:
There has been at least one RV-4 slider built. I saw it personally at Oshkosh and took some pictures of it. IIRC, it was built back in the 1990's and was immaculately taken care of over the years. The builder had to fabricate pretty much the entire canopy frame and mechanisms from scratch. Looked like it took a lot of craftsmanship and work to do it. It was a beautiful aircraft and I found myself a bit in lust with it ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would do a two way frame, have a flip canopy for entry and exit, sitting on top of a slider that came back controlled by a window regulator gear and lever from a car for opening in flight.
 
I had a pre-buy inspection arranged for this RV-4 slider but ended up buying a tip-over much closer to home.
46ec6d862ea011c5ad15a84486f3d5fb.jpg


This is the one I bought.
59a78f13e8c58686e80061aa63ae32de.jpg



Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
 
KyleT said:
Swearingen SX300.
Click to expand...
:D
Neal Howard said:
A friend of mine, (died in a bicycle crash of all things) built an SX-300 and flew it for many years. He always said it a wonderful airplane to fly but you'd better keep your brain well ahead of the plane or it would hurt you.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. It is quick, but it's easy enough to stay ahead of.

The pitch sensitivity is what will kill you. I've never experienced anything like it ever before. Insane is about the only word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top