2 Seater Airplane suggestions?

A

Airmaster23

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34
Display Name
Display name:
Airmaster
Hi,

I'm looking into buying a plane or a share in a plane.

I'm trying to narrow down my requirements so I don't buy too much plane ;).

I live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where the elevation is approx. 4000 ft ASL. So this means most circuit heights are at 5000 ft ASL. And cruising altitudes are much higher.

I'd like a 2 place, side-by-side aircraft with an endurance of 3-4 hrs, that will get a decent climb rate rate at gross on a 25 deg C (77 deg F) day.

I'd also like it to have a useful load of 500 lb with fuel tanks.

And, of course, fairly cheap to fly and cheap to own. I think I'd prefer a certified aircraft (production manufactured like Cessna, Beach, Piper, etc.) over an experimental.

Please don't crucify me if this doesn't exist...
 
Airmaster23 said:
Hi,

I'm looking into buying a plane or a share in a plane.

I'm trying to narrow down my requirements so I don't buy too much plane ;).

I live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where the elevation is approx. 4000 ft ASL. So this means most circuit heights are at 5000 ft ASL. And cruising altitudes are much higher.

I'd like a 2 place, side-by-side aircraft with an endurance of 3-4 hrs, that will get a decent climb rate rate at gross on a 25 deg C (77 deg F) day.

I'd also like it to have a useful load of 500 lb with fuel tanks.

And, of course, fairly cheap to fly and cheap to own. I think I'd prefer a certified aircraft (production manufactured like Cessna, Beach, Piper, etc.) over an experimental.

Please don't crucify me if this doesn't exist...
Click to expand...

Are you based at Springbank? Nice airport, I belive the flight school flies DA-20s out of there, and I've visited the airport and have a friend who flies an Arrow out of there. Consider a 150-160HP Cherokee 140/150/160 for your mission. I'm partial to the 150 and 160s due to the baggage door. I flew mine in and out of Springbank without issue. Yeah, you can have high DAs but it's FLAT.
 
Cessna 172 or Piper PA-28 fit your mission profile. Don't let the fact that they have four "seats" fool you.
 
If by "a useful load of 500 lb with fuel tanks" you mean 500 lb in the cabin along with full tanks, I don't think you'll find a "fairly cheap" 2-seater which can do that. OTOH, if you really do mean 500 lb useful load (defined as gross weight minus empty weight, i.e., the total of people, bags, and fuel), that 3-4 hours of fuel may eat as much as 200 lb of that useful load, leaving you only 300 lb for people and bags. So, I think we need more precise definition of the required payload (i.e., people and bags).
 
Liberty XL or a DA-20. Got about 15 hrs in the Liberty. Fun little aircraft with plenty of shoulder room. It's good for 120 kts, 500 NM and 700 FPM. Flew once in a DA-20 couple months ago. Also nice aircraft but felt a little buried with the seat canted back. No IFR though.

Still, I'd choose a Glasair II or an RV-7 over both of those any day of the week.
 
Why the side by-side requirement? If that goes away i'd recommend a Citabria
 
bartmc said:
Are you based at Springbank? Nice airport, I belive the flight school flies DA-20s out of there, and I've visited the airport and have a friend who flies an Arrow out of there. Consider a 150-160HP Cherokee 140/150/160 for your mission. I'm partial to the 150 and 160s due to the baggage door. I flew mine in and out of Springbank without issue. Yeah, you can have high DAs but it's FLAT.
Click to expand...

I don't like flying a 150-160 HP Cherokee at sea level, especially in the summer. That will not get a decent climb rate under the specified conditions.

You'll be much happier with at least 180 HP, and it doesn't cost much more money.

There's not much in the certified world that fits this category overall, and it would help to have a bit more criteria.

You say 3-4 hours endurance, but how many miles are you trying to go? A Cherokee 180 will do that. A Lancair 360 is a 2-seater experimental that will go 80 kts faster on the same fuel burn. Also it's a fast and rather unforgiving plane.

In this case (and I'm surprised that Gecko didn't chime right in here), an RV would actually be a good fit in being a 2-seater with better performance.
 
Airmaster23 said:
I'd like a 2 place, side-by-side aircraft with an endurance of 3-4 hrs, that will get a decent climb rate rate at gross on a 25 deg C (77 deg F) day.

I'd also like it to have a useful load of 500 lb with fuel tanks.

And, of course, fairly cheap to fly and cheap to own. I think I'd prefer a certified aircraft (production manufactured like Cessna, Beach, Piper, etc.) over an experimental.

Please don't crucify me if this doesn't exist...
Click to expand...

It does exist...your mission screams RV-7.

200mph cruise on 8gph. So my wife and I and 100lbs of stuff can be 700 miles in 3.5hrs and still have about 1.5hrs of fuel remaining. After work you can loop and roll to your hearts content, just to get the mind right.

Here's me and the granddaughter out for a spin.
olivialowpass.jpg


Fun is what the RV series is all about.
 
Have a look at some Grumman Tigers and Cheetah's.

General characteristics
Length: 22 ft 0 in (6.7 m)
Wingspan: 31 ft 6 in (9.6 m)
Height: 8 ft 0 in (2.4 m)
Wing area: 140 ft² (13 m²)
Empty weight: 1,500 lb (680 kg)
Loaded weight: 2,400 lb (1090 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 2,400 lb (1090 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Lycoming O-360-A4K air-cooled, 4-cylinder, horizontally-opposed piston engine, 180 hp (134 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 143 knots (163 mph, 265 km/h)
Range: 686 nm (789 mi, 1,270 km)
Service ceiling: 13,800 ft (4,200 m)
Rate of climb: 850 ft/min (259 m/min)
Wing loading: 17.1 lb/ft² (83 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.08 hp/lb (0.12 kW/kg)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I don't like flying a 150-160 HP Cherokee at sea level, especially in the summer. That will not get a decent climb rate under the specified conditions.

You'll be much happier with at least 180 HP, and it doesn't cost much more money.

There's not much in the certified world that fits this category overall, and it would help to have a bit more criteria.

You say 3-4 hours endurance, but how many miles are you trying to go? A Cherokee 180 will do that. A Lancair 360 is a 2-seater experimental that will go 80 kts faster on the same fuel burn. Also it's a fast and rather unforgiving plane.

In this case (and I'm surprised that Gecko didn't chime right in here), an RV would actually be a good fit in being a 2-seater with better performance.
Click to expand...

When I had a PA28-150B in Montana, 10500 to 12500 was the altitudes I had to be at to go D-> not claiming it got there the fastest but it got there. even in summer was respectable up to 8500. I took off a few times near 10000' DA. In MT I was surrounded by mountains, Calgary is out in the flats. It's not going to be a screamer, but it'll handle Calgary without issues. A 150 is for the most part a 2 seater and about the cheapest route to an O320, mine had 850lbs of useful liAd and the 50 gallon tanks gave it some long legs.
 
Not sure on how much weight they carry but a Swift comes to mind.
 
bartmc said:
When I had a PA28-150B in Montana, 10500 to 12500 was the altitudes I had to be at to go D-> not claiming it got there the fastest but it got there. even in summer was respectable up to 8500. I took off a few times near 10000' DA. In MT I was surrounded by mountains, Calgary is out in the flats. It's not going to be a screamer, but it'll handle Calgary without issues. A 150 is for the most part a 2 seater and about the cheapest route to an O320, mine had 850lbs of useful liAd and the 50 gallon tanks gave it some long legs.
Click to expand...

The OP asked for decent climb rate.

I've dealt with 150 HP Cherokees at sea level, and the climb rate wasn't what I would call decent. At altitude I'd imagine them even worse.

An O-320 might be a bit cheaper, but an O-360 is not that much more. For the minimal cost difference, get the extra power.
 
The OP's required payload and budget are both unclear. Too hard to give good advice without that.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The OP asked for decent climb rate.

I've dealt with 150 HP Cherokees at sea level, and the climb rate wasn't what I would call decent. At altitude I'd imagine them even worse.

An O-320 might be a bit cheaper, but an O-360 is not that much more. For the minimal cost difference, get the extra power.
Click to expand...

One man's decent is another man's not decent. I had no problem operating off of 2500' long runways at Calgary altitudes, in the mountains with obstacles. I did flatten the prop out a little. Climb to 8,500' was fast and easy, decreased noticably up to 10,500 and could take a few minutes to get to 12,500. Coming out of a Cessna 150, it was down right impressive :D

The price delta between a Cherokee with an O-320 and a similar one with an O-360 is significant, around $15K-$20K come to mind.

I'm a fan of horsepower, buy all you can afford.
 
Hydroguy2 said:
It does exist...your mission screams RV-7.

200mph cruise on 8gph. So my wife and I and 100lbs of stuff can be 700 miles in 3.5hrs and still have about 1.5hrs of fuel remaining. After work you can loop and roll to your hearts content, just to get the mind right.

Here's me and the granddaughter out for a spin.
olivialowpass.jpg


Fun is what the RV series is all about.
Click to expand...


Nice. NICE. NICE!!!
 
Given the OP's desire for a two seater, I take that to mean he wants a low fuel burn, so something O-235 powered or the like. Given his preference for certified and his ops at high DA, I would suggest the Diamond DA-20 C1. Comes up a bit short in the payload requirement, has a terrible baggage area and can't be flown in IMC, but otherwise I think it would work out.
 
Dav8or said:
Given the OP's desire for a two seater, I take that to mean he wants a low fuel burn, so something O-235 powered or the like. Given his preference for certified and his ops at high DA, I would suggest the Diamond DA-20 C1. Comes up a bit short in the payload requirement, has a terrible baggage area and can't be flown in IMC, but otherwise I think it would work out.
Click to expand...

2-seater may mean low fuel burn, but may also mean he knows he'll never fly with more than 1 passenger.

If low fuel burn and slow airplane is a desire, then an LSA might be a worthwhile consideration.

My favorite 2-seater is definitely a Lancair 360.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
2-seater may mean low fuel burn, but may also mean he knows he'll never fly with more than 1 passenger.

If low fuel burn and slow airplane is a desire, then an LSA might be a worthwhile consideration.

My favorite 2-seater is definitely a Lancair 360.
Click to expand...

I second the motions for an RV/Glasair/Lancair, experimental planes aren't as bad as they sound ;)

Ted, do you have an opinion on the Lancair 360 vs the Glasair 360? I'm in the market for one of the two. Thanks.
 
Airmaster23 said:
Hi,

I'm looking into buying a plane or a share in a plane.

I'm trying to narrow down my requirements so I don't buy too much plane ;).

I live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where the elevation is approx. 4000 ft ASL. So this means most circuit heights are at 5000 ft ASL. And cruising altitudes are much higher.

I'd like a 2 place, side-by-side aircraft with an endurance of 3-4 hrs, that will get a decent climb rate rate at gross on a 25 deg C (77 deg F) day.

I'd also like it to have a useful load of 500 lb with fuel tanks.

And, of course, fairly cheap to fly and cheap to own. I think I'd prefer a certified aircraft (production manufactured like Cessna, Beach, Piper, etc.) over an experimental.

Please don't crucify me if this doesn't exist...
Click to expand...

Piper PA-22-160 Tri Pacer.

Cheap to buy, cheap to own, good climb with 160 hp, 3.5 hours plus reserve, 500-600 lbs left with full fuel.
 
Let's remember that the op is in Canada, they have different rules on AHB-EXP

RVs aren't the answer to every thing.


This 48 Cessna 170 would do every thing he wants and more.

It is in his back yard, no import required.
 

Attachments

  • 48-170-5.jpg
    48-170-5.jpg
    83 KB · Views: 18
  • 48-170-1.jpg
    48-170-1.jpg
    80.2 KB · Views: 18
  • 48-170-2.jpg
    48-170-2.jpg
    57.9 KB · Views: 14
  • 48-170-4.jpg
    48-170-4.jpg
    46.6 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
Comanche with the rear seat removed. :D
 
EdFred said:
Comanche with the rear seat removed. :D
Click to expand...

Oh let's just get it over with.

Want certified- A36 Bonanza, LOP, throttled back.

Want experimental- Vans RV-10, LOP, throttled back.

Want "real" airplane- Cessna 310, one engine out, other LOP, throttled back.

:rolleyes:;)
 
Dav8or said:
Oh let's just get it over with.

Want certified- A36 Bonanza, LOP, throttled back.

Want experimental- Vans RV-10, LOP, throttled back.

Want "real" airplane- Cessna 310, one engine out, other LOP, throttled back.

:rolleyes:;)
Click to expand...

A G650 setup for 2 would work nicely. Be sure to get the solid gold lavatory option with the money you save by not installing the rear 16 seats. Ahh.. but an RV-10 would do the same mission on less money.
 
PBristolJr said:
I second the motions for an RV/Glasair/Lancair, experimental planes aren't as bad as they sound ;)

Ted, do you have an opinion on the Lancair 360 vs the Glasair 360? I'm in the market for one of the two. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I've never been in a Glasair, nor do I know much about them. I was considering a Lancair 360, and have about 30 minutes in one (a 320, but the only difference is the engine), 5 years ago.

The Lancair 320/360 is a very economical airplane to fly, and probably represents one of the best $/mile options out there. 190-200 KTAS on 9-10 GPH is common. The one I flew in could do 140 KTAS @ 4 GPH. Not a typo. Performance is really quite remarkable.

With that performance comes an airplane that is rather unforgiving. When I flew in the 320, the pilot demonstrated a full stall for me. It is quite aggressive. So, don't stall it. You need to have good speed discipline on approach, and not try to get into too tight of runways.

I ended up not buying one because I decided I wanted to take a different route with my flying, and so I bought the Aztec instead. Although I'm happy with my decision, that is still on my list of "planes I want." Probably won't ever happen, though, since the flying needs of both the non-profit and the family dictate the 310 or something in that general size category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top