Caught up in the decision to go with a 2-seat or 4-seat aircraft, I have begun trying to evaluate the pros and cons of each. Let's consider that buy-in would cost about the same, as for $80 large you can have a pretty decent version of either. Aircraft being considered are Kitfox, Highlander, Rans, Maul M7, Bearhawke, Skywagon. I'm not really as concerned about getting a good deal on the aircraft as I am with the long term usability.

2-seater:
Pros:
Amazing maneuverability, light feel
Fuel economy with Rotax 912
Resale-- there's always a market for 2-place
Cheaper insurance premiums

Cons:
Limited cargo space
Slow

4-seater:
Pros:
Lots of cargo space, as additional people will not be carried
Faster

Cons:
More fuel used
High insurance premiums (how does Bearhawk compare to Maule?)
Only older engine tech available... I like those Rotax liquid cooled heads.


So just how much extra per year is it worth to you to be able to haul a bicycle? Or a huge load? Trying to be honest with myself here. Sometimes I think about trying to fly XC in those slower 2-seaters and just know I will wish I had 140 mph instead of 90.

Thoughts?
Thanks.

Skywagon!

Low and Slow is where it's at! The light feel, visibility, manueverability, ect is awesome. Consider this. It takes me 8 hours on the hobbs to get to Johnson Creek from California in my Rotax powered experimental. It takes the guys in the big 4 seaters about half of that. 4 hours difference in one day of flying is pretty negligible. For the next WEEK we all fly to the same strips and all get there within a few minutes of each other. Now the big difference. This year I was talking to a 185 driver and he burned up more fuel in ONE day of flying the backcountry than I did in the whole week. On top of that they were having to fly out to McCall for fuel. I got fuel in a 5 gallon can at Yellowpine Of course I'm a little biased.

Sometimes I wish I could carry my whole family, a wall tent and generator but I think you'll find that 90% of the time your doing day trips by yourself. The only person I know that truly and consistently get's his use out of a 4 place airplane is Corey (grasstripilot) I think most people own and fly one because they can. Me I would rather fly a small, slow, cheap airplane than not fly at all! The Highlander will carry two people and the baggage area is HUGE.

Depends on the strips you land at most. It seems tougher to put most 4 seaters in tight unimproved spots. If your idea of backcountry is long grass strips like J.C. then the question is how much XC you really do. The new S-6 has a ton of cargo space but still not as much as the Highlander. Both have cruise speeds in excess on 100mph and useful loads in excess of 600lbs. Both run on auto gas. Not sure what the numbers will be with the new injected 912 but I'm sure they will be improved from the carbed version.
You can always rent for XC if you only do it a couple of times a year.
Of course you could just buy two planes.

You don't really say much about the mission(s) you will be using the bird for.

I have 4 kids and a wife who considers limits on luggage an act of terrorism. For me, the 180 has been a god-send. I use it for business quite a bit and while it is no speed merchant, I can still get there a lot quicker and easier than driving or flying commercial. Especially within 300 NM, which is the majority of my trips, I can beat the airlines and it is a whole lot more fun.

When I'm ready to go to the backcountry, it is no Super Cub, but is pretty capable and will haul the copious amount of stuff I have to haul around for the family.

So, my choice of the 180 has been excellent and really practical for what I needed it to do. If I were just focused on backcountry and tougher strips, or if cost and fuel burn were issues, then it probably would have been a different decision.

Schedule out the missions you need the plane to fill and the amount of time devoted to each (i.e. 50% cross country, 50% backcountry, etc..) and you will probably be a lot closer to having your answer.

Whatever your decision, good luck. Fortunately for you, it is a good time to be buying.

Regards, Larry

People tend to overlook the Pacer due to wives tails of old where cessna drivers were balling them up because their feet didnt work. A 150 hp pacer with a climb prop will get in and OUT of some pretty tight strips. I do it all the time. If you going for a CC trip, take 20 minutes and put your cruise prop on it. For those trips you need to haul a load, take 5 minutes to pull the back seat out and you have a pretty large baggage area. I know you can put 15, 5 gallon jugs in there and still get off shorter than a 150 flying solo. If you get one with wing ext, it is a whole nother bird and really performs. There are a few out there that have 180 HP and CS prop and I have been very impressed with those!

Having spent a wee bit of time in a few different aircraft in this range, for me the speed difference between a Cub and a Skywagon is massive. Who was trying to say 4hrs (half a day!!) isn't a big deal - you Sir are blessed with too much of the most valuable comodity - the one you can't buy. You can always buy more fuel.

If you want a suitcase each / overnight hiking pack each, the back of a Rotax powered aircraft starts to fill up. It depends how much baggage you have.... a Skywagon fits a LOT. Esp with a pod.
You will get quite a lot in a Maule / Bearhawk too, but you have to remove the back seat to fit really BIG stuff. Also MTOW starts to catch up on you faster than in a Skywagon.

Flame me if you want, but the Skywagon & the Supercub are the two benchmark backcountry airplanes that all the others are compared to. Which one suits your mission better? Then cmpare what you want to buy or build with whichever one you chose.

I love my airplane. Hauls my whole family and luggage at decent cross country speeds and still does this.

https://vimeo.com/48910783

Long list of pros, short list of cons.

Sometimes we get caught up in what we think the mission will be, and it turns out that's not what we use the airplane for most of the time. Some of us are lucky enough to get it right the first time, or because we fly enough of others' airplanes we can judge it better.

For me, my 180hp P172D has proved to be my nearly ideal airplane:

With partial tanks, I can take 4 adults for a local sight-seeing ride.
With full tanks, I can take me and my dog and all of my camping gear into the mountains for a few days.
With partial tanks, I can get in and out of most back country strips, even with a nose wheel--and groundloops are pretty unlikely.
With full tanks, I can take me and all of my camping gear to OSH each year, with or without a buddy.
With full tanks, I can take a mom and dad and small child on a typical Angel Flight mission.
With full tanks, I can fly easy 3 to 3 1/2 hour legs with well more than legal fuel reserves, burning less than 10 gph.
With basic IFR instrumentation and skill, I can fly in light IFR, which means I rarely have to scrub a flight.
On a 300 nm flight, it takes me about 2.6 hours to fly, which equates to 3 hours from untying to tying up again, as compared to 2.4 hours tie-down to tie-down in a much faster airplane, or only 42 minutes difference. Granted, the 800 nm to OSH each year takes for a long day, and I'd save maybe 1 1/2 hours in that faster airplane--but that's a once-a-year excursion.

But your missions, your real missions, may be entirely different from mine, or anyone else's. So first you have to analyze what your real missions will be, then choose the airplane that most closely matches them, recognizing that you'll have to compromise.

Cary

Damn, I want a 172 with 180 hp. now!. Well stated.

courierguy wrote:Damn, I want a 172 with 180 hp. now!. Well stated.

The father in-law has the 210hp Continental XP Hawk. His sentiment is they can land short enough alright, but still leave you wanting more on takeoff, especially with any load on.

Thanks for the replies, gents. What I am looking for I guess is less a recommendation of particular airplane, and more of a reasoning as to 2-seat vs 4-seat.

Cary wrote:Sometimes we get caught up in what we think the mission will be, and it turns out that's not what we use the airplane for most of the time. Some of us are lucky enough to get it right the first time, or because we fly enough of others' airplanes we can judge it better.

But your missions, your real missions, may be entirely different from mine, or anyone else's. So first you have to analyze what your real missions will be, then choose the airplane that most closely matches them, recognizing that you'll have to compromise.

Cary

Good advice. Exactly what I am trying to analyze. Is the greater cost of operation worth the extra capacity and speed? What is my mission?

I'm not sure. I've done a little of it all, but I do fly around my home area quite a bit, within 50 miles of base. I think if I had an airplane capable of reasonable speeds, I would XC more. I worry that we're sill going to face a looming fuel price increase in the US, and 11-15 gallons per hour could get painful.

How does everyone think the proposed Class 3 medical thing will affect values of 4-place aircraft? Will it devalue 2-place aircraft if it becomes rule?

I just don't want to regret my decision one way or the other. Either aircraft I choose will be very backcountry capable.

Interesting topic and obviously everyone is going to have a different take on the subject.

I think that the direction we will see airplane trends/builds/mods going is towards capable off airport airplanes being able to cross country and still be somewhat time efficient/fun to cover some ground in.

I suspect, that If you fly much, it doesn't take to long before you have landed, or about balled your airplane up trying to land everywhere legal/maybe legal/illegal within a 50nm radius of your home airport. You start looking for other places to go play, or other people to go play with. I think the trick is, to have an airplane that you can fly a reasonable distance in with a friend and gear and still land off airport to camp/explore where maybe no one else has ever landed.

I also suspect that you need some reserve if you are going to be landing off airport. The airplane has to be tough and easily repairable in the field as well as have some extra performance available if the wind isn't quite right, it is warmer than you thought etc. when it comes time to depart. Oh, and the friend part is important, to help push/pull the airplane out of whatever predicament you may find yourself in. Plus, it is just more fun to do these things with others.

Many airplanes two and four seat, if set up right, fit this mission. Some will be less expensive to operate/repair than others.

The only thing I would add is don't spend to much time daydreaming, be realistic about your likely flights. You started with a good pro/con list, now add your required payload and the airports you would go to the most. There is no 100% airplane just be realistic and cover 90% of your needs (wants?) AND BUDGET and you will be OK.

I find myself watching a really good video and daydreaming about doing that trip with the family. Most of these trips would involve at least a Maule or 180 (Cessna, not Piper). After slapping myself I realize that I would never get all the kids together for the same weekend, the wife hates camping and I don't own a dog so now I'm down to a 100hp Cessna 140. And to be more realistic a 150 would fit the bill 98% of the time, just not as cool unless I let my wife paint it metallic pink.

Battson wrote:...The father in-law has the 210hp Continental XP Hawk. His sentiment is they can land short enough alright, but still leave you wanting more on takeoff, especially with any load on.

That's true of just abut everything with some folks. A friend of mine owns basically the same airplane (Army T41), and it's an awesome performer. Not quite up to a C182 IMHO, but a bit less fuel burn so it all evens out.

[quote="Treefeller"]...How does everyone think the proposed Class 3 medical thing will affect values of 4-place aircraft? Will it devalue 2-place aircraft if it becomes rule? ...... [quote]

I think if it passes, it will de-value those old 2-seaters which met the LSA requirements and were up-valued when the LSA/SP thing started. It will up-value (or at least un-devalue ) those 4-seaters which meet the parameters of the proposed rule: 180hp or less & 4 seats max.
Hope it happens.

The father in-law has the 210hp Continental XP Hawk. His sentiment is they can land short enough alright, but still leave you wanting more on takeoff, especially with any load on.

All of us would like a rocket for take-off. The XP, especially with the 210hp STC, is a solid performer. Perhaps FIL needs to be realistic--getting any 100 series Cessna to climb really great at high density altitudes would require a monster engine, and that means a lot more fuel. Even those 180s, 182s, and 185s with the 300hp transplant will have difficulty under some circumstances, like very high and very hot. But if he could be satisfied with a 250 fpm climb, or slightly better, at 10,000' DA, his XP is a dandy under most circumstances.

Cary

Someone posted some years ago here in a thread in BCP:

"Buy a 90% airplane"...an airplane in which will cover 90% of your missions.

Very simple philosophy, and it stuck with me.

Good thread, I myself have similar questions. Been planning on building something in the 100hp class, but find myself wanting more speed and load carrying capabilities like my Maule/Bonanza friends who show up and pull bicycles out of their baggage.

One of my big fears is that we're simply on a price plateau for fuel right now, and we'll suddenly see all fuel grades and varieties skyrocket in the coming years. 5 gph (Rotax) vs 10 gph (O-360) burn suddenly sounds a lot better. I have a mental block with my own frugality when it comes to considering 230hp class and above, though a considerable number of us own those planes. It's just money I guess.