I'm contemplating my first aircraft purchase. Many of the aircraft that satisfy my needs offer tandem seating. I'm therefore trying to get my head around the tandem experience for passengers (I know it's great for the guy in front). I'd appreciate opinions from those who have previously wrestled with the same decision and those who ultimately chose the tandem option. I'm thinking of things like "how do non-flying spouses and kids like sitting in the back"; "how much more complicated does it make the baggage issue"; "do you ever fly with a dog, and if so, how?" etc etc.
Thanks and best wishes.
Chip

I have had both. Like you said about the pilot. I do think the back seated has a better chance of getting sick if they have that tendency.

I tend to agree with patrol guy.It has been my experience that those who are prone to getting sick don't do well in the back seat of anything.

Bill

The back seat generally has less heat... Major factor for a non-pilot spouse.

I currently own both. a tandem and a side-by-side. The tandem is greta for just boring holes in the sky, puttsing around. I use the s-b-s if I am ever going someplace with any passengers. My son, also a pilot, even gets nausuated in the back of the tandem if it is at all "bumpy" out when flying. We took the tandem out for a 3 hour flight on Sunday and due to the heat it was a little terbulant and he started feeling bad so I had to land for a bit. The tandem also doesn't have as much baggage area and is generally harder to load/unload.
WW

opps, double post

In my opinion, if your going to do a lot of flying with passengers, especially kids, a side by side is the way to go. It is easier to share the experience of flight. As a pilot I prefer a tandem for visibility and handling. There is always the option to fly from the back seat when carring passengers as long as your plane is set up to do this and your W&B is within limits. In a perfect world we would all own both types

Here is a very simple question to this question. If you like to fly with people and you want to see where they are pointing, which seating configuration would you choose?

If you take someone for a ride in your car I bet you wouldn't even consider having them sit in the back seat directly behind you. I love my s-b-s Highlander. Most people appreciate sitting "up front". 90% of the time someone is with me. If I flew alone a lot I would maybe consider a tandem, maybe.

The first time I took dual in a PA-18 I flew from the front. The 2nd time I flew from the back, as it gives a better sense of adverse yaw.

I didn't really mind sitting back there. I think the easy viewing out both sides that a tandem arrangement provides is really nice, but it's also nice to look your passenger/pilot in the eyes. My main gripe with tandem seating is lack of baggage area. Of course when you're talking Highlander/Zenith/C140/vanilla LSA side-by-side, the baggage area is not much bigger than a tandem either.

Both of my prior two planes were tandem. As others have said, it's great for fun flying. But if you travel anywhere and take baggage anywhere, I'd really suggest side by side. I'm building a side by side airplane right now and I can't wait. It's going to be nice to be able to set things down in the passenger seat. In my RV-4, if you didn't wear it, you couldn't get to it. It will also be nice to see the person I'm talking to on those rare occasion someone wants to fly with me.

svanarts wrote:It will also be nice to see the person I'm talking to on those rare occasion someone wants to fly with me.

Come on now! You are being too hard on yourself. I heard you were a good flyer. Of course that came from a guy I know whose second cousin's girlfriend's ex boyfriend swore he heard it at a bar!

If your only criteria when purchasing an airplane is tandem or side by side seating, I too would probably go with the side by side for passenger comfort. In fact, I did just that a number of years ago, when I sold my Super Cub, and bought a C-170. My wife did NOT like the back seat, for several reasons, all legitimate.

On the other hand, there are lots of other criteria one uses when buying an airplane, so don't get so hung up on the seating question as to totally miss other equally or perhaps more important issues.

MTV

Resky wrote:The back seat generally has less heat... Major factor for a non-pilot spouse.

Unless is January or February

Buy the aircraft that A.) best fits your mission and B.) best fits your desires. Looking in my logbook I see that my solo time outweighs my pax hauling time by 4 fold, and few if any of my pax have ever found a ride in the back objectionable... Of course not all pax are built the same. MY smarter half likes riding in the back just fine and I have no problem flying from the back when I want to give someone a different perspective.
Having said all that, I have flown several tandem aircraft that were almost as wide as a sxs and therefore IMHO didn't really offer a whole lot of benefit to the tandem arrangement.
The baggage deal is never as sweet in a tandem, but you must compare apples to apples. Tandems are 2 place aircraft... How much more are you really going to get in a 2 place sxs of equal size and performance? For the rv4 guy I would suggest that a T-18 Thorp is a sxs similar in size and mission, and will probably carry less than your rv-4, and I can assure you that the seating arraignment is no where near as comfy as your RV... You surely can't compare the baggage of a supercub to a 4 place C180, but I am certain that my 2 place cub will pack more than a 2 place C150, and do so more comfortably, both performance wise and passenger wise....
Equally true, I have flown a good amount in a well equipped 2 place bird dog, that would haul much more than the average 4 place 172, and did so on a fairly regular basis.
As for pets, most of the cub guys I know have dogs that fly with them on a regular basis. I don't think the dog knows the difference between the front seat or the back?
Nausea? looked at the ball lately? the back seat of anything is not as kind as the front. Be kind to the sensitive ones and you'll be ok, better yet learn to fly from the back and offer the front to the most sensitive... they will love you for it!

I think the sxs is going to be a more universal airplane most of the time, for most folks. But if it isn't the right airplane for you, you will either regret going that way, or end up cashing it in for what you should have bought in the first place

Just more opinions to confuse you with

Take care, Rob

Buy an old 170 or 172. With the 145 hp engine, you will never want to haul more than two people, and you can conveniently choose either tandem or side-by-side prior to every flight!

I would just love to have both. But I feel very fortunate to have "one" and that is a side by side. I look ay my old 172 as a great 2 seater with a great baggage area. A great thing about side by side is if your solo you have a nice "desk" right next to you. If you have a passenger then you have your own secretary sitting next to you where its easier for them to hand you coffee and hold a chart for you etc..

I really liked Rob's reply, but would also like to throw in my two-cents worth as I have gone through similar considerations (tandem vs SxS).

My wife and I both learned to fly in taildraggers, first a 170, then a lot of time in Citabrias. We also had the privilege to spend quite a few hours in Cubs of various flavors. At some point we decided that we needed a serious "traveling plane" and bought a very nice straight-tailed '59 182. The 182 was really a great traveling plane, but it just wasn't as much fun to fly as any of the various tandems that we had knocked around in. We found ourselves flying less and less, really only when we had somewhere to go, and almost never just "because". You just don't take the doors off the 182 and putt around 50' above the river and fields sneaking up on the coyotes. (As a side-note, we both had to do tricycle-gear transition-training with a CFI and get logbook endorsements to get insurance coverage for flying a plane that rubbed it's nose on the pavement when landing- go figure). We sold the 182 and did not replace it.

Fast forward 20 years and we were back in the market for another plane. We have two sons, and have the need to travel fairly long distances to visit them at college. We initially decided to be practical and look for a 180 or a 182 that could carry four people make good time on long trips , but had a nagging thought about what we really would use the plane for on a regular basis. After not very much discussion we realized that what we really wanted for the majority of our flying was a nice, simple little taildragger to just fly for fun. Something inexpensive to feed and maintain, something that could be flown with the doors opened or off, and something that the boys could learn to fly in and build hours in without bankrupting us. We realized that we would actually fly something that fits that description on a regular basis, and would enjoy it much much more than the great traveling plane that is more akin to the family truckster or a flying pickup. Decision made.

My point is that Rob is exactly correct. Unless this is a total business issue, make your decision based on what you really desire, not on what is most practical. Yes, you should consider your "mission", but in considering your mission really think about how you will actually use the plane, what will give you the most enjoyment, and how likely you will be to fly it on a regular basis. Few of us really need an airplane, but I think it is safe to say that almost anyone who would read this post would really like to have an airplane. It's that desire thing. Scratching your itch will make it easier to write those hanger-rent checks, make the cost of fuel seem irrelevant, and will help you justify why you need to keep the plane once you have it.

Oh, and it really is O.K. to travel long distances in little slow airplanes. Just look at what Swingle is doing. In a year he has flown over 400 hours, been to Alaska and those islands east of Florida, and a lot of places in-between. That guy is my hero, and when my S7 is finished I am going to go looking for him and hope he lets me tag along, just for fun...

Mark

I have made the long flight from Palo Alto Calif to McCall Idaho in tandem airplanes and side by side airplanes.
Often solo.

Side by side is much easier when you can strap your flight bag in the seat next to you instead of trying to reach for in the back seat, assuming that it has stayed there in the turbulence often found over Nevada.

Sideways usually gives ya more panel space.
Sideways is much easier for two people to find stuff on the chart quicker when needed. etc.

Flew a J5 to Alaska once, real hard to compare chart interpretations in tandem.

Tandem can be fun if all you want to do is flop around the sky locally.

Just my personal view from flying both on long X-country flights.

Chris C

I have also had both, for the past few years my personal plane has been a Husky. I typically travel alone in the Husky. If I have more people and stuff then I have a company plane that is more appropriate for traveling in comfort with passengers.

MTV really made the most sense to me: the seating arrangement would not make it to the top of my priority list. I would look at many other factors and then if more than one plane met the majority of the priorities I would use the seating arrangement as the tie breaker. Cost of operation seems to keep some planes parked and others flying, the more expensive $/hour planes don't show up as often at the $100 Saturday Hamburger or BBQ joints. We have a great BBQ place at Stephenville Texas, fly in, grab a complimentary golf cart and run across the road to the Hard Eight BBQ. Prior to this economic condition that we are in now it was common to see lots of Bonanza's, a couple of Twin Cessna's and other high powered, high $/hour machines down there on a Saturday afternoon, just out for a ride and some BBQ. Now when you go there it seems that there are no 6 cylinder airplanes on the ramp. Lot's of efficient and plain old fun type airplanes now. If you are building time, presumably you are not a high time pilot since you stated that this would be your first airplane, look at the $/hour factor and remember, the faster it is, the less hours you put in the logbook unless you are going a long ways from the house. I fly a lot by myself so I like the tandem, I also land off airport a lot and the increased vision is a great plus. I can see equally well on both sides of the aircraft, not so when I fly my buddies C-180. Open the side window, flip up the other window and drop down the door, put it on about 60 IAS with one notch of flaps and enjoy the scenary! That is a Husky or Cub.