Hello, I'm a first time poster, long time lurker. The question has come up recently that for an average recreational bush plane/ flight are four seats really necessary? or is it best to just rent when you need more than two?

I'd like to know what you guys do with the extra room (if you have a four seater) Or how you get by (If you've got two seats)?

Av8or2Skier wrote:Hello, I'm a first time poster, long time lurker. The question has come up recently that for an average recreational bush plane/ flight are four seats really necessary? or is it best to just rent when you need more than two?

I'd like to know what you guys do with the extra room (if you have a four seater) Or how you get by (If you've got two seats)?

I've never had a problem filling up a four seater cabin with stuff even flying by myself, on a trip of any length. I don't see how these guys with two seat LSA's and the like get by

There are two arguments. The one I like is, you can fly with the back row empty in a four seater but good luck adding another row to a two seater when you need it.

Then again it's been over fifteen years since I lived anywhere with rental airplanes available.

Depends! Earlier when I was single, I had a 170 and two seats were plenty. I ran without the back seat a lot. I now have a wife and two kids and I use the back seat in the 180 fairly regularly. Like was said, what I can't do without is the room. Even the 170 with no back seat in it was still full. I put an extended baggage in the 180 (Selkirks metal one) and when we go somewhere, it winds up with a lot of stuff in it.

Wayne

Maybe this is another topic, but does anyone with a 2 seater RENT a 4 seat plane throughout the year?

I have NEVER rented a plane since I have become an aircraft owner. I would rather put the gas and time in my own equipment than rent something else a half dozen times a year. This idea of renting and owning always sounds good, but I need to fly my equipment so many hours a year to justify owning it. The rental part would really cut down on those hours in my opinion.

I fly plenty of hours solo per year and I've never regretted having to much room. When I owned a Cessna 140, there's plenty of times I was limited by the amount of room.

I have always rented - and I am sick of it. They are often unavailable when you want them, much more expensive, the care and quality isn't there, you've got no idea what the last guy flying has done to the thing, and the owner wont let you land anywhere cool or short. Presuming you can rent a plane capable of that in the first place.
All the old gripes.
Enter the Bearhawk...

What I like about four seaters apart from the extra room for my friends, is when you have just two people with gear on board they still fly like a reasonably high performance aircraft. Two people with their gear in a two seater and she's full, and some types fly like a full airplane in that case. Heavy and wallowey, with the associated higher stall speed.

Only two seats in my Luscombe and if I was single or didn't have any kids I would be happy with two seats. Some people like to take a bunch of gear with them when they go camping and that requires a lot of room. Personally I like to take minimal gear which is why I am able to camp with my Luscombe. In fact lately I have been carrying 10 gallons of fuel with me when I'm camping solo.

I agree with MM, if I own a plane then that is what I'm going to want to fly. I highly doubt I'll ever rent something as long as I'm an owner.

I figure if you are going to fly solo most of the time then a 2 seater is fine. If you are going to have a passenger most of the time then get a 4 seater.

Here where it gets cold, I seem to end up with half the seat capacity each winter. My 4-place goes to a 2-pace just because of all the covers and heaters and shovels and snowshoes. I'd rather give up half the capacity from a 4-place, than half the capacity from a 2-place.

my .02.

-DP

denalipilot wrote:Here where it gets cold, I seem to end up with half the seat capacity each winter. My 4-place goes to a 2-pace just because of all the covers and heaters and shovels and snowshoes. I'd rather give up half the capacity from a 4-place, than half the capacity from a 2-place.

my .02.

-DP

Here here. In the winter my 170 cabin looks like a combination of Shriners Circus clown car and the Clampett's old truck pulling out of Oklahoma.

For me it comes down to, do I want to burn less then 4 gph on average or maybe twice that? If operational costs are less of a concern then 4 place is a no brainer.

Wow thanks for all of the replies and information! I ask not knowing my mission other than primarily doing some back country stuff, and this is for well into the future. I do expect operational costs to be a potential issue. I was thinking of for a four seat some type of Maule, and as a two seater a Citabria/Decathalon/Scout. Any additional thoughts?
Thanks!

There is NO substitute for horsepower.

(live and learn he says retrospectively)

EB

courierguy wrote:For me it comes down to, do I want to burn less then 4 gph on average or maybe twice that? If operational costs are less of a concern then 4 place is a no brainer.

Like you say - there's never a free lunch:
Pros: you pay half the fuel bill, lower maintenance costs too.
Cons: you get half the gear carrying capacity, 75% the airspeed.
I think it all balances out in the end.

What I like about four seaters apart from the extra room for my friends, is when you have just two people with gear on board they still fly like a reasonably high performance aircraft. Two people with their gear in a two seater and she's full, and some types fly like a full airplane in that case. Heavy and wallowey, with the associated higher stall speed.

Well said!

The extra room comes in handy frequently...


You can take along a comfortable camp for multi-day camping. This is really nice especially if you have to put up with inclement weather...


Just ask OregonMaule what he carries in his M7 !!!

I have a PA-12, which is technically a 3 place but I call it a glorified 2 place. I'm also lucky enough to have access to a legitimate 5 place (Bush Hawk). For my mission, I find myself very glad I'm only paying for 2.5 seats (and mogas) 95% of the time.

As Tom said, though, if operating costs are no factor, or if you seriously plan to use the third and fourth seats even 20% of the time (for people or gear), a 4 seater is probably a no-brainer.

Work hard to realistically define your mission, and then buy accordingly. You can always swap out for something bigger if you really end up needing more in the future but, in the meantime, you're probably going to pay for seats you won't fill most of the time if you aren't honest with yourself about what 90% of your flying is really going to look like.

We'd all probably fly 185s if we hit the lottery and cost was no factor. For us normal folk, however, we spend a lot of time looking at the cost per seat, and whether we are actually filling those seats or just paying more for the idea of filling them.

My two cents, as an admitted cheapskate who spends almost all his flying time solo or +1.

Battson wrote:Like you say - there's never a free lunch:
Pros: you pay half the fuel bill, lower maintenance costs too.
Cons: you get half the gear carrying capacity, 75% the airspeed.
I think it all balances out in the end.

That sounds like the Equation for twins vs. singles.
The extra engine gets you:
2x Mx costs
2x fuel costs
1.5x the load capacity
1.2x the speed

Blackrock: What plane is that in those pictures?

Av8or2Skier wrote:

Battson wrote:Blackrock: What plane is that in those pictures?

As a huge fan of the type of aircraft, I feel qualified to answer that for Blackrock

It's a Bearhawk. An experimental offered in plans-only or in kit form.

They're VERY capable.

What we all really need is a light four place (I'm thinkin' 170 or so) and a friend who has a cool little 2 place (luscome, 140, supercub) and a brother who has a 185 or a 206 or something fast like a mooney. Add to that a couple strategically placed ratty cars at cool airports. and keys to each others toys and hangars.


yeah, that's what we all need.

and a share in a Beech 18. With the round nose. I think a D model. or a DC-3... and something like a swift... a Falco would be good... but then it would be hard to share a Falco...

There's also the consideration of safely operating your aircraft type if you are talking about true backcountry and short strips. Personally I'd prefer to REALLY know the aircraft your going to be using with the heavier loads when operating backcountry. Renting a larger, heavier aircraft type occasionally would be less than ideal for these sorts of operations. You can get-to know your 4 place light or heavy and fly it well. Then go hire a lighter 2 place when you're penny pinching (though doubt you ever will once you own your own).

The fuel burn of a 4 seater is why I sometimes question if it's the right plane for me. Lots of 2 seat planes around that would be a blast to fly around the local area with. And if I could afford 2 planes I would have both.
The trip to the San Jaun's with my wife and a couple of bicycles, the local camping trips we do each year with bikes, cots, fire wood, and enough food to feed the neighbors....not to mention the beer. The trips to Idaho and Utah with 2 and gear to spare.
The trips to dinner with my wife, mom and dad....timed so the trip home is after dark. Those are the trips I remember the most.
Not knocken the 2 seaters, I would prefer them for 80% of my flying....it's the 20% 4 seater flying that I remember the most.
Fly with the big blocks you are going to burn some fuel.....fly with slower planes your fuel burn can get close to there theirs.

Before I bought my LRB, which is a P172D with 180hp and a CS prop, I had figured that my usual missions would be me and dog, occasionally me and a friend or two or once in a blue moon fill the seats, often local, sometimes cross country, once in awhile into the back country. That's exactly what it has turned out to be.

For camping with dog or camping with a friend, the airplane is pretty full, not too close to gross weight, but certainly really close to "gross room". Cross country in the winter, between baggage and engine cover etc., it's again close to "gross room".

For my kind of flying, a 2 place wouldn't work. But others' experience/needs will vary. I figure the additional 3 or 4 gph, even at current fuel prices, is worth the flexibility of being able to meet nearly 100% of my "mission" requirements.

Cary