What is the Funnest 2-place airplane?

[Doug Wells]

I'm looking for a fun airplane to introduce my two young kids to
aviation. Here is what fun means to me....

- flies low and slow
- Side by Side seating
- can get into small grass fields
- good STOL performance
- Dependable
- Relatively decent number of planes available to buy
- low operating costs
- OK if it tie down outside
- Homebuilt or Certified OK
- Under $30k

I learned to fly when I was 12 in a C-152 and am now a 40 year old ATP
rated pilot with several thousand hours. I've done a ton of XC
flights in Mooneys, twins, etc. Cool but not viceral fun. Looking
back over the years, flying my friends Piper Cub into grass fields,
small airports and such was probably some of the best shear joy
moments in my flying career.

I want to get my 7-year old EXCITED about aviation and don't have many
ideas outside of a J-3 cub. I'd greatly appreciated any thoughts on
aircraft that I should consider.

Thanks for your thoughts

[Montblack]

("Doug Wells" wrote)
> I want to get my 7-year old EXCITED about aviation and don't have many
> ideas outside of a J-3 cub. I'd greatly appreciated any thoughts on
> aircraft that I should consider.


http://www.ercoupe.org/
Ercoupe! Hands down ...or should I say feet down? <g>

http://www.ercoupe.net/
Check out "The Photo Album" link! :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERCO_Ercoupe
Well organized info page

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=393
<click> "More photos of Erco Ercoupe and derivatives"

7-year old: "You're the bestest dad in the whole wide world."

Dad: "Thank you Ercoupe!"


Paul-Mont
http://album.dweeb.org/images/Stamps/3920.jpg
Ercoupe even has its own stamp

[Kyle Boatright]

A Taylorcraft, Luscombe, Piper J-5, or Aeronca Chief would all fit the bill.

Using an outside tie-down is one of those things that you have to evaluate
based on your location. If you're in T-storm territory, an outside tie-down
is a roll of the dice for any aircraft.

KB

"Doug Wells" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm looking for a fun airplane to introduce my two young kids to
> aviation. Here is what fun means to me....
>
> - flies low and slow
> - Side by Side seating
> - can get into small grass fields
> - good STOL performance
> - Dependable
> - Relatively decent number of planes available to buy
> - low operating costs
> - OK if it tie down outside
> - Homebuilt or Certified OK
> - Under $30k
>
> I learned to fly when I was 12 in a C-152 and am now a 40 year old ATP
> rated pilot with several thousand hours. I've done a ton of XC
> flights in Mooneys, twins, etc. Cool but not viceral fun. Looking
> back over the years, flying my friends Piper Cub into grass fields,
> small airports and such was probably some of the best shear joy
> moments in my flying career.
>
> I want to get my 7-year old EXCITED about aviation and don't have many
> ideas outside of a J-3 cub. I'd greatly appreciated any thoughts on
> aircraft that I should consider.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts
>

[Vaughn Simon]

"Doug Wells" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm looking for a fun airplane to introduce my two young kids to
> aviation. Here is what fun means to me....
>
> - flies low and slow
> - Side by Side seating
> - can get into small grass fields
> - good STOL performance
> - Dependable
> - Relatively decent number of planes available to buy
> - low operating costs
> - OK if it tie down outside
> - Homebuilt or Certified OK

A C-150 converted to taildragger and perhaps with STOL mods would meet most
of your requirements. (See C-150 mods here:
http://www.aeroprice.com/aerolibrary/cessnase_mods.htm) I see Texas Taildraggers
on the market from time-to-time, or you could buy a 150 and mod it yourself.
One problem with any taildragger is probably going to be higher insurance costs,
so it is unlikely that there is one plane out there that will fully meet all of
your requirements.

Vaughn

Vaughn

[Frank[_5_]]

Ercoupe, Ercoupe !!!! Side by side, cheap to operate, flies with the canopy
part way open, low cost, real fun to fly. Some are LSA compliant.

Good luck! I am trying to do the same with my grandson, but in a Mooney.

"Doug Wells" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm looking for a fun airplane to introduce my two young kids to
> aviation. Here is what fun means to me....
>
> - flies low and slow
> - Side by Side seating
> - can get into small grass fields
> - good STOL performance
> - Dependable
> - Relatively decent number of planes available to buy
> - low operating costs
> - OK if it tie down outside
> - Homebuilt or Certified OK
> - Under $30k
>
> I learned to fly when I was 12 in a C-152 and am now a 40 year old ATP
> rated pilot with several thousand hours. I've done a ton of XC
> flights in Mooneys, twins, etc. Cool but not viceral fun. Looking
> back over the years, flying my friends Piper Cub into grass fields,
> small airports and such was probably some of the best shear joy
> moments in my flying career.
>
> I want to get my 7-year old EXCITED about aviation and don't have many
> ideas outside of a J-3 cub. I'd greatly appreciated any thoughts on
> aircraft that I should consider.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts
>

[tater]

"Doug Wells" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm looking for a fun airplane to introduce my two young kids to
> aviation. Here is what fun means to me....
>
> - flies low and slow
> - Side by Side seating
> - can get into small grass fields
> - good STOL performance
> - Dependable
> - Relatively decent number of planes available to buy
> - low operating costs
> - OK if it tie down outside
> - Homebuilt or Certified OK
> - Under $30k
>

Well it's not side by side, but how about a Titan Tornado.

www.titanaircraft.com

[[email protected]]

On Sep 7, 9:58 pm, Doug Wells > wrote:
> I'm looking for a fun airplane to introduce my two young kids to
> aviation. Here is what fun means to me....
>
> - flies low and slow
> - Side by Side seating
> - can get into small grass fields
> - good STOL performance
> - Dependable
> - Relatively decent number of planes available to buy
> - low operating costs
> - OK if it tie down outside
> - Homebuilt or Certified OK
> - Under $30k

SW Piper PA22/20 (Tripacer converted to tailwheel)
Here is ours: http://tinyurl.com/2a77os

[Carl Orton]

Sonex. $26,000, sonexaircraft.com amateur-built, 150MPH, LSA-qualified

"Doug Wells" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm looking for a fun airplane to introduce my two young kids to
> aviation. Here is what fun means to me....
>
> - flies low and slow
> - Side by Side seating
> - can get into small grass fields
> - good STOL performance
> - Dependable
> - Relatively decent number of planes available to buy
> - low operating costs
> - OK if it tie down outside
> - Homebuilt or Certified OK
> - Under $30k
>
> I learned to fly when I was 12 in a C-152 and am now a 40 year old ATP
> rated pilot with several thousand hours. I've done a ton of XC
> flights in Mooneys, twins, etc. Cool but not viceral fun. Looking
> back over the years, flying my friends Piper Cub into grass fields,
> small airports and such was probably some of the best shear joy
> moments in my flying career.
>
> I want to get my 7-year old EXCITED about aviation and don't have many
> ideas outside of a J-3 cub. I'd greatly appreciated any thoughts on
> aircraft that I should consider.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts
>

[tater]

"Carl Orton" > wrote in message
...
> Sonex. $26,000, sonexaircraft.com amateur-built, 150MPH, LSA-qualified
>

Max airspeed for LSA is 138mph.

[Charles Vincent]

tater wrote:
> "Carl Orton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Sonex. $26,000, sonexaircraft.com amateur-built, 150MPH, LSA-qualified
>>
>
> Max airspeed for LSA is 138mph.
>
>
>
Yes, but that is TAS not MAS

Charles

[Kyle Boatright]

"tater" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Carl Orton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Sonex. $26,000, sonexaircraft.com amateur-built, 150MPH, LSA-qualified
>>
>
> Max airspeed for LSA is 138mph.


With a climb prop, it would be easy to keep one of the 4 cylinder Sonexes
under that speed. The question is whether the Sonex has enough interior room
for two people and how many people would be comfortable with the climb
performance of a Sonex with two aboard.

I know three Sonex owners or ex-owners. The guy with the 6 cylinder engine
has a good flying airplane, but it doesn't meet the performance claims. The
guys with 4 cylinder engines won't come out and say they are disappointed
with the performance, but their body language, tone, etc tells the tale.

KB

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

> I know three Sonex owners or ex-owners. The guy with the 6 cylinder
> engine has a good flying airplane, but it doesn't meet the performance
> claims. The guys with 4 cylinder engines won't come out and say they
> are disappointed with the performance, but their body language, tone,
> etc tells the tale.

Sat it one at Oshgosh, wasn't impressed, neither with the Zodiac 601
series... And thats just from sitting in it with another adult and not
trying to operate the controls inflight...

[Montblack]

("tater" wrote)
> Max airspeed for LSA is 138mph.


At sea level

At "maximum continuous power" V(H)

http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=223


Paul-Mont

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 8, 8:35 am, "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERCO_Ercoupe
> Well organized info page
> ...

More on the Ercoupe:

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Ercoupe/ercoupe_info/ercpe_info.htm

The Wikipedia page also has a photo of Fred Weick's W-1.
What is the blurfl stuck out in front of the main wing?
It looks like it is intended to deflect the boundary layer
down onto the mid-wing, counteracting the upwash from
the forward fuselage.

--

FF

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>
>> I know three Sonex owners or ex-owners. The guy with the 6 cylinder
>> engine has a good flying airplane, but it doesn't meet the
>> performance claims. The guys with 4 cylinder engines won't come out
>> and say they are disappointed with the performance, but their body
>> language, tone, etc tells the tale.
>
> Sat it one at Oshgosh, wasn't impressed, neither with the Zodiac 601
> series... And thats just from sitting in it with another adult and not
> trying to operate the controls inflight...

Loose some weight Darrel. ;) The 601XL cockpit is wider than a 172 at 44
inches. It is a little tighter because of the center console but after you
get used to it it is much more comforable than a 172.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Loose some weight Darrel. ;) The 601XL cockpit is wider than a 172 at 44
> inches. It is a little tighter because of the center console but after you get
> used to it it is much more comforable than a 172.

I recently checked out in the factory-made version of the 601 and find the
climb performance with two aboard marginal (and I live at sea level). Because
of this, it is the only plane that my FBO routinely does not fill the tanks on.
Balanced against that, I love the visibility, love the maneuverability, & love
the modern panel after a lifetime of steam gauges. You can feel what I assume
is the wing spar sticking into your back through the otherwise comfortable
seats. It would be just bad enough to totally ruin a long XC.

I am not sure that I would describe it as "roomy". For example, my kneepad
limits stick movement, so I have to leave it off my leg and drape it across the
center console. Being a "glider guy", I have no problem with canopies in
general, but find the one on that particular plane to be a serious
disappointment. One needs to fuss with it to get things to line up before it
will click closed. This is best done with two sets of hands & is a total pain
when solo.

My general feeling is that it could easily be my favorite 2-place if it had
a few more feet of wingspan to help the climb and a few important details
attended to.

Vaughn

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote:
> Darrel Toepfer wrote:

>> Sat it one at Oshgosh, wasn't impressed, neither with the Zodiac 601
>> series... And thats just from sitting in it with another adult and
>> not trying to operate the controls inflight...
>
> Loose some weight Darrel. ;) The 601XL cockpit is wider than a 172 at
> 44 inches. It is a little tighter because of the center console but
> after you get used to it it is much more comforable than a 172.

Losing weight won't effect my 28" shoulders. I can sit just fine with
others in any 1xx series Cessna, Grumman or high/low wing Piper due to
seating adjustments...

Bigger beef with the 601 was the lack of support in the wings next to
the walk. Metal did lots of "beer canning" there and I shudder to think
of all the hard work getting messed up by a missed step or someone
sliding up on a wing too far out. That sight on the "factory" birds
there cured me of wanting to buy/build one. And I was shopping for my
next plane there. I don't think it was a lack of rivets, more like a
lack of ribs...

Other issue was with panel space in either of the open planes. My Pacer
doesn't have a premium amount, but it far exceeds any of those we sat
in...

[Jerry Springer]

Charles Vincent wrote:
> tater wrote:
>
>> "Carl Orton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Sonex. $26,000, sonexaircraft.com amateur-built, 150MPH, LSA-qualified
>>>
>>
>> Max airspeed for LSA is 138mph.
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, but that is TAS not MAS
>
> Charles

Yes but it is a Max 120 kts. right?

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
news:5dHFi.6472$Ot1.3873@trnddc07...
>
> Yes but it is a Max 120 kts. right?

Nope. Max 120 knots continuous cruising speed.

Rich S.

[Charles Vincent]

Jerry Springer wrote:
> Charles Vincent wrote:
>> tater wrote:
>>
>>> "Carl Orton" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Sonex. $26,000, sonexaircraft.com amateur-built, 150MPH,
>>>> LSA-qualified
>>>>
>>>
>>> Max airspeed for LSA is 138mph.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, but that is TAS not MAS
>>
>> Charles
>
> Yes but it is a Max 120 kts. right?

Sorry, should have added a smiley.

TAS=True Airspeed
MAS=Marketing Airspeed

Charles

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Loose some weight Darrel. ;) The 601XL cockpit is wider than a 172
>> at 44 inches. It is a little tighter because of the center console
>> but after you get used to it it is much more comforable than a 172.
>
> I recently checked out in the factory-made version of the 601 and
> find the climb performance with two aboard marginal (and I live at
> sea level). Because of this, it is the only plane that my FBO
> routinely does not fill the tanks on. Balanced against that, I love
> the visibility, love the maneuverability, & love the modern panel
> after a lifetime of steam gauges. You can feel what I assume is the
> wing spar sticking into your back through the otherwise comfortable
> seats. It would be just bad enough to totally ruin a long XC.

I've flown in 3 different 601XL. One that was Jabiru powered and two Corvair
powered. I haven't flown in the O-200 powered version and only with a
relitively light pilot in the Jab version. The Jab climbed at just under
1000 fpm. Both the Corvair powered 601s beat that with more load.

I think that was probabaly the seat design the factory uses sticking in your
back. They break the seats into two parts and the bottom comes up to about
the lumbar area of your back. I didn't like that either and plan to use a
different approach.



>
> I am not sure that I would describe it as "roomy". For example, my
> kneepad limits stick movement, so I have to leave it off my leg and
> drape it across the center console. Being a "glider guy", I have no
> problem with canopies in general, but find the one on that particular
> plane to be a serious disappointment. One needs to fuss with it to
> get things to line up before it will click closed. This is best done
> with two sets of hands & is a total pain when solo.

And it is not the easiest thing to build either. I'm doing that now.


>
> My general feeling is that it could easily be my favorite 2-place
> if it had a few more feet of wingspan to help the climb and a few
> important details attended to.
>
> Vaughn

[Montblack]

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
> I've flown in 3 different 601XL. One that was Jabiru powered and two
> Corvair powered.


Which Jabiru, do you recall?


Paul-Mont

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
>> I've flown in 3 different 601XL. One that was Jabiru powered and two
>> Corvair powered.
>
>
> Which Jabiru, do you recall?
>
>
> Paul-Mont

3300

[Carl Orton]

Exactly! Sonex claims that all of their designs meet the 120 kt / 138 mph
limit, but all (are supposed to) do 150 or better at 8,000 feet TAS.

I don't have one, so I'm not an expert; only relating what the Sonex forums
say. Yup, there are those who's performance is less. Some are able to bring
it up to spec via tweaking or re-attention to details. Others perform very
well right out of the box.

I, too, sat in the "demo" cockpit at AirVenture, and also sat in a few
customer-built versions at the Sonex open house the Sunday before. Yup.
Tight. But, the original poster was looking for a fun a/c that would either
be flown by himself or with a small child. Most of (98%) of my flying is
single-pilot. Funnest or best-all-around-compromise? It's in the eye of
the beholder.

Still trying to decide between a Sonex, Rans S-19, or a Vans RV-9. All very
different. One is $12K-$20K less. Do I really want to spend that extra?
Still deciding. For my first plane, I looked at C-150's. Ended up with a
172. Now I'm older and wiser, and REALLY trying to define the REAL mission I
want.

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("tater" wrote)
>> Max airspeed for LSA is 138mph.
>
>
> At sea level
>
> At "maximum continuous power" V(H)
>
> http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=223
>
>
> Paul-Mont
>

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Carl Orton" > wrote in message
...

> Still trying to decide between a Sonex, Rans S-19, or a Vans RV-9. All
> very different. One is $12K-$20K less. Do I really want to spend that
> extra? Still deciding. For my first plane, I looked at C-150's. Ended up
> with a 172. Now I'm older and wiser, and REALLY trying to define the REAL
> mission I want.

Why restrict yourself to one particular design, or aircraft? Unless you are
70+ years old, I would suggest that you buy a used Ercoupe. Fly it for a
year or two, pass it off to another pilot and use the money you have made
(investment) to select another on your list.

This is much like those fellows who are agonizing over the choice between a
certified aircraft engine to mount in their experimental airframe, or to try
an auto conversion. I always recommend they use and aircraft engine to prove
the airframe and than later, sell it and mount the conversion.

We are only caretakers of the machinery we buy. Most times we can get our
money back out when we sell. Buy it, use it, take care of it and pass it
along. We are not restricted to only one choice. Unlike choosing a wife!
:)))

Rich