What is the Funnest 2-place airplane?

"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

"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...

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


At sea level

At "maximum continuous power" V(H)

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


Paul-Mont

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/airc...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

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.

"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

"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...

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?

"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.

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