Gnarly Gnu Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Just doing some research & thought I would call upon the fount of combined knowledge that hangs out here! Which 2 seat aircraft offer the highest cruise speed say 130 knots or better suitable for long distance travel? I'm thinking ultralight but would consider imported GA if the operating costs aren't too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Just doing some research & thought I would call upon the fount of combined knowledge that hangs out here! Which 2 seat aircraft offer the highest cruise speed say 130 knots or better suitable for long distance travel? I'm thinking ultralight but would consider imported GA if the operating costs aren't too high. Morgan Sierra must come close with a Jab 3300. Otherwise RV's or Lancair? rgmwa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I would go for a Sting Carbon cruise at 135 TAS at 75%.Long range tanks are availiable. MC flew one from SA to Archerfield in one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 Thanks I'll look into those. Should have mentioned I would prefer high wing taildragger but doesn't have to be. Not a kit or a mega-buck item though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Esqual is a real mover but low wing...your not going to find too many high wings doing more than 110knots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 High wing taildragger, doesn't scream speed to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Cobra Arrow is another speed machine that springs to mind.(sorry but it is a low wing as well.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Factory built Morgan Sierra with nose tank and additional wing tanks, with Jab 3300 engine. Visability excellent for a low wing aircraft. Like this one. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 RV4 cruise at 55% power 170+ kts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 High wing taildragger, doesn't scream speed to me... Yeah but it can be done for example the Pipestrel Virus SW works (at least on paper), no idea of prices here for them & never seen one. And taildraggers are inherently slightly faster than NW of course. I'd be OK with a low wing, I just like the view from a high wing. I probably should look through the RV range as I'm sure there would be cheap ones kicking around in the USA but have to watch the build quality of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 What speed is a SP6 taildragger Jab? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 What speed is a SP6 taildragger Jab? That wouldnt matter Tomo, you would have to zig zag from one landing area to the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Yes but most RV can't fit in RAA with 2 POB...I went for a fly in Trevor Mills RV8....holy smoke we were going out at 170 kts...but not RAA over the fence at 75kts...was talking to him the other night and he has done some mods and tells me she will do 180 kts now 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 That wouldnt matter Tomo, you would have to zig zag from one landing area to the next. You really don't like them do you!! RV's are the way to go with speed, being GA though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I can't believe gnu is buying a plane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Who said high wings can't be fast! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 Who said high wings can't be fast! Yes, a high wing is just a low wing flying upside down right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galpin Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Just doing some research & thought I would call upon the fount of combined knowledge that hangs out here! Which 2 seat aircraft offer the highest cruise speed say 130 knots or better suitable for long distance travel? I'm thinking ultralight but would consider imported GA if the operating costs aren't too high. Don't forget the Lightning. It will cruise conservatively at 135 knots, at least mine does and it is still for sale at very competitive price. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Cobra Arrow is another speed machine that springs to mind.(sorry but it is a low wing as well.) I am aware of one that crashed and burned when piloted by a very experienced flier who lost control during the landing phase... not my cup of tea by a long shot. kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rocketdriver Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Who said high wings can't be fast![ATTACH=full]16542[/ATTACH] We had a TSR2 at college (no. 3 I think).... was said to only need engines to make it fly ........ used to go and look at it almost every week ... almost made me cry to think of the stupid political decisions that cancelled it in favour of the F111 ....... cheers RD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 We had a TSR2 at college (no. 3 I think).... was said to only need engines to make it fly ........ used to go and look at it almost every week ... almost made me cry to think of the stupid political decisions that cancelled it in favour of the F111 .......cheers RD It's never been said but I reckon that was due to heavy pressure from the yanks. They didn't want the UK to have a superior aircraft to any of their 'public' ones, and definitely wouldn't want a superior aircraft on the open market, and in competition with whatever they were offering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rocketdriver Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Hi Doug ..... whilst it certainly was not said by the US governtment, it was pretty well understood by me as a student at the time. The yanks lobbied the Au govt VERY hard to get them to buy the F111 and NOT the TSR2. That decision gave the Stupid pommie pollies the excuse they needed to cancel what was beginning to be a very succesfull looking design. They made the excuse of cost overuns, but they had been caused by constant specification changes from the government, including the ability to lift a heavy nuclear weapon off a ploughed field landing ground (DUH). It cast more to cancel the contract than it would have done to proceed with it. Despite requests by BAC to keep the two completed and flying prototypes airworthy for testing the new frontiers that the a/c was capable of exploring, the pollies insisted that they and the jigs were broken up so that the project could never be resurected. Am I bitter ... yes ... still (although perhaps not quite so passionately as back then!). The decision to go with the F111 cost this country and the UK big time in money, jobs, and defence capability (then and in the future) ......all to the benefit of the US arms industry ...... Ah well, it'll all be tghe same in 100 years! Cheers RD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planedriver Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Hi Doug ..... whilst it certainly was not said by the US governtment, it was pretty well understood by me as a student at the time. The yanks lobbied the Au govt VERY hard to get them to buy the F111 and NOT the TSR2. That decision gave the Stupid pommie pollies the excuse they needed to cancel what was beginning to be a very succesfull looking design. They made the excuse of cost overuns, but they had been caused by constant specification changes from the government, including the ability to lift a heavy nuclear weapon off a ploughed field landing ground (DUH). It cast more to cancel the contract than it would have done to proceed with it. Despite requests by BAC to keep the two completed and flying prototypes airworthy for testing the new frontiers that the a/c was capable of exploring, the pollies insisted that they and the jigs were broken up so that the project could never be resurected. Am I bitter ... yes ... still (although perhaps not quite so passionately as back then!). The decision to go with the F111 cost this country and the UK big time in money, jobs, and defence capability (then and in the future) ......all to the benefit of the US arms industry ......Ah well, it'll all be tghe same in 100 years! Cheers RD Similar to the Harrier story in the early days. If The Yanks had designed it, it would have been the best thing since the introduction of sliced bread. (The Faulklands war proved that) So many brilliant pommie designs over the years have been shelved by the pollies for B.S.reasons, including the Bristol Brabazon, etc, etc, etc. Gives one the S.H.1.T's to even think about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 What with the demise of our car industry, I wonder if we could design and build our own air-force planes. Taking money out of the question, what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 a bad idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now