Many prospective builders want a second seat, but will rarely use it. Others are fine trading off lugage capacity, range etc for having someone in the 2nd seat.
Assuming we don't increase MTOW and thus trade off fuel load or bagage capacity, the penalty of that second seat, both in structural weight and in drag will to a large extend depend upon the volume the second seat takes up.
I've always been charmed by how Binder solved it. They took their EB29 open class racing sailplane and added the smallest amount of weight and drag possible while enlarging it for the second seat. IMHO a good example of how a minimalist 2-seat fast powered aircraft could look like. (or at least the cockpit. That wing really is too long and slender for most powered applications) Despite the enormous wing (90 ft span, 180 sqft), this airframe has about as much drag as the top contenders in the Reno Formula 1.
Some pics:
Front cockpit with tilt-up canopy and panel.
Side view of front cockpit. Foot pedal for rear cockpit just behind the airbrake handle
Rear instrument panel integrated in front head rest
Assuming we don't increase MTOW and thus trade off fuel load or bagage capacity, the penalty of that second seat, both in structural weight and in drag will to a large extend depend upon the volume the second seat takes up.
I've always been charmed by how Binder solved it. They took their EB29 open class racing sailplane and added the smallest amount of weight and drag possible while enlarging it for the second seat. IMHO a good example of how a minimalist 2-seat fast powered aircraft could look like. (or at least the cockpit. That wing really is too long and slender for most powered applications) Despite the enormous wing (90 ft span, 180 sqft), this airframe has about as much drag as the top contenders in the Reno Formula 1.
Some pics:
Front cockpit with tilt-up canopy and panel.
Side view of front cockpit. Foot pedal for rear cockpit just behind the airbrake handle
Rear instrument panel integrated in front head rest