Buying a light aircraft

[sharpend]

Buying a light aeroplane is a doggy business. Buy an old one and it is just the same as buying an old house or car. But a 'proper' aeroplane is expensive. So how about a VLA (Very Light Aircraft). But which one? It must be economical to run, use half the fuel consumption of a Bulldog, have a range of over 500 nm, cruise at least 110 - 120 kts, carry two + bags, cost not much more than £130K, low wing; so which one:

Aquila
Sting
Breezer
Sportstar
Sport Crusier

?????????

[A and C]

They all have there problems, the ultra light build that is required has made these aircraft a bit fragile and even new aircraft are starting to exhibit problems.

In the hands of a careful owner the problems can be contained, group owned aircraft are another thing !

Take someone who has maintained these aircraft along with you to inspect any aircraft you are considering buying...........it won't be long before you find out why the Cessna 152 is still the preferred option for a club trainer.

[Croqueteer]

::)Jodel 120/117. Load 600lbs, 19ltrs/hr, 100kts, range 500nm £12k.

[Humaround]

His budget is £130k, not £13k.

Dream on...

[Rod1]

What is your intended requirement? I started off with this;

120k min
Mogas
Two adults 40lb fuel and 4 hours fuel min
Derig easily
Etc.

How heavy are you? I am over 90kg and this ruled out several aircraft. Have you flown in Rotax powered machines before? If not I would be happy to take you up for a ride round and discuss maintenance etc (midlands based) – I have looked after my home built VLA for the last 8 years or so.

Compare wing loading. Some of the aircraft you have on the list have very light wing loading, others less so. This has a huge impact on the ride quality in turbulence.

Do not be put off by the “VLA is too light” argument – a C150 would fall into the VLA cat and some VLA aircraft are now over 15 years old and have well over 7000 hours in club use in Europe. Vital to find someone who understands the aircraft – particularly the Rotax, which is superb if looked after right but a complete nail if not.

Good luck,
Rod1

[ETOPS]

This would be my choice...

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2012-4/29/206610.jpg

Sport Cruiser

Pretty much fits the spec and within budget.

[peterh337]

What is the mission profile? VFR/IFR / UK / Euro touring?

500nm usable range means a zero fuel range of a lot more than 500nm.

[OpenCirrus619]

Many times I have been told:
If it Flies, Floats or F*@#s
Then it's cheaper to rent by the hour

Of course I ignored the wisdom of my elders and, many years on, having (part) owned a boat and a couple of aeroplanes I an confirm the first 2 are true.

Wanting to continue in my current wedded bliss I won't comment on the 3rd one.

OC619

[sharpend]

Sportcruiser??? Are they not a bit fragile around the nose leg area?

As for the rest, I am 90 kgs clothed and some of my passengers are also. I will mainly fly UK/Northern France. Occasional IMC (yes I know most are prohibited). Yes, I accept hire is cheaper. Range should be at least 500 nm with reserves. Build quality and robustness are important. As is stability in turbulence.

Thinking at present, Aquila or Breezer. Presently fly Cirrus (group) & Bulldog (hire). Aeroplane mainly for me and I have over 10000 hrs.

Oh & I would like to operate off grass... not something a Cirrus is good at!

[stevelup]

His budget is £130k, not £13k.

Dream on...

I think that is exactly the point that Croqueteer was making. Sharpend could get an aircraft that meets all his requirements at 10% of the cost.

[peterh337]

If it Flies, Floats or F*@#s
Then it's cheaper to rent by the hourOnly if you don't care who else has been messing with it (her) ;)

I would not get into most rental hardware if you paid me for it (seriously).

Probably OK for going from Shoreham to Goodwood, if keeping well away from the sea ;)

If you want the highest level of maintenance, safety, convenience, access for long trips (and without the occassional long trips, you will get bored soon enough) then ownership outright, or in a small syndicate of well matched people, is the only way. N-reg is even better.

Sharpend could get an aircraft that meets all his requirements at 10% of the cost.

Only if he is happy to fly junk.

[Shoestring Flyer]

''Sportcruiser??? Are they not a bit fragile around the nose leg area?''

Yes it is true that there have been some issues with the early type of noseleg, particulary where it is a group owned aircraft and groupies don't know how to land it properly.
Mine is an original leg operating off a roughish strip and it has been fine in 150hours.

All aircraft have issues and foibles that you will have to live with that are peculiar to that aircraft. The perfect aircraft has yet to be made!...and they are always a compromise between performance and carrying capacity and STOL, plus a multitude of other things.

Question:- Are you looking for a LAA machine, to build and maintain it yourself? or do you want to hand it over to someone and then pay the bill at the end?..EASA regime.

Aquila comes under EASA so can't build or maintain yourself, so does a Breezer.
Sportstar, if its the Max (MAUW 600kg) then you will again be under EASA. LAA if the lighter version so you can build/maintain yourself.

A new option that is just coming on to the UK scene and was at the LAA rally at the weekend.....The Bristell. Definitely worth a look and once again a LAA machine in the Sportcruiser mould (same designer)that will be approved in the next 12months or so.

[stevelup]

Only if he is happy to fly junk.

Rubbish. I'd much rather fly a 40 year old well cared for Jodel than a flimsy VLA.

[Immortal]

Besides the cost and cruising performance, please go ahead and sit in all of your contenders.

You'll find out that there is a huge difference in all the aircraft you are naming. I have experience with a DA(V)-20, P2002 and the Aquila. The specs may seem comparable, but the space you have in an Aquila is just incomparable with a Katana. Aquila is also blessed with German build quality and if you compare that to a Tecnam and money is no issue, you'll end up buying the Aquila.

In the end they all perform about the same, the 10 knots difference is not worth choosing one over the other.

For example a 400 NM trip with 110 kts cruise: 3 hours 20 min.
120 kts cruise over same distance: 3 hours 37 min.

Those 17 minutes are in my opinion not worth choosing one over the other.

Look at:
-reliability (maintenance/Rotax)
-space inside the aircraft and comfort (as mentioned wing loading)
-build quality

Just a note, all the aircraft you are looking at are certified in the CS-VLA category. That means that IFR flying is never possible, because the certification standard does not allow that.

[Dan the weegie]

Fuel economy is an interesting thing, my Cub with it's C90 engine drinks a little under 18ltrs mogas an hour. I have a friend with an RV4 which is probably about 28 litres AVGAS an hour but I get 75 kts and he gets 160kts. So per hour I'm cheaper but distance wise he's significantly less expensive.

VLAs as far as I'm aware none of them are cleared for IFR flight and I have to say I wouldn't want to either :) they bounce around a bit in fairly smooth conditions.

That said, the LAA is well under way for getting appropriately equipped aircraft certified to fly IMC/IFR. So you should not be turned off too much by LAA aircraft so long as they have the gear, not sure how long it will take but it will happen.

Suggestions for consideration, with a budget of £130k you have a lot of options.
1. It should be easily resold, nothing worse than having a rare non desirable aircraft, so be warned - if you decide to sell it on and chose something rare you will find difficulty selling it on.
2. Spares, it should be easy and not too expensive to find spares. For instance the TB20 you can find spares for but they're rarely cheap, the TB10 is a different matter entirely. Cessnas and Pipers are much easier but anything with a CofA requires a form 1 along with it, it translates to a great deal more expense for a piece of paper.
3. It should not prevent you from landing at almost any airfield you want, so if you need something that does grass, get something that's good on grass. It might mean high wing.

With your budget in mind, if it was me buying the aircraft.
Vans RV8/RV7, the tailwheel version. Imports can be total garbage but the UK home built ones tend to be very good, even if they aren't they'll provide good economy for range and are likely to be well equipped for IFR flight, if not you can use the £50k you'll have left over to equip for IF.
All of the RVs are fast up to about 200mph, many of them can/do run on MOGAS. I don't like the nosewheel ones but without any real justification.

Carbon Cub SS. Probably not as fast as you're looking for but well equipped, on an EASA Permit ready to fly, it's new and a seriously good bit of kit. I want one to the core of my bones :). There is no airfield in the UK that would be difficult to get into.

Super Decathlon, or one of the other ACA aircraft. Fast enough, economy isn't quite what you want but will be certified for IFR and you can buy new with your budget. Very comfortable tourer lots of space, lots of useful load and should provide you with the range you desire. I've flown a couple of these and like them a lot.

Cessna 182 Q (or later) or RG, you probably wont like the thirst of this machine but it will get you in anywhere and is plenty quick enough, there are N reg ones around that come with long range tanks, have plenty of bells and whistles, are certified for IFR are popular enough to resell and parts are easily attained.

TB20, plenty around to buy, very fast, parts can be pricey and a pain to get but for touring, my belief is that there is nothing more comfortable. You wont get mogas in it :) Also fairly thirsty but again, speed provides the economy.

The Sportcruiser is nice, the noseleg is weak and my understanding is from a reliable source that after a couple of replacement noselegs, other stuff starts to warp and bend. Care is required on landing.

Still a Vans will do all you expect and significantly more, an RV 7 with a 180hp engine would do what you want and you'll have plently left over to cover the costs of more fuel used per hour - also the maintenance will be significantly cheaper. That's what I'd have :)

[Dan the weegie]

Just a note, all the aircraft you are looking at are certified in the CS-VLA category. That means that IFR flying is never possible, because the certification standard does not allow that.

Yes, absurdly enough an LAA with the right equipment will have more privileges than a CS-VLA - in the UK only I would imagine.

[peterh337]

LAAs can't fly abroad, well not without hassle, except where there are reciprocals.

That's why I asked about the mission profile.

Going abroad (easily) is a huge massive plus in making and keeping flying interesting (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/) in the long term.

TB20, plenty around to buy, very fast, parts can be pricey and a pain to get but for touring, my belief is that there is nothing more comfortable. You wont get mogas in it http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif Also fairly thirsty but again, speed provides the economy.I wasn't going to mention the TB20 because the OP's original list suggested he was looking totally elsewhere, but that's not actually true about parts or economy. It is common pilot forum stuff though....

Parts are as pricey as all certified-aircraft parts, but are easy to get. And very few parts have to come from the airframe manufacturer (ask anybody with a Commander etc etc).

In long range cruise I get 140kt TAS at FL100, burning about 9.5USG/hr (36 litres/hr).

At low level, say 3000ft and not particular after economy, I burn 11.3USG/hr for 138kt IAS.

Unbeatable for touring, in the SEP class, while retaining the ability to do local hacking. Loads of planes are better for long range touring (PA46 comes to mind, if you watch the engine "rather carefully" ;) ) but are no good for local UK hacking around. And, yeah, you could pick up a PA46 for £130k, too, with, ahem, a few, ahem, outstanding ADs.... there is a "bit" of a learning curve in the ownership game.

The 1300nm+ range is fantastic. It makes even trips around Greece (I am off there shortly) doable; the customs/avgas matrix in Italy and Greece etc would be a logistical nightmare (for a non perpetually retired pilot) in a plane whose range is actually 500nm. In fact 500nm is no good except for local hacking around the southern UK, by the time you factor in decent reserves to a weather diversion (diverting from Shoreham to Goodwood or vice versa doesn't really cut the mustard ;) and diverting from Shoreham to Lydd only begins to cut the mustard if you can actually, never mind legally, fly the ILS).

That's why I asked about the mission profile :)

£130k might just maybe get you a nice 2002 TB20GT; one of the last ones made like mine

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/tb20-1.jpg

I have a friend with an RV4 which is probably about 28 litres AVGAS an hour but I get 75 kts and he gets 160ktsHe actually gets 160kt (IAS or TAS?) at 28 litres/hr?

[Dan the weegie]

My first share was a TB9, parts were a nightmare to get at a sensible price and known a few TB10s but thus is the hassle of group ownership, if it had been solo then perhaps I'd have been less bothered.

Looks lovely by the way, I love the TB20 comfy, spacious, fast :).

There's reciprocals now with many local EU countries for LAA, certainly France and Ireland which meets the mission.

Yes, he actually gets that, he has a a fairly coarse pitch prop on a 160 Lycoming and that's IAS at 2000ft on a 20C day in normal UK conditions, it takes another 40yds to get off the ground but has to keep it at around 2100 RPM to keep it under Vne take off is still very short. a VP prop might be better suited but more expensive to run. It's a very capable machine which is in my opinion what makes this an ideal fit for the OPs requirements.

[peterh337]

Interesting why TB9/10 parts were hard to get. That is not current or recent experience. However there are some dumb maintenance shops who might order say an air filter from Socata when actually it is a £10 Brackett item from any old aviation parts shop and is used all over the GA scene. Socata don't help, by allocating their Z00... part numbers to everything in the IPC, so a bit of a brain is needed, not to mention a desire to not rip off the punter.

The TB9/10 is not such a good choice. They are basically much more comfy versions of the PA28 140/160, but few are in a good condition now because their sales were poor after the early 1980s (due to overpricing). Anyway the OP's £130k budget means he doesn't have to look there.

A quick google on the RV4 fuel flow suggests that your friend is getting about 10% over book figures, perhaps due to the prop.

But the RV4 is a tiny cockpit - 2-up tandem. Again, one needs to be sure that this meets the requirements. It's not suitable for holiday trips, carrying the usual stuff as well as a life raft, oxygen, etc. And crucially few women will want to go anywhere in that way :)

[Dan the weegie]

And crucially few women will want to go anywhere in that way

Some might say that's a bonus. My wife for instance has absolutely no desire to go flying in any aircraft, she just doesn't get it :). Going on expensive holidays on the other hand - that's more like it :D.

The RV7 is a better machine for the profile :) roomy enough plenty of load space. The 4 is just for fun and for people who like flying on their own :).

The RV8 is a big RV4, and truly only for the people who want a tandem machine. That's what I would want, I like Tandem. Side by side is for work :).

On the Socata parts, I think you probably hit the nail on the head with regard to the maint shop but that's not something I would discuss in an open forum when folk know who I am :)

[Rod1]

“Vans RV8/RV7, the tailwheel version. Imports can be total garbage but the UK home built ones tend to be very good, even if they aren't they'll provide good economy for range and are likely to be well equipped for IFR flight, if not you can use the £50k you'll have left over to equip for IF.
All of the RVs are fast up to about 200mph, many of them can/do run on MOGAS.”

Warning!
In the UK you are not allowed to fly Vans RV8/RV7 in IMC (or any VLA or Permit machine) and none are approved for Mogas.

Rod1

[peterh337]

Some might say that's a bonus. My wife for instance has absolutely no desire to go flying in any aircraft,

That's what I mean about properly defining the mission ;)

On the Socata parts, I think you probably hit the nail on the head with regard to the maint shop

No suprise there. I've never had a problem getting parts (the few that I've needed over 10 years from new) and I don't know of anybody else who has had problems.

[Dan the weegie]

Rod I did mention that no permit aircraft for the moment are allowed to fly IFR :) but the LAA are working successfully toward that goal. CS VLA on the other hand will never have the same permission.

As for not being run on mogas, you're absolutely right. I am convinced that people do, inspite of there not being any permission for it. I am also quite sure that people fuel from the pumps despite no aircraft being approved for the levels of ethanol found in pretty much all forecourt petrol these days. And people are not dropping out of the sky as a result :). I'm not advocating it of course :). UL91 where available!

That said, the speed makes up for the cost difference.

[peterh337]

the LAA are working successfully toward that goal

While some (all-metal) types will be fine, with appropriate avionics etc, some others will be "interesting" when they come to look at airframe bonding... this is hugely important not just for lightning protection (you don't want the control linkages disappearing if you get hit) but for dealing with static when flying in IMC.

You may find it is a Pyrrhic victory in some cases, when you look at the airspace-mandated equipment carriage requirements for enroute IFR, and these will not go away.

IFR flight in the US Experimental category is workable to a significant degree because they don't require the carriage of very much.

[Dan the weegie]

I agree, I'm definitely not keen on the concept of flying IMC in a light single! VFR on top on a stable day no problem but in crap weather when you're required to take vectors and don't know what's in front of you... eep!

[peterh337]

IMC in a light single is a non-issue (I have thus far logged ~150hrs of it, out of 1500hrs) but the airframe needs to be up to the job both electrically and (this one is a lot more debatable) structurally given the increased expectation of turbulence.

[Shoestring Flyer]

'LAAs can't fly abroad, well not without hassle, except where there are reciprocals'.

What a load of tosh!

Having flown to most European countires in LAA machines I would be very interested to hear where in Europe a LAA can't go?

[Rod1]

Hi Dan

“That said, the speed makes up for the cost difference.”

You know – I have never been able to make that calc work – what speed / LPH are you using?;)

Peter – If I took one of the originally IFR approved Jodel’s and wanted to get it reapproved under some new regulation do you really think that the wooden airframe would be an issue… Lots and lots of such aircraft on the LAA and I strongly suspect that getting an originally approved aircraft like a Jodel 140 or an Auster approved will be much more straightforward than a homebuilt for the first wave of LAA IFR.:)

Rod1

[SEP Flyer]

I wonder if the OP has considered a diesel powered plane?

PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions (http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=da&id=17769&cor=y)

This example has the more modern (and reliable!) 2.0 diesel and sits in a very proven and sturdy airframe. Plenty of bag space too! For €90,000 I would expect it to be in very good condition with some half decent kit.

I flew the older 1.7 diesel PA28, loved the FADEC control and I guess the club loved the economy!

I can only guess that fuel costs and AVGas availability will become more of an issue in the future!

[Dan the weegie]

I think what I meant was when comparing my putt putt to the 160kts RV4 :) my putt putt is approved for Mogas (C90-8F Super Cub) whereas the RV is only approved for AVGAS. Of course I'm hardly comparing apples with apples.

[peterh337]

Having flown to most European countires in LAA machines I would be very interested to hear where in Europe a LAA can't go?

No ICAO CofA, so cannot fly internationally without a permission from each country.

But you know that ;)

[Rod1]

“No ICAO CofA, so cannot fly internationally without a permission from each country.”

Quite correct – so in 1980 almost all of Europe signed an agreement allowing homebuilt aircraft free movement, so we all tour Europe (with one or two exceptions) without hindrance – but then you did not know that…

Rod1

[FullWings]

What about the Robin DR400? Seems to tick all the boxes and there is a large range of engine/propellor and cabin sizes, even diesel variants now. Complete range of prices for second-hand ones.

There's the "President" if you want a really spacious version. They're all extremely nice to fly, as well...

[sharpend]

Really want new, don't want tandem. Want toe brakes. Need to specify my own avionics/instrument fit. Thinking of analogue instruments +

SL30
GTS 328 transponder
GI106
Garmin GMX200 or Flymap XL (comments?)

[Rod1]

You might want to consider just about any transponder other than the 328. It is the only one which cannot do ES (ADS-B functionality) which is likely to come in in the medium term as part 3 of the CAA / EASA aircraft interoperability plan.

Rod1

[Dan the weegie]

Yeah, there's definitely better and easier to maintain transponders out there :). Trig make belters. We had a GTX 328 in a Warrior and the encoder failed, it cost the price of a new trig unit plus fitting (which was a crazy sum for 3 minutes work!) to replace.

Buying new factory built limits you as to what's available.

For that money, I can think of 3 planes that you can buy off the factory floor that are side by side and none of them really reach the speed you're after. There will be a few others but none that I'd want to buy :) or perhaps that I'm aware of but they definitely cannot and will not be able to fly IFR.

RV7 recently built by a well known decent builder is in my opinion your best bet you can change the avionics relatively cheaply to whatever you want :). Fast economical, fun, plenty of loadspace, range and flexibility to do what you want without taking it from the CAA in charges.

[Shoestring Flyer]

As other have said avoid the Garmin 328 or you will be replacing it in a short time. No ADSB Squitter.

Also I had your line of thinking with the SL30 when I built my Sportcruiser, but wouldn't do it again if I was building now...the VOR for nav purposes will be defunct in a few years and you can't fly an ILS on a LAA permit aircraft currently anyway. Save the money and buy a decent EFIS (not Dynon Skyview).

[Rod1]

Have a look at the new MGL touch screen kit – no need for a separate GPS and drive an autopilot direct.

Rod1

[A and C]

A few things I don't understand from the posts above, the first of these is how an encoder replacement cost more than a Trig transponder ?

The second thing is why the DR400 is not getting a few more votes, it seems to fit the bill on most counts ( and I have a recent one with toe brakes, zero time Engine and new paint for sale )

[Dan the weegie]

No idea about the DR400.

I was also confused by the cost of the encoder. The excuse I was told "that's the expensive one, there is a cheaper one but it would be really tough to fit properly (which I have since discovered is total codswollop)" You may make your own assessment. The same place also charged us several hundred pounds each year for a "Radio Annual" which isn't necessary or required as part of the ARC renewal but sadly there is nowhere else to go for avionics. You live and learn.

[peterh337]

in 1980 almost all of Europe signed an agreement allowing homebuilt aircraft free movement, so we all tour Europe (with one or two exceptions) without hindrance

I think there is a bit of information being left out here ;)

[DeltaV]

Silvair, that's an old one. Here is the current version from the LAA website.
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/2010/Engineering/Travelling%20abroad%20in%20a%20Permit%20Aircraft.pdf

[peterh337]

That's the right URL, Silvaire, which is why Rod1 was being disingenuous.

One has to get a permission from most countries in Europe, and more than most outside of Europe.

The 1980 agreement has been mostly ignored.

This doesn't bother the vast majority of UK pilots who never fly abroad, but often people come to GA wishing to fly to far away places, and they need to be made aware that some things they may do may give them cheaper flying in the UK but hassles flying abroad.

Also one needs to be aware that a large part of the advantage of an LAA type is the ability to do one's own maintenance. There is therefore a strong correlation between people flying those types, and people willing and able to do their own maintenance, get the spanners out and get their hands dirty. Some like that, some don't, but those who don't aren't going to save a lot of money.

[AN2 Driver]

I know that everyone will advocate his particular ride and I don't want to bore you, but your mission profile is pretty much what I do too (2 not too light folks, 500-600 NM, baggage)

I do know that flying at 19 lph e.t.c sounds sexy and is a great calculation thing, but in the end, if you want to travel, it's one factor of many.

What I do owning a plane is that I treat it as a separate entity financially and I do pay my hours (to myself on a separate account) as if I was renting. That way, I am getting a price per hour (total outlay / total hours per year) which I can calculate with.

Looking at the figures, what I find is that a slower airplane which uses less fuel can be a lot more expensive than a faster one which doesn't use a lot more, particularly in terms of travel. If you travel with your plane, as you indicate, you'll end up paying less with a 150 kts plane which upfront has a much higher hour price than an Aquila or a Tecnam, which will take a lot more time to get there. Equally, looking at what you have been flying before, it will seem like forever getting where you want to go at 100 kts, seeing that you've flown a Cirrus.

I own a Mooney M20C. It will do 150 kts at 40 liters per hour, 140 @ 34 lph and 120 @ 27, fly comfortably around 550-600 NM and is very good in terms of maintenance due to the fact that it's got the manual gear and flaps.

With your budget, I'd look at a M20J. You'll get 160 kts @ 40 lph or 130 @ 27-30 lph, plenty of space and a range of around 700 NM, due to the fact that it's got 64 USG usable rather than my 52.

There are lots around these days which are way below your budget and which will fit the portfolio just fine. Mooneys don't have a problem with grass (I've been to and fly regularly into 500 m grass fields with mine). They are fast, economical and are ideal for a travel for 2 and lots of bags. I've flown mine on a 2000 NM trip last year with 2 people and 80 kgs of baggage plus full fuel.

PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions (http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=19142)

is one example for instance, almost new engine and full IFR. They do start lower however, e.g. this one.

PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions (http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=16964)

which seems to have been run throug someting like a "pimp my plane" shop but has older but good avionics (no GPS) and no altitude hold at the AP.

Any questions, I'll be glad to answer to the best of my knowledge.

[sharpend]

Well that all makes sense, but I want a modern two-seater, with stick, not Yoke and I want new with TCAS, big GPS and modern avionics!

Moreover, I love flying, so why fly at 150 kts when 120 kts is more economical and it takes longer to get to your destination (that is a good thing!!) ?

I have flown at 800 kts low level and believe me, 120 kts is more fun! For me anyway.

We are all different and have different requirements.

[Dan the weegie]

Sharpend I'm not sure what you want exists as a brand new ready to fly aircraft within your budget.

[sharpend]

What about Aquila?

[gyrotyro]

"Warning!
In the UK you are not allowed to fly Vans RV8/RV7 in IMC (or any VLA or Permit machine) and none are approved for Mogas.

Rod1"

Sorry Rod but you are only partly correct. Whilst none of those aircraft are approved for IMC many are approved for use of MOGAS. Please edit your post.

[Immortal]

Yes Aquila. There is nothing like it.

Garmin 500, GNS 650, extra horizon and you're NVFR equipped. Rotax reliability and easy maintenance (go to a shop with experience with Rotax though). Fuel with RON 92,95,98 with up to 10% alcohol is no problem. Avgas is an option, but if you use that fuel type to often, your aircraft sees the mechanic every 50 hours instead of 100 hours.

Nice feature about the Aquila is that normally the Rotax has a 5 minute limit with full power applied (100%). After these 5 minutes you must reduce power a bit. The Aquila has the reduced power (95% or so) for take-off, so you can continuously climb to your cruising altitude with the power applied at the take-off run. So the engine is actually derated to 95 HP at take off. I think (but maybe it is a psycological thing) that it is better for the engine not to run it at 100%. :ok:

When you've flown 2000 hours the 912Si could be a retrofit option for the Aquila and it is even easier to fly without any carb heat things stuff to forget. Not speaking about the fuel savings with the injected engine.

The only thing it lacks (as most other VFR 2 seaters unfortunately) is pitot heat. It is not even possible as on option...

If you like retractable gear, this is also a nice aircraft: Single Engine - P2002JR - Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam (http://www.tecnam.com/en-GB/aircrafts/single-engine/p2002jr.aspx)

Is no IFR not a deal breaker for you?

[Dan the weegie]

Okay :) I didn't know much about it. Looks very new, only a few on the register. It seems to fit what you want :) although I can't say it would interest me. Is it possible you had already set your eyes on that but were looking just in case there are alternatives? It seems that what you were asking for fits this aircraft very close indeed.
It's a normal Category CofA aircraft so you can fly IFR if correctly equipped
Composites are great but if you get a hangar ding are a lot more expensive to sort than pulling a bit of metal. The useful load is low, full fuel you have 100kgs which means if I'm in it solo, there's no room for anything else :) Climb performance is fairly mundane and take-off roll for it's class is relatively quite long - in my opinion only. I wonder if those figures were generated at MTOW? perhaps I was just skimming.
It sounds like it flies very nicely though, have you already had a reasonable go in one?
If what you want is mostly for having fun flying just being in the air rather than always touring then it's not bad, there's definitely better for touring and speed in those machines is what generates economy. But for that mission, I think it's a hell of a lot of money to spend on a very new, relatively unproven aircraft. How easily will it be sold on? How easily will you be able to get parts? particularly if the company went bust and you were stuck trying to find certified parts for this aircraft? I'd go and try a few, definitely get a shot in an RV7 if it's available, just for peace of mind :)

[gyrotyro]

Sharpend

"Moreover, I love flying, so why fly at 150 kts when 120 kts is more economical and it takes longer to get to your destination (that is a good thing!!) ?

I have flown at 800 kts low level and believe me, 120 kts is more fun! For me anyway."

The reason I like flying at 150 kts in my RV-6A is because it allows me to still make 120 knots over the ground in a thirty knot headwind!

As others have said the throttle works in both directions and if I want to poodle around at 120 kts I can return a fuel burn comparable to any Rotax engined aircraft.

Also to enlarge on my previous comment to "Rod1", Lycoming have recently published a list of engines that can be run on MOGAS and many of these are fitted to various Vans aircraft.

[Dan the weegie]

Is it not true though that both engine and airframe combination needs to be approved for use with MOGAS and the CAA have not come to any conclusion about the use of E5 fuel which effectively prohibits the use of fuel above 1%? Regardless of engine or airframe my current understanding is that if there is more than a trace of Ethanol, we're not supposed to use it :).

Not that it stops people and like I say, they're not dropping out of the sky

[Immortal]

@ Dan

Are you talking about the Aquila a few posts up?

Fuel fuel payload is about 160 kg. You go further than 500 NM with that with 120 kts. 600 NM is also possible with about 100 kts.

I wouldn't call the Aquila new, it's around for more than 10 years now.

I don't know if the airframe/engine combination needs to be certified for more than 1% ethanol. I do know that Rotax announced in one of their publications that the 912 is allowed to burn fuel with up to 10% ethanol.

[Dan the weegie]

Yep sorry must've fat fingered something :) possibly added 20ltrs to each tank for some reason. Yep so long as your two pax aren't fatties it's a reasonable payload :)

If it's 10 years old it hasn't sold enough in the UK. Suggests to me that it would be very difficult to sell on.

My understanding on the complexities of fuel/airframe/CAA approvals is not the best, I know my plane works just fine from the pump but I've heard many times that currently we have not received permission from the CAA to use E5 for any aircraft. This may have changed in light of the manufacturers saying it's ok. There will definitely be someone that knows better than I what the current state of play is.

[Immortal]

The problem is the price. A small group of pilots bought an Aquila recently and they paid about 170.000 euro for the Garmin 500 + GNS 650 add on.

For that kind of money you can buy a lot more aircraft with IFR capabilities. The Aquila is certified in the CS-VLA category and this forbids flying IFR in the first place.

[Dan the weegie]

Nope, according to ginfo it's CS-23A which means it should be possible to fly in IMC. There may be a restriction on the type certificate though which would prevent this. All the more reason to go the permit route.

And isn't 750kgs MTOW not higher than the CS-VLA requirements?

170k Euros is massively expensive. You can buy an RV7 and still have enough for an Aston Martin, with a few grand left over to pay for the extra fuel.

For, on the basis of the climb and performance figures, what amounts to an up to date and nicer to fly Piper Tomahawk.

Bonkers.

[Immortal]

http://www.easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/aircraft/EASA-TCDS-A.527_AQUILA_AT01-03-20042012.pdf

Page 3:

3. Airworthiness Category: CS-VLA

I don't know the MTOM limitation of the CS-VLA category. LSA is 600 kg.

[Immortal]

I found more info:

CS-VLA 1 Applicability
This airworthiness code is applicable to
aeroplanes with a single engine (spark- or
compression-ignition) having not more than two
seats, with a Maximum Certificated Take-off
Weight of not more than 750 kg and a stalling
speed in the landing configuration of not more
than 83 km/h (45 knots)(CAS), to be approved
for day-VFR only. (See AMC VLA 1).

And there should be some amendment somewhere which allows NVFR...

Here is the EASA document describing the specifications for CS-VLA:
http://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/certification-specifications/CS-VLA/CS-VLA%20%20Amdt%201%20combined.pdf

[Dan the weegie]

That's interesting because the CAA list it as CS-23A, in comparison to the AT3 which is registered as CS-VLA. it's possible they have changed the naming of it but the type certificate clearly says CS-VLA. I wonder if the CAA have made a boo boo?
Definitely not worth it. I wonder how much a new Grob 115 costs if they still make em?

[thing]

Nothing worthwhile to add other than I'm always amused by people who have 100K+ to spend on an a/c and then worry about the fuel economy........:)

[peterh337]

It's reasonable to be concerned about the fuel burn because avgas is so expensive these days. It's easy to spend £10k/year on avgas alone, if one goes places.

Unfortunately different people suggest different planes (their favourite ones obviously) without first asking the chap's mission profile - and he may not even be sure of it himself.

When I was looking to buy, c. 2001, I had all kinds of stuff suggested to me by people who I then thought knew what they were talking about. Most of it would have been useless for what I wanted...

For example a plane with a 500-600nm range would have been no good for what I wanted, and that rules out perhaps 90% of the options.

That's why the person needs to sit down and think hard about what kind of flying he/she wants to do. Most people that are to be found in the flight training environment haven't got a clue about this because they have never been past the crease in their map. This makes the learning curve quite steep.

On top of that one can get disingenous advice from a school which wants you to keep renting... Once you buy your own plane, they cut you out. No more fly-out invitations, because they can't make money off you, and you are pilfering people who would otherwise sit in the LHS with an instructor in the RHS ;)

[Immortal]

The mission profile is in OP.

It must be economical to run, use half the fuel consumption of a Bulldog, have a range of over 500 nm, cruise at least 110 - 120 kts, carry two + bags, cost not much more than £130K, low wing

[A and C]

If you PM Peter337 he will give you my email, the PM don't work following a disagreement with the pprune management

[Dan the weegie]

That;s the thing though, the OPs profile is an impossible mission.

New aircraft, factory built, new glass panel avionics with TCAS, cruise speed between 120 and 130 kts with about 20lph of MOGAS, permitted to fly IFR in IMC, stick and throttle with side by side seating.

Nothing exists that can do that :)

[peterh337]

That's probably true :) but also he has specified the aircraft perf and not the mission profile.

[A and C]

By the look of it the Robin DR400-180 comes the closest to the mission requirement it will make the range, speed and payload requirement with ease.

Half the fuel burn of the Bulldog it won't do but as it can burn 91UL I would guess that you could get the cost per air mile down to about 60-70% of the Bulldog.

Other advantages of the Robin are very good short field performance and no VP prop to maintain.

[Dan the weegie]

But put in the avionics and you're looking at the business end of £150k! ex VAT?
Worth giving Mistral Aviation a call, they'll have a demo machine you can look at.

Lovely plane though :)

[sharpend]

RV7 will not satisfy my essential criteria as it is only available in kit form. Or am I wrong?

[A and C]

At no time on this thread has Sharpend said anything about a full glass Avionic fit so the DR400 fits the original specification, it is others who have talked about glass cockpits.

I could find a DR400 in seconds that has just had a full recovering and a Zero time engine that would come at a price that would allow for a substantial Avionic upgrade and still fit the budget.

[Immortal]

You are right, but he did say: big GPS and modern avionics!

For me that means a glass cockpit.

[stevelup]

Sharpend said earlier that he wanted conventional instruments.

There's no reason you can't have conventional primary instruments and glass for nav and engine management.

[A and C]

I to read the requirement as anolog instruments with a big GPS and had in mind the latest Garmin touch screen unit.

What I had not done was invented a requirement that matches my own aspirations!

The DR400 matches MOST of the requirements the only place it fails is fuel consumption, and that not by a lot.

The one thing that can be relied apon with the DR400 is that the maintenance costs are known, the wooden airframe is very robust and it takes short grass runways in its stride, the new generation of aircraft are an unknown quantity when it comes to maintenance, those with a good record are the more robustly constructed and these lack the performance of the very lightly built aircraft.

Each time I try to replace my DR400 all the alternatives fall short on one thing or another, last week I was flying a Cirrus, very nice with a full glass cockpit and all the things that seem to be deemed essential on these forums if you want to go south of the channel.

However the Cirrus won't even look at some go the airfields that I use and despite my DR400 being equipped with no glass screens it is still IFR approved with GPS approach and BRNAV (and according to the flight manual flight in MNPS airspace but I have no idea how I would get the thing to an oceanic entry point!).

When I read some of the things written above about having glass cockpits and the like I am left wondering how I ever got my DR400 to Malta before it was fitted with a GPS.

[Dan the weegie]

A and C you're right. Nonetheless he did specify new and in a Robin that's 150k + VAT from what I read in the Mistral website.

I do wonder why people buy light singles with Glass Avionics though, a reasonable GPS takes all pain out of Nav and a proper IFR fit will get you in the airspace you want to be in. One wonders how I fly the international flights each week without even a moving map :) Glass engine instruments are good though, they take alot of the misreading errors away and do highlight issues better than traditional ones.

I certainly don't aspire to an RV7 though, it's a marvellous machine but it's not the plane for me, it is just the one that fits most of what Sharpend wants well within the budget and has the added benefit of being a permit aircraft which allows for significant additional maintenance cost benefit and the flexibility to change avionics as you see fit and the work can be done by a paid engineer if you wish, not necessarily by yourself :). Most importantly to me though is that due to the number of RVs being bought round the world that spares will be easy to source for a very long time and also the resale value remains high because it's an in demand aircraft. So I'm only banging the drum because it makes sense in my world :).

Sharpend, that is correct an RV7 cannot be bought new, but as I've already said there is nothing brand new out there that ticks all of your boxes, (glass panel notwithstanding :)). Your options are either to change what you want to do or to accept an aircraft that is nearly new and kit built or about 8 or so years old and refit the avionics that you require.

There are builders out there who will build a kit for you, it's against the principles of the LAA and they tend to frown on that kind of thing, the rules are set to make it more difficult but it happens quite frequently anyway.

[stevelup]

Sharpend, go used. Let someone else take the massive depreciation associated with a new aircraft.

After all, yours will be used... once you've used it!

[Rod1]

I am on hols doing a lot of flying but with limited access to Internet. Needless to say I do not agree with Peter on just about anything – but as this thread is about factory aircraft it is not the place to drag him through it all over again…

gyrotyro you have a PM.
Rod1

[FullWings]

Sharpend, go used. Let someone else take the massive depreciation associated with a new aircraft.
My thoughts exactly. After you've flown it for an hour, it's not new any more. Things like instrumentation can be easily changed for the latest spec., given the amount of money being saved on the original purchase.

Given a reasonable amount of TLC and sympathetic maintenance, well-designed airframes have an almost indefinite life. If the design hasn't changed significantly in the last 5-10-20 years, what's the point of new vs. refurbed original?

I suppose you get that "new car feeling" when you pick it up but the downside is the first scratch or bit of oil on the upholstery is stupidly annoying: that happens pretty quickly with an aeroplane!

If you really want new, why not combine forces with another like-minded pilot on a similar budget and get something like this (http://www.panthera-aircraft.com/). Looks the business!

Otherwise, I'd agree with what A&C is saying - you have to go a long way to beat a zero-houred DR400 with custom avionics and it'll be well within budget, leaving plenty over for fuel, insurance, etc.

[sharpend]

Actually I flew a Aquila today. Good day for it... Wind 50 deg off runway at 12 kts (x wind limit 15 kts), few thermals.

It steered rather strangely on the ground, weathercocked violently into wind on lift off, suffered greatly from big wings/gusty conditions, during landing it was very skittish & my right foot slid off the rudder pedal during x wind landing :eek:. I also did not like the stick so far back into my crutch! It did not look cheap but felt rather cheap, despite the fact it was not! Maybe I am wrong comparing it to my Cirrus which I flew immediately afterwards, but the Cirrus felt beefy, the Aquila felt like a microlite! Moreover, I'm used to Bulldog which also feels beefy.

Rate of roll was rubbish.

OK, so running costs are half that of Cirrus & good old Bulldog, but................

[stevelup]

If you're set on buying new then for your budget, you need to get used to that experience!

[sharpend]

None for sale!

[Jan Olieslagers]

OK, so running costs are half that of Cirrus & good old Bulldog, but................

so speaks the luxury whorse

[Immortal]

At least you did better than this fellow in a crosswind...
private airplane crashes on taxiway at Samos Airport - YouTube
But to be fair a 30 knot crosswind is not easy to master.

You cannot compare a 2-seater 750 kg aircraft with a Rotax engine and a 200+hp much heavier Cirrus. In my point of view the Aquila is on of the better flying 2-seaters for cross country flying. But if you don't like it, keep the Cirrus.

[AC-DC]

Actually I flew a Aquila today. Good day for it... Wind 50 deg off runway at 12 kts (x wind limit 15 kts), few thermals.
...
Maybe I am wrong comparing it to my Cirrus which I flew immediately afterwards, but the Cirrus felt beefy, the Aquila felt like a microlite! Moreover, I'm used to Bulldog which also feels beefy.

Rate of roll was rubbish.

OK, so running costs are half that of Cirrus & good old Bulldog, but................

Dingy V. Aircraft carrier.

I sold my aircraft few months ago, can't consider kit aircraft, they just don't feel right. I flew in 40kts winds and 40kts wind shear and can’t see any/many kit aircraft taking this sort of weather. If the idea is to fly in good VFR then a Cub or Aeronca will be much more fun.

[Humaround]

Secondhand RV7s are fairly rare in the UK, they do come up a few times a year though, usually advertised from £60-£75k, which is less than you could currently build one for. There are plenty for sale in the USA for less money but the cost of importation, VAT, and LAA compliance inspections would probably cancel out the difference.

The RV6 is more plentiful, cheaper, has very nearly the same performance and is a very capable aeroplane, as proven by Manuel Quieroz who flew one round the world in 2006.

Of course RV6s tend to be older (not all - some people are still finishing their builds) but most still have less than 500 flying hours.

RVs are not yet able to fly legally in IMC in the UK, and although sterling work is being done by certain peeps inside and outside the LAA, there is no date for this and there has to be a chance it may never happen.

Mogas is such a dog's breakfast at the moment with the hideous alcohol additives it's doubtful any aircraft can fly on it at present with an utterly spotless conscience - many do so anyway with no ill effects.

My advice to anyone who thinks that an RV might fit their lifestyle (what Peter calls mission profile) is fly one - they are so delightful that you may well find you will want to accept the (very few) limitations.

[sharpend]

A Vans RV6a seems ok if one can compromise on it not being new and thus accepting what the builder decided as his dashboard (of course that could be changed, but at a cost).

But I have read that RV6a have a problem with landing on grass which can result in nosewheel damage if the landing is not executed correctly.

Comments?

[Dan the weegie]

That's correct, I believe that a mod was made to allow for a bigger nosewheel which isn't too difficult to do, nor would it be expensive.

you obviously don't want a tailwheel machine, that wouldn't have the same problem :) I'm sure there are more available like that.

As for changing the panel, it depends on what's there but it would not be difficult or "relatively" expensive to change what was there, it would almost certainly have most of what you wanted already and all you would need to do is perhaps add a decent transponder, that's very easy and one of those big GPS things with a NDSB receiver to provide you with that TCAS you wanted. It would still leave you about £60k change from your budget and you wouldn't lose half its value in 1 hour.

Main question though is why would you want to replace the cirrus you fly? You may have answered this already but it's a solid machine.

[Shoestring Flyer]

The nosewheel RV's have poor reputation for nosewheel issue that can end in serious tears as this link shows..

Van's RV-7 (G-CDRM) Aircraft Pictures & Photos - AirTeamImages.com (http://www.airteamimages.com/van27s-rv-7_G-CDRM_-private_49329.html)

Tailwheel RV's outnumber nose wheel versions by big numbers due to the latters issues on grass. If you like RV's and need to use it most of the time on grass then my advice would be get a Taildragger version.

[sharpend]

Yes, I'm beginning to think that I should stick with my Cirrus! Don't really need 4 seats and would like to reduce running costs. But getting out of the Aquila after a 40 minute flight, then flying the Cirrus for the same time, in the same conditions, was like comparing a sailing dinghy with a 65 ft gin palace.

[Dan the weegie]

You're not comparing apples with apples though :).

Neither is really what I'd be interested in in the same position but I think you need to be more focussed on what it is you actually want out of the machine - but it does really look like you have the thing you're after :).

[A and C]

For those of you who have been misguided into putting the third wheel at the wrong end RV there is now a kit that is LAA approved to stiffen the nose leg when it flexes too much.

The fitting of this kit should stop any futher incidents of aircraft tripping up over their own nose leg.

[Rod1]

"the Aquila felt like a microlite"

As I said in an early post it is mostly a matter of wing loading not weight. I did the following some time ago and am not suggesting any of the machines are suitable for you but thought the comparison may be of interest.

You will see that the PiperSport (SC) is the heaviest aircraft but has a much lower wing loading than the comparison machines;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparing aircraft numbers is an interesting pastime and can be useful to sort the facts from the fiction. The Sportcruiser was designed to meet the US LSA cat, but most of the SC aircraft in the UK are flying based on compliance with CS-VLA. If we compare the SC with other VLA machines we get some interesting results;

“The aircraft is very light (~380kgs Empty mass, 600kgs MAUW)”

Compared with a 152 (1950’s tec) it is light, compared with the modern VLA designs it is very heavy. This is probably due to the use of traditional metal construction. Some comparisons;

SC 380kg
Pioneer 300 305kg
MCR01 Club 250kg

All three use the same Rotax 912 100hp engine, so the power to weight ratio is very different, which of course has a big impact on performance;

SC Cruise 105 kts ~ 18 lts/hr
Pioneer Cruise 135 kts ~ 18.5 lts/hr
MCR01 Club Cruise 138 kts ~ 18.5 lts/hr

So the aircraft is about 40% slower. This of course will mean you need a lot more fuel to travel the same distance, so can the CS carry the extra fuel?

SC 120L
Pioneer 80L
MCR01 80L

So the lack of speed can be compensated by fuel capacity, but can it lift the weight?

SC 220kg
Pioneer 201kg
MCR01 Club 240kg

Certainly any advantage of the fuel capacity is seriously compromised by the speed / load equation. How Comfortable? The SC is a much bigger aircraft than the others, so what about cockpit width?

SC 46.5”
Pionear 41.3”
MCR01 44.5”

A clear win for the SC, but there is another issue with how Comfortable an aircraft is. How much do you get bounced around on an average UK summers day? This is not just about weight; it is also about wing area;

CS 13.2 Msq
Pioneer 10 Msq
MCR01 6.5 Msq

The key issue being wing loading;

CS 45 kg/sq
Pioneer 56 kg/sq
MCR01 75 kg/sq

Of all the aircraft above, the SC is the most likely to have to slow down in turbulence, but does the large wing give it an advantage in stall speed?

SC 38kn
Pioneer 44kn
MCR01 42kn

So a clear win for the SC, which should allow it to use a bit less runway; I cannot find a full set of figures on that, but it is almost certainly true.

Crosswind limit?

CS Anyone?
Pioneer 20kn
MCR 20Kn

Rate of Climb?

CD 1200 fpm
Pioneer 1500 fpm
MCR01 1600 fpm


Rod1