Skyhawk

[FANS]

Has anyone bought a recent skyhawk, and can share their view on it or new alternatives I should be looking at for a basic SEP aircraft for personal, leisure use in the UK?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Skyhawks come in 3 generations

Classic 1956-1967: Powered by the 145 hp 6 cylinder Continental O 300 engine and with old fashion panel layout, and in the early years (pre 1960) straight tails and no back window (pre 1963).

Legacy 1968-1985: Powered by the 150-160 hp carburated 4 cylinder Lycoming O 320. Look very similar throughout the model years and closely resemble a new build but with a cheaper plasticy panel and interior, no corrosion proofing in the airframe, and some structural problems in higher time examples.

New Build 1996 - Present: Powered by a 160 -180 hp fuel injected Lycoming IO 360. Modern and very nice seats and interior, improved updated and corrosion protected airframe.

Prices (UK) range from 15K pounds (Tatty Classic) to 300 K (Factory new)

Which part of the market are you looking in ?

[FANS]

I was looking at a new one.

[Rod1]

FANS forgive me but lots of questions;

Have you owned an aircraft before?

Do you plan to fly IFR or at night?

Do you plan to fly 4 adults, 3 adults, just 2 or some other combination?

Where are you geographically and are you planing to keep the aircraft outside?

How many hours a year?

For your budget you have a huge choice.

Rod1

[S-Works]

BPF, you missed the Skyhawk XP 6 cylinder rolls Royce engine with a constant speed prop. 210hp. Also it's previous incarnation as a Reims Rocket.

[FANS]

Rod

I haven't owned or had a share before.

IFR capability would be positive but depends on cost.

Likely to be two people, or just me!

Based in northeast and can arrange a hangar.

Hours will be 70ish.

It's around flying old untidy machines that I ve had enough of, hence looking to bite the bullet. Equally second hand causes concern given you don't always save that much and I m looking for it to last 30 years.

[27/09]

the Skyhawk XP 6 cylinder rolls Royce engine

I almost fell off my chair laughing, do you mean the Continental IO-360 piece of junk?

I know some of the C150 O-200's had Rolls Royce rocker covers, that's about the start and finish of the Rolls Royce connection. Both engines are not something I'd be proud to put my name on.

FANS

Does it have to be a Skyhawk, what about a PA28? For my money a Piper is a better bet.

[S-Works]

I have the Original Rolls Royce IO360 engine in my Skyhawk XP, it's done 1900 trouble free hours (1300 flown by me) and still has near perfect compression.

A true 4 seat, short field performing aircraft that cruises at 128kts on 36lph. Full IFR.

Hardly a piece of junk and something I am proud to put my name on.....

[Rod1]

Ok - I would start by flying the following;

Vans RV7
Vans RV10
Robin DR400 180
Cirrus sr22
Diamond DA40

For sure you will not like all of them and that will shorten the list. The first two are home built but are very fast, there are many flying and will probably have very powerful uncertified EFIS tec. The others are all CofA and are all much higher performance than the typical 172.

Rod1

[27/09]

I have the Original Rolls Royce IO360 engine in my Skyhawk XP, it's done 1900 trouble free hours (1300 flown by me) and still has near perfect compression.

Your luck is much better than one I know of. This one aircraft had three totally separate in flight engine failures due to mechanical reasons that could not have been predicted. The last one at night in IMC killed the two occupants.

If I recall correctly there was a different engine fitted between at least one engine failure as an exchange overhaul and at least a bulk strip/overhaul on the other occasion. The failures couldn't be attributed to lack of maintenance

It also had numerous other "minor" engine issues, like sudden low oil pressure requiring an immediate landing.

You couldn't pay me to own one.

Yours must be a fast one, I never saw anything much over 120 in the ones I have flown, in fact they struggled to go much faster than a PA28-161.

[27/09]

Rod1

Whats the Cirrus like on short grass strips?

I still think you will go a long way to beat a PA28 for sturdiness simplicity and reliability.

[9 lives]

The Skyhawks as described all have their good and compromise points. The good points are solid, predictable, and repairable! For any of them, parts are obtainable.

Legacy PA28s are good planes as long as they don't need to be repaired. But if a legacy PA28 has corrosion or physical damage which requires replacement of structural parts, the owner could be in for a very nasty surprise - and have a grounded plane - forever. I know of two Arrows to which this has happened. Even hail damage could require skin replacement, where that same damage on a 172 would be declared negligible, and the aircraft allowed to remain in service as is. I fly them both happily - but I own a Cessna.

The Continental engines are fine if well maintained. The rare Lycoming suddenly stops too....

[dont overfil]

Hi FANS,

Some of the posters here have not picked up that you are considering a new (or new'ish?) C172.

All C172's now have the Lycoming engine and the 180 is fuel injected. Performance is about the same as an Archer but the economy is slightly better than the carb equipped Pipers. No risk of carb ice! Hot starting problems don't exist on the new Cessnas.

G1000 glass is now standard and has been an option since 2004. If you decide to go for one just a few years old with the conventional instruments make sure it has the optional KMD550 moving map. Great for situational awareness. G1000 can have traffic and many other options.

Fit and finish is outstanding and is a world away from the older models. There is more room in the Cessna over the Piper and having two doors is more convenient.

Before anyone jumps to the defence of the Piper, I have nothing against them. I owned an Archer for a while but Piper have not moved with the times as well as Cessna.

D.O.

[FANS]

Thanks

Is the archer still in production and how does its pricing compare?

Build quality is key to me.

[27/09]

FANS

Yes the Archer is still in production, and are very well equipped and finished.

In my experience having operated both types, that is C 172 and PA28, the PA28 is cheaper to run

DON't OVERFILL

The new 172's are very nice, however I don't agree that Piper hasn't moved along as far as Cessna.

I'll think you'll find an Archers cruises faster than the C172, and for the same power settings the fuel burn is the same. Fuel injection is good but doesn't give better fuel consumption. With the faster cruise the Archer will have a better mpg than the Cessna.

True, fuel injection offers advantages so far as carb icing goes but then I've never had a carb ice problem when flying an Archer IFR. So far as hot starting goes I've seen many many people have problems hot starting an injected C172. The problem in most cases is incorrect technique but is still there just as it can be for poor technique on a carby engine.

STEEP TURN

I'd suggest the corrosion problems you talk of can apply to any aircraft not just Piper. Older Pipers were generally better corrosion proofed than the same vintage Cessnas. There's more than one or two Cessnas that have been abandoned dues to the costs of complying with the SIDS programme.

Your hail damage comment is hard to fathom. I don't see why the outcome should be any different based on the makers plate fitted to the airframe. Plus hail damage, no matter the aircraft type can be "repaired" just by filling the dents and repainting.

[9 lives]

Indeed corrosion can attack any aircraft, and Cessnas which are not primed inside (most American ones) are particularly susceptible. However, my experience developing approved repairs for corrosion damage has shown that generally, Cessna parts can be made or repaired, and Cessna provides ample data as to how. That data is approved data for those repairs. I have found that Piper is very much less likely to make that data available, and to make matters worse, where Cessna defines "negligible damage" (meaning that you don't have to repair it) Piper seems not to - so any damage must be repaired.

Then you look a the structure of a PA-28 series. Some very important parts (like the wing spars) are special extrusions. Piper will not sell them, and there are no others "out there" so if yours are corroded, the plane is scrap. I have declared two Arrows scrap for this, and one still sits three years later, un moved from the same tiedown spot I inspected it in. Were it to have been a Cessna, if Cessna could not sell you the parts, their manual already told you how to make them, and they are mostly folded sheet metal - many fewer extrusions.

I was asked to develop a repair for a corroded Seneca II. Piper refused to support the plane with parts, and told me so directly: [Piper to me]"Sir, that's a 40 year old plane. We have not seen it for forty years, and we don't want it in the air any more, so we will not be selling any parts for it". With that, I would not buy a legacy Piper - it could really be stuck in the future.

As for hail damage, I can assure you that filling dents is not approved for some parts of the plane. Repair (skin replacement) on a Piper would be required. I was able to save a PA-28-161 from being scrapped for hail damage, by developing a "repair". Some skins replacement and allowance for leaving some dents un repaired. It cost 35% of the value of the aircraft to return it to service following the hail damage - but I did it for the client.

I like planes which have a great future in being repairable, if necessary.

[27/09]

STEEP TURN

I know of one Piper that had the hail dents legally repaired by filling and repainting. I also know of Piper making new parts for 40 year old Pipers.

Things are not as grim as you indicate.

Perhaps there are different interpretations of the rules in various administrations. It's my understanding that, in some jurisdictions at least, repairs can be made under Part 43 or equivalent that allow fabrication of parts using the originals as patterns.

I also find it hard to believe there were no second hand wings or spars that could not have been used to repair those Arrows.

However as the OP seems to be focusing on a new or near new aircraft this discussion on old aircraft is a moot point.

[Dan Winterland]

BPF, you missed the Skyhawk XP 6 cylinder rolls Royce engine with a constant speed prop.

And this one.

[FANS]

Thanks for all of the replies. I m focusing on the newer end but the replies around the older frames are still interesting given this will be an older frame at some stage.

I've also picked up on some points that a year's worth of magazine reading wouldn't have flagged, especially when those mags need the advertising £.

[27/09]

If you buy new or near new in good condition and look after it, i.e keep up the maintenance, keep it clean and keep that paint in good nick i.e keep the salt spray from being on the airframe for extended periods (you are in a maritime environment) and ideally keep it hangared or at least have a cover for it, no matter what you buy it will last you well.

I'd also consider regular (every three years or so) treatment with something like ACF 50.

By and large most horror stories come from aircraft that have been unloved and left outside to slowly rot away.

Remember also that both Piper and Cessna are unlikely to make radical airframe changes to the PA28 or C172 series. Both Piper and Cessna made major airframe changes to these series over 40 or more years ago but with the number they sell today it's very unlikely they'll make any further major changes. So long as these aircraft remain in production they will still be making parts for aircraft that go back 40 years or more.