What is the best all-round aircraft?

[Whirlybird]

This seemed like a good subject for discussion at least....

I just got back from touring Europe in a C150. Not ideal for this purpose - 80 kt cruising speed means it takes you ages to get anywhere in a headwind; under 4 hour endurance means you can't plan very long legs in that possible headwind; payload such that if we hadn't been two fairly light people the trip would have been impossible. I looked somewhat enviously at our occasional flying companions in their AA5A, and at the Longeze tied down next to G-ATKF when I got home to Sleap. But both of these types need long runways. And I'm only likely to go long distance touring once or twice a year; dropping into relatively short fields I might do more often than that (when I get back to really being current on f/w aircraft). So I started thinking....

We talk often about different types of aircraft for different types of flying - but what would be the best all-round aircraft? It would need a reasonable cruising speed, payload, and endurance for long trips, but still be able to get into short fields. It should be reasonably fun to fly - a C172 fulfils all of the above, and is as much fun as....dunno. It needs to be able to land in a stonking crosswind like we had at Southend, on the one runway that big airports usually have. It needs to be suitable for all sizes of pilot; at 5ft 2ins, I can't actually fly a C172 without loads of cushions, and that's neither comfortable nor safe on long trips. Realistically, it needs to be relatively inexpensive; I'd love to hear abour the £100,000 aircraft that fulfils all of the above, but if money was no object, I could get an MD500 helicopter, cruise at 140kts, and land on a postage stamp. So I'm thinking about something the average pilot could buy, or at least have a share in - in a group of not more than about 6, or taking it away for a couple of weeks might become difficult. If it could do aeros and things as well I suppose that might be nice, at least for the sake of the discussion, though personally that isn't my thing.

I can't be the only pilot who wants an aircraft that can do...everything. Does it exist? Any suggestions?

[Stampe]

The Robin DR400 series as simple as that.:ok:

[Big Hilly]

I'll second Stampes suggestion. The DR400 is well worth having a look at.

Regards

BH

[Chilli Monster]

Lots of people slate spam-cans, but in my years of having a share in a Warrior I found it great. Took it into short grass strips, toured Europe. Stable IF platform. 5 hours endurance and loads of baggage space. No vices for the average or low-hours pilot, simple to maintain.

Having changed to an Archer I've no reasons to suspect that's going to be any different - same wing, just bigger engine. It's that wing that makes all the difference - I wouldn't want an earlier PA28 with the slab wing.

Other than that though - my choice would be the DR400 too.

[foxmoth]

If it could do aeros and things as well

Has to be either the Pup150 or the Fuji really - 4 seats, touring AND Aerobatic, though you won't get many bags in the Pup with 4 up!
Don't know the Fuji well enough to comment there though:cool:

[whatunion]

The best all round aircraft must be an airship but make sure they dont fill it with hydrogen!

[Whirlybird]

OK, tell me about the DR400...

Chilli Monster, PA 28 into short grass strips? How short? I thought it tended to float on for ever. Not that I've flown one much, and what I did was several years ago.

[Monocock]

Hey Whirls,

What about that lovely big 4 seat Yak 18?

Fast cruise
£40,000 to buy
Aerobatic
Beautiful
Metal
Holds value
Unique
Interior tailor made to buyers spec (so you could have special cushions made up with the Russian sickle and stars emblem on!!)

Trouble is, they tend to be too big to fit in most hangars!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yak-18, what's the running cost?

PA28 , I love mine, but it's a braver man (or far better pilot) than I who would contemplate routinely using anything shorter than 600m of grass - and personally I prefer 800.

G

[Chilli Monster]

Chilli Monster, PA 28 into short grass strips? How short?
Used to take mine into Derby for its maintenance often - no great problems. Operated out of Garston Farm for a week a couple of years back and never used more than half of the runway.
I thought it tended to float on for ever.
They do if you insist on flying the approach too fast - you just have to slow it down and realise that it won't drop out of the sky.

[TonyR]

At the moment I fly a TB20 for touring, fast, 6+ hours endurance and good on anything over 600 M.

I have just over 50 type in the log book and if I were to suggest one that you should buy it would be a Cessna Reims Rocket 172.

I hate the look of them, I hate flying them, I hate the smell of the cabin heater,

BUT they are probibly the best all round touring aircraft ever built. (and with the right driver good for 20+ knots crosswind)

You should pick up one for under £40,000.

Tony

[Crossedcontrols]

What about a Vans RV 6 or 7, 200mph and gets into 400M strips.
You can get recently built ones for half your budjet. Great viz, beautifull looking, low ongoing costs as it's a permit aircraft, but you can't use your instrument/night rating.
Serious grin inducing aircraft, don't know about it's handling of stiff croswinds, as I've only been a passenger in one.
They don't seem to depreciate, the biggest problem is getting hold of one.

CC

PS Little Gransden is a grass strip less than 600M where the flying school uses PA28's no probs.

[KCDW]

I'm researching this kind of a/c too at the moment. Criteria is similar, though I would phrase it as "cost effective all round a/c". Only criteria I would add would be to carry 4 reasonable sized adults at a push (say with half tanks).

My very short list is:

Jodel D140 - if you can find one, and a convenient hanger too.
Robin DR400
C172

I'm ruling out the PA28s as they don't quite have the load carrying capability.

At my local airfield - there's a C172 I like... ;)

[Monocock]

I'm ruling out the PA28s as they don't quite have the load carrying capability.

Ever had a go in a PA28 235 hp Charger? I think you'll change your mind as they make the bog standard 172 seem like a sewing machine!!!

They can lift their own weight out of a medium length grass strip so that means 4 adults, full fuel and a few suitcases full of Euros!!!

Mr Kray...:}

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Everyone's talking about practicality; what about FUN! A PA28 or a C172 might make the most sense, but they are more than tad yawny to fly, other than perhaps the landing, which is always intersting in any aeroplane.

I remember delivering Poet Pilot's C172 from Barton to Sleap last year. It was a pleasant flight on a summer's evening, my first in a 172 for many years (though I've loads of 172 time), and the Shopshire scenery was as enticing as ever. The landing was nice (I love those 40 degree flaps and that powerful elevator! - you can do a really good fully-held-off greaser, but few bother to), and Poet and I departed back to Barton in a club PA28.

Once again I was looking down at the lovely countryside, this time northbound. Poet offered me the controls, but why bother? The '28 is no pilot's aeroplane; in common with many of its type, it is soggy and unresponsive, and only really wants to fly straight and level - it's heart isn't in anything any more spirited, but it will do them if forced. I prefered to admire the view and leave the pudding-stiring to Poet.

Poet accepted my reluctance to swap the nice view (out of the side - Piper have ensured the pilot is not distracted by a forward view by mounting a bleedin great panel in the way - I think you are only supposed to fly this thing on instruments) for an unrewarding heave on unresponsive controls. "Quite so", said Poet. "I think there is a spitoon in here somewhere":)

Don't know about you lot, but I learned to fly 'cause I wanted to be a bird. That means instant, fun responses, in a machine that becomes an extension of yourself, not one you sit in and drive. I realise this is a personal view not shared by all, but any all-round aeroplane should at lest touch into these areas, even if it doesn't come close to such all-out fun machines as the L4 Cub, Yak52, Stampe, or Chipmunk (and many more I've flown or have yet to fly).

The Yak 18T is a possibility (Ghengis, it's a powerful aerobatic machine and won't be cheap to fly, but you get what you pay for). The Pup or Bulldog are also posibilities.

Surely, whatever we think should be the ideal all-round aeroplane, it should have an element of fun in being at least 'good to fly' and in some part, a 'pilot's aeroplane'.

The 172 and PA28 are not.

Vince

[Gertrude the Wombat]

One of those

<===

of course. You might have to move, however, if there isn't enough water where you live.

[Whirlybird]

Vince,

I agree...well, I would wouldn't I, since I'm a helicopter pilot by inclination; just can't afford to fly them any distance now unless I get paid. It's why I'm just not attracted to the C172, apart from the fact that if I can't see over the cowling and reach the pedals without a cushion collection. Some of the other suggestions are interesting though - keep' em coming. :ok:

Just to make it even harder....

High wing is nice, so that you can look at the view.
All metal is nice, so that it can live outside.

As for the PA28, I refuse to fly anything where in an emergency I can't get out until after my passengers do - two doors please!

[Evo]

If I didn't need four seats, it would be easy - CAP10. Seriously great to fly, and will (according to FNG) take bags and go places. Then leave the bags behind, and ... wheeee! I've not yet flown an Extra, but when I do I rather suspect that I'd still go for the CAP10, in the same way that I'd pick a DB5 over an AMG SL55 :)

With 4 seats, I'd go for a DR400. I'm a huge fan of Robins, and the DR400 is a lovely aeroplane to fly. Unless I've just won the lottery, then it's probably a SR22 and DA40 shootout...

[TonyR]

Here (http://maules.com/MauleMX7Specs.htm) is another type that I had some fun in.

The Maule MX-7-180B, don't go for the nosewheel version they are only for sissies and don't fly as well.

Any big garden will do

Tony

[Arclite01]

I second the Beaver - but wheels, not floats for goodness sake.....


But maybe the poor mans Beaver - the Murphy Moose ?


Arc

[QDMQDMQDM]

Chilli Monster, PA 28 into short grass strips?

My most buttock-clenching moment this year was watching a Warrior almost fail to get out of Eggesford. Treat with care.

QDM

[Noah Zark.]

We (three chunky chaps & 3/4-ish fuel) regularly get out of Netherthorpe's uphill runway (24, check it out in your Pooley's) in an Archer 2.

[Tinstaafl]

Whirly, did the C172 you flew have a height adjustable seat? Makes a big difference if it didn't.

As for your question re good all rounder ie cruise with 4 pax, some bags, range & speed AND with 2 up fun for a basic aero yippee flight AND reasonable runway performance: The aerobatic version of the 33 model Bonanza.

Minus the aero bit then I'd go for a C210.

Both these a/c manage 160 kts x 50 or 60 lph. Good load carrying (more in the C210 of course) & good range. Pleasant to fly I think.

I like Cessna high wings for shade/shelter while loading & for bush operations.

Not sure what running costs would be like for these in the UK.

[LowNSlow]

How about the Grumman AA-5A? Faster than the equivalent C172 / PA-28, sliding canopy for ease if entry / exit, no junior airline pilot dashboard so good vis for those who have low verticallity ;) and, while they aren't aerobatic, they are much more fun to twizzle around than the equivalent Cessna / Piper.

For grunt out of short fields try a Reims Rocket which is basically a C172 with a 210hp engine and a wobbly prop.

Or if you want cheap and vintage try an Auster Aiglet. 4 seat (two are for teeny people) semi-aerobatic (+4.5 / -2.5g) and fun to fly.

[KCDW]

Forgive me for being a Cessna monomaniac here, but Spam Cans are getting some harsh criticism.

Given Whirlys' new criteria - how about a....

Cessna 170!!

Here are the stats:

http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane297.shtml

And here is a piccy:

http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/2336.JPG

All the characteristics of a 172 but with tailwheel fun and practicality to go with it.

Problem is finding one...

Ghengis: - point taken re the Charger/Dakota PA28s, but I was assuming a cheaper option.

[TonyR]

KCDW,

You have a point a C170 is a nice aircraft but a tad underpowered that's why I suggested a reims rocket 172.

I do not like flying Cessna aircraft, I have about 1100 hours on (140 - 206 ) type, (best fun is the 185) and have just got fed up with them.

BUT, if I was planning another big trip with my family I would still take a 182 cause there is NO safer 4 seat single.

Tony

[Flyin'Dutch']

Maule.

Had ours now for just 2 weeks; done about 15 hours in it and had a lot of fun so far.

No problem operating it out of 400m but will equally cruise at 120+ KIAS.

High wing and 3 doors, fantastic load capacity, with the long range tanks (not see without them yet) great endurance.

If you are not keen on a tailwhell go for the nosewheel, similar performance.

The beast felt well at home at Sleap last week.

FD

[Whirlybird]

Keep 'em coming. The question was partly hypothetical, but I might have a windfall in a year or so, and if I do.....

[javelin]

EVO, I too like the CAP 10 but with the latest round of problems with spars etc, I wouldn't want to be pushing and pulling too much !

Closer to home I think, my all round aircraft would be a 160hp Decathlon with the metal spar fit. No inspection problems, great vis, great performance, wobbly prop for aeros, good into and out of strips, quick enough on cruise, loads of space in the boot ;)

[High Wing Drifter]

As good as the AA5 is (and very good they are too) it is not the best. The AA5A lacks too much grunt. The Tiger would be a contender if it were aerobatic.

I agree with Foxmouth that the Fuji FA200 is one of the most versitile aircraft out there. Prehaps a little slow for a 180hp VP but still combines true 4 up touring , basic aeros AND good short field...so I read.

Being Japanesse it is probably made for smaller people too. One for Whirly prehaps?

I believe some parts are shared with the Beech Sundowner. Not sure about the name, just seems to be in the back recesses of my memory for some reason.

[Monocock]

To change the tack.....

If I could buy any a/c for any price at the mo' it would be the new Husky.

Comments.....

[TonyR]

The new Husky, now thats a real aeroplane. I have looked at them this past two years at Aerofair and hope to go and try one soon.

If any one out there has the funds, you can keep it at my strip for free (if you let me fly it)

[Evo]

javelin - completely agree, a Citabria or Super Decathlon would come a close second to the CAP10 (isn't the 'C' free from wing problems, or is there something I haven't heard about?). I was having a look at a new Super Dec yesterday, very nice aeroplane indeed.

Like the look of the Husky as well, but it doesn't go upside down.

:)

[Potter1]

Husky, very nice aircraft, a modern Super Cub, with big bouncy tyres!

8 GPH, a little thirsty but what the heck. Off the ground within 100M can't be bad!

P....:O

[FNG]

Javelin, get the Cap 10 C (or a B to C conversion) and forget all about spar niggles (which may be partly prolonged by the manufacturer's keenness to sell the C now). The C carries more than the B as well. Good for touring if you like to pack a squishy bag or two on the rear shelf: no golf clubs or wine crates.

[Brooklands]

I'm surprised that TonyR is the only person to have mentioned the 182 so far. Its an excellent touring machine, with good short-field capabilites. It will carry four adults AND full fuel. The retractable version has a sensible cruise speed as well.

The only downside I can see is that Whirly will need even more cushions - it does seem to have been designed with 8' tall Texans in mind :(

Brooklands

[BlueRobin]

I've just gone through the same process setting up a group though we did falls on our laurels with regard to the set up.

Whatever it is, make sure there is good parts support so that rules out a lot of the above. You will make your engineer's life so much easier and his estimation of you will go up leaps and bounds for it.

Maule (30-40k) and Pacer/Tripacer(c.20k) are cheaper than yer average C172. The savings you make on these though may be squandered if you have to pay for pricy hangarage though.

Next to suggest a hard-to-purchase PFA type gets lynched ;)

[TonyR]

Have a look at this (http://www.newglasair.com/sportsmanspecs.html)

Glastar Sportsman 2+2, there is a feature in the june AOPA PILOT mag.

I want one.

Tony

[A and C]

If you think that hangarage is money squandered I can tell you that even at the prices paid in the London area you will not save money in the long run by keeping the aircraft outside.

The paint on the aircraft will last two to three times longer in the hangar , keeping the moisture out of the avionics and corrosion can account for thousands of pounds over the years.

I can't put a price on not having the inside of the aircraft smelling like a cabbage patch when the damp gets into the trim but I can only guess it is in the thousands !.

The long and the short of it is that you must choose who you want to give your money to the airfield owners for hangarage or the engineers who will have to put in the extra work to keep an aircraft that lives outside up to scratch.