Your favourite aerobatic training aircraft?

[moosp]

I'm a little off bandwidth here but let me explain.

The Hong Kong Aviation Club is looking to buy an aerobatic training aircraft. T'commitee has short listed three aircraft from which the members shall make their choice. They are;

Robin R2160
Zlin 242L
Slingsby T67

As the choice seems somewhat limited, and not all of the members are named Hobson, I wondered what other aircraft you folks that know would suggest, given the usual constraints of an aviation club.
Such constraints as,

1) Moderate pilot experience levels, but a desire to improve to higher levels.
2) Adequate, but not bottomless pockets.
3) Moderate engineering cover, such that complex composites may be beyond the engineers remit.
4) Tail wheel versus nose wheel.
5) New versus used.

Any advice or direction would be welcome from this member of the club who would like to vote in the poll but is not up on the knowledege of the best equipment around.

[hugh flung_dung]

For club use the choice is very limited: T67C/M are OK but Z242s and R2160s are very limited - what you need is a Bulldog.

It just so happens that G-BULL (known as HKG5 when it was previously resident in Hong Kong) is for sale with about 3800 airframe hours, a recently zero timed engine, dual panel, VOR/ADF/DME/TXPDR - it even still has the Hong Kong "livery".
PM me for more details.

Edit: (BTW, ferrying to Hong Kong would not be a problem)

HFD

[NinjaBill]

I'm a little off bandwidth here but let me explain.
The Hong Kong Aviation Club is looking to buy an aerobatic training aircraft. T'commitee has short listed three aircraft from which the members shall make their choice. They are;
Robin R2160
Zlin 242L
Slingsby T67
As the choice seems somewhat limited, and not all of the members are named Hobson, I wondered what other aircraft you folks that know would suggest, given the usual constraints of an aviation club.
Such constraints as,
1) Moderate pilot experience levels, but a desire to improve to higher levels.
2) Adequate, but not bottomless pockets.
3) Moderate engineering cover, such that complex composites may be beyond the engineers remit.
4) Tail wheel versus nose wheel.
5) New versus used.
Any advice or direction would be welcome from this member of the club who would like to vote in the poll but is not up on the knowledege of the best equipment around.

I've flown the T67M-160, Nice a/c but slightly underpowered, tends to loose height in a basic sequence, well it did for me when i flew it in my hamfisted way, but ig you can get an ex-jefts one, they are fantastically equipped. Seems quite heavy in roll

Robin 2160 - I didnt like the way the engine splutters if you have -ve G for more than about 2 seconds. Odd yoke made into a stick controls.

One other a/c to throw into the pot. How about at Cap10. not the B model with more ADs than you can shake a stick at, but a remanufactured one, with the carbon fibre spar. A really nice aircraft to fly, a lot more aerobatically capable than the firefly or robin, but a taildragger, so a little more difficult to land. Doesnt handle crosswinds as well as the first 2, but Im not sure how many runways you have, so I don't know how much of an impact this will have.

NB

[18greens]

What about the old american favourite, the Decathalon. Nice benign handling good power and a taildragger for those conversions. A bit more sprightly than the T67. The bulldog is a worthy contender with similar performance to the T67 (700fpm as I recall). A 260hp T67 is quite sporty.

The CAP10 is a good tip. What about a yak 52, cheap and reliable.

And theres the cessna 150 aerobat, anyone should be able to maintain that.

[BEagle]

All T67s have woeful roll rates! The glider wing is a big disadvantage if you wish to teach anything involving rolling with aileron; watch any T67 display and you'll see plenty of looping and flick manoeuvres, but little in the way of 'classic' rolling manoeuvres.

Of your 3, both Robin 2160i or Zlin 242 have good reputations!

[slim_slag]

Probably no real 'best' answer but at the end of the day what one would consider for a training aircraft boils down to personal preferences. Only real rules I would apply is it has to have a stick and it has to have a tailwheel. For training purposes you would want a constant speed prop as it makes like so much easier and probably safer for those who are only flying for fun. Then what sort of wings do you want? For me, you cannot beat a biplane, and for style it has to be open cockpit, you have to consider the impression you want to make on the ladies when you take them for a spin. Then what sort of power, an overpowered beast like a Pitts may be an absolute delight to roll, but that big engine also makes it easier to power out of mistakes. A lower powered machine means you have to fly the manouvers properly so makes you a better aerobatic pilot.

So, for a basic trainer that fits the above and will be well thought of when competing at the lower levels, a Great Lakes is a good choice. Quite cheap too, and not too tricky to land so it's not always in the shop after some weekend warrior takes it out. Nothing wrong with other suggestions above, just another option to think about.

[foxmoth]

I would also go with the Cap10, nice capable aircraft. Not sure about SSs thing with CS props, yes it can make things easier but it is also a good thing for people to learn on a fixed pitch aircraft so that they learn how to control the power in manouvers - depends a bit if they are just going to fly the same aircraft all the time or if they will fly others with Fixed pitch after - easy to go Fixed to CS, going the other way is when you can easily get an over reved engine.:uhoh:

[Say again s l o w l y]

Cap 10 for me any day of the week. (As long as all AD's have been complied with....)

Of your list, probably the Robin, though their build quality is atrocious, I've never flown a zlin, though I've heard good reports.
T67, comments the same as others before. A nice machine, but nothing particularily special. It's qualities are also dependant on which engine you have fitted.

A tail dragger would always be my first choice even for students. (It is convential gear after all!) It gives the club an added dimension for training and hire.
For a basic to intermediate aero's trainer, I would use a fixed pitch prop as well, for the reasons outlined by foxmoth.

A CAP10 will do all you want and more plus it is an absolute delight to fly. Definately one of my top 5 a/c.

[moosp]

Thank you all for your replies.

The CAP 10 sounds a good idea, and we have had a privately owned one here for a while, which was very popular. Unfortunately there is a strong aversion to tail wheel amongst the committee. We do have a crosswind situation but no more than many places, but I do like the added dimension for a club of being able to teach and experience tailwheel.

Yak, lovely but big first registration problems here. We might look at a Nanchang from next door...

Decathlon and Great Lakes are good left field ideas too.

I guess what the world needs is a new-build, moderate performance, agile aerobatices trainer, which can be used as a lead in to the more exotic competition machines.

[WrongWayCorrigan]

Forget about roll rate etc, P, which of the above has the best survival expectation when crashed into a fence and / or van?:}

[moosp]

Ooooh I resemble that! The truth hurts :ooh:

Maybe the Nanchang is the way to go. The fence would have come off the worse...

[Dan Winterland]

I've flown all three of your prospective aircraft. Here are my thoughts.....

T67: Not an ideal aerobatic aircraft as you have probably realised from flying the current club T67. You need the more powerful versions to get the best out of the airframe. I never liked it much.

R2160: Delightful handling but again a bit limited due to low power. Will struggle a bit in HK's hot climate.

Z242: A well made airframe but a bit heavy for it's 200HP. But it feels right and is superior to the Bulldog which it looks like. Aerobats well thanks to it's Zlin heritage.

Others....

Bulldog: Expensive to maintain, heavy and could do with more power. But a reasonable aerobatic aircraft. I flew them in the RAF and was never a big fan. I much preferred the Chipmunk which it replaced.

CAP10: Lovely aircraft, my favourite of the lot. However, it's god a wood wing with fabric covering which will suffer in HK's heat and humidity. Also it's a taildragger and the possibility of it being bent by a pilot who's a bit short of currency (a real problem with the HKAC I gather) will be a hanicap.

Cessena Aerobat: Horrid - don't consider it!




And as for the C6. Yes! I haven't flown one but know people who have and they love it. Better than a Yak and should be cheap to maintain. But heavy on the gas. And if you leave it in PLA colours, they may not realise it's a club aircraft and won't stop you flying so much!

I will join the club myself if you get one!

[Rotorbiggles]

Our slingsby has a fantastic roll rate....... though a little twitchy in the circuit cos its only got one wing. :ooh:

Also open cockpits are out of the question without oxygen due to the pollution in Hong Kong.

Mr Biggles

[DB6]

T67M-260 - superb aerobatic trainer, will get to 10000 ft in 10 mins, if you get an ex-JEFTS machine it will be fully IFR kitted so you can fly your sequence then an ILS back in. You can get them with aircon (Royal Jordanian AF has them) and they have a useful 25 kt crosswind limit and will handle a lot more - or so I'm told. Roll rate is not lightning fast but not as bad as BEagle would have you think ;) - he's just an old Bulldog man.
Do get the 260 though, the rest won't cut it at HK.

[moosp]

This is great stuff guys, many thanks.

I have now received a missive from the club saying that the 2160 has a variable pitch prop so they will not entertain it, and have reduced the option to the other two.

Is the variable pitch prop standard on the 2160 i ? And if so, would that put you off for a club aircraft? I personally feel that the complexity is good to have, to help develop skills in the club. The last variable I flew was a Mooney in Oz a couple of years ago and I do not think that VP would be too much of a challenge for the PPL pilots we have in the club.

I spent an interesting conversation yesterday with a UK instructor/examiner who has flown many aerobatic types and he felt that the 2160 i (emphasis on the "i" for injection to prevent Ninjabill's negative G point) would make a good machine, especially if it was the New Zealand build job. No longer the Robin, but now the Alpha, it looks a neat machine. The Alpha 160AI has a fixed pitch prop.


Thanks again for your inputs

[foxmoth]

the 2160 has a variable pitch prop

Certainly not on the ones that I flew - generally a nice capable entry level aeros machine, but I would still opt for the Cap.:ok:

[Dan Winterland]

And the Z242 does!

[turnarounds]

CT/4E Airtrainer
The CT/4E at a glance
Seating for 2, with an optional third seat.
Side by side real time instruction and feedback
Max Takeoff 2,600lbs, empty 1,750lb
Cruise @ 150kt
Textron Lycoming, 300hp AEIO 540 piston engine
Rate of climb 1,830 ft/min

http://www.aerospace.co.nz/gallery/Thumbs/CT4/CT44i.jpghttp://www.aerospace.co.nz/gallery/Thumbs/CT4/CT43i.jpg http://www.aerospace.co.nz/gallery/Thumbs/CT4/CT47i.jpghttp://www.aerospace.co.nz/gallery/Thumbs/CT4/CT45i.jpg
The CT/4 range combines powerful performance with outstanding flight control and dynamics, to create a highly capable aerobatic aircraft. Used for pilot screening right through to advanced flight training, they are also sought after for aerobatic and precision flying displays. The all metal construction and rugged design, ensure they withstand the daily rigours of training without compromising costs or performance

[asw28-866]

And how much is a CT4/E????!!! Can afford a squadron of some of the other types mentioned here for the price. As for the Yak/Nanchang comments, my 2 cents, the Yak52 is a much better aerobatic aircraft. If you are looking for a warbird style cruising machine then the CJ6 is fine. For serious aeros the Yak leaves it for dead.

However, I would question the viability (local production aside for the Nanchang) for either type in club usage unless flown regularly.

The Decathlon should be a serious consideration, great fun aircraft and capable aeros mount, with the added benefit of a tailwheel.

ASW28

[hugh flung_dung]

Why are they worried about a VP prop? It (almost) eliminates the risk of an expensive overspeed, leads to easier aeros and gives better takeoff performance - all for just a small increase in complexity. Is it fear of the unknown?
When we were looking for an aerobatic aircraft for club use I looked at all the certified types, this list is based on memory so I may have missed a couple:

Cessna Aerobat - cheap but dreadful to fly and fixed pitch
Z242 - nice but they had operational limitations at the time
T67C/M - nice, slowish roll rate
R2160 - didn't like it, fixed pitch and I don't think it was approved for flicks
Cap10 - very nice and able but fixed pitch and doubts about survivability in club usage: stepping on flaps, wood/fabric, gear attaching to spar
Decathlon - able but it's just not the same with the wing on top in aeros, especially from the back seat
Bulldog - nice handling, wide appeal, metal and a good all round compromise
Pitts - very able and precise handling but doubts about survivability in club use because of the landing "challenge"
Extra - too expensive and too big a step

The "also rans" were: Pup, Citabria, Chipmunk, Z512, Moth, Stearman, Fuji - all are either not fully aerobatic or have big limitations.

If you don't need a certified aircraft then there is a much wider choice including all the homebuilts (RVs, Acrosport, Starduster, Eagle, etc) and ex-mil (CJ6, YAK52, etc) but concerns about maintenance or fuel consumption may rule these out for club use.
HTH
HFD

[WrongWayCorrigan]

Hugh Flung Dung, now there's someone who likes the sound of his own voice. The original question pertained to three very specific types under consideration by an aero club in the Far East and was not an invitation for you to show off how much you know about aeroplanes; what an anorak you are.:D

[Mad Girl]

As the choice seems somewhat limited, and not all of the members are named Hobson, I wondered what other aircraft you folks that know would suggest, given the usual constraints of an aviation club.

Any advice or direction would be welcome from this member of the club who would like to vote in the poll but is not up on the knowledege of the best equipment around.

Suggest YOU go back and re-read the original post as he's asking for what "other" aircraft instructors would suggest.

As for HFD - He does know, as he's had to assess and help a club with the same decision - What experience do you have in these matters as you don't seem to want to say??

Why don't you wander over to JETBLAST where I'm sure you'd be received warmly.

[slim_slag]

You beat me to it Mad Girl, excellent answer by HFD.

moosp, how did the committee arrive at it's short list? What were the original selection criteria? You want to avoid a situation where some people in a position of influence decide they want a certain plane and they will get the rank-and-file to pay for it. If you get something too hard to handle and you spend all your time getting recurrent checkouts then you will not get into the air yourself, then you will get bored. The goal is to fly the plane yourself and not with an instructor. More hours in the air, the lower the hourly rate. One poster seemed to suggest that currency was not a big thing in this club, and some of the suggestions might suit the very capable pilots who are posting on this thread, but not the target audience.

[hugh flung_dung]

WWC:
:ouch: that seems a little harsh and doesn't actually contribute to the discussion - 'bad day at the orifice?
I answered the OP's question, based on going through a similar process myself a few years ago; do you have anything more constructive to contribute, from your experience?
HFD

[kluge]

Moosp - I have flown R2160 and CJ6 - not just joy rides.

Comments: R2160 VP - never head of it. Always FP in my experience.
Do some research on Sydney Aerobatic School - Bankstown Sydney. They have been operating R2160s for years. The owner will give you experiencied opinions on operating this type of a/c in the aero training role. Including -ve g fuel starvation through spinning - air start recoveries no problem.

CJ6: Beautiful to fly. Bit advanced for the early training role though IMO.
Tandem seating makes it difficult to teach attitude flying (if trainee is in rear) and relative stick postions. All controls are fullt duplicated in rear. IMO side-by-side is eaiser to instruct and better for the student. Compared to R2160 operating costs will be higher - retracts, VP prop, radial, full etc.

Have been 'trying to get hold' of Uncle charlie for a while ! Turns out that one of the owners has gone AWOL and in uncontacable or maybe its reluctance to sell as I;d like to export it to NZ.

Please feel free to PM me as we're HK neighbours.

K

[HappyJack260]

Chipmunk - lovely to fly but serviceability on a 60 year old aircraft won't be the best. A bit low powered and limited in performance, especially in tropical heat.

Robin 2160 - responsive, does flick (keep it below 2 x stall speed to avoid rolling G exceeding limits). Airstart not a problem, conventional gear, but whilst climb rate is reasonable (typically 1100 - 1200 fpm in Sydney) they'll also struggle a bit gaining altitude and recovering height between manoeuvres in tropical heat). OTH, Alpha were talking about NZ$170 (I think) which is pretty reasonable for a new plane. Lack of CSU not a problem - you just need to adjust throttle by ear in manouevres to prevent overspeed.

Pitts S-2C - Fantastic to fly, and will double up as a great scenic flight/joyride machine to get the usage up to further help amortise fixed costs per hour. Capital costs are higher $200USD + new but you can get a nice low time used one for around $160 - $180.

It is a big improvement in landing compared to easier models. 260hp means that performance unlikely ever to be a problem and means that cost per manoeuvre is about as low as you can get. Costs more to run than a Robin - but aren't you HK'ers all paid a fortune anyway? And see comments on hourly fixed costs amortisation!

We've been operating one in the Sydney area for joyrides and training for a year with very few problems - it looks fantastic and really pulls in the punters. If you can get down down to Oz and want to come ad try one out and discuss usability commercial/flying training ops, send me a PM.

See http://www.airborne-aviation.com.au/aircraft/ for copy of aircraft information booklet/POH.

[moosp]

Happy Jack thanks for that. I think that the Pitts might be a bit too advanced for the club, being tail wheel and having a reputation for needing a close eye kept on it. There was one here many years ago (20?) which went down with one of the owners and we are still a bit gun shy of them.

But as I come down to Bankstown reasonable often I may well drop you a line to try one out, as I never have!

Oh and SlimSlag I think you got it in one with your comments, but referenda are not part of the political culture here. ;)

[Runaway Gun]

As the new 300hp CT4E probably costs a small fortune, please consider use of a second hand CT4B model. Although not over-powered with it's 210hp engine, it's easy to fly, as tough as a brick, it's got two sticks, and it is fun to do aeros in (including inverted spinning). I never broke one!!

Whilst the Constant Speed Prop is a bother to some, the aircraft is also useful in being able to fly IFR, at night. An all-round great trainer, and if I bought a two seat aircraft, in would be one of these babies.

Nope, I don't sell them, but they are very popular in the 'warbird' market in Australia. Maybe the PAC (Pacific Aerospace Company) guys in Hamilton, New Zealand may have leads on good used models....

[Evalu8ter]

Flown the T67 in 160 and 200 forms, and it does roll like an afterthought without a generous boot of rudder, but I was always comparing it to the 'Dog as well! In 160 form it's a bit breathless. While were on the subject of aerobatic exotica, if the CJ6 or Yak 52 are not preferable due to tandem seating, how about a FW149? Rare, 4-Seat, retracts, I'm assuming aerobatic and not a bad looking aircraft. Saw one at Popham the other week and thought it quite delightful, now just need to find someone to lend me one....Or you could go the whole hog and get an SF260!

[turnarounds]

I believe the CT4B does not have a full CofA without very expensive modification, getting it passed HK CAA would be nearly impossible.

Ex Singapore Victa T6 would be ideal but same problem with CofA?

[djpil]

Two of the ex-RAAF CT-4's have a "full" CofA with all the mods but I doubt whether they'd be for sale at the moment. One of the later civilian production aeroplanes changed hands recently.
The T-6's have a CofA in normal & aerobatic categories with FAR 23 as the certification basis. Personally, I prefer the T6 over the CT-4.

[HappyJack260]

The SF-260 is a lovely aeroplane to fly but a lot more than you're likely to want in HK. You probably would not want or need 4 hours endurance and a 160 kt cruise, though it's fun for basic aeros. Good performance and nice controls, but you'd really want one with the injected engine and inverted systems and the larger rudder, and there you'd be up for US$250k - for which price you could have a Robin 2160 and a nice Pitts S2C.

[Zulu Alpha]

What about the Extra 200. Two seat, it has an IO360 200HP. Very capable, tailwheel and 35-40 litres per hour.

Quite a lot more capability than the CAP etc. 175,000 Euros

See
http://www.extraaircraft.com/ea200.asp

[Say again s l o w l y]

Oooh yes, get one of them!

I've been lucky enough to fly the 300 for a while and it is an absolutely fantastic machine, if a little hairy for low timers, but the 200 may well be a perfect compromise.

Now, where did I put that spare 175,000 euros? It's not down the back of the sofa. Must be in the car.......

[checkpointcharlie]

MOOSP

I've been operating a new Super Decathlon for the past 2 years now and have to say that I too considered all the options before buying. An honest appraisel is that we do approx 250hrs per year with hardly any down time. The c/s unit is a godsend and the view from the back not really that bad ! The aircraft is extremely robust,(+6/-5), a pussycat for tailwheel conversions and extremely capable. We routinely teach erect, high rotational and inverted spins, vertical rolls and inverted steep turns.(as well as all the basic stuff!!) The roll rate is about 120' per second and the ROC at Max towt 1300ft per min. It also cruises at 125 - 135 kts. As for the high wing, what's the problem ? Its a low wing when inverted !!

But rather than take my word for it ask Patty Wagstaff, Kirby Chambliss or Walter Extra what they think. You might have heard of them.

Have fun in choosing.