Buying a light aircraft

[Mad Girl]

OK....I've been in & out of the search engine and found lots of TOTALLY irrelevant stuff and very little about what I'm looking for - If I've missed something, please post a thread link. I have been all over the WEB reading bits and bobs but am trying to get something all in one place so I don't miss anything.

I'm looking at potentially buying an aircraft (preferably NEW) and setting up a small group - say 4-5.
I'm thinking VFR particularly, and NOT IFR flying. But, if there are any IFR options for the budget - throw them in.

Criteria:-
Must haves......
2 Seater, SEP(A) hr rated, Low wing (for preference), cruise speed 100 kts+, will be parked outside - not hangered (so preferably metal, as composites aren't proved long term). Max fuel burn 30lts/hr (I want to keep the hourly wet flying rate low). A demonstrated crosswind component of at least 17kts. Factory Built. Tricycle undercarriage.

Nice to haves:-
Rated for simple aerobatics - but not essential as I could always hire something to get the "need" out of my system - so don't get hung up on this - I don't expect the other group members to have the same "urge".

Budget £60 - £75k (£12.5 - £18.75k per head)

Please give suggestions, pointers to web pages for specs, prices etc, personal experiences - as I'm sure a lot of you will have tried them.

PLEASE keep within the budget & "Must Haves" - 'cos a Pitts special does NOT meet the criteria :{

I await pointers for my research - Thanks :ok:

[IO540]

#1 decision is whether you will ever need legal IFR.

If not, or if you are happy to fly in cloud enroute under "VFR" as much of Europe does anyway, then there are some very nice machines in what is variously called the "sports", "ultralight", "lightweight", "permit" categories.

The Aero 2007 show had hangars full of them. 140kt cruise, burning far less fuel that the one you are currently flying, IFR equipped (you don't ask "why" ;) ), and far cheaper than anything with a CofA. I am looking at a leaflet on an F-100 (http://www.uljih.cz)now, for example.

[London Mil]

For starters:

AT-3
Tecnam P2002

[Mad Girl]

I0540 said
"sports", "ultralight", "lightweight", "permit" categories.

Thanks I0540 - where's the price guide??.

I know about the above categories and have read up on the Technam(composite) and the AT3(metal) but can't find a WEB source that lists ALL the other alternatives.

YOU KNOW I'm green at this, hence the question to the forum because I just don't know where to look without spending the next 6 months of my life on the internet and then I'd probably miss loads of choices.

My few months of experience versus HOW MANY combined years on here???

Edited to add....Sorry London Mil - You posted as I was writing this.

[IO540]

I have never looked seriously at non-IFR types; of no use to me :)

Most of these lighter types use Rotax engines. You could contact Rotax and ask them who uses the engines, and go from there.

Most of the activity in this area happens in Europe, say Germany, Czech Rep, Austria, Italy.

[BackPacker]

Get a subscription to Flyer magazine and/or order a load of back issues. They test aircraft that fulfill your criteria almost every issue.

Personally, I'm impressed with the Eurostar although Tecnam does a few good aircraft too.

In my opinion, composites are good enough today for aircraft that have to remain outside all their life. It does require you to use UV-protective paint (which is standard anyway), and the only conceivable color you can use is white, but the main advantage is that composite can be shaped exactly like the computer says it need to be shaped for optimum aerodynamics. Whereas aluminium generally can only be bent into one direction. So if you're looking for 100 to 140 knots cruise on a Rotax 912S (100 HP) at somewhere between 11 and 18 liters per hour, composites are the way to go although there are exceptions.

Flyer June 2007: Alpi Pioneer 300: 500 hour advanced self-assemby kit, cruise 135 kt, empty 305 kg, mauw 530 kg, rotax 912s, approx 45000 UKP
In the same article, compared to a Tecnam P2002 JR (factory built), 73.000 UKP, same range, same engine, same speed.
Flyer August 2006: Liberty XL, cruise 132 kt, 483 kg empty, 795 mauw, Continental IOF-240-B, 149000 USD
Flyer summer 2006: CZAW Sport Cruiser, both available as self-assembly and factory-built, 24950 UKP + VAT
Flyer July 2002: Eurostar
Flyer Nov 2006: Grob 109B (motorglider)

[Pablo Martin]

Alpha (Robin) R2160A
2 seater, low wing, VFR only
160hp Lyc 0-320-D2A
Cruise approx. 120-130kts
Fully aerobatic +6 -3
30ltrs/hr fuel burn
18kts max demonstrated X/wind
Also great for XC, optional 160ltr tank.
Plus its a hell of a lot of fun to fly and looks sublime :cool:
http://www.mistralaviation.co.uk/aircraft/160.asp
www.alphaaviation.co.nz

:ok: Pablo

[Chimbu chuckles]

Look no further than an RV6a/7a or 8a.

2 seats
All metal.
Aerobatic +6/-3
VFR or IFR
170 kts
600+nm

Up and down in < 400m

http://www.vansaircraft.com/

Not factory built but you can buy a Quick Build kit and have it professionally built...they suggest 500-800 hrs labour to finish the QB...a pro would probably do it under 500 hrs.

Roughly US$32k for QB kit. 27k for the basic QB kit + 5k for the finishing kit.
+500 hrs labour..say US$20k.
engine and prop...say US$32k
Avionics/Instrument..say US$20k
Paint job....say US$6k
Interior....say US$2k

Prolly all up $110-120k

GBP55-60k ish?

RV 6 or 7 is my next aeroplane...but I like taildraggers. :ok:

A work collegue has just finished building a RV6 with his wife...he RAVES about it.

[Mark 1]

I agree with the RV sentiment, but in Europe they will be day/VFR limited (what they are capable of is another matter).
The RV-9 trades aerobatics for a huge payload.
Forget the silly tricycle pre-occupation, and it's even better, less weight, drag, cost and maintenance and more robust on rough fields; all for a few hours conversion training.
A recently completed RV should also fit price-wise.

[IO540]

In the present market, one almost can't give away a used plane. There has been a big change compared with say 3-4 years ago and prices actually being paid are way less than what you see advertised. You can buy a TB20GT (that's year 2001 onwards) with say 500hrs for a little over £100k; that's how "bad" things are, and that is a really good quality machine.

£75k can buy a lot in the used market, although for an application where legal IFR is not required I would not spend that sort of money on refitting a used spamcan. I'd get one of the modern "sports" planes; they have a far lower running cost.

I flew in an RV8 recently. It's OK but ..... hmmm .... rather basic! There are little holes everywhere and it's very draughty. It handles very nicely but one cannot pretend it's a go-places plane. Le Touquet is about it unless you are a hard case ;)

[tangovictor]

, will be parked outside - not hangered (so preferably metal, as composites aren't proved long term).

I thought the same, so, I went and asked the people that know all about composites, " Glider owners " I was shown a glider that had been outside with NO covers, for 11 years, admittedly it was polished once a year, however no long term damage caused by leaving it out in all weathers,

[shortstripper]

I flew in an RV8 recently. It's OK but ..... hmmm .... rather basic! There are little holes everywhere and it's very draughty. It handles very nicely but one cannot pretend it's a go-places plane. Le Touquet is about it unless you are a hard case

I dread to think what you'd think about my open cockpit, taildragging, 60 knot Slingsby T31m then? :eek: .... Then again, I doubt you'd be seen dead flying such a backward crate ;)

The RV range are super, and very "go places" for non IFR. How can anyone say otherwise? Anything capable of 200mph is IMHO pretty useful for touring and funnily enough many seem to be the choice of ATPL's for flying outside the "office", so can't be bad? A full IFR equipped aircraft in your price range would be pretty cr@p in comparison and probably even less worthy of the "I'm considerably wealthier than you" IO540 :ugh:

SS

[London Mil]

Oooooooh, what I would give for a RV8. Go places? I would go a very long way!

[Mark 1]

Le Touquet is about it unless you are a hard case
I must be a hard case then.
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t50/alberym/portimao%20snaps/DSC_0084.jpg
Me at Easter (not Le Touquet)
Look up Jon Johannson or Manuel Queiroz for the seriously armour plated RV pilots (4 circumnavigations between them)

[Mad Girl]

Now now boys - no personal attacks please !!!!

I would love to go up in your open cockpit, taildragging, 60 knot Slingsby T31m . But then again - I'd love to go up in just about anything that flys (right way or wrong way up). :D

But....If I could get an IFR equipped airplane for the budget - I'd probably go for it. :p

What I've noticed at my club, and it's probably the same at many others, is that a lot of people fly less once they've got their PPL because they haven't got a huge budget to fly every month........in disposable income.
My club has set up groups on C42 microlights so that people can buy in very cheaply - but more importantly the monthly STO and hourly flying rate is very low. (about £60pm and £35p ph).
More hours of fun for less money than hiring a school PA28 (£100 ish solo). i.e. 2 hours a month of a school airplane (2*£100) versus 4 hours in their own (£60pm + 4*£35).
Only problem with the aircraft is that it's a microlight (& fairly slow) and won't maintain your currency hours - therefore I'm looking specifically at "A" rated aircraft but with the same low running costs.

The capital involved is more than the groups above because I only want committed flyers in it with me - But it's no worse than taking out a loan for a decent car. If someone sold their share - if the airplane has been maintained well - they should be able to get most/all/more of their money back - just like if you sold the car. So the capital outlay shouldn't really be the issue.

What's important to me is the lower running costs to make it more affordable if you want to fly A LOT, and therefore this type of group should be easier to set up.

I'm actually not doing this just for me (but I'm not loaded.... so I can't just buy the aircraft outright and let people fly it at the monthly and per hour rates) - I'd like to see more people up and about than they may be able to afford any other way - including me.

Personally - I will be doing my IMC at sometime in the future, I may also do a taildragger conversion (because it will be good for my feet), and I'll always have some aeros in the mix.

But this aircraft needs to be suitable for a "bog standard", "normal" PPL (if there is such a thing) who just wants to fly and do a bit of touring, and isn't necessarily interested in doing more advanced ratings.

Hence......Tricycle undercarriage, metal for ruggedness (lots of grass strips around here), factory built (because I don't want to build it), and probably VFR only (although, as I said....if I can get IFR as well...then I'll get it for me - 'cos it will keep my PERSONAL training costs down ).

I haven't got as wide a choice as I expected yet, so please keep them coming. :ok: Anyone got anything on the US light sports category??

[shortstripper]

I would love to go up in your open cockpit, taildragging, 60 knot Slingsby T31m . But then again - I'd love to go up in just about anything that flys

That comment was pointed at IO540, not you Madgirl :ok:

However, your comment on currency is very pertinant. My aeroplane is slow (but then so am I :\ ) but now my only limit on flying, is time and weather. It costs me around £20/hr based on 50 hours a year, but as it looks like I'll probably pass 100 hours this year, the cost will be around £18/hr (which is basically little more than fuel). If I were you, I'd seriously look at a capable PFA type (like the RV, perhaps not a T31 :p) because what you loose in IFR capability, you more than make up in hours per pound and therefore currency. It's all very well flying IFR capable aircraft at almost twice the hourly rate, but if you can only "just" keep current flying instruments you will be in far less likely to go places than by being "very" current in something like an RV. No contest!

SS

[BlueRobin]

I did 400nm the other week in a Robin R2160 to Wales and back, loving every minute of it. Have you put one on your shortlist, MG?

[IO540]

I don't see why a point of view on aircraft type should descend into a personal attack on the person's alleged wealth, etc. Pprune has a bit of a reputation for stupid pointless aggression and there are always a few people lurking who dive in to make sure this reputation is well earned. The rest of the time, we can have a reasonable debate on something... Let's not turn this into some other forum where meaningful debate went out of the window long ago.

There is always somebody who will happily fly a draughty plane with water leaking in when it rains and I have no problem with that. In fact Aero 2007 had a hangar full of totally open flying machines and clearly there is a market for them; the whole helmet/goggles thing. However, somebody else is entitled to comment on the practicality of something like that. And you can get a modern "light" plane that doesn't leak and has a heater that works.

[RV6]

A work colleague has just finished building an RV6 with his wife...he RAVES about it.
I think I might be the aforementioned wife! Chuck, beware advising people about getting an RV built by a "pro" - chequebook building is definitely illegal in Oz, though not so in South Africa. I don't know the situation in UK but I think they have to abide by the "51% rule" ie you must build more than half of it yourself.

Mark1 What a great photograph! And how good to see I'm not the only one to paint the RV bright red. I'm sure she flies a few knots faster now!

MG I understand that you don't want to build your aircraft, but the above posters make some good points in favour of the RV series. Buying a well built (and well documented) RV could be your answer - relatively cheap to run, not too hard to fly and sooo much fun compared to the PA28 or C172! And Chuck's right - the taildraggers are the best! (IMHO)

[Rod1]

IO540

When you fly a factory built aircraft, which is to full factory speck, and it is droughty, noisy and horrible it is reasonable to criticise the design and assume all are the same. You have taken one example of a home built and assumed all are the same. Some RVs are built light, striped out basic and are low on the walnut and leather but have extra performance. Other aircraft of the same design will have full mod cons and no leaks. This is before we take into account the different levels of skill with regard to build quality. It is perfectly possible to build an RV8, which is a very good touring aircraft (except for the fuel burn) and a better touring platform than the standard factory touring aircraft in regular use on the flight line.

One of the advantages of a hombuilt is you can tailor it to your individual requirements. My panel layout is non-standard. Every instrument, every switch, is positioned exactly to my preference. I am fully aware that not all pilots would like the panel, or the aircraft, but I have tailed it to precisely what I wanted and it delivers. Please do not assume all home built aircraft are built exactly the same, this is one of the advantages of the breed.

Some of the people who have responded to your comments have built/are building some very good touring RV’s and have 1000’s of hours in such aircraft.

Rod1
(no personal attack intended);)

[Chimbu chuckles]

RV6:ok:

Interesting point you make....but what is the difference between buying a QB kit and handing it to a qualified person to build for you and the second hand RV market?

Not sure about current rules in OZ but MANY years ago another mate, who now flys for KA, worked in a hangar in MEL building Steen Slybolts for people who had the money but not the time, inclination or skills.

One of these days when I sell my Bonanza it will be instantly replaced with a RV7 or 8 QB kit....leafing through the RV website and seeing what is affordably available in the avionics, etc, etc department as well as the performance and economy it just makes so much sense for a private aircraft:ok:

As it stands, and while I LOVE my Bo, it has 3 times the seats I need 95% of the time and probably costs 3 times as much to run...and I can't loop or roll it.

[RV6]

Hi Chuck!
The difference is in the legalities. This is a bit of a thread hijack as Madgirl is asking about buying and operating an aircraft in UK - so may be we should continue this discussion via PM. However, in brief, in case it interests any one else - in Australia we have an Experimental category for non-certified aircraft, based on the American system. The UK has not implemented this, thus the RV series is treated differently in the two countries. In Oz, if I take my RV6 up and loop it and roll it etc in accordance with the designer's published limitations and then certify that it performed to those limits, then I can legally do specified aeros in it. In UK the PFA rules the roost and it is illegal to aerobat an RV6. Interesting cultural difference!
Your mate in the hangar in MEL building Skybolts was doing his own thing and since I don't know when that was, I can't comment on the legality of it. Under current OZ Experimental rules, the homebuilder is allowed to build for 'recreation and education' only, ie not for profit. It is illegal in OZ to hand your QB kit to someone and pay them to build it. If you do that, the builder holds the right to maintain it - not you. Will the builder be prepared to do that, or will you have to pay a LAME to maintain it? Will a LAME who doesn't know who built it be prepared to maintain it and sign off the MR? See the problem?? Legal liability in spades. If the person you paid to build it is "qualified" as you say - do you mean a LAME? Or just an experienced amateur builder? If a LAME then may be s/he will be prepared to maintain it for as long as they choose, but then...

That is the legal situation. The reality is different.. my argument as a new builder was, why can't I pay someone who knows what they're doing to build this for me - wouldn't it be safer? The answer is probably "yes" but the law doesn't recognise that. There are people in Oz who build RV's for customers, and good on them, I say, but they are breaking the law.

There's nothing to stop you buying a completed RV which the builder did not build 'for profit' but simply has decided s/he no longer wants. In this case,the original builder retains the right to maintain it, this does not pass to the buyer, regardless of whether the buyer has the skills and experience, so you are still up for the normal costs of professional maintenance.

Apologies for thread drift.

[Pilot-H]

Madgirl, Consider the Bulldog. Makes a good tourer (see this month's Flyer Magazine) and is Aerobatic. Certified so can be flown IFR. Ticks all the boxes if you can find one.

[shortstripper]

I apologise IO540 for what does essentially appear a personal attack. Most of the time, what you say makes very good sense and I accept it. However, you can't seem to help occasionally letting everybody know that you fly what most of us can only dream about (hence the ref to the Harry Enfield character). It gets a bit tedious frankly, especially when you degrade an aeroplane that fits Madgirl's requirements pretty much to the letter because it doesn't quite match your comfort expectations. If you can think of a better airfcraft that does all she wants for the money then let us all know. There might be one or two out there ... but not many.

SS

[Kiltie]

I agree with IO-540. I would rather go touring in a 140kt+ 4 seat spam can than an RV-8. And I have flown both. More room for luggage and the interior is generally more comfortably appointed with lower noise levels.

In my opinion (which IO-540 and I are entitled to, as you are yours) the RV is more of a fast exciting sports plane with crisp handling rather than a solid IFR tourer.

[Mad Girl]

pilot-h said
Madgirl, Consider the Bulldog. Makes a good tourer (see this month's Flyer Magazine) and is Aerobatic. Certified so can be flown IFR. Ticks all the boxes if you can find one.


Don't ask me about bulldogs :p

Ask any one at my club, or my instructor, or read some of my previous posts, and you'll know I love them. :D But......that's a personal thing!!!

AND...I also know what the running costs are..... so I know they fall WAY outside the original criteria. Certainly NOT 30 lph.

I could have bought one myself recently - one I adore - but it was too much even for me :{ and I don't think I could get a group going easily at my club as the STO and hourly rate were too much.

And....there goes my broken heart :{ :ugh: - any other suggestions???




Original Criteria..............
I'm looking at potentially buying an aircraft (preferably NEW) and setting up a small group - say 4-5.
I'm thinking VFR particularly, and NOT IFR flying. But, if there are any IFR options for the budget - throw them in.

Criteria:-
Must haves......
2 Seater, SEP(A) hr rated, Low wing (for preference), cruise speed 100 kts+, will be parked outside - not hangered (so preferably metal, as composites aren't proved long term). Max fuel burn 30lts/hr (I want to keep the hourly wet flying rate low). A demonstrated crosswind component of at least 17kts. Factory Built. Tricycle undercarriage.

I've taken the "Nice to haves" off now, as I think some of you are fixating on the aeros, despite being asked not to.......

[shortstripper]

Kiltie,

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as is IO540, but have you read the original post?

I'm sure a Gulfstream would be even better and I'd much prefer to tour IFR in one of those ... but it hardly fits the other criteria :rolleyes: (OK that's an extreme, sorry)

I'm looking at potentially buying an aircraft (preferably NEW) and setting up a small group - say 4-5.
I'm thinking VFR particularly, and NOT IFR flying. But, if there are any IFR options for the budget - throw them in.

Criteria:-
Must haves......
2 Seater, SEP(A) hr rated, Low wing (for preference), cruise speed 100 kts+, will be parked outside - not hangered (so preferably metal, as composites aren't proved long term). Max fuel burn 30lts/hr (I want to keep the hourly wet flying rate low). A demonstrated crosswind component of at least 17kts. Factory Built. Tricycle undercarriage.

Nice to haves:-
Rated for simple aerobatics - but not essential as I could always hire something to get the "need" out of my system - so don't get hung up on this - I don't expect the other group members to have the same "urge".

Budget £60 - £75k (£12.5 - £18.75k per head)

Please give suggestions, pointers to web pages for specs, prices etc, personal experiences - as I'm sure a lot of you will have tried them.

PLEASE keep within the budget & "Must Haves"

The RV fits all of her requirements, but they're not cleared for IFR in this country anyway. I agree, a nice four seat IFR equipped 182 or such like would be better and more comfy for a long IFR flight, but does it fit the other requirements? for £75K you could buy a pretty damn hot two seat VFR type, but a pretty poor IFR four seater.

SS

[Kiltie]

Must pay more attention. Terribly sorry if my comments wasted your time Mad Girl.

[IO540]

Well, the explanation of why an RV can vary so much according to how it was built (which of course I accept; I am a pretty proficient mechanical engineer too, with a workshop with a 0.001mm-accurate turret mill, a lathe, and loads of junk) doesn't appear to make it a good recommendation to the original poster who, to me, doesn't sound like a mechanical engineer (sorry MG if I misunderstood you ;) ).

Fixing things so the draught and water doesn't get in isn't going to make the thing any slower, so if you have all this, what other corners have been cut?

I've got only the most peripheral knowledge of homebuilts but I have seen the figures for the expected # of hours it "should" take and frankly it's obvious that very very few people have that much time and the tools and the mechanical expertise. I know many give up, after perhaps years. I bet a lot of the successful "builders" "borrow" "a friend" to "help" them :) This may be illegal but cannot ever be enforced or controlled, and IMHO the result will be a better job because the "friend" has probably "helped" to build a dozen already.

As I stated earlier, within a 75k budget I would not buy a traditional spamcan. Sure, you'd have a pretty good plane if you bought say a PA28-181 and spent 45k on it (totalling 75k) but you are still flying a ~ 30 year old airframe/engine and (I am assuming you have fitted a completely new instrument panel) the biggest source of suprise maintenance issues in this business is airframe parts. So you won't have low maintenance costs commensurate with the expenditure, and you will have a fuel flow rate which in MPG terms will be similar to a TB20.

For VFR, I would buy one of the new European-design composite planes. Most are Rotax 100HP or so, do ~ 130kt max cruise, are IFR equipped (again, I will get jumped on but it's jolly difficult to do decent long VFR trips without planning and executing them essentially as IFR), are very economical (some are even retractable, which is a good 20% further fuel saving), and can carry 2 with a few bags in the back.

[Rod1]

If we take IO540’s point and forget the factory built part of the specification;

MCR01 Club vp
100 hp Rotax 912
138kn at 75%
17 lph (mogas)
empty weight 250kg (mine is 253kg)
MAUW 290kg

Pioneer 300 vp/retractable
100 hp Rotax 912
135kn at 75%
17lph
empty weight 303kg
MTOW 530kg

(the fuel consumption stays the same – no difference retractable / fixed gear)

Second hand value of both is around £48,000 for a low hour version with IFR kit.

There are some MCR’s which can be kept outside, but I would not do it. You could keep it in a trailer and rig it in about 20 min, saving on parking charges. If you have to keep it outside go for a Sports Cruiser, around 110 kn and there will be lots around in a year or so as the bits are £20k less than the two above. It is all-metal and will carry more weight.

All the above will do long distance touring, but you are looking at a sports car “feel” as opposed to a grand tourer like a Cirrus.

Rod1

[shortstripper]

Now that, IO540 ............. was a very good and informative post! :D

SS :)

[Mad Girl]

I0540 said
For VFR, I would buy one of the new European-design composite planes. Most are Rotax 100HP or so, do ~ 130kt max cruise, are IFR equipped (again, I will get jumped on but it's jolly difficult to do decent long VFR trips without planning and executing them essentially as IFR), are very economical (some are even retractable, which is a good 20% further fuel saving), and can carry 2 with a few bags in the back.

OK I0540 - point me at some aircraft types/manufacturers. (Yes - I did look at the F100 link earlier) - more please?

OK - do we have any material/chemical engineers on the forum who may have more factual information on how materials react in sunshine/rain/frost etc???.
Someone has to make me believe that composites are better than metal if the aircraft is being parked outside.

Shortstripper said
Now that, IO540 ............. was a very good and informative post! :D

Nice one......I knew you two could kiss and make up :D

[IO540]

MG

I would start by contacting the organisers of Aero 2007 (http://www.aero-friedrichshafen.com/html/en/index.php)and get a list of exhibitors.

They had ~ 1 massive hangar equivalent full of these things. No idea how many of them can go on G-reg but they must all be EASA approvable.

As for composites v. aluminium, from the purely material point of view glass / carbon fibre will not be affected by weather but can be by UV; I will leave it to others to comment on whether the gelcoat used on these planes does the job.

Aluminium is OK if properly corrosion proofed and this is something that has to be done exactly right otherwise the stuff just rots.

I think you will find that most new-buy modern-design candidates for your spec are composite.

I'd happily fly a composite and have done so. The only real issue is that if somebody had dome something dodgy and "not quite" bent it, and kept quiet (a very common occurence in this game) the damage may not be visible, whereas with ally you can usually see ripples or other distortion on the external skin.

What rots quickest (and most expensively) are avionics/electrics, and you would get a decent cover for that reason - a few hundred quid.

Rod1 - is the VLA requirement necessary here?

[Mad Girl]

I0540 said
I would start by contacting the organisers of Aero 2007 (http://www.aero-friedrichshafen.com/html/en/index.php)and get a list of exhibitors.


Done :ok: - thanks.

Can anyone explain the different rules and regs - simplistically please - as to how to get an aircraft on the G register.
What permit, certificate these type of aircraft would be on - what are the restrictions?? Can I be taught on it by a paid instructor, if it's in a group??

If it's got the IFR equipment - can I legally fly IFR in the UK or not, if I took my IMC?? If it's got the toys - I'd like to be able to use them!! :O

[100LL]

If i remeber right most of the "new" European crop of aircraft are built to
CS-VLA 1 - basically


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).
CS-VLA 3 Aeroplane categories
This CS-VLA applies to aeroplanes intended
for non-aerobatic operation only. Non-aerobatic
operation includes -
(a) Any manoeuvre incident to normal
flying;
(b) Stalls (except whip stalls); and
(c) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns,
in which the angle of bank is not more than 60°.

Try one of these DA20-C1.

If you are not sure about composite airframes talk to Tim Dews down at Airbourne Composites, He'll fill in the blanks.

[tangovictor]

OK - do we have any material/chemical engineers on the forum who may have more factual information on how materials react in sunshine/rain/frost etc???.
Someone has to make me believe that composites are better than metal if the aircraft is being parked outside.

As already stated, ask some glider folk, compostite users for years :ugh:

[IO540]

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

Why then are there some models around say 550kg MTOW? It seems pointless since if you go to the full 750kg you can build a far more useful and versatile plane, at very little extra cost.

Maybe they are limited by the engine; it seems that there is Rotax or Rotax or Rotax... and a lighter plane will accelerate proportionately faster and will need a lot less runway.

I know the UK 450kg "microlight" limit, but there are lots just above that.

[gasax]

The majority of the new aircraft shown at Aero 2007 will have originally been designed for the european microlight limits - a fairly generous 450kg (much less stringently interpreted than by the CAA). Not having the 'benefits' of the CAA's Section S design code they usually comply with VLA. They have generally grown to match the US LSA criteria which was originally 1232 and is now 13xx odd pounds due to the huge demand there for modern aircraft. If and/or when EASA produce something similar then the European manufacturers will be able to offer the LSA types directly.

The present situation where there are microlight (sub-450kg), VLA and SLA versions of the same design is a tad confusing - all looking the same, often with the same structures and engines just 'needing' differing rules to fly.

But to more directly answer the question any of these designs with a full EASA C of A would meet the criteria. Diamond, AT3, Tewnam, EV-97. A browse through this list would be a good start The majority of the new aircraft shown at Aero 2007 will have originally been designed for the european microlight limits - a fairly generous 450kg (much less stringently interpreted than by the CAA). Not having the 'benefits' of the CAA's Section S design code they usually comply with VLA. They have generally grown to match the US LSA criteria which was originally 1232 and is now 13xx odd pounds due to the huge demand there for modern aircraft. If and/or when EASA produce something similar then the European manufacturers will be able to offer the LSA types directly.

The present situation where there are microlight (sub-450kg), VLA and SLA versions of the same design is a tad confusing - all looking the same, often with the same structures and engines just 'needing' differing rules to fly.

But to more directly answer the question any of these designs with a full EASA C of A would meet the criteria. Diamond, AT3, Tecnam. EV-97 a browse through this list would be a good starting point http://www.easa.eu.int/home/tc_aircraft_en.html.

[Rod1]

Would you rather fly an aircraft with 100 hp and a MTOW of 490 kg, or one with 740 kg, if the useful loads were identical? The improvement in power to weight gives very impressive performance, including 1600 fpm and stol. A 750 kg aircraft would be underpowered and not so much fun. The Micros often have a higher empty weight due to the reduced stall speed requiring more wing area and bigger flaps.

Alternative engines are the Jab 2200 4cyl(85hp) and 3300 6cyl(120hp). Simple, modern air cooled, but not considered as reliable as the Rotax.

If the aircraft is a factory built VLA than no problem with instruction for a group owned aircraft. If home built you cannot be instructed for the issue of a licence, but you can do BAFR, type conversion etc.

VLA is VFR only, but if you get an IMCR then no problem practicing you skill under the hood. If you have the skill and the kit it could save you life, so why not.

If you are concerned about UV, you could buy a full set of covers for the aircraft. Having owned several metal aircraft which were kept outside I would not recommend this for any aircraft, but sometimes there is no option. Have you considered trying to find a strip with a hanger? The above aircraft would be fine for this provided it did not get to muddy in winter.

Sywell have the metal AT2 VLA for training. Why not pitch up and have an hour in one?

Rod1

[IO540]

Would you rather fly an aircraft with 100 hp and a MTOW of 490 kg, or one with 740 kg, if the useful loads were identical?

Yes, if the latter is better built, doesn't leak and has a heater :)

The build methods on some of the ultralights are little different to a hang glider, except for what one might call a cockpit around the pilot. There is what one might charitably call a range of build quality in this market.

Also, the useful loads aren't likely to be quite identical - if only for marketing reasons.

1600fpm is certainly fun (I know) but I wouldn't trade safety and build quality for it. Most spamcans are pushed to do a few hundred fpm (loaded) and people manage with that. 1000fpm is very adequate for climb / terrain clearance etc.

The earlier mention of retractable gear making no difference isn't a valid comparison because the airframes were different. Retractable gear saves some 10-30% of engine power at 130kt, depending on how tightly the gear is faired. And if you make it too good, it fills up with grass/mud - which is why most fixed gear spamcans I see around have chucked away the wheel cowlings and sod the fuel penalty.

Is it possible to buy a 750kg plane, register it where one can (say, Czech Rep) and then keep it in the UK? One can certainly do that with full CofA planes.

[BackPacker]

Mad Girl,

The IMC is a UK-only rating and not worth the paper it's written on outside the UK. So for all practical purposes, outside the UK you can only fly VFR in VMC. Or Night VFR if you have the Night NQ (which I assume you do if you've got an IMC).

Also, outside the UK you can only file & fly IFR if you have an IR. Night VFR is just that, Night VFR.

It's the UK which is actually at odds here compared to the rest of the ICAO world. Reason is local requirements, local capabilities and local airspace structure.

[IO540]

Not quite.

The IFR privileges of the IMCR are limited to UK only, but the other half of the IMCR is that it removes the UK CAA requirement to be in sight of the surface when VFR and that bit is not UK-limited.

I have this in writing from the CAA.

So an IMCR holder can fly a VFR-only plane above an overcast layer, under VFR, in any airspace where he can otherwise fly VFR and where VFR out of sight of surface is not prohibited.

The above assumes any aircraft reg in which a UK issued license would be valid, which (with a UK JAA PPL) is any JAA/EASA-reg plane, and also an N-reg if flown in UK airspace.

[Mad Girl]

Backpacker said
The IMC is a UK-only rating and not worth the paper it's written on outside the UK. So for all practical purposes, outside the UK you can only fly VFR in VMC. Or Night VFR if you have the Night NQ (which I assume you do if you've got an IMC).


OK.........I'll bite!!!!

Backpacker - I have never professed to be anything other than a student - read my previous posts.

BUT....I am a student with a list of things to do to improve my skills when I have my license - one of which is the IMC.

I disagree with your comment on the IMC not worth the paper it's written on. I know that an average PPL has only a matter of seconds if they stumble/bumble into cloud before they end up in a spiral dive - and who knows what happens then......... depends where the bottom of the clouds are!!!!!

I'm spending a fair amount of money getting the training done and I want to enjoy the privilege for years to come - I'm going to stay safe - you can do as you please!!!.

[Rod1]

“The earlier mention of retractable gear making no difference isn't a valid comparison because the airframes were different. Retractable gear saves some 10-30% of engine power at 130kt,”

On a Europa retractable gear is worth 2 kn. You are absolutely right in theory, but at this level of power the weight penalty of the disappearing Dunlop’s has a disproportionate impact on performance, not to mention the aerodynamic disadvantages of thick wings to store them.

“Yes, if the latter is better built, doesn't leak and has a heater”

I could offer you a ride in one which was built by me, only leaks a bit and has a heater, but you would probably hate it”

“which is why most fixed gear spamcans I see around have chucked away the wheel cowlings and sod the fuel penalty.”

Most of the spam can spats make very little difference. Compare the detail on a DR400 with that of a PA28 and you will see why. The performance drop on the DR is much greater; on the PA28 it makes very little difference.

“Is it possible to buy a 750kg plane, register it where one can (say, Czech Rep) and then keep it in the UK? One can certainly do that with full CofA planes.”

Only if the aircraft has a full C of A, if it is home built you are limited to 28 days a year. It is possible that EASA will bring in a better system, but that is some time away.

One last point, The LSA category (in the USA) is limited to no retractable no VP prop aircraft with a cruse speed of 120kn max. By comparison the VLA cat allows all the above and no speed restriction. Give me a VLA any day!

Rod1

[IO540]

MG is absolutely right to get instrument training, even if she cannot legally use it on that particular type. It also gives you superior navigation options - dead reckoning is just great for busting airspace.

Most of the spam can spats make very little difference

In the PA28 I used to fly, the handbook told of an 8kt speed loss on spat removal, and that is at a mere 100kt. 8kt at 100kt and 140HP is probably worth 20HP. The schools that own these aren't bothered; if they were bothered they would not be flying full-rich everywhere. The spats are a pain; they get cracked, the brackets get broken, and the things keep falling off. They are also expensive to replace.

[wsmempson]

Good to see your post MG - how close are you to getting the poo-brown plastic folder?

Just to veer off at a tangent for a moment, I was faced with the same needs as you as I walked away from the flying club with my freshly minted PPL and bought myself £17,000 worth of PA 28 140. With a cruise of 105kts, an IFR avionics fix, 30 lph leaned and aerobatic (with two on board and no more than 100 litres avgas) this seemed to tick a lot of the boxes.....and no, i'm not trying to sell you mine as someone has already stuck their hand up for it!

You also have the option of using the four seats, but only if two of the pax are very slight, as the useful load is only 775lbs.

It's also something simple and benign to build those hours in.

Just a thought!:D

[BackPacker]

Mad Girl, I meant *legally* the IMC is not worth the paper it's written on, outside the UK.

As for practical, yes, it can make the difference between make or break if your inadvertently entered a cloud above mainland Europe.

Excuse me for misreading your original question.

IO540, you may well be right - I honestly don't understand the rules and regulations with regards to VFR-on-Top, although I did try... But I have to assume that your comment is again UK-only. After all, it would be very hard to explain a restriction in, say, France for holders of a French JAA PPL, which can only be lifted by obtaining a UK-only rating...??? So whether VFR-on-top is forbidden or not in mainland Europe cannot depend on whether you have a UK IMC rating.

Then again, I'm very interested in how the VFR-on-top thing works, legally. But that's taking this thread way off-topic.

[IO540]

It's simple enough.

A JAA PPL (in fact most ICAO ones) does not require sight of surface for VFR. Simple as that! No such thing as "VFR on top".

The UK has added that requirement to PPLs issued in the UK.

Having the IMC Rating does away with the requirement, taking you back to the "common" PPL.

The ANO wording is such that the VFR privileges are not limited to UK airspace, so e.g. an IMCR holder can fly in France, VFR, above a solid overcast.

Now, how you navigate above a solid overcast is another thing, but we aren't talking about that.

Anyway, the IMCR does have significant legal utility value even in a VFR-only plane. This is because (arguably) the easiest way to fly long VFR trips is VMC on top. The other way, of course, is scud running ;)

[BackPacker]

IO540, just to see if I understand this correctly (others - apology for hijacking this thread)

I have a JAR-FCL PPL, issued by the CAA. But this PPL is limited to "sight of surface"? But if I trade it in for a JAR-FCL PPL, issued by the Dutch authorities (which I can do, legally, for just an admin fee), this restriction is automatically lifted?

Or is the "sight of surface" thing something that's not written in the wording of JAR-FCL (or it's legal equivalent in the ANO) but in the UK airspace classification, which requires "in sight surface" for PPLs without IMC or IR for all classes A-G?

What would (legally) happen if a non-UK JAR FCL PPL holder were to fly "on top" in the UK?

I just searched the forum for "VFR on top" but no hits...

[High Wing Drifter]

My analysis of that particular bit of legislation is this, somebody please step in and correct me:

As a general principle, when abroad you are restricted to the combined restrictions of your state of registration, state of license issue and the state of the country you happen to be flying in. Add all those laws to together and that is what you are subjected to. Ordinarily a French PPL will be able to fly VMC on top. If you remove that restriction from your UK issued JAA or UK PPL by adding an IMC rating, then you remove the restriction when flying France.

[London Mil]

backpaker, the 'sight of surface' limitation is an element of your PPL. The minima for VFR are similar to ICAO. For example, above 3000ft, you need 5kms viz, 1500ft horizontal and 1000ft vertical from cloud. If you have this, you are VMC and can therefore elect to fly VFR (airspace classification considered).

[BackPacker]

Okay, I can live with that. Although I find it odd that a CAA-issued JAR-FCL PPL apparently gives different privileges than a, for example, French-issued JAR-FCL PPL.

Any word on how EASA is going to handle this?

[shortstripper]

Just to throw another coal in the fire ... How come French instructors don't have to sit the CPL's to gain instructor ratings when here they do? Just an interpretation of the wording?

SS

[Rod1]

“Any word on how EASA is going to handle this?”

Most likely outcome is for standard restrictions, so we will get VMC on top back (it was part of the UK privileges some time ago).

Rod1

[IO540]

Any word on how EASA is going to handle this?

If anybody knows for sure, they won't be telling. EASA is set to end the careers of a large number of bureaucrats around the European CAAs.

My (pretty obvious) guess that we will get a uniform structure on the FCL and airframe/equipment certification fronts.

This also means that right now may not be the best time to choose a new aircraft (in the sub-CofA categories discussed here) but then everything in this business takes far longer than most expect.

Just an interpretation of the wording?

The requirement for the CPL ground school is in the UK ANO, which they don't have in France :)

[shortstripper]

The requirement for the CPL ground school is in the UK ANO, which they don't have in France

Exactly, hardly a level playing field is it? If EASA brings all into line then it will have done a good job. The sceptic in me doubts it will:hmm:

SS

[Chimbu chuckles]

So the Cherokee 140 is aerobatic in the UK (isn't in Australia) while the RV series up to the 9 and 10 is not aerobatic in the UK (Is in Australia).

What a great system you have going there:ugh:

[skydriller]

Ahhhh, The wonders of Europe/JAR/EASA/EEC/EU/JAA....Etc.. Etc..

The French have one body promoting GA Pilots and aeroclubs, its the FFA, and they get listened to, hence alot of imposed JAA regulation is exempted for the French. Most of the time GA gets a better deal here because of that - for example blanket Mode S exemption. Sometimes, however, this works against them - as in the French Class 2 medical situation (though its ignored).

In the UK there is no one body representing GA Pilots and the CAA have their own more stringent restrictions and rules to be "safer".

C'est la vie..... SD

[ProfChrisReed]

One of the original questions was about composite construction, and another poster suggested asking glider pilots. As a glider pilot and owner, here's my understanding.

1. No-one has yet discovered the lifetime of composites. There are 50 year old composite gliders flying. My own glider was built in 1968, and so far as can be discovered on its annual inspections there has been no deterioration of the airframe at all. Some composite gliders have exceeded 12,000 flying hours and are still going strong.

2. Repairs to composites require special skills, but these are all available in the gliding community and will spread wider as composite powered GA aircraft become more common. Crashed gliders, broken into many pieces, have been repaired and are still flying (e.g. long wings + ground loop often = fuselage broken in half, which is readily fixable!). Cosmetically, these repairs can be invisible if done properly. However, almost all repairs to composite aircraft seem to add weight.

3. The main uncertainty is the effect of UV on composite structures. Composite gliders are almost universally stored under cover, either in trailers or in hangars. What *is* known is that UV degrades gel coat
badly. However, modern paints seem to suffer far less from this. I wouldn't leave my glider outside when not flying because it would need re-gelling after a few years, but I believe that if it were refinished in paint this would be possible. I seem to recall that if the paint blocked UV then there would be no danger to the underlying composite structure, but I don't have specific knowledge on this point.

In summary, composite aircraft don't seem to degrade either through age or use. UV damages gel coat but may not damage modern paint finishes. UV might (or might not) damage the underlying structure, but if it is blocked by the paint there seems no reason not to keep a composite aircraft outside.

Hope this helps in making your decision.

[293140]

Mad Girl,
As a newcomer to the whole PPL (& PPRuNe) scene, and with apologies if this is way off the mark, but how about a Bolkow Monsun BO 209? Not a youngster I know, but wouldn't it tick most of your boxes, and a lot less £££'s?

[sir.pratt]

http://southernaircraft.co.nz/