AA-5A, GY-80, S.205, SA.202 or what else?

[Ultranomad]

After a few unsuccessul attempts to buy an aircraft of my own last spring and summer and a long work-related hiatus, I have reevaluated my mission profile and am in the market again, this time with a much greater motivation. What I am trying to get now is a fast IFR-equipped (or IFR-upgradeable) 4-seater, and I decided to take Pilot DAR's approach of buying a really cheap plane and eventually improving and upgrading it.
As someone here may already remember, I keep examining all kinds of exotic opportunities... So, among the aircraft I currently have my eyes on are a Grumman AA-5A Cheetah, a Gardan GY-80 Horizon and a SIAI S.205-20R (retractable). Yet another solution (a compromise, though nice in other ways) is a SA.202 Bravo in a 3-seat configuration. Of course, the papers will be thoroghly inspected, the plane will be checked by engineer and test-flown, all that goes without saying. However, with the exception of Cheetah, I know virtually nothing beyond a few web articles about these types in general - their reliability, their quirks, their typical operating costs, their maintainability... Could anyone provide any insight on these, or maybe any better ideas? (Yes, old Mooneys are definitely considered, but two cheap ones I found were sold before I could even arrange to come and see them...)

[172driver]

Hmmmmm.... you mention S205 and 'fast' in the same para. Not sure what you mean by 'fast' but that's not what a 205 is. It's basically an Italian PA28. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I certainly wouldn't classify it as a 'fast IFR tourer' (although I did some pretty long distance runs - X-Europe - in it).

Know nothing about the other types.

All the types you mention are not exactly mainstream - why? Is this a price consideration? Think about the future and maintenance - what sounds cheap now may well come back to bite your wallet with a vengeance !

[robin]

All the types you mention are not exactly mainstream - why? Is this a price consideration? Think about the future and maintenance - what sounds cheap now may well come back to bite your wallet with a vengeance !

Spot on. Personally I'd go for a Jodel 1050. Lots of them, spares not a problem, good honest aircraft and on Permit to boot

[Ultranomad]

172driver, the one in question is a -20R, a 200 hp retractable-gear version.
The "not exactly mainstream" comes mostly from the price considerations indeed, and here I am trying to find out whether the types in question are plagued by unusually high maintenance costs, etc.

robin, Jodels/Robins are (regretfully) excluded right away, as the plane will be away from the home base a lot of time, and no one can guarantee a hangar will be available everywhere I fly.

[madlandrover]

GY80 (160 VP) owner. I'm not sure I'd call it a "fast" IFR tourer - even the 180hp version struggles to cruise much beyond 120KTAS. There are some very nice ones out there though (eg one in France with full IFR kit, autopilot, etc etc owned by the boss of a maintenance facility), and it's an aircraft I truly enjoy flying. Main benefits are the way it can get out of a short strip with all seats full, or get airborne in under 200m alone with full tanks. The handling qualities are in general very good, although the rudder is undersized and this can lead to some excitement in stalls until you get used to it. Maintenance is in general simple (standard Lycoming engines, for example) unless you run into some of the "French" issues with it - finding a decent engineer with experience on type is well worth it. A PA28-180 is probably overall a better aircraft, but I know which one I'd rather fly for versatility...

[hatzflyer]

One that is often overlooked is the Wassmer . Its fibreglass, can be left outside, like an early cirrus realy and can be operated on a LAA permit.

[john ball]

The Sa205 is like buying a 1960's Alfa, which is very classic, but I suspect parts will be very expensive and as it is a rare aircraft will have limited resale value. In fact almost exactly the same for the GY80 except 1960's Citroen. I always buy aircraft with the thought that one day I will want change or upgrade and thus want something that is easy to sell and maintain whilst i own it. Why do you think both of these hardly sold when they were new ? -- Poor performance, costs compared with the boring but capable Cessna 172 and Piper PA28. Your idea of the Grumman AA5 is the best option, but if I were you, I would buy the AA5B Tiger which is 180hp rather than 160hp of the AA5A Cheetah. Go for fixed gear and prop as the speed advantages of a 180hp with retract and VP are going to be nothing - maybe 10-15kts but almost twice the running costs -- i know as I owned a complicated Comanche and a simple Robin at different times. The AA5 series are all nice to fly and always cheap to maintain.

[172driver]

the one in question is a -20R, a 200 hp retractable-gear version

Hmmmmmmm..... let's see, we have:
- exotic type
- retractable gear
- old age

The above combo would strike fear into my heart, unless, of course, I owned a maintenance outfit :E

[Ultranomad]

172driver, yes... Convincing enough to strike this one out.

john ball, in fact, I am leaning towards the Cheetah myself - and, by the way, although a bit slower than Tiger, Cheetah has a longer range. The reason for me to consider the GY-80 as well is the alleged simplicity of its design - e.g. flaps, ailerons and elevators being the same part, with only attachment fittings being different, or one mechanism extending both gear and flaps at the same time - and its much higher payload than AA-5's.

[john ball]

Anton k,

My answer to the point about the ailerons/ flaps etc being the same is 'so what' -- you will never find a scrap yard with any parts for a GY80 anyway. But every parts store or scrap yards in USA will have hundreds of every part for AA5's. Also the the other issue about range -- same tanks in the Cheetah or Tiger but, yes the 180hp does use more fuel, but again so what --- they will both do over 3 hours and that is about my maximum range before wanting the loo or a drink. Tiger is fast so will get there faster or go further in the same period. You get what you pay for, that is why the Tiger is more expensive than the Cheetah and the Archer is more expensive than the Warrior. Both the lower powered ones were more likely to have been used by schools and thus generally have higher total hours.

[martinprice]

I used to really enjoy cruising around in a Cessna 177 Cardinal (the fixed gear 180hp version). Sleeker and better looking (in my opinion) than a 172, nice to fly, reasonable speed, loads of room inside, great visibility without those struts and I would imagine fairly affordable to run and fix.

[jxc]

How much are you looking to spend ?

[Ultranomad]

jxc, up to 25k EUR outright for a fully airworthy plane, with a view to invest 15-20-25k into a subsequent overhaul/upgrade over a couple of years.

[jxc]

Is this of any use ?


GT Aviation UK (http://www.gtaviation.co.uk/-/?pn=1&pv=1&pnv=1&pr=10724&title=Piper%20PA34-200T%20Seneca%20II)


I have nothing to do with this company just saw it and thought could be good buy or Socata TB10 very low hours

[S205-18F]

S205 is a great old bus and parts arent that scarce! It uses many standard parts and is built like the proverbial!!! It is a lot bigger than a PA28 and the one I had which my buddy has now is an amazing machine! Laminar flow wings and a very roomy cockpit with a superb weight carrying capacity. Lycoming 180 HP engine matched to a constant speed prop great for touring. Oh and it has a great little badge on the panel "Pinifarina" who designed the interior. A true Alfa Romeo of the air!!!!

[flyingfemme]

You will be wasting your money and tearing your hair out. Don't do it.

The "non-mainstream" aircraft are far less likely to have approved mods to fit the kit you want and you can't afford to be the first if you are on a limited budget.
Time taken to do the fit, doubtless in small chunks as you can afford them, will eat into your available flying time (heavily). Also the time needed to work out the bugs.........Tearing things apart several times will be more expensive than doing it all at once.
Do you have the skill and knowledge to work with your engineers fixing the snags as they arise?
It might work if you have the aircraft on the N reg and a really good relationship with your maintenance provider but the types you are talking about are rare and may not be easy to use (or register) on the N.
At the end of it all you will not have a toy that is worth the sum of the bills.

What you are asking is not cheap. The aircraft is not cheap (relatively) and the required maintenance/checks will also be more expensive. You also need to factor in the costs of your training and recurrency. 25K, in any currency, will not do it.

[Ultranomad]

Thank you everyone! Just one opinion might not be enough but the voices of everyone together sound quite convincing. Case closed, the resulting shortlist will include the only non-exotic type among those initially listed, the AA-5.

[RatherBeFlying]

One lovely AA-5 of my too short acquaintance was flown IFR to destination and landed on the nosewheel -- think glass jaw:eek:

When commiserating with the owner, pretty much all the bits forward of the firewall plus perhaps firewall were up for replacement and the a/c was written off:(

Still a fine a/c to fly as long as you land it properly -- I've seen people come close to doing the same thing in a C-172. I also know of one that was damaged similarly and economically reparable because of parts availability and cost.

[Ultranomad]

RatherBeFlying, oh yes. One glance at AA-5's nosewheel is sufficient to understand you should never, ever land on it. And at the price I'm prepared to pay for the plane, it's cheaper to self-insure the hull and only purchase the liability.

[Sciolistes]

AA5 yes. Wassmer Europa is an absolutely terrific aircraft too, but AA5 is better all round and practically more managable. I say that having owned shares in both.

[Peter Fanelli]

But every parts store or scrap yards in USA will have hundreds of every part for AA5's. Also the the other issue about range -- same tanks in the Cheetah or Tiger but, yes the 180hp does use more fuel, but again so what --- they will both do over 3 hours and that is about my maximum range before wanting the loo or a drink.


If I remember correctly not all Cheetahs come with the same size tanks. The AA-5A had a smaller tank as standard and a larger long range option which was the same size as the AA-5B Tiger.

[englishal]

I flew the AA5 Traveler for the first time the other day, and it was a beauty to fly. Although only 150 HP it flew really well, was roomy and comfortable and I'd seriously consider one if I had limited finances. I guess the Tiger is even better.

I know where there is a Traveler for sale...

[RatherBeFlying]

The 150 hp AA-5 should do fine in the flatlands. In Alberta near the foothills, I have a vivid memory of the gophers beyond the end of the runway diving into their holes as I did a goaround with full rich:eek:

The long range tanks are handy, but you do have to adjust the approach speed at the end of a long flight or find a long runway to work things out. That's one way for people to land the thing on the nosewheel:ouch:

If you do self-insure the hull, you might want to consider ground risk coverage -- hangar collapses / fires, floods, a hand prop runaway...

[hatzflyer]

I've owned a traveller and a wassmer europa. I know which I prefer and the Wassmer will go on a permit.

[whiterock]

Anton K

First and foremost, buy the best you can with the money available. There are plenty of owners who buy a "cheap" aeroplane and then find huge costs in fighting corrosion and replacing "worn out" components. The engine components of your choice are easily sourced - the problems will be with the hull.

I have many years of intimate knowledge of the GY-80 series. Unfortunately it is an aeroplane that is 40+ years old and spares are extremely rare. Those that own a GY-80 and have spares are wise to hang on to them. Some parts are available - if you know where to look. If I had the means now I would buy two, the second one for spares. It is a robust and a very useful aeroplane. It can hardly be bettered in its class for load carrying and range from short strips. And flies beautifully.

Other old European types will also have spares availability issues. For the same reason you should be wary of old, obsolete American types. (Beech Musketeer etc)

The Piper PA-28 range are also getting old and cheap examples may well give the problems I've outlined. Piper is a fairly safe bet all round if you can get a good one. The main advantage they have is the good availability of spares. I would go for a 160 hp or 180 hp model. However, know what you want to do with your aeroplane. If you want to carry four passengers (with luggage) AND enough fuel to go somewhere, verify that your choice of model can do it.

I like the AA-5A, etc series aeroplanes, and I prefer them to fly rather than a PA-28 (IMHO). Spares could be more difficult than Piper to source in the future and more expensive.

The Robin DR-400 range are lovely aeroplanes but may be beyond your budget. I have no high-wing recommendations as I prefer by far to fly low-wing aeroplanes. I dislike the blind areas that high-wing types have (IMHO).

Will you have hangarage? An older type may deteriorate less under cover. The paintwork on an aeroplane has a "life" beyond which you need to take extra care of your metalwork.

I hope these comments are of help.

WR

[Yankee]

Have sent you a PM if I can help you in choosing the AA5A.

Although a little slower than the AA5B at 998Kg it can save you a fair bit on landing fees if opertating into most Regional Airports.

[POBJOY]

You will go a long way to find a better machine than a Cessna 182.
Even an older one will give :- Performance with a full load,Space, Range,Spares not a problem,Great in and out of a strip (early ones have 40degrees of flap) (proper flaps that is).
Most of them have a simple a/pilot and they are fun, safe and easy to fly.
There are a lot of "orphan" aircraft out there that seem a good deal until you need a repair or spares.Mr Cessna did a good job with the 182 which started life as a taildragger.Of course a 180 would be nice but a touch expensive now
Pobjoy

[S-Works]

In my humble opinion, the 172 Hawk XP or Reims Rocket is the ultimate in this class. 210hp, constant speed prop, 5.5hrs fuel and can lift 4 adults out of less than 300m. Most parts are standard Cessna and they can be fully IFR.

I have every gadget known to man in mine, Stormscope, TCAD, GNX30, air data computer, fuel computers, engine computers, S Tec AP with GNSS, HSI etc etc and use it extensively for IFR touring.

[Ultranomad]

POBJOY, bose-x and other esteemed colleagues, with all due respect, I understand there are potentially nicer alternatives than those considered, but there is only so much one can get for a fixed amount of money, and the Cheetah currently seems to hold a much better value per euro spent than Cessnas and many others. I have arbitrarily fixed my purchase budget at 25000 euros in full understanding that it's a modest amount in the aviation world, and will not exceed it unless a truly exceptional deal comes up, and even then not by much. If anyone around you is willing to accept this sort of money for a flying machine happily cruising at 125+ KIAS, any leads will be immensely appreciated...

[Shoestring Flyer]

An AA5 or AA5a is an excellent choice. Having 500hrs on type and owned 4 of them I can vouch it is an excellent machine to fly, however there are somethings to be aware of, firstly when flying. An AA5/AA5a will not do 120knots, an AA5B Tiger will but an AA5 or AA5a will not. AA5/AA5a cruises at 100knots.
Average for an AA5/AA5a =34litres an hour. AA5B =40litres an hr.
AA5= Traveler (150hp)
AA5A= Cheetah (150hp but with larger tailplane)
AA5B= Tiger (180hp)
Next thing is to appreciate that AA5's of all varieties like runway...anything less than 600 metres and you need to be getting the calculator out.
Some people knock noselegs off but as long as you are aware that they are delicate you will be ok.
Then there is the issue of de-bonding. AA5's of all varieties made between '74 and '77 had serious de-bonding issues due to bad glue commonly called 'purple passion' which whilst curable with rivetting can seriously empty your wallet..you have been warned!

Good Luck and enjoy...

[POBJOY]

I think you will find that an aircraft that actually performs as you would like it to do will cost more than you wish to spend.It is far better to get the correct machine and get some proper use out of it than thinking about "upgrading" later.The reason some aircraft cost more is because they do the job better and owners soon find out the true cost of a budget machine when they have to go into the hangar.Either way go for the "larger" engine option then at least the grass strips become a better option
Pobjoy

I could suggest you spend £25,000 on
Jodel 112 12000
caravan 1000 (kept at airfield)
rib with 60hp 4000
Trail Bike 2000
share in a glider 4000 (on an airfield that takes powered a/c)
That leaves 2,000 to join the Tiger Club and have some fun

Have a ball PJ

[Big Pistons Forever]

Anton K

First and foremost, buy the best you can with the money available. There are plenty of owners who buy a "cheap" aeroplane and then find huge costs in fighting corrosion and replacing "worn out" components. The engine components of your choice are easily sourced - the problems will be with the hull.


A hugely valuable piece of advice. My experience is first time buyers underestimate actual ownership cost. Furthermore for smaller aircraft the cost of significant upgrades form such a significant part of the total costs that you will never come close to recouping your money. An obvious example would be avionics. Say you buy your 25 K GBP tourer. The radios will likely be original and not suitable for IFR flight. A full re equip of the panel would probably require another 25 K . There is no way the plane is now worth 50 K.

Bottom line: buy the very best example of an airplane within your price range.

That means good paint and clean interior, working modern radios and an engine with ample time remaining to overhaul .....and most important of all
a complete documented maintainance history by a reputable shop.

In the long run this will give you the most cost effective and pleasurable ownership experience. It has worked for me and I am on my 5th airplane.

[Ultranomad]

Big Pistons Forever, I agree with you on most points. An aircraft that I consider for purchase would have to have full documentation, an excellent airframe and at least the basic IFR avionics in working condition, but I would allow a high-time engine (say, 200 hours remaining before overhaul) if it's otherwise sound. If I like the way it behaves in the first year of operation, I will get the engine overhauled or zero-timed and install extra avionics and maybe some speed mods.

[VictorGolf]

I hope this isn't advertising but there's a nice Tiger on www.afors.com (http://www.afors.com) at £26.5K which looks the business.

[AN2 Driver]

Hi Anton,

having just completed an almost 3 year evaluation process which ended with the purchase of a plane I least expected ever to be able to afford, I can just advise you to keep your options and eyes wide open. It is a buyer's market right now and there are many aircraft around for very few money, some of which are worth a lot more than the actual price they realize. Also, many sellers will come down in price considerably once they actually have someone on the line who is genuinely interested. You say 25k Euros to buy plus another 15-25 to modify and upgrade, that also translates to me that you might want to have a look at something a bit higher than 25k that does not require an upgrade :)

As to the types. I have done a lot of research over the last 3 years, some with the help of the folks here. I did have a close look at the AA5 and I agree it is one of the best choices in terms of budget vs performance, especcially in cruise, not so much in field / climb performance. They will outrun their Piper/Cessna counterparts easily, the LR Cheetah has one of the best ranges I could find in that segment and if you are talking 2 people all over Europe, it might be a good choice indeed. As it was said before, the range of types is quite comprehensive and they are very different in profile.

I have compiled a range comparison for most of the airplanes I looked at, all of them at 6000 ft with 65% power and 45 minutes reserve. All figures I quote are from this table with these conditions.

AA5= Traveler (150hp), that one was the first one around. It will do around 110 kts and take you some 340 NM on it's tanks.
AA5A= Cheetah (150hp) has the speed mods over the Traveller and that will give it an extra 5 kts, about 380 NM range. There are two different fuel capacities on the Cheetah, standard (37 USG like the Traveller) or long range (51 USG like the Tiger). The 51USG one will do 600 NM in one stretch.
AA5B= Tiger (180hp) is one of the best load haulers and also does a nice speed. It will do about 130 kts @ 65% and take you about 500 NM over the course. It can not take Mogas, which the Cheetah's / Traveller can with an STC, major cost factor.

Payload: With full tanks the Traveller and Cheetah can take around 360 kgs, the Tiger around 440 kgs. With full tanks, that translates to about 270 kgs for the Traveller/Cheetah with 37 USG and to about 220 kgs with the LR version, the Tiger again scores high with around 300 kgs. So as a tourer, the Cheetah is a 2-3 seater whereas the Tiger can do with 4 if it has to.

As I said, I was looking for a long time and considered several Pipers and of course the Grummans, which were harder to come by in Switzerland however. I finally got a very good deal on a Mooney M20C, so that is what I fly now. That one will do 140 kts @ 9 GPH and has an approximate range of 600 NM too, will take 2-3 people all the way. There are some rather attractive priced Mooneys around, the pre-201 variants are quite interesting. If they have, like mine, the manual gear and flaps, they also won't go overboard on maintenance like other retracables do.

With your budget, you might want to look at the Robin HR100. I have seen 2 Royals around (200hp) on Planecheck, one of them is around your budget with fresh annual and in a very good shape. That one is extremely flexible in range/payload. It will take 4 people about 500 NM or 2 people 950 NM, it's metal so it is not critical towards weather (of course hangarage is still preferrable, but that goes for all planes) and it will do so at about 130 kts.

One thing I have found out while researching my choice of airplanes was that speed will save money when it comes to touring. Even if the hourly rate of a higher performance plane will be higher, it will bring this back with the shorter flight time. If Mogas enters the equation, the cost will however change again, so the Cheetah is a very viable variant here, but if you calculate Avgas, a pre-201 Mooney can do comparable trips cheaper than, say, a Warrior or an Archer, just due to it's speed and lower specific consumption.

I have learnt during this very interesting time that keeping your eyes and mind widely open pais out tremendously in this enterprise. I had looked at Mooneys and the likes like a 3 year old in front of the toyshop, never imagining I could ever afford one, but today's market conditions are really a buyers paradise. There is a huge variety of planes at prices which were unthinkable a few years back, which can allow you to up your expectations quite a bit. So if you say 25k for a plane you wish to upgrade, why not spend the whole amount on something which does not need upgrading, e.g. is IFR equipped and you'll just have to enter and fly it? They are out there. And even if the add sais 40k, it doesn't hurt to ask, I have understood that some planes went for less than half of what they were advertized for.

Anyhow, sorry for the long message, I hope this gives you some information. If you are interested in my comparison sheets, pm me.

Best regards
An2 Driver

[Rod1]

“AA5B= Tiger (180hp) is one of the best load haulers and also does a nice speed. It will do about 130 kts @ 65% and take you about 500 NM over the course.”

I would strongly disagree with this. I owned an AA5B for some years, had it bare metal striped and repainted, engine work and new avionics. The best I could get out of it was around 125kn at 75%. It was also very much a 3 seater, with poor load capacity compared with my 160hp DR400 (my previous aircraft). The AA5 is a much better aircraft than a PA28/C172 in some ways. The ergonomics are better, you can see out and the handling is better, but it is far from perfect. The lack of mogas approval and its relative unsuitability to strip operation has hit second hand values hard, so prices are good if it does what you want. Its construction makes it a better bet to sit outside than Mr P and Mr C.

Rod1