Turbulence: PA28 vs Pipersport

[reimomo]

I've been flying a Warrior for the last 5 years and been perfectly happy with it, but in common with many on this board I've been contemplating alternatives to try and mitigate the constant fuel price hikes. The LAA/permit/mogas types appeal to me: I don't really need 4 seats and whilst I have an IMC I'm not hell-bent on keeping the capability.

I'd had an eye on the Pipersport. Nice lines, solid brand, great visibility so I went up for a demo flight. I've very limited type experience, having passed my PPL in a 152 and moved on to a Warrior. Clearly even with my limited knowledge one would expect a lightweight 2-seater to move around more than a Warrior, but I was surprised by the difference. I soon wasn't feeling great, and I'm not normally bothered by a bit of turb. The demo pilot passed this off as a breezy day with plenty of warm thermals at 1000-2000ft. Maybe, but we'd just flown up there in a Warrior and had hardly noticed the weather.

It was a real shame. I loved the idea of the plane, but I couldn't risk taking a friend up in it on a typical summer day without fear of them throwing up. Or me, for that matter.

So my question is:

Is it the case that all lightweight permit types suffer from increased turbulence and one either puts up with it or sticks with a CAA workhorse?

Or is the Pipersport a notorious poor performer in this regard? I'd read somewhere that it's 'wing-loading figure' was a contributory factor. Are there lightweight permit aircraft that are more forgiving? How about the MCR01, a Vans or a Jodel? Is there a wing-loading figure that's quoted in specs which will shed some light on likely buffeting? Or is it simply a case of trying all of them?!

Any advice, anecdotal or otherwise gratefully received.

[IO540]

Suspectibility to turbulence is directly related to wing loading. Low WL = you get chucked around more.

The stall speed is also largely related to wing loading. If you want a low Vs, then (setting aside some drastic measures like leading edge slats) you will have a low WL.

And, given that one is always power (i.e. acceleration) limited, the only way to get a short field performance is to have a low Vs.

So, all the "slow", short field capable, etc, types will get chucked around.

If you want a firm ride, you need to go for a plane which has a higher Vs. I don't recall the Vs of a PA28 (50kt?) but my TB20 has a Vs of 60kt which is just 1kt below the maximum allowed for a single engine plane. And it has a higher WL than most types with the same Vs. And it has a very good ride; nobody I know of has ever been sick in one.

This is one of many compromises...

[Rod1]

The Piper sport has an unusually low wing loading compared with the P300 or MCR01. It is much more susceptible to turbulence. IO540’s assertion that you need a high stall speed forgets that with modern aerodynamics you can make Flaps which are much more effective than the common older designs. My MCR has slats built into the flaps and that allows a low stall speed (along with light weight) of 42kn and good short field performance. In an MCR you do have to slow down in turbulent air, maybe going for 128kn, or in extreme conditions 115kn.

If you want to come up to the midlands I will give you a ride.

Rod1

[A and C]

I would agree with Rod & IO540 on the wing loading issue, however the aircraft is very light in the pitch control and this is likely to result in PIO for someone with the background discribed.

An hour or two with an instructor will sort out the PIO that is likely to be induced by any one new to the type.

[rkgpilot]

I've been thinking about a lower-cost option for flying too, and have been thinking about a Jabiru SK2200.

Anyone here know what they are like in turbulence/crosswinds?

[Cows getting bigger]

Jabs aren't great with crosswinds at lower speeds (ie with flap down). The flaps blank the airflow from a significant portion of the fin. Good cruising machines, but a bit 'sloppy' when landing.

[reimomo]

Ok, so it's wing loading as much as low Vs - thanks for that. How does one find that out? Is there a maths formula?

I've no big need for short strips, or energetic air manoeuvres. I'm just looking for something that will happily sit at 100knts or thereabouts without spending a £60-odd an hour just on gas (which is being burnt simply to keep an heavy, mostly empty airframe airborne).

Rod, thanks very much for your offer. I've seen a few MCRs in ads and I'm intrigued.

A & C, as I understand it the Pipersport is a newer version of the Czechsport, and the overly sensitive pitch control was supposedly corrected in the transition. What's 'PIO'?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Agreed to windloading being the main issue, but isn't turbulence worse in a lighter craft anyway?

As for the Jabiru ultralights: there used to be a J450 at my then home airfield, it had a very poor crosswind reputation.

[englishal]

Ok, so it's wing loading as much as low Vs - thanks for that. How does one find that out? Is there a maths formula?
Surface area of the wing divided by the max weight or something like that.

I've heard this criticism of the Sport Cruiser before, and I was surprised when someone mentioned to me that their Rallye they used to fly was much less affected by turbulence than their SC.

[gasax]

The majority of LSA types will suffer the same effect. Rod1's machine is a little different because of the comparatively tiny wing and clever flaps.

My Zodiac 601xl has essentially the same dimensions as the Sport Cruiser and yes you do need to slow down in turbulence. In rough turbulence the light pitch forces need care otherwise it can be quite easy to makes things worst.

It would be nice to have a more comfortable ride - but then I would loose the excellent strip performance. As with all things flying there are compromises that have to be made.

[hatzflyer]

PIO is pilot induced oscilation.
All lighter aircraft will suffer more from turbulance, watch all the microlight boys, they suffer the most but to their credit it doesn't seem to stop them doing some pretty impressive trips.Most of them fly more cross country than the average G.A. renter but they do seem to cruise at greater heights where they can.:ok:

Also don't rule out some of the older LAA (PFA) types, whilst not quite as quick or frugal as the modern Rotax 4 stroke types, the purchase costs are significantly less and the balance will pay for many years of flying.My Minicab lifts two largish people, cruises at 90/95 knots at 18lts/hr. Its short field, long range ,lovely handling, not overly bothered by turbulance and there are a couple for sale at the moment at about £10k. Highly recommended.

[Rod1]

This is a post I put together some time ago, you will see that the PiperSport (SC) is the heaviest aircraft but has a much lower wing loading than the comparison machines;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparing aircraft numbers is an interesting pastime and can be useful to sort the facts from the fiction. The Sportcruiser was designed to meet the US LSA cat, but most of the SC aircraft in the UK are flying based on compliance with CS-VLA. If we compare the SC with other VLA machines we get some interesting results;

“The aircraft is very light (~380kgs Empty mass, 600kgs MAUW)”

Compared with a 152 (1950’s tec) it is light, compared with the modern VLA designs it is very heavy. This is probably due to the use of traditional metal construction. Some comparisons;

SC 380kg
Pioneer 300 305kg
MCR01 Club 250kg

All three use the same Rotax 912 100hp engine, so the power to weight ratio is very different, which of course has a big impact on performance;

SC Cruise 105 kts ~ 18 lts/hr
Pioneer Cruise 135 kts ~ 18.5 lts/hr
MCR01 Club Cruise 138 kts ~ 18.5 lts/hr

So the aircraft is about 40% slower. This of course will mean you need a lot more fuel to travel the same distance, so can the CS carry the extra fuel?

SC 120L
Pioneer 80L
MCR01 80L

So the lack of speed can be compensated by fuel capacity, but can it lift the weight?

SC 220kg
Pioneer 201kg
MCR01 Club 240kg

Certainly any advantage of the fuel capacity is seriously compromised by the speed / load equation. How Comfortable? The SC is a much bigger aircraft than the others, so what about cockpit width?

SC 46.5”
Pionear 41.3”
MCR01 44.5”

A clear win for the SC, but there is another issue with how Comfortable an aircraft is. How much do you get bounced around on an average UK summers day? This is not just about weight; it is also about wing area;

CS 13.2 Msq
Pioneer 10 Msq
MCR01 6.5 Msq

The key issue being wing loading;

CS 45 kg/sq
Pioneer 56 kg/sq
MCR01 75 kg/sq

Of all the aircraft above, the SC is the most likely to have to slow down in turbulence, but does the large wing give it an advantage in stall speed?

SC 38kn
Pioneer 44kn
MCR01 42kn

So a clear win for the SC, which should allow it to use a bit less runway; I cannot find a full set of figures on that, but it is almost certainly true.

Crosswind limit?

CS Anyone?
Pioneer 20kn
MCR 20Kn

Rate of Climb?

CD 1200 fpm
Pioneer 1500 fpm
MCR01 1600 fpm

Certification limitations?

All the above are VFR only no hire allowed. All are working on factory built aircraft certification with an eye on the training and private owner market, but the VFR restriction will stay. The CS is at least six months ahead of the mcr01 on this and I have no up to date Info on the Pioneer.

Conclusion

Unless you are talking solely of replacing the 152 fleet, the CS should be compared with other similar aircraft, which are available in Europe. My analysis is incomplete, and only covers aircraft, which I had figures to hand. Personally I would find the speed issue with the SC an impossible pill to swallow. I often fly 2 / 3 two hour legs in a day when I am in serious touring mode. The 40% increase required for the SC would make this impractical, even if I could carry the fuel. For the training market, an all-metal aircraft must look much less of a risk than the others, and the Piper name will win a lot of orders. If anybody would like to take the above, add in the Skycatcher and fill in some of the gaps, there would be an excellent basis for a magazine article.

Rod1

[IO540]

but they do seem to cruise at greater heights where they can

They must have invented a new type of stealth technology, effective in the visible spectrum, because I have never seen a ML at any "height" :)

A ML at 2500ft is a rarity.

FWIW :)

[VictorGolf]

Like the original poster, I had a look at the SportCruiser to replace my Airtourer, which is a low-wing 2-seater with a 115 Lycoming. Taking Rod's figures, the wing loading for the SportCruiser seems to be about 9.3 lbs/sq ft in old money. My Airtourer works out at 13.8 lbs/sq ft. so should give a better ride in turbulence due to the higher wing loading. However if the bumpy ride I had today en route to Turweston is anything to go by it would have been MOST uncomfortable in the SportCruiser. This bears out several comments I've heard to this effect. It will be interesting to see how they fare in the training role when EASA get off the pot and certify them.

[Rod1]

IO540

Could you tell the difference between an MCR SEP and an MCR ULM micro, or a Eurostar VLA and the micro version? I think not…

Rod1

[barne_as]

I think that a typical Cessna 150/152 has a wing loading of around 10lb/sqft so this should be something like a sportcrusier.

Most people should be familiar with the ride "quality" and comfort of a 152

[IO540]

Could you tell the difference between an MCR SEP and an MCR ULM micro, or a Eurostar VLA and the micro version? I think not…

I don't think so, but I can tell the difference between any of the above, and fresh air, and the relatively numerous (a term which I don't dispute) population of light/sport/ML planes is simply not evident higher up.

Neither are rental spamcans, but that isn't the point, given that you and Hatzflyer keep saying how the non-CofA numbers have totally overtaken the CofA scene.

Most people should be familiar with the ride "quality" and comfort of a 152

Pretty crap in any turbulence, like a fairly typical hot summer day flying under the white fluffy stuff. Even in the TB20 this is often too uncomfortable for non-GA passengers.

[Shoestring Flyer]

Any 600kg MAUW plane is not going to ride the bumps like a 2400kg plane, common sense really.
Flying in todays economic climate for most pilots is about finding a compromise you can live with. If you can still afford to fly an old Lycsaurus gas guzzler and you are happy with the way it flies then I suggest you stick with it.
If on the other hand you want to try getting more bang for your buck then you will have to make maybe a few slight compromises and putting up with the odd bump in hot weather is one of them..
For my part I built a Sportcruiser and after 15months flying it I love it and certainly wouldn't go back to flying an old stupidly expensive spamcan.
Just quoting comparison numbers though unfortunately does't even begin to tell the full story about any aircraft but if you want numbers there are currently 87 Sportcruisers/Pipersports on the UK register, not bad I think in just over two years since the first kit arrived in the UK and a hell of a lot more than other makes quoted on here.
So whilst it is not a perfect plane (is there one?) I think it is nice plane that I can put into and get out of any 300m strip, gives reasonable performance and handling and has room for lots of bulky baggage and a couple of biggish people. A plus factor as well also has to be that it is arguably the best looking small aircraft around..

[Shoestring Flyer]

....or even 1320lbsMAUW compared to 2400lbsMAUW! A slight case of the mixed weight measurements :\

[hatzflyer]

Io what's your problem? This guy started this thread asking for comments about lighter aircraft,especially with regard to turbulence.
you come on here yet again and try to start the old slanging match against LAA types.
You are boring.

[IO540]

:):):):).................. speak for yourself. Pot and Black come to mind.

[reimomo]

Ok, seem to have prodded a hornets nest somewhat, but be that as it may...

Shoestring - Yes, even I'm aware that a heavy object is less likely to be tossed around than a light object, I hopefully made that clear at the start. I'm looking for info as to the extent in which wing loading is responsible and there's some useful info here already - thanks Rod. Can I afford to run the Warrior? Yes. Do I want to if there are cheaper practical alternatives? Nope.

The 152 stat surprised me somewhat. I must be getting more susceptible as I don't remember it being an issue when I was flying them. Maybe I was concentrating so hard on the studies...

The cabin, visibility and panel of the SC were all first rate so I won't give up on it yet. I'll give it a month and try again. And yes, it's easily the best looking plane out there.

[englishal]

I agree, the SC is incredibly sexy, very comfortable, roomy, and a very nice aeroplane...If it had a 160HP engine and 1000Kg max weight it would be perfect for two.

On a related question, are "experimental" aeroplanes subject to the same design requirements as certified planes, in particular surviving turbulence? Certified aircraft must be able to survive a 50 fps vertical gust at Va. Do these lighter weights mean that Va will be incredibly low and so if one encouters rough eair one must slow right down? Va increases with weight so logic dictates that it would drop way down. This might be a factor on a long flight if a good cruise speed can't be achieved.

[Rod1]

“On a related question, are "experimental" aeroplanes subject to the same design requirements as certified planes, in particular surviving turbulence? Certified aircraft must be able to survive a 50 fps vertical gust at Va.

"experimental" = USA – Do what you like (slight simplification but you get the idea)

In the UK, under the LAA, the LAA take responsibility on behalf of the CAA. The aircraft have to pass the relevant design code, in this case CS-VLA. This is checked by the LAA and usually leads to modifications being mandated. If you want a factory built aircraft like an AT3, it will have passed CS-VLA but under the watchfull eye of the CAA and a C of A results. So no real difference in design code C of A / LAA permit.

“Va will be incredibly low and so if one encouters rough eair one must slow right down? Va increases with weight so logic dictates that it would drop way down. This might be a factor on a long flight if a good cruise speed can't be achieved.”

This is again linked partly to wing loading not weight and partly to the individual design. If I use the MCR Club as an example (because I know the numbers);

Normal 75% 138kn
Max rough air speed 128km
VNE 162kn

Some aircraft have the normal 75% speed very close to VNE and a big drop to Max rough air speed.

So to answer your question, it depends on what you mean by “slow right down”;). Yes, in rough air you do need to slow down, but certainly in a P300 or MCR you are still travelling faster than the average 180hp club machine. The way to get the best out of such a machine is to fly high. On my strip we have 6 modern “fast glass” Rotax machines, all flown by ex spamcan owners and all fly at 6 – 8 k if it is possible to do so. However, even low down and throttled back you are still travelling reasonably fast at very low fuel burn.

Rod1

[englishal]

slow right down
Ah I meant to Va (which will ensure you don't break up). If Va is 80 kts but Vno is say 138 kts that is a big drop in speed.

Is this a typo and should read knots or is it Km/h ;)

Max rough air speed 128km

And is max rough air the same as Va or the top of the green arc that you are refering?

[Rod1]

VA (according to Dyn Aero) is;

Do not apply abrupt or full-range control
deflections beyond this speed, because under
certain conditions, the Aircraft might be exposed to
excessive loads.

VNO (LAA use max rough air speed) is;

Do not exceed this Velocity,
except in calm air

VNO is greater than VA.

Rod1

[englishal]

Ah ok, I see that Va on the MCR01 is 109 kts (at max weight). Not a bad speed though, certainly as fast as many normal spam can types.

[david viewing]

Shoestring flyer: was that you I was talking to by the fence last night on this very subject? Very interesting dicussion of Warrior vs Sportcruiser. And a very pretty aeroplane you have there.

[Shoestring Flyer]

Sorry don't think so.....not unless you were in Abbeville

[subsonicsubic]

I don't fly twins any more (cost).

But I was shocked at how my mates Seneca 1 is buffeted by convection currents where we fly.

I fly C152 / 172 in the tropics.

Too lazy to look at the wing loading for the 3 types. Sorry.

Anyone ( I'm cooking) ?

SSS

[ben.fitzgerald]

To reply to the original question here re the PiperSport and flight in turbulence etc. The aircraft will certainly connect you more with the air outside the aircraft than traditional heavier aircraft that have higher wing loadings.

However, if this was your first flight in the aircraft, then you'll be comparing against the traditional GA fleet & the Warriors that you are used to, which are much heavier aircraft indeed. You mentioned that you felt a little air sick on this turbulent day, but this is something that rapidly goes away - you soon get used to the normal motion of the plane and think little of it. LSA's are certainly different from the time served fleet, and take a bit of getting used to, but they are no worse for this.

I'm reminded of when I learned to fly, where I was fortunate enough to fly Bulldogs in one of the RAF UAS's. I was fortunate in that I never suffered from any air sickness, but often wished I did! This was because those that did were subjected to frequent aeros sorties so that their inner ears & sense of motion adjusted to the conditions of flight and this problem went away.

Turweston Flying club have just been on one of their annual fly outs to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, including beach landings on Barra etc. A SportCruiser was one of the fleet, and gave a very good account of itself on the trip. Photos of the trip (and I understand video & write up coming later) are on their facebook site - search for Turweston Flying Club and this comes up - pics in the Glenforsa 2010 album most impressive.

An LSA will generally not be quite as quick as a bigger aircraft, but a cruise of around 100kts is most practical, and in the UK gets you most places in no time, and Czech Republic to Stapleford in 6 hours if you have a strong bladder. If you're flying for the sheer joy of flight, and economy and practicality matters, the it becomes obvious why the LSA types such as the PiperSport are becoming so successful.

No aircraft will be right for everyone, and all are a compromise - with the PiperSport you gain economy, ability to go in & out of very short field, roomy modern cabin with glass cockpit and car like features of MP3 inputs etc., and have the excellent safety that comes from a 30kts stall & BRS as standard; but loose some top end speed compared to others.

I'll have to declare an interest in this as I also own a SportCruiser (LAA) and also work for the UK agents for the aircraft, so may be a little biassed (OK, I'll freely admit that I love the plane). However, back to the original question of the thread, and I'm reminded that some of my former colleagues who suffered air sickness in their primary training are now flying fast jets for a living, so suffering a little turbulence might actually make you a better pilot!

[SpreadEagle]

Hello reimomo. I was undoubtedly the demo pilot who took you for that trip and so would like to begin by offering my sympathies. It is certainly not my intention to make anyone feel queasy.

I usually ask people what they would like to do with the aircraft, and try to base the flight around that. If someone wants a cruiser I'll spent more time looking at the autopilot, gps and cruise characteristics. Should they want a short field performer to get out of a strip I'll spend more time on stall characteristics, landings and takeoffs. I went to an RAF club last week and turned a few of their members upside down. I hope they enjoyed it, I was asked to repeat manoeuvres by several members. :ok:

As a sales team, we have no intention of hiding things from anyone and like to be honest about the aircraft. I'd rather someone tried the Pipersport, decided it was not for them and chose something else, than was duped into purchasing one and spent the next few years complaining what a horrid aircraft it was. That's no good for anyone.

Its a 600kg aircraft. It will be bumped about more than a PA-28. It is also far more agile. It rolls faster, pitches quicker and will even yaw more swiftly. This agility comes at a price. It won't be as stable as a PA-28. To be honest not many aircraft are as stable as the PA-28 (I certainly can't name any LSAs that are). But they are also not as sluggish.

My advice would be to try some of the others on a windy day.
When flying the Pipersport don't fight it. If it bumbs, let it bump. It has great dihedral and will come back swiftly by itself. Don't chase it. You will never keep up. That's how PIOs happen. The other common problem I have with our demonstrator, is that it is very often the first time a pilot has been exposed to a glass cockpit. It is very absorbing, giving you masses of information and of course for someone's first flight, they spend much of the time searching for it. If you decide a retest is warranted, fly as you were taught. Look out of the window and set the attitude. I see people chasing the digital numbers intently to the knot or foot and these are so accurate they bounce all over the place and the pilot follows. With eyes inside and lots of small sharp corrections most people will be ill. One of the Pipersport's best assets is the view it gives from the undistorted bubble canopy, so enjoy it and look out. :)
Its a VFR aircraft and people buy them so they can tour and see sites, hop between short airfields or like me, to grab it by the scruff of the neck and chuck it about the sky. Decide what you would like an aircraft for, and then pick the one that fits that best. As Ben says, no aircraft is perfect. Its about finding the closest match. If something ticks 8 out of your 10 boxes, that's going to be a serious contender. I hope you find what you are looking for ... I hope even more, that its a Pipersport!:p

I'll finish by listing our competitors, so you can have a look at those and also how many have been bought of each in the UK, listed on G-info.

PiperSport/ Sportcruiser ... 90

Remos GX ... 5
Aquila A210 ... 7
AT3 ... 13
DA-20 ... 10
AT4 ... 0
Technam P2002 ... 19
Skycatcher 162 ... 0

It vastly outsells everything in its class. If someone really wants a light 2 seater, the PiperSport is usually the one they choose.

[reimomo]

Spreadeagle, it was a great demo regardless and no sympathies required. A heavy night the day before meant I didn't exactly hit the ground running that morning....

But yes, a heap of people have bought a SC and if it moves around too much for me it's clearly my problem, not the plane's! I guess I fall into the 'touring' segment of GA (the Warrior I came up in is presently in Barcelona) and my fear was thinking that a flight from say, Biggin to N Yorkshire, often hampered by plenty of low airspace, would be pretty tiring on a summer's day.

More research needed. I'd love another trip up, hopefully somewhere without the 2k'ish ceiling, and I'll be in touch.

[Cows getting bigger]

Being a sad git, I have flown all of the types listed above apart from the Skycatcher (and AT4 which is actually an downgraded AT-3 for the American LSA market). Some handle the bumpy bits better than others but none of thenm are poor. Personally, I found the Aquila the best to fly but most would admit that this aircraft is on the fringe of the mainstream VLA/LSA market (check the price :eek:).

Of the rest, I found the Sportcruiser and AT-3 very similar to fly with the SC winning on interior and finish. The Tecnam 2002 is more of a pilot's aircraft (slightly bigger smile on face) and handles the bumpy bits a little better but it is somewhat cramped compared with the rest. The Remos is an interesting aircraft and I'm a little surprised it hasn't made a bigger impact on the UK market (folding wings) but again it is a bit pricey.

FWIW, I fervently believe this type of aircraft is the way ahead for GA. Yes, there will always be people who want/need nice big cruising machines (Cirrus, TB20 etc) but the mainstream market is for something less.

[Flyingmac]

"A ML at 2500ft is a rarity.

Last longish flight I did in a microlight was done at 9,000ft to take advantage of a tailwind and smooth air. Took about 9 minutes to get up there. TAS in the cruise was 130kts. GS 165kts.

[VictorGolf]

If I could be allowed a degree of thread creep, one of the other factors in this debate which doesn't involve aerodynamics is one of finance. If one doesn't have the time/skills/patience to hammer one together in the garden shed, then a SportCruiser looks like £80K of anybody's money. A good Cherokee 140 can be had for £15-20K, a Warrior for £25-30K and an Archer for £35-40K. The difference would buy a lot of fuel. Horses for courses I suppose.

[reimomo]

A fair point. But the fuel savings are only part of the equation. Have you seen the cost of a 30yr old Warrior annual recently? Ye. Gods.

One would hope that outgoings on a SC would be pretty low at least for the first 5-10 years, and I'd certainly not expect any corrosion work. In addition, the LSA maintenance schedule is much more forgiving on the wallet....

[Rod1]

A second hand home built aircraft in the VLA class, low hours with a state of the art avionic fit is likely to cost around 55k. Assuming 100 hours a year you will save around 10k per year on running costs. The business case is not very hard.

Be careful of terminology. The vast majority of SC in the UK were cleared via CS-VLA through the LAA. Factory aircraft with an EASA permit are now arriving, and ELA1 may come in 2 years. LSA is an American standard with some very big disadvantages over CS-VLA (eg no VP props, speed limits etc). The SC was designed to the US LSA standard, but most of the competition was originally designed to CS-VLA. The Rotax machine in this class with the most sales is the Europa (in the UK).

Rod1

[IO540]

One would hope that outgoings on a SC would be pretty low at least for the first 5-10 years, and I'd certainly not expect any corrosion workComparing like for like, it is worth noting that a brand new metal CofA plane will also have low maintenance costs, through not needing airframe parts for the first 10-15 years.

I bought a new TB20 in 2002 and my airframe related costs to date are around a few hundred quid in total, over the 8 years.

Of course there were other costs, but they would have been the same if the plane was on the LAA (unless you want to disregard a dodgy-crankshaft AD, which I guess one can do ;) ).

The reasons why the 1970s hardware tends to have silly-price annuals (a friend was paying £7000/year on a syndicate C150) are

- most CofA owners are not "engineer/DIY types" and just want a plane they can leave at some company, and they don't want to get involved (so they often get shafted)

- old planes tend to have corroding airframes and need airframe parts replaced, which are universally ripoff priced

- some maintenance companies have used the EASA regime to invent bogus costs and practices

One can dramatically reduce one's Annual costs by a careful initial purchase and a subsequent micro-management of what is done to it, and a very careful choice of who does the work (and the biggest factor is having a hangar where freelance engineers are allowed to work) but most CofA owners don't want to spend their time doing that. So they pay through the nose...

Obviously a 1400kg MTOW IFR 4-seater will have higher overall costs than a 600kg VFR 2-seater, and you would expect that given the massive difference in mission capability, but a lot of the operating cost difference is due to the owners of the former being unwilling to get their hands dirty, not down to LAA v. CofA.

[englishal]

There is always another option, and one we're doing. Buy an older aeroplane and rebuild it.

We bought a commander which had had a landing accident. As such we bought it off the insurance company very cheaply. Had we broken it for spares then, we'd have made money on that alone, but we decided to rebuild. After the rebuild the aeroplane will benefit from:

New avionics
New Interior
New paint job
Zero timed and balanced engine
new 3 blade prop
(and N reg ;) )

Once this is all complete the cost will be about £60k all in. Not bad for an "as new" IFR tourer.

It has taken about a year to do, and we have paid people to do all the work, bar a few bits like sand blasting and painting components and re-doing the interior.

The thing I like about this route is that the aeroplane is a known quantity. I have personally inspected the wing spars, and other critical bits and it is nice to see they are in good condition. We'll have new wing bolts and during the rebuild they found minute cracks in the rudder at the hinge - something that you never know, could have gone in 10 years time and you'd never have known they were there because you can't see them on the pre-flight. Aeroplanes that haven't benefited from being taken to bits may never be inspected in such detail.

Can one pay say a maintenance place to build a kit aeroplane? Would it be cheaper than a factory built one?

[Justiciar]

Have you seen the cost of a 30yr old Warrior annual recently?

Would be interested in people's experiences. I know of one chap with a well maintained 161 who paid £4k just after Part M came in. What sort of prices are people experiencing now?

[Rod1]

“Can one pay say a maintenance place to build a kit aeroplane? Would it be cheaper than a factory built one?”

No and probably not. The probably not depends on instrument fit. If you were to put the latest synthetic vision system into say a TB20, it would cost a huge amount of cash. One of the big savings on the LAA side is you can fit uncertified but equivalent kit for around 3 – 4 k. Leave out the avionic fit and you are unlikely to save, but you could get a more personalised result.

My idea of a known quantity is to have built the thing, know it inside and out and know it was not built in a rush or down to a price. When I take my nearest and dearest up, I find that helps a lot.

Rod1

[IO540]

Buy an older aeroplane and rebuild it.If there is enough value in an equivalent already built plane then this is worth doing.

In your case you will end up with a plane which is quite close to a capable IFR tourer which if it was on the market now would go for about £250k. A used one would probably sell for £150k. A 2002 TB20 would now sell for about £150k (actual figure based on actual recent sales).

For fun, I looked at some old-dog TB20s which you can pick up for about £40k (probably nearer to 30k) with runout engines. You can get a new exchange Lyco for about $30-35k. Then install a G500+GNS530W from scratch, chucking away most of the old avionics (they will be useless anyway). Respray down to bare metal etc etc. Total cost will be about £100-120k and for that you will have a virtually new plane. Against buying one for £140-150k, this appears a marginal project, but if you know a really good engineering company which can do the lot in-house, and you like to micro-manage it, it would be worth doing because you will have a new engine, new (relevant) avionics, and everything relevant will be a known quantity. It would take about a year. I know somebody who did this on a 421C at Airtime in Bournemouth but a) a 421C is big enough to make it worth doing this on and b) Airtime could (at the time, anyway) do the whole lot in-house.

One doesn't need SV; all real IFR is done using standard techniques like published approaches.

[reimomo]

I don'r really follow. Rebuild sounds attractive, but wouldn't I be left with precisely the option I'm trying to avoid?

A cleaner and more reliable IFR-equipped big thirsty tank is still a big, thirsty tank.

I don't know many people that believe the oil price will fall over the next decade. If 30-40 litres/hr is expensive today, imagine what it would work out at $120/barrel.

I know of one chap with a well maintained 161 who paid £4k just after Part M came in. What sort of prices are people experiencing now? That and a bit more is ballpark for us.

[englishal]

Annual - about £1800 for 160HP simple SEP aeroplane on an ARC.

So Rod, with a kit plane one HAS to build it themselves do they? Obviously I could pretend to build one ;) but what I am getting at, for those of us who can't be arsed / aren't skilled / aren't patient enough to build one, could I not just take it around to my local Part M place and say "here build this" and it would be built to a good standard?

I like tinkering with stuff like avionics, but I can't be bothered to rivet panels for 2 weeks. It would be a kind of fun project to get a kit built....Maybe after the commander is done :)

[IO540]

You are supposed to build it substantially yourself, but there is a well developed "assistance industry" around this one ;)

However, and I know a few pilots who fly homebuilts, the number of hours you have to put in to get something decent is absolutely awesome. It is way beyond somebody with a "life". No suprise then that many never finish.

[Rod1]

“could I not just take it around to my local Part M place and say "here build this" and it would be built to a good standard?”

You do not have to build it yourself, you can buy second-hand. LAA inspectors maintain the standards of LAA aircraft. The inspector has to sign off all the build stages and he would know if you have it done for you. You do not have to build it all, the rules say 51%. I took 1800 hours over 3 years 3 months, and managed to have a life at the same time. I did this by building it in my garage and getting the family involved. Some of the modern kits (including the “advanced airframe” MCR) can be built in 600 hours ish, but you do not learn as much. Part of the reason I built the more basic kit was to increase my understanding of the machine, as well as saving 4k.

If you want a way round the rules, get the aircraft built in the USA, with all the required LAA mods built in, and import it. I think the chances of getting away with this would be very good provided you chose a common machine like an RV.

IO unfortunately knows almost nothing about any of this and just makes it all up as he goes along. The completion rate of modern kits is very high indeed. 30 years ago, building from plans was almost the only option and that can take 10,000 hours, so the completion rate was poor, with many projects getting finished buy the third owner. Today, the LAA fleet (flying and under construction) is running at just over 4000 aircraft and rising. There are about 7500 sep C of A aircraft in the UK.

Rod1

[Jodelman]

There is a bit of a buddy culture in some parts of the LAA, and so things get signed off that shouldn't.

That is libelous!!!! Could you please justify that statement.

[Rod1]

SpreadEagle

Just to make sure I have got this straight.

You said;

“Czech Republic with a guy who had a kit built for him. After it was built and signed off by the LAA, he had some experts look over it for him. It cost him an additional £12,000 just to get all the avionics redone and had to sell it as seen, to someone else as he couldn't fly it in the state it is. It was full of stupid errors like the gascolator pointing forwards into the airflow. The whole thing needs a rebuild. For the peace of mind he has just taken delivery of his new factory built aircraft There is a bit of a buddy culture in some parts of the LAA, and so things get signed off that shouldn't. However you are the one signing to say you built it all along the way, and should you report someone for building dangerous aircraft, then they ground yours, leaving you between a rock and a hard place, so the builder just moves on. If you want a good builder I will recommend you one. I don't sell kits or get kick backs so it will be based purely on the aircraft I have seen them turn out.”

You sell the Pipersport in the UK.

You are offering a service to get LAA aircraft built professionally.

You can prove that if you report an illegal builder your own aircraft will be grounded.

Rod1

[hatzflyer]

Put up or retract your statement.
You are obviously trying to use this forum to attract commercial buisness and slandering LAA inspectors and the whole LAA organisation in the process.
As an inspector myself I say iether name names or retract your statement.
May I aslo point out that the Sportscruiser ( ie Pipersport) is a direct decendant of the Zenair. Most of the development for this aircraft was overseen by the LAA. Piper came along and bought their way into it because they could see the future and unlike Cessna had no homegrown product.(as an aside ,Cessna have done exactly the same thing now, in that they have bought an ex-experimental design to plug their product gap).
Getting back to the point it is particularly gualling to see you come on here for obvious commercial gain, claiming to have extensive knowledge of what is effectively a LAA design and then berating the LAA and its system in order to further your own cause.
If you have issues with individual people take it up with LAA head office and do something about it.

don't come on here berating all and sundry to try to bolster your own buisness.:mad:

[smarthawke]

Whilst there are many SportCruisers on the UK reg, the vast majority are kit-built ones, not EASA Permit factory built ones and certinly no PiperSports as there is no EASA approval for FAA LSAs and the Restricted Type Certificate (RTC) hasn't been finalised yet. Therefore comparisons with the numbers of certified aircraft like the TECNAM P2002 isn't entirely fair.

There's certainly some very cleverly worded adverts in the media for the PiperSport that implies it is here, selling by the dozen (or two) and available for flying training use. Not so. Driving around in a SportCruiser with PiperSport stickers on it has apparently raised more than a few eyebrows on both sides of the pond.

Who will win the PiperSport importation in the UK eventually? The present company or Piper UK? Now that could be an interesting story to read....

Bit of professional foot shooting telling tales of professionally built SportCruisers - that should get the LAA interested - and rightly so.

[englishal]

Ok, so could I buy a SC kit and give it to my maintenance company, then they build it for themselves, get it all signed off, and then sell it to me for the cost of the build ? ;) I am sure as a Part M JAR 145 (or whatever it is) company they should be suitably qualified to be signed off by an LAA inspector (albeit maybe not in the "club?"! ;))...

[Jodelman]

Ok, so could I buy a SC kit

Probably not. The supply of kits seems to have dried up.

[Rod1]

SpreadEagle has deleted his posts and apologized by PM.

If you are interested in building and want to understand the rules etc have a look at;

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TechnicalLeaflets/Building,%20Buying%20or%20Importing/TL%201.02%20Building%20your%20Aircraft%20with%20the%20LAA.pd f

Rod1