First GA Purchase - What to Get?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

All

I'm a PPL(H) and soaring pilot looking to move into the world of powered, fixed-wing GA flying.

I'd like to buy something that has character, is aerobatic and can take one or two passengers, and that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to run. I like the idea of a DHC Chipmunk, but understand they're pricey to maintain. Overall, I don't want to spend much more than about £40k to purchase something, and for that I'd expect it to be flyable!

So, does anyone have any suggestions?

TIA

[Sam Rutherford]

Wow. How long is a piece of string?!

But I'll bite anyway. PA28, C172, DR40... - sorry, just missed that you want aerobatic. AN2... :)

Buy the plane and the engine, not the shiny extras.

Safe flights, Sam.

[Field Required]

Q400........

[Dave Gittins]

2 seats and aerobatic .. T67 Slingsby Firefly

[172510]

I'd like to buy something that has character, is aerobatic and can take one or two passengers, and that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to run.
Unless you fly an experimental aircraft and you maintain it by yourself, each and every powered aircraft costs an arm and a leg to run.

[pericynthion1]

Unless you fly an experimental aircraft and you maintain it by yourself, each and every powered aircraft costs an arm and a leg to run.

And if you do fly an experimental aircraft and maintain it by yourself, in addition to an arm and a leg it also costs blood, sweat and tears.

[ETOPS]

Here you go Ewan..

https://www.ataviation.uk/listings/zlin-326/

I have no connection with the vendor and I'm not on commission - buy me a beer one day :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that there's a reasonable choice if you ditch the requirement for a second passenger, or ditch the aerobatic requirement.

Both? A very limited choice, and still less under £40k.

Maule 7? Ex-Swedish Bulldog with a back seat? Lycoming engined Auster?

I'd say ditch the second passenger requirement and stick to 2-seaters - you'll get far more aeroplane for your money, and can always rent a C172 or PA28 occasionally to take that second pax.

G

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Thanks, all!

ETOPS - I had seen that, thanks :)

Dave G - at the risk of opening a can of worms, I had discounted the Firefly on the grounds of safety concerns. I think the last one I saw that crashed was a couple of years ago, and it wouldn't come out of the a spin, IIRC. Two fatalities, both RAF student pilots.

[Forfoxake]

You should definitely consider a permit aircraft.

Your budget does not quite stretch to an RV (4) or a two seat Pitts but how about a Skybolt, Christen Eagle II, Acro Sport 2, Starduster Too or a Hiperbipe?

Or if you want lots of change and can accept more limited aerobatic capability, a Bolkow Junior?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Maule 7? Ex-Swedish Bulldog with a back seat? Lycoming engined Auster?

I'd say ditch the second passenger requirement and stick to 2-seaters - you'll get far more aeroplane for your money, and can always rent a C172 or PA28 occasionally to take that second pax.

G

Thanks, G. Looks like I just missed out on an Auster sale... will check out the other types you mention.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

You should definitely consider a permit aircraft.

Your budget does not quite stretch to an RV (4) or a two seat Pitts but how about a Skybolt, Christen Eagle II, Acro Sport 2, Starduster Too or a Hiperbipe?

Or if you want lots of change and can accept more limited aerobatic capability, a Bolkow Junior?

Great list to look into. Would you have a personal preference based on experience?

[Forfoxake]

Great list to look into. Would you have a personal preference based on experience?

Not really. I have only flown a Bolkow Junior and a Vans RV-4 and not done aerobatics in either. However, the RV-4 is fast tourer too.

PS If you look at any permit aircraft, check that the particular aeroplane has been cleared for aerobatics.

[Mark 1]

The Vans RV-4 is a great aircraft, simple to maintain, quite economical and very good performance. I've had 3 of them.
They are also not often on the market, so you would need to act quickly (and cautiously) to secure a deal.

As a sailplane pilot, it maybe worth looking for a Fournier RF5. Possibly less availability than the Vans, but combines motor-glider economy with aerobatic capability.

The Jodel D150 Mascaret is nominally aerobatic although most owners seem to respect the aging woodwork and use them just as tourers.

On the lighter side, there's the Rans S10 Sakota which should be well within your budget.

Most of the above should only be considered single seaters for aerobatics sorties. If you want dual aeros, find a partner or two and get an RV-8.

[Forfoxake]

The Vans RV-4 is a great aircraft, simple to maintain, quite economical and very good performance. I've had 3 of them.
They are also not often on the market, so you would need to act quickly (and cautiously) to secure a deal.

As a sailplane pilot, it maybe worth looking for a Fournier RF5. Possibly less availability than the Vans, but combines motor-glider economy with aerobatic capability.

The Jodel D150 Mascaret is nominally aerobatic although most owners seem to respect the aging woodwork and use them just as tourers.

On the lighter side, there's the Rans S10 Sakota which should be well within your budget.

Most of the above should only be considered single seaters for aerobatics sorties. If you want dual aeros, find a partner or two and get an RV-8.

I have been in a D150 doing a loop but imho it is not aerobatic although it is a wonderful tourer.

I flew in a S10 Sakota years ago and really hated it, although it is very cheap! I think most have two stroke engines too, which I no longer fancy!.

I have never flown a Fournier but presume that their aerobatic performance will be similar to a glider. But they are old and wooden too.

[Pilot DAR]

If you have £40k to spend, look for an aircraft in the £30k price range, so you'll have some extra money left over to feed and care for it. Every airplane is a compromise. Some do better than other at some things - no type is perfect. It's up to you to define your most common "mission" and buy to suit. Remember that the fact that you own a plane does not mean that you can't rent something else (more seats) if you need it from time to time. I loved flying the RV-4, agile, nicely harmonized, but they're not very roomy, so less than ideal for overnight touring with a passenger. Cessnas do what it says on the box - none of it particularly well, but easy and economical to maintain for a certified type. Similarly Piper PA-28 series, though I would be very cautious about parts availability for ongoing maintenance. Fabric aircraft can be charming, if the fabric is in good shape, and you can hangar it. Taildraggers will build your flying skills better and faster than flying tricycle.

Aerobatic is nice to aspire to, but most aerobatic planes are otherwise an compromise. The 150 Aerobat is a very modest aerobatic performer, though if you can fly decent aerobatics in it, you're a better than average aerobatic pilot! I would think a Citabria ("airbatic" backwards) is a nice choice, if the particular plane is in good shape. Otherwise, excluding loops, rolls, and spins, any type can be "maneuvered" for fun and proficiency. Steep turns, stalls and chandelles are fun.

Buy the plane you can really afford to operate - so you fly it lots! If you're worried about the operating cost, and not flying it, why'd you buy it? Airplanes are no longer an investment - buy them to fly them, your return for ownership is availability, and not paying someone else a profit on operating hours. Do not expect a plane to appreciate. It will never be worth nothing, but rationalize that your return was hundreds of fun flying hours, 'cause it won't be lots of money when you sell it!

[Silvaire1]

Others have mentioned the Bölkow Junior, but FWIW a Monsun would fit the requirement reasonably well and offer substantially better performance for both sport flying and cross countries.

[India Four Two]

Dave G - at the risk of opening a can of worms, I had discounted the Firefly on the grounds of safety concerns. I think the last one I saw that crashed was a couple of years ago, and it wouldn't come out of the a spin, IIRC. Two fatalities, both RAF student pilots.

Ewan,
I am going to politely open the can of worms. I would leap at buying a Firefly if I could afford one. The crash you refer to does the aircraft a disservice. The RAF student pilot who was flying it, had been given a very rudimentary checkout, which did not involve any spinning or aerobatics, and so he was not aware of the spin recovery technique. He only knew how to recover a Tucano from a spin, which has an unusual spin-recovery technique, very different from all light aircraft spin-recoveries that I am familiar with.

[Genghis the Engineer]

To the best of my knowledge, virtually all, possibly all of the UK fatals in T67s have been the smaller engine Mk.2 variants with the 160hp engine.The 200hp military variant is available on the G-reg, albeit more expensive, does not have the problematic safety record, and is a heck of a lot more fun to fly. (Ditto the 260hp version of course, but that might be a challenge under £40k).


Regarding I42's post above - whilst I'm not in the "there's no problem with Fireflies camp", I do agree that that particular accident had far more to do with the pilots than the aeroplane. Two young and doubtless enthusiastic military student pilots, used to a very different type, not trained in the CRM of two pilots in a cockpit - that wasn't a recipe for happiness unfortunately.

That said, with hours in both the T67 and the Bulldog, I'd take a Bulldog every time, which I think is a far nicer aeroplane to fly (albeit that there's a fatigue life issue with *some* airframes.) And there are a few Bulldogs with a back seat.

G

[Silvaire1]

The Bulldog seems a nice enough plane if you can find one with some hours left on the wing... but 110 kts cruise on 200 HP would be a factor for me.

Re the earlier mention of the Citabria. It could have been called the 'Aeronca Super Champ', in an analogy to the Piper Super Cub: Like a Champ I've found them to need a lot of muscle although spades make an improvement - I flew the same plane before and after. Citabrias are also slow for the power.

[N707ZS]

What about a Beagle Pup if you can find one.

[27/09]

Similarly Piper PA-28 series, though I would be very cautious about parts availability for ongoing maintenance.
I don't think there is anything to be worried about so far as parts go for the PA28 series. Certainly no more conerns than many other aircraft that have been suggested.There's been1000's built giving a good source of second hand parts plus they are still in production.

The PA28 series is a good robust aircraft that is simple and easy to maintain, I'd say more so than brand C.

[Big Pistons Forever]

In the glider world the advice given to new glider pilots is buy a great trailer and fly what ever glider happens to be in it. The corollary for powered pilots is buy the maintenance history. There are so many ways your dream airplane can become a nightmare of unexpected expensive repairs.

[Gipsy Queen]

I have no idea if there any still flying but years ago, the Victa Airtourer was a fun kite for aeros of limited complexity. They certainly were not expensive to operate.

[Pilot DAR]

27/09's experience with legacy Pipers differs, and that's fine. The message is do your own homework on what the maintainbility will be. Yes, buy the maintenance history, though also buy the maintainability. Cessnas have their own challenges, and an impending AD on some four seat models is going to be burdensome. The fact that a forty to sixty year old aircraft type has 1000's out there for parts, does not assure availability of airworthy replacement parts. The junk yard aircraft have the same corrosion and wear and tear as the subject aircraft, and the wrecks have been well picked over by now. The fact that a model is still in production is also not an assurance of economical parts. My client inquired about a Cessna 206 wing nose rib (a simple one piece pressed aluminum part, a bit bigger than my open hand). US$1200 for one! And, that part is technically not eligible on the legacy 206's.

Very new aircraft probably have excellent parts availability, but you're paying the price, and it'll be more than 40k!

If you're prepared to buy the plane, and fly your value out of it, your attitude is right, and you will likely save over renting, let alone the wonderful availability of the aircraft to you, just educate yourself as to the economics of maintenance and repair for any type you consider.

[Silvaire1]

I have no idea if there any still flying but years ago, the Victa Airtourer was a fun kite for aeros of limited complexity. They certainly were not expensive to operate.

Good suggestion!

[Dave Gittins]

I don't have any safety concerns about the T67. There is a group owned one at Redhill with the 160 hp Lycoming, I've flown it a couple of times and our club uses it for aerobatic experience flights and instruction. As G says above I think it's a dog with a bad name as a result of some inexperienced users. However I am no aerobat and I've only used it for IMC instruction.

But what do I know about dangerous aeroplanes ? I've flown a few PA-38s without coming to any harm.

If the OP wants to try it out and talk to an experienced aerobatic instructor, let me know and I can PM the details.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Goodwood (Ultimate High) and White Waltham (West London Aero Club) both do aerobatic instruction in T67s, have excellent instructors and good safety records - if you wanted to try out, I'd go to one of those.

White Waltham I'm sure could do the whole SEP rating happily in it, which doesn't seem a bad idea if seriously considering buying one.

But I'd still rather own a Bulldog :) I just think it's a far more enjoyable aeroplane to fly - and there are a few with rear seats. Some Bulldogs are not fatigue life limited.

I mentioned the Auster earlier - a type I know passably well - I'd personally not own one with a Gypsy Major or Cirrus: just because of the age and running costs of those engines, nor unless I had a hangar to keep it in available. But there are 3-seaters, it has a basic aerobatic capability, and they are an absolute joy to throw around, as well as being great for strip flying.

G

[l10fly]

Fuji FA-200?

[mary meagher]

I learned to fly gliders at High Wycombe, and then imported a Supercub from Texas. Since then more than three thousand hours, quite a few competitions, never won but had lots of fun trying. The glider was seriously damaged by a subsequent owner, but the Supercub is still flying in luxury at White Waltham. I did a couple of flights at WW, but that runway was not very smooth compared to gliding fields!

The advantage of having a decent single seat glider to fly, lots of solo practice, you should then be ready for competition which is always like a 9 day big party, all participants suffering from the same weather conditions. I used GOFER to tow up gliders at Shenington on a regular basis, and at a number of gliding competitions.

[foxmoth]

I really cannot understand those proposing the Pa28, looking at the OPs desires something that has character, is aerobatic and can take one or two passengers, and that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to run. the Pa28 only seems to fit "take one or two passengers", whilst it may not cost an arm and a leg to run it certainly will not be anything like as cheap to run as a permit aircraft. The Pup fits the bil pretty well, especially the 150 as does the Airtourer but there are others around that fit the bill really well, we have just bought a permit aerobatic biplane with low engine hours for well under this price . Another option of course is to use your funds to buy a share in something a bit more expensive, you can then look at a half or third share in an RV which has to be one of the best choices going!

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Thanks, all, for the additional ideas.

[ethicalconundrum]

Bellanca Citabria or Decathelon. You will be stretching the budget for either, but they are good planes. I flew one for several years. 7ECA, 7KCAB, 8KCAB.