Your favourite aerobatic training aircraft?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Asia
Age: 39
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh Flung Dung, now there's someone who likes the sound of his own voice. The original question pertained to three very specific types under consideration by an aero club in the Far East and was not an invitation for you to show off how much you know about aeroplanes; what an anorak you are.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Down South, preferably inverted
Posts: 235
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by moosp
As the choice seems somewhat limited, and not all of the members are named Hobson, I wondered what other aircraft you folks that know would suggest, given the usual constraints of an aviation club.
Any advice or direction would be welcome from this member of the club who would like to vote in the poll but is not up on the knowledege of the best equipment around.
Any advice or direction would be welcome from this member of the club who would like to vote in the poll but is not up on the knowledege of the best equipment around.
As for HFD - He does know, as he's had to assess and help a club with the same decision - What experience do you have in these matters as you don't seem to want to say??
Why don't you wander over to JETBLAST where I'm sure you'd be received warmly.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You beat me to it Mad Girl, excellent answer by HFD.
moosp, how did the committee arrive at it's short list? What were the original selection criteria? You want to avoid a situation where some people in a position of influence decide they want a certain plane and they will get the rank-and-file to pay for it. If you get something too hard to handle and you spend all your time getting recurrent checkouts then you will not get into the air yourself, then you will get bored. The goal is to fly the plane yourself and not with an instructor. More hours in the air, the lower the hourly rate. One poster seemed to suggest that currency was not a big thing in this club, and some of the suggestions might suit the very capable pilots who are posting on this thread, but not the target audience.
moosp, how did the committee arrive at it's short list? What were the original selection criteria? You want to avoid a situation where some people in a position of influence decide they want a certain plane and they will get the rank-and-file to pay for it. If you get something too hard to handle and you spend all your time getting recurrent checkouts then you will not get into the air yourself, then you will get bored. The goal is to fly the plane yourself and not with an instructor. More hours in the air, the lower the hourly rate. One poster seemed to suggest that currency was not a big thing in this club, and some of the suggestions might suit the very capable pilots who are posting on this thread, but not the target audience.
WWC:
that seems a little harsh and doesn't actually contribute to the discussion - 'bad day at the orifice?
I answered the OP's question, based on going through a similar process myself a few years ago; do you have anything more constructive to contribute, from your experience?
HFD
that seems a little harsh and doesn't actually contribute to the discussion - 'bad day at the orifice? I answered the OP's question, based on going through a similar process myself a few years ago; do you have anything more constructive to contribute, from your experience?
HFD
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Asia's Fine City
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moosp - I have flown R2160 and CJ6 - not just joy rides.
Comments: R2160 VP - never head of it. Always FP in my experience.
Do some research on Sydney Aerobatic School - Bankstown Sydney. They have been operating R2160s for years. The owner will give you experiencied opinions on operating this type of a/c in the aero training role. Including -ve g fuel starvation through spinning - air start recoveries no problem.
CJ6: Beautiful to fly. Bit advanced for the early training role though IMO.
Tandem seating makes it difficult to teach attitude flying (if trainee is in rear) and relative stick postions. All controls are fullt duplicated in rear. IMO side-by-side is eaiser to instruct and better for the student. Compared to R2160 operating costs will be higher - retracts, VP prop, radial, full etc.
Have been 'trying to get hold' of Uncle charlie for a while ! Turns out that one of the owners has gone AWOL and in uncontacable or maybe its reluctance to sell as I;d like to export it to NZ.
Please feel free to PM me as we're HK neighbours.
K
Comments: R2160 VP - never head of it. Always FP in my experience.
Do some research on Sydney Aerobatic School - Bankstown Sydney. They have been operating R2160s for years. The owner will give you experiencied opinions on operating this type of a/c in the aero training role. Including -ve g fuel starvation through spinning - air start recoveries no problem.
CJ6: Beautiful to fly. Bit advanced for the early training role though IMO.
Tandem seating makes it difficult to teach attitude flying (if trainee is in rear) and relative stick postions. All controls are fullt duplicated in rear. IMO side-by-side is eaiser to instruct and better for the student. Compared to R2160 operating costs will be higher - retracts, VP prop, radial, full etc.
Have been 'trying to get hold' of Uncle charlie for a while ! Turns out that one of the owners has gone AWOL and in uncontacable or maybe its reluctance to sell as I;d like to export it to NZ.
Please feel free to PM me as we're HK neighbours.
K
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chipmunk - lovely to fly but serviceability on a 60 year old aircraft won't be the best. A bit low powered and limited in performance, especially in tropical heat.
Robin 2160 - responsive, does flick (keep it below 2 x stall speed to avoid rolling G exceeding limits). Airstart not a problem, conventional gear, but whilst climb rate is reasonable (typically 1100 - 1200 fpm in Sydney) they'll also struggle a bit gaining altitude and recovering height between manoeuvres in tropical heat). OTH, Alpha were talking about NZ$170 (I think) which is pretty reasonable for a new plane. Lack of CSU not a problem - you just need to adjust throttle by ear in manouevres to prevent overspeed.
Pitts S-2C - Fantastic to fly, and will double up as a great scenic flight/joyride machine to get the usage up to further help amortise fixed costs per hour. Capital costs are higher $200USD + new but you can get a nice low time used one for around $160 - $180.
It is a big improvement in landing compared to easier models. 260hp means that performance unlikely ever to be a problem and means that cost per manoeuvre is about as low as you can get. Costs more to run than a Robin - but aren't you HK'ers all paid a fortune anyway? And see comments on hourly fixed costs amortisation!
We've been operating one in the Sydney area for joyrides and training for a year with very few problems - it looks fantastic and really pulls in the punters. If you can get down down to Oz and want to come ad try one out and discuss usability commercial/flying training ops, send me a PM.
See http://www.airborne-aviation.com.au/aircraft/ for copy of aircraft information booklet/POH.
Robin 2160 - responsive, does flick (keep it below 2 x stall speed to avoid rolling G exceeding limits). Airstart not a problem, conventional gear, but whilst climb rate is reasonable (typically 1100 - 1200 fpm in Sydney) they'll also struggle a bit gaining altitude and recovering height between manoeuvres in tropical heat). OTH, Alpha were talking about NZ$170 (I think) which is pretty reasonable for a new plane. Lack of CSU not a problem - you just need to adjust throttle by ear in manouevres to prevent overspeed.
Pitts S-2C - Fantastic to fly, and will double up as a great scenic flight/joyride machine to get the usage up to further help amortise fixed costs per hour. Capital costs are higher $200USD + new but you can get a nice low time used one for around $160 - $180.
It is a big improvement in landing compared to easier models. 260hp means that performance unlikely ever to be a problem and means that cost per manoeuvre is about as low as you can get. Costs more to run than a Robin - but aren't you HK'ers all paid a fortune anyway? And see comments on hourly fixed costs amortisation!
We've been operating one in the Sydney area for joyrides and training for a year with very few problems - it looks fantastic and really pulls in the punters. If you can get down down to Oz and want to come ad try one out and discuss usability commercial/flying training ops, send me a PM.
See http://www.airborne-aviation.com.au/aircraft/ for copy of aircraft information booklet/POH.
Cool as a moosp
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy Jack thanks for that. I think that the Pitts might be a bit too advanced for the club, being tail wheel and having a reputation for needing a close eye kept on it. There was one here many years ago (20?) which went down with one of the owners and we are still a bit gun shy of them.
But as I come down to Bankstown reasonable often I may well drop you a line to try one out, as I never have!
Oh and SlimSlag I think you got it in one with your comments, but referenda are not part of the political culture here.
But as I come down to Bankstown reasonable often I may well drop you a line to try one out, as I never have!
Oh and SlimSlag I think you got it in one with your comments, but referenda are not part of the political culture here.
CT4E a tad costly
As the new 300hp CT4E probably costs a small fortune, please consider use of a second hand CT4B model. Although not over-powered with it's 210hp engine, it's easy to fly, as tough as a brick, it's got two sticks, and it is fun to do aeros in (including inverted spinning). I never broke one!!
Whilst the Constant Speed Prop is a bother to some, the aircraft is also useful in being able to fly IFR, at night. An all-round great trainer, and if I bought a two seat aircraft, in would be one of these babies.
Nope, I don't sell them, but they are very popular in the 'warbird' market in Australia. Maybe the PAC (Pacific Aerospace Company) guys in Hamilton, New Zealand may have leads on good used models....
Whilst the Constant Speed Prop is a bother to some, the aircraft is also useful in being able to fly IFR, at night. An all-round great trainer, and if I bought a two seat aircraft, in would be one of these babies.
Nope, I don't sell them, but they are very popular in the 'warbird' market in Australia. Maybe the PAC (Pacific Aerospace Company) guys in Hamilton, New Zealand may have leads on good used models....
Flown the T67 in 160 and 200 forms, and it does roll like an afterthought without a generous boot of rudder, but I was always comparing it to the 'Dog as well! In 160 form it's a bit breathless. While were on the subject of aerobatic exotica, if the CJ6 or Yak 52 are not preferable due to tandem seating, how about a FW149? Rare, 4-Seat, retracts, I'm assuming aerobatic and not a bad looking aircraft. Saw one at Popham the other week and thought it quite delightful, now just need to find someone to lend me one....Or you could go the whole hog and get an SF260!
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Port Headland
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the CT4B does not have a full CofA without very expensive modification, getting it passed HK CAA would be nearly impossible.
Ex Singapore Victa T6 would be ideal but same problem with CofA?
Ex Singapore Victa T6 would be ideal but same problem with CofA?
Two of the ex-RAAF CT-4's have a "full" CofA with all the mods but I doubt whether they'd be for sale at the moment. One of the later civilian production aeroplanes changed hands recently.
The T-6's have a CofA in normal & aerobatic categories with FAR 23 as the certification basis. Personally, I prefer the T6 over the CT-4.
The T-6's have a CofA in normal & aerobatic categories with FAR 23 as the certification basis. Personally, I prefer the T6 over the CT-4.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SF-260 is a lovely aeroplane to fly but a lot more than you're likely to want in HK. You probably would not want or need 4 hours endurance and a 160 kt cruise, though it's fun for basic aeros. Good performance and nice controls, but you'd really want one with the injected engine and inverted systems and the larger rudder, and there you'd be up for US$250k - for which price you could have a Robin 2160 and a nice Pitts S2C.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the Extra 200. Two seat, it has an IO360 200HP. Very capable, tailwheel and 35-40 litres per hour.
Quite a lot more capability than the CAP etc. 175,000 Euros
See
http://www.extraaircraft.com/ea200.asp
Quite a lot more capability than the CAP etc. 175,000 Euros
See
http://www.extraaircraft.com/ea200.asp
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooh yes, get one of them!
I've been lucky enough to fly the 300 for a while and it is an absolutely fantastic machine, if a little hairy for low timers, but the 200 may well be a perfect compromise.
Now, where did I put that spare 175,000 euros? It's not down the back of the sofa. Must be in the car.......
I've been lucky enough to fly the 300 for a while and it is an absolutely fantastic machine, if a little hairy for low timers, but the 200 may well be a perfect compromise.
Now, where did I put that spare 175,000 euros? It's not down the back of the sofa. Must be in the car.......
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOOSP
I've been operating a new Super Decathlon for the past 2 years now and have to say that I too considered all the options before buying. An honest appraisel is that we do approx 250hrs per year with hardly any down time. The c/s unit is a godsend and the view from the back not really that bad ! The aircraft is extremely robust,(+6/-5), a pussycat for tailwheel conversions and extremely capable. We routinely teach erect, high rotational and inverted spins, vertical rolls and inverted steep turns.(as well as all the basic stuff!!) The roll rate is about 120' per second and the ROC at Max towt 1300ft per min. It also cruises at 125 - 135 kts. As for the high wing, what's the problem ? Its a low wing when inverted !!
But rather than take my word for it ask Patty Wagstaff, Kirby Chambliss or Walter Extra what they think. You might have heard of them.
Have fun in choosing.
I've been operating a new Super Decathlon for the past 2 years now and have to say that I too considered all the options before buying. An honest appraisel is that we do approx 250hrs per year with hardly any down time. The c/s unit is a godsend and the view from the back not really that bad ! The aircraft is extremely robust,(+6/-5), a pussycat for tailwheel conversions and extremely capable. We routinely teach erect, high rotational and inverted spins, vertical rolls and inverted steep turns.(as well as all the basic stuff!!) The roll rate is about 120' per second and the ROC at Max towt 1300ft per min. It also cruises at 125 - 135 kts. As for the high wing, what's the problem ? Its a low wing when inverted !!
But rather than take my word for it ask Patty Wagstaff, Kirby Chambliss or Walter Extra what they think. You might have heard of them.
Have fun in choosing.
