What is the best all-round aircraft?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli Monster, PA 28 into short grass strips?
QDM
Ich bin ein Prooner.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Home of the Full Monty.
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We (three chunky chaps & 3/4-ish fuel) regularly get out of Netherthorpe's uphill runway (24, check it out in your Pooley's) in an Archer 2.
Whirly, did the C172 you flew have a height adjustable seat? Makes a big difference if it didn't.
As for your question re good all rounder ie cruise with 4 pax, some bags, range & speed AND with 2 up fun for a basic aero yippee flight AND reasonable runway performance: The aerobatic version of the 33 model Bonanza.
Minus the aero bit then I'd go for a C210.
Both these a/c manage 160 kts x 50 or 60 lph. Good load carrying (more in the C210 of course) & good range. Pleasant to fly I think.
I like Cessna high wings for shade/shelter while loading & for bush operations.
Not sure what running costs would be like for these in the UK.
As for your question re good all rounder ie cruise with 4 pax, some bags, range & speed AND with 2 up fun for a basic aero yippee flight AND reasonable runway performance: The aerobatic version of the 33 model Bonanza.
Minus the aero bit then I'd go for a C210.
Both these a/c manage 160 kts x 50 or 60 lph. Good load carrying (more in the C210 of course) & good range. Pleasant to fly I think.
I like Cessna high wings for shade/shelter while loading & for bush operations.
Not sure what running costs would be like for these in the UK.
How about the Grumman AA-5A? Faster than the equivalent C172 / PA-28, sliding canopy for ease if entry / exit, no junior airline pilot dashboard so good vis for those who have low verticallity 
and, while they aren't aerobatic, they are much more fun to twizzle around than the equivalent Cessna / Piper.
For grunt out of short fields try a Reims Rocket which is basically a C172 with a 210hp engine and a wobbly prop.
Or if you want cheap and vintage try an Auster Aiglet. 4 seat (two are for teeny people) semi-aerobatic (+4.5 / -2.5g) and fun to fly.
and, while they aren't aerobatic, they are much more fun to twizzle around than the equivalent Cessna / Piper.For grunt out of short fields try a Reims Rocket which is basically a C172 with a 210hp engine and a wobbly prop.
Or if you want cheap and vintage try an Auster Aiglet. 4 seat (two are for teeny people) semi-aerobatic (+4.5 / -2.5g) and fun to fly.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kent
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me for being a Cessna monomaniac here, but Spam Cans are getting some harsh criticism.
Given Whirlys' new criteria - how about a....
Cessna 170!!
Here are the stats:
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/i...plane297.shtml
And here is a piccy:
http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/2336.JPG
All the characteristics of a 172 but with tailwheel fun and practicality to go with it.
Problem is finding one...
Ghengis: - point taken re the Charger/Dakota PA28s, but I was assuming a cheaper option.
Given Whirlys' new criteria - how about a....
Cessna 170!!
Here are the stats:
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/i...plane297.shtml
And here is a piccy:
http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/2336.JPG
All the characteristics of a 172 but with tailwheel fun and practicality to go with it.
Problem is finding one...
Ghengis: - point taken re the Charger/Dakota PA28s, but I was assuming a cheaper option.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KCDW,
You have a point a C170 is a nice aircraft but a tad underpowered that's why I suggested a reims rocket 172.
I do not like flying Cessna aircraft, I have about 1100 hours on (140 - 206 ) type, (best fun is the 185) and have just got fed up with them.
BUT, if I was planning another big trip with my family I would still take a 182 cause there is NO safer 4 seat single.
Tony
You have a point a C170 is a nice aircraft but a tad underpowered that's why I suggested a reims rocket 172.
I do not like flying Cessna aircraft, I have about 1100 hours on (140 - 206 ) type, (best fun is the 185) and have just got fed up with them.
BUT, if I was planning another big trip with my family I would still take a 182 cause there is NO safer 4 seat single.
Tony
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maule.
Had ours now for just 2 weeks; done about 15 hours in it and had a lot of fun so far.
No problem operating it out of 400m but will equally cruise at 120+ KIAS.
High wing and 3 doors, fantastic load capacity, with the long range tanks (not see without them yet) great endurance.
If you are not keen on a tailwhell go for the nosewheel, similar performance.
The beast felt well at home at Sleap last week.
FD
Had ours now for just 2 weeks; done about 15 hours in it and had a lot of fun so far.
No problem operating it out of 400m but will equally cruise at 120+ KIAS.
High wing and 3 doors, fantastic load capacity, with the long range tanks (not see without them yet) great endurance.
If you are not keen on a tailwhell go for the nosewheel, similar performance.
The beast felt well at home at Sleap last week.
FD
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EVO, I too like the CAP 10 but with the latest round of problems with spars etc, I wouldn't want to be pushing and pulling too much !
Closer to home I think, my all round aircraft would be a 160hp Decathlon with the metal spar fit. No inspection problems, great vis, great performance, wobbly prop for aeros, good into and out of strips, quick enough on cruise, loads of space in the boot
Closer to home I think, my all round aircraft would be a 160hp Decathlon with the metal spar fit. No inspection problems, great vis, great performance, wobbly prop for aeros, good into and out of strips, quick enough on cruise, loads of space in the boot
Guest
Posts: n/a
As good as the AA5 is (and very good they are too) it is not the best. The AA5A lacks too much grunt. The Tiger would be a contender if it were aerobatic.
I agree with Foxmouth that the Fuji FA200 is one of the most versitile aircraft out there. Prehaps a little slow for a 180hp VP but still combines true 4 up touring , basic aeros AND good short field...so I read.
Being Japanesse it is probably made for smaller people too. One for Whirly prehaps?
I believe some parts are shared with the Beech Sundowner. Not sure about the name, just seems to be in the back recesses of my memory for some reason.
I agree with Foxmouth that the Fuji FA200 is one of the most versitile aircraft out there. Prehaps a little slow for a 180hp VP but still combines true 4 up touring , basic aeros AND good short field...so I read.
Being Japanesse it is probably made for smaller people too. One for Whirly prehaps?
I believe some parts are shared with the Beech Sundowner. Not sure about the name, just seems to be in the back recesses of my memory for some reason.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new Husky, now thats a real aeroplane. I have looked at them this past two years at Aerofair and hope to go and try one soon.
If any one out there has the funds, you can keep it at my strip for free (if you let me fly it)
If any one out there has the funds, you can keep it at my strip for free (if you let me fly it)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
javelin - completely agree, a Citabria or Super Decathlon would come a close second to the CAP10 (isn't the 'C' free from wing problems, or is there something I haven't heard about?). I was having a look at a new Super Dec yesterday, very nice aeroplane indeed.
Like the look of the Husky as well, but it doesn't go upside down.
Like the look of the Husky as well, but it doesn't go upside down.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: South UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Husky, very nice aircraft, a modern Super Cub, with big bouncy tyres!
8 GPH, a little thirsty but what the heck. Off the ground within 100M can't be bad!
P....
8 GPH, a little thirsty but what the heck. Off the ground within 100M can't be bad!
P....
Last edited by Potter1; 14th Jun 2004 at 07:10.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Javelin, get the Cap 10 C (or a B to C conversion) and forget all about spar niggles (which may be partly prolonged by the manufacturer's keenness to sell the C now). The C carries more than the B as well. Good for touring if you like to pack a squishy bag or two on the rear shelf: no golf clubs or wine crates.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Front of Beyond
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised that TonyR is the only person to have mentioned the 182 so far. Its an excellent touring machine, with good short-field capabilites. It will carry four adults AND full fuel. The retractable version has a sensible cruise speed as well.
The only downside I can see is that Whirly will need even more cushions - it does seem to have been designed with 8' tall Texans in mind
Brooklands
The only downside I can see is that Whirly will need even more cushions - it does seem to have been designed with 8' tall Texans in mind
Brooklands
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deepest Warwickshire
Age: 47
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just gone through the same process setting up a group though we did falls on our laurels with regard to the set up.
Whatever it is, make sure there is good parts support so that rules out a lot of the above. You will make your engineer's life so much easier and his estimation of you will go up leaps and bounds for it.
Maule (30-40k) and Pacer/Tripacer(c.20k) are cheaper than yer average C172. The savings you make on these though may be squandered if you have to pay for pricy hangarage though.
Next to suggest a hard-to-purchase PFA type gets lynched
Whatever it is, make sure there is good parts support so that rules out a lot of the above. You will make your engineer's life so much easier and his estimation of you will go up leaps and bounds for it.
Maule (30-40k) and Pacer/Tripacer(c.20k) are cheaper than yer average C172. The savings you make on these though may be squandered if you have to pay for pricy hangarage though.
Next to suggest a hard-to-purchase PFA type gets lynched
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bluerobin
If you think that hangarage is money squandered I can tell you that even at the prices paid in the London area you will not save money in the long run by keeping the aircraft outside.
The paint on the aircraft will last two to three times longer in the hangar , keeping the moisture out of the avionics and corrosion can account for thousands of pounds over the years.
I can't put a price on not having the inside of the aircraft smelling like a cabbage patch when the damp gets into the trim but I can only guess it is in the thousands !.
The long and the short of it is that you must choose who you want to give your money to the airfield owners for hangarage or the engineers who will have to put in the extra work to keep an aircraft that lives outside up to scratch.
The paint on the aircraft will last two to three times longer in the hangar , keeping the moisture out of the avionics and corrosion can account for thousands of pounds over the years.
I can't put a price on not having the inside of the aircraft smelling like a cabbage patch when the damp gets into the trim but I can only guess it is in the thousands !.
The long and the short of it is that you must choose who you want to give your money to the airfield owners for hangarage or the engineers who will have to put in the extra work to keep an aircraft that lives outside up to scratch.
