Buying a light aircraft

[Mad Girl]

OK....I've been in & out of the search engine and found lots of TOTALLY irrelevant stuff and very little about what I'm looking for - If I've missed something, please post a thread link. I have been all over the WEB reading bits and bobs but am trying to get something all in one place so I don't miss anything.

I'm looking at potentially buying an aircraft (preferably NEW) and setting up a small group - say 4-5.
I'm thinking VFR particularly, and NOT IFR flying. But, if there are any IFR options for the budget - throw them in.

Criteria:-
Must haves......
2 Seater, SEP(A) hr rated, Low wing (for preference), cruise speed 100 kts+, will be parked outside - not hangered (so preferably metal, as composites aren't proved long term). Max fuel burn 30lts/hr (I want to keep the hourly wet flying rate low). A demonstrated crosswind component of at least 17kts. Factory Built. Tricycle undercarriage.

Nice to haves:-
Rated for simple aerobatics - but not essential as I could always hire something to get the "need" out of my system - so don't get hung up on this - I don't expect the other group members to have the same "urge".

Budget £60 - £75k (£12.5 - £18.75k per head)

Please give suggestions, pointers to web pages for specs, prices etc, personal experiences - as I'm sure a lot of you will have tried them.

PLEASE keep within the budget & "Must Haves" - 'cos a Pitts special does NOT meet the criteria

I await pointers for my research - Thanks

[IO540]

#1 decision is whether you will ever need legal IFR.

If not, or if you are happy to fly in cloud enroute under "VFR" as much of Europe does anyway, then there are some very nice machines in what is variously called the "sports", "ultralight", "lightweight", "permit" categories.

The Aero 2007 show had hangars full of them. 140kt cruise, burning far less fuel that the one you are currently flying, IFR equipped (you don't ask "why" ), and far cheaper than anything with a CofA. I am looking at a leaflet on an F-100 now, for example.

[London Mil]

For starters:

AT-3
Tecnam P2002

[Mad Girl]

I0540 said

"sports", "ultralight", "lightweight", "permit" categories.

Thanks I0540 - where's the price guide??.

I know about the above categories and have read up on the Technam(composite) and the AT3(metal) but can't find a WEB source that lists ALL the other alternatives.

YOU KNOW I'm green at this, hence the question to the forum because I just don't know where to look without spending the next 6 months of my life on the internet and then I'd probably miss loads of choices.

My few months of experience versus HOW MANY combined years on here???

Edited to add....Sorry London Mil - You posted as I was writing this.

[IO540]

I have never looked seriously at non-IFR types; of no use to me

Most of these lighter types use Rotax engines. You could contact Rotax and ask them who uses the engines, and go from there.

Most of the activity in this area happens in Europe, say Germany, Czech Rep, Austria, Italy.

[BackPacker]

Get a subscription to Flyer magazine and/or order a load of back issues. They test aircraft that fulfill your criteria almost every issue.

Personally, I'm impressed with the Eurostar although Tecnam does a few good aircraft too.

In my opinion, composites are good enough today for aircraft that have to remain outside all their life. It does require you to use UV-protective paint (which is standard anyway), and the only conceivable color you can use is white, but the main advantage is that composite can be shaped exactly like the computer says it need to be shaped for optimum aerodynamics. Whereas aluminium generally can only be bent into one direction. So if you're looking for 100 to 140 knots cruise on a Rotax 912S (100 HP) at somewhere between 11 and 18 liters per hour, composites are the way to go although there are exceptions.

Flyer June 2007: Alpi Pioneer 300: 500 hour advanced self-assemby kit, cruise 135 kt, empty 305 kg, mauw 530 kg, rotax 912s, approx 45000 UKP
In the same article, compared to a Tecnam P2002 JR (factory built), 73.000 UKP, same range, same engine, same speed.
Flyer August 2006: Liberty XL, cruise 132 kt, 483 kg empty, 795 mauw, Continental IOF-240-B, 149000 USD
Flyer summer 2006: CZAW Sport Cruiser, both available as self-assembly and factory-built, 24950 UKP + VAT
Flyer July 2002: Eurostar
Flyer Nov 2006: Grob 109B (motorglider)

[Pablo Martin]

Alpha (Robin) R2160A
2 seater, low wing, VFR only
160hp Lyc 0-320-D2A
Cruise approx. 120-130kts
Fully aerobatic +6 -3
30ltrs/hr fuel burn
18kts max demonstrated X/wind
Also great for XC, optional 160ltr tank.
Plus its a hell of a lot of fun to fly and looks sublime
http://www.mistralaviation.co.uk/aircraft/160.asp
www.alphaaviation.co.nz

Pablo

[Chimbu chuckles]

Look no further than an RV6a/7a or 8a.

2 seats
All metal.
Aerobatic +6/-3
VFR or IFR
170 kts
600+nm

Up and down in < 400m

http://www.vansaircraft.com/

Not factory built but you can buy a Quick Build kit and have it professionally built...they suggest 500-800 hrs labour to finish the QB...a pro would probably do it under 500 hrs.

Roughly US$32k for QB kit. 27k for the basic QB kit + 5k for the finishing kit.
+500 hrs labour..say US$20k.
engine and prop...say US$32k
Avionics/Instrument..say US$20k
Paint job....say US$6k
Interior....say US$2k

Prolly all up $110-120k

GBP55-60k ish?

RV 6 or 7 is my next aeroplane...but I like taildraggers.

A work collegue has just finished building a RV6 with his wife...he RAVES about it.

[Mark 1]

I agree with the RV sentiment, but in Europe they will be day/VFR limited (what they are capable of is another matter).
The RV-9 trades aerobatics for a huge payload.
Forget the silly tricycle pre-occupation, and it's even better, less weight, drag, cost and maintenance and more robust on rough fields; all for a few hours conversion training.
A recently completed RV should also fit price-wise.

[IO540]

In the present market, one almost can't give away a used plane. There has been a big change compared with say 3-4 years ago and prices actually being paid are way less than what you see advertised. You can buy a TB20GT (that's year 2001 onwards) with say 500hrs for a little over £100k; that's how "bad" things are, and that is a really good quality machine.

£75k can buy a lot in the used market, although for an application where legal IFR is not required I would not spend that sort of money on refitting a used spamcan. I'd get one of the modern "sports" planes; they have a far lower running cost.

I flew in an RV8 recently. It's OK but ..... hmmm .... rather basic! There are little holes everywhere and it's very draughty. It handles very nicely but one cannot pretend it's a go-places plane. Le Touquet is about it unless you are a hard case

[tangovictor]

, will be parked outside - not hangered (so preferably metal, as composites aren't proved long term).

I thought the same, so, I went and asked the people that know all about composites, " Glider owners " I was shown a glider that had been outside with NO covers, for 11 years, admittedly it was polished once a year, however no long term damage caused by leaving it out in all weathers,

[shortstripper]

I flew in an RV8 recently. It's OK but ..... hmmm .... rather basic! There are little holes everywhere and it's very draughty. It handles very nicely but one cannot pretend it's a go-places plane. Le Touquet is about it unless you are a hard case

I dread to think what you'd think about my open cockpit, taildragging, 60 knot Slingsby T31m then? .... Then again, I doubt you'd be seen dead flying such a backward crate

The RV range are super, and very "go places" for non IFR. How can anyone say otherwise? Anything capable of 200mph is IMHO pretty useful for touring and funnily enough many seem to be the choice of ATPL's for flying outside the "office", so can't be bad? A full IFR equipped aircraft in your price range would be pretty cr@p in comparison and probably even less worthy of the "I'm considerably wealthier than you" IO540

SS

[London Mil]

Oooooooh, what I would give for a RV8. Go places? I would go a very long way!

[Mark 1]

Le Touquet is about it unless you are a hard case

I must be a hard case then.

Me at Easter (not Le Touquet)
Look up Jon Johannson or Manuel Queiroz for the seriously armour plated RV pilots (4 circumnavigations between them)

[Mad Girl]

Now now boys - no personal attacks please !!!!

I would love to go up in your open cockpit, taildragging, 60 knot Slingsby T31m . But then again - I'd love to go up in just about anything that flys (right way or wrong way up).

But....If I could get an IFR equipped airplane for the budget - I'd probably go for it.

What I've noticed at my club, and it's probably the same at many others, is that a lot of people fly less once they've got their PPL because they haven't got a huge budget to fly every month........in disposable income.
My club has set up groups on C42 microlights so that people can buy in very cheaply - but more importantly the monthly STO and hourly flying rate is very low. (about £60pm and £35p ph).
More hours of fun for less money than hiring a school PA28 (£100 ish solo). i.e. 2 hours a month of a school airplane (2*£100) versus 4 hours in their own (£60pm + 4*£35).
Only problem with the aircraft is that it's a microlight (& fairly slow) and won't maintain your currency hours - therefore I'm looking specifically at "A" rated aircraft but with the same low running costs.

The capital involved is more than the groups above because I only want committed flyers in it with me - But it's no worse than taking out a loan for a decent car. If someone sold their share - if the airplane has been maintained well - they should be able to get most/all/more of their money back - just like if you sold the car. So the capital outlay shouldn't really be the issue.

What's important to me is the lower running costs to make it more affordable if you want to fly A LOT, and therefore this type of group should be easier to set up.

I'm actually not doing this just for me (but I'm not loaded.... so I can't just buy the aircraft outright and let people fly it at the monthly and per hour rates) - I'd like to see more people up and about than they may be able to afford any other way - including me.

Personally - I will be doing my IMC at sometime in the future, I may also do a taildragger conversion (because it will be good for my feet), and I'll always have some aeros in the mix.

But this aircraft needs to be suitable for a "bog standard", "normal" PPL (if there is such a thing) who just wants to fly and do a bit of touring, and isn't necessarily interested in doing more advanced ratings.

Hence......Tricycle undercarriage, metal for ruggedness (lots of grass strips around here), factory built (because I don't want to build it), and probably VFR only (although, as I said....if I can get IFR as well...then I'll get it for me - 'cos it will keep my PERSONAL training costs down ).

I haven't got as wide a choice as I expected yet, so please keep them coming. Anyone got anything on the US light sports category??

[shortstripper]

I would love to go up in your open cockpit, taildragging, 60 knot Slingsby T31m . But then again - I'd love to go up in just about anything that flys

That comment was pointed at IO540, not you Madgirl

However, your comment on currency is very pertinant. My aeroplane is slow (but then so am I ) but now my only limit on flying, is time and weather. It costs me around £20/hr based on 50 hours a year, but as it looks like I'll probably pass 100 hours this year, the cost will be around £18/hr (which is basically little more than fuel). If I were you, I'd seriously look at a capable PFA type (like the RV, perhaps not a T31 ) because what you loose in IFR capability, you more than make up in hours per pound and therefore currency. It's all very well flying IFR capable aircraft at almost twice the hourly rate, but if you can only "just" keep current flying instruments you will be in far less likely to go places than by being "very" current in something like an RV. No contest!

SS

[BlueRobin]

I did 400nm the other week in a Robin R2160 to Wales and back, loving every minute of it. Have you put one on your shortlist, MG?

[IO540]

I don't see why a point of view on aircraft type should descend into a personal attack on the person's alleged wealth, etc. Pprune has a bit of a reputation for stupid pointless aggression and there are always a few people lurking who dive in to make sure this reputation is well earned. The rest of the time, we can have a reasonable debate on something... Let's not turn this into some other forum where meaningful debate went out of the window long ago.

There is always somebody who will happily fly a draughty plane with water leaking in when it rains and I have no problem with that. In fact Aero 2007 had a hangar full of totally open flying machines and clearly there is a market for them; the whole helmet/goggles thing. However, somebody else is entitled to comment on the practicality of something like that. And you can get a modern "light" plane that doesn't leak and has a heater that works.

[RV6]

A work colleague has just finished building an RV6 with his wife...he RAVES about it.

I think I might be the aforementioned wife! Chuck, beware advising people about getting an RV built by a "pro" - chequebook building is definitely illegal in Oz, though not so in South Africa. I don't know the situation in UK but I think they have to abide by the "51% rule" ie you must build more than half of it yourself.

Mark1 What a great photograph! And how good to see I'm not the only one to paint the RV bright red. I'm sure she flies a few knots faster now!

MG I understand that you don't want to build your aircraft, but the above posters make some good points in favour of the RV series. Buying a well built (and well documented) RV could be your answer - relatively cheap to run, not too hard to fly and sooo much fun compared to the PA28 or C172! And Chuck's right - the taildraggers are the best! (IMHO)

[Rod1]

IO540

When you fly a factory built aircraft, which is to full factory speck, and it is droughty, noisy and horrible it is reasonable to criticise the design and assume all are the same. You have taken one example of a home built and assumed all are the same. Some RVs are built light, striped out basic and are low on the walnut and leather but have extra performance. Other aircraft of the same design will have full mod cons and no leaks. This is before we take into account the different levels of skill with regard to build quality. It is perfectly possible to build an RV8, which is a very good touring aircraft (except for the fuel burn) and a better touring platform than the standard factory touring aircraft in regular use on the flight line.

One of the advantages of a hombuilt is you can tailor it to your individual requirements. My panel layout is non-standard. Every instrument, every switch, is positioned exactly to my preference. I am fully aware that not all pilots would like the panel, or the aircraft, but I have tailed it to precisely what I wanted and it delivers. Please do not assume all home built aircraft are built exactly the same, this is one of the advantages of the breed.

Some of the people who have responded to your comments have built/are building some very good touring RV’s and have 1000’s of hours in such aircraft.

Rod1
(no personal attack intended)