Cessna Aerobat what dya think?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To stray away from the expensive exotica and back to EL's original question...
Surely a good first plane to buy is a 150/152 Aerobat? You can buy one outright for reasonable money, parts are plentiful and reasonably cheap and can have them maintained almost anywhere.
Okay, they may not be the most exciting (and not any more exciting to the touch than a standard 150/152) but does it fit the mission requirement?! You can park them outside, fly them IMC, stick loads of cr@p in the back and fly with a passenger whilst operating out of reasonably sized (500m) strips quite happily.
As for pitfalls and differences, the Aerobats are exactly the same airframe but for stronger wing spars, bigger wing struts and beefed up tailplane spars. Some 150s (the FRA 150 L/M/N) had a RR O-240 130hp engine which is 30% more power than a standard 150 and 15% more power than a 152's O-235 Lycoming.
You a pay a bit more for an Aerobat over a standard machine but get it back when you come to sell it on.
I speak as an engineer with a lot of experience working on and flying 150s and 152s. Of course, when the RV-6 gets clearance for aeros in the UK.....
Surely a good first plane to buy is a 150/152 Aerobat? You can buy one outright for reasonable money, parts are plentiful and reasonably cheap and can have them maintained almost anywhere.
Okay, they may not be the most exciting (and not any more exciting to the touch than a standard 150/152) but does it fit the mission requirement?! You can park them outside, fly them IMC, stick loads of cr@p in the back and fly with a passenger whilst operating out of reasonably sized (500m) strips quite happily.
As for pitfalls and differences, the Aerobats are exactly the same airframe but for stronger wing spars, bigger wing struts and beefed up tailplane spars. Some 150s (the FRA 150 L/M/N) had a RR O-240 130hp engine which is 30% more power than a standard 150 and 15% more power than a 152's O-235 Lycoming.
You a pay a bit more for an Aerobat over a standard machine but get it back when you come to sell it on.
I speak as an engineer with a lot of experience working on and flying 150s and 152s. Of course, when the RV-6 gets clearance for aeros in the UK.....
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Up here
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember aircraft ownership is often a compromise, because we can't all afford an aircraft for every occasion. Pitts are great for aeros, but try taking more than a few toiletries and a credit card on a trip, and they really shouldn't be left out if you have to fly anywhere. The ones I've flown had nice hard seats for aeros, but were pretty uncomfortable. The insurance is high too because people tend to prang them. (Try finding one with no accident history). You'd also be nervous putting one on line or letting your friends borrow/hire it from you, whereas you probably wouldn't be worried about anyone flying an Aerobat.
Remember all of the costs. If you get anything with a wobbly prop that means more maintenance. The more powerful it is, the more your fuel costs will be.
So in that light, there's nothing wrong with an Aerobat! Of course they won't perform like a Pitts, but you can still have a bit of fun, and hire something more aerobatic when you feel like it. It may be cheaper to hire something more capable every now and then, rather than owning something with higher maintenance and insurance costs.
A Citabria, Pup or Airtourer would also fit the bill. Personally, I'd prefer a Pup or Airtourer because the handling is nicer. Airtourers roll well (not much wing!) whereas longer winged Citabrias need a bit of muscle.
Remember too, when the engine overhaul comes up you could always put a bigger engine in to boost the performance.
Remember all of the costs. If you get anything with a wobbly prop that means more maintenance. The more powerful it is, the more your fuel costs will be.
So in that light, there's nothing wrong with an Aerobat! Of course they won't perform like a Pitts, but you can still have a bit of fun, and hire something more aerobatic when you feel like it. It may be cheaper to hire something more capable every now and then, rather than owning something with higher maintenance and insurance costs.
A Citabria, Pup or Airtourer would also fit the bill. Personally, I'd prefer a Pup or Airtourer because the handling is nicer. Airtourers roll well (not much wing!) whereas longer winged Citabrias need a bit of muscle.
Remember too, when the engine overhaul comes up you could always put a bigger engine in to boost the performance.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other point about the Aerobat which I think is important for any flying, it comes with a substantial 4 point harness.
Pups are nice but being British are expensive to maintain and parts aren't exactly plentiful! Citabrias etc will end up having to be recovered at some stage so again the maintenance costs are potentially much higher than a 150/152.
Clarie, excellent point made about aeroplanes being a compromise. As for re-engining with a more powerful motor, not really an option on a UK machine that you want to aerobat. There are US STCs for putting 160/180hp engines in a 152 - go up well but....! The most powerful 152 Aerobat was the Sparrowhawk with a 125hp version of the O-235. Not sure if there are any on the UK reg.
Pups are nice but being British are expensive to maintain and parts aren't exactly plentiful! Citabrias etc will end up having to be recovered at some stage so again the maintenance costs are potentially much higher than a 150/152.
Clarie, excellent point made about aeroplanes being a compromise. As for re-engining with a more powerful motor, not really an option on a UK machine that you want to aerobat. There are US STCs for putting 160/180hp engines in a 152 - go up well but....! The most powerful 152 Aerobat was the Sparrowhawk with a 125hp version of the O-235. Not sure if there are any on the UK reg.
a spin with full left aileron?
To add to comments by smarthawke and others. The Airtourer T6 is a nice variant of the type but if you want to do a more classical spin or if you like stall turns then its not very pleasant.
Citabria roll forces can be improved a lot with spades.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad somone remembers the Victa/Glos Airtourer.
This was quite a pleasant kite but inclined to bring on incipient sciatica due to the cold draft whistling up the central tunnel and shooting up your right sleeve. But with respect to re-engineing with something more powerful, remember that more powerful generally means heavier too.
As far as I am able to remember, the Airtourer came with 110hp as standard. There was a more powerful version (150hp?) but the handling of this was not as nice as the basic version due to the increased engine weight/higher polar moments of inertia.
This was quite a pleasant kite but inclined to bring on incipient sciatica due to the cold draft whistling up the central tunnel and shooting up your right sleeve. But with respect to re-engineing with something more powerful, remember that more powerful generally means heavier too.
As far as I am able to remember, the Airtourer came with 110hp as standard. There was a more powerful version (150hp?) but the handling of this was not as nice as the basic version due to the increased engine weight/higher polar moments of inertia.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Up here
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airtourer was originally made with a 100hp Continental, then a 115hp Lycoming. Later models were 150hp fixed pitch and 150hp constant speed. However they've been been converted up to at least 180hp constant speed, and then of course the military trainer version CT/4 was 200hp+. The CT/4 is coming out again, now with a glass cockpit and a 300hp Lycoming.
I've flown the 115 and 160. Lovely light handling, easy to fly, great visibility, good roll rate, wider cabin than 150s/152s, and strongly built. A New Zealander flew a 115hp one around the world in 1969, the smallest aircraft at the time to complete such a feat.
I've flown the 115 and 160. Lovely light handling, easy to fly, great visibility, good roll rate, wider cabin than 150s/152s, and strongly built. A New Zealander flew a 115hp one around the world in 1969, the smallest aircraft at the time to complete such a feat.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, Clarie, for refreshing my memory - I haven't seen an Airtourer for years.
I had about 100 hours on the type, nearly all of it instructing and all of it enjoyable. I never had any qualms with stall turns or spins but any sort of hammerhead was a very definite no-no. I imagine that with 200hp and an inverted system, it might have been quite a performaer.
I had a student who thought that the aircraft was just a marketing device for the Victa Lawnmower Company since one of these products was necessary to cut the strip immediately before take-off. 100hp and those little wheels could make things a bit marginal on grass.
Pleased to hear of its re-introduction - I hope it succeeds for it was an excellent trainer which taught people to fly as opposed to the just-attain-a-licence characteristics of the ubiquitous spamcan.
I had about 100 hours on the type, nearly all of it instructing and all of it enjoyable. I never had any qualms with stall turns or spins but any sort of hammerhead was a very definite no-no. I imagine that with 200hp and an inverted system, it might have been quite a performaer.
I had a student who thought that the aircraft was just a marketing device for the Victa Lawnmower Company since one of these products was necessary to cut the strip immediately before take-off. 100hp and those little wheels could make things a bit marginal on grass.
Pleased to hear of its re-introduction - I hope it succeeds for it was an excellent trainer which taught people to fly as opposed to the just-attain-a-licence characteristics of the ubiquitous spamcan.
When I did my instructor rating the school had a C 150 Aerobat. My (ex military instructor insisted that all FI's do a full set of unusul attitude recoveries before he would sign them off. This wetted my interest and I went on to get an Aerobatic Instructor rating in addition to my aeroplane instructor rating (a requirement to teach aerobatics in Canada). I subsequently did quite a bit of aerobatic instruction and the more I did the less I liked the C 150.
This was due to a number of reasons including
1) You can't properly see out of it. 90 % of good aerobatics is seeing exactly where the airplane is in relation to the ground and then being able to discern the path it is following.
2) It has such sloppy and in effective controls there is no room to learn any finesse as every manoever requires full application of every control to get anything to happen
3) The 100 hp models ( the only one I ever flew ) is terribly under powered. Energy management is all fine and dandy but on a hot day you will spend 50 % of your time climbing back to the safe altitude.... at 200 fpm....even when you do the manoevers right.
4) The airplane has a reputation of being harmless but it will easily exceed the (low) redline on a vertical down line.
5) I wore a parachute, but realistically I think it would be almost impossible to actually get out of it in an extremis situation.
I think an abmirable use of the C 150 aerobat is to introduce pilots to unusual attitudes and the recovery thereof which IMO should be mandatory for all licenses above the PPL. If you are going to buy your own machine get a proper airplane. I currently enjoy gentleman aerobatics in my Nanchang CJ6 and also found the Chipmunk a delightful machine. Personnally I think the Pitts is too much of a one trick pony. It is an amazing aerobatic machine but unless you want to pursue competitaive aerobatics, it is overkill.
This was due to a number of reasons including
1) You can't properly see out of it. 90 % of good aerobatics is seeing exactly where the airplane is in relation to the ground and then being able to discern the path it is following.
2) It has such sloppy and in effective controls there is no room to learn any finesse as every manoever requires full application of every control to get anything to happen
3) The 100 hp models ( the only one I ever flew ) is terribly under powered. Energy management is all fine and dandy but on a hot day you will spend 50 % of your time climbing back to the safe altitude.... at 200 fpm....even when you do the manoevers right.
4) The airplane has a reputation of being harmless but it will easily exceed the (low) redline on a vertical down line.
5) I wore a parachute, but realistically I think it would be almost impossible to actually get out of it in an extremis situation.
I think an abmirable use of the C 150 aerobat is to introduce pilots to unusual attitudes and the recovery thereof which IMO should be mandatory for all licenses above the PPL. If you are going to buy your own machine get a proper airplane. I currently enjoy gentleman aerobatics in my Nanchang CJ6 and also found the Chipmunk a delightful machine. Personnally I think the Pitts is too much of a one trick pony. It is an amazing aerobatic machine but unless you want to pursue competitaive aerobatics, it is overkill.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread. Perhaps the question should be - why do you want to own. I used to fly a Pitts registered VH-FFF, because, said the owner, "if it flies, floats or f***s, it's cheaper to rent than buy.
You have to be doing about 150 hours a year to make it cheaper to buy than rent. I own a Pitts S-2C and fly about 25 hours a year. It gets to 3000' in about 2 minutes from starting teh take-off roll, and I can fly aeros over the field, so a 40 minute flight is a pretty good workout.
For aeros, I'd suggest, either rent or share - or find a way to defray the cost. Mine's on-line with a flying school http://www.airborne-aviation.com.auwhich does about 8 hours for every hour I do - so it keeps my costs down pretty close to the direct costs. In your position I'd either go the group share route or keep renting until I got to a level where it was hard to progress in what I could rent.
A Chippy is delightful, but for the money (running costs money, that is) I'd rather get the extra performance of a Yak-52. Robin-2160 isn't bad and makes a reasonable 2-seat tourer - the airborne equivalent to a Mazda MX-5, perhaps.
Have a look at the British Aerobatic association website - there are usually a few shares for sale. If I was coming back to the Uk, I think I'd buy a share in that Extra 300L at Shoreham I saw a while ago. I think there's also a fairly active Yak group run by Jez Hopkinson at Stapleford Tawney.
But please don't go with the Cessna 150. You'll be getting close to its capabilities after too few hours. At least with a Pitts or similar, even if you feel you're the master in the air, it'll still keep you on your toes for a landing - ven with dozens of hours...which is half the fun!
You have to be doing about 150 hours a year to make it cheaper to buy than rent. I own a Pitts S-2C and fly about 25 hours a year. It gets to 3000' in about 2 minutes from starting teh take-off roll, and I can fly aeros over the field, so a 40 minute flight is a pretty good workout.
For aeros, I'd suggest, either rent or share - or find a way to defray the cost. Mine's on-line with a flying school http://www.airborne-aviation.com.auwhich does about 8 hours for every hour I do - so it keeps my costs down pretty close to the direct costs. In your position I'd either go the group share route or keep renting until I got to a level where it was hard to progress in what I could rent.
A Chippy is delightful, but for the money (running costs money, that is) I'd rather get the extra performance of a Yak-52. Robin-2160 isn't bad and makes a reasonable 2-seat tourer - the airborne equivalent to a Mazda MX-5, perhaps.
Have a look at the British Aerobatic association website - there are usually a few shares for sale. If I was coming back to the Uk, I think I'd buy a share in that Extra 300L at Shoreham I saw a while ago. I think there's also a fairly active Yak group run by Jez Hopkinson at Stapleford Tawney.
But please don't go with the Cessna 150. You'll be getting close to its capabilities after too few hours. At least with a Pitts or similar, even if you feel you're the master in the air, it'll still keep you on your toes for a landing - ven with dozens of hours...which is half the fun!
