Rollason Condor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rollason Condor
I'm contemplating buying a permit a/c as I require something affordable and I've been drawn to the Condor, having researched the aircraft I've come to the conclusion that apart from the stall/spin characteristic being a little lively it's a good value for money machine with loads of character.
Can anyone on here offer any advice/information on these aircraft particularly with regard to the airframe, as being of wooden construction I'm out of my comfort zone, is there anything specific I should be aware of ? The one I'm interested in is the C with the 130hp engine. Thankyou.
Can anyone on here offer any advice/information on these aircraft particularly with regard to the airframe, as being of wooden construction I'm out of my comfort zone, is there anything specific I should be aware of ? The one I'm interested in is the C with the 130hp engine. Thankyou.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 130 hp version ceryainly performs better than the 100hp, especially on climb, but there are 2 major trade -offs. Engine spares are quite difficult to get hold off and the endurance ( the achilles heel of the condor) is further reduced.
People say you can't tour effectively in a condor, don't believe them, but you do have to plan reletively short legs.
A/F wise they are very sturdy and relatively bullit proof.My advice is to get a LAA inspector to look it over before you commit yourself, but that applies to any type.
People say you can't tour effectively in a condor, don't believe them, but you do have to plan reletively short legs.
A/F wise they are very sturdy and relatively bullit proof.My advice is to get a LAA inspector to look it over before you commit yourself, but that applies to any type.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a while since I flew one but....
Simple, well mannered. No ball of fire but one of the 'easiest' taildraggers. If it has flaps they do not do much.
Short range as noted but there was a Rollason mod for an enourmous 'slipper' tank which could be fitted. My friends aircraft was the one prepared for the London Sydney race and had the slipper tank and the bed mountings in the fuselage. So those mods should be easy to get LAA approval on. My friend moved the battery which much inproved the CofG range, I suspect most aircraft now have this mod.
Usual things to look at for the engine, the brakes are Jodel like, have a careful look at the undercarriage, the tracking often goes wonky due to the undercarriage legs and internal blocks wearing. Wrinkled legs are not uncommon.
Other than that most parts can be built if you have to!
Simple, well mannered. No ball of fire but one of the 'easiest' taildraggers. If it has flaps they do not do much.
Short range as noted but there was a Rollason mod for an enourmous 'slipper' tank which could be fitted. My friends aircraft was the one prepared for the London Sydney race and had the slipper tank and the bed mountings in the fuselage. So those mods should be easy to get LAA approval on. My friend moved the battery which much inproved the CofG range, I suspect most aircraft now have this mod.
Usual things to look at for the engine, the brakes are Jodel like, have a careful look at the undercarriage, the tracking often goes wonky due to the undercarriage legs and internal blocks wearing. Wrinkled legs are not uncommon.
Other than that most parts can be built if you have to!
I have flown a Condor (the one with a slipper tank option) for the last three years and I love it. It certainly isn't a ball of fire on T/O and climb but the handling is superb. It is an excellent X country machine as long as your not in a hurry and, as has been said, the range is a bit limited but is about the same as mine.
I have never spun it and stalling in all conditions is predictable. I understand that the Condor with rounded wing tips is somewhat less predictable and will spin more readily.
I have heard that the improvement in perfomance of the 130 hp Condor is not worth the big increase in fuel consumption and resultant reduction in range. It was really meant for glider towing which it did quite well.
The MAUW means that you are restricted to solo flying when using the slipper tank.
The Condor was designed as a club trainer and the wooden construction is very strong. Apart from a little reglueing we have had to do nothing to our airframe except rebush the elevator and rudder hinges.
There was an excellent article on our Condor in Pilot about two years ago.
I have never spun it and stalling in all conditions is predictable. I understand that the Condor with rounded wing tips is somewhat less predictable and will spin more readily.
I have heard that the improvement in perfomance of the 130 hp Condor is not worth the big increase in fuel consumption and resultant reduction in range. It was really meant for glider towing which it did quite well.
The MAUW means that you are restricted to solo flying when using the slipper tank.
The Condor was designed as a club trainer and the wooden construction is very strong. Apart from a little reglueing we have had to do nothing to our airframe except rebush the elevator and rudder hinges.
There was an excellent article on our Condor in Pilot about two years ago.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou all for your responses, some useful information there and mostly what I was wanting to hear!
Pulse 1 - my reason for raising the question about the airframe, was that I had been told that it's not uncommon for delamination of the firewall to occur due to the ingress of oil/fuel, however I can find no other reference to this occuring,"In fact to the contrary all that I've read infers the airframes are robust". But since you mention that you've done a little reglueing, can I ask, was that associated with the firewall? or are you aware of there being any such problems?
Will also look out the Pilot mag!
Thanks ER
Pulse 1 - my reason for raising the question about the airframe, was that I had been told that it's not uncommon for delamination of the firewall to occur due to the ingress of oil/fuel, however I can find no other reference to this occuring,"In fact to the contrary all that I've read infers the airframes are robust". But since you mention that you've done a little reglueing, can I ask, was that associated with the firewall? or are you aware of there being any such problems?
Will also look out the Pilot mag!
Thanks ER
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ancient history
I cannot vouch for the longevity of the Condor - but I can vouch, on the basis of a sample of 1, for the longevity of its pilots!
I learned to fly on the D62B with a 100HP Continental from 1971 to 1975 at Fairoaks - and then flew one on occasion for a further 4 years. The fact that it took 4 years (84 hrs) for me to get my PPL is a clear indication of (a) my incompetence and (b) the enormous cost. I believe it used to cost me Ł6 an hour when I started!
I'm posting this response because I detect an uncertainty in some of the posts regarding the stalling and spinning characteristics of the basic aircraft. Stall and spin were Exercises 10 and 11 at that time and my logbook records 2 such sessions before I went solo and 2 afterwards, including one immediately before my GFT. I remember that I did not enjoy spinning (with exit after counting 3 turns), especially after lunch, but if I can handle such, anybody can! I can still recall the mind-boggling image of a spinning ground and automatically press the appropriate pedal. And I still automatically control wing drop in the stall with rudder simply to avoid putting my lunch under stress. You do NOT forget!
When I re-started flying 20 years later, I was astonished that spinning had been abolished (as though it didn't exist!). I've been flying on and off ever since and have now 280 hrs but I naturally measure the flying characteristics of every aircraft that I have flown in relation to the Condor. Not one has matched it. Repeat, not one. They all feel heavy and lumbering. Maybe time has enhanced its characteristics in my mind but I think not. In my limited and incompetent experience, its handling could not be bettered.
I learned to fly on the D62B with a 100HP Continental from 1971 to 1975 at Fairoaks - and then flew one on occasion for a further 4 years. The fact that it took 4 years (84 hrs) for me to get my PPL is a clear indication of (a) my incompetence and (b) the enormous cost. I believe it used to cost me Ł6 an hour when I started!
I'm posting this response because I detect an uncertainty in some of the posts regarding the stalling and spinning characteristics of the basic aircraft. Stall and spin were Exercises 10 and 11 at that time and my logbook records 2 such sessions before I went solo and 2 afterwards, including one immediately before my GFT. I remember that I did not enjoy spinning (with exit after counting 3 turns), especially after lunch, but if I can handle such, anybody can! I can still recall the mind-boggling image of a spinning ground and automatically press the appropriate pedal. And I still automatically control wing drop in the stall with rudder simply to avoid putting my lunch under stress. You do NOT forget!
When I re-started flying 20 years later, I was astonished that spinning had been abolished (as though it didn't exist!). I've been flying on and off ever since and have now 280 hrs but I naturally measure the flying characteristics of every aircraft that I have flown in relation to the Condor. Not one has matched it. Repeat, not one. They all feel heavy and lumbering. Maybe time has enhanced its characteristics in my mind but I think not. In my limited and incompetent experience, its handling could not be bettered.
Echo Romeo,
No, the glueing was nothing to do with the firewall. The first problem was one of the frames near the old battery position. The others were the lower wing skins at the roots which were easy to access from the cockpit.
Willflyer2, "Not one has matched it" Agreed, with the possible exception of the Chipmunk.
No, the glueing was nothing to do with the firewall. The first problem was one of the frames near the old battery position. The others were the lower wing skins at the roots which were easy to access from the cockpit.
Willflyer2, "Not one has matched it" Agreed, with the possible exception of the Chipmunk.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That Condor moment !
Will
I can't disagree with any of your post. I went through my PPL at Sherburn in 1972/3, where they also used the trusty Condor. The club had 4 of them, courtesy of Rollasons.
I vividly remember spinning Condors. I was impressed, to say the least !.......
If you liked the Condor, you'd like almost any of the Jodels......
tth
I can't disagree with any of your post. I went through my PPL at Sherburn in 1972/3, where they also used the trusty Condor. The club had 4 of them, courtesy of Rollasons.
I vividly remember spinning Condors. I was impressed, to say the least !.......
If you liked the Condor, you'd like almost any of the Jodels......
tth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a Spitfire!
Thanks for your replies to my first post, chaps. I have greatly appreciated your comments and they have made me feel less like the (72) old fogey that I am!
When I first flew the Condor, I was actually flying a Spitfire. I never lost that feeling. And I have never felt it in any other aircraft.
I'm a mechanical engineer, Echo Romeo, and if you think that I might be able to help, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Cheers
When I first flew the Condor, I was actually flying a Spitfire. I never lost that feeling. And I have never felt it in any other aircraft.
I'm a mechanical engineer, Echo Romeo, and if you think that I might be able to help, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kernow
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Condor is above all a very honest aeroplane. Some of the drawbacks have been mentioned above - the undercarriage - hard and wears out but very strong and the canopy which no-one has mentioned had a penchant for crushing fingers with a particularly unpleasant scissor action, which were the only two things I would have changed.
The spinning characteristics were as you would expect of an aeroplane that taught people to spin. It was consistent, predictable and fast but it stopped when asked and only did what most other aeroplanes do. I would sooner spin a Condor than a Firefly!
Changing hands on the stick to pull carb heat was interesting and of course they all had a plackard saying "All aeroplanes bite fools". The handling was good and almost everyone will speak of their fondness for them. A very British aeroplane (except that it was French) built by a very British company with 'No taxpayer's money'.
It is interesting to surmise what Roger Druine would have designed next had he not been taken ill.
Ah Rodnoc 'as they used to say'
The spinning characteristics were as you would expect of an aeroplane that taught people to spin. It was consistent, predictable and fast but it stopped when asked and only did what most other aeroplanes do. I would sooner spin a Condor than a Firefly!
Changing hands on the stick to pull carb heat was interesting and of course they all had a plackard saying "All aeroplanes bite fools". The handling was good and almost everyone will speak of their fondness for them. A very British aeroplane (except that it was French) built by a very British company with 'No taxpayer's money'.
It is interesting to surmise what Roger Druine would have designed next had he not been taken ill.
Ah Rodnoc 'as they used to say'
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Them thar Hills
Didn't spin the Condor in the company of DC by any chance?
That was a 'Condor moment' for me also - rolled inverted as we entered the spin - great fun!
My first solo in this type at Sherburn in '78.
SITW
Didn't spin the Condor in the company of DC by any chance?
That was a 'Condor moment' for me also - rolled inverted as we entered the spin - great fun!
My first solo in this type at Sherburn in '78.
SITW
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spinning Condors
Spanner
I'm trying to remember who DC was. I was with Dougie B when we spun, the entry went exactly as you said... a bit briskly!
Qualifying cross-country was Skeggy/Doncaster. Skegness was operated by CFI Rex Larsen, who was never far away from an Auster as I recall.
The only conflicting traffic on the whole non-radio trip was Belmont mast !
....(ps I've just remembered !)
I'm trying to remember who DC was. I was with Dougie B when we spun, the entry went exactly as you said... a bit briskly!
Qualifying cross-country was Skeggy/Doncaster. Skegness was operated by CFI Rex Larsen, who was never far away from an Auster as I recall.
The only conflicting traffic on the whole non-radio trip was Belmont mast !
....(ps I've just remembered !)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As per my previous post, the Condor is a good honest plane.The 0240 uses pots common to other engines so is not too much trouble with top end, but even years ago, bits were hard to come by for the bottom end.
As for the handling, I agree it is in the very good category, but to say it is the best only goes to show how few types you have experienced!
There are many better planes (probably not at the same price) but there are far more worse ones!
As for the handling, I agree it is in the very good category, but to say it is the best only goes to show how few types you have experienced!
There are many better planes (probably not at the same price) but there are far more worse ones!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hatzflyer. Forgive my ignorance on such matters, but would 1200 hrs total constitute a high houred engine for a O240 ? Also I should add that the engine had a top end Oh at approx a 1000 hrs.
ER
ER
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thoght that 1200hrs is ok. It wouldn't put me off, but I was just highlighting potential pit falls.
To qualify the above, if its 1200 hrs since new the corrosion is your enemy as this is over a long time.
If its 1200hrs since O/H...who did the o/h and what was done to the crank /cam etc.( In theory they could have been cleaned,inspected and put back into service with new shells etc,if they were "within limits").
Worse case...1200 hrs since rebuild...could mean stripped cleaned and put back together as was i.e. no new parts.
Bottom end parts for the 0240 are scarce because they were only ever fitted to a few Condors and Reims manufactured Cessna aerobats(FRA 150)
At worst if the engine goes bang you can replant a standard o-200 as a straight swap but you will need a prop as well and that lot is likely to set you back more that the plane is worth.
On the other hand, you can use theses facts to barter with the vendor, maybe fly it 10 yrs with no trouble at all. in the meantime try to buy any spares that may become available.
As a guide, there were many more aerobats produced than condors with the 0-240 and I imagine over 50% of them have been re-engined with the 0-200.
I am not scare mungering, just helping you to go into this with your eyes open. ANY a/c is a potential money pit, but lots of us do it so there must be some reward!
To qualify the above, if its 1200 hrs since new the corrosion is your enemy as this is over a long time.
If its 1200hrs since O/H...who did the o/h and what was done to the crank /cam etc.( In theory they could have been cleaned,inspected and put back into service with new shells etc,if they were "within limits").
Worse case...1200 hrs since rebuild...could mean stripped cleaned and put back together as was i.e. no new parts.
Bottom end parts for the 0240 are scarce because they were only ever fitted to a few Condors and Reims manufactured Cessna aerobats(FRA 150)
At worst if the engine goes bang you can replant a standard o-200 as a straight swap but you will need a prop as well and that lot is likely to set you back more that the plane is worth.
On the other hand, you can use theses facts to barter with the vendor, maybe fly it 10 yrs with no trouble at all. in the meantime try to buy any spares that may become available.
As a guide, there were many more aerobats produced than condors with the 0-240 and I imagine over 50% of them have been re-engined with the 0-200.
I am not scare mungering, just helping you to go into this with your eyes open. ANY a/c is a potential money pit, but lots of us do it so there must be some reward!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sound advice,all of which I shall take onboard. problem is I'm torn between the devil and the deep blue sea, the former being a Condor and the latter an Auster, both with engines that could potentially make large holes in which to pour my hard earned! Still, I shall ponder this further.
ER
ER
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: purley
Age: 69
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really need to speak to the condor expert - Mike Peare.
He had the Condor club at Redhill for many years G-ATAU and GAWEI.
Look at his web sight www.mpaviation.com
He had the Condor club at Redhill for many years G-ATAU and GAWEI.
Look at his web sight www.mpaviation.com