Turbulence: PA28 vs Pipersport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, seem to have prodded a hornets nest somewhat, but be that as it may...
Shoestring - Yes, even I'm aware that a heavy object is less likely to be tossed around than a light object, I hopefully made that clear at the start. I'm looking for info as to the extent in which wing loading is responsible and there's some useful info here already - thanks Rod. Can I afford to run the Warrior? Yes. Do I want to if there are cheaper practical alternatives? Nope.
The 152 stat surprised me somewhat. I must be getting more susceptible as I don't remember it being an issue when I was flying them. Maybe I was concentrating so hard on the studies...
The cabin, visibility and panel of the SC were all first rate so I won't give up on it yet. I'll give it a month and try again. And yes, it's easily the best looking plane out there.
Shoestring - Yes, even I'm aware that a heavy object is less likely to be tossed around than a light object, I hopefully made that clear at the start. I'm looking for info as to the extent in which wing loading is responsible and there's some useful info here already - thanks Rod. Can I afford to run the Warrior? Yes. Do I want to if there are cheaper practical alternatives? Nope.
The 152 stat surprised me somewhat. I must be getting more susceptible as I don't remember it being an issue when I was flying them. Maybe I was concentrating so hard on the studies...
The cabin, visibility and panel of the SC were all first rate so I won't give up on it yet. I'll give it a month and try again. And yes, it's easily the best looking plane out there.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, the SC is incredibly sexy, very comfortable, roomy, and a very nice aeroplane...If it had a 160HP engine and 1000Kg max weight it would be perfect for two.
On a related question, are "experimental" aeroplanes subject to the same design requirements as certified planes, in particular surviving turbulence? Certified aircraft must be able to survive a 50 fps vertical gust at Va. Do these lighter weights mean that Va will be incredibly low and so if one encouters rough eair one must slow right down? Va increases with weight so logic dictates that it would drop way down. This might be a factor on a long flight if a good cruise speed can't be achieved.
On a related question, are "experimental" aeroplanes subject to the same design requirements as certified planes, in particular surviving turbulence? Certified aircraft must be able to survive a 50 fps vertical gust at Va. Do these lighter weights mean that Va will be incredibly low and so if one encouters rough eair one must slow right down? Va increases with weight so logic dictates that it would drop way down. This might be a factor on a long flight if a good cruise speed can't be achieved.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“On a related question, are "experimental" aeroplanes subject to the same design requirements as certified planes, in particular surviving turbulence? Certified aircraft must be able to survive a 50 fps vertical gust at Va.
"experimental" = USA – Do what you like (slight simplification but you get the idea)
In the UK, under the LAA, the LAA take responsibility on behalf of the CAA. The aircraft have to pass the relevant design code, in this case CS-VLA. This is checked by the LAA and usually leads to modifications being mandated. If you want a factory built aircraft like an AT3, it will have passed CS-VLA but under the watchfull eye of the CAA and a C of A results. So no real difference in design code C of A / LAA permit.
“Va will be incredibly low and so if one encouters rough eair one must slow right down? Va increases with weight so logic dictates that it would drop way down. This might be a factor on a long flight if a good cruise speed can't be achieved.”
This is again linked partly to wing loading not weight and partly to the individual design. If I use the MCR Club as an example (because I know the numbers);
Normal 75% 138kn
Max rough air speed 128km
VNE 162kn
Some aircraft have the normal 75% speed very close to VNE and a big drop to Max rough air speed.
So to answer your question, it depends on what you mean by “slow right down”
. Yes, in rough air you do need to slow down, but certainly in a P300 or MCR you are still travelling faster than the average 180hp club machine. The way to get the best out of such a machine is to fly high. On my strip we have 6 modern “fast glass” Rotax machines, all flown by ex spamcan owners and all fly at 6 – 8 k if it is possible to do so. However, even low down and throttled back you are still travelling reasonably fast at very low fuel burn.
Rod1
"experimental" = USA – Do what you like (slight simplification but you get the idea)
In the UK, under the LAA, the LAA take responsibility on behalf of the CAA. The aircraft have to pass the relevant design code, in this case CS-VLA. This is checked by the LAA and usually leads to modifications being mandated. If you want a factory built aircraft like an AT3, it will have passed CS-VLA but under the watchfull eye of the CAA and a C of A results. So no real difference in design code C of A / LAA permit.
“Va will be incredibly low and so if one encouters rough eair one must slow right down? Va increases with weight so logic dictates that it would drop way down. This might be a factor on a long flight if a good cruise speed can't be achieved.”
This is again linked partly to wing loading not weight and partly to the individual design. If I use the MCR Club as an example (because I know the numbers);
Normal 75% 138kn
Max rough air speed 128km
VNE 162kn
Some aircraft have the normal 75% speed very close to VNE and a big drop to Max rough air speed.
So to answer your question, it depends on what you mean by “slow right down”
. Yes, in rough air you do need to slow down, but certainly in a P300 or MCR you are still travelling faster than the average 180hp club machine. The way to get the best out of such a machine is to fly high. On my strip we have 6 modern “fast glass” Rotax machines, all flown by ex spamcan owners and all fly at 6 – 8 k if it is possible to do so. However, even low down and throttled back you are still travelling reasonably fast at very low fuel burn.Rod1
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slow right down
Is this a typo and should read knots or is it Km/h
Max rough air speed 128km
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VA (according to Dyn Aero) is;
Do not apply abrupt or full-range control
deflections beyond this speed, because under
certain conditions, the Aircraft might be exposed to
excessive loads.
VNO (LAA use max rough air speed) is;
Do not exceed this Velocity,
except in calm air
VNO is greater than VA.
Rod1
Do not apply abrupt or full-range control
deflections beyond this speed, because under
certain conditions, the Aircraft might be exposed to
excessive loads.
VNO (LAA use max rough air speed) is;
Do not exceed this Velocity,
except in calm air
VNO is greater than VA.
Rod1
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoestring flyer: was that you I was talking to by the fence last night on this very subject? Very interesting dicussion of Warrior vs Sportcruiser. And a very pretty aeroplane you have there.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hong kong
Age: 49
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't fly twins any more (cost).
But I was shocked at how my mates Seneca 1 is buffeted by convection currents where we fly.
I fly C152 / 172 in the tropics.
Too lazy to look at the wing loading for the 3 types. Sorry.
Anyone ( I'm cooking) ?
SSS
But I was shocked at how my mates Seneca 1 is buffeted by convection currents where we fly.
I fly C152 / 172 in the tropics.
Too lazy to look at the wing loading for the 3 types. Sorry.
Anyone ( I'm cooking) ?
SSS
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Age: 48
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To reply to the original question here re the PiperSport and flight in turbulence etc. The aircraft will certainly connect you more with the air outside the aircraft than traditional heavier aircraft that have higher wing loadings.
However, if this was your first flight in the aircraft, then you'll be comparing against the traditional GA fleet & the Warriors that you are used to, which are much heavier aircraft indeed. You mentioned that you felt a little air sick on this turbulent day, but this is something that rapidly goes away - you soon get used to the normal motion of the plane and think little of it. LSA's are certainly different from the time served fleet, and take a bit of getting used to, but they are no worse for this.
I'm reminded of when I learned to fly, where I was fortunate enough to fly Bulldogs in one of the RAF UAS's. I was fortunate in that I never suffered from any air sickness, but often wished I did! This was because those that did were subjected to frequent aeros sorties so that their inner ears & sense of motion adjusted to the conditions of flight and this problem went away.
Turweston Flying club have just been on one of their annual fly outs to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, including beach landings on Barra etc. A SportCruiser was one of the fleet, and gave a very good account of itself on the trip. Photos of the trip (and I understand video & write up coming later) are on their facebook site - search for Turweston Flying Club and this comes up - pics in the Glenforsa 2010 album most impressive.
An LSA will generally not be quite as quick as a bigger aircraft, but a cruise of around 100kts is most practical, and in the UK gets you most places in no time, and Czech Republic to Stapleford in 6 hours if you have a strong bladder. If you're flying for the sheer joy of flight, and economy and practicality matters, the it becomes obvious why the LSA types such as the PiperSport are becoming so successful.
No aircraft will be right for everyone, and all are a compromise - with the PiperSport you gain economy, ability to go in & out of very short field, roomy modern cabin with glass cockpit and car like features of MP3 inputs etc., and have the excellent safety that comes from a 30kts stall & BRS as standard; but loose some top end speed compared to others.
I'll have to declare an interest in this as I also own a SportCruiser (LAA) and also work for the UK agents for the aircraft, so may be a little biassed (OK, I'll freely admit that I love the plane). However, back to the original question of the thread, and I'm reminded that some of my former colleagues who suffered air sickness in their primary training are now flying fast jets for a living, so suffering a little turbulence might actually make you a better pilot!
However, if this was your first flight in the aircraft, then you'll be comparing against the traditional GA fleet & the Warriors that you are used to, which are much heavier aircraft indeed. You mentioned that you felt a little air sick on this turbulent day, but this is something that rapidly goes away - you soon get used to the normal motion of the plane and think little of it. LSA's are certainly different from the time served fleet, and take a bit of getting used to, but they are no worse for this.
I'm reminded of when I learned to fly, where I was fortunate enough to fly Bulldogs in one of the RAF UAS's. I was fortunate in that I never suffered from any air sickness, but often wished I did! This was because those that did were subjected to frequent aeros sorties so that their inner ears & sense of motion adjusted to the conditions of flight and this problem went away.
Turweston Flying club have just been on one of their annual fly outs to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, including beach landings on Barra etc. A SportCruiser was one of the fleet, and gave a very good account of itself on the trip. Photos of the trip (and I understand video & write up coming later) are on their facebook site - search for Turweston Flying Club and this comes up - pics in the Glenforsa 2010 album most impressive.
An LSA will generally not be quite as quick as a bigger aircraft, but a cruise of around 100kts is most practical, and in the UK gets you most places in no time, and Czech Republic to Stapleford in 6 hours if you have a strong bladder. If you're flying for the sheer joy of flight, and economy and practicality matters, the it becomes obvious why the LSA types such as the PiperSport are becoming so successful.
No aircraft will be right for everyone, and all are a compromise - with the PiperSport you gain economy, ability to go in & out of very short field, roomy modern cabin with glass cockpit and car like features of MP3 inputs etc., and have the excellent safety that comes from a 30kts stall & BRS as standard; but loose some top end speed compared to others.
I'll have to declare an interest in this as I also own a SportCruiser (LAA) and also work for the UK agents for the aircraft, so may be a little biassed (OK, I'll freely admit that I love the plane). However, back to the original question of the thread, and I'm reminded that some of my former colleagues who suffered air sickness in their primary training are now flying fast jets for a living, so suffering a little turbulence might actually make you a better pilot!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello reimomo. I was undoubtedly the demo pilot who took you for that trip and so would like to begin by offering my sympathies. It is certainly not my intention to make anyone feel queasy.
I usually ask people what they would like to do with the aircraft, and try to base the flight around that. If someone wants a cruiser I'll spent more time looking at the autopilot, gps and cruise characteristics. Should they want a short field performer to get out of a strip I'll spend more time on stall characteristics, landings and takeoffs. I went to an RAF club last week and turned a few of their members upside down. I hope they enjoyed it, I was asked to repeat manoeuvres by several members.
As a sales team, we have no intention of hiding things from anyone and like to be honest about the aircraft. I'd rather someone tried the Pipersport, decided it was not for them and chose something else, than was duped into purchasing one and spent the next few years complaining what a horrid aircraft it was. That's no good for anyone.
Its a 600kg aircraft. It will be bumped about more than a PA-28. It is also far more agile. It rolls faster, pitches quicker and will even yaw more swiftly. This agility comes at a price. It won't be as stable as a PA-28. To be honest not many aircraft are as stable as the PA-28 (I certainly can't name any LSAs that are). But they are also not as sluggish.
My advice would be to try some of the others on a windy day.
When flying the Pipersport don't fight it. If it bumbs, let it bump. It has great dihedral and will come back swiftly by itself. Don't chase it. You will never keep up. That's how PIOs happen. The other common problem I have with our demonstrator, is that it is very often the first time a pilot has been exposed to a glass cockpit. It is very absorbing, giving you masses of information and of course for someone's first flight, they spend much of the time searching for it. If you decide a retest is warranted, fly as you were taught. Look out of the window and set the attitude. I see people chasing the digital numbers intently to the knot or foot and these are so accurate they bounce all over the place and the pilot follows. With eyes inside and lots of small sharp corrections most people will be ill. One of the Pipersport's best assets is the view it gives from the undistorted bubble canopy, so enjoy it and look out.
Its a VFR aircraft and people buy them so they can tour and see sites, hop between short airfields or like me, to grab it by the scruff of the neck and chuck it about the sky. Decide what you would like an aircraft for, and then pick the one that fits that best. As Ben says, no aircraft is perfect. Its about finding the closest match. If something ticks 8 out of your 10 boxes, that's going to be a serious contender. I hope you find what you are looking for ... I hope even more, that its a Pipersport!
I'll finish by listing our competitors, so you can have a look at those and also how many have been bought of each in the UK, listed on G-info.
PiperSport/ Sportcruiser ... 90
Remos GX ... 5
Aquila A210 ... 7
AT3 ... 13
DA-20 ... 10
AT4 ... 0
Technam P2002 ... 19
Skycatcher 162 ... 0
It vastly outsells everything in its class. If someone really wants a light 2 seater, the PiperSport is usually the one they choose.
I usually ask people what they would like to do with the aircraft, and try to base the flight around that. If someone wants a cruiser I'll spent more time looking at the autopilot, gps and cruise characteristics. Should they want a short field performer to get out of a strip I'll spend more time on stall characteristics, landings and takeoffs. I went to an RAF club last week and turned a few of their members upside down. I hope they enjoyed it, I was asked to repeat manoeuvres by several members.
As a sales team, we have no intention of hiding things from anyone and like to be honest about the aircraft. I'd rather someone tried the Pipersport, decided it was not for them and chose something else, than was duped into purchasing one and spent the next few years complaining what a horrid aircraft it was. That's no good for anyone.
Its a 600kg aircraft. It will be bumped about more than a PA-28. It is also far more agile. It rolls faster, pitches quicker and will even yaw more swiftly. This agility comes at a price. It won't be as stable as a PA-28. To be honest not many aircraft are as stable as the PA-28 (I certainly can't name any LSAs that are). But they are also not as sluggish.
My advice would be to try some of the others on a windy day.
When flying the Pipersport don't fight it. If it bumbs, let it bump. It has great dihedral and will come back swiftly by itself. Don't chase it. You will never keep up. That's how PIOs happen. The other common problem I have with our demonstrator, is that it is very often the first time a pilot has been exposed to a glass cockpit. It is very absorbing, giving you masses of information and of course for someone's first flight, they spend much of the time searching for it. If you decide a retest is warranted, fly as you were taught. Look out of the window and set the attitude. I see people chasing the digital numbers intently to the knot or foot and these are so accurate they bounce all over the place and the pilot follows. With eyes inside and lots of small sharp corrections most people will be ill. One of the Pipersport's best assets is the view it gives from the undistorted bubble canopy, so enjoy it and look out.
Its a VFR aircraft and people buy them so they can tour and see sites, hop between short airfields or like me, to grab it by the scruff of the neck and chuck it about the sky. Decide what you would like an aircraft for, and then pick the one that fits that best. As Ben says, no aircraft is perfect. Its about finding the closest match. If something ticks 8 out of your 10 boxes, that's going to be a serious contender. I hope you find what you are looking for ... I hope even more, that its a Pipersport!
I'll finish by listing our competitors, so you can have a look at those and also how many have been bought of each in the UK, listed on G-info.
PiperSport/ Sportcruiser ... 90
Remos GX ... 5
Aquila A210 ... 7
AT3 ... 13
DA-20 ... 10
AT4 ... 0
Technam P2002 ... 19
Skycatcher 162 ... 0
It vastly outsells everything in its class. If someone really wants a light 2 seater, the PiperSport is usually the one they choose.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spreadeagle, it was a great demo regardless and no sympathies required. A heavy night the day before meant I didn't exactly hit the ground running that morning....
But yes, a heap of people have bought a SC and if it moves around too much for me it's clearly my problem, not the plane's! I guess I fall into the 'touring' segment of GA (the Warrior I came up in is presently in Barcelona) and my fear was thinking that a flight from say, Biggin to N Yorkshire, often hampered by plenty of low airspace, would be pretty tiring on a summer's day.
More research needed. I'd love another trip up, hopefully somewhere without the 2k'ish ceiling, and I'll be in touch.
But yes, a heap of people have bought a SC and if it moves around too much for me it's clearly my problem, not the plane's! I guess I fall into the 'touring' segment of GA (the Warrior I came up in is presently in Barcelona) and my fear was thinking that a flight from say, Biggin to N Yorkshire, often hampered by plenty of low airspace, would be pretty tiring on a summer's day.
More research needed. I'd love another trip up, hopefully somewhere without the 2k'ish ceiling, and I'll be in touch.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a sad git, I have flown all of the types listed above apart from the Skycatcher (and AT4 which is actually an downgraded AT-3 for the American LSA market). Some handle the bumpy bits better than others but none of thenm are poor. Personally, I found the Aquila the best to fly but most would admit that this aircraft is on the fringe of the mainstream VLA/LSA market (check the price 
).
Of the rest, I found the Sportcruiser and AT-3 very similar to fly with the SC winning on interior and finish. The Tecnam 2002 is more of a pilot's aircraft (slightly bigger smile on face) and handles the bumpy bits a little better but it is somewhat cramped compared with the rest. The Remos is an interesting aircraft and I'm a little surprised it hasn't made a bigger impact on the UK market (folding wings) but again it is a bit pricey.
FWIW, I fervently believe this type of aircraft is the way ahead for GA. Yes, there will always be people who want/need nice big cruising machines (Cirrus, TB20 etc) but the mainstream market is for something less.
).Of the rest, I found the Sportcruiser and AT-3 very similar to fly with the SC winning on interior and finish. The Tecnam 2002 is more of a pilot's aircraft (slightly bigger smile on face) and handles the bumpy bits a little better but it is somewhat cramped compared with the rest. The Remos is an interesting aircraft and I'm a little surprised it hasn't made a bigger impact on the UK market (folding wings) but again it is a bit pricey.
FWIW, I fervently believe this type of aircraft is the way ahead for GA. Yes, there will always be people who want/need nice big cruising machines (Cirrus, TB20 etc) but the mainstream market is for something less.
"A ML at 2500ft is a rarity.
Last longish flight I did in a microlight was done at 9,000ft to take advantage of a tailwind and smooth air. Took about 9 minutes to get up there. TAS in the cruise was 130kts. GS 165kts.
Last longish flight I did in a microlight was done at 9,000ft to take advantage of a tailwind and smooth air. Took about 9 minutes to get up there. TAS in the cruise was 130kts. GS 165kts.
If I could be allowed a degree of thread creep, one of the other factors in this debate which doesn't involve aerodynamics is one of finance. If one doesn't have the time/skills/patience to hammer one together in the garden shed, then a SportCruiser looks like £80K of anybody's money. A good Cherokee 140 can be had for £15-20K, a Warrior for £25-30K and an Archer for £35-40K. The difference would buy a lot of fuel. Horses for courses I suppose.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fair point. But the fuel savings are only part of the equation. Have you seen the cost of a 30yr old Warrior annual recently? Ye. Gods.
One would hope that outgoings on a SC would be pretty low at least for the first 5-10 years, and I'd certainly not expect any corrosion work. In addition, the LSA maintenance schedule is much more forgiving on the wallet....
One would hope that outgoings on a SC would be pretty low at least for the first 5-10 years, and I'd certainly not expect any corrosion work. In addition, the LSA maintenance schedule is much more forgiving on the wallet....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A second hand home built aircraft in the VLA class, low hours with a state of the art avionic fit is likely to cost around 55k. Assuming 100 hours a year you will save around 10k per year on running costs. The business case is not very hard.
Be careful of terminology. The vast majority of SC in the UK were cleared via CS-VLA through the LAA. Factory aircraft with an EASA permit are now arriving, and ELA1 may come in 2 years. LSA is an American standard with some very big disadvantages over CS-VLA (eg no VP props, speed limits etc). The SC was designed to the US LSA standard, but most of the competition was originally designed to CS-VLA. The Rotax machine in this class with the most sales is the Europa (in the UK).
Rod1
Be careful of terminology. The vast majority of SC in the UK were cleared via CS-VLA through the LAA. Factory aircraft with an EASA permit are now arriving, and ELA1 may come in 2 years. LSA is an American standard with some very big disadvantages over CS-VLA (eg no VP props, speed limits etc). The SC was designed to the US LSA standard, but most of the competition was originally designed to CS-VLA. The Rotax machine in this class with the most sales is the Europa (in the UK).
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would hope that outgoings on a SC would be pretty low at least for the first 5-10 years, and I'd certainly not expect any corrosion work
I bought a new TB20 in 2002 and my airframe related costs to date are around a few hundred quid in total, over the 8 years.
Of course there were other costs, but they would have been the same if the plane was on the LAA (unless you want to disregard a dodgy-crankshaft AD, which I guess one can do
).The reasons why the 1970s hardware tends to have silly-price annuals (a friend was paying £7000/year on a syndicate C150) are
- most CofA owners are not "engineer/DIY types" and just want a plane they can leave at some company, and they don't want to get involved (so they often get shafted)
- old planes tend to have corroding airframes and need airframe parts replaced, which are universally ripoff priced
- some maintenance companies have used the EASA regime to invent bogus costs and practices
One can dramatically reduce one's Annual costs by a careful initial purchase and a subsequent micro-management of what is done to it, and a very careful choice of who does the work (and the biggest factor is having a hangar where freelance engineers are allowed to work) but most CofA owners don't want to spend their time doing that. So they pay through the nose...
Obviously a 1400kg MTOW IFR 4-seater will have higher overall costs than a 600kg VFR 2-seater, and you would expect that given the massive difference in mission capability, but a lot of the operating cost difference is due to the owners of the former being unwilling to get their hands dirty, not down to LAA v. CofA.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is always another option, and one we're doing. Buy an older aeroplane and rebuild it.
We bought a commander which had had a landing accident. As such we bought it off the insurance company very cheaply. Had we broken it for spares then, we'd have made money on that alone, but we decided to rebuild. After the rebuild the aeroplane will benefit from:
New avionics
New Interior
New paint job
Zero timed and balanced engine
new 3 blade prop
(and N reg )
Once this is all complete the cost will be about £60k all in. Not bad for an "as new" IFR tourer.
It has taken about a year to do, and we have paid people to do all the work, bar a few bits like sand blasting and painting components and re-doing the interior.
The thing I like about this route is that the aeroplane is a known quantity. I have personally inspected the wing spars, and other critical bits and it is nice to see they are in good condition. We'll have new wing bolts and during the rebuild they found minute cracks in the rudder at the hinge - something that you never know, could have gone in 10 years time and you'd never have known they were there because you can't see them on the pre-flight. Aeroplanes that haven't benefited from being taken to bits may never be inspected in such detail.
Can one pay say a maintenance place to build a kit aeroplane? Would it be cheaper than a factory built one?
We bought a commander which had had a landing accident. As such we bought it off the insurance company very cheaply. Had we broken it for spares then, we'd have made money on that alone, but we decided to rebuild. After the rebuild the aeroplane will benefit from:
New avionics
New Interior
New paint job
Zero timed and balanced engine
new 3 blade prop
(and N reg
)Once this is all complete the cost will be about £60k all in. Not bad for an "as new" IFR tourer.
It has taken about a year to do, and we have paid people to do all the work, bar a few bits like sand blasting and painting components and re-doing the interior.
The thing I like about this route is that the aeroplane is a known quantity. I have personally inspected the wing spars, and other critical bits and it is nice to see they are in good condition. We'll have new wing bolts and during the rebuild they found minute cracks in the rudder at the hinge - something that you never know, could have gone in 10 years time and you'd never have known they were there because you can't see them on the pre-flight. Aeroplanes that haven't benefited from being taken to bits may never be inspected in such detail.
Can one pay say a maintenance place to build a kit aeroplane? Would it be cheaper than a factory built one?