Zlin 242... any good?
Thread Starter
Zlin 242... any good?
Thinking of flying one of these on a regular basis - any good?
WWW
WWW
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fun aeroplane with much the same performance as a Bulldog. It probably rolls a bit faster than a 'dog but it glides like a house-brick. Spin characteristics are pretty much classic. It goes in and stays in until you get the recovery actions correct, but it doesn't go high-rotational unless you are really gross. It's cleared for inverted spinning if you're into that sort of thing, but not flick manoeuvres. The less endearing features are: the elevator overbalances in the spin so, if you let go, the stick stays fully back 
- there's quite a breakout force to get it moving; the parking brake is cr*p - if you think a 152's parking brake is unreliable, try this one; if it's left overnight without a cover and it rains then make sure you bail out before aeros or you'll get an unexpected shower; fuel load can be restrictive - if you want aeros then you can only carry about 35 litres a side if you're 2-up.
Overall, I'd rather fly a 242 than a T67 unless you can get hold of a grunty 260hp T67M.
- there's quite a breakout force to get it moving; the parking brake is cr*p - if you think a 152's parking brake is unreliable, try this one; if it's left overnight without a cover and it rains then make sure you bail out before aeros or you'll get an unexpected shower; fuel load can be restrictive - if you want aeros then you can only carry about 35 litres a side if you're 2-up. Overall, I'd rather fly a 242 than a T67 unless you can get hold of a grunty 260hp T67M.
Thread Starter
Yes the Aeros one at Staverton. Thanks for that - I assumed it would be very close to Bulldog perf with which I am familiar. Interesing gen on the elevator over balance - nasty little habit that. Park brakes have been responsible for some nasty accidents over the years so - again - thanks for the tip.
Cheers,
WWW - a man desperately in need of some upside down flying again...
Cheers,
WWW - a man desperately in need of some upside down flying again...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Northants
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The brake problem is a bit of a self-inflicted injury caused by the parking brake being left on for long periods. Moravan never intended it to be used like that and the Flight Manual makes it quite clear that, for long term parking, the wheels should be chocked and the 'park' brake should be released. The recurrent problems that OAT have with their aircrafts' brakes do not seem to happen elsewhere.
Ingress of rainwater is a problem. It gets in around the locating spiggots of the sliding canopy and there is a fix. However, provided that the canopy cover is properly fitted, it shouldn't be too bad.
The ban on flick manoeuvres applies only to UK registered aircraft. In fact, the aircraft flicks very well and is totally predictable. The elevator 'overbalance' is nothing special, so long as you are prepared for it, and spin recovery is quite straightforward.
The biggest problem is the very limited life on the main spar. Both Oxford's aircraft have been back to the manufacturer for rectification work at significant cost. It will be worth checking the remaining life on the aircraft at Gloucester, if it's G-OZLN then there shouldn't be too much of a problem. As I recall, the first two owners were not exactly enthusiastic aerobatic pilots and it won't have built up too many aerobatic hours.
Having flown 5 different airframes, including the prototype, I'd rate it a little above the Bulldog, of course it does have full inverted capability although the negative 'g' performance is a bit 'iffy'. A full inverted loop is possible but you've got to get everything just right. Inverted spin and recovery is a breeze.
If you want any further info, e-mail me.
Ingress of rainwater is a problem. It gets in around the locating spiggots of the sliding canopy and there is a fix. However, provided that the canopy cover is properly fitted, it shouldn't be too bad.
The ban on flick manoeuvres applies only to UK registered aircraft. In fact, the aircraft flicks very well and is totally predictable. The elevator 'overbalance' is nothing special, so long as you are prepared for it, and spin recovery is quite straightforward.
The biggest problem is the very limited life on the main spar. Both Oxford's aircraft have been back to the manufacturer for rectification work at significant cost. It will be worth checking the remaining life on the aircraft at Gloucester, if it's G-OZLN then there shouldn't be too much of a problem. As I recall, the first two owners were not exactly enthusiastic aerobatic pilots and it won't have built up too many aerobatic hours.
Having flown 5 different airframes, including the prototype, I'd rate it a little above the Bulldog, of course it does have full inverted capability although the negative 'g' performance is a bit 'iffy'. A full inverted loop is possible but you've got to get everything just right. Inverted spin and recovery is a breeze.
If you want any further info, e-mail me.
When the RAF EFTS training was going to be privatised, EFTS trialled all the potential contractors arcraft. CSE offered the 242, and it was our favourite. Nicer handling and build than the SAH 1 and T67, and vastly superior to the Bravo (which was not a military trainer IMHO). The 242 felt like it had more than 200 horses as well.
Also, better than the Bulldog (which I have never really liked), but none of them was as good as the Chipmunk!
Also, better than the Bulldog (which I have never really liked), but none of them was as good as the Chipmunk!
Thread Starter
Cheers for the comments. Dan - interesting, I have flown the Bravo, Bulldog and Chipmunk so I will be interested to fly the 242 and see what you are talking about,
WWW
WWW
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Northants
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan, maybe we met when I brought SE-KMS up to Scampton for you lot to fly?
I agree with your assesment, the Z242 beats the Airfix T67 into a cocked hat. Big engines are no substitute for properly designed aeroplanes.
I agree with your assesment, the Z242 beats the Airfix T67 into a cocked hat. Big engines are no substitute for properly designed aeroplanes.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time limits
Can anyone provide details regarding the time limit on the main spar?
Is it possible to have this extended subject to satisfactory inspection, or is a complete new spar required?
Finally, are there any other time limits on the Zlin 142 and 242?
My gliding club has a Romanian IS28-B2 that is subject to a 20 year lifespan. It was a pain getting it extended ... not sure that I want to go down that road again.
Is it possible to have this extended subject to satisfactory inspection, or is a complete new spar required?
Finally, are there any other time limits on the Zlin 142 and 242?
My gliding club has a Romanian IS28-B2 that is subject to a 20 year lifespan. It was a pain getting it extended ... not sure that I want to go down that road again.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not spent enough time in the 242 to really compare it to the 'dog, but the location of the swich panel down low almost between the rudders (it seemed) meant you needed arms like a chimpanzee to reach them when tightly strapped in - at least if you're a 6 footer like me! Perhaps not a problem for WWW. The 'dog is a better designed cockpit in my opinion, far more ergonomic and well thought out.
However, I did enjoy flying the Zlin. Climb performance is probably similar to the 'dog (i.e slow), it handles very well, nice and sharp, and rolls faster probably due to more stuby wings. Spinning is a doddle, visibility is great and overall a lot of fun. Be more than happy to strap one on again.
However, I did enjoy flying the Zlin. Climb performance is probably similar to the 'dog (i.e slow), it handles very well, nice and sharp, and rolls faster probably due to more stuby wings. Spinning is a doddle, visibility is great and overall a lot of fun. Be more than happy to strap one on again.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't flown the 242, but have flown the 142 (210hp supercharged engine). It was very nice to fly. Much better rate of roll than the T67, and nicer handling. At the time I was too new to aerobatics to say anything useful about its performance, but on a Hungarian registration it was cleared for flicks, and as mentioned above it is cleared for inverted spins and loops.
The 142 was also incredibly cheap to fly a few years ago, which I suspect is the major difference between a 142 in Hungary and a 242 in England!
The 142 was also incredibly cheap to fly a few years ago, which I suspect is the major difference between a 142 in Hungary and a 242 in England!
Staverton.....STAVERTON?????......would that be Gloucestershire International Airport then?!
The Zlin 242 is a fantastic aeroplane and well worth the money to hire for really scaring yourself! The manual even shows you how to do a tail-slide if yer brave enough!
The park brake is'nt an issue as it does'nt work in the Aero's machine....makes for wobbly legs in winter holding it on the brakes waiting for it to warm up for your power checks!
The Zlin 242 is a fantastic aeroplane and well worth the money to hire for really scaring yourself! The manual even shows you how to do a tail-slide if yer brave enough!
The park brake is'nt an issue as it does'nt work in the Aero's machine....makes for wobbly legs in winter holding it on the brakes waiting for it to warm up for your power checks!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem is the very limited life on the main spar. Both Oxford's aircraft have been back to the manufacturer for rectification work at significant cost.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently got signed off and have done a few hours in the Z-242L and love it! 
It's been great fun to fly. After spending most of my time in Cessnas the visibility of the Zlin was awesome.
I found that for some reason it was a real 'draggy' aircraft which resulted in some pretty average gliding distances - if you ever had the engine quit on you at a semi-low level there's no time to stuff around - coarse pitch and clean it up asap. On the plus side if you find yourself fast on final dump the flaps (yank the handbrake!), prop fine and you'll slow down in a hurry
The wheel brakes aren't the best - i spoke to the LAMEs about this one and they'd actually looked into it in the past but couldn't determine why. The actual setup looked better than most of the other aircraft in the fleet but just didn't perform for some reason.
It's got some interesting design features: frise ailerons, aerodynamic balance tabs, mass balance tabs, that offset nosewheel, all those separate switches for master, battery, generator, engine instruments, flight instruments....
And the flight qualities were very responsive - a joy to fly. I thoroughly reccommend it - you'll enjoy it.
Rob.
And a question for anyone out there - where/how does the stall warning function on the Z-242L?? It's not a typical leading edge stall warning and apparently it's tied to the air/ground logic. Anyone know?
It's been great fun to fly. After spending most of my time in Cessnas the visibility of the Zlin was awesome.I found that for some reason it was a real 'draggy' aircraft which resulted in some pretty average gliding distances - if you ever had the engine quit on you at a semi-low level there's no time to stuff around - coarse pitch and clean it up asap. On the plus side if you find yourself fast on final dump the flaps (yank the handbrake!), prop fine and you'll slow down in a hurry
The wheel brakes aren't the best - i spoke to the LAMEs about this one and they'd actually looked into it in the past but couldn't determine why. The actual setup looked better than most of the other aircraft in the fleet but just didn't perform for some reason.
It's got some interesting design features: frise ailerons, aerodynamic balance tabs, mass balance tabs, that offset nosewheel, all those separate switches for master, battery, generator, engine instruments, flight instruments....
And the flight qualities were very responsive - a joy to fly. I thoroughly reccommend it - you'll enjoy it.
Rob.
And a question for anyone out there - where/how does the stall warning function on the Z-242L?? It's not a typical leading edge stall warning and apparently it's tied to the air/ground logic. Anyone know?
I believe the stall warner only activates in the air as it is linked by a mechanical arm to one of the main undercarriage legs. Therefore when the weight is lifted off it in flight, the stall warner becomes 'alive' as such, but thats about all I know!
Better check with the 'eng' boys who can probably explain it in great depth!!!
Better check with the 'eng' boys who can probably explain it in great depth!!!
Come on guys; can't someone advise regarding the time limits as previously alluded to by XX514? Surely there is someone knowledgeable out there?!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great! Thanks djpil. I knew that ppruners would come through for me!
So, if I'm reading the AD correctly, the airframe is limited to a total of 5,500 hours.
This would be a problem for clubs and schools, but I suppose not really a huge deal for private owners. Let's say I buy one second-hand with, say, 1,000 hours on it; that still gives me 45 years of flying, if we conservatively assume an average of 100 hours per year. That would see me through until I'm in my 80's.
Even so, psychologically it's difficult to get beyond the perceived 'resale problem'; I am used to thinking of aircraft as things that are essentially timeless, assuming proper maintenance of course.
So, if I'm reading the AD correctly, the airframe is limited to a total of 5,500 hours.
This would be a problem for clubs and schools, but I suppose not really a huge deal for private owners. Let's say I buy one second-hand with, say, 1,000 hours on it; that still gives me 45 years of flying, if we conservatively assume an average of 100 hours per year. That would see me through until I'm in my 80's.
Even so, psychologically it's difficult to get beyond the perceived 'resale problem'; I am used to thinking of aircraft as things that are essentially timeless, assuming proper maintenance of course.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I remember is going up for a few aero sorties in it as a 40 hour stude during the course of my training with an ex lightning jock - 1800 hours later and it's till the most fun I've ever had in an aeroplane... 
