Buying a light aircraft
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's reasonable to be concerned about the fuel burn because avgas is so expensive these days. It's easy to spend £10k/year on avgas alone, if one goes places.
Unfortunately different people suggest different planes (their favourite ones obviously) without first asking the chap's mission profile - and he may not even be sure of it himself.
When I was looking to buy, c. 2001, I had all kinds of stuff suggested to me by people who I then thought knew what they were talking about. Most of it would have been useless for what I wanted...
For example a plane with a 500-600nm range would have been no good for what I wanted, and that rules out perhaps 90% of the options.
That's why the person needs to sit down and think hard about what kind of flying he/she wants to do. Most people that are to be found in the flight training environment haven't got a clue about this because they have never been past the crease in their map. This makes the learning curve quite steep.
On top of that one can get disingenous advice from a school which wants you to keep renting... Once you buy your own plane, they cut you out. No more fly-out invitations, because they can't make money off you, and you are pilfering people who would otherwise sit in the LHS with an instructor in the RHS
Unfortunately different people suggest different planes (their favourite ones obviously) without first asking the chap's mission profile - and he may not even be sure of it himself.
When I was looking to buy, c. 2001, I had all kinds of stuff suggested to me by people who I then thought knew what they were talking about. Most of it would have been useless for what I wanted...
For example a plane with a 500-600nm range would have been no good for what I wanted, and that rules out perhaps 90% of the options.
That's why the person needs to sit down and think hard about what kind of flying he/she wants to do. Most people that are to be found in the flight training environment haven't got a clue about this because they have never been past the crease in their map. This makes the learning curve quite steep.
On top of that one can get disingenous advice from a school which wants you to keep renting... Once you buy your own plane, they cut you out. No more fly-out invitations, because they can't make money off you, and you are pilfering people who would otherwise sit in the LHS with an instructor in the RHS
Last edited by peterh337; 5th Sep 2012 at 15:48.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: FMMI
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mission profile is in OP.
It must be economical to run, use half the fuel consumption of a Bulldog, have a range of over 500 nm, cruise at least 110 - 120 kts, carry two + bags, cost not much more than £130K, low wing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That;s the thing though, the OPs profile is an impossible mission.
New aircraft, factory built, new glass panel avionics with TCAS, cruise speed between 120 and 130 kts with about 20lph of MOGAS, permitted to fly IFR in IMC, stick and throttle with side by side seating.
Nothing exists that can do that
New aircraft, factory built, new glass panel avionics with TCAS, cruise speed between 120 and 130 kts with about 20lph of MOGAS, permitted to fly IFR in IMC, stick and throttle with side by side seating.
Nothing exists that can do that
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DR400-180
By the look of it the Robin DR400-180 comes the closest to the mission requirement it will make the range, speed and payload requirement with ease.
Half the fuel burn of the Bulldog it won't do but as it can burn 91UL I would guess that you could get the cost per air mile down to about 60-70% of the Bulldog.
Other advantages of the Robin are very good short field performance and no VP prop to maintain.
Half the fuel burn of the Bulldog it won't do but as it can burn 91UL I would guess that you could get the cost per air mile down to about 60-70% of the Bulldog.
Other advantages of the Robin are very good short field performance and no VP prop to maintain.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But put in the avionics and you're looking at the business end of £150k! ex VAT?
Worth giving Mistral Aviation a call, they'll have a demo machine you can look at.
Lovely plane though
Worth giving Mistral Aviation a call, they'll have a demo machine you can look at.
Lovely plane though
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan
At no time on this thread has Sharpend said anything about a full glass Avionic fit so the DR400 fits the original specification, it is others who have talked about glass cockpits.
I could find a DR400 in seconds that has just had a full recovering and a Zero time engine that would come at a price that would allow for a substantial Avionic upgrade and still fit the budget.
I could find a DR400 in seconds that has just had a full recovering and a Zero time engine that would come at a price that would allow for a substantial Avionic upgrade and still fit the budget.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire
Age: 49
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharpend said earlier that he wanted conventional instruments.
There's no reason you can't have conventional primary instruments and glass for nav and engine management.
There's no reason you can't have conventional primary instruments and glass for nav and engine management.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I to read the requirement as anolog instruments with a big GPS and had in mind the latest Garmin touch screen unit.
What I had not done was invented a requirement that matches my own aspirations!
The DR400 matches MOST of the requirements the only place it fails is fuel consumption, and that not by a lot.
The one thing that can be relied apon with the DR400 is that the maintenance costs are known, the wooden airframe is very robust and it takes short grass runways in its stride, the new generation of aircraft are an unknown quantity when it comes to maintenance, those with a good record are the more robustly constructed and these lack the performance of the very lightly built aircraft.
Each time I try to replace my DR400 all the alternatives fall short on one thing or another, last week I was flying a Cirrus, very nice with a full glass cockpit and all the things that seem to be deemed essential on these forums if you want to go south of the channel.
However the Cirrus won't even look at some go the airfields that I use and despite my DR400 being equipped with no glass screens it is still IFR approved with GPS approach and BRNAV (and according to the flight manual flight in MNPS airspace but I have no idea how I would get the thing to an oceanic entry point!).
When I read some of the things written above about having glass cockpits and the like I am left wondering how I ever got my DR400 to Malta before it was fitted with a GPS.
What I had not done was invented a requirement that matches my own aspirations!
The DR400 matches MOST of the requirements the only place it fails is fuel consumption, and that not by a lot.
The one thing that can be relied apon with the DR400 is that the maintenance costs are known, the wooden airframe is very robust and it takes short grass runways in its stride, the new generation of aircraft are an unknown quantity when it comes to maintenance, those with a good record are the more robustly constructed and these lack the performance of the very lightly built aircraft.
Each time I try to replace my DR400 all the alternatives fall short on one thing or another, last week I was flying a Cirrus, very nice with a full glass cockpit and all the things that seem to be deemed essential on these forums if you want to go south of the channel.
However the Cirrus won't even look at some go the airfields that I use and despite my DR400 being equipped with no glass screens it is still IFR approved with GPS approach and BRNAV (and according to the flight manual flight in MNPS airspace but I have no idea how I would get the thing to an oceanic entry point!).
When I read some of the things written above about having glass cockpits and the like I am left wondering how I ever got my DR400 to Malta before it was fitted with a GPS.
Last edited by A and C; 6th Sep 2012 at 07:57.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C you're right. Nonetheless he did specify new and in a Robin that's 150k + VAT from what I read in the Mistral website.
I do wonder why people buy light singles with Glass Avionics though, a reasonable GPS takes all pain out of Nav and a proper IFR fit will get you in the airspace you want to be in. One wonders how I fly the international flights each week without even a moving map Glass engine instruments are good though, they take alot of the misreading errors away and do highlight issues better than traditional ones.
I certainly don't aspire to an RV7 though, it's a marvellous machine but it's not the plane for me, it is just the one that fits most of what Sharpend wants well within the budget and has the added benefit of being a permit aircraft which allows for significant additional maintenance cost benefit and the flexibility to change avionics as you see fit and the work can be done by a paid engineer if you wish, not necessarily by yourself. Most importantly to me though is that due to the number of RVs being bought round the world that spares will be easy to source for a very long time and also the resale value remains high because it's an in demand aircraft. So I'm only banging the drum because it makes sense in my world .
Sharpend, that is correct an RV7 cannot be bought new, but as I've already said there is nothing brand new out there that ticks all of your boxes, (glass panel notwithstanding). Your options are either to change what you want to do or to accept an aircraft that is nearly new and kit built or about 8 or so years old and refit the avionics that you require.
There are builders out there who will build a kit for you, it's against the principles of the LAA and they tend to frown on that kind of thing, the rules are set to make it more difficult but it happens quite frequently anyway.
I do wonder why people buy light singles with Glass Avionics though, a reasonable GPS takes all pain out of Nav and a proper IFR fit will get you in the airspace you want to be in. One wonders how I fly the international flights each week without even a moving map
Glass engine instruments are good though, they take alot of the misreading errors away and do highlight issues better than traditional ones.I certainly don't aspire to an RV7 though, it's a marvellous machine but it's not the plane for me, it is just the one that fits most of what Sharpend wants well within the budget and has the added benefit of being a permit aircraft which allows for significant additional maintenance cost benefit and the flexibility to change avionics as you see fit and the work can be done by a paid engineer if you wish, not necessarily by yourself
. Most importantly to me though is that due to the number of RVs being bought round the world that spares will be easy to source for a very long time and also the resale value remains high because it's an in demand aircraft. So I'm only banging the drum because it makes sense in my world .Sharpend, that is correct an RV7 cannot be bought new, but as I've already said there is nothing brand new out there that ticks all of your boxes, (glass panel notwithstanding
). Your options are either to change what you want to do or to accept an aircraft that is nearly new and kit built or about 8 or so years old and refit the avionics that you require.There are builders out there who will build a kit for you, it's against the principles of the LAA and they tend to frown on that kind of thing, the rules are set to make it more difficult but it happens quite frequently anyway.
Last edited by Dan the weegie; 6th Sep 2012 at 08:29.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am on hols doing a lot of flying but with limited access to Internet. Needless to say I do not agree with Peter on just about anything – but as this thread is about factory aircraft it is not the place to drag him through it all over again…
gyrotyro you have a PM.
Rod1
gyrotyro you have a PM.
Rod1
Sharpend, go used. Let someone else take the massive depreciation associated with a new aircraft.
Given a reasonable amount of TLC and sympathetic maintenance, well-designed airframes have an almost indefinite life. If the design hasn't changed significantly in the last 5-10-20 years, what's the point of new vs. refurbed original?
I suppose you get that "new car feeling" when you pick it up but the downside is the first scratch or bit of oil on the upholstery is stupidly annoying: that happens pretty quickly with an aeroplane!
If you really want new, why not combine forces with another like-minded pilot on a similar budget and get something like this. Looks the business!
Otherwise, I'd agree with what A&C is saying - you have to go a long way to beat a zero-houred DR400 with custom avionics and it'll be well within budget, leaving plenty over for fuel, insurance, etc.
Thread Starter
Actually I flew a Aquila today. Good day for it... Wind 50 deg off runway at 12 kts (x wind limit 15 kts), few thermals.
It steered rather strangely on the ground, weathercocked violently into wind on lift off, suffered greatly from big wings/gusty conditions, during landing it was very skittish & my right foot slid off the rudder pedal during x wind landing
. I also did not like the stick so far back into my crutch! It did not look cheap but felt rather cheap, despite the fact it was not! Maybe I am wrong comparing it to my Cirrus which I flew immediately afterwards, but the Cirrus felt beefy, the Aquila felt like a microlite! Moreover, I'm used to Bulldog which also feels beefy.
Rate of roll was rubbish.
OK, so running costs are half that of Cirrus & good old Bulldog, but................
It steered rather strangely on the ground, weathercocked violently into wind on lift off, suffered greatly from big wings/gusty conditions, during landing it was very skittish & my right foot slid off the rudder pedal during x wind landing
. I also did not like the stick so far back into my crutch! It did not look cheap but felt rather cheap, despite the fact it was not! Maybe I am wrong comparing it to my Cirrus which I flew immediately afterwards, but the Cirrus felt beefy, the Aquila felt like a microlite! Moreover, I'm used to Bulldog which also feels beefy.Rate of roll was rubbish.
OK, so running costs are half that of Cirrus & good old Bulldog, but................