Buying a light aircraft

[Immortal]

At least you did better than this fellow in a crosswind...

[AC-DC]

Code:

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. 
...
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................

Dingy V. Aircraft carrier.

I sold my aircraft few months ago, can't consider kit aircraft, they just don't feel right. I flew in 40kts winds and 40kts wind shear and can’t see any/many kit aircraft taking this sort of weather. If the idea is to fly in good VFR then a Cub or Aeronca will be much more fun.

[Humaround]

Secondhand RV7s are fairly rare in the UK, they do come up a few times a year though, usually advertised from £60-£75k, which is less than you could currently build one for. There are plenty for sale in the USA for less money but the cost of importation, VAT, and LAA compliance inspections would probably cancel out the difference.

The RV6 is more plentiful, cheaper, has very nearly the same performance and is a very capable aeroplane, as proven by Manuel Quieroz who flew one round the world in 2006.

Of course RV6s tend to be older (not all - some people are still finishing their builds) but most still have less than 500 flying hours.

RVs are not yet able to fly legally in IMC in the UK, and although sterling work is being done by certain peeps inside and outside the LAA, there is no date for this and there has to be a chance it may never happen.

Mogas is such a dog's breakfast at the moment with the hideous alcohol additives it's doubtful any aircraft can fly on it at present with an utterly spotless conscience - many do so anyway with no ill effects.

My advice to anyone who thinks that an RV might fit their lifestyle (what Peter calls mission profile) is fly one - they are so delightful that you may well find you will want to accept the (very few) limitations.

[sharpend]

A Vans RV6a seems ok if one can compromise on it not being new and thus accepting what the builder decided as his dashboard (of course that could be changed, but at a cost).

But I have read that RV6a have a problem with landing on grass which can result in nosewheel damage if the landing is not executed correctly.

Comments?

[Dan the weegie]

That's correct, I believe that a mod was made to allow for a bigger nosewheel which isn't too difficult to do, nor would it be expensive.

you obviously don't want a tailwheel machine, that wouldn't have the same problem I'm sure there are more available like that.

As for changing the panel, it depends on what's there but it would not be difficult or "relatively" expensive to change what was there, it would almost certainly have most of what you wanted already and all you would need to do is perhaps add a decent transponder, that's very easy and one of those big GPS things with a NDSB receiver to provide you with that TCAS you wanted. It would still leave you about £60k change from your budget and you wouldn't lose half its value in 1 hour.

Main question though is why would you want to replace the cirrus you fly? You may have answered this already but it's a solid machine.

[Shoestring Flyer]

The nosewheel RV's have poor reputation for nosewheel issue that can end in serious tears as this link shows..

Van's RV-7 (G-CDRM) Aircraft Pictures & Photos - AirTeamImages.com

Tailwheel RV's outnumber nose wheel versions by big numbers due to the latters issues on grass. If you like RV's and need to use it most of the time on grass then my advice would be get a Taildragger version.

[sharpend]

Yes, I'm beginning to think that I should stick with my Cirrus! Don't really need 4 seats and would like to reduce running costs. But getting out of the Aquila after a 40 minute flight, then flying the Cirrus for the same time, in the same conditions, was like comparing a sailing dinghy with a 65 ft gin palace.

[Dan the weegie]

You're not comparing apples with apples though .

Neither is really what I'd be interested in in the same position but I think you need to be more focussed on what it is you actually want out of the machine - but it does really look like you have the thing you're after .

[A and C]

RV nose leg

For those of you who have been misguided into putting the third wheel at the wrong end RV there is now a kit that is LAA approved to stiffen the nose leg when it flexes too much.

The fitting of this kit should stop any futher incidents of aircraft tripping up over their own nose leg.

[Rod1]

"the Aquila felt like a microlite"

As I said in an early post it is mostly a matter of wing loading not weight. I did the following some time ago and am not suggesting any of the machines are suitable for you but thought the comparison may be of interest.

You will see that the PiperSport (SC) is the heaviest aircraft but has a much lower wing loading than the comparison machines;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparing aircraft numbers is an interesting pastime and can be useful to sort the facts from the fiction. The Sportcruiser was designed to meet the US LSA cat, but most of the SC aircraft in the UK are flying based on compliance with CS-VLA. If we compare the SC with other VLA machines we get some interesting results;

“The aircraft is very light (~380kgs Empty mass, 600kgs MAUW)”

Compared with a 152 (1950’s tec) it is light, compared with the modern VLA designs it is very heavy. This is probably due to the use of traditional metal construction. Some comparisons;

SC 380kg
Pioneer 300 305kg
MCR01 Club 250kg

All three use the same Rotax 912 100hp engine, so the power to weight ratio is very different, which of course has a big impact on performance;

SC Cruise 105 kts ~ 18 lts/hr
Pioneer Cruise 135 kts ~ 18.5 lts/hr
MCR01 Club Cruise 138 kts ~ 18.5 lts/hr

So the aircraft is about 40% slower. This of course will mean you need a lot more fuel to travel the same distance, so can the CS carry the extra fuel?

SC 120L
Pioneer 80L
MCR01 80L

So the lack of speed can be compensated by fuel capacity, but can it lift the weight?

SC 220kg
Pioneer 201kg
MCR01 Club 240kg

Certainly any advantage of the fuel capacity is seriously compromised by the speed / load equation. How Comfortable? The SC is a much bigger aircraft than the others, so what about cockpit width?

SC 46.5”
Pionear 41.3”
MCR01 44.5”

A clear win for the SC, but there is another issue with how Comfortable an aircraft is. How much do you get bounced around on an average UK summers day? This is not just about weight; it is also about wing area;

CS 13.2 Msq
Pioneer 10 Msq
MCR01 6.5 Msq

The key issue being wing loading;

CS 45 kg/sq
Pioneer 56 kg/sq
MCR01 75 kg/sq

Of all the aircraft above, the SC is the most likely to have to slow down in turbulence, but does the large wing give it an advantage in stall speed?

SC 38kn
Pioneer 44kn
MCR01 42kn

So a clear win for the SC, which should allow it to use a bit less runway; I cannot find a full set of figures on that, but it is almost certainly true.

Crosswind limit?

CS Anyone?
Pioneer 20kn
MCR 20Kn

Rate of Climb?

CD 1200 fpm
Pioneer 1500 fpm
MCR01 1600 fpm


Rod1