Buying a light aircraft
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in 1980 almost all of Europe signed an agreement allowing homebuilt aircraft free movement, so we all tour Europe (with one or two exceptions) without hindrance
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silvair, that's an old one. Here is the current version from the LAA website.
http://www.lightaircraftassociation....20Aircraft.pdf
http://www.lightaircraftassociation....20Aircraft.pdf
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the right URL, Silvaire, which is why Rod1 was being disingenuous.
One has to get a permission from most countries in Europe, and more than most outside of Europe.
The 1980 agreement has been mostly ignored.
This doesn't bother the vast majority of UK pilots who never fly abroad, but often people come to GA wishing to fly to far away places, and they need to be made aware that some things they may do may give them cheaper flying in the UK but hassles flying abroad.
Also one needs to be aware that a large part of the advantage of an LAA type is the ability to do one's own maintenance. There is therefore a strong correlation between people flying those types, and people willing and able to do their own maintenance, get the spanners out and get their hands dirty. Some like that, some don't, but those who don't aren't going to save a lot of money.
One has to get a permission from most countries in Europe, and more than most outside of Europe.
The 1980 agreement has been mostly ignored.
This doesn't bother the vast majority of UK pilots who never fly abroad, but often people come to GA wishing to fly to far away places, and they need to be made aware that some things they may do may give them cheaper flying in the UK but hassles flying abroad.
Also one needs to be aware that a large part of the advantage of an LAA type is the ability to do one's own maintenance. There is therefore a strong correlation between people flying those types, and people willing and able to do their own maintenance, get the spanners out and get their hands dirty. Some like that, some don't, but those who don't aren't going to save a lot of money.
I know that everyone will advocate his particular ride and I don't want to bore you, but your mission profile is pretty much what I do too (2 not too light folks, 500-600 NM, baggage)
I do know that flying at 19 lph e.t.c sounds sexy and is a great calculation thing, but in the end, if you want to travel, it's one factor of many.
What I do owning a plane is that I treat it as a separate entity financially and I do pay my hours (to myself on a separate account) as if I was renting. That way, I am getting a price per hour (total outlay / total hours per year) which I can calculate with.
Looking at the figures, what I find is that a slower airplane which uses less fuel can be a lot more expensive than a faster one which doesn't use a lot more, particularly in terms of travel. If you travel with your plane, as you indicate, you'll end up paying less with a 150 kts plane which upfront has a much higher hour price than an Aquila or a Tecnam, which will take a lot more time to get there. Equally, looking at what you have been flying before, it will seem like forever getting where you want to go at 100 kts, seeing that you've flown a Cirrus.
I own a Mooney M20C. It will do 150 kts at 40 liters per hour, 140 @ 34 lph and 120 @ 27, fly comfortably around 550-600 NM and is very good in terms of maintenance due to the fact that it's got the manual gear and flaps.
With your budget, I'd look at a M20J. You'll get 160 kts @ 40 lph or 130 @ 27-30 lph, plenty of space and a range of around 700 NM, due to the fact that it's got 64 USG usable rather than my 52.
There are lots around these days which are way below your budget and which will fit the portfolio just fine. Mooneys don't have a problem with grass (I've been to and fly regularly into 500 m grass fields with mine). They are fast, economical and are ideal for a travel for 2 and lots of bags. I've flown mine on a 2000 NM trip last year with 2 people and 80 kgs of baggage plus full fuel.
PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions
is one example for instance, almost new engine and full IFR. They do start lower however, e.g. this one.
PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions
which seems to have been run throug someting like a "pimp my plane" shop but has older but good avionics (no GPS) and no altitude hold at the AP.
Any questions, I'll be glad to answer to the best of my knowledge.
I do know that flying at 19 lph e.t.c sounds sexy and is a great calculation thing, but in the end, if you want to travel, it's one factor of many.
What I do owning a plane is that I treat it as a separate entity financially and I do pay my hours (to myself on a separate account) as if I was renting. That way, I am getting a price per hour (total outlay / total hours per year) which I can calculate with.
Looking at the figures, what I find is that a slower airplane which uses less fuel can be a lot more expensive than a faster one which doesn't use a lot more, particularly in terms of travel. If you travel with your plane, as you indicate, you'll end up paying less with a 150 kts plane which upfront has a much higher hour price than an Aquila or a Tecnam, which will take a lot more time to get there. Equally, looking at what you have been flying before, it will seem like forever getting where you want to go at 100 kts, seeing that you've flown a Cirrus.
I own a Mooney M20C. It will do 150 kts at 40 liters per hour, 140 @ 34 lph and 120 @ 27, fly comfortably around 550-600 NM and is very good in terms of maintenance due to the fact that it's got the manual gear and flaps.
With your budget, I'd look at a M20J. You'll get 160 kts @ 40 lph or 130 @ 27-30 lph, plenty of space and a range of around 700 NM, due to the fact that it's got 64 USG usable rather than my 52.
There are lots around these days which are way below your budget and which will fit the portfolio just fine. Mooneys don't have a problem with grass (I've been to and fly regularly into 500 m grass fields with mine). They are fast, economical and are ideal for a travel for 2 and lots of bags. I've flown mine on a 2000 NM trip last year with 2 people and 80 kgs of baggage plus full fuel.
PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions
is one example for instance, almost new engine and full IFR. They do start lower however, e.g. this one.
PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions
which seems to have been run throug someting like a "pimp my plane" shop but has older but good avionics (no GPS) and no altitude hold at the AP.
Any questions, I'll be glad to answer to the best of my knowledge.
Thread Starter
Well that all makes sense, but I want a modern two-seater, with stick, not Yoke and I want new with TCAS, big GPS and modern avionics!
Moreover, I love flying, so why fly at 150 kts when 120 kts is more economical and it takes longer to get to your destination (that is a good thing!!) ?
I have flown at 800 kts low level and believe me, 120 kts is more fun! For me anyway.
We are all different and have different requirements.
Moreover, I love flying, so why fly at 150 kts when 120 kts is more economical and it takes longer to get to your destination (that is a good thing!!) ?
I have flown at 800 kts low level and believe me, 120 kts is more fun! For me anyway.
We are all different and have different requirements.
Last edited by sharpend; 5th Sep 2012 at 08:56.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Warning!
In the UK you are not allowed to fly Vans RV8/RV7 in IMC (or any VLA or Permit machine) and none are approved for Mogas.
Rod1"
Sorry Rod but you are only partly correct. Whilst none of those aircraft are approved for IMC many are approved for use of MOGAS. Please edit your post.
In the UK you are not allowed to fly Vans RV8/RV7 in IMC (or any VLA or Permit machine) and none are approved for Mogas.
Rod1"
Sorry Rod but you are only partly correct. Whilst none of those aircraft are approved for IMC many are approved for use of MOGAS. Please edit your post.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: FMMI
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Aquila. There is nothing like it.
Garmin 500, GNS 650, extra horizon and you're NVFR equipped. Rotax reliability and easy maintenance (go to a shop with experience with Rotax though). Fuel with RON 92,95,98 with up to 10% alcohol is no problem. Avgas is an option, but if you use that fuel type to often, your aircraft sees the mechanic every 50 hours instead of 100 hours.
Nice feature about the Aquila is that normally the Rotax has a 5 minute limit with full power applied (100%). After these 5 minutes you must reduce power a bit. The Aquila has the reduced power (95% or so) for take-off, so you can continuously climb to your cruising altitude with the power applied at the take-off run. So the engine is actually derated to 95 HP at take off. I think (but maybe it is a psycological thing) that it is better for the engine not to run it at 100%.
When you've flown 2000 hours the 912Si could be a retrofit option for the Aquila and it is even easier to fly without any carb heat things stuff to forget. Not speaking about the fuel savings with the injected engine.
The only thing it lacks (as most other VFR 2 seaters unfortunately) is pitot heat. It is not even possible as on option...
If you like retractable gear, this is also a nice aircraft: Single Engine - P2002JR - Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam
Is no IFR not a deal breaker for you?
Garmin 500, GNS 650, extra horizon and you're NVFR equipped. Rotax reliability and easy maintenance (go to a shop with experience with Rotax though). Fuel with RON 92,95,98 with up to 10% alcohol is no problem. Avgas is an option, but if you use that fuel type to often, your aircraft sees the mechanic every 50 hours instead of 100 hours.
Nice feature about the Aquila is that normally the Rotax has a 5 minute limit with full power applied (100%). After these 5 minutes you must reduce power a bit. The Aquila has the reduced power (95% or so) for take-off, so you can continuously climb to your cruising altitude with the power applied at the take-off run. So the engine is actually derated to 95 HP at take off. I think (but maybe it is a psycological thing) that it is better for the engine not to run it at 100%.
When you've flown 2000 hours the 912Si could be a retrofit option for the Aquila and it is even easier to fly without any carb heat things stuff to forget. Not speaking about the fuel savings with the injected engine.
The only thing it lacks (as most other VFR 2 seaters unfortunately) is pitot heat. It is not even possible as on option...
If you like retractable gear, this is also a nice aircraft: Single Engine - P2002JR - Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam
Is no IFR not a deal breaker for you?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay 
I didn't know much about it. Looks very new, only a few on the register. It seems to fit what you want although I can't say it would interest me. Is it possible you had already set your eyes on that but were looking just in case there are alternatives? It seems that what you were asking for fits this aircraft very close indeed.
It's a normal Category CofA aircraft so you can fly IFR if correctly equipped
Composites are great but if you get a hangar ding are a lot more expensive to sort than pulling a bit of metal. The useful load is low, full fuel you have 100kgs which means if I'm in it solo, there's no room for anything else Climb performance is fairly mundane and take-off roll for it's class is relatively quite long - in my opinion only. I wonder if those figures were generated at MTOW? perhaps I was just skimming.
It sounds like it flies very nicely though, have you already had a reasonable go in one?
If what you want is mostly for having fun flying just being in the air rather than always touring then it's not bad, there's definitely better for touring and speed in those machines is what generates economy. But for that mission, I think it's a hell of a lot of money to spend on a very new, relatively unproven aircraft. How easily will it be sold on? How easily will you be able to get parts? particularly if the company went bust and you were stuck trying to find certified parts for this aircraft? I'd go and try a few, definitely get a shot in an RV7 if it's available, just for peace of mind
I didn't know much about it. Looks very new, only a few on the register. It seems to fit what you want although I can't say it would interest me. Is it possible you had already set your eyes on that but were looking just in case there are alternatives? It seems that what you were asking for fits this aircraft very close indeed.It's a normal Category CofA aircraft so you can fly IFR if correctly equipped
Composites are great but if you get a hangar ding are a lot more expensive to sort than pulling a bit of metal. The useful load is low, full fuel you have 100kgs which means if I'm in it solo, there's no room for anything else
Climb performance is fairly mundane and take-off roll for it's class is relatively quite long - in my opinion only. I wonder if those figures were generated at MTOW? perhaps I was just skimming.It sounds like it flies very nicely though, have you already had a reasonable go in one?
If what you want is mostly for having fun flying just being in the air rather than always touring then it's not bad, there's definitely better for touring and speed in those machines is what generates economy. But for that mission, I think it's a hell of a lot of money to spend on a very new, relatively unproven aircraft. How easily will it be sold on? How easily will you be able to get parts? particularly if the company went bust and you were stuck trying to find certified parts for this aircraft? I'd go and try a few, definitely get a shot in an RV7 if it's available, just for peace of mind
Last edited by Dan the weegie; 5th Sep 2012 at 11:39.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharpend
"Moreover, I love flying, so why fly at 150 kts when 120 kts is more economical and it takes longer to get to your destination (that is a good thing!!) ?
I have flown at 800 kts low level and believe me, 120 kts is more fun! For me anyway."
The reason I like flying at 150 kts in my RV-6A is because it allows me to still make 120 knots over the ground in a thirty knot headwind!
As others have said the throttle works in both directions and if I want to poodle around at 120 kts I can return a fuel burn comparable to any Rotax engined aircraft.
Also to enlarge on my previous comment to "Rod1", Lycoming have recently published a list of engines that can be run on MOGAS and many of these are fitted to various Vans aircraft.
"Moreover, I love flying, so why fly at 150 kts when 120 kts is more economical and it takes longer to get to your destination (that is a good thing!!) ?
I have flown at 800 kts low level and believe me, 120 kts is more fun! For me anyway."
The reason I like flying at 150 kts in my RV-6A is because it allows me to still make 120 knots over the ground in a thirty knot headwind!
As others have said the throttle works in both directions and if I want to poodle around at 120 kts I can return a fuel burn comparable to any Rotax engined aircraft.
Also to enlarge on my previous comment to "Rod1", Lycoming have recently published a list of engines that can be run on MOGAS and many of these are fitted to various Vans aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not true though that both engine and airframe combination needs to be approved for use with MOGAS and the CAA have not come to any conclusion about the use of E5 fuel which effectively prohibits the use of fuel above 1%? Regardless of engine or airframe my current understanding is that if there is more than a trace of Ethanol, we're not supposed to use it .
Not that it stops people and like I say, they're not dropping out of the sky
.Not that it stops people and like I say, they're not dropping out of the sky
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: FMMI
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Dan
Are you talking about the Aquila a few posts up?
Fuel fuel payload is about 160 kg. You go further than 500 NM with that with 120 kts. 600 NM is also possible with about 100 kts.
I wouldn't call the Aquila new, it's around for more than 10 years now.
I don't know if the airframe/engine combination needs to be certified for more than 1% ethanol. I do know that Rotax announced in one of their publications that the 912 is allowed to burn fuel with up to 10% ethanol.
Are you talking about the Aquila a few posts up?
Fuel fuel payload is about 160 kg. You go further than 500 NM with that with 120 kts. 600 NM is also possible with about 100 kts.
I wouldn't call the Aquila new, it's around for more than 10 years now.
I don't know if the airframe/engine combination needs to be certified for more than 1% ethanol. I do know that Rotax announced in one of their publications that the 912 is allowed to burn fuel with up to 10% ethanol.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep sorry must've fat fingered something possibly added 20ltrs to each tank for some reason. Yep so long as your two pax aren't fatties it's a reasonable payload
If it's 10 years old it hasn't sold enough in the UK. Suggests to me that it would be very difficult to sell on.
My understanding on the complexities of fuel/airframe/CAA approvals is not the best, I know my plane works just fine from the pump but I've heard many times that currently we have not received permission from the CAA to use E5 for any aircraft. This may have changed in light of the manufacturers saying it's ok. There will definitely be someone that knows better than I what the current state of play is.
possibly added 20ltrs to each tank for some reason. Yep so long as your two pax aren't fatties it's a reasonable payload If it's 10 years old it hasn't sold enough in the UK. Suggests to me that it would be very difficult to sell on.
My understanding on the complexities of fuel/airframe/CAA approvals is not the best, I know my plane works just fine from the pump but I've heard many times that currently we have not received permission from the CAA to use E5 for any aircraft. This may have changed in light of the manufacturers saying it's ok. There will definitely be someone that knows better than I what the current state of play is.
Last edited by Dan the weegie; 5th Sep 2012 at 12:07.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: FMMI
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is the price. A small group of pilots bought an Aquila recently and they paid about 170.000 euro for the Garmin 500 + GNS 650 add on.
For that kind of money you can buy a lot more aircraft with IFR capabilities. The Aquila is certified in the CS-VLA category and this forbids flying IFR in the first place.
For that kind of money you can buy a lot more aircraft with IFR capabilities. The Aquila is certified in the CS-VLA category and this forbids flying IFR in the first place.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, according to ginfo it's CS-23A which means it should be possible to fly in IMC. There may be a restriction on the type certificate though which would prevent this. All the more reason to go the permit route.
And isn't 750kgs MTOW not higher than the CS-VLA requirements?
170k Euros is massively expensive. You can buy an RV7 and still have enough for an Aston Martin, with a few grand left over to pay for the extra fuel.
For, on the basis of the climb and performance figures, what amounts to an up to date and nicer to fly Piper Tomahawk.
Bonkers.
And isn't 750kgs MTOW not higher than the CS-VLA requirements?
170k Euros is massively expensive. You can buy an RV7 and still have enough for an Aston Martin, with a few grand left over to pay for the extra fuel.
For, on the basis of the climb and performance figures, what amounts to an up to date and nicer to fly Piper Tomahawk.
Bonkers.
Last edited by Dan the weegie; 5th Sep 2012 at 12:34.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: FMMI
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.easa.europa.eu/certificat...3-20042012.pdf
Page 3:
3. Airworthiness Category: CS-VLA
I don't know the MTOM limitation of the CS-VLA category. LSA is 600 kg.
Page 3:
3. Airworthiness Category: CS-VLA
I don't know the MTOM limitation of the CS-VLA category. LSA is 600 kg.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: FMMI
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found more info:
And there should be some amendment somewhere which allows NVFR...
Here is the EASA document describing the specifications for CS-VLA:
http://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-mea...20combined.pdf
CS-VLA 1 Applicability
This airworthiness code is applicable to
aeroplanes with a single engine (spark- or
compression-ignition) having not more than two
seats, with a Maximum Certificated Take-off
Weight of not more than 750 kg and a stalling
speed in the landing configuration of not more
than 83 km/h (45 knots)(CAS), to be approved
for day-VFR only. (See AMC VLA 1).
This airworthiness code is applicable to
aeroplanes with a single engine (spark- or
compression-ignition) having not more than two
seats, with a Maximum Certificated Take-off
Weight of not more than 750 kg and a stalling
speed in the landing configuration of not more
than 83 km/h (45 knots)(CAS), to be approved
for day-VFR only. (See AMC VLA 1).
Here is the EASA document describing the specifications for CS-VLA:
http://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-mea...20combined.pdf
Last edited by Immortal; 5th Sep 2012 at 12:43. Reason: more info
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's interesting because the CAA list it as CS-23A, in comparison to the AT3 which is registered as CS-VLA. it's possible they have changed the naming of it but the type certificate clearly says CS-VLA. I wonder if the CAA have made a boo boo?
Definitely not worth it. I wonder how much a new Grob 115 costs if they still make em?
Definitely not worth it. I wonder how much a new Grob 115 costs if they still make em?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing worthwhile to add other than I'm always amused by people who have 100K+ to spend on an a/c and then worry about the fuel economy........