ARV Super 2
 

I am interested to hear from anybody with experience of the ARV Super 2. For example I'd like to hear your opinion on the following:

What's it like to fly?
What takeoff run is required from a grass strip at MTOW with the 75 h.p. (Hewland AE75) engine?
Is the engine or aircraft prone to any recurring problems?
Has anybody any photograps og the interior and panel?
Where can I access more information?

Regards,
EI-MPE

I flew one quite often after training. Nice, but not great. I also flew 2 of them across the USA/Canada and into Oshkosh in july/august 1989. Ended up rather dehydrated!!!
Some problems that could be addressed by good maintenance and some mods. Met 2 of them with loose rivets about the tailplane. Bleeding brakes was a nightmare. Might have been nicer with larger wheels? Dealt with the aftermath of 2 engine failures on the Hewland. (1 scrapped airframe). Mixing 2-stroke was messy.
Fantastic visibility, Nice handling, great potential with a decent engine (no offence intended, Mr Designer)

Now a PFA type.

(Oh yeah, and the nosewheel tyre rotated backwards in flight)

Hi Blue up,
Thanks for the post - not exactly a glowing review.

You stated: "The nosewheel tyre rotated backwards in flight"

- please clarify; did the entire nose wheel assembly work free from it's fixing and rotate through 180 degrees during flight?

If yes then how did it perform during the subsequent landing?

prop strike perhaps?

EI-Matey Boy:
Tell me you're pulling someone's leg, please............

I think he meant that the tyre 'windmilled' due to an aerodynamic quirk.

Curious that - how could you tell, when flying the aircraft, that the nose wheel was windmilling during flight?

You watch from another aeroplane in formation methinks.

I flew the ARV when I was doing my PPL and found that it was a revelation after the 152.

Good points:
1. Lovely handling.
2. Stick not a yoke.
3. Great visibility.
4. Reasonably quiet.
5. Comfortable seats (for a 15 stone 6 footer).
6. Decent cruise.

Bad points:
1. Central brake handle adjacent to the throttle operating on both wheels. Strange at first but easy to get used to.
2. You enter the cockpit from in front of the wing due to the shoulder mounting. Again, feels a bit odd but you quickly get used to it.
3. Take off run with two chunky chaps and fuel on a warm day could be "interesting". Operated out of Popham, 800 ish m of grass from memory with trees at the end, though care had to be taken with the fuel load on a hot day.
4. No heater which is acceptable in a 60-year old design like the Auster but unforgiveable in a relatively recent design.
5. Poor ventilation. The big canopy which gives such wonderful visibility turns into a pressure cooker on a hot summer day.

I don't recall the instructor pre-mixing the two stroke oil. I thought it was in a separate tank and it was a metered supply to the fuel tank but I wasn't paying that much attention to be honest.

One of our instructors had a crankshaft failure but managed to put her down with no further damage. This aircraft (G-OTAL) became the first one to be re-engined with a Rotax 912. The crankshaft problem was addressed and all the ones flying now should have the AD incorporated. One was re-engined with the 100hp Wankel rotary which was a better engineering solution than the Rotax as it overcame the need to put ballast in the tail to counter the weight of the Rotax. As blue up says, a great airframe looking for a better engine, unfortunately one hasn't come along yet although an 80 hp Jabiru could be a good motor as I think it weighs about the same as the Hewland with an extra 5hp. Fitting one of the new lightweight electric vp props would also go a long way to helping the take-off performance.

Most are on a PFA Permit To Fly but there are still some on a C of A I think.

Could have been a perfect PFA aeroplane with the right engine and folding wings especially if it had been certified for the aerobatics that the handling screams out for.

Richard Noble still owns one (based at Farnborough)

And usually flies-in to meetings in it - he still seems very happy with his creation.

The chap who did a lot of work on re-engineing them with Rotax 912 engines is Nigel Beale at Skydrive, who has also owned a couple. If I was considering buying one, he's probably the person who I'd go to for advice.

G

Late reply....

I know the nosewheel rotates backwards in flight because I flew in a 2-ship formation down the length of the St Lawrence from Montreal to the eventual destination of Oshkosh. I've got pics somewhere. Sweated my B*****ks off in the summer heat of Wisconsin. Took bottles of water under the seat cushion but they soon approached boiling point.
Great plane to fly, but like most British designs, it was a great idea with some slightly duff planning. If only the fuse was a bit longer and you could stuff a bigger motor in (or a luggage locker for a fishing rod down the tailcone), Cleveland brakes instead of Brembo Moped ones, the wings come off with quick-fits instead of bolts, the canopy had bigger vents etc etc:ugh:
I'd be very happy to own one if it had a nice motor. Revmaster 3100?:D