AA-5A, GY-80, S.205, SA.202 or what else?
 

After a few unsuccessul attempts to buy an aircraft of my own last spring and summer and a long work-related hiatus, I have reevaluated my mission profile and am in the market again, this time with a much greater motivation. What I am trying to get now is a fast IFR-equipped (or IFR-upgradeable) 4-seater, and I decided to take Pilot DAR's approach of buying a really cheap plane and eventually improving and upgrading it.
As someone here may already remember, I keep examining all kinds of exotic opportunities... So, among the aircraft I currently have my eyes on are a Grumman AA-5A Cheetah, a Gardan GY-80 Horizon and a SIAI S.205-20R (retractable). Yet another solution (a compromise, though nice in other ways) is a SA.202 Bravo in a 3-seat configuration. Of course, the papers will be thoroghly inspected, the plane will be checked by engineer and test-flown, all that goes without saying. However, with the exception of Cheetah, I know virtually nothing beyond a few web articles about these types in general - their reliability, their quirks, their typical operating costs, their maintainability... Could anyone provide any insight on these, or maybe any better ideas? (Yes, old Mooneys are definitely considered, but two cheap ones I found were sold before I could even arrange to come and see them...)

Hmmmmm.... you mention S205 and 'fast' in the same para. Not sure what you mean by 'fast' but that's not what a 205 is. It's basically an Italian PA28. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I certainly wouldn't classify it as a 'fast IFR tourer' (although I did some pretty long distance runs - X-Europe - in it).

Know nothing about the other types.

All the types you mention are not exactly mainstream - why? Is this a price consideration? Think about the future and maintenance - what sounds cheap now may well come back to bite your wallet with a vengeance !

Spot on. Personally I'd go for a Jodel 1050. Lots of them, spares not a problem, good honest aircraft and on Permit to boot

172driver, the one in question is a -20R, a 200 hp retractable-gear version.
The "not exactly mainstream" comes mostly from the price considerations indeed, and here I am trying to find out whether the types in question are plagued by unusually high maintenance costs, etc.

robin, Jodels/Robins are (regretfully) excluded right away, as the plane will be away from the home base a lot of time, and no one can guarantee a hangar will be available everywhere I fly.

GY80 (160 VP) owner. I'm not sure I'd call it a "fast" IFR tourer - even the 180hp version struggles to cruise much beyond 120KTAS. There are some very nice ones out there though (eg one in France with full IFR kit, autopilot, etc etc owned by the boss of a maintenance facility), and it's an aircraft I truly enjoy flying. Main benefits are the way it can get out of a short strip with all seats full, or get airborne in under 200m alone with full tanks. The handling qualities are in general very good, although the rudder is undersized and this can lead to some excitement in stalls until you get used to it. Maintenance is in general simple (standard Lycoming engines, for example) unless you run into some of the "French" issues with it - finding a decent engineer with experience on type is well worth it. A PA28-180 is probably overall a better aircraft, but I know which one I'd rather fly for versatility...

One that is often overlooked is the Wassmer . Its fibreglass, can be left outside, like an early cirrus realy and can be operated on a LAA permit.

The Sa205 is like buying a 1960's Alfa, which is very classic, but I suspect parts will be very expensive and as it is a rare aircraft will have limited resale value. In fact almost exactly the same for the GY80 except 1960's Citroen. I always buy aircraft with the thought that one day I will want change or upgrade and thus want something that is easy to sell and maintain whilst i own it. Why do you think both of these hardly sold when they were new ? -- Poor performance, costs compared with the boring but capable Cessna 172 and Piper PA28. Your idea of the Grumman AA5 is the best option, but if I were you, I would buy the AA5B Tiger which is 180hp rather than 160hp of the AA5A Cheetah. Go for fixed gear and prop as the speed advantages of a 180hp with retract and VP are going to be nothing - maybe 10-15kts but almost twice the running costs -- i know as I owned a complicated Comanche and a simple Robin at different times. The AA5 series are all nice to fly and always cheap to maintain.

Hmmmmmmm..... let's see, we have:
- exotic type
- retractable gear
- old age

The above combo would strike fear into my heart, unless, of course, I owned a maintenance outfit :E

172driver, yes... Convincing enough to strike this one out.

john ball, in fact, I am leaning towards the Cheetah myself - and, by the way, although a bit slower than Tiger, Cheetah has a longer range. The reason for me to consider the GY-80 as well is the alleged simplicity of its design - e.g. flaps, ailerons and elevators being the same part, with only attachment fittings being different, or one mechanism extending both gear and flaps at the same time - and its much higher payload than AA-5's.

Anton k,

My answer to the point about the ailerons/ flaps etc being the same is 'so what' -- you will never find a scrap yard with any parts for a GY80 anyway. But every parts store or scrap yards in USA will have hundreds of every part for AA5's. Also the the other issue about range -- same tanks in the Cheetah or Tiger but, yes the 180hp does use more fuel, but again so what --- they will both do over 3 hours and that is about my maximum range before wanting the loo or a drink. Tiger is fast so will get there faster or go further in the same period. You get what you pay for, that is why the Tiger is more expensive than the Cheetah and the Archer is more expensive than the Warrior. Both the lower powered ones were more likely to have been used by schools and thus generally have higher total hours.

I used to really enjoy cruising around in a Cessna 177 Cardinal (the fixed gear 180hp version). Sleeker and better looking (in my opinion) than a 172, nice to fly, reasonable speed, loads of room inside, great visibility without those struts and I would imagine fairly affordable to run and fix.

How much are you looking to spend ?

jxc, up to 25k EUR outright for a fully airworthy plane, with a view to invest 15-20-25k into a subsequent overhaul/upgrade over a couple of years.

Is this of any use ?


GT Aviation UK


I have nothing to do with this company just saw it and thought could be good buy or Socata TB10 very low hours

S205 is a great old bus and parts arent that scarce! It uses many standard parts and is built like the proverbial!!! It is a lot bigger than a PA28 and the one I had which my buddy has now is an amazing machine! Laminar flow wings and a very roomy cockpit with a superb weight carrying capacity. Lycoming 180 HP engine matched to a constant speed prop great for touring. Oh and it has a great little badge on the panel "Pinifarina" who designed the interior. A true Alfa Romeo of the air!!!!

You will be wasting your money and tearing your hair out. Don't do it.

The "non-mainstream" aircraft are far less likely to have approved mods to fit the kit you want and you can't afford to be the first if you are on a limited budget.
Time taken to do the fit, doubtless in small chunks as you can afford them, will eat into your available flying time (heavily). Also the time needed to work out the bugs.........Tearing things apart several times will be more expensive than doing it all at once.
Do you have the skill and knowledge to work with your engineers fixing the snags as they arise?
It might work if you have the aircraft on the N reg and a really good relationship with your maintenance provider but the types you are talking about are rare and may not be easy to use (or register) on the N.
At the end of it all you will not have a toy that is worth the sum of the bills.

What you are asking is not cheap. The aircraft is not cheap (relatively) and the required maintenance/checks will also be more expensive. You also need to factor in the costs of your training and recurrency. 25K, in any currency, will not do it.

Thank you everyone! Just one opinion might not be enough but the voices of everyone together sound quite convincing. Case closed, the resulting shortlist will include the only non-exotic type among those initially listed, the AA-5.

Do Check the Insurance Rates
 

One lovely AA-5 of my too short acquaintance was flown IFR to destination and landed on the nosewheel -- think glass jaw:eek:

When commiserating with the owner, pretty much all the bits forward of the firewall plus perhaps firewall were up for replacement and the a/c was written off:(

Still a fine a/c to fly as long as you land it properly -- I've seen people come close to doing the same thing in a C-172. I also know of one that was damaged similarly and economically reparable because of parts availability and cost.

RatherBeFlying, oh yes. One glance at AA-5's nosewheel is sufficient to understand you should never, ever land on it. And at the price I'm prepared to pay for the plane, it's cheaper to self-insure the hull and only purchase the liability.

AA5 yes. Wassmer Europa is an absolutely terrific aircraft too, but AA5 is better all round and practically more managable. I say that having owned shares in both.