Aerobatic tourer... suggestions?
 

Hi everybody,

after rejecting the consideration of purchasing an advanced microlight (too far from my needs), I am now selecting an aircraft based on its touring/aerobatic capabilities.
I have shortlisted three candidates which would match my needs: Grob 115, Zlin 242 and Slingsby Firefly.
Next criteria will be the economy of use... therefore I am asking if somebody has direct experience of managing such aircrafts: in spite of a very attractive purchasing price I don't want to be killed by maintenance costs... so any suggestions will be welcome....

Thanks in advance,
Nick

The Slingsby Firefly comes in at least a,b,c, m160,m200 and m260 versions. The A is wood with around 115hp and fixed pitch prop, the m260 is composite with 260 hp and vp prop. I used to own an “a” have competed in an m160 and flown the m260. The cost of operation will vary hugely!

Rod1

Have a look also at the Bulldog, they've become reasonably inexpensive and are well supported from within the UK community. It's a gorgeous aeroplane to fly, with fairly reasonable legs and quite a comfortable cockpit.

A friend who has a T67 seems to have significant issues with regular service bulletins and very slow supply of parts, but loves the aeroplane when he's flying it. Statistically the small engined aeroplanes do not have a good safety record, but the military spec (M200 and M260) variants are very good in civil use.

I haven't dealt with the G115 but have dealt with other Grob aircraft in the past. Their product support was always excellent.

All I really know about the Zlin is how ugly it is!

G

Touring and aerobatics are, to an extent, mutually exclusive. The intermediate and higher aerobatics capable aircraft (such as the Extra 300, Cap 21 and similar) are virtually all very specialized airframes with not a lot of baggage space, and limited range. Not to mention the cost of touring in a 300-HP airplane.

So you will have to compromise. I fly the Robin R2160 a lot for both purposes. It does reasonable aerobatics up to Standard level, has almost four hours endurance @ 110 knots IAS, a reasonably comfortable and roomy cockpit and a baggage compartment that takes 30 kg easily. Two adults with baggage and full fuel and it's exactly on MTOW. It's also a rugged airframe with not a lot of issues, as far as I can see. I am given to understand that the GeneralAvia F22 or Slingsby Firefly are more or less equal in capabilities. (And as I understand, the Fireflies that are currently on sale en-masse are ex-military, with full inverted flight capability.)

Slightly higher up the aerobatics scale is the Cap 10. Capable of Intermediate aerobatics, and still about four hours endurance with reasonable baggage space. But that one is probably more maintenance intensive and spare parts availability might be an issue.

Oh, and what about the Yak-52? Capable of Intermediate+ aerobatics, and good range for touring too. Plus the 'wow' factor of arriving in something ex-Soviet. The noise alone will send shivers down your spine. But you've got to have big pockets to fly it.

The Zlin may look ugly, but it is very strong airframe. Next to it my Grumman looked like it was made out of cigarette paper.

Falco F8 has got to be the cheapest to run as it's on a (UK) LAA permit. It's aerobatic (+6/-3) but I don't know (yet!) whether it's a good aerobatic machine or not.

Nobody love the decathlon? 2 seats, a bit of baggage space, fixed/cs prop versions, and +6/-5.. Lovely little aeroplane IMHO..

Talk about a good looking machine!

The Yak 52 is very capable aerobatically and lovely to fly. It oozes character and sounds the business (from out side - to the pilot it sounds like a bag of spanners in a washing machine!). But they are very thirsty and not efficient long distance machines.

The Yak 18T is the compromise machine - same engine as the '52 but 4 seats while remaining aerobatic! This one I haven't flown, so can't comment further.

Zio Nick did not list any permit machines and is not UK based but the obvious aircraft is the RV, in either RV7 or RV8 versions. More aerobatic and bettor touring machines than the T67 with much lower running costs.

Rod1

Oh No !
 

I am going to have to agree with Rod about the Vans RV7 or 8

Look no further than this: Aermacchi SF.260

Should tick all your boxes :ok:

Another vote for one of the Citabria range.

I agree, but then I'm biased!
Hard to believe it was designed in 1959 isn't it?

Yak18T is a rugged and aerobatic aeroplane but running costs would put me off.

Citabria is a nice plane but a bit on the slow side for touring IMHO.

I'm surprised the Extra 330 LT wasn't mentioned yet - it was conceived exactly as a compromise between "acro" and "touring".

Extra Aircraft

How much money do you have?
How many people do you want to carry?

I like the Bulldog myself and you can pick one up for £25k these days....I am almost tempted.....Beagle Pup maybe if you just want to do the odd loop and roll?

Wow! This morning I could not imagine that I would have received so many answers in such a short time... thanks guys!

As former military pilot I have logged more than 150 hours on the SF 260: it's a wonderful machine, but very much expensive, both to purchase and to run as a private person: I believe Aermacchi is keeping the prices artificially high to keep up just with the military clients.

My plane will be based in Belgium so I started to look at what is around here.
I heard about the accidents with the civilian Slingsby's and indeed my interest would go to the M260, but I got infos from a colleague who is flying it in Belgium that he is almost killed by the maintenance costs....

I am going to have a look at the Bulldog and the Vans: maybe it's the right time for me to pay a vist to UK...

Yaks are indeed lovely, but running costs are amazing.... if they're grounded for engine issues, for example, sometimes it's cheaper to buy a new one...

The RV series would definitely tick all of your boxes. They're very capable, very well designed aeroplanes from what I've seen. Not cheap to buy, but not too hard on maintenance on the UK LAA Permit to Fly.

Saying that, the Falco F8 is definitely one sexy machine, beautifully harmonised and light, and goes like hot snot, but not so good for competition just because it's fast and slippery. I'm personally more involved in Pitts flying, which is horrible for touring, but much cheaper than the RV and totally fun to fly.

Good luck!

That Falco is a very nice looking machine and if you stuck in a Diesel engine would be perfect

The Falco is certainly the machine of choice for what you require. There are a small number for sale in the UK and Europe at the mo too....:O

If you want 2 seats then an RV7/8. I bought one it was so good.

If you want 4 seats then Yak 18T. I fly one when I need 4 seats, full fuel and bags. Then want to have fun at the destination.

Both have great range, both have good basic aero capabilities.

If your feeling wealthy then the Sbach 342 with the optional luggage rack is the aircraft of the moment. Its fast and FULLY aerobatic and long range.

Decisions decisions decisions

The only thing which will go down your spine if you try serious touring in a -52 is Sciatica. :E

They are the most fantastic machines but spending more than about ninety minutes aboard in one go can best be described as "rigourous". Standard fuel tanks don't give a great deal more than two hours endurance plus reserves if you're being gentle and they don't all have long-range tanks fitted.


Go on, WB. You know you want to.... :ok:

Both Thielert and Austro Engine have very strict requirements about maximum negative loads on the engine and in most installations, intentional negative manuevers are prohibited (although the aircraft structurally withstand the CS-23 required load). I doubt you'll see a diesel-equipped aerobatic aircraft very soon, especially with all current engines having such high fuel pressure requirements (Common Rail). However if AustroEngine (in co-operation with Steyr Motors) really developes a mechanical injected diesel engine, it probably could be modified with a dry sump for aerobatical flights. The real question is: is the market for such an engine large enough?

I'm still waiting for one of these 500bhp V12 diesel lumps to bolt onto the front of the Yak...

http://www.raikhlin.com/RED-3s.pdf

Dry sump, you'll note. Not sure what would happen to the crankshaft when you tumble the brute though.

Lightweight. Besides, I seem to recall you taking the 182 leaving muggins to fly the tractor to Mull....and back. That was three years ago and my derriere is still numb.

The front seat of the 342 is so well reclined that all you need is a small duvet and a pillow and you've got the perfect recipe for an in-flight kip. Sadly, my attempt to get some shut-eye was interrupted by the estimable Phillip S. demonstrating what the Sbach does when you put the controls in all of the corners, repeatedly. Stonking bit of kit. Can't wait to see what happens when they stick an M14P on the front.

Another consideration is the aerobatic version of the 33 model Bonanza. More for touring than wild aeros but still has the ability. +6/-3 g as I recall, and maximum of two occupants with empty baggage bay for aeros. Also weight limited for aeros. Still, if you want to cruise somewhere in reasonable comfort, still have the ability for yippee flights, and be able to obtain parts it's a consideration. Major catch is that it will cost you Bonanza purchase & operating costs. Beech aren't known for being particularly cheap.

As long as "anything goes" you will find it hard to make a choice that suits YOU. You have to find out what will suit you, considering:
- purchase budget
- operating budget
- operating performance demands (touring)
- operating performance demands (aerobatics)
- insurance considerations
- average hours per year flown (touring)
- average hours per year flown (aerobatics)

Make a list of the things and aircraft can have or do, and to which degree you find each property important, by giving each item a value number.
For instance, long-range capability, more than two seats, luggage volume, speed, short field capability, etc.

Have a look at many aircraft for sale (PlaneCheck, Trade-A-Plane, GA Market, magazines, notice boards, etc.)
Grade each offer against your list. Add up the values.

The total gives you an idea how well the aircraft answers to your wishes.
You may have to refine your list a few times as things crop up you haven't thought about before. Re-evaluate old results accordingly.

After a time of making consequent evaluations, you get a prety good idea which aircraft type is the best for you. And you will have made your discovery in a dispassionate way, without being lured into wanting things that don't matter very much.
It may lead you to types you haven't thought about before and surprising conclusions.

You say you want an aircraft you can use for touring as well as areobatics. Would you be spending more time touring or more doing aerobatics? What kind of aerobatics? Are you planning to enter competitions, or do you just want to be able to loop and roll and fly upside down?

Tour upside down? :p

I once flew/trained with a bloke who liked to join 'upsidedownwind'.

Rather want one of thos sbach things now..

"Nobody love the decathlon?" - I do, flies like a dream, although Mrs R2 finds it a bit claustrophic in the back.

Really? I'm pretty big and I find it very spacious - it's expensive though.
Citabrias less so and you can get a nice 150 HP one which will scoot along at a reasonable speed and get an STC to run on MOGAS. Thing is, CofA aircraft make little sense for someone doing personal only flying. I'm much more interested in Permit aircraft (because of the lack of need for a form 1)

On a permit the RVs are common but rarely for sale and very good aircraft provided they have been well built. Recently given the right to get a permit is the bulldog, 180Hp engine, full aeros, actual ergonomics and a tough bird for less than £30k and will be cheap to maintain once on a permit, I'd buy one of those if I was looking for such a thing. I want an RV eventually though, particularly the 8 but I just don't have the money - yet :).

Dan - nothing to do with lack of space as such, she loved the Super Cub, just the view forward isn't so good & the wing might be a little bit more intrusive in the view from the back - don't know, never sat there anyway :O

I've been informed that I need to sit in the back of the cub if my wife is to come flying again, she just needs to figure out how to twiddle the knobs on the TXP and the radio :)

Gents, let me remove some dust from this thread: recently somebody mentioned to me the Grob G 115: I checked the EASA type certificate and I found that from the version -D the aircraft, together with other features, has a useful cargo allowance of 55 kg: for a 2 seater acro is really not bad! Does anybody have experience with this cheaper copy of the SF260?

Don't know if many are still around. We used to operate a Fuji 200 which had a reasonable aerobatic capability and 4 seats. Great for touring and you could throw it around too!

Falco F8 and the GeneralAvia F22 are similar and I think related (? Both Stelio Frati designs).
If you like the 260 have a look at this:-

http://www.falcomposite.com/index.php

This is almost an SF260 that is cheap to own.

Indeed, both came out from Frati's pencil.... both great designs.

I saw the Furio at Oshkosh 2011 and I was in contact with G. Nustrini, but in spite of moderate running costs the a/c has a surprisingly high purchase price (more than 350.000 NZ dollars for a decently equipped one) to which transportation to Europe must be added... on top of that the a/c is still not available on second hand market (too new, of course)...

G115D
 

Flew about 40+ hours on the G115D some years ago. Pretty nice handling, roll rate a little on the slow side. I'd guess about 90 degrees/second but faster than a Slingsby?
Very capable for recreational aerobatics and should be possible to fly Sportsman.
With a composite airframe, 2 seats and 180 HP with constant speed prop the cruise speed is somewhat disappointing. I rarely flew faster than 120 KIAS cruise and it's pretty loud. When talking about loud, so is the electric fuel pump!..
From what I know the running cost are pretty high and if you don't require a certified aircraft I'd certainly have a look at the RV6 or 7 instead. Excellent allround performance and available as either taildragger or nosedragger.

How about one of these?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...85323071_n.jpg

Tayside Aviation operates the G115 D2 at Dundee. Inverted fuel and oil systems, slow roll rate, no radio nav gear except a basic GPS. Good for basic/standard aeros, reasonable touring potential but the biggest problem is that there are only about 6 in existence and Tayside owns 5 of them!
My choice would be a Firefly M260 Swift Aircraft | Firefly Aircraft but if insurance is too much then maybe not - but will it be any cheaper on other aerobatic tourers?

naughty Mr ZuluAlpha - is the photoshopping done to annoy Mr eharding per chance ....:cool: