Buying a light aircraft
 

Buying a light aeroplane is a doggy business. Buy an old one and it is just the same as buying an old house or car. But a 'proper' aeroplane is expensive. So how about a VLA (Very Light Aircraft). But which one? It must be economical to run, use half the fuel consumption of a Bulldog, have a range of over 500 nm, cruise at least 110 - 120 kts, carry two + bags, cost not much more than £130K, low wing; so which one:

Aquila
Sting
Breezer
Sportstar
Sport Crusier

?????????

They all have there problems, the ultra light build that is required has made these aircraft a bit fragile and even new aircraft are starting to exhibit problems.

In the hands of a careful owner the problems can be contained, group owned aircraft are another thing !

Take someone who has maintained these aircraft along with you to inspect any aircraft you are considering buying...........it won't be long before you find out why the Cessna 152 is still the preferred option for a club trainer.

::)Jodel 120/117. Load 600lbs, 19ltrs/hr, 100kts, range 500nm £12k.

His budget is £130k, not £13k.

Dream on...

What is your intended requirement? I started off with this;

120k min
Mogas
Two adults 40lb fuel and 4 hours fuel min
Derig easily
Etc.

How heavy are you? I am over 90kg and this ruled out several aircraft. Have you flown in Rotax powered machines before? If not I would be happy to take you up for a ride round and discuss maintenance etc (midlands based) – I have looked after my home built VLA for the last 8 years or so.

Compare wing loading. Some of the aircraft you have on the list have very light wing loading, others less so. This has a huge impact on the ride quality in turbulence.

Do not be put off by the “VLA is too light” argument – a C150 would fall into the VLA cat and some VLA aircraft are now over 15 years old and have well over 7000 hours in club use in Europe. Vital to find someone who understands the aircraft – particularly the Rotax, which is superb if looked after right but a complete nail if not.

Good luck,
Rod1

This would be my choice...

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/ima.../29/206610.jpg

Sport Cruiser

Pretty much fits the spec and within budget.

What is the mission profile? VFR/IFR / UK / Euro touring?

500nm usable range means a zero fuel range of a lot more than 500nm.

Many times I have been told:
Of course I ignored the wisdom of my elders and, many years on, having (part) owned a boat and a couple of aeroplanes I an confirm the first 2 are true.

Wanting to continue in my current wedded bliss I won't comment on the 3rd one.

OC619

Sportcruiser??? Are they not a bit fragile around the nose leg area?

As for the rest, I am 90 kgs clothed and some of my passengers are also. I will mainly fly UK/Northern France. Occasional IMC (yes I know most are prohibited). Yes, I accept hire is cheaper. Range should be at least 500 nm with reserves. Build quality and robustness are important. As is stability in turbulence.

Thinking at present, Aquila or Breezer. Presently fly Cirrus (group) & Bulldog (hire). Aeroplane mainly for me and I have over 10000 hrs.

Oh & I would like to operate off grass... not something a Cirrus is good at!

I think that is exactly the point that Croqueteer was making. Sharpend could get an aircraft that meets all his requirements at 10% of the cost.

Only if you don't care who else has been messing with it (her) ;)

I would not get into most rental hardware if you paid me for it (seriously).

Probably OK for going from Shoreham to Goodwood, if keeping well away from the sea ;)

If you want the highest level of maintenance, safety, convenience, access for long trips (and without the occassional long trips, you will get bored soon enough) then ownership outright, or in a small syndicate of well matched people, is the only way. N-reg is even better.

Only if he is happy to fly junk.

''Sportcruiser??? Are they not a bit fragile around the nose leg area?''

Yes it is true that there have been some issues with the early type of noseleg, particulary where it is a group owned aircraft and groupies don't know how to land it properly.
Mine is an original leg operating off a roughish strip and it has been fine in 150hours.

All aircraft have issues and foibles that you will have to live with that are peculiar to that aircraft. The perfect aircraft has yet to be made!...and they are always a compromise between performance and carrying capacity and STOL, plus a multitude of other things.

Question:- Are you looking for a LAA machine, to build and maintain it yourself? or do you want to hand it over to someone and then pay the bill at the end?..EASA regime.

Aquila comes under EASA so can't build or maintain yourself, so does a Breezer.
Sportstar, if its the Max (MAUW 600kg) then you will again be under EASA. LAA if the lighter version so you can build/maintain yourself.

A new option that is just coming on to the UK scene and was at the LAA rally at the weekend.....The Bristell. Definitely worth a look and once again a LAA machine in the Sportcruiser mould (same designer)that will be approved in the next 12months or so.

Rubbish. I'd much rather fly a 40 year old well cared for Jodel than a flimsy VLA.

Besides the cost and cruising performance, please go ahead and sit in all of your contenders.

You'll find out that there is a huge difference in all the aircraft you are naming. I have experience with a DA(V)-20, P2002 and the Aquila. The specs may seem comparable, but the space you have in an Aquila is just incomparable with a Katana. Aquila is also blessed with German build quality and if you compare that to a Tecnam and money is no issue, you'll end up buying the Aquila.

In the end they all perform about the same, the 10 knots difference is not worth choosing one over the other.

For example a 400 NM trip with 110 kts cruise: 3 hours 20 min.
120 kts cruise over same distance: 3 hours 37 min.

Those 17 minutes are in my opinion not worth choosing one over the other.

Look at:
-reliability (maintenance/Rotax)
-space inside the aircraft and comfort (as mentioned wing loading)
-build quality

Just a note, all the aircraft you are looking at are certified in the CS-VLA category. That means that IFR flying is never possible, because the certification standard does not allow that.

Fuel economy is an interesting thing, my Cub with it's C90 engine drinks a little under 18ltrs mogas an hour. I have a friend with an RV4 which is probably about 28 litres AVGAS an hour but I get 75 kts and he gets 160kts. So per hour I'm cheaper but distance wise he's significantly less expensive.

VLAs as far as I'm aware none of them are cleared for IFR flight and I have to say I wouldn't want to either :) they bounce around a bit in fairly smooth conditions.

That said, the LAA is well under way for getting appropriately equipped aircraft certified to fly IMC/IFR. So you should not be turned off too much by LAA aircraft so long as they have the gear, not sure how long it will take but it will happen.

Suggestions for consideration, with a budget of £130k you have a lot of options.
1. It should be easily resold, nothing worse than having a rare non desirable aircraft, so be warned - if you decide to sell it on and chose something rare you will find difficulty selling it on.
2. Spares, it should be easy and not too expensive to find spares. For instance the TB20 you can find spares for but they're rarely cheap, the TB10 is a different matter entirely. Cessnas and Pipers are much easier but anything with a CofA requires a form 1 along with it, it translates to a great deal more expense for a piece of paper.
3. It should not prevent you from landing at almost any airfield you want, so if you need something that does grass, get something that's good on grass. It might mean high wing.

With your budget in mind, if it was me buying the aircraft.
Vans RV8/RV7, the tailwheel version. Imports can be total garbage but the UK home built ones tend to be very good, even if they aren't they'll provide good economy for range and are likely to be well equipped for IFR flight, if not you can use the £50k you'll have left over to equip for IF.
All of the RVs are fast up to about 200mph, many of them can/do run on MOGAS. I don't like the nosewheel ones but without any real justification.

Carbon Cub SS. Probably not as fast as you're looking for but well equipped, on an EASA Permit ready to fly, it's new and a seriously good bit of kit. I want one to the core of my bones :). There is no airfield in the UK that would be difficult to get into.

Super Decathlon, or one of the other ACA aircraft. Fast enough, economy isn't quite what you want but will be certified for IFR and you can buy new with your budget. Very comfortable tourer lots of space, lots of useful load and should provide you with the range you desire. I've flown a couple of these and like them a lot.

Cessna 182 Q (or later) or RG, you probably wont like the thirst of this machine but it will get you in anywhere and is plenty quick enough, there are N reg ones around that come with long range tanks, have plenty of bells and whistles, are certified for IFR are popular enough to resell and parts are easily attained.

TB20, plenty around to buy, very fast, parts can be pricey and a pain to get but for touring, my belief is that there is nothing more comfortable. You wont get mogas in it :) Also fairly thirsty but again, speed provides the economy.

The Sportcruiser is nice, the noseleg is weak and my understanding is from a reliable source that after a couple of replacement noselegs, other stuff starts to warp and bend. Care is required on landing.

Still a Vans will do all you expect and significantly more, an RV 7 with a 180hp engine would do what you want and you'll have plently left over to cover the costs of more fuel used per hour - also the maintenance will be significantly cheaper. That's what I'd have :)

Yes, absurdly enough an LAA with the right equipment will have more privileges than a CS-VLA - in the UK only I would imagine.

LAAs can't fly abroad, well not without hassle, except where there are reciprocals.

That's why I asked about the mission profile.

Going abroad (easily) is a huge massive plus in making and keeping flying interesting in the long term.

I wasn't going to mention the TB20 because the OP's original list suggested he was looking totally elsewhere, but that's not actually true about parts or economy. It is common pilot forum stuff though....

Parts are as pricey as all certified-aircraft parts, but are easy to get. And very few parts have to come from the airframe manufacturer (ask anybody with a Commander etc etc).

In long range cruise I get 140kt TAS at FL100, burning about 9.5USG/hr (36 litres/hr).

At low level, say 3000ft and not particular after economy, I burn 11.3USG/hr for 138kt IAS.

Unbeatable for touring, in the SEP class, while retaining the ability to do local hacking. Loads of planes are better for long range touring (PA46 comes to mind, if you watch the engine "rather carefully" ;) ) but are no good for local UK hacking around. And, yeah, you could pick up a PA46 for £130k, too, with, ahem, a few, ahem, outstanding ADs.... there is a "bit" of a learning curve in the ownership game.

The 1300nm+ range is fantastic. It makes even trips around Greece (I am off there shortly) doable; the customs/avgas matrix in Italy and Greece etc would be a logistical nightmare (for a non perpetually retired pilot) in a plane whose range is actually 500nm. In fact 500nm is no good except for local hacking around the southern UK, by the time you factor in decent reserves to a weather diversion (diverting from Shoreham to Goodwood or vice versa doesn't really cut the mustard ;) and diverting from Shoreham to Lydd only begins to cut the mustard if you can actually, never mind legally, fly the ILS).

That's why I asked about the mission profile :)

£130k might just maybe get you a nice 2002 TB20GT; one of the last ones made like mine

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...337/tb20-1.jpg

He actually gets 160kt (IAS or TAS?) at 28 litres/hr?

My first share was a TB9, parts were a nightmare to get at a sensible price and known a few TB10s but thus is the hassle of group ownership, if it had been solo then perhaps I'd have been less bothered.

Looks lovely by the way, I love the TB20 comfy, spacious, fast :).

There's reciprocals now with many local EU countries for LAA, certainly France and Ireland which meets the mission.

Yes, he actually gets that, he has a a fairly coarse pitch prop on a 160 Lycoming and that's IAS at 2000ft on a 20C day in normal UK conditions, it takes another 40yds to get off the ground but has to keep it at around 2100 RPM to keep it under Vne take off is still very short. a VP prop might be better suited but more expensive to run. It's a very capable machine which is in my opinion what makes this an ideal fit for the OPs requirements.

Interesting why TB9/10 parts were hard to get. That is not current or recent experience. However there are some dumb maintenance shops who might order say an air filter from Socata when actually it is a £10 Brackett item from any old aviation parts shop and is used all over the GA scene. Socata don't help, by allocating their Z00... part numbers to everything in the IPC, so a bit of a brain is needed, not to mention a desire to not rip off the punter.

The TB9/10 is not such a good choice. They are basically much more comfy versions of the PA28 140/160, but few are in a good condition now because their sales were poor after the early 1980s (due to overpricing). Anyway the OP's £130k budget means he doesn't have to look there.

A quick google on the RV4 fuel flow suggests that your friend is getting about 10% over book figures, perhaps due to the prop.

But the RV4 is a tiny cockpit - 2-up tandem. Again, one needs to be sure that this meets the requirements. It's not suitable for holiday trips, carrying the usual stuff as well as a life raft, oxygen, etc. And crucially few women will want to go anywhere in that way :)

Some might say that's a bonus. My wife for instance has absolutely no desire to go flying in any aircraft, she just doesn't get it :). Going on expensive holidays on the other hand - that's more like it :D.

The RV7 is a better machine for the profile :) roomy enough plenty of load space. The 4 is just for fun and for people who like flying on their own :).

The RV8 is a big RV4, and truly only for the people who want a tandem machine. That's what I would want, I like Tandem. Side by side is for work :).

On the Socata parts, I think you probably hit the nail on the head with regard to the maint shop but that's not something I would discuss in an open forum when folk know who I am :)

“Vans RV8/RV7, the tailwheel version. Imports can be total garbage but the UK home built ones tend to be very good, even if they aren't they'll provide good economy for range and are likely to be well equipped for IFR flight, if not you can use the £50k you'll have left over to equip for IF.
All of the RVs are fast up to about 200mph, many of them can/do run on MOGAS.”

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

That's what I mean about properly defining the mission ;)

No suprise there. I've never had a problem getting parts (the few that I've needed over 10 years from new) and I don't know of anybody else who has had problems.

Rod I did mention that no permit aircraft for the moment are allowed to fly IFR :) but the LAA are working successfully toward that goal. CS VLA on the other hand will never have the same permission.

As for not being run on mogas, you're absolutely right. I am convinced that people do, inspite of there not being any permission for it. I am also quite sure that people fuel from the pumps despite no aircraft being approved for the levels of ethanol found in pretty much all forecourt petrol these days. And people are not dropping out of the sky as a result :). I'm not advocating it of course :). UL91 where available!

That said, the speed makes up for the cost difference.

While some (all-metal) types will be fine, with appropriate avionics etc, some others will be "interesting" when they come to look at airframe bonding... this is hugely important not just for lightning protection (you don't want the control linkages disappearing if you get hit) but for dealing with static when flying in IMC.

You may find it is a Pyrrhic victory in some cases, when you look at the airspace-mandated equipment carriage requirements for enroute IFR, and these will not go away.

IFR flight in the US Experimental category is workable to a significant degree because they don't require the carriage of very much.

I agree, I'm definitely not keen on the concept of flying IMC in a light single! VFR on top on a stable day no problem but in crap weather when you're required to take vectors and don't know what's in front of you... eep!

IMC in a light single is a non-issue (I have thus far logged ~150hrs of it, out of 1500hrs) but the airframe needs to be up to the job both electrically and (this one is a lot more debatable) structurally given the increased expectation of turbulence.

'LAAs can't fly abroad, well not without hassle, except where there are reciprocals'.

What a load of tosh!

Having flown to most European countires in LAA machines I would be very interested to hear where in Europe a LAA can't go?

Hi Dan

“That said, the speed makes up for the cost difference.”

You know – I have never been able to make that calc work – what speed / LPH are you using?;)

Peter – If I took one of the originally IFR approved Jodel’s and wanted to get it reapproved under some new regulation do you really think that the wooden airframe would be an issue… Lots and lots of such aircraft on the LAA and I strongly suspect that getting an originally approved aircraft like a Jodel 140 or an Auster approved will be much more straightforward than a homebuilt for the first wave of LAA IFR.:)

Rod1

I wonder if the OP has considered a diesel powered plane?

PlaneCheck Aircraft for Sale - New planes and price reductions

This example has the more modern (and reliable!) 2.0 diesel and sits in a very proven and sturdy airframe. Plenty of bag space too! For €90,000 I would expect it to be in very good condition with some half decent kit.

I flew the older 1.7 diesel PA28, loved the FADEC control and I guess the club loved the economy!

I can only guess that fuel costs and AVGas availability will become more of an issue in the future!

I think what I meant was when comparing my putt putt to the 160kts RV4 :) my putt putt is approved for Mogas (C90-8F Super Cub) whereas the RV is only approved for AVGAS. Of course I'm hardly comparing apples with apples.

No ICAO CofA, so cannot fly internationally without a permission from each country.

But you know that ;)

“No ICAO CofA, so cannot fly internationally without a permission from each country.”

Quite correct – so 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 – but then you did not know that…

Rod1

What about the Robin DR400? Seems to tick all the boxes and there is a large range of engine/propellor and cabin sizes, even diesel variants now. Complete range of prices for second-hand ones.

There's the "President" if you want a really spacious version. They're all extremely nice to fly, as well...

Really want new, don't want tandem. Want toe brakes. Need to specify my own avionics/instrument fit. Thinking of analogue instruments +

SL30
GTS 328 transponder
GI106
Garmin GMX200 or Flymap XL (comments?)

You might want to consider just about any transponder other than the 328. It is the only one which cannot do ES (ADS-B functionality) which is likely to come in in the medium term as part 3 of the CAA / EASA aircraft interoperability plan.

Rod1

Yeah, there's definitely better and easier to maintain transponders out there :). Trig make belters. We had a GTX 328 in a Warrior and the encoder failed, it cost the price of a new trig unit plus fitting (which was a crazy sum for 3 minutes work!) to replace.

Buying new factory built limits you as to what's available.

For that money, I can think of 3 planes that you can buy off the factory floor that are side by side and none of them really reach the speed you're after. There will be a few others but none that I'd want to buy :) or perhaps that I'm aware of but they definitely cannot and will not be able to fly IFR.

RV7 recently built by a well known decent builder is in my opinion your best bet you can change the avionics relatively cheaply to whatever you want :). Fast economical, fun, plenty of loadspace, range and flexibility to do what you want without taking it from the CAA in charges.

As other have said avoid the Garmin 328 or you will be replacing it in a short time. No ADSB Squitter.

Also I had your line of thinking with the SL30 when I built my Sportcruiser, but wouldn't do it again if I was building now...the VOR for nav purposes will be defunct in a few years and you can't fly an ILS on a LAA permit aircraft currently anyway. Save the money and buy a decent EFIS (not Dynon Skyview).

Have a look at the new MGL touch screen kit – no need for a separate GPS and drive an autopilot direct.

Rod1

A few things I don't understand from the posts above, the first of these is how an encoder replacement cost more than a Trig transponder ?

The second thing is why the DR400 is not getting a few more votes, it seems to fit the bill on most counts ( and I have a recent one with toe brakes, zero time Engine and new paint for sale )

No idea about the DR400.

I was also confused by the cost of the encoder. The excuse I was told "that's the expensive one, there is a cheaper one but it would be really tough to fit properly (which I have since discovered is total codswollop)" You may make your own assessment. The same place also charged us several hundred pounds each year for a "Radio Annual" which isn't necessary or required as part of the ARC renewal but sadly there is nowhere else to go for avionics. You live and learn.