The GA or Recreational Choice Conundrum

[Motif]

I have owned GA aircraft in the past, but the on-going cost of running and maintaining them can be pretty scary. So choosing a new light aircraft (recreational or GA) is a tough job but for what it’s worth here’s my take.

 

In the past few years I have owned a Tecnam Bravo and an Echo Classic. The Bravo was roomy, had good visibility and a good turn of speed. But for some reason I could just never gel with it. Then my wife, wanted to learn to fly and I felt the Bravo might be a bit of a handful for her at the ab initio stage so I sold the Bravo and bought an Echo Classic from Bruce Stark (Tecnam Qld).

 

The Echo is a beautiful little aircraft – it handled like a dream and for a new pilot it is wonderfully forgiving and I don’t regret my purchase for one second. But it was a tad limited in the long distance touring category with its 80 hp engine and its 70 litre tank, although I think the Echo Super may have the same aerodynamic characteristics but with the larger engine and fuel load.

 

Anyway, having defined our main requirements for a replacement as:- (1) must be really strongly built and have a low wing (2) have a good turn of speed for cross country trips, (3) be easy to handle, and (4) have an initial cost in the early to mid $100,000 range.

 

After a serious search we finally purchased a Brumby 600 LSA low wing as it fulfilled all of the above requirements, plus it can be registered in the GA category if needed. In March this year I wrote an article for the RAAus magazine and here’s the link:

 

http://www.brumbyaircraft.com.au/images/Brumby%20write%20up%20raa%20Mar11.pdf

 

Brumby Aircraft have also now developed a high wing version called the 610 and the prototype was introduced at this year’s Natfly.

 

I haven’t yet had a chance to fly the new high wing, but I’ll be interested to see how it handles compared to the Echo. I understand the Brumby high wing was primarily targeted at the training market (i.e. it must have good handling characteristics) nevertheless with 130 litres on-board and the new Lycoming LSA engine up front giving it a good turn of speed, it should also be a serious X-country machine as well.

 

Paul Goard from Brumby Aviation is the guy to chat to about their aeroplanes. In the meantime I’m looking forward to going for a flight in the new 610 please Paul.

 

Thanks

 

Ross

 

 

[winsor68]

Hi Ross,

 

What is the fuel consumption for the Lycoming?

 

How much more do they weigh than the Rotax?

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

I was going to ask about the Lycoming also. Are you still happy with it? Also when you say it is a 'full blown' Lycoming do you mean it is turbocharged or is 'blown' just used as an expression?

 

 

[facthunter]

Though it wasn't addressed to me, I have previously posted on the Brumby and the lycoming. ( hope you don't mind me replying).

 

The lycoming is the 0-233 essentially a lightened and updated 0-235. It's a pretty wide motor and should use about 22-25 litres /hr. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but that will be ballpark. The info should be on the Lycoming website.

 

I'm interested in the slightly smaller Continental 0-200 D, which is fitted to the Cessna Skycatcher. Both engines have high TBO's and fairly proven reliability. (probably better than the bigger motors), although I don't know what final form the fuel systems ended up as in either. Nev

 

 

[Motif]

Hi Guys,

 

Sorry about the late reply but I've been away. Facthunter (Nev) has done a great job in describing the new Lycoming, and from memory the 0-233 is about 16 kg heavier than the 912 100hp Rotax (but please check that number to be sure). I should also correct an impression from my RAAus article. I had been holding out for 5 months waiting for Lycoming and they finally gave Paul from Brumby Aircraft a delivery date on the new engine. About that time I wrote the article and sent it off to the RAA for publishing and the editor made two small alterations to my copy. One change added " " to Mr. Phelan and the other indicated that the engine was installed already (as it would have been if Lycoming had been on time). However, Lycoming blew out their delivery dates to Oz by another 3 months, so Paul then suggested that it would be best if I ran with the Rotax.

 

In terms of reliability, I've owned an 80 and 100 hp Rotax and have never had a second's drama with either engine. I've also owned GA aircraft with Lycomings and ditto for them on reliability. As Nev said, the Lycoming is a wider, air cooled engine and it looks like it will burn at least an additional 4 litres per hour more than the 912 S Rotax.

 

I'll ask Paul Goard from Brumby to post something here on the Lycoming as I think he intends to fit the 0-233 as standard on their high and low wing aeroplanes. Paul has also developed a pretty close relationship with Lycoming as is demonstrated in one of Lycoming's promos which mentions Australia's Brumby Aircraft specifically.

 

 

[andrew1975]

Hi guys, interesting reading. I'm due to pick up my 610 high wing in the next week or two, fitted with the 912 , I'll let you know how it performs when I get it. Andrew