Aeroprakt A-32 compared with the A-22LS

[Guest SrPilot]

It isn't easy, but I've been trying to compare the new A-32 (never having seen one) with the A-22LS (never having flown one). At a distance though, some conclusions can be reached; some assumptions may be made; both subject to change once more information becomes available. At least we can start the conversation. A-22LS or A-32?

 

Over the past 48 hours, I have been attempting to compare the Aeroprakt A-22LS with the new Aeroprakt A-32. My research was hampered somewhat by the absence of hard data on the A32. For example, as of today – 10/6/2015 – the Aeroprakt (Ukraine) website neither lists the A-32 nor shows photos of the A-32 in their photo gallery. See:

 

http://www.aeroprakt.kiev.ua/airplanes/

 

http://www.aeroprakt.kiev.ua/gallery/

 

Generally, I am left to a few assertions that the A-32 will fly faster but just as slow as the A-22LS. To assess the likelihood of that without hard data, I found myself comparing and studying a significant number of photographs of the two planes.

 

The earliest photos I found of the A-32 are dated 26/9/2014. They were taken in the Ukraine and show s/n 001, a red aircraft already in flyable condition. The photo of the A-32 posted on Australian Flying’s website is the same airplane. (UA-PARP). That site reports a cruise of “around” 110-115 KTAS and lists Foxbat Australia as the source of either the photo, the caption information, or both. (?). See:

 

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aeroprakt-releases-new-a32-lsa

 

Foxbat Pilot’s website also shows the same A-32 and mentions a “strong family resemblance to the A-22”, the higher cruise speed, and comparable (to the A-22) “slow speed docile handling characteristics.” They report arrival of an A-32 demonstrator in Australia by late June with a “formal launch” in July.

 

Returning to performance, I figured that if the two airplanes are of similar size and weight, and have the same engine, there are only some techniques available to add speed to the existing airplane. First, a wing change. Move from a high lift wing to a high(er) speed wing. Because the assertion has been made that the slow speed characteristics of the A-22LS have been retained in the A-32, I concluded that no major change in wing design occurred. Certainly there was no move from a high lift to a laminar flow wing. Second, more power. Apparently the two airplanes have the same engine, so no power increase either. Third, prop. A change from a climb-efficient prop to a cruise prop should add some speed, but 20 knots? I would think not. Fourth, an aerodynamic drag reduction. Ah ha!

 

With that meager amount of information about the A-32 and only a rudimentary knowledge of aircraft drag, I studied the photos for signs of an aerodynamic cleanup. One of the first things I noticed was the difference in the lower fuselages of the two aircraft just aft of the cockpit.

 

The A-32:

 

[/url]

 

 

The A-22LS

 

 

 

The A-22LS has an upsweep. The aft fuselage and the horizontal stabilizer / elevator align about even with the top of the cockpit seats. On the other hand, the bottom of the A-32 aft fuselage is nearer to the bottom of the seat and the horizontal stabilizer / elevator appears much lower than found with the A-22. The A-32 has no lower dorsal fin or “tailwheel.” Instead, it appears to have a small tail skid. By straightening the belly of the fuselage aft of the cockpit, the abrupt change in surface is eliminated with might reduce drag. It might be that upsweep drag is reduced, but without any real knowledge of aeronautical engineering I cannot say that the fuselage shape on the A-22 even induces upsweep drag. For an explanation of upsweep drag that’s way beyond my desire (and probably ability) to understand, see http://enu.kz/repository/2010/AIAA-2010-4365.pdf

 

The second thing I noticed was the empennage cleanup. The A-22LS’s belly dorsal fin and tailwheel are missing on the A-32. (See photo above). The horizontal stabilizer has been modified.

 

The A-32

 

 

 

The A-22LS

 

 

 

The third thing is the wing root modification. Looking at the forward wing roots, their fairings, and the top of the windshield, it appears that significant changes have occurred which may reduce drag.

 

The A-32

 

 

 

The A-22LS

 

 

 

I learned while building my GlaStar that fairings reduce drag; that removing abrupt changes in surface such as by fairing the area where the wing attaches to the fuselage to reduce the angle of the change reduces drag; removing gaps reduce drag; wheel pants and landing gear fairings reduce drag. The A-32 may gain speed from an overall aerodynamic tweaking.

 

If only we could touch one of these puppies. To date, I haven’t even been able to fly the A-22LS and I am actively attempting to do so. I cannot imagine when I might see an A-32. I would guess my first chance would be Oshkosh 2015 . . . . if I get to go.

 

 

[rgmwa]

Much sleeker looking aircraft than the old one, so it probably flies better too.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[kgwilson]

It makes the A22 look quite agricultural by comparison.

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

It makes the A22 look quite agricultural by comparison.

Well, kg, there are Jags and there are Jeeps. Sometimes one makes you sag while the other makes you leap.

 

 

Beauty is only skin deep. If you go after an airplane simply because it's beautiful but doesn’t meet your needs or desires, it's going to get boring fast. You want to look beyond the surface and see if you can have fun or accomplish your mission or if you even have anything in common with this airplane. (My apologies to Amanda Peet for my generous paraphrasing of her thought.)

 

A lot of words to say each plane has its strengths and weaknesses. Actually one of the things I like about the A-22LS is that it reminds me of a Jeep. Get 'er done.

 

 

 

[kgwilson]

Well, kg, there are Jags and there are Jeeps. Sometimes one makes you sag while the other makes you leap. [ATTACH=full]36312[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]36313[/ATTACH]

 

Beauty is only skin deep. If you go after an airplane simply because it's beautiful but doesn’t meet your needs or desires, it's going to get boring fast. You want to look beyond the surface and see if you can have fun or accomplish your mission or if you even have anything in common with this airplane. (My apologies to Amanda Peet for my generous paraphrasing of her thought.)

 

A lot of words to say each plane has its strengths and weaknesses. Actually one of the things I like about the A-22LS is that it reminds me of a Jeep. Get 'er done.

No worries, I'll take the Jag, thanks.

 

 

[Ultralights]

20Kts! ahhahahahahahahaha really, i have never seen a foxbat get anywhere near that, if thats the case, then i can fly the Savannah at 0 Kts, (as that is what the ASI reads a little before the stall)

 

 

[pylon500]

 

Wow, that was a seriously involved bit of research !

 

Liked the strake flow paper.

 

I can only really comment on the early A22L, that I fly, and can say that it is capable of cruising at a range of speeds, depending on conditions.

 

If I can get up to 5~8 thousand feet in no turbulence, then I can actually cruise at around 90~95kts, it would possibly almost touch 100kts flat out, but the fuel burn would be pretty high.

 

Because of the low wing loading, any turbulence is quite noticeable, and I quickly go back to around 80~85kts when cruising around my local area.

 

Primarily I use the aircraft for training (lots of circuits) and as such rarely go over 70kts.

 

This aircraft has an Australian legal MTOW of 450kg, although Aeroprakt has cleared it to 525kg, just one of the rules problems we are slowly grinding through here in Australia.

 

The A22LS is beefed up a bit, and capable of MTOW of 600kg.

 

Having the same aerodynamics as the earlier A22L, it probably only goes faster because of the higher wing loading if flown at gross, and marginally more comfortable (read, not really).

 

Looking at the photos on

 

 

 

with the cleanups you've noticed, I would say the A32 is going to be around a 95~100kt cruiser.

 

Not to say it wont do 110kts, just that you wont go very far, unless the tanks are bigger.

 

Still, if the price stays as advertised, I wouldn't knock one back, provided I knew I could get it with a Y stick.

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

No worries, I'll take the Jag, thanks.

Good choice. You can sell it and buy a lot of jeeps - when and if you need a jeep. :-)

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

Looking at the photos on

 

 

with the cleanups you've noticed, I would say the A32 is going to be around a 95~100kt cruiser. Not to say it wont do 110kts, just that you wont go very far, unless the tanks are bigger. Still, if the price stays as advertised, I wouldn't knock one back, provided I knew I could get it with a Y stick.

Getting 20 (+/-) knots out of a tweaking without changing wings, while retaining slow speed characteristics seems remarkable. I don't remember the gain Mooney had when the airplane went through an extensive cleanup process, but it already was a small airplane with retractable gear and a more speed-capable wing. IIRC they also inserted a larger engine along with a prop-to-tail cleanup. I spent a lot of time and dollars cleaning up my GlaStar as I built it (reducing cooling drag by installing a plenum chamber, reducing the size of the cowling openings, smaller tires, taildragger instead of nose gear, laminar flow wheel pants and landing gear fairings, fairing for otherwise blunt leading edge of the tailwheel spring, a constant-speed prop, professional paint job including an extensive pre-paint dressing of rivet heads, fairing at front of etc, etc). I didn't get 20 knots. No where close. But I'm not Yuri.

 

j

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

Still, if the price stays as advertised, I wouldn't knock one back, provided I knew I could get it with a Y stick.

Oh, I forgot to ask about the Y-stick. Having owned several (and flown a number of) airplanes with a stick, I lean in that direction myself, but opinions differ. You seem attached to the Y-stick which of course differs from the stick mounted between the pilot's legs. Why do you favor it so much over the control wheel approach? (other than just personal preference). I think the stick makes a lot of sense - less complicated system, less complicated operation, but I've seen complaints about the Y-stick. The why is, to me, what I want to know; otherwise, I'm just dealing with personal preferences, and opinions differ. E.g., a person who prefers to fly from the left seat but is missing his right arm might prefer the control wheel over the Y-stick, but while that preference is totally understandable, it doesn't help me make a decision between Y-stick and control wheel unless I have the same physical challenge (or unless I prefer to fly from the right seat and am missing my left arm. ??

 

So I return to the question. If you would be so kind, why the strong preference, pylon500?

 

 

[recflyer]

It isn't easy, but I've been trying to compare the new A-32 (never having seen one) with the A-22LS (never having flown one). At a distance though, some conclusions can be reached; some assumptions may be made; both subject to change once more information becomes available. At least we can start the conversation. A-22LS or A-32?Over the past 48 hours, I have been attempting to compare the Aeroprakt A-22LS with the new Aeroprakt A-32. My research was hampered somewhat by the absence of hard data on the A32. For example, as of today – 10/6/2015 – the Aeroprakt (Ukraine) website neither lists the A-32 nor shows photos of the A-32 in their photo gallery. See:

 

http://www.aeroprakt.kiev.ua/airplanes/

 

http://www.aeroprakt.kiev.ua/gallery/

 

Generally, I am left to a few assertions that the A-32 will fly faster but just as slow as the A-22LS. To assess the likelihood of that without hard data, I found myself comparing and studying a significant number of photographs of the two planes.

 

The earliest photos I found of the A-32 are dated 26/9/2014. They were taken in the Ukraine and show s/n 001, a red aircraft already in flyable condition. The photo of the A-32 posted on Australian Flying’s website is the same airplane. (UA-PARP). That site reports a cruise of “around” 110-115 KTAS and lists Foxbat Australia as the source of either the photo, the caption information, or both. (?). See:

 

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aeroprakt-releases-new-a32-lsa

 

Foxbat Pilot’s website also shows the same A-32 and mentions a “strong family resemblance to the A-22”, the higher cruise speed, and comparable (to the A-22) “slow speed docile handling characteristics.” They report arrival of an A-32 demonstrator in Australia by late June with a “formal launch” in July.

 

Returning to performance, I figured that if the two airplanes are of similar size and weight, and have the same engine, there are only some techniques available to add speed to the existing airplane. First, a wing change. Move from a high lift wing to a high(er) speed wing. Because the assertion has been made that the slow speed characteristics of the A-22LS have been retained in the A-32, I concluded that no major change in wing design occurred. Certainly there was no move from a high lift to a laminar flow wing. Second, more power. Apparently the two airplanes have the same engine, so no power increase either. Third, prop. A change from a climb-efficient prop to a cruise prop should add some speed, but 20 knots? I would think not. Fourth, an aerodynamic drag reduction. Ah ha!

 

With that meager amount of information about the A-32 and only a rudimentary knowledge of aircraft drag, I studied the photos for signs of an aerodynamic cleanup. One of the first things I noticed was the difference in the lower fuselages of the two aircraft just aft of the cockpit.

 

The A-32:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/foxbatpilot/18658431315/in/album-72157654308801692/

 

The A-22LS

 

[/url]

 

 

The A-22LS has an upsweep. The aft fuselage and the horizontal stabilizer / elevator align about even with the top of the cockpit seats. On the other hand, the bottom of the A-32 aft fuselage is nearer to the bottom of the seat and the horizontal stabilizer / elevator appears much lower than found with the A-22. The A-32 has no lower dorsal fin or “tailwheel.” Instead, it appears to have a small tail skid. By straightening the belly of the fuselage aft of the cockpit, the abrupt change in surface is eliminated with might reduce drag. It might be that upsweep drag is reduced, but without any real knowledge of aeronautical engineering I cannot say that the fuselage shape on the A-22 even induces upsweep drag. For an explanation of upsweep drag that’s way beyond my desire (and probably ability) to understand, see http://enu.kz/repository/2010/AIAA-2010-4365.pdf

 

The second thing I noticed was the empennage cleanup. The A-22LS’s belly dorsal fin and tailwheel are missing on the A-32. (See photo above). The horizontal stabilizer has been modified.

 

The A-32

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/foxbatpilot/18632869846/in/album-72157654308801692/

 

The A-22LS

 

 

 

The third thing is the wing root modification. Looking at the forward wing roots, their fairings, and the top of the windshield, it appears that significant changes have occurred which may reduce drag.

 

The A-32

 

 

 

The A-22LS

 

 

 

I learned while building my GlaStar that fairings reduce drag; that removing abrupt changes in surface such as by fairing the area where the wing attaches to the fuselage to reduce the angle of the change reduces drag; removing gaps reduce drag; wheel pants and landing gear fairings reduce drag. The A-32 may gain speed from an overall aerodynamic tweaking.

 

If only we could touch one of these puppies. To date, I haven’t even been able to fly the A-22LS and I am actively attempting to do so. I cannot imagine when I might see an A-32. I would guess my first chance would be Oshkosh 2015 . . . . if I get to go.

Great research. If it indeed is much quicker but retains good stol capability then it will certainly be popular. Also the sleek looks might win over other buyers who are partial at to some of the more sleeker looking euro lsas.

 

 

[Downunder]

I've got long arms, so prefer the yoke.

 

I fly my aircraft privately only, so once trimmed, I'm virtually on the rudder only.

 

I can see in a training situation it may be more suitable with the "Y" stick.

 

What I think is important, is having OPTIONS.

 

People are different and what's important is manufacturers catering to different tastes...

 

 

[pylon500]

So I return to the question. If you would be so kind, why the strong preference, pylon500?

Simple history is, I started in Sailplanes, and when I met my first two seat ultralight (Lightwing), it was side by side and had a central stick.

I initially thought it was a bit cheap having to share a single stick, now after instructing for the last 25 years, I'm much happier climbing into a machine knowing I don't have to try and disentangle my legs around my own stick.

 

I did that for four years, flying a Gazelle (Australian version of the Kitfox 4), which was both cramped, with a small door and two sticks.

 

I'm around 6ft, and I was glad to get rid of the Gazelle and go back to a Lightwing and then a foxbat as well.

 

So in answer, it's not so much the Y that I'm after, just the accessibility allowed by a central stick.

 

OK, just realised that, that doesn't explain the stick versus steering wheel question.

 

Primarily flying taildraggers, I just find it feels odd trying to do crosswind landings with a yoke, plus, most yoke systems I've come across seem to have a lot of slop, something I HATE in aeroplanes (or cars for that matter).

 

 

[planet47]

¥ sticks make getting in and out easier but if a stick between the legs makes a person happy I suppose the decision is made

 

 

[spacesailor]

As a trainee it would seem odd, trying to use the left side of a single yoke, while the instructor holds the right side of the same yolk.

 

The Y stick seems more natural when holding from either side.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Cosmick]

When solo with a Y try to jot down a few notes if your right handed.

 

 

[Downunder]

As a trainee it would seem odd, trying to use the left side of a single yoke, while the instructor holds the right side of the same yolk.The Y stick seems more natural when holding from either side.

spacesailor

There was a training Foxbat out here with yokes and no one ever said anything about it. I did my conversion in it.

 

There was also a sportstar, and some students even went back and forth between the two without any ill effects I believe ...

 

 

[fly_tornado]

this was on facebbok last week

 

I am proud to announce the FAA has finally blessed SLSA approval here in the USA of the Aeroprakt A22LS. It is now showing on the FAA data base as manufactured by "Aeroprakt Manufacturing" and all old information should be purged soon. Now the Aeroprakt team can be proud to get all of the credit for this incredible airplane design. I will be the new dealer here in the USA so please have all of your friends call me for information.

 

[email protected]

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

When solo with a Y try to jot down a few notes if your right handed.

Interesting point. Well, there's always the right seat when flying with a center Y stick. That way, the right hand is free. BTW, I am right handed and in my CJ6 and my earlier aircraft - RV3A and Hiperbipe with their center sticks I shift(ed) from right hand on stick to left hand on stick while I take/took notes. A control wheel would be easier, but one can adapt. On the other hand, for flying, the stick is simpler and more natural than a control wheel. Add in the complexity of flap levers, throttles, mixture, trim, etc, and it becomes more the preference of the layout of a suite of controls than the availability of a single stick/wheel and its location. Everything seems a tradeoff. Put something one place or the other and you have issues of accessibility, right-hand v. left-hand friendliness, etc, and tandem-seat (or single-seat) v. side-by-side seating complicates the decision-making. Personally, I consider a single-seat (but prospective passengers reject it) as my first choice, tandem as my second choice (but my wife doesn't like that - she'd rather I just get a single-seat and not invite her along), then side-by-side as my third choice (but aircraft like the Foxbat seem fine for the mission so I can live with a wide cabin with plenty of visibility. Besides, my wife lists side-by-side as her first choice). :-)

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

this was on facebbok last weekI am proud to announce the FAA has finally blessed SLSA approval here in the USA of the Aeroprakt A22LS. It is now showing on the FAA data base as manufactured by "Aeroprakt Manufacturing" and all old information should be purged soon. Now the Aeroprakt team can be proud to get all of the credit for this incredible airplane design. I will be the new dealer here in the USA so please have all of your friends call me for information.

 

[email protected]

Thanks fly_tornado. The information is . . . .

 

Interesting. But do we know who this is? Or where he or she is? "the new dealer" seems to indicate an exclusive arrangement with Aeroprakt for the U.S. market. I pause on that one pending additional information.

 

As we know, anyone can open a gmail account. I even have one myself. No address; no telephone number?

 

There already is a "factory agent" for Aeroprakt complete with aircraft and a website, so I am curious. Change of hands; carving up the territory; what? I have been speaking to "the other guy" about an A22LS and have been awaiting his return on a lonnnnng flight to speak with him about the new A32. A Facebook announcement and a freebie gmail account begs for more info - like, who is this?

 

Anyone know? If it's bona fide, I need to be talking with them. If not, I don't need a false flag correspondent.

 

Thanks for any info, and thanks again fly_tornado for posting the info.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

http://www.aeropraktusa.com/

[fly_tornado]

https://www.facebook.com/dennis.long.31586?fref=nf

[Guest SrPilot]

http://www.aeropraktusa.com/

Thanks. The website is a bit bare bones. Not much info but at least it has a phone number. I'll call on Monday. Thanks again fly_tornado. I seem to be able to get more info out of Toowoomba than out of any place in the U.S.

 

On Monday, I'll give the U.S. another try. Maybe I now have 2 U.S. dealers and can get things moving. But I wonder if either of them have heard of the A32?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

they don't seem to appreciate they are selling $100K item. People have high service expectations these days.

 

I don't know why you would go past a kitfox7 SLSA

 

 

[pylon500]

I don't know why you would go past a kitfox7 SLSA

If it's anything like the Gazelle or Kitfox 5 I've flown in, it would be the awkwardness of getting in and out, as well as the feeling of flying around in a birdcage with all the struts and braces around the place.