Buying aircraft- 80 % / 100 % use case ?

[K5054]

I have single seat which I love as I enjoy the solitude of flying. It is rare I need to take a pax but I have a share in a two seater I can use if needed.

[Kenlsa]

RF- to get a plane to "stop" in 200m is very much a challenge. Depends what you mean by Stop.

Normal take off and landing distance should be quoted "over 50' obstacle" so that includes trees and power lines. Just about every plane can stop within 200m from touchdown, it's all about the flare and touchdown point that counts.

Your 200m VERY quickly becomes 400m in the real world. (Excluding aircraft with extra lifting devises with stall warning horn screaming in your ear on early final from 500 ft)

May I suggest you ignore the aircraft on YouTube that land in less than 100m (sometimes much less) as most time they don't have the 50' obstacle to deal with. Plenty of planes have come to grief tripping up on the barbed wire fence on the approach.

Also be aware that they are probably the owner or friends of the owner of the property, so they can do endless practice landings.

One thing about these landings on You Tube is that you are only shown the successful landings as a general rule.

Ken

[RFguy]

Hi Ken

understood and agreed. I was merely pointing out that "if you nailed it PERFECTLY" it was possible.

 

Today, after very easy clean air, then the wind came up

 

and my circuits turned from perfect rectangles to ugly parallelograms . still managed to recover and get it on the runway after unimpressive base legs. well lucky the runway is long......

 

My FI at one point joked "Do you have a map ?".

funny. I actually thought he was serious and answered no, busy mid way turning onto base trying to knock off some speed with a tailwind before flaps down

 

just 1.7h today, (8h for 3 days) Back home now.

the wind got up a bit much to practice the delicate stuff. did enough.....

[gibby]

Have to strongly disagree - Your advice may be good for a traditional plans built or "flat pack" delivered aircraft but is out of date for composite types.

 

ATEC aircraft come as very advanced kits. Assuming good organisational/planning skills (everything needed to hand) some basic understanding of 12 volt electrical systems and automotive style plumbing - I would guess delivery to flying condition 3-4 weeks at most.

Cost blow outs will be down to planning failures .

Yep, also with a price tag to match. The more advanced the kit, the more you are going to pay

[Downunder]

clarification : 3 x 1.1 sessions with 1.5h min gaps.

 

My basic training was 1 hr in the morning and 1 hr in the afternoon with some study in the middle.

I did this for 5 days, took a break of 2 weeks and did it again.

I realise different people have different thresholds but to me it was quite intensive at 2 hrs flying time per day.

[gibby]

There is no pleasing/placating you is there.

You have a great deal to offer but your knowledge is tarnished by your inability to allow other opinions, very sad.

You have never been attacked - your own thin skin seems to make you see every differing opinion/ criticism as an attack - get over it.

You take a third party story and you see it as a reflection on yourself - you are not that important

No, I have never done flight instruction - does that disqualify me from rational, logical, objective comment??? Sound's like it.

Whats all this BS about - "and you are ignoring instructors inputs and discrediting them in a desire to deflect concerns about a product you sell." where did that come from ?????

Sure I am passionate about my product , never denied that, but to suggest that I cant make an objective comment, because I try to sell aircraft is... well mountains of bulls excrement comes to mind.

I give you a reasoned argument with examples and that's the best you can do - perhaps your (over) confidence in your own knowledge is clouding you ability to see matters from an other perspective. It certainly doesn't inhibit you from making quit outrageous statements/ deductions from an otherwise simple example.

Facthunter's posts are generally very fair and reasonable, I don't know him personally but sounds like he has a vast experience and knowledge of all things that fly. I have been on this forum for many years and agree with most of his posts.

you are just been a salesman and don't like hearing negative comments on a product your trying to sell/promote, its bad form bagging instructors if you have never instructed because they say the Atec is slippery and tricky to land.

[RFguy]

Hi DU .agreed. continuity is helpful but brain soak is also important I guess.

It is an interesting study- not the flying- but the learning process of flying. The continual increments of what you need to take care of, do, know. I wonder how many other tasks are equally as demanding?

 

Continuity helps I am sure having a day after day , compared to 1 hour every two weeks.

 

I was reading about how after landings on aircraft carriers, that the 3D performance of the pilot goes up on screens in the post flight.

 

I was last night thinking of how my circuits looks in 3D when the wind started !

 

Early days yet.... and all my circuit work so far is left turns. (high wing) .

[skippydiesel]

Yep, also with a price tag to match. The more advanced the kit, the more you are going to pay

 

True! As with most projects the aspiring builder must weigh the "benefits".

 

At one end of the spectrum, most of us will know of a "serial" builder. Their satisfaction comes from the build process itself - less so the flying. Quick build/advanced kits are unlikely to meet their personal needs.

Then there are those who work in a particular medium, wood/metal/composite. So their kit must be dominated by their chosen material. This group tend to be wedded to their chosen material, limiting choice.

Some kits are available as "plans" or as "flat pack" pre drilled & shaped (RV comes to mind). The CNC/predrilled systems tend to come at a higher up front cost but plans can exponentially extend the build time (many not completed)

In the past composite kit aircraft started as "foam" blocks that needed to be shaped - some suppliers grew concerned with the potential for aerofoils to be badly made & started supplying pre shaped skins etc - more cost.

As I understand it, aircraft constructed mainly of carbon fibre have very special build requirements - high cost investment in moulds and curing "ovens" - home builders who wish to take advantage of this material, are pretty well limited to advanced kits.

All kits offer "flexibility" even the quick/advanced kit - you can source your own engine & avionics - propeller options, up to you - paint type/colour all yours, - upholstery your choice. These areas presents potentially great savings and perversely also cost "blow outs"

You want to fly your aircraft next week - by a ready to fly aircraft - not necessarily the highest cost option, even if the outlay is heart stoppingly high.

Happy to fly in 5-10 years get a plans built - lowest cost up front , but can accumulate alarmingly over time and enthusiasm for the long haul may evaporate..

 

The builder must decide on the objective(s), budget/cash flow, construction type, build time - each decision carries a financial impact.

[RFguy]

another 2.4h today . two flights in the Brumby 610. steady improvement....

 

The Rotax is great in that thing. (912ULS).

 

Almost feel like I wont need a first small plane as a stepping stone, can hire the club's plane instead. and also hire others to get the feel for different aircraft.... $125/hour for a member...

 

Seems like a J230 airframe with a 914 rotax is a good combo. Which is of course what Ray Allen did....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 1, 2020 by RFguy

[facthunter]

A six will give you an entirely different smoothness. The more different planes you fly, the better you eventual decision will be . When you hire you know what you are up for cost wise. Once you buy you have placed your bet on one horse. Nev

[Wirraway]

I think in a previous post, someone mentioned making sure you can physically fit into the aircraft.

I've been looking for nearly two years, sadly, and complicated by very few aircraft for sale in W.A. I have struggled to get into a CA25, barely sqeezed into an Aeropup, (could not cope with that on a daily basis) I'm not that flexible, and it's getting worse each year.

First time in a CH200, my head was resting against the canopy. Placed a much thinner cushion on the seat, and solved that problem, until I put headphones on, and again, head against canopy. I'm 6'2", about 187 cm, both our sons are taller again, so that aircraft was not a solution.

There's a Storm on the market, I spoke with the seller, (or his rep) and he commented that pilot height could be an issue. So unless you are under six feet tall, make sure you fit the aircraft, or vice versa!!

 

Like you, I have struggled to determine aircraft type. It's likely most of my flying will be solo, but all family and friends I have taken up, want to do it again, so I will not be short of a passenger. The cost of hangarage for a single seat will be about the same as a 2 seater, so I am almost 100% certainly going for a 2 seater, Jab 200 or similar, until I change my mind again!!!!

[RFguy]

Hi

Yeah I am 186cm. but I have LONG legs. I am all legs. I am at about the limit in the 610 brumby the way it is. I talked to the Brumby guys and they say yeah, they move the pedals back for long leggers like me. But on head height, I have about 10 to 20cm I reckon easy. that cockpit is luxurious. I've got to go and sit in a Jab120 sometime to see how if I would fit in one of those.

[Blueadventures]

I think in a previous post, someone mentioned making sure you can physically fit into the aircraft.

I've been looking for nearly two years, sadly, and complicated by very few aircraft for sale in W.A. I have struggled to get into a CA25, barely sqeezed into an Aeropup, (could not cope with that on a daily basis) I'm not that flexible, and it's getting worse each year.

First time in a CH200, my head was resting against the canopy. Placed a much thinner cushion on the seat, and solved that problem, until I put headphones on, and again, head against canopy. I'm 6'2", about 187 cm, both our sons are taller again, so that aircraft was not a solution.

There's a Storm on the market, I spoke with the seller, (or his rep) and he commented that pilot height could be an issue. So unless you are under six feet tall, make sure you fit the aircraft, or vice versa!!

 

Like you, I have struggled to determine aircraft type. It's likely most of my flying will be solo, but all family and friends I have taken up, want to do it again, so I will not be short of a passenger. The cost of hangarage for a single seat will be about the same as a 2 seater, so I am almost 100% certainly going for a 2 seater, Jab 200 or similar, until I change my mind again!!!!

I'm 186cm and fit great into a Skyranger Nynja, delight to fly. One currently for sale in NSW for $55k. (Not mine it's not for sale) Just for info. Cheers.

[Rodj]

I recently bought my first plane, a Tomahawk, and ended up with what equates to the 80% I guess. A deciding factor was that it is a plane I'd had some lessons in and liked flying, another factor was that my better half wasn't comfortable with the budget I had in mind for the 100% option. Seeing as she'll never come up with me and my touring dreams will probably be done solo it seems like a good thing, at least for a couple of years. I've also cross-hired it to the school where I've been flying which I think (maybe incorrectly) is kind of easing me into the whole ownership thing. At least much more experienced people than myself are flying it regularly and keeping an eye on maintenance etc and I'm learning through their comments. One day I hope to be able to tour with friends or family, just not the Ms, then I can either hire or trade-up to my 100% plane hopefully. I do like the idea of a Jab 230, definitely a plane on my short list.

[Roscoe]

I recently bought my first plane, a Tomahawk, and ended up with what equates to the 80% I guess. A deciding factor was that it is a plane I'd had some lessons in and liked flying, another factor was that my better half wasn't comfortable with the budget I had in mind for the 100% option. Seeing as she'll never come up with me and my touring dreams will probably be done solo it seems like a good thing, at least for a couple of years. I've also cross-hired it to the school where I've been flying which I think (maybe incorrectly) is kind of easing me into the whole ownership thing. At least much more experienced people than myself are flying it regularly and keeping an eye on maintenance etc and I'm learning through their comments. One day I hope to be able to tour with friends or family, just not the Ms, then I can either hire or trade-up to my 100% plane hopefully. I do like the idea of a Jab 230, definitely a plane on my short list.

Good comments but be careful with the cross hire arrangement.

I know from past experience that the maintenance costs will far outweigh the income generated.

I realise it all depends on the School and Instructors and you dont want any surprises from that unreported heavy landing that a Student was too embarrassed to report.

Just my opinion

[Rodj]

Thanks @Roscoe, your comments re cross-hiring echo ones I've heard elsewhere and it's definitely something I'm wary of. I'm going to see how things go for a while, at least while I'm still chasing the quals that I'm after and then see how my own usage pans out and fits in (or doesn't!).

[RFguy]

Which brings me to a question

there are many high hour 2000+ hours ex flying school airplanes for sale. They're probably had a beating, but depending on their construction, that might now matter. ? IE aluminium versus fibreglass composite, landing struts and legs construction and ability to take up the punishment (and bounce) etc etc

 

comments ?

[facthunter]

Much to many people's surprise the C-150 and 152 held out rather well for the type of plane they are. The Al depends on the skin thickness as it cracks around rivets more if it's thin... Glass is "dinghy' stuff but the Jab can be fixed back at the factory in pretty much "any" state. . Any plane built to the 540 limit is not built like any brick outhouse. unless it's weighing over 330 empty or built of Carbon fibre. Check the basic Wt of the plane you are flying currently. I think you'll find it's up a bit. It's built like a small GA plane. What is the "life" of a RAAus plane? How long is a piece of string?. Later, look at a Citabria or Decathlon and do recovery from unusual attitudes. You seem keen enough to want to get a good grip on things. Nev

[marshallarts]

Much to many people's surprise the C-150 and 152 held out rather well for the type of plane they are.

 

I second that. I've noted recently that at least a couple of the 152s I flew during my basic training back in the early 1980s are still flying today, with the same organisation. I'd love to know their TTAF times! It must have been better economics to keep them going rather than replace, or they wouldn't still be there.

[RFguy]

ot built like any brick outhouse. unless it's weighing over 330 empty or built of Carbon fibre. Check the basic Wt of the plane you are flying currently. I think you'll find it's up a bit. It's built like a small GA plane.ok at a Citabria or Decathlon and do recovery from unusual attitudes.

Yeah the Brumby is not a lightweight. I had a bit of a look inside the guts of one at the factory. It does look like the inside of a GA plane. There is plenty of hard metal in the linkages. There is no feeling on slop or stretch on any control.

 

A question , In flight , with the coupled nosewheel/pedal/rudder setup, can rotating propeller airflow over the (unspated) front wheel produce an additional force on those coupled controls ? Or is the front wheel (unspated) a sufficiently poor aerodynamic object that is only produces a bulk , uncoordinated drag ?

[Thruster88]

Yeah the Brumby is not a lightweight. I had a bit of a look inside the guts of one at the factory. It does look like the inside of a GA plane. There is plenty of hard metal in the linkages. There is no feeling on slop or stretch on any control

 

A question , In flight , with the coupled nosewheel/pedal/rudder setup, can rotating propeller airflow over the (unspated) front wheel produce an additional force on those coupled controls ? Or is the front wheel (unspated) a sufficiently poor aerodynamic object that is only produces a bulk , uncoordinated drag ?

Any nose wheel aerodynamic effect would be very minimal. Propeller P factor is a thing, rotating slipstream on the tail, down going blade producing more thrust at higher angle of attack. More of a problem for tail draggers?

[RFguy]

Any nose wheel aerodynamic effect would be very minimal. Propeller P factor is a thing, rotating slipstream on the tail, down going blade producing more thrust at higher angle of attack. More of a problem for tail draggers?

Hi Stuart. thanks. OK.

and that yaw under full power after TO(due to prop wash) is something I have to fix (fix more consistently) also, so I don't head off on 322 deg after TO..... easy to fix. just add it to my list.

 

-glen

[skippydiesel]

Facthunter's posts are generally very fair and reasonable, I don't know him personally but sounds like he has a vast experience and knowledge of all things that fly. I have been on this forum for many years and agree with most of his posts.

you are just been a salesman and don't like hearing negative comments on a product your trying to sell/promote, its bad form bagging instructors if you have never instructed because they say the Atec is slippery and tricky to land.

 

Its great that you support your friend however I suggest you try reading and more importantly understand, what what I have written.

 

As I have said befor; Nev is a veritable font of aviation/mechanical knowledge. That does not mean he reads the statements of others well nor that he is always correct. The point of a forum like this is the free (polite) exchange of ideas.

 

I have never bagged anyone, let alone an instructor - I relayed an actual scenario, that happened to involve a small group of instructors, at a single flying school - I didn't "bag them" I gave a factual account, using their comments and my analysis of the same, as it related to the flying of a Faeta aircraft. My comments were not about instructors (as you would know if you took the time to actually read what I said) but the human inclination to stick with the familiar, making transition to different aircraft a challenge. In frustration/discomfort it is common, for all of us, to blame the machine, rather than the operator (ourselves).

 

I am happy, as always, to respond to any reasonable polite comment/criticism of the ATEC aircraft, with factual information. If you have something to impart on this topic please do so.

 

I do not, have not & will not make unsubstantiated claims about the aircraft I am selling. All my comments have either been verified by my actual experience (in my Zephyr) or by the experience of my partner Dexter (in his Faeta NG) we do not blindly regurgitate the factory performance claims.

 

Should you wish to challenge the above statements, please do so, all I ask is that you do so using verifiable facts

[APenNameAndThatA]

Nev; I can not hope to achieve your level of aircraft technical know- how/wisdom, however as many have said befor me "I know what I knows" - should it ruffle the feathers of accepted wisdom, so be it.

 

Ref: I do wish you would read my posts more carefully before launching into a condemnation of what I'm "supposed" to have meant . Right back at you Nev - offer alternative opinion yes - question yes - condemn no - me thinks you mount yourself on a very high horse.

 

Case in point: Faeta aircraft being used for training. Aircraft new to school. Instructors not happy with aircraft performance - Why? Faeta "wont land", "remains in ground effect for too long", considered to be an "advanced trainer" - what does this mean to you? To me its a case of instructor failure to read/absorb/apply POH, who, unthinkingly, are applying other aircraft handeling characteristics to the Faeta. In short not making the necessary transition. The fault is all the instructors, non is the Faeta's. This is not uncommon - how often have you come across a flight school; all Cessna, Piper, Jabiru, Technam - the instructors/students swear their aircraft are the best, wouldn't look at another, come up with all sorts of "factual" hearsay about the alternatives. This is human nature - we gravitate to the familiar. I suggest, that all commercial aircraft operators are familiar with this scenario and require considerable transition training/time when a pilot moves from one type to another - are they wrong?

 

Ref "By the way where are these RAAus types with efficient flaps that also cruise at high speeds and I question the ACTUAL TAS of many of the "CLAIMED 30 kt stall speeds we hear of. (as do many others)"My thanks to you for asking (an thereby giving me the opportunity)- ATEC & Pipistrel aircraft are the ones that come to my mind. There are quite likely to be a few others. Every confidence that these aircraft can perform as claimed (unlike so many others).

As an ATEC rep I offer you: ATEC Aircraft - Czech manufacturer of light sports aircraft | ATEC Aircraft

The aircraft POH are available in Downloads. The English can, at times, be a little changeling however the figures quoted are factual..

 

Being rude here, especially to Facthunter, is not going to sell airplanes. I'm rude to people on this site, but I'm not trying to sell planes. Someone implying or directly criticising your planes is an opportunity to offer a flight to someone who cares and who can teach you something. You might even learn something. It might even not be too late.

 

I fly a Foxbat. Good support is so much more important than 5 kts or 10 kg. With every single interaction with Foxbat Australia, I am, rightly or wrongly, quietly judging. Go the extra mile? Own up and help with problems? *Make it easy to have difficult convos with?* (So far so good.)

Edited September 2, 2020 by APenNameAndThatA

[RFguy]

alright gents..... back to your corners