Affordability?

[F10]

One thing about the old Skyfox Gazelle is, you can pick up a pretty nice one these days, for around the $25 000 mark…this probably makes it one of the most affordable conventional three axis aircraft out there. We bought one that yes, needed a good shot of TLC (Rotax 5 year rubber and an annual) but has come up very nice and in partnership with a good mate, ended up costing us $11 000 each….not bad for what is a safe fun aircraft. In fact, at today’s prices, you could buy two, re-build one to mint condition, then sell (or keep) the other and still spend less or not much more than what a new single seater kit would cost. I think this window is slowly closing….in a few years, they might not be worth salvaging. Yes our Rotax is on condition, but it’s an amazing little motor and showed the same compression test values, when checked, as a 500 hour engine would have. Yes, it’s basically an “around the cabbage patcher”, with an 80 Kts cruise speed, but I don’t care! Very happy with it! 

[facthunter]

There's nothing easier to fly.  I may have said that before. Nev

[F10]

Yes you have, many times. I may have said this before, suits me, I fly for fun, not to scare myself brainless with something that keeps trying to kill me on weekends.

[F10]

Bit of a mute point in a way…I find my daughter (next to no experience) finds the Gazelle challenging…no doubt a Thruster pilot will find a Harvard challenging….There was an amusing saying which is “Spitfires and Mustangs are good trainers for the Harvard”. This statement I can tell you, is remarkably true. 🙂

[turboplanner]

11 hours ago, F10 said:

Yes you have, many times. I may have said this before, suits me, I fly for fun, not to scare myself brainless with something that keeps trying to kill me on weekends.

For people who need to keep flying costs to an absolute minimum, this is the way to go because it requires the lowest time to keep your handling skills current and you can focus on other aspects like navigation.

Edited October 1, 2021 by turboplanner

[turboplanner]

At one stage I wasn't flying because I couldn't afford it, and I knew coming back would mean a lot of hours getting back up to suitable currency.

A friend said he flew every week at the busy airport, so I asked him how he paid for it.

He said he did one circuit which cost him no more that 20 minutes, and kept him sharp on handling, Radio, procedures, and coping with heavy traffic.

[facthunter]

Every instructor I know had the same view whenever the subject came up. It's not just a  weird claim I'm making out of the blue. The Gazelle was once the mainstay of U/L training and could be VH registered.. It also stands to reason if your first plane is easy to fly and very forgiving some other less "nice" thing will appear Horrible  by comparison When I went from a Chipmunk to a Gypsy Moth and a DH82 it was a significant difference in feel and rudder work. and glided like a brick with sloppy controls.. Nev

[F10]

The Chipmunk, a fantastic aircraft with very sweet handling. As such I think it was easy to fly, very easy for a tail dragger. The brake lever ratchet system is ingenious, allowing for auto differential braking, with rudder inputs  if you pulled the brake handle back 3-4 clicks. It must have been a great step up from the Tiger Moth. Loved flying the Chippie!

[Thruster88]

9 hours ago, F10 said:

The Chipmunk, a fantastic aircraft with very sweet handling. As such I think it was easy to fly, very easy for a tail dragger. The brake lever ratchet system is ingenious, allowing for auto differential braking, with rudder inputs  if you pulled the brake handle back 3-4 clicks. It must have been a great step up from the Tiger Moth. Loved flying the Chippie!

I was reading the thread on pprune about the best handling aircraft and the Chipmunk was the winner it seemed. Have you flown any RV's and if so how do they compare? 

[facthunter]

I don't agree about the Chippie. Great feel on the controls Yes It's all by rods and done well. Rudder is too small. Some were fitted with bigger ones.  The brake was unusual and as you got more brake (earlier application) you lost rudder so that with full brake on you had NO rudder. Normal TOE brakes would be better by far. They had unconvincing prediction of spin recovery and if they got into a flat spin  more so.  Pretty much ALL unrecovered spins were fatal as the RoD is high at over 6,000 FPM. The Vne speed was low for an aerobatic plane and easily reached in a power off dive as the plane was very clean.

  The 10Mk2 145 HP Gypsy is perhaps a bit under what power would be optimum and It's not made for inverted running. There wasn't much else available at the time. It's a good looking well built plane that was a real trainer and that was what it was built for.. The spin recovery aspects were examined at an inquiry established to look into it in Australia. The fact it was widely used by most of the established aero clubs and nothing better was around may have been a factor in the outcome/ conclusions.  They developed a fault with the Fairey-Reid props  (cracks in the hub and one at least threw a blade  and the engine came out making it impossible to control and it fell into lake MacQuarie from memory Non Fatal . Nev

[F10]

Flown an RV once, very nice. The Chippie has very sweet handling for normal flying. Not great for aerobatics I think personally. The energy levels are quite low and I found initial roll rate is good, but once the damping in roll comes into equilibrium with the aileron input, the sustained roll rate is quite slow to what I was used to. However, many pilots flew Chipmunks in aerobatic competitions, I think there was a Chippie category in fact. Some modified Chipmunks, often with a one piece bubble canopy, were quite good. As I recall, there was a bungee chord setup on the brakes, so with a few notches of brake applied, you got a burst of brake, but to me, rudder was not effected. However this made control on takeoff and landing, good, with basically automatic differential braking with any rudder input. Applying full brakes, handle fully back, would slightly limit rudder input. I never spun it, but they did have some issues, not sure why. It has a staggered tail plane, (tail fin located ahead of the tail plane) so rudder blanking should not be a problem. Rear CofG I think, would not be good in a spin, as with most planes.  Basically it’s a fun machine and a very nice “baby warbird” as such! The Brits have always used hand operated brakes, right up to the Vampire jet and Shackleton. It’s interesting to think if it wasn’t for their love of hand brakes, Douglas Bader would not have been able to fly agin……this may have made some Germans happy however!