The Never Ending Fun Debate

[skippydiesel]

What defines a good private pilots aircraft?

 

I acknowledge most aircraft are good - some are just better/suit the individual pilot, than others.

 

I think a pilots likes/dislikes will be influenced by the following:

 

Comfort: is an important factor. In small aircraft (RAA size) movable seats/pedals are not often available, cockpit width limited, making the size (height/width) of the pilot a strong influencing factor.  Part of comfort will be ergonomic layout of instruments & controls - are they all within easy reach, intuitive, do not require swapping the "stick" hand, diving across the cockpit/under the panel, etc . For some ease of entry/exit will be important. As a vertically challenged person, I often need the assistance of booster,  in some aircraft, this may then have negative impact on accessing some of the controls (discomfort!).

 

Construction: will impact on internal/external noise and often draftiness. In my limited experince composite construction tends towards the quieter/draft free experince, with rag/tube  being at the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

Performance:  Closely related to Mission (below) I define as a combination of - take off role, climb, stall, cruise speed (econ & high), fuel burn/hr, landing role. 

 

Mission:  I suspect few give much thought to this aspect - tending towards aircraft familiarity rather than ability. My personal preference is for economic cross country (high cruise speed/low fuel/hr burn)I also want a low stall for safety / short field performance - this combination limits my choices to around 2-3 aircraft.

 

Economy:  This is a combination of the above performance plus maintenance cost - My preference; as low as is possible, consistent with the above wants/criteria. This brings me back to composite aircraft, which tend to have the lowest airframe maintenance/cost requirements. Engine maintenance cost is much the same/consistent across make/model.

 

Perception: For many the configuration of their training aircraft (high/low wing, conventional tail/T tail, engine type, etc) will strongly influence their future choice of & opinions on aircraft. Usually this is with little factual foundation.

 

Looks: We all love a good looking aeroplane and often the look of the aircraft will reflect its mission/pilots wants

 

DISCUSS!!!!!😈

[pmccarthy]

I agree with the criteria. The other factor is purchase cost. I am very happy with my Vixxen but appreciate that many people cannot afford one. The equivalent composite airframe might be a CT, also expensive.

[Freizeitpilot]

Interesting topic - it is such an individual thing !

 

I would add, possibly as part of the comfort aspect, places within easy reach in the cockpit to store stuff. Such as charts,log book, POH, water bottle, jacket, lunch - let’s call it cabin ‘utility’, and maybe even cabin heating & ventilation……..and then tied to the mission would be outward visibility, useable load, endurance and secure baggage storage.

 

My mission is primarily lengthy cross country touring with a pax and commonly at MTOW.

[skippydiesel]

Come come - agreement doesn't further the debat.

 

Agree: Purchase cost is a biggy!

 

Flown the Foxbat (not impressed) not the Vixen or the CT - think they are all promotion and not so much performance😈

 

For my purpose/taste, difficult to go past the ATEC Faeta and the Pipistrel Virus SW - very similar performance, composite. Rotax 9's (SW doesn't offer 914/ Fatea no tail wheel) different configuration. SW has reputation of being very expensive - don't know this for a fact.

[skippydiesel]

6 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said:

Interesting topic - it is such an individual thing !

 

I would add, possibly as part of the comfort aspect, places within easy reach in the cockpit to store stuff. Such as charts,log book, POH, water bottle, jacket, lunch - let’s call it cabin ‘utility’, and maybe even cabin heating & ventilation……..and then tied to the mission would be outward visibility, useable load, endurance and secure baggage storage.

 

My mission is primarily lengthy cross country touring with a pax and commonly at MTOW.

"..... it is such an individual thing !" Yes thats what makes for dynamic, impashioned debat FUNNNNN!!!!

 

All true - much of what you have added comes under Empty Weight, as under RAA most of these aircraft will have the same (close to) 600 kg Max TO weigh (may change in the near future).

 

In Australia fuel capacity is important - not so you must carry a comfort bottle (can if you wish) but more so that refueling is less of a constraint.

 

I find ventilation to be mainly a ground consideration - often accommodated by partially open door/canopy. In the air I have never experienced a "stuffy" cockpit and strangely not a cold one, despite not having cabin heat. I suspect cabine heat is more of a northern hemisphere consideration, anyhow it's relativly easy to (retro) fit if needs be (can be air/coolant/even oil).

 

What might be your close to ideal aircraft(s)???

[Blueadventures]

I like the carby engines and keep the maintenance and adjustments to them in order; don't particularly like the later say Rotax 9 series is or turbo engines.  They need more equipment to test and service plus two yearly servicing refreshers and i'd expect will have more troublesome tuning / maintenance needs as they get more hours on.  I also like good product support and many aircraft flying over many years.  Composite are usually costly if heavy landed and the airframe is cracked or delaminated (sometimes this is not apparent at the time and develops worse over time in service) and require specialised workshop environments for any work.  Jabiru are great in this respect or the resins used.

[spacesailor]

All  of the above, excluding two seats .

Took me to my Hummel-Bird. 

Plans built ( cheaper than made for you ) .

Aluminium,  easy to work with .

Fairly fast , 80kn cruise, 

Economic,  6 ltrs per hour .

Engine choice 

Wheels, td or trike,

And good looking. 

 

Dave Kings 

spacesailor

PS  survivability 

Edited April 5 by spacesailor
AI changed my spelling

[skippydiesel]

Gents - let  fantasies rule and let's not get too serious.

 

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

I like the carby engines and keep the maintenance and adjustments to them in order; don't particularly like the later say Rotax 9 series is or turbo engines.  They need more equipment to test and service plus two yearly servicing refreshers and i'd expect will have more troublesome tuning / maintenance needs as they get more hours on.  I also like good product support and many aircraft flying over many years.  Composite are usually costly if heavy landed and the airframe is cracked or delaminated (sometimes this is not apparent at the time and develops worse over time in service) and require specialised workshop environments for any work.  Jabiru are great in this respect or the resins used.

Hard to go past the latest Jab airframes - hope they find a way to make a nice marriage with Rotax

[kgwilson]

The ergonomics of most GA & RA factory built aircraft is terrible although the panel in modern aircraft is much tidier with all glass customisable displays. As I built my own aircraft with everything at hand and instruments set out as I wanted them my aircraft has the best ergonomics of any I have ever flown. From a comfort perspective many RA aircraft have wider cockpits than larger GA aircraft of 50 years ago but high wing is always easier to access. That said I prefer the seating position in most low wing aircraft as it is more reclining sports car like than the upright seating in a high wing. Noise is related to comfort as a very noisy aircraft is more stressful on the body than a quite one.

 

Construction is debatable. Aluminium and alloys are easy to repair/ replace as is fibreglass. Carbon fibre and high end composites not so. Soundproofing & sealing is pretty hard in rag & tube but whatever is chose weight is a deciding factor.

 

Economy is also related to drag plus speed requirements.

 

Mission or purpose dictates to a degree aspects of performance. If an aircraft is slow, a low fuel burn my end up costing as much as a fast aircraft & it is pretty hard to have genuine STOL & high speed racer in the same aircraft. Horses for courses.

 

Ease and simplicity of maintenance is a key aspect. Rotax engines may be reliable but are too complex. The Jab is simple and easy to maintain. As I drive an EV I am really looking forward to the fully electric aircraft. Noise, power, and maintenance can't be beaten here. Battery tech is the only obstacle but this is improving at an astonishing rate. The latest solid state battery from Talent New Energy has a battery with more than double the energy density of the very best Lithium batteries at 720 kW/kg providing EV range of over 2000km. This means a 100kg battery would store 72 kWh of power. This with the weight of the electric motor would be less than a 120hp jab & 150 litres of fuel.

[spacesailor]

A long time ago I could have bought a ' brand new Jab ' . Cheaply. 

Made by a Sydney university as a teaching aid, then sold at the conclusion of the course.

And the cost to that University was less .

So another one for the next student intake .

Who stopped that great idea ?.

spacesailor

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Good points KG however I do not support your contention that "Rotax engines may be reliable but are too complex. The Jab is simple and easy to maintain" .  An engine that is "easy to maintained" is one that rarely needs significant work, beyond routine servicing and that routine only occurs at wide intervals (time between service).

 

I support the inevitable move to electric motivation but lament the passing of the ICE that has powered every personal transport vehicle I have travelled in. 

[Freizeitpilot]

Hmmm, maybe a WT9 for a low wing and the latest version of the FK9 for a high wing.

 

As you say, let fantasies rule !

[skippydiesel]

9 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said:

Hmmm, maybe a WT9 for a low wing and the latest version of the FK9 for a high wing.

 

As you say, let fantasies rule !

Hmm!  I like to see reasoning/justification for the fantasy. In short why?

 

WT9 - cruises about the same as the Faeta (that it resembles) & Virus SW but has a significantly higher stall.

FK9 - Some of the more recent Jabs might be a better bet (similar stall/higher cruise and likely cheaper) and look (if you close one eye) sort of similar

 

[danny_galaga]

Cirrus 😈 

[skippydiesel]

10 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

Cirrus 😈 

Due to insufficient information  - had to Google  - "Resterant" "Cloud" "Aircraft with missile coming out of top of fuselage"😈

 

Come on Danny, you can "stir the pot", way better than a single name - give us a good argument.😎

[danny_galaga]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Due to insufficient information  - had to Google  - "Resterant" "Cloud" "Aircraft with missile coming out of top of fuselage"😈

 

Come on Danny, you can "stir the pot", way better than a single name - give us a good argument.😎

Cirrus is the safest aircraft on the market.

[Thruster88]

As a fun machine I think my RV6a is hard to beat. 10 out of ten in the above categories except maybe efficiency. True speed does not come cheap. There is no better aircraft out there for $115k new or used. Being aerobatic is a bonus. 

 

The speeds quoted by some manufacturers are BS, fantasy or highly optimistic. ADSB data shows how they really perform. You can't have a head wind both ways. 👿👿👿 

[Garfly]

Thrusty, you have too much fun at both ends of the speed spectrum!   ;- )

[skippydiesel]

 $115k !!!!!!???? - you jest??? Can I buy it off you?

 

The RV Range certainly have a great reputation - my pick - the 4 or the 8.

Had a couple of rides in two diffrent 4's.

• First, was a truly memorable/exhilarating flight through the Okanagan Valley, BC from high above the surrounding Rockies, down to lake surface (waving up at passing cebine cruisers).
• Second, was with a local flier - built the first plans built 4 in Australia. An absolute work of art/precision - still looks new - pilot/owner flew with the ame art/precision as we went through barrel/aileron roles. I felt very privileged. 

Only down side for me, is a personal preference thing (no reflection on RV's)- I am drawn to economy of flight - my hero/shining example, is Robin Austin http://worldrecordplane.com/ who has developed two Sonerai aircraft , both powered by Rotax 912ULS, both capable of RV & better speeds, with far greater economy and much less noise pollution.

[Thruster88]

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

 $115k !!!!!!???? - you jest??? Can I buy it off you?

 

The RV Range certainly have a great reputation - my pick - the 4 or the 8.

Had a couple of rides in two diffrent 4's.

No not for sale. The rise in value since buying 4 years ago is another bonus, helps offset that $3 avgas.

[skippydiesel]

"The speeds quoted by some manufacturers are BS, fantasy or highly optimistic."

 

So true - not all though.

 

I suspect that many of the performance claims are as you suggest "fantasy",  mathematical projections, or  conducted in highly optimised examples of the aircraft ie minimum take of (empty) weights, sealed runway, perfect weather, prop adjusted for max performance in that stage  ie fine for climb, course for cruise but not a CS prop, may even run the engine at higher than recommended RPM, etc.

 

You can usually spot the overly optimistic claims - they tend towards brevity of statistics eg no mention of fuel flow/power settings. Max/Min TO weight, etc There are alot of claims in adventagus measurements eg mph/kph rather than knots. I  laugh when I see range claims, that bear no relation to fuel consumption/capacity, when every pilot knows that this should be expressed as duration/time , qualified as to empty or reserve fuel.

[facthunter]

IF you enjoy flying, there's no need to  go fast. Just fly lower and it seems faster. You can't carry much in any of the small stuff.. . If you are thinking of leaving your plane unhangared. I wouldn't.  Being an aerobatic plane would be a Plus  for me having had one.  It will probably entail a few extra AD's and $$$s. to do what they say. Nev

[skippydiesel]

15 minutes ago, facthunter said:

IF you enjoy flying, there's no need to  go fast. Just fly lower and it seems faster. You can't carry much in any of the small stuff.. . If you are thinking of leaving your plane unhangared. I wouldn't.  Being an aerobatic plane would be a Plus  for me having had one.  It will probably entail a few extra AD's and $$$s. to do what they say. Nev

As I have often said before Nev it's not about speed per say - its about efficiency. If Robin Austin can get a Sonerai/Rotax 912ULS to deliver the following RV type performance on 100hp, why burn more fuel/$$$$, making much more noise, delivering copious quantities of lead to the atmosphere, when you don't have to????

• ".. climbs at 1920 fpm and has a maximum continuous cruise of a genuine 170 knots, all on the standard 100 HP Rotax motor."
• In 2008, SGS competed successfully in the FAI Speed Over a Recognized Course World Record category, completing a 500 Km flight in 68 minutes at an average ground speed of 440 KPH (238 knots : 273MPH).
• One 200 Km section was covered in 25 minutes at an average ground speed of 467 KPH (252 Knots : 290MPH). The GPS flight logger confirmed ground speeds over 300 MPH at times.
• SGS also competed successfully in the Aeroplane Efficiency World Record category in 2 weight classes, the best result being a 1200 Km non-stop flight around a closed course using only 43 litres of fuel.
• That’s less than 7 LPH at 197 KPH (1.85 US GPH at 122 MPH)."
• "As well as being a World Record performing aircraft, SGS is also aerobatic and a capable cross country 2 seat tourer. It has a demonstrated service ceiling of over 24,000 feet, can remain airborne for over 14 hrs and could fly across the entire mainland USA at its widest part with only one fuel stop."
• capable cross country tourer that regularly carries 2 X 90Kgs (200lbs) people, 2 tents & sleeping bags, air mattresses, doonas, pillows etc and all personal belongings on 1000+ Nm trips. 

 

 

[facthunter]

There's no one size fit's all. At one stage my choice would have been a PBY like Jacques Cousteau. had.. Later on it would probably have been something like a Carbon Cub(WITHOUT BIG wheels). RV's are deservedly Popular but I'd have extra sound insulation in mine.  Doubt I'd EVER want the Bother of some thing like A Cessna Golden Eagle. Not enough fun for effort and a bottomless pit for Money.. Single Pilot IFR  in such planes is a high workload Nev