Well, the Viking and the Robins are completely different animals though. I never thought of the 300 Turbo-horses Viking as “nothing fancy” with “sensible operating cost”. It compares rather to a late Beech 35 or a 210 rather than to a C17w or P28A. Plus it would be considerably heavier than 1.2 tonns. It sure is said to be a nice ride and I think with its turbos it might be a serious IFR tourer after some Investments upfront. But it doesn’t really compare to the 1180 or HR100.
FWIW: the pink M20F was just sold on Ebay for a bit over 30 but some potental buyers suggested it would be a Groschengrab.
Might be worth checking availability of airframe-specific spare parts. It might be fine, but interesting airplanes become less so if a two-day annual stretches to four months waiting for some widget to come from Darois.
mh wrote:
FWIW: the pink M20F was just sold on Ebay for a bit over 30 but some potental buyers suggested it would be a Groschengrab.
Oh, ok, thanks for that info. On Ebay, eh? Interesting. I wonder how they handle things like a pre-buy, which is anyway something you have to do with any plane you buy. Or better, least it really becomes a “groschengrab”.
I think with the numbers it had on the add, 30k is quite realistic for a plane like that.
It’s always difficult to judge whether a plane is a money pit or not. First of all, just about every plane is in a way or the other. You start with a small mod and carry on and on. I’ve had people turn away from planes which were pretty much what you’d expect for the age. ALL of those will have things to be fixed, stuff to be replaced e.t.c. I just shelled out 1500$ for two new aileron rods, two new fuel caps and fillers plus some other parts which lasted 50 years. Heck, what do you expect. 50 year old parts will eventually need to be replaced. We do that with cars after 10 years. If the new parts hold 50 years again, I’ll have to watch from above or the very least from my rocking chair how someone else will enjoy my plane.
I think people who buy a 30-50 year old plane and believe it has to be like a new one (and even those are not perfect mind) are deluding themselfs. But very often, horror stories how everything gets out of hand are highly exagarated. Of course, if you don’t do a proper pre-buy you can run into financial disasters, but if you do, then the big stuff like engine, prop, avionic and corrosion should have been looked at properly.
I helped with a Cherokee two years ago which had been for sale for 4 years for such issues. People came, saw and ran. We finally did a pre-buy with a serious client and it turned out that safe for the paintjob the airplane was sound and in good condition. Last thing I heard was that the dreaded first annual was pure vanilla and the 2nd one as well. They are flying with it happily.
What i do notice is that today almost all planes even a few years old are potential money pits because of the avionic. To do an engine overhaul, prop overhaul, normal repairs does not scare me financially anywhere close to doing a complete avionic refit. Because most of the former are known quantities, whereas the latter can get very expensive very quickly.
but interesting airplanes become less so if a two-day annual stretches to four months waiting for some widget to come from Darois.
This situation has a strong dependency on how “pragmatic” your maintenance people are.
I know of one TB pilot who was grounded for some months because his maint firm insisted on EASA-1 forms for some bits which he obtained without forms. I don’t know how it was resolved but I believe he had to buy them again from Socata, on a long lead time or at some silly price. Whereas had his firm been sensible, he would have been sorted in 5 minutes. No logbook entry. Provably same parts, no serial numbers, so no comeback. But if you cannot even enter the hangar (to swap them yourself) then you are over a barrel.
With “old” planes one often uses parts bought without paperwork or parts salvaged from parted-out planes for which there is no paperwork if the parting out is done by some normal person. Only a 145 company can generate EASA “paperwork” which limits the options drastically.
Does ELA-1 allow the use of “provably same” parts obtained commercially?
To do an engine overhaul, prop overhaul, normal repairs does not scare me financially anywhere close to doing a complete avionic refit. Because most of the former are known quantities, whereas the latter can get very expensive very quickly.
The other thing is that the former has well known procedures for prebuys, whereas the latter is not understood by nearly all aircraft engineers so unless the prospective buyer actually knows the exact avionics, a prebuy can miss e.g. a defective autopilot (€30k?). Even most instructors know nothing about advanced avionics.
However some % of people just fall in love with a plane and buy it. This is OK if you have the money in the bank for the worst-case scenario, and that can be a good policy if the selling price was discounted by e.g. the cost of an engine OH. But this will work for the buyer only if he/she is then able to manage the corrective work.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The AA5B will do 140 kts roughly with a 700 NM range. Currently there are some on planecheck which have not much information about them in your price range. They are definitly worth looking at, particularly the AA5A Cheetah or AA5B Tiger.
The speed is more like 120 (unless you have a perfect airframe and a perfect engine), and the range is 520-580 NM plus reserves (depending on power settings), but other than that, as an AA-5B owner, I’ll definitely recommend it – it’s a lot more fun to fly and cheaper to operate and maintain than e.g. C172. AA-5A (but not AA-5B, at least at present) can be converted to mogas.
Peter wrote:
The other thing is that the former has well known procedures for prebuys, whereas the latter is not understood by nearly all aircraft engineers so unless the prospective buyer actually knows the exact avionics, a prebuy can miss e.g. a defective autopilot (€30k?).
If your guy commits himself to checking installed avionics, he better know what he’s doing, for his own sake (be clear on what exactly will be checked). Anyway, demo flight should also be included. Positioning flight for the full prebuy (possibly annual) is a good opportunity.
The Aiglon is a good airplane. I flew one prior to selling it. The former owner went IFR all over Europe in it. The real Aiglon man is Bill Hall from the Air Squadron. He has done more hours than almost any other ppl in Europe with his. Something in the region of 10k hours for a ppl is pretty impressive.
Seats can crack from people leaning on them, some parts are dear and the factory can be hard to get help from. Pm me if you want to talk to some owners.
Whatever plane you buy, the pre-buy inspection is the a to z to it. Anyone who does one without it, will end up with a lottery.
So let me say it very clearly: Even though I occasionally link airplanes here, I look at them purely from what the add sais. I don’t know these planes nor have I conducted a pre-buy. Therefore, whatever we say about them is purely hypothetical and as an example what is out there, not a recommendation.
I have had some background info to the plane I linked in this thread, which would, had I known them before, have prevented me from linking it.
On the other hand, I am investigating a similar plane which is not listed in planecheck currently for a friend and it looks like he will get a deal even I did not think possible. So cheap does not mean no-go, but it needs due diligence.
Ultranomad wrote:
The speed is more like 120 (unless you have a perfect airframe and a perfect engine), and the range is 520-580 NM plus reserves (depending on power settings), but other than that, as an AA-5B owner, I’ll definitely recommend it
Interesting. I only have flown the AA5B once and took the figures out of the POH. On that flight, the pilot (renter) wanted to prove me wrong when I said the plane should do about 140 kts. We flew it at 6000 ft or thereabouts with full throttle and non-analyzer mixture (pull until it runs rough and then add 1 cm) and got 138 kts TAS in straight and level flight. In that case, typical gotcha was that the guy miscalculated TAS out of IAS… But clearly, if you fly it at 65 or 55% it will be slower. My Database for the AA5B gives @ 6000 ft: 75% 138 kts/11.4 GPH, 65% 126 kts/9.7 GPH and 55% 118 kts/9 GPH. You are very right with the range, I do get 500-550 NM in there, I mistook that for the Cheetah, which has the 700 NM range, but with slower speeds.
Looking at the data, the Cheetah with the 51 USG tanks seems to be a quite remarkable plane… 127 kts TAS at 75% with a measly 9 GPH, 115 kts at 65% with 7.4 GPH and 105 kts TAS at 55% with 6 GPH… leaves a conservative range of around 550 NM @ 75%, 600 NM @ 65% and 700NM at 55%… As you said, it also is Mogas capable.
My mission? To be able to fly. Local flights, but also further trips – say 400+nm. The plane would need to handle grass strips gracefully (based at one). Being able to legally run on mogas a significant plus (up to 50% price difference, depending how avgas is taxed). ELA1 (MTOM under 1200kg) also a significant plus. Another factor is that I envision sharing the plane with other “like minded individuals”, so perhaps “too fancy” (RG, VP) could be a negative. Hopefully I’d be able to use it to train for an IR, fly basic IFR, if not initially, then at least potentially and without excessive financial penalty.
Why own, not rent? Convenience – main reason is to be able to take the plane away without issue, availability being a close second.Hopefully I’d be able to use it to train for an IR, fly basic IFR, if not initially, then at least potentially and without excessive financial penalty.
I have been looking at the AA5’s, to my untrained eye they do seem to fit the bill, and they show up for sale every once in a while. Possibly indeed a good balance between the “too fancy” and “not boring”. @boscomantico has a trip report flying one around Frankfurt. FWIW, there is a Cheetah on PlaneCheck which looks close to IFR, with some hours but no time left on the engine.
No one mentioned the TB9/TB10, which are another type I was looking at. The TB20 is too much, both to buy and then to run.
The Robin that prompted me to start this thread caught my interest due to it’s price – 15k EUR. Granted, it is not IFR and isn’t (as far as I can tell) certified for mogas, but it would “get me started”, and the rest would either “sort itself out” or it would turn out I don’t really need an IFR plane. Or I’d try to sell it and get a different one ;-)
Hi,
well, for that mission you can’t go wrong with that Aiglon if you get it at a good price and if the pre-buy inspection is done properly. It will need some Avionic Update but it appears well looked after and can do most of what you want. It could be upgraded and has to be particularly at the avionic side. But it is certainly something to look at.
For IFR, we are talking a whole different ballgame. To make a non-IFR plane IFR is quite a financial undertaking, so it is almost always better to buy a IFR certified plane and work from there. Basically today, what you need to properly fly IFR is a proper GPS/GNS which is RNP 5 certified, or a WAAS GPS if you want to do LPV approaches (which is the coming thing) you do need two 8.33 COM/NAV, a DME, Mode S Transponder and preferrably an 2 axis autopilot as well as either a HSI or a EFIS like the Aspen EFD1000.
