Low prices on the used airplane markets, a chance to attract more pilots to ownership?

An engine doesn’t fail because the plane is overloaded or because the CG isn’t right, correct?
Also if the pilot doesn’t care about W&B that’s hardly the fault of the airplane …

A Rotax 912 does not have a higher MTBF than a “certified” engine, I am pretty sure about that

The engine did not fail……

???

“Shortly after takeoff from Runway 27 at Bute Airstrip, the pilot reported that the engine appeared to lose power and the aircraft was no longer able to climb. With the area around the airfield unsuitable for a landing he attempted to return to the runway, but in doing so flew into the ground.

I have spent many sleepless nights debating (with real people, on the ‘net, and with the various voices in my head) the UL vs. CoA issue, trying to figure out what I want from a plane, and all that stuff. I’m not sure if anything I came up with is even worth reading, but since you asked…

My initial objective for a plane was to “fly around”, which would be doable with the club Aeroprakt. That quickly became “fly someplace for the weekend”, which eliminated the use of planes from the local club, but left the UL path open. This in turn evolved into (thanks, EuroGA) “train for and fly IFR” and this last part is probably the most significant factor, because it eliminates the true UL planes, leaving CoA and experimentals. Four seats don’t change much if taken together with the IFR requirement, there are plenty of 4 seat experimentals to choose from, but with four seats the benefits of the 12lph Rotax 912 are gone.

I have not even considered a 200k EUR UL, because I drew the line at about 70k EUR for a brand new Bristell NG5 or similar (Skyleader, Alto). Even that is out of my target price range, but for a brand new plane I could probably make it work (assume two years of no unexpected costs, for example, and lower ongoing costs). FWIW, and this is very theoretical, so useless – I don’t think I would ever spend 200k EUR on a UL if I can have a wonderful CoA plane for 100k EUR and fly it till the cows come home for the interest on the remaining 100k ;-)

I have considered (still somewhat am, but it’s looking less and less likely) the experimental types, Bristell and TAF in particular. The person that sells Bristell in Poland is amazingly responsive and open to out of the box thinking – highly recommended. In Poland an experimental can be a IFR plane, with an officially acknowledged 600kg MTOM. This is not likely to materialize due to cost (I don’t have the figures, but since a VFR config is stretching my budget, and the partnership I was hoping for seems to have fallen through, the issue seems settled) and due to the fact that the experimental IFR cert seems to be something that would NOT be on par with a CoA in terms of “fly anywhere I want to” (need to check / ask for permissions, etc). It is still in the back of my head, but likely to remain a dead end.

I have also briefly considered the “almost ready to fly” “kits” but that was just a fluke – I don’t believe I can handle that. If I was LeSving’s or Silvaire’s hangar buddy things could be different, but I am not. Yes, the RV’s, TAF kits, they seem great, but it’s just not doable for me.

In the IFR training scenario I also briefly considered a C15x, PA38 and the like. I would expect them to NOT be much more expensive to maintain than a UL, but I haven’t made any calculations myself. I agree they will burn lots more fuel and fly slower than some of the ULs, so their advantages would be the possibility of IFR, fact that they are more sturdy, solid, and the fact that I wouldn’t have to wonder if I can fly it where I want to go. That said, I’d probably buy a UL/experimental over a small CoA plane, sans the IFR requirement, although I do feel less scared when flying a C152 than the Aeroprakt.

So, bottom line, I wanted a 4 place, IFR training capable plane. The only way I see where I can afford it is an older CoA plane, because I can’t afford to have an IFR spec experimental built for me, and I don’t believe I’ll be able to build one in acceptable time and to acceptable quality.

An additional factor for me is that I want to try to recoup some of the costs of ownership by renting the plane out, and a bulletproof CoA plane is better suited for this. This is why I am not considering a plane as meticulously maintained as Flyer59’s Warrior, nor anything with retractable gear – a plane like that I would want to keep for myself, possibly for very trusted, close friends. But to keep one for myself, I have to prove to myself I deserve one. If I’m flying and having fun with planes in a few years, sure. Or maybe I’ll move to the UL camp, because my flying will be like that. Time will tell.

FWIW, I don’t see why the case of G-EWZZ would be relevant to this discussion. I probably missed something, but I figure I can die in a CoA plane just as well as I could in a UL. No chute digressions, please.

I don’t believe that regulation is the biggest factor in why European GA is so divided. I think the reasons are:

• the community is self selecting on character profile, due to the “technical/control” and “regulatory” aspects (= a lot of “big characters”)
• the GA organisations are underfunded, largely due to there being way too many of them; also most people won’t join any of them
• the “big characters” rise to the top of the mostly volunteer organisations (this is a huge issue with most volunteer stuff)
• the “big characters” are often very hard to work with (mutually, and with the “lesser people”)
• the organisations mostly don’t work together too well
• there is a perception (incorrect IMHO) that the national CAAs like to “divide and rule” so each of the organisations prefers to deal with the CAA directly
• in the UK there is a deep distrust of IFR organisations selling the VFR ones down the river (this is largely the result of a small number of “big characters” tossing a lot of arrogant crap all over the pilot forums about the IMC Rating being a “get out of jail free” card and the only proper way is the full IR, etc)
• in the rest of Europe there is a lack of understanding of IFR – because so few pilots have exposure to it
• any community under legal / regulatory pressure will tend towards in-fighting (one saw that a lot in the former Iron Curtain countries, where just about anybody would stab you in the back, so most people mixed with a small and very trusted circle of long term friends)
• the multiple languages in Europe ensure that no single organisation (like US AOPA which covers everything) could ever emerge
• there are huge cultural differences across Europe (in the USA, 99% regard themselves as “American”).

We have for example AOPA UK having (historically; I have not sat on any relevant meetings for a few years) nothing to do with anything to do with IFR. And we have groups like the BGA (gliding), some ultralight bodies, the LAA, Europe Air Sports… PPL/IR allied themselves with the last one which in turn was allied with some of the others. Most aren’t talking to each other; I recall going to a CAA/EASA presentation a few years ago and whenever one of the “big knobs” of some organisation stood up, half the audience rolled their eyes. Then Eric Sivel stood up and the whole room rolled its eyes

What Europe needs is a single organisation.

tmo wrote:

No chute digressions, please.

Well, they did have one on board and didn’t use it. In my club, we have a VLA with a chute, but other than by telling me “this is the chute handle, be careful not to set it off” it was not incorporated in the training. Completely different in the plane that starts with a C, where it is part of all procedures and where I am more confident that it will bring me down safely, so more likely I would use it when I need it.

Sorry, back to topic.

@tmo

a plane as meticulously maintained as Flyer59’s Warrior,

Thank you for the flowers, but its not perfect. It’s technically in very good shape and has great avionics, but after 41 years it could now need a new interior and a paintjob of the wings.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Even newer VLA’s are often not what people really need.

I’m not aware of many VLAs that take full advantage of what is possible. 600 kg is LSA limit, IIRC. VLAs have 750 kg, there was talk of increasing it to 890 and the DV20/ DA20 is a VLA with 800 kg MTOW (500 kg empty weight I think – it wouldn’t fit into UL weight limit even empty and that’s a “plastic” two-seater with a Rotax up front). If one intends to sell a design as an UL, it must have a significant impact. We’ll see what the take-up is on the lightweight CS23.

It matters zero what others think about a given person’s choice of aircraft.

As I said earlier it’s about the mission not the aircraft. Some are budget restricted, some have the cash to buy big. Some have kids, some fly alone. Some want to fly only on weekends around the patch, some want to go cross country more than once per year. Some want to fly in weather (or not be restricted by it) some have no intention of flying above 10k feet and in anything other than VFR.

This nonsense over the Cessna 172 is a better aircraft than any other is an excuse to argue.

The 40 year old Cessna 172 with steam gauges is a cheap plane many train in and stick with for those reasons. They would never consider going for a more modern design like a Cirrus or a Diamond because they don’t know what they don’t know and most often can’t afford the more sophisticated aircraft.

tmo wrote:

FWIW, I don’t see why the case of G-EWZZ would be relevant to this discussion. I probably missed something, but I figure I can die in a CoA plane just as well as I could in a UL. No chute digressions, please.

Great write up tmo, thank you.

G-EWZZ. I took this example, because the former owner, flew it regularly IFR to Krakow. From Edinburgh. I was his hanger buddy. There were great tales of derring do, with failed radios, busted airspace, and icing escapades. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I was attempting to make the point regarding fit for profile/mission. In his own words, it was far too much mission, for a Sportcruiser, with a Rotax. After it was sold, an amazing array of add ons were applied, all out-with any regulation, nor certification. The report highlighted that. There is much more to this accident than I can put here, but safe to say, it could not have happened, in the manner it did, under a stricter, certified, regime.

Flyer59 wrote:

Also if the pilot doesn’t care about W&B that’s hardly the fault of the airplane …

The problem was, he thought he could put anything on it, with no consequence. Wrong..