I have very recently passed my PPL check ride and currently waiting for my licence to arrive. Based on what I have read here and elsewhere I’m seriously looking at buying my own airplane, since the high marginal costs of rental would keep me at a very low number of yearly hours otherwise. The school where I trained has an always hangared Zlin-142 on sale (currently not online), which they had used for training until this summer, for a rather attractive price. Engine and prop still have a few hundred hours left until TBO, but they’re just at their calendar life limits (6 years, which I find ridiculous), hence the attractive price. I believe that they could be run until hour-based TBO in private use based on the new ELA1 regulations, that’s why I’m seriously considering the offer.
Does anyone have experience with this type?
Do these engines (and props) regularly run until their TBO, or should I expect an earlier overhaul? (I know that there is always some probability, just want to know how much…)
What are the realistic cruising speeds and fuel flows? Very little is available on the (English-language) web and I do not want to blindly count on what the seller says.
Do you have any con against the type in general? I’m looking for a VFR machine that could be taken to longish trips and having some limited aerobatic capability would not be bad. 4 seats would be nice, but any 4-seaters apart from the most basic C172s and PA-28s are out of consideration due to their acquisition and operating costs.
Btw, I’ve done my PPL training in a C152, but have flown half an hour in a Zlin 142. Before committing myself to buying, I’ll certainly complete the school’s 5-hour Zlin 142 conversion training so that I would get more feel on the type (and hopefully on that particular airframe, but that may not be possible due to the calendar limits mentioned above).
The 142 and 242 are great and solid airplanes, despite their image, which is bad especially in Germany since one crashed due to a faulty spar many years ago. They are still much more solid than comparable US or French types.
I learned to fly aerobatics in a 142 and especially in the 242, and I loved it. While the 142 has the classic Czech 6-cylinder inline engine, which sounds like a REAL airplane engine, the 242 has the AEIO-360 Lycoming in its aerobatic version, for inverted flight.
Sorry, i have no data anymore, but the 4-seater is the 143, a nice plane too. The 142 will not be very economical, i am sure, and not fast, but it’s a solid reliable airplane and you can find parts for little money in the Czech Republic, i am sure.
Does the Z-142 have an airframe/wing life issue? I seem to remember something like that, with new wings required to extend the certified airframe life and some issues with aerobatics… but I’m an admirer not an expert on Zlins.
I believe one poster here is based where the engines are most often overhauled in the Czech Republic, so maybe he could give you some contacts or input. The planes themselves seem to have military style design, which makes them heavy but tough.
I do like your idea… Particularly if you’re based in Hungary where the planes are more common. Buying one sounds like something I would do in that situation 
Silvaire wrote:
military style design
They were military trainers after all.
Flyer59 wrote:
The 142 and 242 are great and solid airplanes, despite their image, which is bad especially in Germany since one crashed due to a faulty spar many years ago. They are still much more solid than comparable US or French types.
Silvaire wrote:
The planes themselves seem to have military style design, which makes them heavy but tough.
Yes, the solid design is why I’d very much prefer this type over the basic old American planes that could be had.
Silvaire wrote:
Does the Z-142 have an airframe/wing life issue? I seem to remember something like that, with new wings required to extend the certified airframe life and some issues with aerobatics… but I’m an admirer not an expert on Zlins.
There is an issue, yes. One of the planes that had almost exclusively been used for aerobatics crashed (see PDF on the link in German for full details) led to two ADs related to wing reinforcement and installation of better G-meters. Even with the reinforced wings, the total life in the aerobatic and utility is limited to 700 hours (of which approximately 200 have been used up on the one I’m considering) and there is an overall limit of 5000 (of which less then half has been spent). I plan to do only limited aerobatics in ca. 15-20% of my hours, so engine/prop life will become an issue well before the airframe structural integrity.
Flyer59 wrote:
Sorry, i have no data anymore, but the 4-seater is the 143, a nice plane too.
That’s very true, if one were within reach financially, I’d certainly buy that one. They have been produced, however, in much lower numbers and the good one that are for sale are much more expensive than the Zlin 142s.
Flyer59 wrote:
The 142 will not be very economical, i am sure, and not fast, but it’s a solid reliable airplane and you can find parts for little money in the Czech Republic, i am sure.
When you say not fast, do you maybe remember some typical cruise speeds?
As far as the fuel economy goes, it ought to be not that bad if not used for aero. The seller is reporting numbers similar to that of their PA-28RT-201, or even a bit less. Also, the engine manufacturer issued a service bulletin stating that any automotive fuel with an octane rating reaching 85 can be used without any modification, so that could lower fuel costs even more. (In Hungary avgas is more than 2x more expensive than mogas.) The only issue is that none of the airfields in my vicinity have mogas, and the one where plane will most likely be based do not even have any refuelling facility. How could such a situation be best handled?
Silvaire wrote:
I believe one poster here is based where the engines are most often overhauled in the Czech Republic, so maybe he could give you some contacts or input.
I hope that he or someone else will turn up with some useful info.
Silvaire wrote:
I do like your idea… Particularly if you’re based in Hungary where the planes are more common. Buying one sounds like something I would do in that situation
Thanks for the encouraging comment. :-) I must say that some of my friends and family do not exactly like the idea of buying an old Czechoslovakian aircraft.
Btw, one more question, slightly off topic, but I do not want to start a new one:
Is it possible to use an insurance company from another EU/EASA country than one where the plane is registered? AFAIK, in Hungary there is only one company dealing with aircraft insurance. I’ve received a quote from them which is not bad at the first look (even the hull insurance is reasonable with my minimal experience), but I have nothing to compare against.
They are used by some of the upset training and recovery providers, the -242 at least, which is a recommendation in itself. However not sure you see them at beginner or basic aerobatic competitions, so may be somewhat underpowered for aerobatics. Can tail slide and do inverted spins so can cover the full spectrum of unusual attitude recovery training.
If you are going down the ownership route don’t assume it is cheaper than renting, find an engineer that is familiar on type and can brief you on maintenance issues, get a solid pre buy inspection.
Boring, so called spam cans, like the Warrior tend to be the most economical four seaters because most engineers know them well, and their maintenance expense is reasonably predictable.
Vintage two seat tail draggers or Rotax engine micro lights even cheaper. You would be surprised how happy you will feel filling up one of these and usually getting plenty of change out of €100.
RobertL18C wrote:
They are used by some of the upset training and recovery providers, the -242 at least, which is a recommendation in itself. However not sure you see them at beginner or basic aerobatic competitions, so may be somewhat underpowered for aerobatics. Can tail slide and do inverted spins so can cover the full spectrum of unusual attitude recovery training.
Uspet recovery training is how I have flown one for about half an hour. It certainly provided some unique experience that I wouldn’t have got in the C152.
RobertL18C wrote:
If you are going down the ownership route don’t assume it is cheaper than renting,
The marginal cost would be lower, for sure. If I rent, flying twice the hours would cost me twice as much. And the rental market is very small in Hungary, especially in the eastern part where I am located (i.e. a single rental outfit within convenient range).
A club or syndicate could be good, but none really exists here.
RobertL18C wrote:
find an engineer that is familiar on type and can brief you on maintenance issues, get a solid pre buy inspection.
The issue here is that seller is actually the largest Z142 maintenance organisation in the country, so it’s challenging to find an engineer completely independent from them.
RobertL18C wrote:
Boring, so called spam cans, like the Warrior tend to be the most economical four seaters because most engineers know them well, and their maintenance expense is reasonably predictable.
Z142s were ubiquitous in Hungary (and the nearby Czech Republic and neighbouring Slovakia) and still a reasonable number of them are in use, so are well known to engineers here. It is just a problem in the pre-buy stage that most of these engineers have connection to the seller.
JnsV wrote:
Is it possible to use an insurance company from another EU/EASA country than one where the plane is registered? AFAIK, in Hungary there is only one company dealing with aircraft insurance. I’ve received a quote from them which is not bad at the first look (even the hull insurance is reasonable with my minimal experience), but I have nothing to compare against.
The best is to ask the regestring aviation authority. They can tell you what papers you need for the registration anyway. I know that the German LBA accepts some foreign insurances.
JnsV wrote:
any automotive fuel with an octane rating reaching 85 can be used without any modification
Hmm, I would verify what octane number they are using. Because 85 RON (which is what’s commonly used for automotive fuels in the EU) sounds too low to me. 85 MON would be more reasonable. I would also verify what ethanol content is allowed.
How could such a situation be best handled?
Drums and a pump? If you can get a permission from the airport.
RobertL18C wrote:
However not sure you see them at beginner or basic aerobatic competitions
Question is how many of them can still do aerobatics. And i think the 26 series (the Trener series) was more popular for competitions (and wasn’t really better off as far as power goes), but that was a long time ago. Then there was the 50. I don’t know what’s the MTOW for aerobatics (normal is a bit over a tonne) but the 142 has a 156 kW engine, it shouldn’t be too bad.
Seems to me the Zlin 142 is the kind of aircraft you buy because you want a Zlin 142. We have a similar kind of aircraft (old military trainer) in my club, a Saab Safir. A fantastic aircraft, but it is more often grounded due to hard to get parts than flying. Parts needs to be made for it because they aren’t anywhere to be found. The Zlin 142 is a considerable newer aircraft though, but also more special with its LOM engine. A 152 Aerobat will do much of the same at the fraction of the nuisance, but also with the fraction of the “coolness”.
