Jump to content

1965 Victa Airtourer 115

Guest nsmflyer

Recommended Posts

From memory the 115 was the old airtourer with a larger engine installed. It was very similar to the small engined plane but did not run out of puff in high density altitude situations.


The old plane was very fond of the ground when the temp went over 30 deg.


The 115 may even be the same as the CT4, but I think the CT4 may have an even bigger engine.


I would certainly like to own the 115 model, and will see what I can find in my records about them.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have a look at http://www.airtourer.asn.au/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Victa_Airtourer


The 115 also known as the T2 is the 115HP version of the Airtourer. The Airtourer and CT4 while coming from the same heritage are actually quite different aircraft, the CT4 based on the 4 seat Aircruiser of which only 1 was ever built.


Airtourer is from memory somewhere around 750KG MTOW, CT4A 1111KG. Airtourer T2 has 115HP engine, CT4 has a 210HP engine. The list goes on...







Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sportstar3978 has put me right about the CT4, I wasn't sure when I posted my previous bit. I have now found my pilots notes for the Airtourer100.


Max T.O.Wt is 1650 lbs Empty weight is 1100 lbs. Aerobatic max is1550 lbs.


Spinning to a max of 2 turns was permitted. Rolls, stall turns, loops and loop with half roll off the top were permitted, all needing care to prevent over revving.


The 115 had better performance especially climb as far as I can recall.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have one, so what would you like to know?


Fantastic little things. Originally the design was entered into a UK competition for a new trainer and the design won.


To cut a long story short, the design was picked up by the Victa Lawnmowing company, who started manufacturing 100hp models, then moved into 115 models. They were so popular that they outsold Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft combined! So Piper and Cessna bought one to examine, then updated their models, slashed the prices and flooded the market. Meanwhile Victa had made one 4 seat Aircruiser, which never went into production. The little Aussie company couldn't compete with the Americans and asked the Government for help. This was refused, so Victa went back to Lawnmowers and sold the design to NZ.


New Zealand manufactured the aircraft and also sold a 150hp version. They modified the Aircruiser design to be the CT/4. Believe it or not, the Aussie Government then bought back the CT/4 to train RAAF pilots!


Back to the Airtourer. It's a 2 seat trainer, easy enough for ab initio, and fun enough for basic aeros. The bigger engine versions do quite nice aeros, the 115s take a while to climb to altitude but they are very sweet handling. Great visibility. Not that fast, maybe 100 knots (they'd be faster with flush rivets!)


They are cute things which seem to have a bit of personality.


A New Zealander by the name of Cliff Tait flew a 115hp one around the world in 1969. It was the smallest aircraft to have achieved such a feat in those days. He had just 240 hours total time before he made that trip, and the aircraft didn't ever let him down.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victa. Airtourer.


Mazda, CUTE!!!! you're not biased are you? C'mon only a mother would love it. but looks aren't everything, and they are probably becoming a cult thing. The early one had a Ford Anglia front strut as a nosewheel assy. Was that feature retained? The canopy was not lockable in the open position so it was not wise to taxi with your hand up on the frame if you wanted to apply the brakes & keep you fingers. I only flew the very first ones, with the 0-200 Continental, and they were underpowered. The "POP" rivets were commented on at the time, but I don't think that there is any problem there. The later (115 horsepower) motor is a Lycoming 0-235, is a pretty common well-proven engine, which runs a 2400 hour TBO and would be the same as the motor fitted to the Cessna 152's and the Piper Tomahawk, allowing for some variations in model. They are MOGAS compatible, ( though I don't run it in mine) I believe the later stage of flap is "locked out" in the later versions . Get someone who is very familiar with these aircraft, to do a thorough inspection of tha plane before you buy it, even if it costs. I think there are plenty of them in New Zealand. They were considered to be strongly constructed..N...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good looks.


WELLLL ...Dunno Mazda There's worse.. perhaps the Meta sokel. Have I spelled that right? The Chrisley Ace ( designed by an airline pilot. how would that be any good) single engine TWO tails. If that was a dog ,it would be a happy one. but they are all lovely, on the right day. (not when you get an AD on the wingspar or the crankshaft). Hell perhaps I've upset all the Meta sokel pilots out there. How many are there? HELP! Aaaarrrgghh.. unsigned.....



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I put down any weight info for the 115. MTOW is 748kg. Aerobatic MTOW is 703kg. Empty weight is just under 500kg. So it is better if you and the pax are on the lighter side for aeros.


There's plenty of room though for bigger people though, it's quite comfy. The seat is fixed so you always have the same perspective - the rudder pedals are adjusted instead. There's a single spade type stick in the centre with a padded armrest between the seats.


I've never had any trouble with the canopy sliding forward! Mine seems to stay put quite well. You can fly with an open canopy below 70 knots (not that I've tried).


They have "flapperons" - i.e. the ailerons droop down to give extra flap, and there's also flap under the fuselage. So the angle of flap in degrees doesn't sound like much, but they are in effect full span.


The stall warning only works when the flaps are down.


There's only one fuel tank so fuel management is easy, but the weird little segmented dipstick takes a bit of getting used to!


Things to look out for ... there's a spar check which involves removing the wings (!), but it's possible to not do this if an inspection panel has been put in. Find out if the one you are looking at has had the panel put in. The fuel tank has a rubber bladder which will deteriorate over time and need to be replaced, so find out when this was last done. There's an AD on the "waggler box" I think it is called, under the stick. See if that's been done. There's also an AD on the magnetos I think, which need inspection periodically. The aircraft with Cleveland brakes are better than the originals.


Alan Wood at Hoxton Park (Sydney) is the guru and type specific parts are available through him.



Link to comment
Share on other sites



For a GA. Plane,privately owned by enthusiasts, support is everything. The website listed in this thread is worth a visit. The initial effect is to be a bit overwhelmed with the list of "things" to be looked at & you think "why would I want to get involved with all that". Well it's part & parcel of keeping your aeroplane safe, because all those requirements result from the experience of operations over some 45 years. You could argue a good case for a properly maintained AD complianced aircraft being safer than when they were new. This is the sort of experience based result we need to apply to our types as well. N...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...