Guest Maj Millard Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Well just like most of you I'm sure, I eagerly persue the used aircraft ads in the RAA mag each edition. These regular monthly selections are my personal choices from the offerings each month... From each monthly list I will select one 'bargain of the month'.......or $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 'Best bang for the buck !!' $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I am hoping this might assist new buyers to our sport who may not have the knowledge or experience with our aircraft to make a wise choice. Note: My personal choices do not in any way endorse any aircraft in respect to it's condition, airworthiness, or suitability for your intended use...It is highly recommended that any potential aircraft buyer always seeks the services of an L2, or other suitable person, to perform a thourgh pre-purchase inspection on any aircraft, prior to a purchase. My selections this month are.................. 1310 Titan Tornado 11....................$39,900 1747 Starduster SA500...................$29,500 neg. 1819 Rans S-19.............................$49,500 1871 Jodel D11..............................$36,000 1882 Pterydactyl Asc 11.................$12,000 1887 Lightwing GR2003..................$28,000 ono. 1889 Karasport parasol..................$12,000 1891 Skyranger.............................$45,000 1892 Skyfox & trailer......................$32,900ono. 1929 S.M.A.N Petrel.......................$29,000 1930 Druine Turbulent...................$25,000 1931 Sonerai 2LS...........................$35,000 1939 Rotax 582.............................$4000 1945 X-air....................................$26,500 1932 Bantam B22..........................$27,500 1948 Rutan Varieze.......................$60,000 1959 superpup 137........................$15,000 1962 Lightwing GR 582..................$36,000 1964 Kitfox Classic 4......................$45,000ono. And the winner this month is............'Best bang for the buck !!!'..................... <<<<<<<<<<<<< 1948 Rutan Varieze $60,000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merry Xmas 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barefootpilot Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 The starduster is a nice plane. It has been rebuilt after the last owner (on the delivery flight from the builder it was ground looped! ouch!!) I have flown it before it got bent and was a real lot of fun! If only it had two seats it would be in my hangar tomorrow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Blackrod, No this is not an aircraft for the beginner. In fact there are some things to be remembered, even for the experienced pilot. For instance they don't like getting off the ground in a hurry, especially loaded, so plenty of runway is a must. They also suffered from rain on the cunard, in the early models. Later cunards were John Rontz designed, and wern't effected. Otherwise they are a pretty safe and quick machine. The later longeze had much more wing, and performance all round was better. Oh, and it helps if you like a bit of John Denver playing in your headset when you fly !!.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Are you suggesting, Maj, that this was the plane (type) that JD flew into oblivion? He'd be close. It was a Long-EZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 I watched a longez take off at archerfield once. I swear it used nearly the entire runway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sain Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 It'd be interesting to see if some vortex generators on the canard got around the rain issue... Probably kill the effeciency a bit though. If your interested in buying it I'd check the stall speed is at or below the max for that ra-aus rego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Yes, Jon boy was in a Longeze with a bigger wing than the one advertised. It also had an engine in it (O-360), that wasn't approved for type, as only a O-320 was approved. If you have ever read the report on that accident, it includes just about everything that could possible lead up to an accident that was bound to happen. As far as I know the John Rontz cunard was the only approved replacement for the original 'raindrops' cunard. It is possible they get around the 'stall speed' requirement by saying that a cunard aeroplane doesn't really stall, the cunard quits flying, the nose drops automatically, and the main wing never actually quits flying..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sain Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 yup, but the stats on the prototype list a stall speed thats just a bit above the maximum. I dare say by the time the plans came out the stall was lower, but if it was me I'd check what it says in the pilot's operating handbook. The "it doesn't stall" thing is a bit facetious to my mind. It does stall, its just the stall is a benign dropping of the nose, which raises the speed above stall point again. It'd be interesting to see how it reacts to a stall in some more "unusual" attitudes, but I wouldn't be game to try it personally. Even a stall in a climbing turn would be interesting to see how it reacts. I might load one up in X-plane and give it a crack - just for curiosity sake. Also to find out how well X-plane can model the stall. *edit* Just realised this probably comes off really anti-canard/anti-buy-that-plane. If money was no consideration I'd be trying to buy it.... I just don't have the dosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 NO me neither, Could be a good little buy if it has been built well, and has the later Cunard. They do get along like a scalded cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 If i wasn't getting married in April I would be buying the lightwing advertised. Damn weddings costing too much money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I reckon you're on the right track Shags, aircraft wise that is, not spending money on weddings! Those Lightwings consistently look like a lot of plane for the money, I'm going to have to get me a tail dragon conversion sometime soon and then look into this business a little more closely. What's the verdict, is the Lightwing an easier proposition than the Skyfox say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I think they work out a touch cheaper for no real disadvantage though don't quote me on it. Haven't really compared the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Like cheese and chalk to me.......So here is my biased view on why I really like Lightwings. The LW cabin is wider, and more comfortable than the Gazelle, with way more storage area. The LW has a real strong, thick, lifting wing. All metal. No wood to rot and no ailerons to fall off. The landing gear on a LW is more rugged, and much easier to repair if need be. The LW doesn't require a wing strut carry-thru mod tube, to keep it safe and legal. Cabin visability is better from a LW. LWs are much easier to work on, and you can inspect the whole fuel system without removing the seats. You can still get parts for a Lightwing. Lightwings are not a copy, and are a true Australian design, one of the first in fact. Lwings go faster, land slower, and get off the ground better than a Gazelle. Lightwings didn't single handedly almost destroy insurance coverage for ULs in this country, because of landing accidents. The LW is a lot of plane for the money............ Flak jacket is on............................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I agree with all Maj. says but if by easier proposition, you mean easier to fly, then the Skyfox is easier in my opimion and the Gazelle much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 HI major,I better get my arsx, to dirranbandi, real quick it think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Yes, Jon boy was in a Longeze with a bigger wing than the one advertised. It also had an engine in it (O-360), that wasn't approved for type, as only a O-320 was approved.If you have ever read the report on that accident, it includes just about everything that could possible lead up to an accident that was bound to happen. As far as I know the John Rontz cunard was the only approved replacement for the original 'raindrops' cunard. It is possible they get around the 'stall speed' requirement by saying that a cunard aeroplane doesn't really stall, the cunard quits flying, the nose drops automatically, and the main wing never actually quits flying..... they also make good boats. i saw some footage of one floating past Hamilton Island last year after a power fsilure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Qwerty Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Like cheese and chalk to me.......So here is my biased view on why I really like Lightwings.The LW cabin is wider, and more comfortable than the Gazelle, with way more storage area. The LW has a real strong, thick, lifting wing. All metal. No wood to rot and no ailerons to fall off. The landing gear on a LW is more rugged, and much easier to repair if need be. The LW doesn't require a wing strut carry-thru mod tube, to keep it safe and legal. Cabin visability is better from a LW. LWs are much easier to work on, and you can inspect the whole fuel system without removing the seats. You can still get parts for a Lightwing. Lightwings are not a copy, and are a true Australian design, one of the first in fact. Lwings go faster, land slower, and get off the ground better than a Gazelle. Lightwings didn't single handedly almost destroy insurance coverage for ULs in this country, because of landing accidents. The LW is a lot of plane for the money............ Flak jacket is on............................................... I've had a fair bit to do with both and I'd take a LW every single time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Yenn I have flown both the Skyfox and Gazelle, and yes I would agree they are both nice to fly. The Skyfox however when compared to the LW, is a much more active taildragger. You do not use the rudder much on a Lightwing, but you better be on it in a Skyfox on landing. I have been in turbulance in a LW going into Shute harbor, that I wouldn't have wanted to be in, in a Gazelle ....The Lightwing is a bigger plane, and has a 'bigger' feel to it, if that's what you mean by harder to fly ?................................................................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Dazza 38, I will never talk anyone into buying any aircraft. It's too much of a personal decision. However should you choose to purchase that aircraft, you shouldn't have much to do to get it into tip-top shape. IMOP. Other than checking all the fuel lines for condition (especially the overhead connection tube, and both sight tubes), checking your fuel bowl, and screen for cleanliness, and making sure the tail wheel connections are in good shape, you should be right to go. There is of course no substitute for a thourgh pre-purchase inspection, no matter how good an aircraft looks................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 During a six month composite course that I did in California, we were one day covering the subject of blue aircraft grade structural foam. The instructor threw a square foot block of foam at us and said "build an aeroplane" !. We also had to do a cloth and resin lay up on it, and... Oh, it had to fly. Away we all went for the next three nights, cutting foam. Most choose to do a convential high or low wing type design, but since I like to be a little different, I choose a cunard design for some reason. Came the night of the big fly off !!.....most flew somewhat, and some better than others, some not at all. Much to my surprise, and to everybody elses' surprise, my cunard soared beautifully from one side of the room to the other.....and so stable............................................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Thanks Major, Yenn and Qwerty - was hoping you would be able to add something to the discussion. You're quite right Maj, I did mean was the Lightwing easier to handle on the ground. I understand the Skyfox is pleasant to fly, but speaking as a low time pilot who has only flown with training wheels, I really don't see myself getting into something that is going to require an unusually high degree of skill to keep on the straight and narrow. Seen too many people buy something like that and then start making excuses for not using it, too windy, crosswind too strong etc etc. Think I'd better go and have a closer look at some of the Lightwings in the hangar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 David, Sounds silly but something that simple can ruin the whole thing......smooth airflow over the wing I mean...................................................................... And Spin, I always maintain that most landing incidents with taildraggers are simple caused by the landing speed being too high. This together with an inexperienced T/dragger pilot is not a good combination. There are different levels of taildragger sensitivity, and it is usually directly related to the distance from the main wheels, to the tail wheel. The shorter the distance the more twitchy they are. Look at the Pitts Special which is about as short as they get, very easy to loose. The Lightwing, pretty long and easy to handle. Drifter even longer, and almost not a taildragger. The design of the tailwheel also can be a big factor, in wether an aircraft is no drama, or willing to bite you....Unfortunatly it is also true, that the best way to learn not to do a ground loop, is to have done one !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Dazza 38, I will never talk anyone into buying any aircraft. It's too much of a personal decision. However should you choose to purchase that aircraft, you shouldn't have much to do to get it into tip-top shape. IMOP.Other than checking all the fuel lines for condition (especially the overhead connection tube, and both sight tubes), checking your fuel bowl, and screen for cleanliness, and making sure the tail wheel connections are in good shape, you should be right to go. There is of course no substitute for a thourgh pre-purchase inspection, no matter how good an aircraft looks................ Thanks major, i will try to have a look at it over Xmas holidays. If the price is right,it will be a goer, i wouldnt mine taking it to howie, to have a look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Qwerty Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 .......I really don't see myself getting into something that is going to require an unusually high degree of skill to keep on the straight and narrow. .......... Don't run away.....Its just something new to learn....get into it. I actually learned to fly in a tail wheel a/c. You will love them once you start, they are a bit addictive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted December 18, 2009 Share Posted December 18, 2009 Spin. Whatever you buy I am sure that it will not be too hard to fly and control on the ground. Skyfox, Gazelle and Lightwing are all good and you could come to grips with them. Major has some good tips. I would suggest you try them and keep to grass strips for a start. Nothing like a downhill, very smooth bitumen strip to keep the feet working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now