Metal vs fabric, experimental vs production aircraft

Cub flyer · Post by **Cub flyer** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:45 am

Have you done any solo time yet? That would be the only other thing you'll need. Any CFI can fly with you.

I've used the Gleim material to study for the writtens. It works good and is the cheapest I've found.

The Rod Machado book helps for general aviation knowledge

N701RB · Post by **N701RB** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:02 am

I have about 60 solo hrs. split between a Grumman Traveler and 150s..

sethdallob · Post by **sethdallob** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:56 pm

I have a Eurofox (now Aerotrek) and really like it - great value for money, flies well, fast enough for reasonable cross-countries, good on gas. To be honest, I haven't flown in anything else but can't imagine spending twice as much for a CT with the same engine could possibly be worth it.

comperini · Post by **comperini** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:38 pm

rfane wrote:
CharlieTango wrote: The original builder gets the authority to sign off the annual inspection on the aircraft he built.
Only A&P's or people who hold the appropriate repairman certifcate for a particular aircraft can do the annual condition inspection.

How one obtains a repairman certificate for an aircraft, depends entirely on how the aircraft is certificated:

The most common Experimental types are: Experimental Amateur-Built, the new Experimental Light-Sport-Aircraft, and Experimental-Exhibition.

Experimenal Amateur-Built: When you say "original builder", you're alluding to Experimenal-Amateur Built's infamous "51% rule". Even the "original builder" can't do the annual condition inspection, unless he obtained the repairman certificate for that amateur-built plane he built. But, being the original builder, is the qualifying condition that allows him to obtain the repairman certificate for that one aircraft only.

Experimental-Light Sport Aircraft: To obtain the repairman certificate, one must either attend the 16 hour course, to obtain a repairmen-inspection rating (allowing you to perform the annual on any aircraft you own that is certificated as an Experimenal-Light Sport Aircraft), or attend the 80-120 hour course, to obtain a repairman-maintenance rating, which allows you to perform annual condition inspections on anyone's Experimental-LSA, or Special-LSA aircraft (in accordance with the ratings on your repairman certificate)

Experimental-Exhibition: There are no repairmen certificates for these planes. A&P must do the annual condition inspection.

Someone else said:
The annual must be done by the original builder or an A&P. But anyone can do the work. It's also worth noting that while anyone can get a repairman certificate for an LSA, with relatively minimal training, it takes factory authorization to make changes to an LSA, for instance instruments different from those installed at the factory.
Again, this whole "original builder" thing only applies to Experimental-Amateur Built. Only the original builder is elligible to obtain the repairman certificate for that aircraft. It does not apply to Experimental-Light Sport Aircraft. The repairman certificate for an Experimental-Light Sport Aircraft requires taking "the training".

"Factory authorization" applies to aircraft certificated in the Special-Light Sport Aircraft category, not Experimenal-Light Sport Aircraft. Experimental-Light Sport Aircraft, are no different than any of the other types of Experimental... anyone can perform whatever maintenance/modifications they want.

And a caveat. If you are thinking of buying a nearly completed experimental, be aware that only the original builder can get the airworthyness certificate, so unless the seller is willing to do this, you are buying a pile of parts that can't be certificated for flight.

Only the original builder of an aircraft certificated in the Experimental-Amateur Built category, can obtain the repairman certificate, not the airworthiness certificate. Yes, you can buy an "almost completed" aircraft, and get the airworthiness certificate for it in the amateur-build category. You just have to prove to the FAA that someone built at least 51% of that aircraft, as an "amateur".

N701RB · Post by **N701RB** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:35 am

Sorry. My ADD is flaring up!

My wife is getting her skydiving certificate this summer. Does anyone know if I could legally fly her to altitude, so she could jump.. In a designated jump zone, of course. I have been eyeing several Skyrangers that are for sale. They look pretty easy to egress!

Cub flyer · Post by **Cub flyer** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:53 am

Is the wing strut forward or over the main gear. over the gear might get in the way. A parking brake or plate over the right main tire will keep it from rolling. You could just hold the brake also. That's what I used to do with the Tripacer when hauling jumpers. They went out the back door.

I don't know of anything illegal about it as long as she is not paying you for the lift.

We had people skydiving out of a Powered parachute last year. That was odd.

I'd look close at the strength of the Jury struts attached midway to the wing struts. They take a lot of load on a tube spar airplane and might need beefing up for the person pulling on the aft strut. Usually the aft wingstrut is a little lighter built.

Or add a handle near the wing root somewhere to use.

rfane · Post by **rfane** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:05 am

sethdallob wrote:To be honest, I haven't flown in anything else but can't imagine spending twice as much for a CT with the same engine could possibly be worth it.

First off, I'm not criticizing your decision to purchase whatever you choose to, so don't take it as an attack. Others disagree with you as indicated by the sales figures. I for one don't care for the tube and fabric construction of the Aerotrek, and many other aircraft. I also bought my CT when the cost was quite a bit less than now, and there were far fewer S-LSA options. If I were shopping now, I'd have a lot more options. That new P2008 Tecnam sure looks sweet, but Tecnam's typically are even higher priced than CT's. At the time I figured my CT was worth the price, as it out performed a new 172S, at 40% of the cost both to purchase and hourly operating costs.

Yes, the Eurofox / Aerotrek may have a base price of half of a new CT, but that is for a pretty bare aircraft. If you equipped it similar to the CT, what would it cost. It's $5K for a BRS for the Aerotrek, which Flight Design includes in the price. Add a radio, transponder, GPS, autopilot, etc., and the price of the Aerotrek increases.

Kitfox just announced this week that they are bringing out an S-LSA. Might explain the name change of the Eurofox to Aerotrek. Will Kitfox continue to let Aerotrek have a license to manufacture a clone of the Kitfox? What's the strength of the company that built your aircraft? Will they survive for long if they lose the license or sales slow down due to the increased competition?

comperini · Post by **comperini** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:35 pm

rfane wrote: Will Kitfox continue to let Aerotrek have a license to manufacture a clone of the Kitfox? What's the strength of the company that built your aircraft? Will they survive for long if they lose the license or sales slow down due to the increased competition?

FWIW, The Eurofox is not a "clone", although I admit many similarities. Kitfox has many "similarities" to the Avid product family too. Aeropro has been making the Eurofox (now Aerotrek) since 1990.

sethdallob · Post by **sethdallob** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:44 pm

rfane wrote: Yes, the Eurofox / Aerotrek may have a base price of half of a new CT, but that is for a pretty bare aircraft. If you equipped it similar to the CT, what would it cost.

Still a lot less than a CT.

rfane wrote: Kitfox just announced this week that they are bringing out an S-LSA. Might explain the name change of the Eurofox to Aerotrek.

I think that's exactly what happened. The Aerotrek is a derivative of the Kitfox, but I've seen a Kitfox and the differences are really substantial - the Aerotrek has a lot less of a "tinkertoy" aspect to it.

I think the CT is a fine airplane, and I looked at them when I got my certificate last year. IMHO, the Aerotrek is a far better value for money. But that's why there's a market out there - you pick what you value.

rfane · Post by **rfane** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:24 pm

sethdallob wrote:I think the CT is a fine airplane, and I looked at them when I got my certificate last year. IMHO, the Aerotrek is a far better value for money. But that's why there's a market out there - you pick what you value.

There is much more to value than the initial purchase price. Hourly costs are probably equivalent between the two aircraft, with the same engine. I can go alot farther on that same cost, and since I bought an aircraft to do long cross-country's in, it adds up. I took my CT across the country and back in December. Total of 53 hours of flying including some sight-seeing. By my calculations of the difference in cruise speeds of my CT (120 KTAS) and the Aerotrek (110 mph per the website), it would have taken 70 hours + in the Aerotrek. Since we charge ourselves $50 an hour to cover fuel and maintenance reserves, that one trrip would have cost me an extra $850 +, just for hourly costs. You also need to throw in additions for extra hotel nights, meals, etc.. A few of those add up, and I figure I would of spent an additional $3,200 in hourly costs, in the time I have owned my CT, if I owned an Aerotrek. My partner would be up in the $2,000 - $2,500 range. Kind of skews your definition of value, considering we only have about 350 hours on 0RF. Multiply it out over the life of the airframe, and you might be surprised.

If I didn't have a partner, or my mission was making local burger runs, I might not own a CT, but that is not the case. To each their own, fly what you want, and what suits your mission. I do, and I'm happy. I'm glad you are happy with your aircraft as well, but I'm also kind of amused that you chose to compare it's value specifically against the CT. While both are LSA, they have different strengths.

Cub flyer · Post by **Cub flyer** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:56 am

Figure in your difference in payments, interest and what the resale value is on both airplanes after 5 or 10 years. Fabric replacement on the Aerotrek is not an issue if hangared. 30 years easy. Any parts replacement needed over 1000 hours of time in service. Warranty time given by the manufacturer to cover parts replacement and labor. Three years of warranty factors in compared to one.

Range does make a difference on a trip if more stops are required. If you can sit that long in the seat.

Do any LSA have a stated airframe life?

If the Eurofox is was a copy it would be of the Kitfox Vixen and not the normal Kitfox. There's been a lot of evolving since then but the family heritage can't be mistaken. Nothing wrong with that if it flies well.

rfane · Post by **rfane** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:04 am

Cub,

Yes, there are other issues that go into overall value. I only hit on the difference in hourly costs, to show one, not to truly calculate what the true value is. In my area, a small t-hangar will run $450-$550 a month. I settled for a sheltered tie-down for half that, and use covers on the prop, and an engine and fuselage cover, as well.

I don't know of any LSA that have a stated airframe life, but I would expect that they will last for quite sometime to come, thus the overall value calculation is tough to compute. I used that in my example for the purpose of getting the focus off of the initial purchase price. Who knows what resale value is going to be in 5-10 years? I paid cash for my aircraft, so interest isn't an issue. If you really want to get nitpicky, you could try to calculate lost income potential, if I had financed the plane, and used the cash elsewhere. In this economy though, I'm glad that money isn't in the market, and I also believe that toys should not be financed.

If you really want to do it up fully, calculate whether it makes more sense to pay additional for a hangar for 30 years, or to pay to have the plane recovered and painted every 10 years?

Never said that similarities with the Kitfox was bad. They look so similar to me that I assumed there might be a license agreement that could be impacted. Kitfox's entry into the S-LSA market can certainly affect the value of a Eurofox and the viability of the company that manufactures them.

Speaking of Kitfox, their S-LSA is official now:

http://www.bydanjohnson.com/

Cub flyer · Post by **Cub flyer** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:24 pm

I tried for a while to calculate every little thing to get a total cost. The number of items quickly spiraled out of control.

Gave up and just decided to fly what I wanted and try to take care of them.

A 30 year old airplane always hangared with original paint and interior is very different inside from a 30 year old airplane outside since day one and painted twice.

Ever hear of the going faster to save money in operating costs. Figure your trip time with all costs at economy cruise and then at max cruise. Around 67% power there is a sweet spot that everything considered works out best. TBO, airframe hours, fuel burn, etc.

Works out cheaper than going at max economy cruise unless max economy gives you the trip nonstop. It really becomes noticeable in the light twins on a 750 mile trip.

N701RB · Post by **N701RB** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:34 pm

Ooooo! Found this little gem on Barnstormers.com!

My luck, it's over gross for an LSA!

images.barnstormers.com/tmp_images/a0/98/scaled_a098_300x199_328733-100_2468_taylorcraft.jpg

pilotjohn · Post by **pilotjohn** » Sun May 03, 2009 2:50 pm

I also think the EuroFox (now AeroTrek) is a good value, and the two examples I saw had excellent craftmanship. Although the one example I flew did exhibit very neutral if not negative yaw stability, it was easy and much fun to fly.

Even if you add $20k of options (if they were available) the airplane would be a good deal and awesome value, but alas you cannot add that much to it. So, my main problem is with the distributor and his lack of options for the airplane. There's no flat panel options, no auto-pilot options, and no night-flight capability (there are strobes and such but the aircraft is not night approved.) I went back and forth with the distributor on some of these things, and he just seems very set in his ways and does not seem to want to expand his choices or capabilities.

For a while I did understand the auto-pilot issue with the neutral yaw problem, but apparently a lot of that has been fixed in newer airplanes, and an Australian distributor successfully completed a Dynon auto-pilot installation which works very well.

I think if some of the more advanced options were available for the EuroFox/AeroTrek, it would steal some of the sales of the other well equipped LSAs like CTSW/CTLS, Remos and Evektor simply on price alone. With all the extra cost of the advanced equipment (if available,) I would think a fully decked out the Fox would still be well under $100k, giving an almost $50k (if not more in some cases) difference between it and the market leaders.