Extra 200 or 300L

[Colonel Sanders]

two seat airplane for akoch

A second seat is an extremely expensive luxury
in an aerobatic airplane. It is going to be empty
99% of the time anyways.

Save your money and go single-seat. Wifey does
NOT want to go up and do tumbles.

In an aerobatic airplane, the only use for a second
seat is if you want to give acro instruction, or if
you want to put an aux tank there for very long
flights (eg over water).

[akoch]

Well, the initial idea for this was mild aerobatics-capable, but otherwise a general purpose airplane. More capable than a DA20, but with no intention to compete. To continue to learn to fly, and to have some fun. That's why I pointed it out in the first post. I've got to start somewhere somehow.

A single-seat acro plane sounds scary to me. How am I going to learn the ropes then? I'm chickenish whenever it comes to any more serious stuff, and I can't teach myself acro like you did

[Beefitarian]

First, thank you for the thread akoch. Best one in a long time here for me. Even Jerz posted, nice!


In my case wifey wants to go to a movie or play instead of fly at all.

The reasons I want the extra seat are similar to akoch plus one more, and I typed much of this up before seeing his last post.

I can take some training in the thing. Leaping into a Pitts or mono wing equivalent sounds kind of scary since I don't spend enough time in many real airplanes these days.

I like to socialize, one of my favorite things is to fly somewhere with another person, my dad being first choice but I enjoy taking up anyone that wants to go for a ride. Of course my dad wants to avoid loops and even medium turns or slightly extra G, more than anyone.

I for sure can't see myself buying more than the one airplane I never got around to buying. So I am a bit stuck on that thing you say about, buying one plane to do everything, even though it ends up not doing any really well.

Regarding my "choice not to buy an airplane." In the past I have had "real" jobs, (yeah it was just as weird to write that as it is for you to read it.) I was often either a little short of the money to take CPL training, or working 70 hours a week. Currently I honestly, while not happy about it, picture a plane I own being very lonely and going sour at the airport like a forgotten carton of milk while I'm probably on here or something silly.

I can't help but imagine some strange reality where I might offer introductory aerobatic flight training.
Don't be angry, I know not what I write about things I sometimes imagine I'd like to do.

[Jerz]

You welcome, Alex. Happy to help anybody with this crazy thing we do.
Yes, I am a big fan of Russian hardware and familiar with most popular types. They do suck fuel but not that much more then Lyc 540 at cruise power. Full power acro at sea level with M14P will lighten your wallet at a rate of about 5 gal/hr more then 300hp Lyc 540. They can be made more economical with fuel injection. You also develop a habit of buying oil in large blue containers. For that you will get the best aerobatic engine in the universe.
If you must have two seats -Yak 52 or Nanchang are good choices. Yak 54 CS likes is OK, but not worth the price in my opinion. Then there is SP95/SP91 - somebody on this board got recently, and of course Su-29 if you want to put your passenger in emergency room.
If you could have one seat only - Yak 55 is obvious economy choice with some very entertaining tumbling characteristics, Yak 50 for miniature warbird with 6000fpm RoC and so so acro, or SU-26/31 for the world class competition.
All these birds are quite different then their Western equivalents, so there is a steep learning curve, but that what makes them interesting. I can answer most you questions if you decide to go that route.

[P-40]

how is this relevant to the Extra not being competitive at WAC ?

All of the Extras in Canada are the 300L. If you purchase any
one of them, it will not be competitive at the WAC.

Not sure I can make that any simpler.

Walter Extra builds numerous models as you know. Perhaps I should have specified the Extra "330SC" is competitive at WAC, obviously because it has won. I used the term "Extra" in the same sense as one would say the "Pitts" is no longer a competitive unlimited machine. No specific mention to model, just a generalized statement. Simple, right ?

[Colonel Sanders]

A single-seat isn't as scary as it sounds. Get some
dual in a similar two-seat - spin training, mostly -
and you're off.

It's really hard to beat the bang/buck of a $30k
Pitts S-1. If that's not enough for you, the $50k
Yak-55M is the obvious next step.

You can spend an awful lot more than that, and
not get much more (in a two-seat).

Yak 54 CS likes is OK, but not worth the price in my opinion

I'm sure you're right, from your perspective of
specs (see previous post) and contest performance.

I just subjectively think it is just such a cool airplane.

An R-985 Stearman won't do very well at a contest,
either - though Guenther has struggled mightily over
the years - but I still think they are cool.

A T-6 is another expensive beast that would suck in
the box, but again, plenty of coolness. T-28? Oh yeah!

Again, unless you're going to try to win the next WAC,
buy an aircraft that you (not anyone else) enjoy
flying - because that's why you are getting it. Don't lose
sight of that.

There once was a guy called Snort that flew an F-14 at
the WAC. Now, people here would sniff their noses and
say that Snort is a loser (compared to them, I guess)
because he didn't win the contest, but flying an F-14 in
the box at the WAC is incredibly cool.



If you can't understand that, I'm not sure I know any
better way to explain it.

PS If you ever meet Snort (great guy) ask him about
the first time his father took his mother flying - in a two
seat aerobatic aircraft!!

[tiggermoth]

Ah but in this thread we are looking for a two seat airplane for akoch. I believe Mr Holland already has a plane.

Right!! Kind of zoned out on that detail for a minute yesterday. Thats what happens when you are posting from work

Well, the initial idea for this was mild aerobatics-capable, but otherwise a general purpose airplane. More capable than a DA20, but with no intention to compete. To continue to learn to fly, and to have some fun. That's why I pointed it out in the first post. I've got to start somewhere somehow.

I really don't know a lot about aerobatics an daerobatic airplanes like some of the others such as CS or Jerzy, but seems to me that you have pretty much described a good ole' Super Decathlon. Or maybe something like a Christen Eagle. Maybe not quite the 'cool' factor of some of the other aircraft, but it would suit the purpose.

Side note......( )

my dad being first choice but I enjoy taking up anyone that wants to go for a ride. Of course my dad wants to avoid loops and even medium turns or slightly extra G, more than anyone.

My dad was the same, but has very recently changed (just yesterday in fact). Back in the 70's he had a poor introduction to aerobatics by his flight instructor in gliders. They were up for a dual flight in the glider when the instructor, without telling dad, did a couple of loops. Dad didn't know what was happening until they were going over the top and starting down the backside. Almost made him really ill. He has always told me that since then he has been scared of aerobatics, scared of pulling much G, and just avoided anything other than regular 'Cessna Sunday flying' until his flying funds dried up when us kids were born. He hasnt flown since the 70's other than a few rides with me once I got my PPL and a C172. Just yesterday, a friend of his in Vernon BC, offered to take dad for a ride in his Super Decathlon. Dad, never having flown in one said sure. Now, this guy did it different, he explained on the ground what they were going to do, coached dad all the way through each manuever on what to expect, where to look, etc. I guess they did some rolls, loops, cuban 8, and a hammerhead. And then let dad fly the airplane back to the airport.

Dad said that afterwards he felt a bit woozy, but didnt have to use the bag he took along. He also quite enjoyed himself, and is already talking about going again

[Beefitarian]

No worries tigger a little thread drift can result in some great topics being brought in to discussions.

A single-seat isn't as scary as it sounds. Get some
dual in a similar two-seat - spin training, mostly -
and you're off.

It's really hard to beat the bang/buck of a $30k
Pitts S-1. If that's not enough for you, the $50k
Yak-55M is the obvious next step.

You can spend an awful lot more than that, and
not get much more (in a two-seat).

And this is one of those times I can't let go of faulty logic. I keep thinking "I'll save some bucks getting dual in my own plane because it's just operating costs plus a free lance instructor's fee."

Never considering that the thousands of dollars price diference will cover quite a bit of dual with plane rental.

[cgzro]

A single-seat isn't as scary as it sounds. Get some
dual in a similar two-seat - spin training, mostly -
and you're off.

It's really hard to beat the bang/buck of a $30k
Pitts S-1. If that's not enough for you, the $50k

Flying a single seater for the first time was an amazing experience for me!
So much nicer than the two seat trucks and a real zen experience knowing you are on your own to discover it.

To CS point about x country in an S1.. Yeah its very demanding. Need to be very organized.
In many regards its a good teacher for safe x country practices. Definitely not a jump in and go machine.

[Colonel Sanders]

x country in an S1.. Yeah its very demanding

What makes x/c MUCH easier in a Pitts (or any other
airplane, really) is a GPS and a fuel totalizer. With a
GPS you can stay perfectly on track, and you know
exactly how long it's going to take you. Combine that
with a fuel totalizer, and you know exactly how much
fuel you're going to have left over when you get there.

Pitts has a tiny fuel tank, so any x/c of reasonable length
is generally always fuel-critical. I'm amazed more people
don't run them out of gas, esp in the Bad Old Days when
we didn't have cheap GPS's, or cheap fuel totalizers.

That said, you can fly x/c in a Pitts. With a ferry tank in
the front seat, I recently flew Cozumel direct Key West,
which was 3 hrs and a bit. 9500 feet most of the way,
TAS around 140 knots. Sitting on a parachute gets painful
after a while, but you get used to it. Needless to say, I
had the GPS and the fuel totalizer humming away!

[Beefitarian]

How are decathlons for cross country?

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 191851.htm

[cgzro]

That Decathlon will need fabric soon. 23 years is a long time.
For cross country, well lots of gas, stable , electric turn and bank, and easy to land so no real issues.

[Blue Side Down]

There are two 300's listed for sale on Barnstormers at the moment. One in South Africa or something like that, so the boat ride might be expensive.

Also a very nice G202 available. The 202 will fly circles around the Extra 200. Cruises about 160 kts as well.

While the MX series make the Extra < (less than) 330's look like go carts, Chris might be at odds to be of any help in acquiring one these days, unfortunately.

[Colonel Sanders]

a very nice G202

Fantastic airplane. I've known a couple of people
who had them, a few years back.

However. If they are experimental/exhibition in
the USA, how do you import them into Canada?

-- EDIT - just did a search on the FAA database.
Most (but not all) of the G-202's are amateur-built
and as such are easy to import into Canada as
long as they have 100TT. However, don't touch
the exhibition ones!

[akoch]

Thank you very much guys. I actually have not heard of the Giles G202 before. Looks like a nice airplane.

Where did you see one for sale? I check the barnstormers and controller.com, nothing's there.

[Colonel Sanders]

G202 was fascinating airplane. In addition to
a composite cantilever wing, it had a composite
fuselage, when everyone else was still welding
up 4130 fuselages like in the 1930's.

There is a single-seat version called the G200 but
it was never very popular.

G200/202 used the Lyc 4 cyl IO-360. Eventually
someone got the idea of sticking a bigger engine
in it (a 6 cyl Lyc) and that brings us to the MX2.

A friend of mine, Gary Ward, used to fly the snot
out of a G202 until he got his MX2. But he put on
an incredible show with the G202. He would point
it straight at the ground, pull +10G's and run his
tailwheel through the weeds and point it straight
up again. Nice tumbles, too.

Andrew Wright - smart guy, PhD - had a G202,
went to work for cisco. He had a midair on final.
Typical low wing on top of high wing (182). The
G202 splintered into a million pieces and he woke
up on the runway, sitting on the numbers. Except
for a couple crushed vertebrae, he was ok. Flying
a Sukhoi in Texas, last I heard.

[tiggermoth]

A Giles 202 in action



The one for sale on Barnstormers is this same airplane. He wants $170,000 for it.

[akoch]

And great flying!

How's IO-360 engine life with this kind of hard aerobatics? Considering it is now at 300h, what are the chances it needs major work in the next 200-300 hours?

Would you have reservations about picking up an aerobatic airplane that was used to its potential prior? I.e. structural concerns, safety etc?

[tiggermoth]

How's IO-360 engine life with this kind of hard aerobatics? Considering it is now at 300h, what are the chances it needs major work in the next 200-300 hours?

Would you have reservations about picking up an aerobatic airplane that was used to its potential prior? I.e. structural concerns, safety etc?

I am far from an expert when it comes to the aerobatic airplane maintenance, so hopefully the Colonel will chime in again.

From my point of view as an AME on 'normal" aircraft, both fixed and rotary wing, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. The engine in that Giles for example, has a 3 blade composite prop. That makes for less stresses transfered to the crankshaft when doing aerobatics. There are thousands of Pitts', Decathlons, Christen Eagles, Skybolts and who knows what else out there doing aerobatics with the IO-360 engine. Most of the homebuilt crowd even have less expensive metal props, which are harder on engines. I would have to say that they have a fairly well proven track record.

I am not sure about overhaul life, but I would expect it to be reduced, for some reason 'half the life' sticks out in my brain.....may have read it somewhere.

As far as the airframe goes, as with anything, a thourough pre-buy inspection by someone familiar with the type is a must. As long as the aircraft has been taken to the limit....but not outside...I would not expect to much in the way of problems. Personally, if the airplane is well maintained, even if it is flown to the limit, I would still buy it if I had the money.

Keep in mind though, that some pilots dont fully understand what they may be doing to their airplane. For example, lets take the Pitts S-2B. Suppose you go out and regularily fly up to 6 G's solo. Now you decide to take your 200lb buddy for a ride and pull the same 6 G's during the flight. You are still within the limits (just keeping the comparison simple, there may be a different limit for higher weights on the S-2B), but what most dont realize is that with their buddy on board, they just subjected the airplane to an extra 1200lbs load. In reality, even though they were within the G limits, they may have overloaded the airframe. That is something that in my opinion would warrrant a closer look.

Again, a person experienced in the type of aircraft going to do the pre-buy inspection, will probably have a good idea of the things to look for and questions to ask.

Now, lets have someone who is a lot more knowlegable on the subject chime in Colonel, I'm talking to you!!!

[Colonel Sanders]

re: aerobatic engine life ...

Yes, metal props are hard on crankshafts. I doubt
there is a G202 with a metal prop out there.

Despite their bizarre (wet sump) design, the AEIO
Lycoming engines are very durable. Personally, I
cannot believe they didn't go dry sump, and instead
have a real kludge system (Christen 801) with
two oil pickups. This means that aerobatic engines
spend an awful lot of time with no oil pressure.
Incredibly, this really doesn't seem to bother them
much. Just incredible.

Also, aerobatic engines are "shock cooled" to the
extreme. Again, due to amazing engineering by
Lycoming, this really isn't a problem. You would
think that aerobatic engines would crack cylinders
and have several replaced every annual, but that's
not the case.

Aerobatic Lycoming engines are pretty much the
same, then as non-aerobatic Lycoming engines.
This means that their greatest enemy is internal
corrosion, and that means cam lobes and lifters,
and occasionally nitrided cylinders. This happens
when they are parked, esp in a humid/saline
environment. Nothing special here, really.

Also, aerobatic (and non-aerobatic) Lycoming
engines suffer from valve sticking due to lead
and carbon deposits. This is actually pretty
cheap and simple to fix if you know how. Very
few AME's do.

Note that many Continental engines also suffer
from sticking valves: O-200 and O-300 come
to mind. Again, very few AME's address this,
but if you do, gosh, the engine sure runs a lot
smoother.

So buying an aerobatic Lycoming engine:

1) composite prop
2) never sat (esp salty/humid)
3) over 500 hrs, watch valves for sticking

Look carefully at the oil filter (cut it open)
or the pressure screen for metal. If the
engine is making metal, it's going to need
work sooner rather than later. A healthy
engine does not make metal.

Do a compression/leakdown test on it.
See if it has any bad jugs. Look at the
plugs. Are the bottom plugs oily? If so,
the rings are starting to wear. If the top
plugs are oily, the jug is done, even if
it has perfect compression, which is often
the case with a lot of oil in the cylinder.

Watch for a trend in the oil consumption.
Doesn't matter what it is, really, but if
it changes, something has broken.

Lots of aerobatic airplanes toss a lot of
oil overboard. If you fill up the slobber
pot (easy to do) you can barf out a quart
a flight. Nothing to worry about.


All of the above is applicable to any aerobatic
airplane with a Lycoming engine.

When it comes to lifetime of the composite
G202 airframe, I really have no idea. Outside
my area of expertise. Something definitely
worth researching if you intend to buy.

[akoch]

Thank you gentleman. This thread has been really educational and with a lot of great information that otherwise is hard to find. Appreciate it.

[Colonel Sanders]

Also, aerobatic engines are "shock cooled" to the
extreme. Again, due to amazing engineering by
Lycoming, this really isn't a problem. You would
think that aerobatic engines would crack cylinders
and have several replaced every annual, but that's
not the case.

Just want to point out a little detail about Lycomings:

Cylinders can either be parallel valve, or angle-valve.

Note that the angle-valve jugs are NINE POUNDS
heavier than the parallel-valve jugs.

So you can have a 180hp (AE)IO-360 (parallel valve)
or 200hp (AE)IO-360 (angle valve) engine, but the
angle valve engine weighs 4x9=36 lbs heavier.

Or, you can have a 260hp (AE)IO-540 (parallel valve)
or 300hp (AE)IO-540 (angle valve) engine, but the
angle valve 540 engine weighs 6x9=54 lbs heavier.

You can modify any of the above to produce more
horsepower, with improved exhaust, cold air induction,
or higher compression pistons. Non-certified, of course.
For example, you can easily make a 300hp AEIO-540
with parallel-valve jugs. Light and powerful.

My long-winded point is that you would think that
the heavier angle-valve heads, with all that meat,
would be more resistant to cracking from the abuse
of shock cooling, but that doesn't appear to be the
case. The lighter parallel-valve jugs are very resistant
to cracking. Again, amazing engineering by Lycoming.

This thread has been really educational and with a lot of great information that otherwise is hard to find

That's what aviation is all about. The people, oddly
enough, not the hardware. You will meet the weirdest
collection of scoundrels and saints in aviation. The fun
part is that when you meet someone for the first time,
you never know which one they are. All you know is
that it won't be boring!

[cgzro]

I got to fly Andrew Wrights N202XS once before that unfortunate mid air. The fastest rolling plane I have ever flown! He was really competitive in it. Got on the US advanced team.

Actually incredibly sensitive in all three axis. Bit tight in the front. Easy to fly but very hard to fly well. Incredible cross country machine. A French company tried to certify it as the CAP 222 but there were some fuse structural problems so it never happened. Never heard of any unusual engine problems with the composite props and normal cylinders. I think 170K is a bit expensive as they were going for 140 a few years ago. They evolved into the MXS which of course are unbelievable.

How's IO-360 engine life with this kind of hard aerobatics? Considering it is now at 300h, what are the chances it needs major work in the next 200-300 hours?

I got 600 hours out of mine but was worn lifters that did it in so not aerobatic related.

[Colonel Sanders]

Another little obscure Lycoming detail ...

The 4 cyl's don't have balancing counterweights
on the crankshaft, while the 6 cyl's do. This means
that you have to be careful about what prop you
put on the 4 cyl. Some props and some RPM's
will have resonant torsional vibrations - which is
Very Bad Sh1t - and must be avoided. This will
surface as yellow arcs on the tach. This is not
just an aerobatic issue.

As a specific aerobatic example, over the decades
I know that people have had problems with pumped-up
4 cyl Lyc's and 2-blade composite props. However
2-blade metal props and 3-blade composite props
had fewer problems.

As a rule of thumb, a 2-blade prop will give higher
top speed but will not provide the same slow-speed
thrust as the 3-blade, which is crucial for regaining
energy during a sequence, after you dramatically
p1ss it away with some heroic high-alpha maneuver.

All told, I prefer 3-blade for acro. More thrust, more
drag.

[Blue Side Down]

How's IO-360 engine life with this kind of hard aerobatics? Considering it is now at 300h, what are the chances it needs major work in the next 200-300 hours?

Would you have reservations about picking up an aerobatic airplane that was used to its potential prior? I.e. structural concerns, safety etc?

Engine life is always a gamble, there is no way around this fact. Even with proper maintenance and care, things still let go; whether the engine is flown right side up, or upside down. Similar to asking the odds of getting a flat tire in the next week... odds are extremely low, until it happens. Additionally, very few people get into aerobatics to save money. An aircraft which has been flown (hard) will have wear, but it will also have had many bugs worked out of it as well. A brand new acro aircraft is somewhat of a dangerous beast for that reason. It may be recommendable to try a single hole Pitts out for size for a few years to get into the game of running an acro aircraft before tackling a type with additional 'complexity'.

A thorough pre-buy by an experienced mechanic is a must. Worth much more than the $1k it costs to take them there, feed them for two days, hotel, inspection and return. Composites have their own quirks, but are not voodoo. Issues with the airframe are fairly well documented by now and have known fixes. Not to imply someone may find a new novel way to wear out the airframe, however.