Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By spackrackman
#1778178
MichaelP wrote:
These are the sea level numbers I have for a Gypsy Major engined J5L, which is what most of my time is in:-


The MkV is much lighter than other Austers and has a lot more get up and go.
It is a very very good strip machine.

There were even comments at White Waltham yesterday when a visiting MkV was off and climbing after a very short takeoff.

A chap had two airframes deposited in the back of the hangar where I operated the Condor Club.
One was a Tiger Moth... But the other was a MkV Auster, and that was an aeroplane I could use, and so I leased it and put its wings back on.
It proved to be a brilliant aeroplane.
People would come to Redhill to see the oldest Tiger Moth registration still flying... They’d ignore the innocent blue and white Auster that was at one time shot at by the Germans.
Perhaps some commenters here are Germans?


The one I am looking at used to be blue and white and looking up its Army number it was shot at in the wing over the Rhine. Its now silver and flown 1 hour a year for the last few. Its nice but in need of love and its expensive! My other option is a Super Cub I am looking at which is flyable, tatty and really expensive. I want the cub but its on the CofA which scares me with annual costs. LAA is so much simpler and cheaper.

Jonnie
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1778181
spackrackman wrote:My other option is a Super Cub I am looking at which is flyable, tatty and really expensive. I want the cub but its on the CofA which scares me with annual costs. LAA is so much simpler and cheaper.
Jonnie


The Super Cub maybe on a CofA however they are a non EASA type operating under the Annex 1 CofA system but they are not expensive to maintain especially if you find a friendly maintenance company that will allow you to the work under their supervision.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1778183
foxmoth wrote:
Short field TODR: 610m / 2,000ft


That seems a bit much for an Auster, Google gives a ground run under 100'! I was never a fan of the Austers handling but in my experience they had a decent short field performance.


Book figure, MTOM, still air, to clear a 50ft obstacle.

From this, solo, 15kts headwind, that'd come down to 500ft, say 200ft ground run.

G

Image
By Gwoods
#1854233
I may be biased, but I share an Auster V. I have used it for about 20y, along with a Tiger Moth and, a for a few years, a Cessna 182. It is a marvellous plane that always brings a smile to my face. You can get it in and out of almost anywhere, I carry my children or friends in the back seat. We had to fit impulse mags, without which it was a dog to start hot... Side by side seating makes it very user friendly, too. I used to fly a Cub, and I would take the Auster any day.
MichaelP, mick w liked this
User avatar
By ls8pilot
#1854292
We had Auster V with lycoming at Dorset Gliding club back in the 1980's - I used to tow 2 seaters (K13 and K7) with it off Old Sarum (with a bit of effort on hot days!) , from what I recall (long time ago) it was pretty sprightly without anything on the back & with a nice slow approach speed you could land it very short - I always felt it would be no problem to put it into a field if the noisy bit stopped working.... Landing them neatly is a bit of an art but it all happens quite slowly and is very satisfying when you get it right; plenty of control authority in cross winds as I recall.

Quite nice to fly as far as I recall, although the flaps are a bit awkward & a go-round at full flap seems to require a third arm to do neatly.

Maintenance was a bit of a pain though, the airframe and controls seemed a real mish-mash of technologies. I would think carefully if I was paying commercial rates for someone to maintain it for me - OK if you can do some of the stuff yourself under supervision I would guess.
By Skybolt1
#1854342
I'm not sure if the Auster J5 designation is being confused with the AOP Mark V designation. Specifically the J5/L is a clip-wing (nominally) four-seater powered by a Gipsy Major, while the Mark V is a lighter airframe with standard length (long) wings and the Lycoming O-290 GPU conversion. The Mark V when civilianised with a Cirrus Minor became the Auster 5/J1 Autocrat or with the Gipsy the J1/N. The J5 fuselage was widened at the rear to give room for four and had longer undercarriage legs and various strengthening mods. The J5/L is 'semi-aerobatic' with the right seats installed (as are some other models).

That's probably caused more confusion and if so, sorry!
tr7v8, Kemble Pitts liked this
By Highland Park
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1854355
And there’s also the Auster 5 Alpha. Most Auster Vs are ex-military airframes, whereas the 5 Alpha was a limited production run of new build civilian airframes in 1956-7 with the O-290 and glazing similar to the J/1, not the extended glazing of the ex-military airframes.

Ian
By Timbo-G
#1874680
HI,
I don't know if you found out what you needed to, but feel free to contact me if not - more so because some have put comments on here which are old stereo typed beliefs, at least 20 years out of date, oh, and clearly incorrect in some cases!!

As an aircraft to own, as opposed to admire, personally I prefer the Lycoming powered version - smooth, easy to maintain, and reasonably inexpensive. Despite a comment earlier on they are not particularly difficult to get parts for (there's loads around), but yes, probably harder than a properly current engine. About the same as running an 850 mini, MGB or old Landrover - don't expect to go to the garage round the corner, but its really not difficult. However, if I terminally 'break' the engine (and I have a spare) I know I can fit any one of several more modern Lycomings that are already approved.

I have a Mk5 alpha which someone did mention, it is a fantastic two/three/four seater - it can take 220Lbs on the rear seat which can be 'one of me', or two smaller people, and even max'd out on weight it performs very well and above all, doesn't bite back. 125/130Hp in a relatively light aircraft is plenty good enough for me, MT weight is 1221 and MAW is 1945 which leave a reasonable (for its type) 724lb for people, fuel and stuff. I also know the type can be loaded way beyond that without ill effect - just don't ask how I know!!

I get a real 5.5g/h or less, that's fully rich at 97mph+ at 2200/2250rpm and with a belly tank my bladder can't last the 5hrs that gives! Short field is great, I'm not brave but have used 350m strips several times and generally use around a 1/3rd of my 800m runway so in and out of 400m and hardly using the brakes is realistic. Landing, just the same as a cub or any 'bungie' aircraft - decend to terra firma too quickly and the bungies will make you fly again, stick to the numbers and minimise excess energy and all is fine. I have flown a fair number of types, and correct, the Auster hasn't got the feel of a Condor, or the space of a C172, a Luscombe is nicer to fly in pure flying terms, and I loved my old Aeronca, but I like to fly for fun, have a safe aircraft when family are with me, and one that is generally admired at flyins as a vintage aircraft. I have had a couple of engine failures on take off and the characteristics together with a 28mph stall is why I can still write this!

All in all, I haven't seen much that can compete in flying/purchase cost terms over the years, and that goes for running costs as well - in my experience they do not cost much to run. Check in with the Auster club to confirm, but nowadays there are a lot in the air and most are pretty nice aircraft.

My aircraft is not immaculate, but its pretty OK overall but above all is mechanically excellent which is where my priorities lie!

Shout if you want any more info or to take a look etc?

Good luck,

Tim

Image
ls8pilot, mick w, Flyin'Dutch' and 5 others liked this