Thanks @Silvaire. That article is interesting.
And it explains pretty well why the Sierra was no success, 130 kts max for a retracable 200 hp is simply not enough, if even fixed gear airplanes with less power can do more.
Yet it is a remarkable load hauler, that much is also clear. So family truck for short to medium distances would be a good description maybe.
incidently I just noticed that the Sierra actually was mentioned in the 1st post of this thread
I’ve been having a dabble with a HR100/210 Safari. It is the basis of a great aeroplane. Strong acceleration to take-off speed, uses 220m or so to get off and climbs strongly. It will cruise at 130kts indicated burning about 10 gallons an hour. Needs a bit of planning to slow it down in the circuit. Has to be flown at about 80kts on the approach and 75kts over the hedge. Any slower and it can plop on quite hard like a Cirrus flown at the back end of the drag curve. The potential to hold and safely use 100 Gallons (454L) of fuel is immense. It’s even got accurate fuel gauges and a low fuel light. I think with some ballast in the back it would be easier to land, but we have not tried it out yet.
For the price of a Cessna 150 it’s pretty intense stuff. It’s not a beginner’s aeroplane that is for sure. I have a good few spares for it, including all-new glass. It needs to be painted and the interior is original. It has an 8.33Khz and mode s in the panel. We have a great source of spare parts for it, and have all the manuals. If someone here wants it and wants to restore something with potential I will give you a great discounted price on it and help out where I can. It’s a sort of a rolling restoration really, we are using it to kick about in but won’t be getting stuck into paint/interior etc etc. The sound out of it is amazing 
For these less common legacy airplane types it is vital that buyers really understand their design and maintenance weak points, and the availability of spares. Some of these types become vulnerable to defects over the years, and become uneconomical for the average owner. If you want an exotic project, and are prepared for the costs, that’s wonderful, the world needs rare airplanes preserved. For anyone who just wants to fly economically, they may be a poor choice.
Many legacy types, both common and rare are now being subject to structural AD’s, and some are pretty expensive. There is a important new responsibility to airplane buyers to really do their homework about the desired type, and then review the candidate plane with that knowledge.
A many years Musketeer owner went for a routine annual inspection lest year. Defects were found in several rudder control system parts. New replacement parts were simply not obtainable for any cost. I developed and approved a repair to the defective parts, but the total cost for that repair was about 20% of the value of the plane.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
Many legacy types, both common and rare are now being subject to structural AD’s, and some are pretty expensive. There is a important new responsibility to airplane buyers to really do their homework about the desired type, and then review the candidate plane with that knowledge.
However, the impression is more the opposite: the more popular the type, the higher the “attention” and thus, the more expensive ADs there are (see Cessna, Piper).
AD’s are driven by data. There’s lots of data on the common airplane types, so, yes, more AD’s. My airplane, built in 1975 has never had an airframe AD – but, only 37 were made, and six still flying, so data on the type is minuscule for any AD action – there will likely never be an airframe AD on my plane. That does not mean that there will not be some expensive problem in the future I might have to deal with.
The failed rudder control parts on the aforemetioned Musketeer were not AD’s there were just found during a good inspection. Still a costly return to service. Some type clubs are serving their membership well in support of older planes. And, I think that Cessna is too – but it’s very costly!
Non of these legacy airplanes were designed to remain in service as long as they have. Both the regulators and inspectors are well aware of the increasing concerns of airworthiness of aging airplanes, and looking more. The looking more is more costly (more intrusive and costly inspections), and what is being found is much more costly to repair. I’m working with maintenance shops who are finding things now, which were never found in the previous 50 years of the airplane – because now they’re looking! As Inspectors bring defects to me for approval of resolution, I find myself more and more saying: “Good catch!”, because what they have correctly found was not even being looked for ten years ago. But it’s there, it’s a hazard, and the owner is going to have to pay to fix it! Best to understand that before you’re the owner!
My impression is that types that are run hard in training service, for many hours, get a lot of attention that matches their service role. They then get new ADs over time that make them less desirable for me to own. I’m not running a flight school and don’t need repairs to be done in a few days. Planes like that are also in demand and disproportionately expensive, and I don’t particularly like to spend money on toys without getting good value. I prefer to use my capital to make more money, some of which pays to maintain toys.
Conversely, an aircraft type that was produced in lower volume and/or is generally used today for less severe service will get relatively little attention, both in the marketplace and from regulators. As a result, if problems occur they can be fixed without as much regulatory or procedural hassle, generally doing the work myself in collaboration with an A&P, with the only paperwork being a logbook entry. It might take a little longer but in my case the manufacturer planned volume production way back when, producing parts to sell a lot of planes, but then stopped after making only a few. The new parts still exist, can be bought with a little patience and aren’t so expensive. It’s worked out well, with modest costs. For anybody with similar needs and interests I’d suggest buying a less common type is a good thing.
The HR100/210 that @WilliamF has for sale would interest me if I wanted a 4-seater for VFR use in Europe.
Iˆve been looking at a HR100 in 2009 and yea, it is a great airplane. Immense range, 120 USG capacity and up to 1200 NM range at 130 kts. At Max Fuel it is a two seater, but can carry lots of weight if a more moderate 5 hours of range are fueled rather than the full 12 hours.
What put me off was that there is no way to install an Autopilot in a 12 hour range airplane. Some have a single axis Badin Crouizet (sorry if itŝ misspelled) but no altitude hold. No STC’s for even S-tec.
The 2nd thing was that once i closed the canopy I had to sit with my head tilted. at 1.86 size that was new to me
The potential to hold and safely use 100 Gallons (454L) of fuel is immense.
Ok, those are imperial gallons, so that would be, if I calculate properly, 120 USG. With 10 GPH, that is a solid 11 hour endurance with reserves. When I was playing with the POH all those years ago, I got up to 13 hours and 1200 NM range out of it.
I agree, a lovely airplane indeed. If anyone can find a way to fit an AP in it, it would be close to unbeatable.
There are several versions of the HR100 and not two are identical. The one I looked at had 200 hp and a bit less fuel, 100 <usg approx. It was a royal. My then site for it was here.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
What put me off was that there is no way to install an Autopilot in a 12 hour range airplane. Some have a single axis Badin Crouizet (sorry if itŝ misspelled) but no altitude hold. No STC’s for even S-tec.
I am coming back to this as it did not leave me in peace… so I googled for HR100 cockpits and to my surprise found this:
And this one:
That clearly is a STEC 30 AP in this airplane. So does the HR 100 actually have the possibility to install STEC AP’s? That would be a huge gamechanger for this airplane, as with its immense range of up to 10 hours, a 2 axis AP is almost a must.
