@simonfi, pages 7-8 of this link may be of interest – it’s a government sponsored summary of Valmet Vinka loads in service, fatigue data and airframe monitoring.
It looks like the airframes were worked as one might expect for a military trainer – 2 to 3 g loads about 10 times per flight hour, but the cycles per hour taper off quickly for higher g loading and (more to the point) no substantial airframe fatigue issues are reported in the fleet at up to 7100 hrs TT.
I suspect you will be building g-loading fatigue cycles at a tiny fraction of the rate per hour that the planes have experienced without substantial airframe inspection issues emerging and so I would expect a useful number of additional hours without issue.
@simonfi, you should absolutely strive to avoid the engine overhaul until you are able to extend the airframe life limit.
If you ask Trafi they should be able to provide you with a list of the new owners of the Vinkas. That should be public information that they can not deny you.
@etn That was an interesting article, thank you! I was surprised myself that even Traficom informed me that I can fly past the recommended TBO – my understanding was that it was something written in stone and had to be done.
Thank you. I recommend reading Mike Busch, particularly “Manifesto” and “Mike Busch on engines”. He also has many interesting articles on this page:
https://resources.savvyaviation.com
As far as I am concerned, my engine has approx. 900 hours but is well past the 12-year limit. It runs like a clockwork therefore I don’t see any incentive to do anything on it. (I hope I’m not jinxing myself with that statement ha ha!!) The previous owner changed oil every 25 hours and particularly before the winter, in order to have clean oil without all those corroding substances during the no-fly season. I’ll definitely keep on doing that.
One upgrade I deemed important was to have an engine monitor installed. My primary reason was to keep a close eye on the engine. Spend money to save more money, so to speak. It also enables good fuel saving: I run under 30 l/hr at 60% power, where the “red box” disappears. (Same O360 engine as your bird.) The DR253 still makes a honest 120kt TAS at this power setting.
Hope this helps :)
Simon, the engine monitor is a EDM 930 made by JPI. It is a primary monitor, which allows to replace all analog engine gauges – formerly spread all over the place – by this one. This cleaned up the panel quite a bit!
The competing device is called MVP-50P made by EI. Both are roughly equivalent with minor pro’s and con’s for each. I decided for the EDM.
Those two are the top of the line primary monitors with big screen. There are other, cheaper alternatives too.
Happy to exchange email / phone number in private message and discuss this further per phone if you wish.
Here’s a before/after of the panel… it multiplies by 10 my pleasure of flying :)
PS. Just thinking, you can probably use an experimental version of any equipment you build into your aircraft and save big bucks. (Contrarily to mine which is 100% certified)
simonfi wrote:
@Steve6443 do you know if there are any limitations on PtF, or will it be recognised by all EASA countries?
The aircraft I was referring to had an EASA PtF – here, there was no issue on limitations, except for what was written in the Permit; however your aircraft has likely a Finnish PtF; I’m going to go out on a limb and say that I believe it will be covered by the ECAC regulations, of which there is a thread here where you can see the status of approval per country. For most European countries, it’s not an issue as long as you meet their requirements – eg Austria requires an ELT; Spain is one of the few which require permission. However that is just my educated guess and not to be taken as legal advise.
@etn I will finally get the plane Thursday or Friday this week and my first step is to meet a mechanic to start going through the maintenance I want to do on the plane before applying for the Permit to Fly. This got me thinking about your panel – I’ve been debating a bit with myself if I should try to keep the panel “historically accurate” or if I should just go for “the best possible panel for my use” and think I’ve reached the conclusion that for it to be a plane I will enjoy, I should obviously have a panel that helps me enjoy flying it as much as possible.
While I got my license on an old Piper PA-28 with an all analog panel and am intimately familiar with flying that way, the last few years I’ve mostly been flying C172 with G1000 and do feel that lets me concentrate a lot more on flying rather than just scanning the panel. However, while I have been using G1000 a lot – I have to say I don’t really like it; I feel the UI is way too cumbersome, and the map/GPS functionality doesn’t come anywhere close to just having my flight plan and tracking on an iPad instead (Personally I use Sky Demon).
Now to my question; considering your panel, would you have any recommendations on specific brand/makes of instrumentation? What are the pros/cons of your setup?
The Vinkas appear to have a Garmin 430 and other circa-2002 avionics (?), installed at that time as a fleet-wide upgrade. This is not modern but not ancient. I’d personally fly it a while to make sure the plane is what I expected and that there aren’t more pressing issues to solve, before spending time and money on a panel upgrade. Then you could consider an Avidyne IFD440 that’s designed as a slide in replacement for the 430. And the simplest and most straightforward transponder upgrade, as/if required for airspace access.
An airspeed indicator calibrated in knots versus km/hr might justify a quick change, if legal and depending on the kind of flying (ATC involvement etc) you’ll be doing.
The Air Force operational limit of 7000 hrs is going to restrict perceived resale value and value appreciation for the type regardless of its legal applicability or structural validity, much like a Bulldog. That may be something to consider when investing money in the panel. Also whether airframe parts will continue to be available from the existing suppliers.
The Vinka has about 155 sq ft wing area, so it’s surely going to lift a load and climb. I’m interested in the type and wonder about cruise speed with the lowish wing loading – 120 kts is the published figure but in the formation video published in conjunction with AF retirement they were flying quite slowly. My guess is that this may have been to match the speed of the Grob G115 in the formation… but anyway that’s the first thing I’d check myself.
RV pressure recovery wheel fairings would probably give you 5 knots if you need it 
Hello Simon,
this looks like a really cool airplane. And while it is quite a task to take on for someone who has never owned an airplane to take on a project like this, you appear to be in good company with the other buyers. I do second what others have said here: The best way to do this is to unite forces of all the buyers and generate something like an owners associations which then can help to get these airplanes flying as soon as possible.
From what I see on the net it is a cool plane similar to the AS202 Bravo or similar trainers, fully aerobatic and with quite a bit of power. Should be great fun to fly. It also looks like some of the Vinkas were 2 seaters but others 3 seaters.
I found the following picture of the cockpit of the Finnish AF Vinka and would say, for now just leave it as it is. It is pretty decent imho apparently including most of what you need for international travel too. I see a GNS430 (maybe WAAS, maybe not), a 2nd com, a Mode S transponder, DME, ADF, dual RMI’s and a pretty neat collection of aerobatic approved gyros, I would not touch this at all for now, it is even IFR by all normal standards.
Source:
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/5987732
As for the engine: It appears to be a somewhat interesting variant of the trusty IO360 engine which is used in many applications: The aerobatic version amongst others in an impressive lineup of airplanes:
Aero-Cam Slick 360 Aviat Eagle II American Champion Super Decathlon Extra EA-200 FFA AS-202 Bravo Great Lakes Sport Trainer Grob G 115E Mudry CAP 10 Peña Capeña Pitts Special Tech Aero TR 200 Valmet L-70 Vinka Zlín Z 242IMHO that is a huge advantage as it is not something exotic that nobody can deal with.
As for TBO, the question immediately popping up in my mind is “which” TBO. There are two: Calendar and running time. You may well ignore calendar time, so the important bit to find out is how many hours has this engine since it’s last overhaul. The same goes for the propeller (I could not find the type anywhere, but seeing they use a conventional Lycoming engine, I guess it will not be something otherworldly either.
So I think the best way to go forth will be to unite all the buyers into an owners association and use all the help Traficom offers. If I get it correctly, they pretty much know this airplane and so will not be standing in front of something they need to google first, that also is a big help.
The big question for me will be the lifetime limit for the structure. Can it be extended? Does it have to be extended for PtF operation? What would the implications be, such as will it still be aerobatic? With just about 200 hours left this has to be addressed before you do anything else with it. Unless you can get authorisation to fly it well beyond that limit, it can very well operate with what it has. Again, there your group of users may well be very useful indeed.
And it may well be a very good idea to keep it Finnish, as in that jurisdiction just about everyone knows the plane whereas a German or Spanish CAA would be having kittens over them. Once it is on civil register and properly authorized to fly, this may change, but generally apart from some countries asking permissions, there is nothing wrong with keeping it Finnish.
Anyway, good luck with your purchase. And do keep us adviced.
