Update — Aircorp Bushmaster

Most aviation enthusiasts were surprised to learn that the Queensland company was developing an all Australian aircraft which was neither a kitbuilt nor a 101:55aircraft, but a full bottle FAR23 GA aircraft which was STOL and aerobatic to boot!

The immediate reaction was a flood of inquiries to a offices and to Aircorp seeking further information. We thus contacted Aircorp at their offices in Brisbane to get an update on the Bushmaster- one of three interesting endeavours to put Australia into the GA manufacturing business – and were further surprised. We discovered, for instance, that the Bushmaster was not just the model name for an individual aircraft type, but is actually the Series title for a whole range of STOL GA lightplanes the company is proposing to develop.

The prototype, pictured in our January issue, is a side by side two place. As a preproduction prototype, it is being used for all certification testing, but varies in several ways from the production aircraft. Principal differenceis that the wing of the prototype is fabric covered and braced by V struts; production craft will have a singlestrut and all metal wings with three stage flaps. The fuselage of the prototype is skinned in metal from the nose to the rear of the cabin and fabric covered aft of that; production aircraft will eliminate all fuselage fabric and the prototype’s 5. 0 0x 5 wheels will change to 6. 0 0x 6for production aircraft.

Aircorp says their Bushmaster series will be marketed in several forms:

82-16- Two seat side by side basic trainer and utility aircraft. B2-16A- Two plus two with accommodation for two children (or a third adult) behind the main seats.

83-16- A dedicated property support variant, seating single pilot on centreline with bench seat for two behind, or a cavernous U shaped cargo area with rear seat removed. All 82 and 83 aircraft will be fitted with Lycoming 0-23 5N2C four cylinder, air cooled engines of 116hp driving Sensenich fixed pitch props. Special order versions will be available powered by 160hp Lycomings and (probably) constant speed props.

Aircorp also has a full four place (84-60/84- 80) powered by a 160hp Lycoming (standard) or a 180hp powerplant (option) and with a 14 inch ‘plug’ stretch to the fuselage.

Aircorp’s design philosophy follows the same logic that Zlin used for their highly successful aerobatic aircraft and the German Bucker military training aircraft employed so well during WW2 – build the lightest, strongest airframe and fit the same motor your competitors use for aircraft 2 5% heavier.

Application of this logic to the B-2/B-3 series has already resulted in an exceptionally strong aircraft which has joined that extremely rare number of aircraft which can uplift their own weight and has genuine STOL performance as a bonus. Design calculations completed for the four place B4- 60 and 84- 80 suggest both variants will also be able to lift similar loads at projected sale prices below any comparable four place cabin type, according to Aircorp.

Sound too good to be true? Well you could be forgiven for wondering if this is just another of those ‘paper tiger’ aircraft which have been promoted as sensational but fizzle to mediocrity when the time comes to actually prove their maker’s claims. Yet here is an Australian company which has put better than $1. 2m of its own money into the development of a whole range of General Aviation lightplanes. That doesn’t read like a fly by night operation. We decided to find out more, so we spoke with Aircorp Director, Harry Anning.

Harry Anning is the company’s Senior Director. His two brothers, David and Fraser, are also directors. All three are cattlemen, with business and hotel interests; all are long time bush pilots who grew up in Western Queensland with a property aircraft on hand at all times. The Anning family’s aviation connections, however, run deeper than this. Their father, Bill, was the first cattleman in Australia to utilise an aircraft for mustering – an experiment which revolutionised the cattle industry. Their grandfather was one of the three original backers of two enthusiastic young airmen who wanted to found an air service in Western Queensland, back in the 192 0s. That air service – Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services – was eventually to grow into one of the world’s great international airlines . . . Qantas. Years later an uncle, Bev Anning, founded yet another Australian aviation legend: Bush Pilots’ Airways.

Besides the three Annings, Aircorp’s executive·lineup includes Brisbane businessman, Peter Ferro and longtime pilot/instructor/designer/aviation author/editor, Brian Creer. All are working directors. We put our questions to Harry Anning.

Australian Aviation: What caused the company to tackle the daunting task of certifying a new Australian design to international FAR23 standards?.

Anning: We believed there was a need for a simple, low cost bush aircraft. The Americans were no longer building aircraft the average person could afford. What was available was really not suited for the hard work and punishment of a bush operation. And then the Americans gave up singles because of the cost of insurance against liability litigation – sometimes costing more than the production cost of the aircraft.

AA: What you have done is build a welded steel tube fuselage and metal wings. Why didn’t you go to composites?

Anning: Welded tube is still the lightest structure for maximum strength and virtually nil maintenance. We deliberately avoided composites because in-field maintenance (particularly repairs) without expensive moulds and tooling is virtually impossible. We wanted to produce an aircraft which requires minimal maintenance and doesn’t break. What work may be required with our structure can easily be handled-even by unskilled labour-in an emergency.

AA: But, surely, so many other manufacturers are turning to composites these days. Companies like Beech, with their Starship, for instance.

Anning: Talk to anyone who has operated a lightplane in the bush, or on a property for any length of time and ask them which is better for rough country work. They’ll tell you tailwheels beat nosewheels hands down. Those who do operate trigear aircraft -and that’s most people, because that’s all that is available-will tell you the maintenance of nose legs, cost of firewall repairs and the constant risk of nosewheel collapse is financially and emotionally draining.

AA: From what we have already seen of your 8-2 prototype you certainly have a smart and attractive looking aircraft. But don’t you think some people will say it is old-fashioned – sort of 1938?

Anning: We happen to believe they had the formula right in 1938. Let’s face it, most 1938 aircraft can outlift, outclimb and outpace equivalent 1990 aircraft having more horsepower. The Bushmaster line are perfectly conventional and that translates into no ‘grey areas’, no surprises and reliable, predictable characteristics. We felt what the world really needed was a low cost Maule Rocket and that’s what we’ve set out to achieve . . . only a whole lot cheaper!

AA: We understand that. But one of the market targets for your aircraft is the flying school and commercial flight training segment. How will they react to a tailwheel aircraft in this day and age?

Anning: We direct mailed more than 1,000 operators throughout Australia, seeking their comments. We received a very high percentage responses – quite some hundreds. Only four respondents even raised the matter of landing gear configuration. One said: “Great . . . you’ve put the nosewheel at the right end of the airplane”. Another said, “I prefer my students (professional pilot trainees) to have at least the first 20 hours of their flying in a tailwheel aircraft”. The remaining two said, “You will need a nosewheel version because students are afraid of tailwheels”.

AA: Not just students. A lot of licensed pilots have no tailwheel experience and are afraid of the demanding nature of ground handling a taildragger.

Anning: There were pilots who had similar sorts of worries when the first nosewheel aircraft appeared. People tend to forget that, until the end of WW2, All lightplanes (and many airliners) were taildraggers and All pilots trained with tailwheels. A well designed tailwheel aircraft is no more difficult to handle than a Cessna 150 or 172. The Bushmaster is remarkably gentle in its ground handling and has been described as a ‘Grandma’s airplane’ to land.

AA: You really don’t think it will be a problem? -Anning: I didn’t say that. Of course there will be some resistance. But we have been encouraged because so many professional instructors have told us they do not see it as a problem. I believe, personally, that any dyed-in-the-wool nosewheel pilot will be completely converted after one circuit in a Bushmaster-it is that well mannered.

AA: I suppose that must be a case of wait and see, although if the price is right and the aircraft performs as claimed, buyers have, historically, been prepared to overlook almost anything.

Anning: Buyers look for the same thing in an aircraft as in a car. What does it look like? How much does it cost? How does it perform? Is there any way I can claim it off my tax?

AA: Do you see your major market in the training field or in the realm of the private owner?

Anning: In as much as our domestic market in this country is concerned, we see an immediate and quite substantial market for the 82/3 and the 84 in the rural support area, followed by the country and smaller aero clubs and flying schools, with an initial few going to major flying schools seeking a low cost entry level aerobatic trainer.

AA: And the private owner market?

Anning: I would personally expect a large percentage of initial production to go to private owners. However our market research indicates that this may follow on after the rural market has taken first bite of the cherry. In the export field the market priorities are quite different. AA: Speaking of exports- is there any plan in Aircorp’s strategy to enter the domestic US market?

Anning: None at all at the present time, because of the product liability litigation history and insurance requirements. However, we have an Aircorp director in the US at present and he is speaking with several organisations interested in marketing the B-2 as a kitbuilt in the USA.

AA: That would give you access to a tremendous potential market. Could your production facilities cope?

Anning: We have never intended building aircraft ourselves. Aircorp is an aircraft development company. Like Boeing, we believe in subcontracting work to specialists in the field and Aircorp maintains an assembly facility only. If we need a sudden expansion in output we expand our subcontractors. But in the case of US inquiries, they are all interested in licensed manufacture in the USA. And we’ve been courted by several SE Asian countries too.

AA: Who are your subcontractors here in Australia and how much of the completed aircraft will you need to import?

Anning: Contractual discussions are currently underway with major subcontractors at this time so I do not feel it prudent for me to name names. However, they include one of the largest and best known organisations in Australian GA Importation of materials and subcomponents from the USA must continue until there is a viable market to encourage an Australian company to produce local equivalents. We have arranged for a number of previously imported materials to be made here now so we are reducing steadily the imported component of the total aircraft. AA:· What sort of materials?

Anning: Several items, actually. Principally aluminium sheet which, in aircraft quality and thickness could only be purchased from the USA. We have persuaded one aluminium supplier to produce it locally and also to produce aircraft aluminium extrusions, previously only obtainable from the USA.

AA: And you are already using these products on your prototype and production aircraft?

Anning: Yes, the prototype uses the extruded wing struts made by a Brisbane company to our specifications. In fact they have sold some, with our blessing, to another aircraft manufacturer, so I suppose you might say what we are doing is of benefit to the whole Australian aerospace industry. Incidentally, our production aircraft uses a single extruded main spar in its wing, which provides great strength at low weight.

AA: Of course you will still need to import such major items as engines and flight instruments.

Anning: Yes. That’s where the money goes, of course. And changes in international money markets can make crushing differences in the landed costs of such items, particularly engines and props. AA: Well, on present prices of things, how much does a Bushmaster look like costing Australian customers?

Anning: At this distance from the first customer delivery I tend to be a little cautious. So many costs can change in a few months. However our company’s target prices are in the vicinity of $64- 70,000 for a B2/B3 and around $80-85,000 for the four seat B4s.

AA: That is considerably less than the cost of say, a Maule. A -little bit of ‘wistful thinking’ maybe?

Anning: Not at all. We have done our sums very carefully and costed this very accurately. You must remember that while the Bushmaster may appear completely conventional on the surface, it is highly innovative beneath the skin. The Maule is a really great aircraft, but it is based on construction systems in vogue some years ago. We have upgraded those systems and that has given us cost benefits.

AA: Do you see the Seabird Sentinel or the Mamba as your major competition in this country?

Anning: Neither are considered as major competition. We are each dealing with different markets. The Sentinel is intended as a surveillance and training aircraft while the Mamba has been conceived as a military support and trainer type. Bushmaster is not specifically intended, primarily, for either of these markets although it can handle either role with ease.

AA: It certainly sounds as if Aircorp is here to stay.

Anning: You can bet on that. We are just not going to go away. We have a series of pretty terrific lightplanes and we believe they will make their mark on the Australian scene very quickly. We hope to encourage more Australian pilots to become aircraft owners by a number of schemes, of which we will have more to say at a later date.

We have some very exciting projects on the back burner for future development. And if we have to become a kind of Cessna Aircraft Company of the South Pacific to achieve them all then that is exactly what we will do.