SportCruiser Question

[Conventional Gear]

Is it now possible to buy a NEW factory built CZAW SportCruiser to operate as G-Reg in the UK?

When I first looked at these several years back before the 'Piper Sport' venture, it was a case of buying a quick build kit only for UK operation as it had to be 'homebuilt' and therefore as the owner/operator I would have had to put in a specified time towards the build for it to qualify as 'homebuilt'.

Has this changed? What was the relevant legislation that changed if it is now possible to buy a new factory built aircraft for UK operation?

Ta.

[jxc]

There is a very very nice factory built one for sale at Earls Colne Glass cockpit fully loaded I believe

Cheers

[Genghis the Engineer]

NEW, no you can't, since Piper won't sell you one any more and it was under their organisation approvals.

You can get a sportcruiser kit from CSA which should be LAA approved, or a nearly-new second hand Pipersport sold whilst Piper was still in the game.

G

[Conventional Gear]

Thanks for the replies guys,

From what I've been told CSA are no longer selling kits and are only selling factory finished aircraft?

[A and C]

Factory built aircraft have in the past been "G plated" on a CAA permit and I see no reason why this should change.

I you want it as a private aircraft it would be a good buy, if you want to run it as a group or club aircraft that is quire another matter.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Factory built aircraft have in the past been "G plated" on a CAA permit and I see no reason why this should change.

I you want it as a private aircraft it would be a good buy, if you want to run it as a group or club aircraft that is quire another matter.

I stand to be corrected, but with the aeroplane being above the microlight category, and the company having no CAA or EASA approvals, the odds of this happening are somewhere between nil and nil, legally.

If they have EASA part 21 approvals and the type has an EASA TCDS with CSA at the TC holder, that all changes - but I don't believe that any of these things are true.

G

[smarthawke]

I think you'll find that you can buy new, factory complete SportCruisers - certainly they were being sold as such at Friedrichshafen last week (and were available as such before Piper were involved - there's one based at Wycombe).

The problem is that they are on an EASA Permit to Fly so can be used for for private use only. And no one knows where the PtF against Restricted Type Certificates/LSAs etc will go if/when EASA get to grips with it.

What you really want is the much nicer to fly, Tecnam P2002-JF - a certified VLA machine available for flying training/hire and private use (including Night/VFR)....

Next spring should see the certified P2008 available for those that like very pretty high wing machines (as opposed to the C162...!).

[Conventional Gear]

Been searching the web and it seems they are on an EASA permit which all appears to be very grey to my poor little brain.

To answer what I really want:

Cheep flying for the next 10 - 20 years

An aircraft I can do more to than change the plugs and polish. I'm handy with spanners, but not a certified aero engineer, though I would like to be able to do stuff like a basic oil change etc without paying a fortune for it to be done.

Something totally modern.

I'm not keen on the kit route, I've probably got the ability (done a couple of courses where they thought I would probably do OK), but truth is I just want to fly, like now. ;)

My master plan was to buy a Chipmunk and then syndicate it, recovering most of the capital to buy a SportCruiser. I'm not all that convinced that a Chipmunk syndicate is viable, hence I'm now considering just bunging all the capital at the SportCruiser for my own Private use.

So assuming I can buy a SportCruiser factory built and fly it on an EASA permit as a G reg, do I need a certified engineer to do the maintenance? Would this be a different story if it was a kit built version? :confused:

[IO540]

though I would like to be able to do stuff like a basic oil change etc without paying a fortune for it to be done.

A complete 50hr check is within pilot privileges on a CofA aircraft - both G-reg and N-reg.

Doing your own 50hr checks represents a large operating cost saving. I spend about £70 on the oil, £15 on the oil filter, and that's about it. I would be paying £600+ for a company to do it.

[A and C]

Quote:-Factory built aircraft have in the past been "G plated" on a CAA permit and I see no reason why this should change.

I should have said EASA permit !!!!!!!

[Conventional Gear]

I've had some time to look at the P2002 JF, hmmm interesting, doesn't have the looks of the SportCruiser, but does make lots of sense.

I noticed it is night/VFR capable? Does this apply to the UK? When I did my night qualification I remember that it was technically an IFR flight, anyone know if I can legally fly a P2002 JF at night in the UK?

While we are at it, any other suggested aircraft? The SportCruiser is still winning (mainly because after 4 years of wanting one it's really hard to ignore) but I might as well be aware of the alternatives. :)

[patowalker]

G-INFO shows a dozen factory built SportCruisers on EASA permits to fly.

[smarthawke]

The Tecnam P2002-JF is now EASA certified for Night/VFR - and the UK CAA (I spoke to them personally) accept it as such. For the aircraft it needs the nav light, map lights etc, heated pitot options and preferably the auxiliary alternator.

More info here Tecnam UK (http://www.tecnamuk.com/) with a demo aircraft operated by Airways Flying Club (http://www.airwaysflyingclub.co.uk/) (or PM me for a guided tour - I have about 15 hours on G-TECI and it's a real fun machine to fly!).

The difference in operating costs between a Chipmunk and a P2002-JF are immeasurable....

[Conventional Gear]

I realise the Chipmunk is a completely different proposition, hence why I was considering a syndicate, I simply couldn't operate one for any amount of time on my own.

As the response to a proposed Chipmunk Syndicate in Essex (different thread) had precisely zero people saying they would go for it, I think I'm much safer with plan B to invest the capital in something new and inexpensive to operate, I can just fly and enjoy. The idea was that whilst I had the lump sum I could launch the syndicate and have my cake and eat it, but if nobody wants 'in' with the Chipmunk, then that is a no go.

My selection for the modern aircraft is based on cost to 1000hrs being less than £100K, SportCruiser just scrapes in at that at current fuel prices (ignoring insurance and hangar costs), have to do my sums on the P2002-JF.

I'll drop you a PM smarthawke, I've a couple of busy weeks ahead but I sure would like a guided tour of the the P2002-JF when I get some spare time. :ok:

[Conventional Gear]

Doing my sums, I'm a little over budget on fuel/initial purchase cost, but lets say I can afford a little over budget.

So I need the maintenance costs on the P2002-JF

Which would consist of?

I'm guessing 50hr checks

Annual

Engine replaced at 1500hrs

Can you give me basic maintenance costs smarthawke if say 100hrs per year and assuming we don't go beyond 1000hrs so don't need to replace the engine.

[Rod1]

Why not get a low hour home built? You can then do all the maintenance yourself saving you a lot of cash over 20 years but you do not have to build it. There is a lot to choose from and you can keep it bang up to date with a lot less cash. Have a look at the Sport Cruiser, the P300, MCR01, Tecnam and probably several more. If you are thinking of serious touring do keep an eye on the wing loading. Some machines are much more prone to turbulence than others. Big variations in speed and load carrying as well.

Rod1

[Rod1]

“Engine replaced at 1500hrs”

Why? The TBO of the Rotax is 2000hours. If you go LAA many run past 3000. If you go homebuilt recon on about £300 a year for maintenance over the first 5 years at least.

100 hour on the Rotax (assuming 70% or more Mogas use) involves 3L of oil £20 and a filter £8. You will also need a bit of locking wire etc.

Rod1

[Conventional Gear]

I was reading up the blurb on the P2002-JF which stated - engine life before replacement 1500hrs - that's where it came from.

I'm thinking the P2002-JF is a lot more cash than the SportCruiser in real terms. SportCruiser wins on load capacity too.

I think I can stretch to the oil and and filter and locking wire Rod ;) That is considerably cheaper than what I pay for my 5000 mile service of my old Land Rover :ok:

Which goes back to the question I had before, if I went for a new SportCruiser on an EASA permit, does that let me do all my own maintenance? Or is that only possible if it is a homebuilt version? What I'm really worried about is big maintenance bills - particularly considering I'm pretty confident I could do the work myself.

Quick edit, OK I didn't type Trabant, forum joke??:}

[Rod1]

“I went for a new SportCruiser on an EASA permit, does that let me do all my own maintenance”

You are subject to part M maintenance, so limited to the same work you could do on a PA28etc.

The 1500hours is out of date.

Have you flown in many Rotax powered machines?

Rod1

[Conventional Gear]

Not many, in fact only one, however the more I see them, the more envious I'm getting!

[dstevens]

I own a Factory built Sportcruiser, and can give a few facts if anyone is interested:

- The aircraft are perfectly legal (where did that "grey" comment come from??!!)

- They are on an EASA Permit to Fly, issued by the CAA

- I just received my Annual PtF validation

- Maintenance is not under Part-M, it is subject to BCAR S, although some of us are choosing to follow the more stringent "LAMS" regime out of choice.

- This means that some (quite a lot) of work can be done by the owner/pilot, but there are some jobs that must be done by an approved maintenance organisation. Again, some of us are choosing to have an Approved org do all the work, ijncluding 6 monthly checks and rotax work, for piece of mind, but it is not mandatory.

- Once EASA decides upon a Sport Aircraft (or similar) maintenance regime, we may fall under that, but who knows...

It is a great aircraft, economical (I flew Kemble/Isles of Scilly return recently, and used just over half tanks of Mogas) and fun.

It was announced at Fred'r'schafen (can't spell it) that a dsitributor has been appointed, I believe, in the UK, so as far as I understand, you CAN by a new, factory built Sportcruiser.

[Conventional Gear]

dstevens,

Many thanks for the informed reply.

Sorry, the 'grey' comment was ambiguous, it only meant it appeared 'grey' to me relating my own lack of knowledge regarding EASA permits and I was struggling to clarify exactly what that meant in terms of maintenance requirements. I didn't intend to imply there was anything shady going or the aircraft on the UK register were in anyway illegal!

Now you have answered all is becoming clear so I now know what I need to be reading up on :ok:

[Rod1]

The CAA's EASA Permit clarification letter written by Jim McKenna, Head of Strategy, Policy and Standards, Civil Aviation Authority.



Light Sport Aircraft (LSA): With the increasing interest in Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) it is

important that operators and potential purchasers are aware of the current situation regarding the European Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) plans for the aircraft.



At present, EASA will provide 'Flight Conditions' for these aircraft. This potentially allows these aircraft to qualify for an EASA Permit to Fly (Pt F), which will be issued by the State of Registry, e.g. the UK CAA. The aircraft are being delivered from the manufacturer, accompanied by an EASA Form 52. This attests to the build status of the aircraft but, at present, these documents have no legal validity as the production process currently sits outside of the established EASA Implementing Rules for certification under Part 21. This means that aircraft which have had a PtF issued, have not been designed or manufactured to a certificated standard and will be restricted in their use. For example, ab initio flying training or its use for hire and reward will not be permitted.



EASA has recently agreed to formalise the requirements for certification and manufacture of
these LSA types. We believe that EASA intends that they will be designed to a code,

Certification Specification (CS) - LSA, based on the US ASTM specification. It will also be a requirement that the production organisation be approved, in accordance with Part 21. In the absence of the Part 21 approval, the aircraft will not be eligible for anything other than a PtF and so therefore it willbe restricted in use.



Aircraft manufactured and delivered when the Part 21 production approval is in place will initially be issued with a PtF but once the aircraft has been evaluated against the design code, may be eligible for the issue of a CofA. EASA is considering further the likely operating rules that will apply to LSA aircraft with a CofA and it is hoped that this will include flying training.



There are three further points worth noting. Firstly, kit-built versions of these LSA ai rcraft will only be eligible for a National PtF, e.g. a UK National PtF issued by the CAA and administered through the Light Aircraft Association. Secondly, an aircraft with an EASA PtF is not necessarily eligible for flight in the airspace of another country, even the EU Member States, as EASA has yet to take on the legal competence for airspace use and access. Thirdly, LSA aircraft on a PtF cannot be hired out. This constitutes hire and reward but can be operated by a group in accordance with the current group rules defined in the UK Air Navigation order (max 20 members sharing the costs).



In the meantime, prospective purchasers of these aircraft should be aware that the EASA requirements are not yet in place.


Jim McKenna

Head of Strategy, Policy and Standards,
Airworthiness Division,

Safety Regulation Group,

Civil Aviation Authority

[smarthawke]

CG

If you plan on 100 hrs a year that'll be one 50 Hr/6 Month Check and an Annual. At that work on a total of around £1500/yr for the maintenance, plus parts.

As Rod said, if you run more than 30% Mogas then you change the oil/filter at 100 hrs. More than 30% Avgas and you change the oil and filter at 50 hrs. Also sparkplugs are replaced at 100 hrs when running Avgas, 200 hrs when on Mogas (plugs are less than £4 each though - not the £24 for a Lycoming plug...!).

We have 270 hrs on each engine on our P2006T and 100 hrs on our P2002-JF - both since last summer and they've both been as good as gold - exactly in line with what experienced Rotax owner/operators say. We've changed a couple of things on the P2006T but that's to be expected with a new design, the P2002-JF is a well proven design and has been fault free.

The Rotax 912 TBO is now 2000 hrs or 15 yrs. Was it on the company website you saw the old TBO figure?

Pwerformance-wise, the proof of course, is not in the sales figures but how it really flies, and not just how it handles - a study of the aircraft's weight and balance will give a closer clue as to its load carrying capabilities. For instance, we get 100 kts IAS with the P2002-JF burning 16 lph. This is real time, indicated air speed - not TAS at 8000 ft.... Or there's the old trick of adjusting the ground adjustable prop pitch to get good take-off and climb figures and (or...!) high cruise numbers....

[Conventional Gear]

Thanks for the info Rod1 & smarthawke,

Was it on the company website you saw the old TBO figure?

It was in a PDF brochure I found on the web, I guess it could have been well out of date.

[patowalker]

Or there's the old trick of adjusting the ground adjustable prop pitch to get good take-off and climb figures and (or...!) high cruise numbers....

Not a trick, just a genuine mistake ;)

ORS4 No. 836: Exemption under Article14 (4) Regulation (EC) 216/2008 in respect of Conformity with the Design Standard approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for the Aircraft Type | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=4335)

[Thud105]

Isn't the 2,000hr/15-year TBO only applicable to certified Rotax 912s?

[patowalker]

Why would paper make any difference to service intervals?

[Dan the weegie]

Kind of, only in that you can run a certified engine post TBO on condition only for non commercial use. Whereas you can only run an uncertified engine for non commercial use. So the TBO for the uncertified engine is slightly irrelevant other than for it's annual inspection which will change slightly post TBO.

:)

[Rod1]

Conventional Gear

Just to repeat myself, do look carefully at the wing loading; it makes a huge difference to the ride.

Rod1

[Conventional Gear]

Rod1, can you help me out there?

I can't find a published wing loading for the Tecnam P2002 JF, I know the basic calculation but not sure if I do the calculation it will compare will the published calculation for the SportCruiser which is:

45,6 kg/m²

I'm assuming the SportCruiser has the lower wing loading based on published performance figures for the the two aircraft and is therefore a rougher ride in turbulence?

Just a quick edit, my own calculation based on MTOW of 600 Kg and published wing area for the Tecnam gives:

52,2 kg/m²

Significantly higher wing loading ;)

[patowalker]

I'm assuming the SportCruiser has the lower wing loading based on published performance figures for the the two aircraft and is therefore a rougher ride in turbulence?

Not rough, just interesting. Owners don't complain about those big wings, because they know how much fuel and baggage they can put in them.

[Rod1]

This is a post I put together some time ago, you will see that the PiperSport (SC) is the heaviest aircraft but has a much lower wing loading than the comparison machines;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparing aircraft numbers is an interesting pastime and can be useful to sort the facts from the fiction. The Sportcruiser was designed to meet the US LSA cat, but most of the SC aircraft in the UK are flying based on compliance with CS-VLA. If we compare the SC with other VLA machines we get some interesting results;

“The aircraft is very light (~380kgs Empty mass, 600kgs MAUW)”

Compared with a 152 (1950’s tec) it is light, compared with the modern VLA designs it is very heavy. This is probably due to the use of traditional metal construction. Some comparisons;

SC 380kg
Pioneer 300 305kg
MCR01 Club 250kg

All three use the same Rotax 912 100hp engine, so the power to weight ratio is very different, which of course has a big impact on performance;

SC Cruise 105 kts ~ 18 lts/hr
Pioneer Cruise 135 kts ~ 18.5 lts/hr
MCR01 Club Cruise 138 kts ~ 18.5 lts/hr

So the aircraft is about 40% slower. This of course will mean you need a lot more fuel to travel the same distance, so can the CS carry the extra fuel?

SC 120L
Pioneer 80L
MCR01 80L

So the lack of speed can be compensated by fuel capacity, but can it lift the weight?

SC 220kg
Pioneer 201kg
MCR01 Club 240kg

Certainly any advantage of the fuel capacity is seriously compromised by the speed / load equation. How Comfortable? The SC is a much bigger aircraft than the others, so what about cockpit width?

SC 46.5”
Pionear 41.3”
MCR01 44.5”

A clear win for the SC, but there is another issue with how Comfortable an aircraft is. How much do you get bounced around on an average UK summers day? This is not just about weight; it is also about wing area;

CS 13.2 Msq
Pioneer 10 Msq
MCR01 6.5 Msq

The key issue being wing loading;

CS 45 kg/sq
Pioneer 56 kg/sq
MCR01 75 kg/sq

Of all the aircraft above, the SC is the most likely to have to slow down in turbulence, but does the large wing give it an advantage in stall speed?

SC 38kn
Pioneer 44kn
MCR01 42kn

So a clear win for the SC, which should allow it to use a bit less runway; I cannot find a full set of figures on that, but it is almost certainly true.

Crosswind limit?

CS Anyone?
Pioneer 20kn
MCR 20Kn

Rate of Climb?

CD 1200 fpm
Pioneer 1500 fpm
MCR01 1600 fpm

Certification limitations?

All the above are VFR only no hire allowed. All are working on factory built aircraft certification with an eye on the training and private owner market, but the VFR restriction will stay. The CS is at least six months ahead of the mcr01 on this and I have no up to date Info on the Pioneer.

Conclusion

Unless you are talking solely of replacing the 152 fleet, the CS should be compared with other similar aircraft, which are available in Europe. My analysis is incomplete, and only covers aircraft, which I had figures to hand. Personally I would find the speed issue with the SC an impossible pill to swallow. I often fly 2 / 3 two hour legs in a day when I am in serious touring mode. The 40% increase required for the SC would make this impractical, even if I could carry the fuel. For the training market, an all-metal aircraft must look much less of a risk than the others, and the Piper name will win a lot of orders. If anybody would like to take the above, add in the Skycatcher and fill in some of the gaps, there would be an excellent basis for a magazine article.

Also look at;

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/423714-turbulence-pa28-vs-pipersport.html

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/429590-sportcruiser-opinions.html

Rod1

[Conventional Gear]

Thanks again guys, I'm feeling more informed.

Have to say 'interesting rides' are not much of a problem to me. I mostly trained on the PA-28, OK plenty of days when the 152 crowd complained about the bumps and I hadn't a clue what they were on about :E - However, I stepped out of a PA-28 to a PA-18, now I know what they were talking about, but I actually liked it more because I could feel the thing. Hire of either still remains an option of course, so if I wanted to fly a PA-28 for the day I could still hire one. I would be more inclined towards owning something like the PA-18 if it wasn't such hard work. I love flying them, but not sure I could actually live with one.

I'm pretty much expecting much lighter pitch control in a SportCruiser than I was ever use to in a PA-28, I must admit 100kts cruise is enough for me. My experience of 130kts in an Arrow just left me feeling everything was happening far too quickly for my experience level - slowing down to 70kts in a Super Cub I found I enjoyed a lot more than going upwards in cruise speed.

Perhaps now the Tecnam vs SC comparison is coming down to just the financial sense side, the Tecnam seems to leave more flexibility than the SC as it ages, (could hire to a club for training for example) the SC still wins for me on simple pure good looks. I don't see the SC is too compromised by my likely mission which will mostly for the next few years be fairly short hops around to all the places that seemed too close to bother taking a PA-28 into with the odd longer touring trip. The primary objective is to get away from the hire spiral and associated low currency I've achieved in the past couple of years.

I certainly could see me going off for a weekend with the SC and a tent and being very happy :)

It's not a one horse race though, for sure I'll be looking at getting flights in both before making the commitment, as much as I love the concept of the SC it's hard to ignore the sense of the Tecnam.

[ppraticallybroke]

Why is it whenever someone asks about an LSA, the Tecnam dealer appears and tells people to buy a Tecnam?

"What you really want is the much nicer to fly, Tecnam P2002-JF " -citation needed

Let me provide some facts.

EASA will create CS-LSA on June 1st. This allows aircraft to be granted a RTC. Only two companies have met the technical specification set out by EASA to meet this requirement at present. They are Czech Sport Aircraft and Flight Design. These will be the first.

As for your decision, take a test flight. See for yourself. The new sportcruiser (version 4) has been drastically altered. The first of these roll off the production line in just under a month. It is full of tweaks born out from feed back of current owners, but the biggest change is a new aerodynamic package; the new aircraft envelope is phenomenal. Clean flap stall 34 kts. Full flap just 27 kts! Roll is lighter, pitch stiffer, longitudinal stability improved and control harmonisation enhanced. Pilot magazine have reviewed the new version and a full list of changes including a comprehensive assessment from their journalist who has flown the aircraft will be included in one of the next few editions. But ring tecnam, ring Czech sport and fly their aircraft.
Czech Sport will also be able to give you running costs data if you ask them. It works out as roughly £38/h wet to run. Maint, insurance, fuel, the lot depending on flight hours.

Other rumours - now fact. EASA have announced you can use an uncertified engine in RTC aircraft despite protests from Rotax. TBO is 2000 hours. Uncertified means cheaper spares. Certified parts cost more. The engines themselves are virtually identical, but for the colour of the cylinder caps.

And why is the proof not in sales figures? You try your friends, you like it you buy it? Or you test it and buy it? It is also in insurance figures, there is no emotion in that decision. Get a quote on both and see which is lower (a safer bet for insurance companies). Haywards or Emery Little could provide quotes for you for example. Assume both are £100,000 so you can see what percentage of hull value, the quote is.

But you can read all you like. Fly them! As mentioned the new sportcruiser (the one you would be ordering) is due off the line in about a month, so get a demo after that time to see the changes.

Alternatively go to the Aero-Expo in Sywell June 17-19th. Most manufacturers will be there (certainly CSA have a stall, i would expect tecnam to as well). You can see the aircraft, ask the questions, maybe even talk to owners?

Good luck. :ok:

[Dan the weegie]

Fly both :)

I own a Super Cub and it's brilliant - not hard work though just very slow :D it's also mega cheap to run but far from modern.

Also look into ownership prospects of each aircraft, how easy is it to get parts for your plane? Speak to people who service both aircraft? There will be companies around - check the guys out at Nth Weald as there's definitely both SCs and Tecnams there.

Just to reiterate, Piper have no connection to the Sport Cruiser any more that was ended by mutual consent.

[smarthawke]

It has to be said that external looks should perhaps not be regarded as the most important factor when buying an aircraft...

As Dan said, the best way would be to fly both and base your decision on real time personal experience.

Tecnam parts, incidentally - we don't have any problems getting them directly from the factory. Rotax bits we get from Skydrive.

[mrspog]

How on Earth do you arrange a trial flight in a Sportcruiser? For such a well known aircraft it seems to be very difficult to find contacts.
Paul

[Conventional Gear]

I'm sorry I don't agree about the looks to be honest.

I've owned cars, motorbikes, caravans all sorts of things because I liked the looks! It's not that weird really, buying a plane for me is other than paying a mortgage the biggest investment I'll ever make. The Tecnam, well I don't know how to put it, it looks 20-3O years older than an SC and doesn't grab me in the same way. It might sound minor but I'm far more likely to put time into looking after the SC than something that looks a bit, well like a plastic T67 (not that I've got anything against the T67, mighty fine aeroplane but that isn't what I'm buying into!)

For sure though I appreciate all the comments and I have more research to do, though I feel more informed for sure it is time to try them out and see which I like the most. I've also taken note of the improvements to be incorporated into the SC so fly it and see time. To be honest before asking I wouldn't have quite known where to have started, now I can put together proper comparisons for 1000hr running costs, get some real world insurance quotes, hangar fees etc. The main thing is going back to the original question, I can buy a factory built SC and fly it in the UK:ok:

[smarthawke]

Plastic T67...?

Well the T67 is plastic (apart from the T67A) and the P2002-JF is made of proper stuff - aluminium...!

[With apologies if I misinterpreted your post!]

[Conventional Gear]

lol yes I suppose you are right!

I should choose my words more carefully. To be honest the Tecnam looks are growing on me, the article is helping, more pictures to look at ;) To be honest it's like most things, looks grow on you. I actually thought the SC was a weird looking thing at first, then thought it looked great. I'm half way through the article and actually now think that other than the canopy frame, they both look very similar and I was silly worrying too much about the looks before.

[A and C]

Having looked at both the SC & Tecnam from an engineering point ot view I have to say that the Tecnam is likely to be the cheaper option to own, as Smarthawke says they are made of metal.

Unfortunatly Smarthawke's jugment if flawed in that Gods composite (Wood) is the "proper stuff" to build aircraft from!

[gasax]

The vast majority of the SC is also made of metal. There are large fairings - which pretty much include the whole top of the aircraft but the underlying structure is T6061. I would accept that the canopy may be more vulnerable - if only due to its size.

[Conventional Gear]

Having looked at both the SC & Tecnam from an engineering point ot view I have to say that the Tecnam is likely to be the cheaper option to own

Can you explain that further A and C?

[A and C]

In my opinion the SC is built down to a price and weight, this has already resulted in the replacement (paid for by the factory) of the nose leg with a much more robust of greater weight. This is likely to solve the problems of cracking nose legs but in such a lightly built aircraft the loads are likely to put more strain on other parts of the structure that will result in further problems.

All SC aircraft that I have seen have required to have a new nose leg fitted but all have also had random failures of parts that are basicly of very light construction, the fixes for these parts are likely to result in the aircraft weight growing and as a result the performance falling.

As a single owner or very small group aircraft I think that the SC would give reasonable service if treated well, in the rough and tumble of a flying club the SC is simply not up to the task and it would be more economic to operate a Cessna 152 even if it burns twice as much fuel.

The tecnam is of more robust construction and it has at least a fighting chance of living in a club enviroment.

[Rod1]

Conventional Gear

Why are you only looking at these two options? Is the AT3 and the Breezer etc not worth a look? You can hire the AT3 from a number of flying schools.

Rod1

[Conventional Gear]

I'm not Rod1 - my options run from a Chipmunk, Piper L4, Aeronca Champ, through to Rotax powered VLA and then some.

My original question was simply could I buy a factory built SportCruiser to put on G-Reg in the UK as talking to a couple of owners I was confused as to if it was possible now or not.

What has followed is an interesting comparison between the SC and the Tecnam and I've resolved to try both before making any decision.

Fact is I've a lump sum to throw at my flying. One route would be to go for lots more training CPL/FI etc and have other people pay for my flying, the other is to invest now in my own plane. I'm certainly not restricting as to what I'm looking at, but now I am much more informed regarding the SC and Tecnam. I hadn't actually considered the Tecnam at all before.

[Shoestring Flyer]

I have to say there is a lot of twaddle being talked about on here with regard to the Sportcruiser.

My 2008/2009 kit built Sportcruiser is still on its original noseleg and I operate from an undulating quite bumpy 480metre grass strip.

Of course it is a fact true that if you land any light aircraft 'flat' you run the risk of bending or breaking the noseleg and it is true that a few Sportcruiser noselegs have been bent by inexperienced people.

I have also flown the P2002 and trust me, regarding effect in turbulence there is no difference between the Sportcruiser and the Tecnam so all this talk about differences in wing loading, I have found, make virtually no noticable difference in practice.

[Conventional Gear]

That's not really out of line with A and C comments - robust enough for small group or private owner - not so good as a training a/c. Sounds fair enough. I was lucky enough to have an instructor that wouldn't allow me to land flat, that isn't always the case I've observed. Fact is there have been a lot of nose wheel cracks found on SCs requiring a beefed up version to be fitted and they do seem to bend easily, as I understand it this has now been addressed.

[A and C]

Quote:-I have to say there is a lot of twaddle being talked about on here with regard to the Sportcruiser.

My 2008/2009 kit built Sportcruiser is still on its original noseleg and I operate from an undulating quite bumpy 480metre grass strip.

So you are the lucky one ? or you are not doing your inspections properly ? I don't know the truth of the matter but I do know that all four of the SC's that I cover (yes I have CRS authority from the CAA for the permit aircraft) have required nose leg replacement due to cracks and so I would expect you to be looking at a nose leg problem soon if you have the early leg fitted.

Other items have failed at low hours due to cracks but no patern has emerged yet with these failures yet, I expect the SC to mature into a reliable aircraft as the factory iron out the bugs but this is likely to take 20-30 KG off the payload.

CG

It is not a bending problem, it is cracks! the factory now supply a much more robust leg, the weight of the leg reflects it's robustness.

[Conventional Gear]

Some have bent too A and C, there was a company offering a fix for the cracking, but only if the leg could still be straightened. I've not time right now to find the reference I'll have a look for it later today.

[micromalc]

So how does the AT3 compare to all the above aircraft?

[Mickey Kaye]

Is the AT3 and the Breezer etc not worth a look? You can hire the AT3 from a number of flying schools.

As far as I am aware the Breezer isn't certified for flying instruction

[middenview]

Well, June the 1st has come and gone, and I havn't seen the press release, either from EASA or CZAW.

[Mickey Kaye]

I was thinking exactly the same thing and you could and "Breezer" to that list also.

[middenview]

Breezer didn't claim an actual date (which has now disappeared from the Czech website for CZAW and been replaced by "Summer").

But the USA website, which I saved a copy of the page of, claims that the Sportcruiser has attained an RTC which AFAIK can't be issued yet.

The relatively public nature of European law suggests that any RTC is at least three months away since it doesn't appear on the agenda of any meeting visible from the EU website - and the recent opinion document is relatively vague.

[davehearn]

I would like to also learn to fly an sc then find somewhere to hire one for pleasure flying. anyone got any pointers on this?
regards dave

[letpmar]

Why not look at building a sportcruiser from kit having done it I realise its not as hard as you think. New sportcruiser kits should be coming in from china fairly soon the factory is build and airframes are being built as we speak. I have an option on one.
I would be happy to talk things over with you and you are welcome to a go in mine.

Pete
07976262833

[flyinkiwi]

I note you are comparing the SC to the Tecnam P2002, what about the P2008? Is that in a different category as a LSA?