RTC for Sportcruiser

[fallingfast]

I'm hearing from Aero Expo down at Friedrichshafen that CSA now has a Restricted Type Certificate for the Sportcruiser.

As in "they actually have it", rather than "they should have it soon".

Well done to them....not an easy thing to achieve!

:D

[ben.fitzgerald]

This is correct. After an age of being patient and having umpteen new hurdles come along, today the Restricted Type Certificate was indeed awarded from EASA to Czech Sport Aircraft meaning that the plane in its latest form can be purchased by clubs for use as a trainer.

The factory have also worked hard on the glass and analogue configurations so that both ate comprehensive and affordable. We'll be at Aero Friedrichshafen until the weekend, and there will be some considerable champagne flowing I'm sure..

If any PPRUNE members are there do come along and say hello!

We are still working out the full implications beyond the obvious, eg the path for existing planes is being clarified.

Regards
Ben

[znww5]

Any significance in the fact that Cessna officially pulled the 162 out of Europe only a few days before this announcement was made? This would have been quite a coup for Piper if the relationship with CSA could have been made to work.

[Dave Gittins]

I've flown both the CSA Sportcruiser and a PiperSport in Florida. Nice little aeroplane. Good luck for sales in the UK. I'll be happy to fly one again if any materialise near me.

[A and C]

Quote:-
This is correct. After an age of being patient and having umpteen new hurdles come along, today the Restricted Type Certificate was indeed awarded from EASA to Czech Sport Aircraft meaning that the plane in its latest form can be purchased by clubs for use as a trainer.

I could not think of a better way to go out of business that start training with the SC, the fact is that in the hands of careful private owners the SC is a very good aircraft and perhaps the best in its class. What it is not is robust and the aircraft will simply not handle the punishment of the training environment.

I await the first SC training operation with interest and predict that they will change their fleet of SC's for a more robust and lower performance aircraft within 6 months following a rash of broken landing gear legs and rapidly increasing insurance prices ( or they could replace the SC's with Cessna 152's and make steady money)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can see your argument A&C, but it appears to me to be a far more robust aeroplane than the Shadow, which was a very reliable club trainer for years within the microlight world.

Indeed, I passed my PPL(D) in a Shadow CD in 1993, which I just looked up and it's still in the same flying school, with around 4000 hours on it.

So just because it's not built like a Cessna, does not mean it can't be robust, long lasting, and provide excellent teaching and hire capacity.


The fact that the Sportcruiser is nowwhere near certifable in the VLA category that would be required for commercial training however, will kill it stone dead. It's an LSA, with an EASA Permit, not a CofA aeroplane. Even with the EASA tweaks, LSA is a gash standard and I'd much rather be flying something independently verified to comply with CS-VLA or part 23. Or, frankly, a UK microlight certified by the BMAA or CAA to BCAR Section S, which is also a much more robust process.

G

(For the record, CAA design signatory up to part 23 for whole aeroplanes.)

[patowalker]

... and I'd much rather be flying something independently verified to comply with CS-VLA or part 23.I built a SportCruiser, which was independently verified by the LAA to comply with CS-VLA.

Sport Cruiser BRS Deployment Test (http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/oto%20bin/sportcruiser_PFA_test.htm)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Even the POH and performance data?

G

[patowalker]

It was the factory built aircraft that had a problem. POH written by Marketing Dept :)

[A and C]

I can only speak as I find, as one of the few who has the approval to sign out the aircraft that are on the EASA permit I see a lot of problems in these aircraft.

Most of the problems revolve around the landing gear with the replacement of both nose and main gear legs being an issue, the aircraft are all owned and flown by the owners who I would describe as at the upper end of the PPL skill level so I don't think that the aircraft are getting a hard time from the way that they are being flown.

The inspection regime seems to be robust enough to pick up the problems before they become a problem but I don't think that this would be the case if the aircraft was operated for training were by definition the pilots would be at the lower end of the skill level.

I have to contrast the problems that we see in these aircraft that are almost new and fly may be 50-100 hours a year with a 1980 Cessna 152 that has flown 13,000 hours+, flys 300 hours+ a year and in the past 5 years has had two nose leg seals and a few bolts and bushes in the way of maintenance, I doubt that the Cessna has cost more than £70-80 in the way of landing gear maintenance and yet this aircraft has spent its life being landed ( usually badly) by student pilots.

I am sure that the numbers will simply not stack up if using the SC for training.

[Dave Gittins]

I flew the Sportcruiser and PiperSport at Orlando Gateway in Kissimmee at Christmas 2010. They were using them for training but I have to agree they were not the most robust thing I've ever met, compared to the 152/172s and PA-28s of my more regular aquaintance.

I see that they are now flying the Aerotrek A240 and Tecnam Bravo (which may well support what A and C says about the SportCruiser and Pipersport) but they don't look any more robust to me; so if the change was made because of rapid deterioration in the training environment (and I guess it would be even worse in sportpilot training) I wonder how the 2 high wingers are making out ?

[Shoestring Flyer]

I built and have owned my own Sportcruiser for the past 4years and 200hours and it still has the original style landing gear, both nose and mains and have not experienced any cracks or breakages of either.
Due to problems that I hear others have had I do tend to look for cracks etc on almost a daily basis but there are none on my aircraft. I also operate out of a very bumpy, short and undulating grass strip.

Having said all of the above, would an S/C stand up to the rigours of a training school?......I think almost certainly not!
As a sole owner I am careful how I get in/out, land, takeoff and generally treat and fly the aircraft but in a flying school environment it just wouldn't take the punishment that I see administered daily by students on 152's etc.
So whilst I think the Sportcruiser is an excellent owner driver aircraft, not the fastest maybe, but probably the best all rounder out there (I would say that though wouldn't I!) if the Flying Schools take it, its excellent current reputation will go downhill.

[fallingfast]

Just to balance this out a little bit, might I suggest that a valid comparison could be made with the EV97 Eurostar microlight?

It could be argued that this little aircraft would appear (on the surface) to be even more "fragile" that the SC. However, real world experience (not opinion) demonstrates that it is perfectly capable of being used day in, day out, for years in a flight training environment.

I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest this: the issue with using a SC in a Flight School might be more to do with the instructors than with the simple fact of it being used for flight training. If you learnt in something "heavy" (i.e PA 28), then you'll teach how you learned. If you were taught ab initio in a 3-axis micro, for example, then perhaps you'll learn (and teach) a somewhat different style of landing. If you land an SC as you land a PA28, it will break.

[patowalker]

fallingfast

I fully agree. I have built and flown both the SportCruiser and the EV97 Eurostar SL and they are both perfectly good aeroplanes, as long as they are flown as the LSA/VLA that they are. This came naturally to me, because I flew microlights and then did some training in an Evektor SportStar.

[A and C]

The theory is good but in practice the pilots of the aircraft I get to see are very experienced and well up to landing an aircraft smoothly, one of them has thousands of hours in the logbook.

I discounted bad landings as a reason for the problems when SC changed the design of the nose leg for a much more robust item.

The SC was built down to a weight and each of these changes will have an effect on the payload, the question is how far you go to improve the robustness, my guess is that you can't go much further without turning it into a single seat aircraft.

This is why I question it as a trainer, please don't see me as being anti SC, I just see it for what it is. A good PRIVATE aircraft, not a money maker for a flight school.

[AL-MEHDAR]

According to the new EASA certificate with the FAA approval, Can I fly the SportCruiser VFR NIGHT and IFR in VMC if I install all the option available ( well upgraded)

Please feedback coz It drives me crazy. I need to know.

Kind regards

[Genghis the Engineer]

Certainly in EASA land, no. The any LSA or VLA aeroplane will be restricted to day VFR.

G

[patowalker]

In the USA an LSA aircraft: May be operated at night if the aircraft is equipped per FAR 91.205, if such operations are allowed by the aircraft's operating limitations and the pilot holds at least a Private Pilot certificate and a minimum of a third-class medical.FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.205 effective as of 10/20/2009 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySectLookup/91.205)

[smarthawke]

It is possible to get a VLA that is EASA certified for Night/VFR (VMC) - the Tecnam P2002-JF, for instance.