Sportcruiser - Opinions?

[scottish_ppl]

Looking for any insight and opinions into whether a kit built Sportcruiser is a good choice to purchase, both as an ownership proposition, and flying characteristics?

Not quite sure what the UK support situation is likely to be if the type is now becoming a Pipersport and whether that is good or bad in terms of guaranteeing good sportcruiser support. Presumably the Piper deal could also be taken as a good endorsement of the basic design and manufacture of the aircraft.

In terms of flying it I have read some conflicting reports about the handling from very good, through to some that criticised the lightness of the elevator.

My thinking is that this should be a worthwhile step up from the Eurostar class which I had been thinking about, in terms of payload and performance, although at at least a 15K premium. Having seen a few at Sywell I was quite impressed by some I saw which is what has got me thinking and looking at them, although up till the dont know much about them.

Any insight, tips, opinions, whether +ve or -ve would be appreciated

(Another little voice is telling me I could get a good tried and tested RV for similar money, but I suspect the running costs would be a lot different just to confuse the decision making process even more):confused:

[Sir George Cayley]

First things first.

What's your (operational) requirement? Bimbling, touring, foreign trips?
Are you a builder or a buyer?
Will you want to land at grass strips with undulating runways?
Is a permit a/c one you can look after or would you prefer something LSA?
Are aerobatics on the want list?

If you set out these key questions you'll be much clearer on the type to look at.

Good luck:ok:

Sir George Cayley

[A and C]

I think that the aircraft will be around for a while in all the forms that you have seen.

In terms of construction there are a few problems, the nose leg is weak and the factory are addressing this issue, the crack that I saw went around 60% of the nose leg tube, the new leg supplied by the factory was of much stronger construction! If you have the "old" leg change it now or have a shock load.

Other areas of the construction are also very "light", the steps and parts of the rear cockpit roof are examples of this so I would expect that in the hands of a private owner this would not be a problem........... in flying club use it would be another matter.

To fly the aircraft it very light in pitch, this might give a low time pilot who has only flown the C152 or PA28 a bit of a problem at the start so an hour or two with an instructor is the order of the day, the pitch issue is not a problem........just different and once the low timer has adjusted his flying he will have no more trouble with it.

The roll rate is a bit slow so when you put the high pitch rate in to the picture you dont have the classic feel of say the DHC-1 or even the DR400 but it is safe enough just not as pleasing to fly but it is a lot cheaper.

On the whole I think it is probably the best aircraft at this end of the market and is likely to have a long production run.

Having said all that I would take the RV in a heartbeat rather than a sport cruiser.

[Rod1]

Have a look at;

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/416116-pipersport-czech-sport-cruiser-wellesbourne-2.html

I would not want the fuel burn of an RV.

Rod1

[Flyingmac]

Another option. TL 2000 Sting (http://www.midlandaviation.co.uk/)

[letpmar]

I built my own Sportcruiser and have done about 150 hours in it now.
Of course I love it but it truly has a lot going for it, and is a lot of aircraft
for not to much money. Im not holding it up against anything, each person wants
different things, one mans heaven is anothers hell. The control issues are mostly in peoples minds, it is light in some areas but you soon get used to it.
If you want to go over things give me a call

Pete

07976 262833

[patowalker]

Nothing wrong with the steps at all. I lifted mine by the steps, just like my Zenair CH601, to put it on the inspector's scales. Admittedly, no fuel in the tanks.

[A and C]

Quote Nothing wrong with the steps at all. I lifted mine by the steps

I have no doubt that you did as you said and I have no doubt that the steps would be OK in the hands (or feet !?) of a carefull private owner.

I just dont give them much of a chance in a flying club enviroment!

[Cows getting bigger]

I think the SC is a pretty fine aircraft and I'm sure that after a couple of years Piper will have sorted-out any weaknesses. Either that or the next few generations of pilots will have to adapt, just as we have had to with C152 traits such as stuck flaps, nosewheel shimmy, doors popping open, dodgy seat latches, primers that don't stay locked, pathetic fuel guages etc etc.

I alway chuckle at those who say "give me a new 152" and wonder whether we would really accept all those quirks in the 21 century. :)

[steveking]

I did a couple of hours in my friends new cruiser last week. I have flown them before but only for about 20mins here and there so was nice to a bit longer in one. At one point I was very close to getting one myself. I would say if you want a good GA looking rotax machine then you can't go to far wrong. My thoughts on + and -.

+
Large cockpit
Good styling,
Very GA looking, a lot of other rotax machines show there micro heritage.
As a second hand kit all the ones I have seen seem to be finished to a good standard.
Usual rotax economy
Good range and endurance.

-
As others have said lighter built than your typical cessna or PA 28 but no lighter than others in its class.
I am an RV owner so purely personal but just a little dull to fly.
Slightly unbalanced controls. Heavy aileron and light elevator but you soon get used to it.

If your thinking about a cruiser the best thing is to try all the others in its class. All the importers are more than happy to take you for a test flight. When I was looking I tried the Pioneer 300 hawk, TL Sting and the Breezer. I must admit I thought the Sting was a stunning aircraft to fly but at the time the wait for approval was just a little too long for me although I think its just about there now.

Watch out for trying an RV ;)

[NigelOnDraft]

I would not want the fuel burn of an RV.

Rod1Rod - out of interest, what figures are you using for an RV?

I see the SC seems to quote ~105K? 110K? on 17-18L/hr? I have "cruised" our RV-8 on ~16L/hr, and got over 100K. At 21l/hr, it is 125K.

These are of course not typical RV figures, after all, who has the willpower to cruise one in such a way :eek:

However, if the figures above are correct for the SC, an RV-9 (more designed for fuel efficiency than our 8) might wel better it?

Meanwhile, I am happier at 33L for 150K for normal cruise, and max 187K when someone else is paying :ok:

NoD

[Rod1]

I am not a big SC fan, toooo slowwww. I cruse my MCR at around 138kn at 18.5lph (Mogas). In a year I get through about £1700 ish, an RV 180hp 33lph Avgas would be around £4700, but admittedly at 150kn. I am considering building an RV7 so I can do aerobatics and tour, but I run my MCR for £4200 a year all in and am agonising over the cost of running the RV.

Anybody considering a SC should checkout the link I posted (look at the numbers) and fly one on a bumpy day, alongside some VLA designs. The Wing loading is much lighter than some.

Rod1

[A and C]

Quote Either that or the next few generations of pilots will have to adapt, just as we have had to with C152 traits such as stuck flaps, nosewheel shimmy, doors popping open, dodgy seat latches, primers that don't stay locked, pathetic fuel guages etc etc.

Just because you have flown badly maintaned Cessna 152's that are the standad issue of the UK flying clubs don't bame the aircraft................................. well for all except the fuel gauges!

[wd413]

As a Tecnam Sierra owner I think this is the best of the bunch.
Of course I'm hopelessly biased but it has a good pedigree, performs very well and is built to a high standard.
It's also a delight to fly and very economical.
Mine cruises at 110-115kts and burns about 16 litres of MOGAS an hour.
The RG version with constant speed prop cruises at 125kts.
I've flown a Sportcruiser and a Sting (among others) but good as they are they don't quite cut it for me.

[PH-SCP]

Quote:
I would not want the fuel burn of an RV.

Rod1
Rod - out of interest, what figures are you using for an RV?

I see the SC seems to quote ~105K? 110K? on 17-18L/hr? I have "cruised" our RV-8 on ~16L/hr, and got over 100K. At 21l/hr, it is 125K.

These are of course not typical RV figures, after all, who has the willpower to cruise one in such a way http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

However, if the figures above are correct for the SC, an RV-9 (more designed for fuel efficiency than our 8) might wel better it?

Meanwhile, I am happier at 33L for 150K for normal cruise, and max 187K when someone else is paying http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

NoD


I'm flying an RV-9 with O-320 (burning mogas). Fuel consumption is 6.8 GPH (leaned ROP) at 2350 RPM, cruising at 5500 feet on a standard day gives me a TAS of 138 knots. At FL75/2350RPM it burns 6.6 GPH and produces 143 knots... An RV-9 is really a very versatile plane both for travelling as well as local flights.... An SC may be more economical per hour but you surely need more hours to get to your destination than an RV...:):)

[Cows getting bigger]

Look chaps, if we're comparing how big/how far/how fast/how cheap, can we please use figures that make sense? How about taking a leaf out of the motor trade and use miles/gallon (or equivalent)? :) For a starter, it would appear that the RV8 can give 5.95nm/l, the SC 6.1nm/l, the RV9 5.7nm/l and the MCR at 7.45nm/l. Of course, I'm assuming everyone has quoted TAS and USG (where given in gallons). :hmm:


PS. I still like all the aircraft quoted above.

[gyrotyro]

Quote "I would not want the fuel burn of an RV."

Rod1


Rod,

I think you should be considering MPG rather than LPH. An RV will return similar MPG to a Sportcruiser but at a normal cruise speed of 150/160 knots and 32 LPH will get you there quicker.

Plus you get to fly in style !

[Rod1]

“think you should be considering MPG rather than LPH.”

Possibly, but over the last 20 years or so I have found I fly, budget permitting, 65 – 95 hours a year. If I have a faster aircraft, I fly further, but the hours do not change at all. This rule has worked on aircraft with speeds ranging from 80kn to 138kn. would it apply to 150kn? I think it would, IF I could afford the fuel, but there is no way I could, even at current pricing. When you fly for fun there is almost never any ware you have to go. Speed increases the options or the number of places you can go in a day. Again, I find anything less than 120kn is too restrictive and increases the risk of getting stranded by weather.

For me the only big advantage of the RV over the MCR is I could do some gentle aerobatics. Aeros might reduce the number of hours I fly, but it would also push the fuel burn up significantly, so probably no help. The equation would look very different if I was comparing a SC with an RV. I like touring France and on a hot bumpy day in France a SC would be down to 80kn if you did not want to replace all your fillings. The RV on the other hand would provide an acceptable ride at speed.

Rod1

[Justiciar]

I am not sure I understand the sums here! If you fly around the sky for an hour then you will still fly your 95 hours per year. If you are going places then it would seem your hours go down as your speed goes up. It strike me that the difference between an Rv and an MRC is about £6.50 per hour (which is about 30% more). It sounds a lot but not sure it is really that significant in the grand scheme of things, if you can afford to fly in the first place!

[A and C]

On the face of it the Cessna 152 giving 4.13 NM/L is not very attractive but in terms of robustness I wonder if the Sportcruiser will still be returning such numbers after 13,000 hours of flying?

[Rod1]

An RV burring 33lph of avgas at £1.75 will cost £3465 for 95 hours.

An MCR burning 18.5 lph of mogas at £1.15 will cost £2021 for 95 hours.

Difference in cost per hour is £36.5!

“I wonder if the Sportcruiser will still be returning such numbers after 13,000 hours of flying?”

I would hope that all the SC (and the MCR’s) will have been scrapped and replaced with more efficient machines.

Rod1

[hatzflyer]

All of these figures are accademic really.You can over quantify any statistic ( that's what we are really into here) and persuade yourself into or out of any particular type.
I have owned many many aircraft,up untill I got my RV I never kept one for more than a few months.I have had the RV for three and a half years so that says it all.
For me it is the perfect aircraft,Like Rod I never thought I could afford to run one.However I have never had a moments regret, and over the years haven't found the fuel burn too prohibative and have learnt to adjust and live with the sacrifices that I have to make in other areas of my life.This is because the whole package of the aircraft is right for me at this time of my life and what I want to do.
The point is it gives me overall satisfaction and that is why I have kept it.I love the looks, the speed, the handling et al.No one factor is enough to make any aircraft the ideal aircraft and I believe that the rquirements change as your life changes as well.

That's why you can't just analyse everything in terms of absolute speed or fuel burn or annual costs. If you are opperating on an absolute fixed budget there will always be something to burst the bubble, I just did something stupid and blew my engine up. It will cost me thousands.It certainly makes a nonsense of deciding what plane to buy based on ex £'s per year on fuel !

[Rod1]

“If you are opperating on an absolute fixed budget there will always be something to burst the bubble,”

Well I hope not. My rigid budget for this year is £4200. Next years will be £4000. This will not get exceeded. Been flying on fixed budgets for 20 years and have only exceeded it once, which grounded me for 9 months to get back on track.

Rod1

[patowalker]

An RV burring 33lph of avgas at £1.75 will cost £3465 for 95 hours.

Not when I went to school.

[IO540]

I have owned many many aircraft,up untill I got my RV I never kept one for more than a few months.

You are either exceedingly well funded (have you considered a TBM850? - it is only $3.2M, in a typical configuration with the most handy options, like RVSM and a CD player) or you fly kites ;)

Otherwise, how do you fund the depreciation?

[hatzflyer]

Rod, you, like me have been lucky so far, but as excellent as they are,rotaxes do go wrong.There is a whole industry that has sprung up to support them.
To say that your budget will not be exceeded is impossible unless you are resigned to the fact that you will give up flying if (when) you face a major expense.
This is the one time when it is better to be in a group with a healthy engine fund.
My choice has always been to take that risk and if the unthinkable happens accept that I will have to deal with it.
I now have multiple choices to make.I can have a new engine and then sell the aircraft to pay for it, or sell shares or bite the bullit.

You already know what I'll do !:ok:

IO, I don't really understand your post unless its a weak attempt at a sarcastic swipe at me (again!). If I struggle to run an Rv and only do so by sacrificing other things that normal people do , (like owning a decent car for example) then that is my choice and my buisness.
I don't take pops at you or anyone else that has money and chooses to run expensive kit.That's your buisness.
What I sometimes do is champion LAA style flying in order to point out that there are more affordable ways to fly.
I also support gliding, hang gliding, model flying and anything else remotely connected to any form of flight.
So I wish you would wind your neck in and stop bashing anyone that doesn't fly a TB10.:ugh:

[IO540]

Hatz - it was a straight question.

As everybody knows, I rarely bother to write anything here that is particularly sophisticated :) :)

If I changed a plane (that I actually owned) every few months, the depreciation funding would be horrendous. And I do tend to pick people up on writing stuff that sounds totally implausible.

I don't fly a TB10, BTW. And my car is a 1995 Toyota.

[hatzflyer]

Is "totally implausible" insinuating I am lying ?
Do you want a list of the aircraft that I have owned together with proof?

[IO540]

Is it possible to insinuate something against an anonymous identity on an internet forum?

:)

Anyway, I still can't see how you can own a plane for a few months, then sell it, and keep doing this, without spending a great deal of money.

Perhaps you have indeed spent a great deal of money. I have no problem with that. I know how much I spend on this hobby..... But that is somewhat less than consistent with being a dedicated "homebuilt" flyer.

BTW, how is your friend doing... the one who flew a "diversion" from the UK to Switzerland, no flight plan, no radio, and got apparently busted £20k for it? It would be really interesting to know more.

[frangatang]

Your sportcruiser prop is too low to the ground. Shame there wasnt a taildragger version!
Otherwise fine looking machine.

[hatzflyer]

If you really want to know more its a matter of public record. He was cleared in court and awarded costs.
I will not rise to any more of your baiting as of now. You obviously enjoy anonimously slagging off others which just goes to show what a sad life you lead.
I do feel sorry for you, but this is the last time I will have any correspondance with you,as unlike you I am not that sad and am privaledged to have a large number of friends in flying circles that can vouch for any claims that I have made on this forum.
:ugh:

[Rod1]

IO540, I know hatzflyer and he is telling the truth.

“Anyway, I still can't see how you can own a plane for a few months, then sell it, and keep doing this, without spending a great deal of money.”

That is because when it comes to LAA aircraft you have impaired vision.:ugh:

patowalker

You are quite right, I used the difference rather than the total. The post should have read;

An RV burring 33lph of avgas at £1.75 will cost £5486 for 95 hours.

An MCR burning 18.5 lph of mogas at £1.15 will cost £2021 for 95 hours.

Difference in cost is £3465 or £36.5 per hour!

Rod1

[IO540]

Rod1 - instead of posting vague one-line replies, can you post examples of purchase and resale prices for the said aircraft?

[J.A.F.O.]

IO - If you're interested in prices why don't you go and find out rather than spending your time picking holes in other's posts.

[IO540]

Sure. What aircraft types, ages, etc?

[patowalker]

Ironically, most SprotCruiser kits were imported when the dollar was very cheap. Those of us that subsequently sold our SCs did not take a hit from depreciation, au contraire :)

[steveking]

Rod 1

I went from a Rotax machine to an RV and there is no getting away from it the fuel bill goes up. Having said that if you can afford the extra they are great fun.

I'm sure you know this but if pottering around doing a local theres no need to do 150kts, 125Kts gives me about 24Lts an hour and my 6 has a IO360.

I have flown down to Spain and back in the RV with a CTSW following along and I burned about 40Ltrs more than him over about 1500Nm. Don't know if this helps with your descion on a 7 but it helps me, sort of.:)

[IO540]

Ironically, most SprotCruiser kits were imported when the dollar was very cheap

There was a time, in the early 2000s, when you could buy a plane and sell it a year later for the same money - because new (list) prices were rising so fast. It didn't last long, unfortunately...

[C42]

A friend of mine bought a Sportcruiser kit when they first apeared for about £35k (from memory) they are seling for over £60K now and I was told the new "Pipersport" is well over £100K

As for fuel burn Steve K is correct, we have travelled all round Europe in Rvs with Rotax microlights following and fuel burn is sililar as they are in the air for twice as long for the same leg.

having said that i have a pitts with an IO 360 that burns less on a trip than one of my other aircraft that has a Rotax 912s!!! so the can burn 27 litres an hour when instructed to!!!

[steveking]

The sports cruiser isn't the only one to go up in price. C42 and I had a deposit on a TL Sting in 2006 and at the time they were £39k. Now they are £65k. I know the euro rate was a lot to do with this but anyone buying before these rises happened have made a great investment and could sell at a nice profit.

Not all of us are so lucky of course, C42 and I cancelled our deposit on the Sting.

[manix-cs]

I looked at the SC a few months ago, comparing it with the Eurostar and ended up going for a Eurostar.

One of the (many) reasons I went for the Eurostar was that the payload of the SC (if loaded with the same fuel range), was not hugely better than the Eurostar.

[patowalker]

I sold my SC and bought a Eurostar SL kit, but I certainly do not expect the payload (if loaded with the same fuel range) to be similar.

[A and C]

The Piper sport at £100K !!!!!

Lets see..........I can think of a much cheaper much more robust aircraft for club use for just over 30% of the price. It may burn a bit more fuel but you have to do a lot of flying before the fuel price difference kicks in to favour the Piper sport if the quoted price is correct.

Oh and if ROD 1 is correct this aircraft will still be flying long after the Piper sport is turned into beer cans!

[Rod1]

“Oh and if ROD 1 is correct this aircraft will still be flying long after the Piper sport is turned into beer cans!”

Do tell

Rod1

[manix-cs]

I sold my SC and bought a Eurostar SL kit, but I certainly do not expect the payload (if loaded with the same fuel range) to be similar

No, I wouldn't either. But then that's not what I said.

[A and C]

From your post #21 on thread.

In reply to my comment.

“I wonder if the Sportcruiser will still be returning such numbers after 13,000 hours of flying?”

You said

I would hope that all the SC (and the MCR’s) will have been scrapped and replaced with more efficient machines.

With a little luck I will be still flying long enough to see if you are correct.

[Rod1]

If the aircraft you are referring to is a 152 then if it were not for the US liability problem killing most certified aircraft manufacture for 30+ years it would have been superseded (and scraped) long ago. We should have had the VLA/LSA revolution in the 70’s not the 10’s.

A friend of mine is designing a 2 seat machine which will lift two adults, 4 hours of fuel and bags on 50 ish hp using modern techniques. I understand there are other people working on similar projects. If, as is expected by some, fuel will double in the next few years, such aircraft will be the flying machines for the common pilot as 18 lph will be as excessive as 33lph is now. Fuel is by far the biggest cost of running my MCR.

Rod1

[IO540]

If the aircraft you are referring to is a 152 then if it were not for the US liability problem killing most certified aircraft manufacture for 30+ years it would have been superseded (and scraped) long ago.

I know "everybody" has bought this "liability" and "certification cost" argument from various US firms, especially Cessna, but it is basically bogus.

Especially the certification cost one, which has been totally debunked by so many small players who got FAA and EASA certification (for simple planes).

What really happened is that almost nobody was buying the Cesspits (or almost any other old iron). The GA industry went through many years of a deep depression, and the liability argument was just a handy cover for slimming down, and while we are at it, let's cut down our future liability as well....

Cessna, with its massive resources, could easily bring out a new C152 if they wanted to, but they have evidently (Cessna is the least stupid company in GA) determined that the market for a 152 lookalike would be too small. But they prefer to not say that, for corporate image reasons.

[Cows getting bigger]

No, they have hit a 152 with an ugly stick, made sure the performance is more or less the same and called it the 162. :)

[John Miller]

if I had a SC, the heavy ailerons would become tiresome very soon. It's not a very dynamic aeroplane and Tecnams are far more fun to fly. A Cub would be a lot more fun than an SC - even a 172 for almost half the price.

[Mickey Kaye]

It’s of no use to me until it gets its approval to allow flying instruction – I suspect we will then find out how good it is.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Oh dear, it seems as if the CAA aren't fans of the Pipersport...

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4_836.pdf

Multiply the book figures for TODR by 3 and Landing run by 6... Ouch.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Oh dear, it seems as if the CAA aren't fans of the Pipersport...

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4_836.pdf

Multiply the book figures for TODR by 3 and Landing run by 6... Ouch.

I don't think it's any great secret that most of UK CAA thinks that EASA has taken complete leave of its senses in some of its recent approvals - especially, but not exclusively, over LSA aircraft.

I have sympathies on both sides, but have no doubt that of the two organisations, CAA is by far the most competent. They are certainly not out of order in saying that if aircraft can be used for instruction then they should be certified to at-least the standard of a type-approved microlight, and probably any other CofA light aeroplane - the USA LSA standard is arguably LOWER than that used currently in the UK for homebuilts, or for factory built microlights. Specifically there is not necessarily a requirement for positive pitch stability throughout the envelope, and there is no independent oversight of the approvals.

That said, in this case, these large round safety factors sound very much like somebody is basically challenging CZAW and EASA to sort their act out and publish some proper figures justified by flight test - which I suspect will be maybe 40% over book figures, not 300%.

G

[patowalker]

Oh dear, it seems as if the CAA aren't fans of the Pipersport...

Nothing wrong with the aircraft, but it seems the performance figures in the POH were taken straight out of the sales brochure. The cruise and climb figures were achieved with differently pitched propellers.

LAA approved SportCruisers are unaffected.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Nothing wrong with the aircraft, but it seems the performance figures in the POH were taken straight out of the sales brochure. The cruise and climb figures were achieved with differently pitched propellers.

LAA approved SportCruisers are unaffected.

Further confirmation that the LAA is applying higher standards than EASA! (And without adding massive cost and complexity at the same time - there's a definite lesson there.)

G

[hhobbit]

It appears to me from reading various performance figures published on manufacturer's websites, that they have been fiddling with the prop for best presentation of climb and cruise numbers, as well as probably sticking rigidly to the microlight 450kg figure. Asking around about these differences gets met with some bemusement that I would not take such figures with a pinch of salt. Next part of plan it to fit a VP on my CT.

They probably see themselves as in a spec race and will not yield to frankness as they perceive their competitors to play the game the same way.

[IO540]

Seems to me like some imagination was used on what the factory test pilots wrote down, after they landed :)

[patowalker]

Nothing to worry about. Fortunately, the embarrassing misprint was discovered by the CAA check pilot when the first EASA PtF SportCruiser came up for its annual. :)

[Cows getting bigger]

Ooooo, do we have a metre/feet faff? :)

[smarthawke]

Heard from a SportCruiser (EASA Permit) owner: the factory POH performance figures were produced from an aircraft with its ground adjustable prop at a different pitch setting than the factory built aircraft were supplied (and the pitch setting stated in the POH).

This meant that the take-off, climb, endurance and landing figures weren't obtainable with the aircraft as presented.

Perhaps an honest mistake, perhaps creative marketing....

[patowalker]

Perhaps an honest mistake, perhaps creative marketing...

Which suggests that EASA simply accepted the manufacturer's figures, without checking. I bet the CAA enjoyed making EASA aware of the "mistake".

[IO540]

Which suggests that EASA simply accepted the manufacturer's figures, without checking

Surely, that is how certification works.

The manufacturer can forge the data.

I don't suppose Boeing would dream of doing it, because of all that hangs on it - a huge military and civilian business. But some small Czech firm which makes little apart from this little stuff...? The communist culture was one of dodgy dealing as a default.

[Mickey Kaye]

Didn't the CAA rain in on the good old Cessna 152 rate of climb numbers?

[patowalker]

Self-certification is accepted for the LSA category in the US, but the LAA, for example, insisted on witnessing a SportCruiser loaded to destruction, before granting approval. CZAW, was not happy to sacrifice another airframe, but they knew that LAA approval would make it easier to sell the model in other countries.

All UK home-built SCs had to go through a 5 hour flight test and all of them would have met or exceed the POH figures.

Can't say I enjoyed sitting in my handiwork while it was flung all over the sky by somebody who seemed intent on pulling the wings off :)

[A and C]

Performance numbers suspect, weak nose legs, cracking exhaust pipes................. not a good few weeks for the SC. On the whole a bit of a shame for what is quire a nice private aircraft.

However what is shows is that the price you pay for "light" is durability, this is why the SC is just fine in the hands of a private owner but using it as a club aircraft is a totaly different matter...................... now when are Lycoming going to STC the FADEC for the Cessna 152?

[smarthawke]

The C152 fleet in the Uk had a performance write down issued by the CAA some 10 years back. This took into account that the fleet was getting on in life.

The POH for a C152 states 'MAXIMUM' on the climb performance table page. So that'll be a factory fresh aircraft, company pilot and perfect weather conditions. Equalling (or even getting within the 70fpm shortfall allowed on a CofA air test) 'maximum' climb figures on a 5000 hr airframe and half life engine and prop was always going to be a tricky mission.

Not quite the same case as with the SportCruiser me thinks.

[flybymike]

I know nothing about Sportcruisers.
As a matter of course, do they always come with fixed pitch props of differing fixed pitches? or can they come with CSUs? or with ground adjustable only props? Electric adjustables? VP whilst airborne or only on the ground? or any combination of the above or something else?

[BEagle]

6 years ago, I had to recover a PA28 which had been force landed into a field. After much number crunching and careful measurement, I concluded that there was sufficient 'runway' available for the weight/met./surface/slope....

Even though it had a virtually brand new engine, the ground roll was rather longer than expected; fortunately, I had anticpated this and had an 'escape route' planned after lift off.

A few days later, we received a note from the CAA advising that this 30 year old design had performance figures some 10% in error! If I'd known the real values, I would never have attempted the take-off.

Now a 10% write-down is one thing, but to have to mulitply the performance figures by 300% in one case and 600% in another is quite ridiculous - how can the published figures for the SportCruiser have been so incorrect?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Certainly with an LAA or BMAA homebuilt, all those options exist in the market, giving the owner or builder a lot of options to choose from. But normally each variation is re-assessed for performance, handling and safety.

However, whilst LAA, BMAA and CAA will require that re-assessment, it looks like CZAW and Piper didn't see the need whilst EASA wasn't overseeing them properly.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just adding to my post above, rather than amending it - a few of the issues that need to be considered in a prop change:

- Prop pitch is like a gearbox ratio, coarse = high gear, fine = low gear. So, a finer pitch will give better take-off and climb, but poorer cruise performance, and vice versa.

- Aeroplanes need a minimum safety margin between maximum level speed, and Vne, over-coarse props can degrade that.

- In flight test, we'll normally check climb and cruise performance first, if these are unchanged, then so should be take-off performance, which is a lot more work to measure.

- 912 series engines have the option to change gear ratio as well - increase the gear ratio and you increase loads on the engine mounts, so this needs re-assessing.

- If the prop diameter increases, then you may be increasing the risk of prop strike, so the geometry needs checking.

- Different prop configurations will put different propwash over the tail, which can change handling.

And so on, and so-forth.

G

[IO540]

A few days later, we received a note from the CAA advising that this 30 year old design had performance figures some 10% in error! If I'd known the real values, I would never have attempted the take-off.

Was this a grass surface and, if so, what correction did you apply to the tarmac figures in the POH?

IIRC, the CAA's flyer suggests adding 30% but that figure is straight out of the air. It could be 10% (short dry grass, a good smooth surface underneath) or it could be 50%... or more.

[Pace]

All this is all very well especially if you are renting aeroplanes but to a lot their aircraft is their own pride and joy.

Do you accept the book stall speeds or do you get the actual figures as well as behaviour on your own aircraft?

Two identical aircraft can be very different one stalls straight ahead wings level the other drops a wing etc.

If you know every burp your aircraft makes you will know how short a grass strip you can get in and out of how she handles wet grass, soft ground etc.
A PA28 30 years old with hanger rash, bad paint, a few bumps and bulges, a scattering of bugs over the wings and a knackered old smokey aint going to approach the book figures.

Know your individual aircraft and even work out your own actual figures.
In the case of new aircraft a lot is marketing. We know only too well the pre release figures claimed on the Diamond Twin Star 210 kts at 12000 feet on 135 hp???

Pace

[Rod1]

The LAA system is very good from that point of view. Every year the aircraft is test flown to a set schedule, normally by the owner, and the numbers and characteristics recorded. Stalls, testing to VNE, ROC etc.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

The LAA system is very good from that point of view. Every year the aircraft is test flown to a set schedule, normally by the owner, and the numbers and characteristics recorded. Stalls, testing to VNE, ROC etc.

Rod1

And the BMAA system, and the CAA Permit to Fly system - it's only EASA CofA aeroplanes that have gone away from the annual documented air test. This is a controversial topic in the airworthiness and flight test worlds: I'll freely admit that I sit firmly on the side of annual air tests, which I think are very good value for money if done properly by somebody with sufficient integrity and training in the task.

There is in my opinion a weakness in the LAA system in that it routinely allows owners, without special training, or oversight to do these air tests. I've certainly flown one or two of their aeroplanes where something went wrong and there were problems that most certainly should have been corrected before signing off a recent air test. BMAA and CAA work slightly differently.

I believe that these EASA permit aeroplanes are being dumped on CAA to manage, so they're treating them the same as CAA Permit aeroplanes and mandating the annual air test. That knowledge may well be where this CAA dictat has come from.

G

[smarthawke]

The Rotax gearbox ratio isn't quite as optional as might be deemed from Ghengis' post.

The 100hp 912S and 115hp 914 have a 2.43:1 ratio, the 80hp 912 is normally 2.27:1 with 2.43:1 as an option.

[733driver]

Genghis,

would you mind expanding a bit on why annual flight tests are done in the UK? I have never dealt with the LAA or BMAA etc and was wondering why, assuming the aircraft has not been modiefied, such a test woud be required.

Similarily I was wondering why certified airplanes do not require such a test (assuming there are good reasons to subject "amateur" built planes to them).

The way I see it: If engine, prop, airframe etc are unchanged and undamaged why the need for an annual flight test?

Looking forward to your reply!

[Genghis the Engineer]

The Rotax gearbox ratio isn't quite as optional as might be deemed from Ghengis' post.

The 100hp 912S and 115hp 914 have a 2.43:1 ratio, the 80hp 912 is normally 2.27:1 with 2.43:1 as an option.

To be fair, there are far more options on the Rotax 2-stroke engines than the newer 4-strokes.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis,

would you mind expanding a bit on why annual flight tests are done in the UK? I have never dealt with the LAA or BMAA etc and was wondering why, assuming the aircraft has not been modiefied, such a test woud be required.

Similarily I was wondering why certified airplanes do not require such a test (assuming there are good reasons to subject "amateur" built planes to them).

The way I see it: If engine, prop, airframe etc are unchanged and undamaged why the need for an annual flight test?

Looking forward to your reply!


The air test pre-EASA was done on all UK registered aircraft, although now is only done on Annex II aeroplanes. On PtF aeroplanes it's annual, on CofA aeroplanes it's normally every three years.

It's a check on performance - primarily climb performance for degredation outside of bounds set on the published data: rectification might be a performance write-down, check on propeller pitch, check on engine max revs.... A check on handling confirms that nothing's undesirably "drifted" since the last one (and I've certainly found a few of those, the worst I can recall was an LAA Aeronca Chief which needed about 15lb of left rudder to keep the ball in the middle and a BMAA Pegasus XL-Q which wouldn't fly hands-off and kept trying to accelerate into a 1000fpm dive). There's also a check that all the systems work: typical faults I've seen come up in air tests have been a window that kept coming open, an electrical generator that couldn't handle the lights and radios being on at the same time (that should have been picked up on the ground, but wasn't), excessive drift on a DI, a compass that was 45° out (no idea why the hell that wasn't picked up on the ground - I believe that the Chief Engineer subsequently had the chap who signed it off shot).

The logic is I think that certified "public transport" aircraft are subject to sufficient maintenance oversight that things can't drift off enough without being picked up and fixed, but that "private use" aircraft get less professional maintenance oversight that this is needed. There is some truth in this I think, although there are significant exceptions at both ends.

This (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Piper%20PA-28-140%20Cherokee,%20G-AVRP%2010-08.pdf) is a fatal accident due to an under-performance PA28-140 that led AAIB to recommed to EASA periodic performance assessment of aircraft. So far, I think that EASA has ignored this, whilst UK CAA was doing it already.

G

[patowalker]

There is in my opinion a weakness in the LAA system in that it routinely allows owners, without special training, or oversight to do these air tests. I've certainly flown one or two of their aeroplanes where something went wrong and there were problems that most certainly should have been corrected before signing off a recent air test. BMAA and CAA work slightly differently.

The BMAA is seeking CAA agreement for owners to test fly their own aircraft. Something to do with a Pterodactyl, I believe. :)

The LAA conditions seem very reasonable to me:

1. Who Does The Flight Test?
The flight test must be carried out by a pilot who has studied the test requirements and is fully capable of carrying them out. Many owners prefer to do the flight tests themselves, and would not risk letting anyone else fly their prized machines. The minimum previous flying experience for the pilot carrying out the test is 100 hours total time including 10 hours either on type or on a similar or related type. Having said this, many pilot/owners with many more hours but out of practise at stalling, sideslipping etc do no feel confident about carrying out the tests, and prefer
to ask someone else to do this on their behalf. If you should be in this position, avoid the local 'ace of the base' whose experience in propping up the bar exceeds his actual competence with stick and rudder. Some busy owners are only too happy to leave the flight testing to the maintenance organisation carrying out the renewal, while some individual LAA inspectors regard it as part of their responsibilities to carry out the flight test themselves. It is up to the owner to talk this through with the inspector when the renewal is being organised, to come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement and fix up the insurance accordingly.

[smarthawke]

'To be fair, there are far more options on the Rotax 2-stroke engines than the newer 4-strokes.'

Apologies, Genghis - when you said this:

'912 series engines have the option to change gear ratio as well'

I thought you were referring to the 912s which are four strokes...

(PS Never have sussed how to do the 'quote' thing. Doh!)

[IO540]

(http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Piper%20PA-28-140%20Cherokee,%20G-AVRP%2010-08.pdf)This (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Piper%20PA-28-140%20Cherokee,%20G-AVRP%2010-08.pdf) is a fatal accident due to an under-performance PA28-140 that led AAIB to recommed to EASA periodic performance assessment of aircraft. So far, I think that EASA has ignored this, whilst UK CAA was doing it already.

I think cutting open the oil filter (which is supposed to happen) would have been more useful.

[Genghis the Engineer]

'To be fair, there are far more options on the Rotax 2-stroke engines than the newer 4-strokes.'

Apologies, Genghis - when you said this:

'912 series engines have the option to change gear ratio as well'

I thought you were referring to the 912s which are four strokes...

(PS Never have sussed how to do the 'quote' thing. Doh!)

The 912 is also a 4-stroke, and so far as I know the most common Rotax 4-stroke, about which you posted:

80hp 912 is normally 2.27:1 with 2.43:1 as an option..

So you I said that 912 series engines have a gear ratio option, and you said that the 912 has a gear ratio option. Perhaps we can just agree that the 912 has a gear ratio option.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

[URL="http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Piper%20PA-28-140%20Cherokee,%20G-AVRP%2010-08.pdf"]

I think cutting open the oil filter (which is supposed to happen) would have been more useful.

Mistakes do occur in maintenance of-course, and an air test is one mechanism for picking those up.

Unfortunately, some of the mistakes, not picked up, eventually get reported on by AAIB! That however can't ever be the preferred option.

G