PiperSport/Czech Sport Cruiser at Wellesbourne
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mickey Kaye
The Sportcruiser is a balance between lightness and robust structure, the lightness with make it cheap to fly but the lack of robustness will result in much more maintenance in a club enviroment.
It is hard to see quite how the economic cookie will crumble but my money would not be on the Sportcruiser as a club aircraft...............for private owners or small groups it would be quite a different matter.
It is hard to see quite how the economic cookie will crumble but my money would not be on the Sportcruiser as a club aircraft...............for private owners or small groups it would be quite a different matter.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, UK
Age: 48
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PiperSport has been specifically beefed up with a view to future training roles - for example the noseleg now has a larger diameter tube so as to be able to take the use and abuse of student pilots. The ignition key is also now moved inboard, such that an instructor can restart in flight, or in case a student does not correctly execute mag checks.
In the USA, the PiperSport can already be used for flight training, as has been the case in countries like South Africa for the last few years. The aircraft are certainly clocking up the hours, and so far without any incidents in the training role.
Certainly the difference from an older C-152 or PA28 is there, but they are no lesser aircraft for this - after about ten to twenty minutes of flight, most people are happy with the handling, and the Dynon glass panel avionics that are now becoming standard on the aircraft.
If you've not yet flown one then best have a go and judge for yourselves. The Restricted Type Certificate that allows the PiperSport to be used for flight training is currently in process of issue, and a lot of clubs are planning to move across from their older fleets in favour of these more modern aircraft, which are more fun, cheaper to run.
Regards
Ben
In the USA, the PiperSport can already be used for flight training, as has been the case in countries like South Africa for the last few years. The aircraft are certainly clocking up the hours, and so far without any incidents in the training role.
Certainly the difference from an older C-152 or PA28 is there, but they are no lesser aircraft for this - after about ten to twenty minutes of flight, most people are happy with the handling, and the Dynon glass panel avionics that are now becoming standard on the aircraft.
If you've not yet flown one then best have a go and judge for yourselves. The Restricted Type Certificate that allows the PiperSport to be used for flight training is currently in process of issue, and a lot of clubs are planning to move across from their older fleets in favour of these more modern aircraft, which are more fun, cheaper to run.
Regards
Ben
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation Consumer are presently conducting a survey of LSA type aircraft used in the training environment. I suspect the answers will be quite informative!
From my knowledge of the PS/SC the firewall is the weakpoint for the nose undercarriage and with a stronger leg that would need even more reinforcement of that area. We'll see once they start to operate in this environment.
From my knowledge of the PS/SC the firewall is the weakpoint for the nose undercarriage and with a stronger leg that would need even more reinforcement of that area. We'll see once they start to operate in this environment.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I can answer many of these questions.
The Wellesbourne aircraft is privately owned.
There are 3 at Kemble - again all private.
All aircraft coming out of the factory are now branded as Pipersports. There are some in the UK.
The RTC is imminent, allowing air schools to in the UK to use them. This should be in place around August so orders can now be placed. I understand it will be retrospective allowing Sportcruisers and Pipersports already out there to be used for training.
The biggy - how does it fly?
Some numbers for you.
Vso 39kts
Vs1 32kts
Vne 138kts
Vno 113kts
Econ cruise 90kts - 16 lts/hr (mogas or avgas)
Cruise 105 kts ~ 18 lts/hr
Va 88kts
Vfe 75kts
Lands 110m
T/O 100m
I've some hours in them now and have flown quite a few of them. Light controls, as alluded to, lighter in pitch than roll. This is no bad thing. I have taken very inexperienced pilots for there first taste of the machine and they typically make me ill for the first 2-5 minutes throwing all kinds of PIO in. Then just a short while after they get the feel. However having such command of the elevator makes this an extremely easy aircraft to land. Final speed is only 55kts coming over the numbers full flap at 50kts. My understanding is that the training versions will have the elevator control reduced. I hope not very much as this would be to the detriment of the above quality.
Stall is incredibly docile. However a power on stall with a sharp tug of the controls just before stall gives a satisfying wing drop which I suspect schools will appreciate. The aircraft is very light (~380kgs Empty mass, 600kgs MAUW) and with this you have a gutsy little 912 Rotax generating 100hp. You need to use a healthy amount of rudder with power changes and also in the turns. Again qualities I can see air schools liking. Minimal if any adverse aileron yaw.
From a personal point of view its a super little aircraft. Will do sideslips from clean to full flap and drop like a brick, but in a 60kt glide the ratio is 16:1. Handles really well slow flight. I like to drive it like a little town car. Grab it by the scruff of the neck and throw it around the sky. Its easy to fly and makes you feel like you the proverbial sky god you want to be.
I do think the electric flaps are a little slow to deploy and retract. Everything else is so sharp and responsive I'd like the flaps to be the same. Typically takes 5-6 seconds to move them from 0-30 degrees and vice versa. If you want one, get the sunshade option or you will boil in the summer. I think these are now standard from the factory now anyway though.
Another change not mentioned by Ben below for air schools - fuses are now pop-able allowing instructors to play nasty 'I disabled your flaps' tricks downwind.
The aircraft is not IMC. However with the view you get it would be criminal not to look out of the window. One guy said to me "I like that when you turn the aircraft just disappears from view and its just you flying over the fields."
Comfy inside, takes a 6'6" pilot no probs and built wide enough for our American cousins. Engine life recently upped to 2000 hours TBO.
To sum up, its back to basics flying and in one and a half words, 'joy-machine'.
The Wellesbourne aircraft is privately owned.
There are 3 at Kemble - again all private.
All aircraft coming out of the factory are now branded as Pipersports. There are some in the UK.
The RTC is imminent, allowing air schools to in the UK to use them. This should be in place around August so orders can now be placed. I understand it will be retrospective allowing Sportcruisers and Pipersports already out there to be used for training.
The biggy - how does it fly?
Some numbers for you.
Vso 39kts
Vs1 32kts
Vne 138kts
Vno 113kts
Econ cruise 90kts - 16 lts/hr (mogas or avgas)
Cruise 105 kts ~ 18 lts/hr
Va 88kts
Vfe 75kts
Lands 110m
T/O 100m
I've some hours in them now and have flown quite a few of them. Light controls, as alluded to, lighter in pitch than roll. This is no bad thing. I have taken very inexperienced pilots for there first taste of the machine and they typically make me ill for the first 2-5 minutes throwing all kinds of PIO in. Then just a short while after they get the feel. However having such command of the elevator makes this an extremely easy aircraft to land. Final speed is only 55kts coming over the numbers full flap at 50kts. My understanding is that the training versions will have the elevator control reduced. I hope not very much as this would be to the detriment of the above quality.
Stall is incredibly docile. However a power on stall with a sharp tug of the controls just before stall gives a satisfying wing drop which I suspect schools will appreciate. The aircraft is very light (~380kgs Empty mass, 600kgs MAUW) and with this you have a gutsy little 912 Rotax generating 100hp. You need to use a healthy amount of rudder with power changes and also in the turns. Again qualities I can see air schools liking. Minimal if any adverse aileron yaw.
From a personal point of view its a super little aircraft. Will do sideslips from clean to full flap and drop like a brick, but in a 60kt glide the ratio is 16:1. Handles really well slow flight. I like to drive it like a little town car. Grab it by the scruff of the neck and throw it around the sky. Its easy to fly and makes you feel like you the proverbial sky god you want to be.
I do think the electric flaps are a little slow to deploy and retract. Everything else is so sharp and responsive I'd like the flaps to be the same. Typically takes 5-6 seconds to move them from 0-30 degrees and vice versa. If you want one, get the sunshade option or you will boil in the summer. I think these are now standard from the factory now anyway though.
Another change not mentioned by Ben below for air schools - fuses are now pop-able allowing instructors to play nasty 'I disabled your flaps' tricks downwind.
The aircraft is not IMC. However with the view you get it would be criminal not to look out of the window. One guy said to me "I like that when you turn the aircraft just disappears from view and its just you flying over the fields."
Comfy inside, takes a 6'6" pilot no probs and built wide enough for our American cousins. Engine life recently upped to 2000 hours TBO.
To sum up, its back to basics flying and in one and a half words, 'joy-machine'.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The debate about LSA/VLA not being as robust as the old iron will run and run. However, judging by the plummeting prices for second hand certified aircraft I would say that the market is voting with its feet and its wallet.
The lower operating costs, fuel and maintenance (even with a RTC) make them very attractive to schools. Sure, they fly differently from a C150, but so what. A Ford Fiesta drive differently from a Ford Anglia, but no one would suggest learing to drive in one or using it daily. New technology requires differing or modified skills. The fact that new students with rotax won't need to know as much about shock cooling or carb heat is similarly irrelevant unless they intend to fly the old stuff, when they will pick it up as they would any other characteristic of an old design.
Lightness is in part a function of modern materials, which gives you more strength or robustness in some instances than older materials. It also gives lower inertia = lower t/o and landing distances, just right for training at unlicensed fields with their shorter grass runways.
My impression from flying the Pioneer was that it was a safer aircraft, with good control authority at low speed (full aileron authority at 45 kts on final must be good). Yes, light in pitch but quite learnable in a short space of time.
The lower operating costs, fuel and maintenance (even with a RTC) make them very attractive to schools. Sure, they fly differently from a C150, but so what. A Ford Fiesta drive differently from a Ford Anglia, but no one would suggest learing to drive in one or using it daily. New technology requires differing or modified skills. The fact that new students with rotax won't need to know as much about shock cooling or carb heat is similarly irrelevant unless they intend to fly the old stuff, when they will pick it up as they would any other characteristic of an old design.
Lightness is in part a function of modern materials, which gives you more strength or robustness in some instances than older materials. It also gives lower inertia = lower t/o and landing distances, just right for training at unlicensed fields with their shorter grass runways.
My impression from flying the Pioneer was that it was a safer aircraft, with good control authority at low speed (full aileron authority at 45 kts on final must be good). Yes, light in pitch but quite learnable in a short space of time.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Rod1
(must get some serious work done now..
)
“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
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.
Rod1
(must get some serious work done now..
)
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its horses for courses
Training wise cruise speed doesn't really count for all that much. In fact slower is more profitable because the xc's take longer to do. Climb rate anything over 1000ft/min will do. If it gets much more than that it becomes a pain in the bum doing circuits because they will end up turning crosswind half way down the runway.
The main thing is that it needs to be robust. That doesn't just meant the gear etc. Inside trim has to be up for some abuse no use it all cracked and looking shagged after a couple of years.
The simple fact you can run at 16ltrs an hour of mogas is going to kill the old machines off. You have basically paid for your maintence with the fuel saving.
Its not a touring machine but it is a bimble machine. I will reserve comment of what its like to teach in until I get my hands on it.
Training wise cruise speed doesn't really count for all that much. In fact slower is more profitable because the xc's take longer to do. Climb rate anything over 1000ft/min will do. If it gets much more than that it becomes a pain in the bum doing circuits because they will end up turning crosswind half way down the runway.
The main thing is that it needs to be robust. That doesn't just meant the gear etc. Inside trim has to be up for some abuse no use it all cracked and looking shagged after a couple of years.
The simple fact you can run at 16ltrs an hour of mogas is going to kill the old machines off. You have basically paid for your maintence with the fuel saving.
Its not a touring machine but it is a bimble machine. I will reserve comment of what its like to teach in until I get my hands on it.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent analysis Rod1. Clearly not enough work to do on a Friday afternoon 
(pot, kettle and black comes to mind though).
The SC is certainly going to struggle because of its empty weight and full fuel it becomes a single seater or one for two very slim crew.
I have to say though that the cockpit width is attractive. The Pioneer always felt very tight two up (the MAUW, by the way is 560 kg if you have the Hawk nose leg fitted, so the load is about 260 kg, giving two heavy weights and full fuel). The 135 kt cruise on the Pioneer is a bit illusory as that is very close to Va; 115 kts for 15 litres/hour is comfortable.
(pot, kettle and black comes to mind though).The SC is certainly going to struggle because of its empty weight and full fuel it becomes a single seater or one for two very slim crew.
I have to say though that the cockpit width is attractive. The Pioneer always felt very tight two up (the MAUW, by the way is 560 kg if you have the Hawk nose leg fitted, so the load is about 260 kg, giving two heavy weights and full fuel). The 135 kt cruise on the Pioneer is a bit illusory as that is very close to Va; 115 kts for 15 litres/hour is comfortable.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Rod's 138kt MCR01 cruise figure is a bit illusory for the same reason
Re ride quality , surely wing loading rather than wing area is more relevant. I haven't done the sums based on Rod's figures but which of the contenders has the highest/lowest wing loadings?
Re ride quality , surely wing loading rather than wing area is more relevant. I haven't done the sums based on Rod's figures but which of the contenders has the highest/lowest wing loadings?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: kent
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not a touring machine but it is a bimble machine.
A cruise speed of 105k is 15k faster than my Jodel and I have toured Europe extensively in it during the last 15 years. The SC will be fine as a touring machine.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do apologise Jodelman. Being a ppl->cpl->FI->ATPL of a pilot I have never been able to afford to tour, as much as I really would like to.
I will stick to discussion about training qualities and leave the other joys of GA to those that know about them
Whats the fuel burn on a circuit sortie going to be like?
I will stick to discussion about training qualities and leave the other joys of GA to those that know about them
Whats the fuel burn on a circuit sortie going to be like?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surely wing loading rather than wing area is more relevant. I haven't done the sums based on Rod's figures but which of the contenders has the highest/lowest wing loadings?
For touring, there are so many other variables that straight line speed is not necessarily a huge factor on its own. On 250 nm leg the difference between the SC and MCR would be around 25 minutes. Hardly a shattering saving, though if you are spending two weeks touring Europe it would make quite a difference. But if you are touring for two weeks you may want the comfort of a wider cabin.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MCR01
Mike - - " I think Rod's 138kt MCR01 cruise figure is a bit illusory "
You'd be surprised, the MCR 01 is in a different class to the S/C. ( Once you get used to how little there is of it !! )
You'd be surprised, the MCR 01 is in a different class to the S/C. ( Once you get used to how little there is of it !! )
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AI, I guess you have never had the pleasure of trying to operate a new Cessna. . Let me describe a personal experience of the first six months out of factory:
Autopilot u/s
Left mag failure
G1000 MFD failure
Trim runaway
and
A cracked exhaust!!!!!
. Let me describe a personal experience of the first six months out of factory:Autopilot u/s
Left mag failure
G1000 MFD failure
Trim runaway
and
A cracked exhaust!!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big selling point must be the reduced fuel burn compared to the current fleet or even the C162 for that matter 22 ltr and hour compared to 16 max.
I do pray that its robust enough for the job. We really need some new training aircraft
I do pray that its robust enough for the job. We really need some new training aircraft
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make a good point MK.
The Skycatcher was originally designed and tested to take the Rotax 912 - same as the Pipersport. However, at the request of air schools, they changed to the Continental because of the 2000hr TBO that gave. The Rotax at the time had 1500hr TBO. Unfortunately for Cessna, the Rotax has been doing a pretty good job in the US predator drones in Afghanistan and based on its performance in the field, the TBO has now been extended to 2000 hours as well.
So Cessna find themselves with a noisy gas guzzler weighing 16kg more (a lot in these 600kg LSA aircraft), whose only advantage (the TBO) has been taken away.
In a top trumps style comparison, I can't see who on earth would buy the Skycatcher now? If you want to stick with high wing, Remos and CTSW will eat them alive. In direct comparison to their old rivals Piper, it makes pretty grim reading.
Pipersport Skycatcher
Fuel burn 15-17 l/hr 19-23 l/hr
Engine TBO 2000hr 2000hr
Vso 39 kts 44 kts
Vs1 32 kts 41 kts
Climb rate 1200 ft/m 890 ft/m
Fuel Capacity 118 litres 90 litres
Range 600 nm 400 nm
Cabin width 46.5 inches 43.5 inches
So the Skycatcher must be way cheaper then ...
Base models - Pipersport $119,900 Skycatcher $112,000
However you'll save £12,000 in fuel alone by TBO with the Pipersport. I think Cessna have dropped a b**lock.
The Skycatcher was originally designed and tested to take the Rotax 912 - same as the Pipersport. However, at the request of air schools, they changed to the Continental because of the 2000hr TBO that gave. The Rotax at the time had 1500hr TBO. Unfortunately for Cessna, the Rotax has been doing a pretty good job in the US predator drones in Afghanistan and based on its performance in the field, the TBO has now been extended to 2000 hours as well.
So Cessna find themselves with a noisy gas guzzler weighing 16kg more (a lot in these 600kg LSA aircraft), whose only advantage (the TBO) has been taken away.
In a top trumps style comparison, I can't see who on earth would buy the Skycatcher now? If you want to stick with high wing, Remos and CTSW will eat them alive. In direct comparison to their old rivals Piper, it makes pretty grim reading.
Pipersport Skycatcher
Fuel burn 15-17 l/hr 19-23 l/hr
Engine TBO 2000hr 2000hr
Vso 39 kts 44 kts
Vs1 32 kts 41 kts
Climb rate 1200 ft/m 890 ft/m
Fuel Capacity 118 litres 90 litres
Range 600 nm 400 nm
Cabin width 46.5 inches 43.5 inches
So the Skycatcher must be way cheaper then ...
Base models - Pipersport $119,900 Skycatcher $112,000
However you'll save £12,000 in fuel alone by TBO with the Pipersport. I think Cessna have dropped a b**lock.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I think Rod's 138kt MCR01 cruise figure is a bit illusory for the same reason ”
If you get hold of the Flyer test on my aircraft you will see it was independently verified.
Rod1
If you get hold of the Flyer test on my aircraft you will see it was independently verified.
Rod1