Sportcruiser - Opinions?

[manix-cs]

Is the payload really that much better?

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]

What!

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]

Rod 1

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it were not for the US liability problem killing most certified aircraft manufacture for 30+ years it would have been superseded (and scraped) long ago.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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by patowalker

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....