Sportcruiser - Opinions?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sportcruiser - Opinions?
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)
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)
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
Sir George Cayley
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
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by A and C; 5th Oct 2010 at 16:02.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at;
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...sbourne-2.html
I would not want the fuel burn of an RV.
Rod1
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...sbourne-2.html
I would not want the fuel burn of an RV.
Rod1
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Surrey
Age: 67
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sportcruiser
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steps !
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!
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!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Age: 57
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
+
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not want the fuel burn of an RV.
Rod1
Rod1
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
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
NoD
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cows getting bigger
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Maastricht, Netherlands
Age: 61
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
NoD
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
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
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...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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). 
PS. I still like all the aircraft quoted above.
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). PS. I still like all the aircraft quoted above.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel burn
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
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 !
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“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
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
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 152
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?