Piper to abandon the Piper Sport
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
smarthawke
Some of that is certainly true. The co that got the original CS through LAA approval was Sprite aviation. When Chip was forced out a new distributor was set up, but Sprite had kits in stock and carried on supping them. I think the new lot did not supply any new kits, but not sure on that. The new lot then failed to get its contract extended due to the deal with Piper. I assume there will be a next chapter very soon…
Rod1
Some of that is certainly true. The co that got the original CS through LAA approval was Sprite aviation. When Chip was forced out a new distributor was set up, but Sprite had kits in stock and carried on supping them. I think the new lot did not supply any new kits, but not sure on that. The new lot then failed to get its contract extended due to the deal with Piper. I assume there will be a next chapter very soon…
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if this is relevant but sole agencies have been illegal in the EU for many years.
Not that this stops traditional aviation "sole agency for a given area" dealerships carrying on as in the 1950s...
Not that this stops traditional aviation "sole agency for a given area" dealerships carrying on as in the 1950s...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the new lot did not supply any new kits, but not sure on that.
http://www.lightaircraftassociation....ORTCRUISER.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By its very nature, almost everything on pprune is speculation, and nothing wrong with that.....but I would take some pursuading that the reality of the Piper thought process is any more complicated than:
(1) We need to enter the LSA market, and quick. But money is tight.
(2) Hey, here is a really nice low wing LSA, ready to go.... lets resell that under our brand, and our corporate-might will force CSA to make all the changes we want at their expense. Brilliant.
(3) Wow, people like this thing, and are buying loads! Great!
(4) Oh dear, we don't seem to be able to get CSA to do business as we would like, and our brand is at risk.
(5) Quick, pull out before we get in any deeper.
(6) Hey, why don't we try and buy them now, they are bound to accept our offer now their one and only customer has gone - us!
(7) What do you mean, no?
(1) We need to enter the LSA market, and quick. But money is tight.
(2) Hey, here is a really nice low wing LSA, ready to go.... lets resell that under our brand, and our corporate-might will force CSA to make all the changes we want at their expense. Brilliant.
(3) Wow, people like this thing, and are buying loads! Great!
(4) Oh dear, we don't seem to be able to get CSA to do business as we would like, and our brand is at risk.
(5) Quick, pull out before we get in any deeper.
(6) Hey, why don't we try and buy them now, they are bound to accept our offer now their one and only customer has gone - us!
(7) What do you mean, no?
stevens - I suspect you are right.
By contrast, Cessna took their time, designed their own using in-house expertise, made some embarrassing public mistakes but survived them, and is now about to enter a market which their most obvious competitor has just apparently withdrawn from.
The perils of early adoption! Cessna do look positioned to do very well over the next couple of years in this market however.
This month's AAIB bulletins are worth a read by the way - a Sportcruiser that overran a runway, and in investigation it seems that the take-off distance quoted in CSA's manual (and Piper's for that matter) is 55% of what LAA measured it to be. That doesn't exactly give you high confidence in any other aspect of the product's engineering does it.
G
By contrast, Cessna took their time, designed their own using in-house expertise, made some embarrassing public mistakes but survived them, and is now about to enter a market which their most obvious competitor has just apparently withdrawn from.
The perils of early adoption! Cessna do look positioned to do very well over the next couple of years in this market however.
This month's AAIB bulletins are worth a read by the way - a Sportcruiser that overran a runway, and in investigation it seems that the take-off distance quoted in CSA's manual (and Piper's for that matter) is 55% of what LAA measured it to be. That doesn't exactly give you high confidence in any other aspect of the product's engineering does it.
G
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That doesn't exactly give you high confidence in any other aspect of the product's engineering does it.
Just a bit of a mix up between the marketing brochure and the POH.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“a Sportcruiser that overran a runway, and in investigation it seems that the take-off distance quoted in CSA's manual (and Piper's for that matter) is 55% of what LAA measured it to be”
I thought the LAA tested fig was for the original aircraft with a VP prop? The current stuff is not LAA approved (post Sprite aviation), so none of the Piper stuff has been LAA approved.
Rod1
I thought the LAA tested fig was for the original aircraft with a VP prop? The current stuff is not LAA approved (post Sprite aviation), so none of the Piper stuff has been LAA approved.
Rod1
But Piper are (still) quoting the same figure- 180m LDR on a hard surface, as the sportcruiser POH referenced by the AAIB report.
I can't imagine that LAA would have failed to point out to AAIB before publication if their performance figures corresponded to a different aeroplane - instead they are quoted as saying they will review and possibly insist on re-issue of the manuals.
Plus I can't offhand think of any reason why an aeroplane with a fixed pitch prop would take 180m to land, when the same aeroplane with a VP prop would take 327m.
G
I can't imagine that LAA would have failed to point out to AAIB before publication if their performance figures corresponded to a different aeroplane - instead they are quoted as saying they will review and possibly insist on re-issue of the manuals.
Plus I can't offhand think of any reason why an aeroplane with a fixed pitch prop would take 180m to land, when the same aeroplane with a VP prop would take 327m.
G
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
Sorry. Disregard my comments. I got confused with the explanation given for the incorrect take-off figures quoted in the POH that grounded the SportCruisers / PiperSports on an EASA permit. That error was discovered, not as the result of an accident, but during the first annual.
Sorry. Disregard my comments. I got confused with the explanation given for the incorrect take-off figures quoted in the POH that grounded the SportCruisers / PiperSports on an EASA permit. That error was discovered, not as the result of an accident, but during the first annual.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me too!
From the report
“In 2007, the Popular Flying Association (now the Light Aircraft Association) required flight tests of the SportCruiser to evaluate its suitability for issue of a UK permit to fly, which was subsequently granted. From the flight test report, at just less than MLW (598 kg) and using normal braking, the landing distance from 50 ft on a tarmac runway was recorded as 327 m.”
The SC has a 12kn max demonstrated cross wind, which was the reason the pilot landed on the grass in the first place. That must be very restricting!
Rod1
Rod1
From the report
“In 2007, the Popular Flying Association (now the Light Aircraft Association) required flight tests of the SportCruiser to evaluate its suitability for issue of a UK permit to fly, which was subsequently granted. From the flight test report, at just less than MLW (598 kg) and using normal braking, the landing distance from 50 ft on a tarmac runway was recorded as 327 m.”
The SC has a 12kn max demonstrated cross wind, which was the reason the pilot landed on the grass in the first place. That must be very restricting!
Rod1
Rod1
Last edited by Rod1; 17th Jan 2011 at 16:59.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify....
1. Factory built Sportcruisers or Pipersports come under EASA and their consequential maintenance regime and are nothing to do with the LAA.
2. All Sportcruisers/ Pipersports, factory built or kits, have as standard equipment a ground adjustable fixed pitch prop.
3. A VP or CS either 2blade or 3blade prop is an optional extra and fitment is technically not an option to a EASA aircraft although I believe a couple may have slipped through the net as it were.
4. A POH is not 'factory supplied' for an LAA kit aircraft due to the many variations/options that are available and that can occur and can affect performance in a kit aircraft build.
5. The trouble regarding the performance figures shown in the factory built EASA POH handbooks which resulted in the temporary grounding by the CAA, of EASA factory built aircraft only,arose when Piper and CSA tried to 'amend' the original standard equipment Sportcruiser figures.
6.Onega Aviation were until the Piper fiasco the UK agent for factory built Sportcruisers and latterly a few, four I think, Pipersports.
7. Sprite Aviation are still, today, the only organisation that is approved by the LAA to supply Sportcruiser kits ( see LAA TADS for the Sportcruiser).
1. Factory built Sportcruisers or Pipersports come under EASA and their consequential maintenance regime and are nothing to do with the LAA.
2. All Sportcruisers/ Pipersports, factory built or kits, have as standard equipment a ground adjustable fixed pitch prop.
3. A VP or CS either 2blade or 3blade prop is an optional extra and fitment is technically not an option to a EASA aircraft although I believe a couple may have slipped through the net as it were.
4. A POH is not 'factory supplied' for an LAA kit aircraft due to the many variations/options that are available and that can occur and can affect performance in a kit aircraft build.
5. The trouble regarding the performance figures shown in the factory built EASA POH handbooks which resulted in the temporary grounding by the CAA, of EASA factory built aircraft only,arose when Piper and CSA tried to 'amend' the original standard equipment Sportcruiser figures.
6.Onega Aviation were until the Piper fiasco the UK agent for factory built Sportcruisers and latterly a few, four I think, Pipersports.
7. Sprite Aviation are still, today, the only organisation that is approved by the LAA to supply Sportcruiser kits ( see LAA TADS for the Sportcruiser).
Factory built Sportcruisers or Pipersports come under EASA and their consequential maintenance regime
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are on an EASA permit-to-fly as a temporary measure with expected transfer to ELA1 when / if that is finalised. There are a small number in the UK, so I assume there will be in other EU locations too.
The EASA permit-to-fly is not connected in any way to the LAA permit system and the CAA has concerns about the situation. It is somewhat unclear what happens if the PtoF expires and ELA1 is not finalised. It is also unusual for an aircraft to be granted a retrospective C of A when its manufacturer was not approved at the time it was built. EASA may sort all this out, or it may be a bit of a disaster.
Rod1
The EASA permit-to-fly is not connected in any way to the LAA permit system and the CAA has concerns about the situation. It is somewhat unclear what happens if the PtoF expires and ELA1 is not finalised. It is also unusual for an aircraft to be granted a retrospective C of A when its manufacturer was not approved at the time it was built. EASA may sort all this out, or it may be a bit of a disaster.
Rod1
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.czechsportaircraft.com/pd...h-Jan-2011.pdf
Looks like they are going to resurrect the dead Parrot.
CZAW | the Parrot
Looks like they are going to resurrect the dead Parrot.
CZAW | the Parrot
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't see where the Parrot was referenced in the Press Release???
At AERO CSA will also introduce our new high wing design.
CZAW and CSA are two different companies, of course....
Last edited by patowalker; 20th Jan 2011 at 16:19.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UAE & Africa
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't figure out what all the fuss is about. If it were me, I would simply go out there and get myself a Tecnam - far nicer than a Skycatcher or Sport Cruiser anyway.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strictly speaking I understand it was a 'ground adjustable prop' that was the subject of the disputed performance figures not the "in flight adjustable" (i.e. not constant speed) VP prop available as an option.