Piper to abandon the Piper Sport

[Mickey Kaye]

"go out there and get myself a Tecnam - far nicer than a Skycatcher or Sport Cruiser anyway"

But I'm not sure it robust enough for flight training. But then neither do I think the pipersport is but then I though piper might have the will power to address this.

The skycather might be strong enough for training but for the european market it really should have been fitted with a rotax.

So it looks like the only suitable training aircraft are the good old 150/2,172 and pa28.

Something more economical is needed and and soon.

[John Miller]

MK, you are right. I did most of my training on Cessna 150s and did what Cessna was hoping and that was to later (much later) acquire a Cessna 182 (since gone).

Cessna's thrust was to train pilots and have them buy its products afterwards, which worked like a dream (it was done so aggressively, especially in Europe, that other manufacturers struggled).

However, there are training organisations running these 'ultralight' aircraft, although the cost to customer isn't a great deal less. One such is AFOS in Johannesburg - (they successfully run Tecnams by the way). In order to find additional sales, some of these manufacturers suddenly latched onto the flight training industry, claiming their aircraft were well suited to teaching pilots how to fly. The reality is that many of these types are not suited to training - they show reluctance to recover from a spin or their nosewheel structure isn't strong enough or they just plain don't handle very well and can't take gusty circuit conditions.

Nothing much wrong with a 150 or 152 - they can make it difficult for the training school proprietor to make any money though. And for what it's worth, I'm keenly looking forward to discovering why Cessna chose to use an O-200 engine for the 162 - I see no advantage. I believe it was serious mistake, despite the improvements made to the wee Continental.

[smarthawke]

Sure there is a certain mindset adjustment required when operating VLAs like the Tecnam P2002-JF for ab initio training but there are plenty of 'light' machines around doing the same job which survive alright like the Eurostar.

If people are trained correctly from the outset as to how to treat and operate the aircraft then they should be just fine. We don't have any problems with our p2002-JF so far and they're a very popular amchine all around the world. The nose gear is similar to the Mooney with a trailing link and rubber doughnuts.

A C152 nose landing gear/engine frame is only good for 3 bounces in a row before it cries enough.

The C162 prototype had a Rotax 912S under the cowling but the USofA (engineers (mechanics and the public at large) didn't like/trust/understand the 912 as it wasn't American and it was different. Continental shaved everything they could off the O-200 to make the lightweight 'D' variant as light as possible. Still got mags, single carb drinking 22LPH - 4-5 more than a Rotax which will hit Cessna in Europe.

[Firewalled]

But I'm not sure it robust enough for flight training. But then neither do I think the pipersport is but then I though piper might have the will power to address this.

Mickey,
I disagree. Not only are Tecnam's wonderful flyers, they have earned a reputation to be cheap to operate and maintain. I know a flight school that uses P92's. Over 5,000hrs of time, countless student slamming and still without a hitch.

As a side note, some people start unbelievably biased towards the Rotax engine, but they are just different to operate from Lycoming's. If you have a good tech, and read the manuals, they run flawlessly.

[patowalker]

CSA claims to have sold six SportCruiser in the week since Piper pulled the plug.
Some SC owners have expressed relief that they will no longer have to pay Piper prices for spares.

[Mickey Kaye]

What? 100hp rotax develops the same power as a 100hp continental unless one of the manufactures is telling tails.

In the training environment the rotax burns less full in fact some 6 liters an hour less.

As for build quality when did you ever hear of a top end overall on a rotax or a dropped value. Common on the o-200.

Given the choice I would always fly behind the rotax. Cheaper and more reliable.

Thanks for the comments on the P92 I will have to check one out.

[gasax]

Silvaire you are barking up the wrong tree.

The Rotax actully makes MORE power. Well to be precise more usuable power. Having run the same airframe with an O-200 and 912S this is definitely true.

At 100% the engines do indeed produce the same power. However apart from in a dive the O-200 cannot make the 2750rpm needed to produce 100hp. Of much more importance is the 75% figure - which from my Continental manual was 2475 - an rpm figure which again it could not make in level flight.

So the most it could manage was about 55% static and 70% in level flight - so 55hp to get off the ground and 70 odd in level fight.

In very, very, stark contrast the 912S can turn up to 85% in level flight - giving significantly higher speeds. Static it produces close to 70% - giving much better takeoff performance.

And whilst it is producing this extra performace it averages 4 lt/hr less consumption!!!!

[John Miller]

Well engines are one thing - let's talk about handling. I have yet to fly a Tecnam that doesn't recover easily from a spin (though I've only done this in their high wing models). They are light and responsive and all land easily with a natural flare and easy hold-off to touchdown. They all have sticks. On the downside, they have that horrible single lever brake system, which means having to remove a hand from the stick or throttle to use it - not a great arrangement. They are not comfortable to fly (nor do they 'feel' particularly secure) in turbulence or gusty conditions but that is the same for most aircraft in this weight category.

In fact almost all of these types are pleasant to fly, including the PiperSport (apart from its poorly harmonised ailerons). Very few of them are cleared to spin though this is not surprising considering a string of fatal accidents in various parts of the world involving two or three designs, which should raise eyebrows for any potential flight school buyer. At least Cessna appear to have tackled this directly and publicly, which says a great deal about the company.

I've never been let down by either an O-200 or a 912 (in fact I've never been let down by any aero engine), but to my mind the current generation of newer 'Rotax-type' engines make more sense.

[Bler]

PiperSport

Hi all,

it is very interesting to read all about PiperSport here :o)

I am the owner of a PiperSport and of course surpriced by all that sort of true or false informations...who realy knows...owners, competitors, people
which has never flown this airplane or those which know him so well that this could be a chance to try to cach it cheaply...who really knows ?

Well, whatever is politic or economic reason, the company CSA in Kunovice produce very nice, comfortable, very well equipped airplane and after one year beeing a satisfied owner, I have to say, impressed by his characteristics.It is very forgiving airplane and easy to fly and play with.

The answer to Genghis the Engineer for take-off distance quoted in CSA's manual ....

I have landed on 100m airplane modeler grass strip with full flaps on 50knots smooth landing approach and stopped on 80 metres without butterflies in my stomach. Tall story ? No, single, with 60 litres of gas and a good concentration on it. Take-off less than those 100 metres.
I have got two bladed constant speed 100hp Rotax.
All pilots can make mistakes depended on many factors. Everybody can try it, judging is so easy...

Important for me was one year service experience. Whatever phone call or my service request, CSA solved all quickly directly in Kunovice airport with no excuses.

I had got broken fuel float. After I came, six people took care of the airframe control, cabin control, undercarriage, engine...I just got the coffee and looked at this Formule1 team in box. Believe me, with the satisfaction, that I did well to buy it.

Whoever is the owner - Slavia Capital or Piper - I trust CSA company as
proffesional airplane company. They simply make great work. They know
to built the airplanes for many years and doesn´t mattter if the name is SportCruiser or PiperSport. Both of them are very good airplanes. It is my personal experience.

It is worth of a worldwide distribution. Well, pilots, let´s fly better and don´t beat the air :o)

P.

[smarthawke]

People have beat me to it regarding fuel burn. Enough said... The other thing in the Rotax favour is the installed weight. True comparative weights vary depending on who's claiming it but the Rotax 912S is at least 50lbs lighter than an O-200D. On a 1320lb MAUW aeroplane throwing 50lbs away needlessly was not Cessna's finest move...

On its delivery flight from Italy, our P2002-JF averaged 16LPH at 100KIAS. Our P2006T twin has a total fuel burn of 38LPH at 135KIAS.

Of course another advantage of the 912s is that it is certified for either Avgas 100LL or Mogas (EN228 Premium Unleaded) and up to 10% Ethanol. In fact it prefers Mogas and if you are burning in excess of 30% Mogas then the oil and filter changes are at 100 hours. And all of 3 litres of oil at that with hardly any burnt between changes. Compare that to the Avgas only O-200D and its 12 litres of oil over a 100 hour period plus whatever it burns getting there...

Regarding the Tecnam brakes. Toe brakes are an option on the P92 and P2002-JF, standard on the P2008 (info from the UK dealer's website: Tecnam UK ).

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have landed on 100m airplane modeler grass strip with full flaps on 50knots smooth landing approach and stopped on 80 metres without butterflies in my stomach. Tall story ? No, single, with 60 litres of gas and a good concentration on it. Take-off less than those 100 metres.

With no headwind, using the speeds recommended in the POH, and at or above 50ft /15m at each end of the runway? (Plus you clearly weren't at MTOW).

G

[Firewalled]

A large part of the Rotax's efficiency is the gearbox. The engine runs at a more efficient 5,500-5,800ish rpm(similar to auto engines). That and the higher compression ratios allowed because of the water cooled cylinder heads. One particular feature about Rotax is, no traditional mags. Magnets are cast into the crankshaft and these brush against coils (similar to a dynamo). The ignition units themselves are sealed boxes and you don't have to worry about inspecting them.

[blueandwhite]

I used to enjoy flying behind a Rotax.

Then one of my co-owners was crossing the channel when it failed. He and his wife were lucky and skilled to survive.

He still flies behind a Rotax.

One of the other co-owners never flew again -behind any engine.

I fly behind a 320 - but would have a rotax happly if it had the power I want. (I use an inmersion suit over water)

At the end of the day we all make our own choices.

[patowalker]

I used to enjoy flying behind a Rotax.

Then one of my co-owners was crossing the channel when it failed. He and his wife were lucky and skilled to survive.

Was the cause identified?

[IO540]

I recall another debate on this recently (flyer?).

The Rotax wins a bit on efficiency by using a higher comp ratio, but loses that by having smaller pistons bobbing up and down more often. The SFC of the two engines ends up within a few % and probably closer.

That's assuming the Lyco/Conti engine is leaned correctly i.e. peak EGT or LOP. Historically, the PPL training machine has not been teaching engine management so some 20-30% of the fuel is wasted.

Years ago I saw some analysis on engine efficiency and the old engines beat every modern car petrol engine on SFC.

There is also no doubt the old engines are more reliable than the Rotax. They have fewer bits and no gearbox. A geared engine running at a higher RPM will only ever be able to approach the MTBF of a simpler engine running at low revs.

The other reason (other than mixture mismanagement endemic with Lycos/Contis by "traditional" pilots, as a result of poor training and poor engine instrumentation) why Rotax-powered planes use less fuel is because they are smaller! The fuel flow for a given IAS is mostly a function of the cockpit dimensions. The cross section is the biggest thing. A tandem 2-seater will burn probably about 1/3 less fuel than a side by side 2 seater. Most of the Rotax powered planes have really "intimate" cockpits compared to say a TB20 so no wonder they burn half the juice.

The RPM v. torque argument is spurious. The prop has to absorb the engine power and the thrust comes only from the power.

[Firewalled]

Firstly, I'd like to say that I am in no way an engineer or mechanic, just a PPL who loves Rotax a lot.

I think you'll find if you run a Rotax at the same power as the Continental it will burn about the same amount of fuel.

Silvaire,
While you are undoubtedly more knowledgeable than me, I'm sorry but I still don't get this. What do you define as power? If HP, 100hp is 100hp. For an equal amount of HP, the fuel consumption is surely less on a Rotax?

There is also no doubt the old engines are more reliable than the Rotax. They have fewer bits and no gearbox. A geared engine running at a higher RPM will only ever be able to approach the MTBF of a simpler engine running at low revs.

IO540,
I respectfully disagree. The ignition system I described above has less bits than traditional mags. The oil system has no pumps, it operates off crankcase pressure. I think all in all, parts are about equal.

Regarding the gearbox, I have never personally heard one, but when a gearbox is close to failing, it makes a hell of a lot of racket (specifically a distinct clattering sound) and usually refuses to restart again on the ground. I think you will have a hard time finding in-flight gearbox failures. Also the very few gearbox failures on the 900 series engines were operator induced. The engine really hates it when prop rpm drops below 1,000. You can feel it running rather rough, but just as soon as you bring tha power over 1,000, it is as smooth as silk.

The fuel flow for a given IAS is mostly a function of the cockpit dimensions. The cross section is the biggest thing. A tandem 2-seater will burn probably about 1/3 less fuel than a side by side 2 seater. Most of the Rotax powered planes have really "intimate" cockpits compared to say a TB20 so no wonder they burn half the juice.

Great point

Years ago I saw some analysis on engine efficiency and the old engines beat every modern car petrol engine on SFC.

Quite interesting. Do you have a link?

[IO540]

For an equal amount of HP, the fuel consumption is surely less on a Rotax?

Power comes from burning fuel. Once you are running stochiometric, that's your lot. Physics is physics.

The ignition system I described above has less bits than traditional mags. The oil system has no pumps, it operates off crankcase pressure. I think all in all, parts are about equal.

However, total magneto failures are not statistically significant. Oil pumps do get shredded sometimes; that's true, but usually only after something else got shredded first...

Also the very few gearbox failures on the 900 series engines were operator induced

You could say that about most engine failures

Quite interesting. Do you have a link?

It was in Usenet, about 10 years ago. Some SFC data was posted by a car engine designer. However, I have been recently told by GAMI that the old engines beat every car engine, and they should know.

Most of the R&D that goes into car engines is to give good MPG and low emissions when running at low power.

[Mickey Kaye]

"Power comes from burning fuel. Once you are running stochiometric, that's your lot"

Which simply never happens in the training environment as aircraft are not equipped with the necessary equipment. Also whether rightly or wrongly training organizations don't teach students how to lean.

So in the training environment a 100hp rotax burns less fuel and cheaper fuel than a 100hp Continental - Fact

[IO540]

So in the training environment a 100hp rotax burns less fuel and cheaper fuel than a 100hp Continental - Fact

That's true but if I was a Rotax marketing exec and I said to customers "our engine will deliver more MPG purely because the people who fly with the competition are stupid or badly trained and fly mostly bigger planes with crappy instruments" I think that would be a "career limiting" move

[Firewalled]

Power comes from burning fuel. Once you are running stochiometric, that's your lot. Physics is physics.

Ahh, it makes sense.

That's true but if I was a Rotax marketing exec and I said to customers "our engine will deliver more MPG purely because the people who fly with the competition are stupid or badly trained and fly mostly bigger planes with crappy instruments" I think that would be a "career limiting" move