SportCruiser Question
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Facts
I own a Factory built Sportcruiser, and can give a few facts if anyone is interested:
- The aircraft are perfectly legal (where did that "grey" comment come from??!!)
- They are on an EASA Permit to Fly, issued by the CAA
- I just received my Annual PtF validation
- Maintenance is not under Part-M, it is subject to BCAR S, although some of us are choosing to follow the more stringent "LAMS" regime out of choice.
- This means that some (quite a lot) of work can be done by the owner/pilot, but there are some jobs that must be done by an approved maintenance organisation. Again, some of us are choosing to have an Approved org do all the work, ijncluding 6 monthly checks and rotax work, for piece of mind, but it is not mandatory.
- Once EASA decides upon a Sport Aircraft (or similar) maintenance regime, we may fall under that, but who knows...
It is a great aircraft, economical (I flew Kemble/Isles of Scilly return recently, and used just over half tanks of Mogas) and fun.
It was announced at Fred'r'schafen (can't spell it) that a dsitributor has been appointed, I believe, in the UK, so as far as I understand, you CAN by a new, factory built Sportcruiser.
- The aircraft are perfectly legal (where did that "grey" comment come from??!!)
- They are on an EASA Permit to Fly, issued by the CAA
- I just received my Annual PtF validation
- Maintenance is not under Part-M, it is subject to BCAR S, although some of us are choosing to follow the more stringent "LAMS" regime out of choice.
- This means that some (quite a lot) of work can be done by the owner/pilot, but there are some jobs that must be done by an approved maintenance organisation. Again, some of us are choosing to have an Approved org do all the work, ijncluding 6 monthly checks and rotax work, for piece of mind, but it is not mandatory.
- Once EASA decides upon a Sport Aircraft (or similar) maintenance regime, we may fall under that, but who knows...
It is a great aircraft, economical (I flew Kemble/Isles of Scilly return recently, and used just over half tanks of Mogas) and fun.
It was announced at Fred'r'schafen (can't spell it) that a dsitributor has been appointed, I believe, in the UK, so as far as I understand, you CAN by a new, factory built Sportcruiser.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dstevens,
Many thanks for the informed reply.
Sorry, the 'grey' comment was ambiguous, it only meant it appeared 'grey' to me relating my own lack of knowledge regarding EASA permits and I was struggling to clarify exactly what that meant in terms of maintenance requirements. I didn't intend to imply there was anything shady going or the aircraft on the UK register were in anyway illegal!
Now you have answered all is becoming clear so I now know what I need to be reading up on
Many thanks for the informed reply.
Sorry, the 'grey' comment was ambiguous, it only meant it appeared 'grey' to me relating my own lack of knowledge regarding EASA permits and I was struggling to clarify exactly what that meant in terms of maintenance requirements. I didn't intend to imply there was anything shady going or the aircraft on the UK register were in anyway illegal!
Now you have answered all is becoming clear so I now know what I need to be reading up on
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA's EASA Permit clarification letter written by Jim McKenna, Head of Strategy, Policy and Standards, Civil Aviation Authority.
Light Sport Aircraft (LSA): With the increasing interest in Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) it is
important that operators and potential purchasers are aware of the current situation regarding the European Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) plans for the aircraft.
At present, EASA will provide 'Flight Conditions' for these aircraft. This potentially allows these aircraft to qualify for an EASA Permit to Fly (Pt F), which will be issued by the State of Registry, e.g. the UK CAA. The aircraft are being delivered from the manufacturer, accompanied by an EASA Form 52. This attests to the build status of the aircraft but, at present, these documents have no legal validity as the production process currently sits outside of the established EASA Implementing Rules for certification under Part 21. This means that aircraft which have had a PtF issued, have not been designed or manufactured to a certificated standard and will be restricted in their use. For example, ab initio flying training or its use for hire and reward will not be permitted.
EASA has recently agreed to formalise the requirements for certification and manufacture of
these LSA types. We believe that EASA intends that they will be designed to a code,
Certification Specification (CS) - LSA, based on the US ASTM specification. It will also be a requirement that the production organisation be approved, in accordance with Part 21. In the absence of the Part 21 approval, the aircraft will not be eligible for anything other than a PtF and so therefore it willbe restricted in use.
Aircraft manufactured and delivered when the Part 21 production approval is in place will initially be issued with a PtF but once the aircraft has been evaluated against the design code, may be eligible for the issue of a CofA. EASA is considering further the likely operating rules that will apply to LSA aircraft with a CofA and it is hoped that this will include flying training.
There are three further points worth noting. Firstly, kit-built versions of these LSA ai rcraft will only be eligible for a National PtF, e.g. a UK National PtF issued by the CAA and administered through the Light Aircraft Association. Secondly, an aircraft with an EASA PtF is not necessarily eligible for flight in the airspace of another country, even the EU Member States, as EASA has yet to take on the legal competence for airspace use and access. Thirdly, LSA aircraft on a PtF cannot be hired out. This constitutes hire and reward but can be operated by a group in accordance with the current group rules defined in the UK Air Navigation order (max 20 members sharing the costs).
In the meantime, prospective purchasers of these aircraft should be aware that the EASA requirements are not yet in place.
Jim McKenna
Head of Strategy, Policy and Standards,
Airworthiness Division,
Safety Regulation Group,
Civil Aviation Authority
Light Sport Aircraft (LSA): With the increasing interest in Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) it is
important that operators and potential purchasers are aware of the current situation regarding the European Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) plans for the aircraft.
At present, EASA will provide 'Flight Conditions' for these aircraft. This potentially allows these aircraft to qualify for an EASA Permit to Fly (Pt F), which will be issued by the State of Registry, e.g. the UK CAA. The aircraft are being delivered from the manufacturer, accompanied by an EASA Form 52. This attests to the build status of the aircraft but, at present, these documents have no legal validity as the production process currently sits outside of the established EASA Implementing Rules for certification under Part 21. This means that aircraft which have had a PtF issued, have not been designed or manufactured to a certificated standard and will be restricted in their use. For example, ab initio flying training or its use for hire and reward will not be permitted.
EASA has recently agreed to formalise the requirements for certification and manufacture of
these LSA types. We believe that EASA intends that they will be designed to a code,
Certification Specification (CS) - LSA, based on the US ASTM specification. It will also be a requirement that the production organisation be approved, in accordance with Part 21. In the absence of the Part 21 approval, the aircraft will not be eligible for anything other than a PtF and so therefore it willbe restricted in use.
Aircraft manufactured and delivered when the Part 21 production approval is in place will initially be issued with a PtF but once the aircraft has been evaluated against the design code, may be eligible for the issue of a CofA. EASA is considering further the likely operating rules that will apply to LSA aircraft with a CofA and it is hoped that this will include flying training.
There are three further points worth noting. Firstly, kit-built versions of these LSA ai rcraft will only be eligible for a National PtF, e.g. a UK National PtF issued by the CAA and administered through the Light Aircraft Association. Secondly, an aircraft with an EASA PtF is not necessarily eligible for flight in the airspace of another country, even the EU Member States, as EASA has yet to take on the legal competence for airspace use and access. Thirdly, LSA aircraft on a PtF cannot be hired out. This constitutes hire and reward but can be operated by a group in accordance with the current group rules defined in the UK Air Navigation order (max 20 members sharing the costs).
In the meantime, prospective purchasers of these aircraft should be aware that the EASA requirements are not yet in place.
Jim McKenna
Head of Strategy, Policy and Standards,
Airworthiness Division,
Safety Regulation Group,
Civil Aviation Authority
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CG
If you plan on 100 hrs a year that'll be one 50 Hr/6 Month Check and an Annual. At that work on a total of around £1500/yr for the maintenance, plus parts.
As Rod said, if you run more than 30% Mogas then you change the oil/filter at 100 hrs. More than 30% Avgas and you change the oil and filter at 50 hrs. Also sparkplugs are replaced at 100 hrs when running Avgas, 200 hrs when on Mogas (plugs are less than £4 each though - not the £24 for a Lycoming plug...!).
We have 270 hrs on each engine on our P2006T and 100 hrs on our P2002-JF - both since last summer and they've both been as good as gold - exactly in line with what experienced Rotax owner/operators say. We've changed a couple of things on the P2006T but that's to be expected with a new design, the P2002-JF is a well proven design and has been fault free.
The Rotax 912 TBO is now 2000 hrs or 15 yrs. Was it on the company website you saw the old TBO figure?
Pwerformance-wise, the proof of course, is not in the sales figures but how it really flies, and not just how it handles - a study of the aircraft's weight and balance will give a closer clue as to its load carrying capabilities. For instance, we get 100 kts IAS with the P2002-JF burning 16 lph. This is real time, indicated air speed - not TAS at 8000 ft.... Or there's the old trick of adjusting the ground adjustable prop pitch to get good take-off and climb figures and (or...!) high cruise numbers....
If you plan on 100 hrs a year that'll be one 50 Hr/6 Month Check and an Annual. At that work on a total of around £1500/yr for the maintenance, plus parts.
As Rod said, if you run more than 30% Mogas then you change the oil/filter at 100 hrs. More than 30% Avgas and you change the oil and filter at 50 hrs. Also sparkplugs are replaced at 100 hrs when running Avgas, 200 hrs when on Mogas (plugs are less than £4 each though - not the £24 for a Lycoming plug...!).
We have 270 hrs on each engine on our P2006T and 100 hrs on our P2002-JF - both since last summer and they've both been as good as gold - exactly in line with what experienced Rotax owner/operators say. We've changed a couple of things on the P2006T but that's to be expected with a new design, the P2002-JF is a well proven design and has been fault free.
The Rotax 912 TBO is now 2000 hrs or 15 yrs. Was it on the company website you saw the old TBO figure?
Pwerformance-wise, the proof of course, is not in the sales figures but how it really flies, and not just how it handles - a study of the aircraft's weight and balance will give a closer clue as to its load carrying capabilities. For instance, we get 100 kts IAS with the P2002-JF burning 16 lph. This is real time, indicated air speed - not TAS at 8000 ft.... Or there's the old trick of adjusting the ground adjustable prop pitch to get good take-off and climb figures and (or...!) high cruise numbers....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the info Rod1 & smarthawke,
It was in a PDF brochure I found on the web, I guess it could have been well out of date.
Was it on the company website you saw the old TBO figure?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or there's the old trick of adjusting the ground adjustable prop pitch to get good take-off and climb figures and (or...!) high cruise numbers....
ORS4 No. 836: Exemption under Article14 (4) Regulation (EC) 216/2008 in respect of Conformity with the Design Standard approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for the Aircraft Type | Publications | CAA
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kind of, only in that you can run a certified engine post TBO on condition only for non commercial use. Whereas you can only run an uncertified engine for non commercial use. So the TBO for the uncertified engine is slightly irrelevant other than for it's annual inspection which will change slightly post TBO.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rod1, can you help me out there?
I can't find a published wing loading for the Tecnam P2002 JF, I know the basic calculation but not sure if I do the calculation it will compare will the published calculation for the SportCruiser which is:
45,6 kg/m²
I'm assuming the SportCruiser has the lower wing loading based on published performance figures for the the two aircraft and is therefore a rougher ride in turbulence?
Just a quick edit, my own calculation based on MTOW of 600 Kg and published wing area for the Tecnam gives:
52,2 kg/m²
Significantly higher wing loading
I can't find a published wing loading for the Tecnam P2002 JF, I know the basic calculation but not sure if I do the calculation it will compare will the published calculation for the SportCruiser which is:
45,6 kg/m²
I'm assuming the SportCruiser has the lower wing loading based on published performance figures for the the two aircraft and is therefore a rougher ride in turbulence?
Just a quick edit, my own calculation based on MTOW of 600 Kg and published wing area for the Tecnam gives:
52,2 kg/m²
Significantly higher wing loading
Last edited by Conventional Gear; 27th Apr 2011 at 11:42.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm assuming the SportCruiser has the lower wing loading based on published performance figures for the the two aircraft and is therefore a rougher ride in turbulence?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a post I put together some time ago, you will see that the PiperSport (SC) is the heaviest aircraft but has a much lower wing loading than the comparison machines;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (1950s 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
The key issue being wing loading;
CS 45 kg/sq
Pioneer 56 kg/sq
MCR01 75 kg/sq
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.
Also look at;
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ipersport.html
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...-opinions.html
Rod1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (1950s 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
The key issue being wing loading;
CS 45 kg/sq
Pioneer 56 kg/sq
MCR01 75 kg/sq
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.
Also look at;
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ipersport.html
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...-opinions.html
Rod1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again guys, I'm feeling more informed.
Have to say 'interesting rides' are not much of a problem to me. I mostly trained on the PA-28, OK plenty of days when the 152 crowd complained about the bumps and I hadn't a clue what they were on about
- However, I stepped out of a PA-28 to a PA-18, now I know what they were talking about, but I actually liked it more because I could feel the thing. Hire of either still remains an option of course, so if I wanted to fly a PA-28 for the day I could still hire one. I would be more inclined towards owning something like the PA-18 if it wasn't such hard work. I love flying them, but not sure I could actually live with one.
I'm pretty much expecting much lighter pitch control in a SportCruiser than I was ever use to in a PA-28, I must admit 100kts cruise is enough for me. My experience of 130kts in an Arrow just left me feeling everything was happening far too quickly for my experience level - slowing down to 70kts in a Super Cub I found I enjoyed a lot more than going upwards in cruise speed.
Perhaps now the Tecnam vs SC comparison is coming down to just the financial sense side, the Tecnam seems to leave more flexibility than the SC as it ages, (could hire to a club for training for example) the SC still wins for me on simple pure good looks. I don't see the SC is too compromised by my likely mission which will mostly for the next few years be fairly short hops around to all the places that seemed too close to bother taking a PA-28 into with the odd longer touring trip. The primary objective is to get away from the hire spiral and associated low currency I've achieved in the past couple of years.
I certainly could see me going off for a weekend with the SC and a tent and being very happy
It's not a one horse race though, for sure I'll be looking at getting flights in both before making the commitment, as much as I love the concept of the SC it's hard to ignore the sense of the Tecnam.
Have to say 'interesting rides' are not much of a problem to me. I mostly trained on the PA-28, OK plenty of days when the 152 crowd complained about the bumps and I hadn't a clue what they were on about
- However, I stepped out of a PA-28 to a PA-18, now I know what they were talking about, but I actually liked it more because I could feel the thing. Hire of either still remains an option of course, so if I wanted to fly a PA-28 for the day I could still hire one. I would be more inclined towards owning something like the PA-18 if it wasn't such hard work. I love flying them, but not sure I could actually live with one.I'm pretty much expecting much lighter pitch control in a SportCruiser than I was ever use to in a PA-28, I must admit 100kts cruise is enough for me. My experience of 130kts in an Arrow just left me feeling everything was happening far too quickly for my experience level - slowing down to 70kts in a Super Cub I found I enjoyed a lot more than going upwards in cruise speed.
Perhaps now the Tecnam vs SC comparison is coming down to just the financial sense side, the Tecnam seems to leave more flexibility than the SC as it ages, (could hire to a club for training for example) the SC still wins for me on simple pure good looks. I don't see the SC is too compromised by my likely mission which will mostly for the next few years be fairly short hops around to all the places that seemed too close to bother taking a PA-28 into with the odd longer touring trip. The primary objective is to get away from the hire spiral and associated low currency I've achieved in the past couple of years.
I certainly could see me going off for a weekend with the SC and a tent and being very happy
It's not a one horse race though, for sure I'll be looking at getting flights in both before making the commitment, as much as I love the concept of the SC it's hard to ignore the sense of the Tecnam.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it whenever someone asks about an LSA, the Tecnam dealer appears and tells people to buy a Tecnam?
"What you really want is the much nicer to fly, Tecnam P2002-JF " -citation needed
Let me provide some facts.
EASA will create CS-LSA on June 1st. This allows aircraft to be granted a RTC. Only two companies have met the technical specification set out by EASA to meet this requirement at present. They are Czech Sport Aircraft and Flight Design. These will be the first.
As for your decision, take a test flight. See for yourself. The new sportcruiser (version 4) has been drastically altered. The first of these roll off the production line in just under a month. It is full of tweaks born out from feed back of current owners, but the biggest change is a new aerodynamic package; the new aircraft envelope is phenomenal. Clean flap stall 34 kts. Full flap just 27 kts! Roll is lighter, pitch stiffer, longitudinal stability improved and control harmonisation enhanced. Pilot magazine have reviewed the new version and a full list of changes including a comprehensive assessment from their journalist who has flown the aircraft will be included in one of the next few editions. But ring tecnam, ring Czech sport and fly their aircraft.
Czech Sport will also be able to give you running costs data if you ask them. It works out as roughly £38/h wet to run. Maint, insurance, fuel, the lot depending on flight hours.
Other rumours - now fact. EASA have announced you can use an uncertified engine in RTC aircraft despite protests from Rotax. TBO is 2000 hours. Uncertified means cheaper spares. Certified parts cost more. The engines themselves are virtually identical, but for the colour of the cylinder caps.
And why is the proof not in sales figures? You try your friends, you like it you buy it? Or you test it and buy it? It is also in insurance figures, there is no emotion in that decision. Get a quote on both and see which is lower (a safer bet for insurance companies). Haywards or Emery Little could provide quotes for you for example. Assume both are £100,000 so you can see what percentage of hull value, the quote is.
But you can read all you like. Fly them! As mentioned the new sportcruiser (the one you would be ordering) is due off the line in about a month, so get a demo after that time to see the changes.
Alternatively go to the Aero-Expo in Sywell June 17-19th. Most manufacturers will be there (certainly CSA have a stall, i would expect tecnam to as well). You can see the aircraft, ask the questions, maybe even talk to owners?
Good luck.
"What you really want is the much nicer to fly, Tecnam P2002-JF " -citation needed
Let me provide some facts.
EASA will create CS-LSA on June 1st. This allows aircraft to be granted a RTC. Only two companies have met the technical specification set out by EASA to meet this requirement at present. They are Czech Sport Aircraft and Flight Design. These will be the first.
As for your decision, take a test flight. See for yourself. The new sportcruiser (version 4) has been drastically altered. The first of these roll off the production line in just under a month. It is full of tweaks born out from feed back of current owners, but the biggest change is a new aerodynamic package; the new aircraft envelope is phenomenal. Clean flap stall 34 kts. Full flap just 27 kts! Roll is lighter, pitch stiffer, longitudinal stability improved and control harmonisation enhanced. Pilot magazine have reviewed the new version and a full list of changes including a comprehensive assessment from their journalist who has flown the aircraft will be included in one of the next few editions. But ring tecnam, ring Czech sport and fly their aircraft.
Czech Sport will also be able to give you running costs data if you ask them. It works out as roughly £38/h wet to run. Maint, insurance, fuel, the lot depending on flight hours.
Other rumours - now fact. EASA have announced you can use an uncertified engine in RTC aircraft despite protests from Rotax. TBO is 2000 hours. Uncertified means cheaper spares. Certified parts cost more. The engines themselves are virtually identical, but for the colour of the cylinder caps.
And why is the proof not in sales figures? You try your friends, you like it you buy it? Or you test it and buy it? It is also in insurance figures, there is no emotion in that decision. Get a quote on both and see which is lower (a safer bet for insurance companies). Haywards or Emery Little could provide quotes for you for example. Assume both are £100,000 so you can see what percentage of hull value, the quote is.
But you can read all you like. Fly them! As mentioned the new sportcruiser (the one you would be ordering) is due off the line in about a month, so get a demo after that time to see the changes.
Alternatively go to the Aero-Expo in Sywell June 17-19th. Most manufacturers will be there (certainly CSA have a stall, i would expect tecnam to as well). You can see the aircraft, ask the questions, maybe even talk to owners?
Good luck.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly both
I own a Super Cub and it's brilliant - not hard work though just very slow
it's also mega cheap to run but far from modern.
Also look into ownership prospects of each aircraft, how easy is it to get parts for your plane? Speak to people who service both aircraft? There will be companies around - check the guys out at Nth Weald as there's definitely both SCs and Tecnams there.
Just to reiterate, Piper have no connection to the Sport Cruiser any more that was ended by mutual consent.
I own a Super Cub and it's brilliant - not hard work though just very slow
it's also mega cheap to run but far from modern.Also look into ownership prospects of each aircraft, how easy is it to get parts for your plane? Speak to people who service both aircraft? There will be companies around - check the guys out at Nth Weald as there's definitely both SCs and Tecnams there.
Just to reiterate, Piper have no connection to the Sport Cruiser any more that was ended by mutual consent.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has to be said that external looks should perhaps not be regarded as the most important factor when buying an aircraft...
As Dan said, the best way would be to fly both and base your decision on real time personal experience.
Tecnam parts, incidentally - we don't have any problems getting them directly from the factory. Rotax bits we get from Skydrive.
As Dan said, the best way would be to fly both and base your decision on real time personal experience.
Tecnam parts, incidentally - we don't have any problems getting them directly from the factory. Rotax bits we get from Skydrive.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry I don't agree about the looks to be honest.
I've owned cars, motorbikes, caravans all sorts of things because I liked the looks! It's not that weird really, buying a plane for me is other than paying a mortgage the biggest investment I'll ever make. The Tecnam, well I don't know how to put it, it looks 20-3O years older than an SC and doesn't grab me in the same way. It might sound minor but I'm far more likely to put time into looking after the SC than something that looks a bit, well like a plastic T67 (not that I've got anything against the T67, mighty fine aeroplane but that isn't what I'm buying into!)
For sure though I appreciate all the comments and I have more research to do, though I feel more informed for sure it is time to try them out and see which I like the most. I've also taken note of the improvements to be incorporated into the SC so fly it and see time. To be honest before asking I wouldn't have quite known where to have started, now I can put together proper comparisons for 1000hr running costs, get some real world insurance quotes, hangar fees etc. The main thing is going back to the original question, I can buy a factory built SC and fly it in the UK
I've owned cars, motorbikes, caravans all sorts of things because I liked the looks! It's not that weird really, buying a plane for me is other than paying a mortgage the biggest investment I'll ever make. The Tecnam, well I don't know how to put it, it looks 20-3O years older than an SC and doesn't grab me in the same way. It might sound minor but I'm far more likely to put time into looking after the SC than something that looks a bit, well like a plastic T67 (not that I've got anything against the T67, mighty fine aeroplane but that isn't what I'm buying into!)
For sure though I appreciate all the comments and I have more research to do, though I feel more informed for sure it is time to try them out and see which I like the most. I've also taken note of the improvements to be incorporated into the SC so fly it and see time. To be honest before asking I wouldn't have quite known where to have started, now I can put together proper comparisons for 1000hr running costs, get some real world insurance quotes, hangar fees etc. The main thing is going back to the original question, I can buy a factory built SC and fly it in the UK