SportCruiser Question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol yes I suppose you are right!
I should choose my words more carefully. To be honest the Tecnam looks are growing on me, the article is helping, more pictures to look at
To be honest it's like most things, looks grow on you. I actually thought the SC was a weird looking thing at first, then thought it looked great. I'm half way through the article and actually now think that other than the canopy frame, they both look very similar and I was silly worrying too much about the looks before.
I should choose my words more carefully. To be honest the Tecnam looks are growing on me, the article is helping, more pictures to look at
To be honest it's like most things, looks grow on you. I actually thought the SC was a weird looking thing at first, then thought it looked great. I'm half way through the article and actually now think that other than the canopy frame, they both look very similar and I was silly worrying too much about the looks before.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having looked at both the SC & Tecnam from an engineering point ot view I have to say that the Tecnam is likely to be the cheaper option to own, as Smarthawke says they are made of metal.
Unfortunatly Smarthawke's jugment if flawed in that Gods composite (Wood) is the "proper stuff" to build aircraft from!
Unfortunatly Smarthawke's jugment if flawed in that Gods composite (Wood) is the "proper stuff" to build aircraft from!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vast majority of the SC is also made of metal. There are large fairings - which pretty much include the whole top of the aircraft but the underlying structure is T6061. I would accept that the canopy may be more vulnerable - if only due to its size.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having looked at both the SC & Tecnam from an engineering point ot view I have to say that the Tecnam is likely to be the cheaper option to own
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion the SC is built down to a price and weight, this has already resulted in the replacement (paid for by the factory) of the nose leg with a much more robust of greater weight. This is likely to solve the problems of cracking nose legs but in such a lightly built aircraft the loads are likely to put more strain on other parts of the structure that will result in further problems.
All SC aircraft that I have seen have required to have a new nose leg fitted but all have also had random failures of parts that are basicly of very light construction, the fixes for these parts are likely to result in the aircraft weight growing and as a result the performance falling.
As a single owner or very small group aircraft I think that the SC would give reasonable service if treated well, in the rough and tumble of a flying club the SC is simply not up to the task and it would be more economic to operate a Cessna 152 even if it burns twice as much fuel.
The tecnam is of more robust construction and it has at least a fighting chance of living in a club enviroment.
All SC aircraft that I have seen have required to have a new nose leg fitted but all have also had random failures of parts that are basicly of very light construction, the fixes for these parts are likely to result in the aircraft weight growing and as a result the performance falling.
As a single owner or very small group aircraft I think that the SC would give reasonable service if treated well, in the rough and tumble of a flying club the SC is simply not up to the task and it would be more economic to operate a Cessna 152 even if it burns twice as much fuel.
The tecnam is of more robust construction and it has at least a fighting chance of living in a club enviroment.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conventional Gear
Why are you only looking at these two options? Is the AT3 and the Breezer etc not worth a look? You can hire the AT3 from a number of flying schools.
Rod1
Why are you only looking at these two options? Is the AT3 and the Breezer etc not worth a look? You can hire the AT3 from a number of flying schools.
Rod1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not Rod1 - my options run from a Chipmunk, Piper L4, Aeronca Champ, through to Rotax powered VLA and then some.
My original question was simply could I buy a factory built SportCruiser to put on G-Reg in the UK as talking to a couple of owners I was confused as to if it was possible now or not.
What has followed is an interesting comparison between the SC and the Tecnam and I've resolved to try both before making any decision.
Fact is I've a lump sum to throw at my flying. One route would be to go for lots more training CPL/FI etc and have other people pay for my flying, the other is to invest now in my own plane. I'm certainly not restricting as to what I'm looking at, but now I am much more informed regarding the SC and Tecnam. I hadn't actually considered the Tecnam at all before.
My original question was simply could I buy a factory built SportCruiser to put on G-Reg in the UK as talking to a couple of owners I was confused as to if it was possible now or not.
What has followed is an interesting comparison between the SC and the Tecnam and I've resolved to try both before making any decision.
Fact is I've a lump sum to throw at my flying. One route would be to go for lots more training CPL/FI etc and have other people pay for my flying, the other is to invest now in my own plane. I'm certainly not restricting as to what I'm looking at, but now I am much more informed regarding the SC and Tecnam. I hadn't actually considered the Tecnam at all before.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say there is a lot of twaddle being talked about on here with regard to the Sportcruiser.
My 2008/2009 kit built Sportcruiser is still on its original noseleg and I operate from an undulating quite bumpy 480metre grass strip.
Of course it is a fact true that if you land any light aircraft 'flat' you run the risk of bending or breaking the noseleg and it is true that a few Sportcruiser noselegs have been bent by inexperienced people.
I have also flown the P2002 and trust me, regarding effect in turbulence there is no difference between the Sportcruiser and the Tecnam so all this talk about differences in wing loading, I have found, make virtually no noticable difference in practice.
My 2008/2009 kit built Sportcruiser is still on its original noseleg and I operate from an undulating quite bumpy 480metre grass strip.
Of course it is a fact true that if you land any light aircraft 'flat' you run the risk of bending or breaking the noseleg and it is true that a few Sportcruiser noselegs have been bent by inexperienced people.
I have also flown the P2002 and trust me, regarding effect in turbulence there is no difference between the Sportcruiser and the Tecnam so all this talk about differences in wing loading, I have found, make virtually no noticable difference in practice.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not really out of line with A and C comments - robust enough for small group or private owner - not so good as a training a/c. Sounds fair enough. I was lucky enough to have an instructor that wouldn't allow me to land flat, that isn't always the case I've observed. Fact is there have been a lot of nose wheel cracks found on SCs requiring a beefed up version to be fitted and they do seem to bend easily, as I understand it this has now been addressed.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoestring flyer
Quote:-I have to say there is a lot of twaddle being talked about on here with regard to the Sportcruiser.
My 2008/2009 kit built Sportcruiser is still on its original noseleg and I operate from an undulating quite bumpy 480metre grass strip.
So you are the lucky one ? or you are not doing your inspections properly ? I don't know the truth of the matter but I do know that all four of the SC's that I cover (yes I have CRS authority from the CAA for the permit aircraft) have required nose leg replacement due to cracks and so I would expect you to be looking at a nose leg problem soon if you have the early leg fitted.
Other items have failed at low hours due to cracks but no patern has emerged yet with these failures yet, I expect the SC to mature into a reliable aircraft as the factory iron out the bugs but this is likely to take 20-30 KG off the payload.
CG
It is not a bending problem, it is cracks! the factory now supply a much more robust leg, the weight of the leg reflects it's robustness.
My 2008/2009 kit built Sportcruiser is still on its original noseleg and I operate from an undulating quite bumpy 480metre grass strip.
So you are the lucky one ? or you are not doing your inspections properly ? I don't know the truth of the matter but I do know that all four of the SC's that I cover (yes I have CRS authority from the CAA for the permit aircraft) have required nose leg replacement due to cracks and so I would expect you to be looking at a nose leg problem soon if you have the early leg fitted.
Other items have failed at low hours due to cracks but no patern has emerged yet with these failures yet, I expect the SC to mature into a reliable aircraft as the factory iron out the bugs but this is likely to take 20-30 KG off the payload.
CG
It is not a bending problem, it is cracks! the factory now supply a much more robust leg, the weight of the leg reflects it's robustness.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some have bent too A and C, there was a company offering a fix for the cracking, but only if the leg could still be straightened. I've not time right now to find the reference I'll have a look for it later today.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the AT3 and the Breezer etc not worth a look? You can hire the AT3 from a number of flying schools.
As far as I am aware the Breezer isn't certified for flying instruction
As far as I am aware the Breezer isn't certified for flying instruction
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LUT 270/20
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breezer didn't claim an actual date (which has now disappeared from the Czech website for CZAW and been replaced by "Summer").
But the USA website, which I saved a copy of the page of, claims that the Sportcruiser has attained an RTC which AFAIK can't be issued yet.
The relatively public nature of European law suggests that any RTC is at least three months away since it doesn't appear on the agenda of any meeting visible from the EU website - and the recent opinion document is relatively vague.
But the USA website, which I saved a copy of the page of, claims that the Sportcruiser has attained an RTC which AFAIK can't be issued yet.
The relatively public nature of European law suggests that any RTC is at least three months away since it doesn't appear on the agenda of any meeting visible from the EU website - and the recent opinion document is relatively vague.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Surrey
Age: 67
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sportcruiser
Why not look at building a sportcruiser from kit having done it I realise its not as hard as you think. New sportcruiser kits should be coming in from china fairly soon the factory is build and airframes are being built as we speak. I have an option on one.
I would be happy to talk things over with you and you are welcome to a go in mine.
Pete
07976262833
I would be happy to talk things over with you and you are welcome to a go in mine.
Pete
07976262833
