PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Private Flying (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)
-   -   Sportcruiser - Opinions? (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/429590-sportcruiser-opinions.html)

scottish_ppl 4th Oct 2010 18:54

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):confused:

Sir George Cayley 4th Oct 2010 20:22

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:ok:

Sir George Cayley

A and C 4th Oct 2010 20:35

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.

Rod1 5th Oct 2010 11:14

Have a look at;

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...sbourne-2.html

I would not want the fuel burn of an RV.

Rod1

Flyingmac 5th Oct 2010 14:20

Another option. TL 2000 Sting

letpmar 5th Oct 2010 14:26

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

patowalker 5th Oct 2010 15:38

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.

A and C 5th Oct 2010 16:00

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!

Cows getting bigger 5th Oct 2010 18:45

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. :)

steveking 5th Oct 2010 19:23

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 ;)

NigelOnDraft 5th Oct 2010 20:16


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 :eek:

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 :ok:

NoD

Rod1 5th Oct 2010 21:45

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

A and C 5th Oct 2010 22:08

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!

wd413 7th Oct 2010 01:57

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.

PH-SCP 11th Oct 2010 21:02


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 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...milies/eek.gif

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 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif

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...:):)

Cows getting bigger 12th Oct 2010 06:20

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). :hmm:


PS. I still like all the aircraft quoted above.

gyrotyro 12th Oct 2010 07:54

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 12th Oct 2010 08:51

“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

Justiciar 12th Oct 2010 09:20

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!

A and C 12th Oct 2010 13:38

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?

Rod1 12th Oct 2010 16:38

An RV burring 33lph of avgas at £1.75 will cost £3465 for 95 hours.

An MCR burning 18.5 lph of mogas at £1.15 will cost £2021 for 95 hours.

Difference in cost per hour is £36.5!

“I wonder if the Sportcruiser will still be returning such numbers after 13,000 hours of flying?”

I would hope that all the SC (and the MCR’s) will have been scrapped and replaced with more efficient machines.

Rod1

hatzflyer 12th Oct 2010 17:07

All of these figures are accademic really.You can over quantify any statistic ( that's what we are really into here) and persuade yourself into or out of any particular type.
I have owned many many aircraft,up untill I got my RV I never kept one for more than a few months.I have had the RV for three and a half years so that says it all.
For me it is the perfect aircraft,Like Rod I never thought I could afford to run one.However I have never had a moments regret, and over the years haven't found the fuel burn too prohibative and have learnt to adjust and live with the sacrifices that I have to make in other areas of my life.This is because the whole package of the aircraft is right for me at this time of my life and what I want to do.
The point is it gives me overall satisfaction and that is why I have kept it.I love the looks, the speed, the handling et al.No one factor is enough to make any aircraft the ideal aircraft and I believe that the rquirements change as your life changes as well.

That's why you can't just analyse everything in terms of absolute speed or fuel burn or annual costs. If you are opperating on an absolute fixed budget there will always be something to burst the bubble, I just did something stupid and blew my engine up. It will cost me thousands.It certainly makes a nonsense of deciding what plane to buy based on ex £'s per year on fuel !

Rod1 12th Oct 2010 17:18

“If you are opperating on an absolute fixed budget there will always be something to burst the bubble,”

Well I hope not. My rigid budget for this year is £4200. Next years will be £4000. This will not get exceeded. Been flying on fixed budgets for 20 years and have only exceeded it once, which grounded me for 9 months to get back on track.

Rod1

patowalker 12th Oct 2010 19:26


An RV burring 33lph of avgas at £1.75 will cost £3465 for 95 hours.

Not when I went to school.

IO540 12th Oct 2010 20:33


I have owned many many aircraft,up untill I got my RV I never kept one for more than a few months.
You are either exceedingly well funded (have you considered a TBM850? - it is only $3.2M, in a typical configuration with the most handy options, like RVSM and a CD player) or you fly kites ;)

Otherwise, how do you fund the depreciation?

hatzflyer 13th Oct 2010 06:43

Rod, you, like me have been lucky so far, but as excellent as they are,rotaxes do go wrong.There is a whole industry that has sprung up to support them.
To say that your budget will not be exceeded is impossible unless you are resigned to the fact that you will give up flying if (when) you face a major expense.
This is the one time when it is better to be in a group with a healthy engine fund.
My choice has always been to take that risk and if the unthinkable happens accept that I will have to deal with it.
I now have multiple choices to make.I can have a new engine and then sell the aircraft to pay for it, or sell shares or bite the bullit.

You already know what I'll do !:ok:

IO, I don't really understand your post unless its a weak attempt at a sarcastic swipe at me (again!). If I struggle to run an Rv and only do so by sacrificing other things that normal people do , (like owning a decent car for example) then that is my choice and my buisness.
I don't take pops at you or anyone else that has money and chooses to run expensive kit.That's your buisness.
What I sometimes do is champion LAA style flying in order to point out that there are more affordable ways to fly.
I also support gliding, hang gliding, model flying and anything else remotely connected to any form of flight.
So I wish you would wind your neck in and stop bashing anyone that doesn't fly a TB10.:ugh:

IO540 13th Oct 2010 09:52

Hatz - it was a straight question.

As everybody knows, I rarely bother to write anything here that is particularly sophisticated :) :)

If I changed a plane (that I actually owned) every few months, the depreciation funding would be horrendous. And I do tend to pick people up on writing stuff that sounds totally implausible.

I don't fly a TB10, BTW. And my car is a 1995 Toyota.

hatzflyer 13th Oct 2010 16:34

Is "totally implausible" insinuating I am lying ?
Do you want a list of the aircraft that I have owned together with proof?

IO540 13th Oct 2010 17:44

Is it possible to insinuate something against an anonymous identity on an internet forum?

:)

Anyway, I still can't see how you can own a plane for a few months, then sell it, and keep doing this, without spending a great deal of money.

Perhaps you have indeed spent a great deal of money. I have no problem with that. I know how much I spend on this hobby..... But that is somewhat less than consistent with being a dedicated "homebuilt" flyer.

BTW, how is your friend doing... the one who flew a "diversion" from the UK to Switzerland, no flight plan, no radio, and got apparently busted £20k for it? It would be really interesting to know more.

frangatang 13th Oct 2010 18:05

Your sportcruiser prop is too low to the ground. Shame there wasnt a taildragger version!
Otherwise fine looking machine.

hatzflyer 13th Oct 2010 19:06

If you really want to know more its a matter of public record. He was cleared in court and awarded costs.
I will not rise to any more of your baiting as of now. You obviously enjoy anonimously slagging off others which just goes to show what a sad life you lead.
I do feel sorry for you, but this is the last time I will have any correspondance with you,as unlike you I am not that sad and am privaledged to have a large number of friends in flying circles that can vouch for any claims that I have made on this forum.
:ugh:

Rod1 14th Oct 2010 09:40

IO540, I know hatzflyer and he is telling the truth.

“Anyway, I still can't see how you can own a plane for a few months, then sell it, and keep doing this, without spending a great deal of money.”

That is because when it comes to LAA aircraft you have impaired vision.:ugh:

patowalker

You are quite right, I used the difference rather than the total. The post should have read;

An RV burring 33lph of avgas at £1.75 will cost £5486 for 95 hours.

An MCR burning 18.5 lph of mogas at £1.15 will cost £2021 for 95 hours.

Difference in cost is £3465 or £36.5 per hour!

Rod1

IO540 14th Oct 2010 09:51

Rod1 - instead of posting vague one-line replies, can you post examples of purchase and resale prices for the said aircraft?

J.A.F.O. 14th Oct 2010 11:35

IO - If you're interested in prices why don't you go and find out rather than spending your time picking holes in other's posts.

IO540 14th Oct 2010 13:08

Sure. What aircraft types, ages, etc?

patowalker 14th Oct 2010 13:09

Ironically, most SprotCruiser kits were imported when the dollar was very cheap. Those of us that subsequently sold our SCs did not take a hit from depreciation, au contraire :)

steveking 14th Oct 2010 15:08

Rod 1

I went from a Rotax machine to an RV and there is no getting away from it the fuel bill goes up. Having said that if you can afford the extra they are great fun.

I'm sure you know this but if pottering around doing a local theres no need to do 150kts, 125Kts gives me about 24Lts an hour and my 6 has a IO360.

I have flown down to Spain and back in the RV with a CTSW following along and I burned about 40Ltrs more than him over about 1500Nm. Don't know if this helps with your descion on a 7 but it helps me, sort of.:)

IO540 14th Oct 2010 15:28


Ironically, most SprotCruiser kits were imported when the dollar was very cheap
There was a time, in the early 2000s, when you could buy a plane and sell it a year later for the same money - because new (list) prices were rising so fast. It didn't last long, unfortunately...

C42 14th Oct 2010 17:41

A friend of mine bought a Sportcruiser kit when they first apeared for about £35k (from memory) they are seling for over £60K now and I was told the new "Pipersport" is well over £100K

As for fuel burn Steve K is correct, we have travelled all round Europe in Rvs with Rotax microlights following and fuel burn is sililar as they are in the air for twice as long for the same leg.

having said that i have a pitts with an IO 360 that burns less on a trip than one of my other aircraft that has a Rotax 912s!!! so the can burn 27 litres an hour when instructed to!!!

steveking 14th Oct 2010 18:59

The sports cruiser isn't the only one to go up in price. C42 and I had a deposit on a TL Sting in 2006 and at the time they were £39k. Now they are £65k. I know the euro rate was a lot to do with this but anyone buying before these rises happened have made a great investment and could sell at a nice profit.

Not all of us are so lucky of course, C42 and I cancelled our deposit on the Sting.


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:49.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.