Bought a Light Sport :)

z987k said:
I didn't know that!

It's amazing the amount of aircraft that are based on the original Avid Flyer as well.

Does the Cz aircraft have a Riblett airfoil?
Click to expand...

No idea about the airfoil.

But yeah, look at the JustAircraft SuperSTOL and try to see the Kitfox in it (it is, actually, in there)
 
BigZ said:
No idea about the airfoil.

But yeah, look at the JustAircraft SuperSTOL and try to see the Kitfox in it (it is, actually, in there)
Click to expand...
I have a just aircraft and yes, it's very much there.

The superstol is really just the fuseage though, the wing on the superstol is a pretty big departure from the highlander/escapade and kitfox. And it's not just the slats.
 
z987k said:
They don't. It's a re-branded czech plane. Fantastic reviews from about everywhere though.
Click to expand...
My first choice was the czech made Evektor sportstar. It burns an average of 3.09 gallons per hour at another flight school(I was shown fuel burn averages). However, you can only purchase them new for $130,000. The pipersport was available used for under $100,000 so the economics made sense to go with the pipersport.
 
Are these any more difficult/advanced to fly then say a 172 or Cherokee? Like would it be an easy transition? I might be in the market for a small plane in the next couple of years.
 
mrivc211 said:
My first choice was the czech made Evektor sportstar. It burns an average of 3.09 gallons per hour at another flight school(I was shown fuel burn averages). However, you can only purchase them new for $130,000. The pipersport was available used for under $100,000 so the economics made sense to go with the pipersport.
Click to expand...
That is wildly optimistic fuel burn. The carbed 912/S burns about .08gal/hr/HP. There's not really any getting around that specific fuel consumption. To be at 3.09gal/hr you're only making about 39HP. That's off the charts low, and you'd have to be down in the 3000RPM range somewhere I imagine. That's not a straight and level HP number.
 
NovemberEcho said:
Are these any more difficult/advanced to fly then say a 172 or Cherokee? Like would it be an easy transition? I might be in the market for a small plane in the next couple of years.
Click to expand...
They're easier. The engine most resembles a motorcycle engine IMO, but still closer to a car engine than a Lycoming or Continental. There's not even a mixture control on the carbed models because the carburetor is altitude compensating through about 10k or so. You can also re-jet it to change the baseline. The injected version is like having EFI in your car.
 
NovemberEcho said:
Are these any more difficult/advanced to fly then say a 172 or Cherokee? Like would it be an easy transition? I might be in the market for a small plane in the next couple of years.
Click to expand...
Depends where you live and how much attention you pay to the turbulence
These tend to have a lighter wing loading and get bounced around a good bit more
In FL at least
 
z987k said:
That is wildly optimistic fuel burn. The carbed 912/S burns about .08gal/hr/HP. There's not really any getting around that specific fuel consumption. To be at 3.09gal/hr you're only making about 39HP. That's off the charts low, and you'd have to be down in the 3000RPM range somewhere I imagine. That's not a straight and level HP number.
Click to expand...
I've done quite a bit of homework on it. I've got fuel receipts, flight records, and more. When you factor in SNA taxi times it averages out to 3.09 per hour. This is on a sample size of 4 airplanes flying 85-87 hours per month each. The planes POH states 4.76 gallons per hour in cruise so 3.09 average is not far off when you factor in 12 minutes taxi time is normal ops at SNA.
 
mrivc211 said:
I've done quite a bit of homework on it. I've got fuel receipts, flight records, and more. When you factor in SNA taxi times it averages out to 3.09 per hour. This is on a sample size of 4 airplanes flying 85-87 hours per month each. The planes POH states 4.76 gallons per hour in cruise so 3.09 average is not far off when you factor in 12 minutes taxi time is normal ops at SNA.
Click to expand...
Oh.... ok I guess. I have never heard of someone using taxi fuel burns in their GPH averages since you can't flight plan on that.
 
z987k said:
Oh.... ok I guess. I have never heard of someone using taxi fuel burns in their GPH averages since you can't flight plan on that.
Click to expand...

He's factoring typical hobbs hourly burn in a flight training operation for the purposes of "how much is it going to cost me per 1 hr hobbs if I rent it out wet for flight training"

For flying purposes I am completely with you on the numbers
 
Hey, I fly those! I rent them periodically from US Sport Aircraft. Awesome plane to pucker around with when you have the right factors. One thing I would watch out for is the useful load. On a hot day, with another person, you will feel it in this plane.

Congrats! Fun little plane.
 
BigZ said:
He's factoring typical hobbs hourly burn in a flight training operation for the purposes of "how much is it going to cost me per 1 hr hobbs if I rent it out wet for flight training"

For flying purposes I am completely with you on the numbers
Click to expand...
THIS
 
z987k said:
I have a just aircraft and yes, it's very much there.

The superstol is really just the fuseage though, the wing on the superstol is a pretty big departure from the highlander/escapade and kitfox. And it's not just the slats.
Click to expand...
Which Just do you have? I chatted with a dude that stayed in our site at homebuilt camping at Sun n Fun who had one, he said it was a fairly easy build (compared to RV and Lancair he built)
 
https://tinyurl.com/y9ab9dro

"I was exploring any flat spin tendencies that this type of aircraft was rumored to get itself into. and yes it did, it would not recover. Deployment at 1000' (could not do any higher, too long to explain) If you watch the video again, you will notice the front right riser tightened 4 secs before impact"
 
bimmerphile said:
Which Just do you have? I chatted with a dude that stayed in our site at homebuilt camping at Sun n Fun who had one, he said it was a fairly easy build (compared to RV and Lancair he built)
Click to expand...
The highlander. They are very simple machines. You have to keep them light as possible though.
 
ahw01 said:
https://tinyurl.com/y9ab9dro

"I was exploring any flat spin tendencies that this type of aircraft was rumored to get itself into. and yes it did, it would not recover. Deployment at 1000' (could not do any higher, too long to explain) If you watch the video again, you will notice the front right riser tightened 4 secs before impact"
Click to expand...
Only injury, bump on head when canopy doesn't stay up.
 
mrivc211 said:
Made an offer on this beast, they accepted. It's got 378 hours TT on the frame. Parachute and drinks car gasoline(hello $3/hr). It's quite a step up from my 1979 Cessna 152. This being my third airplane purchase, I'm getting better and better at sniffing around for problems. I'd say the biggest mistake I made with the two previous purchases was that I never really broke in the airplane to see what problems it had. A spin around the pattern typically won't reveal its ghosts. If you're gonna buy a plane, along with the prebuy, go fly it for 1-2 hours. Offer to pay the owner. Anyways, I'm looking forward to only burning 4.5 gallons per hour. My 152 burns 6.1 @ $5.05/gal which takes me from $30.80 per hour fuel burn to $13.18. I'm going to be saving about $1711 per month on fuel savings per plane. I'm selling the 152 and I'm planning to purchase a second one within a couple of months provided this plane performs as stated. I"m really diggin the exterior color, not so much the interior however I'm planning on installing sheepskin seat covers so it won't really matter.




View attachment 41026 View attachment 41027 View attachment 41028
Click to expand...


That's one beautiful aircraft. Congratulations!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top