Sportcruiser or Sting?

[Monocock]

Haven't been in a Sportcruiser but have flown in a Sting. It was impressive and handled beautifully.

I like them both, and if the S'Cruiser handles similarly to the Sting, it's a tricky choice.

Given the choice though, I'd go metal over glass.

[Paul_Sengupta]

I have flown the French Stings which are classed as ULM's and found them to be a nice handling aircraft. I know the LAA have insisted on several mods for the UK version but the French somehow oblivious to these perceived shortcomings still continue to operate them quite happily and there are around 250 flying in France. a second hand one about six years old can be purchased for around £30/35K.

There's nothing wrong with the non-UK ones as such, there were just a couple of issues. Off the top of my head, one was a nosewheel collapse issue, so the UK one's got my friend's new nose leg on it. The other, potentially more serious issue is that it's unstable (divergent) in pitch. Of course that probably makes it handle beautifully, like a Hurricane! The UK version as I understand it has a modified tailplane and possibly some springs to make it stable in pitch, a requirement for the UK powers that be for a group A aeroplane...the LAA follow the CAA in that regard. It's things like this which don't immediately make other foreign designs suitable for selling in the UK. Whether these things are important is another matter.

[GAFlyer4Fun]

...

I can't get in a Sting. When I sit in it and try to close the canopy, it stays open by about 3-4 inches at the back when it's resting on my head...and that's without a headset on. I also can't get in a Breezer without tilting my body so my head's in the centre of the canopy. Not the most comfortable way to fly. Not sure, but I think I can actually fit in a Sportcruiser. I couldn't fit in a Europa by the way. Thus I think the Sportcruiser has a more roomy cockpit,...

I have not flown in a Sportcruiser but I sat in one at Aero Expo years ago. As I do not have a lot of headroom in an Extra 300 (front seat), I was mindfull about headroom in the Sportcruiser as its canopy was open. Salesman said they have a pilot that is 6ft5 and has no problems. I am 6ft2+ and had very little headroom without a headset when the canopy was closed due to the contour of the canopy to the side. Wouldnt take much for me to knock my head on that canopy and I told the salesman that would be my number one reason for not buying one, hoping they would take the feedback and consider tweaking the design (afterall the younger generations are getting taller).
I had more head room in a mono Europa that I have experienced in flight.

Not tried a Sportcruiser since so dont know what the headroom is like on the newer ones.
No idea of what the variation is like due to manufacturing tolerances.

[The Westmorland Flyer]

Apropos of Sportcruiser canopies, flimsiness of and headroom in same:

The very early (pre production?) SCs had a metal/composite canopy arrangement, a slightly narrower cockpit and higher seats. The LAA/EASA approved version has an all composite canopy which is significantly more substantial. The cockpit was made a couple of inches wider and the seating was moved slightly lower to give more headroom. At the same time the firewall was moved forward a bit to provide more legroom and to make space for the adjustable rudder pedals.

I don't know whether any of the old-style SCs are still around. Certainly there should be none flying on the UK register.

[letpmar]

We have 800 hours on are sport cruiser and I am very happy with it and have done a lot of European touring with it. I visited the sting factory and have sat in one but not flown it. It did not have the luggage space I wanted so not for mr though everything is a compromise. If you want a go in our sport cruiser get in touch

Pete
07976 262833
Pete@boogieclub.co.uk

[Rob P]

All this spec-bashing is fine, but surely isn't the answer to fly both and choose the one that handles best?

Rob P

[The Westmorland Flyer]

All this spec-bashing is fine, but surely isn't the answer to fly both and choose the one that handles best?

I agree in principle but would suggest that one chooses the aircraft that best meets one's overall needs (handling being but one important criterion).

[squawking 7700]

I was impressed with the Sting I flew and headroom wasn't a problem (and I'm 6' 2").
Handling was good with short take off and landing and I know the owner has been in to a couple of 270m strips (might even be 250m).
There's baggage space behind the seats and there's the parcel shelf, can't remember if it has wing lockers but overall I was impressed - smooth, quiet, good viz (yes, the canopy does look a little distended from the outside) - there wasn't much to dislike - maybe the wheels look like they're off a golf cart.


7700

[Paul_Sengupta]

I'm sure an RV-4 handles better than a Bulldog...at least in terms of chuckability.

But I bet you couldn't get the same amount of camping gear in as I can!

Besides, I can't fit in an RV-4. I can just barely fit in an 8...not sure I could with a headset on unless I slid forward a bit.

Just saying what some of the considerations are!

[Rob P]

True Paul, but the OP has narrowed it down to two candidates so we can assume both more or less match basic requirements, though there will inevitably be compromises - one has a bit more luggage room, the other better at rough strips, or whatever.

At this stage which one flies best must be the deciding factor surely?

Rob P

[Rod1]

On my flight in a Sting I landed and took off from a 300m micro strip at close to MAUW with no issue. I strongly advise you fly both, preferably on the same bumpy day…

The Sting has only quite recently been approved in the UK, so vastly less UK owners, but Europe wide it has sold in big numbers.

Rod1

[Windjammer]

Thanks everyone for a the excellent advice as I know I can expect from this illustrious forum
It appears that the Sting and SC both have pros and cons but after careful (ish) consideration we chose to test fly a Sting today. I have to say that on most counts I was very impressed. Looks are quirky but great, STOL performance excellent and handling superb. Very ' chuckable' in the air, almost aerobatic. Also frugal, although definitely slower than the old Europa.
However, and this is quite a big one, max useful load is ridiculously small. 170kg to be precise, and only 8kg baggage allowance ( worse than Ryanair!)
So until it gets a mauw increase to 600kg from 560 we are going to have to rule it out.
This leads us to plan b, the SC
Good useable weight, and baggage capacity so we now have to fly one!
Concerns are the fact that it's Ali and we are a coastal airstrip, and that the factory is no longer running could lead to problems in getting parts (?)
Will keep you posted

[The Westmorland Flyer]

On your two concerns regarding the SC...

All SCs and (I assume) Pipersports have excellent anti-corrosion treatment on all internal metalwork and a decent paint job together with regular treatment with ACF50 should protect it well. I'm sure there are plenty of 50 year-old Cherokees and C172s close to the coast and anti-corrosion technology has come on in leaps and bounds since they were made.

I'm not fully up to date with the factory situation. Certainly the aircraft is still in production but there is no longer any UK distributorship and there hasn't been a kit importer for a few years now. That said, I think that Graham Smith (the original kit importer) still has quite a large spares holding and, if need be, importing from the Czech Republic factory should be no more onerous than getting spares from the USA for Pipers, et al. I *think* that the factory now only deals in RTF aircraft. There are quite a few kits in the UK, most of which are now completed or close to completion. They come up for sale from time to time, often of AFORS. I am sure that there are still a few un-started kits out there. A good starting point would be to contact Graham Smith.

No, I don't want to sell mine... sorry!

[the boy]

I have flown sportcruisers and personally don't like the ride in rough air, and the fact that its controls are not balanced (heavy in roll and light in pitch)

I carried out the test flight and subsequent approval flights in a Sting so did a few hours in one. The handling in the main is very good, light etc, pitch stability and damping is now good (with Uk spec tailplane) pitch trim is just adequate and yaw stability Is not good, in fact marginal and is very dependant on front spat position (height and fore aft) and it handles much better without the front spat on.

Given the choice I would chose the sting, as handling is on the hole much better and performance and climb is streets ahed

Dave

[mick w]

" I have flown sportcruisers and personally don't like the ride in rough air, and the fact that its controls are not balanced (heavy in roll and light in pitch) "

Totally agree Boy .