Jump to content
Anticept

Pipestrel

Recommended Posts

Continuing from another thread...

 

I spoke with a customer here in the states who has a Pipestrel Alpha. Apparently, his performance numbers are absolutely nowhere near what the POH says. Granted, there's no constant speed propeller, so that's when I wasn't worried about. I was curious about the fuel consumption more than anything. He said it was around 5 gallons an hour at about 110 knots.

He also is disppointed in the cockpit, saying it's cramped. He's looking to sell the alpha and buy a CT (Roger, did you get a call from him? I sent him your way!)

 

Of course, this is anecdotal.

 

EDIT: Didn't know it had the 80 hp. We would need an 80HP FD to compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke with a customer here in the states who has a Pipestrel Alpha. Apparently, his performance numbers are absolutely nowhere near what the POH says. Granted, there's no constant speed propeller, so that's when I wasn't worried about. I was curious about the fuel consumption more than anything. He said it was around 5 gallons an hour at about 110 knots.

 

He also is disppointed in the cockpit, saying it's cramped. He's looking to sell the alpha and buy a CT (Roger, did you get a call from him? I sent him your way!)

 

Of course, this is anecdotal.

 

As many know we have had the CTLSi for sale for 10 months.  Many have wanted log books and made several calls...none have followed through and made the purchase.  More than one guy has said they are gong to buy a Pipistrel or a Technam.... Many concerned about Flight Design's 'bankruptcy' and have backed away.

 

We know the product is superior and we know the FD problems are temporary.  But there is enough murk in the marketplace to keep many from making the right choice.  Pipistrel is second best...Technam is a disaster of quality issues and poor price/performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All LSA MFG's have their issues. They may be different, but they are there.

 

Really?  Can you say what issues Pipistrel and Technam have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also interested in the claimed vs. real-world performance of the Pipistrel aircraft.

 

Corey, the Alpha trainer has a completely different wing to the Virus SW - it's deliberately designed to be more draggy for training and to get rid of the need for air brakes.

 

The only figure you quote - 5gph at 110kts  - is about bang on the book.  Max cruise is 108kts and so the 80hp engine would need about 5gph to pull it at 110kts.  

Do you know what figures were a long way off the POH?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also interested in the claimed vs. real-world performance of the Pipistrel aircraft.

 

Corey, the Alpha trainer has a completely different wing to the Virus SW - it's deliberately designed to be more draggy for training and to get rid of the need for air brakes.

 

The only figure you quote - 5gph at 110kts  - is about bang on the book.  Max cruise is 108kts and so the 80hp engine would need about 5gph to pull it at 110kts.  

Do you know what figures were a long way off the POH?

 

 

Didn't ask. The only performance comparison I could use was fuel efficiency, but I didn't realize it was the 80hp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?  Can you say what issues Pipistrel and Technam have?

 

never flown a pipestrel but try landing a high wing Technam in a decent gusting crosswind and you will quickly realise just how good a CT is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never flown a pipestrel but try landing a high wing Technam in a decent gusting crosswind and you will quickly realise just how good a CT is. 

I did all my training in a Tecnam P92 and of course it was slowlier than the CT, had less instruments, less confortable, less roomy .... but it was much easier to land and fly, very responsive at any speed. I am happy with my CT and to travel is much better but P92 was really easy and needed less attention than CT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did all my training in a Tecnam P92 and of course it was slowlier than the CT, had less instruments, less confortable, less roomy .... but it was much easier to land and fly, very responsive at any speed. I am happy with my CT and to travel is much better but P92 was really easy and needed less attention than CT.

 

I also trained in a P92.  I concur 100% with everything you said.  The CT has better performance, space, and weight...but you will never find an more honest, well-mannered airplane than the high wing Tecnams.  

 

I liked it so much I asked Lockwood if they'd sell their trainer N120LS to me.  They said it was too new but I should call them about it in a couple of years.  By then I'd moved on to other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×