Sling 2 and C172 comparison

[rgmwa]

Hoover is a former fighter pilot and frequently analyses and comments on aircraft accidents. 

It's interesting to see how someone of his experience approaches flying a Sling2 for the first time. 

 

https://youtu.be/LK3BN66OE6M?si=hbN3RyYTwgk7VGu-

[RFguy]

watch it.

he say " at 2400'  and 50' wide was the smallest RWY I've ever landed on"

really....

LOL...

172 versus sling2 ? 

I thought the comparison between the two aircraft was complete bollocks

The sling2 is a 2 person aircraft... should be renamed " flying the sling 2"

 

However, I just remind buyers that Slings in Australia are VH Experimental AFAIK

and the C172 is a certified airplane. 

That has its plusses and minuses.

 

Sling 2 is nice though.

 

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

The video comes across as a full on marketing promotion for Sling.

 

All credit to Sling they are an aggressive marketer of their product. They are involved with training establishment, various stunts, like round the World flights, promote heavily in magazines, fly-ins, etc, etc -  Non of this makes for a better or a bad aircraft - just muddies the waters and sucks in the gullible.

 

Sling promotions feature aircraft with top of the line instrument panels.  Attractive - undoubtedly - in the analysis -  bling! A fancy panel contributes very little to the flying qualities of an aircraft. 😈

[Blueadventures]

15 hours ago, rgmwa said:

Hoover is a former fighter pilot and frequently analyses and comments on aircraft accidents. 

It's interesting to see how someone of his experience approaches flying a Sling2 for the first time. 

 

https://youtu.be/LK3BN66OE6M?si=hbN3RyYTwgk7VGu-

He would have been better comparing the Sling 2 to a Piper or other low wing and comparing the Sling high wing to a C 172.   

[Thruster88]

Sling high wing with rotax 916 v the cessna 182 would be an interesting comparison. 

[sfGnome]

One of my ex-syndicate partners bought a sling2 and absolutely loved it, so much so that when he decided that he was getting too old and sold it, he went out shortly afterwards and bought another. 
 

As for the bling issue, you could say that a Lada will get you there just like a BMW, but oddly, people prefer to buy the beemers… I’d love to have a full glass cockpit with autopilot and the works. It’s only the rapidly diminishing pool of the readies that stops me. 😛

[BurnieM]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

The video comes across as a full on marketing promotion for Sling.

 

All credit to Sling they are an aggressive marketer of their product. They are involved with training establishment, various stunts, like round the World flights, promote heavily in magazines, fly-ins, etc, etc -  Non of this makes for a better or a bad aircraft - just muddies the waters and sucks in the gullible.

 

Sling promotions feature aircraft with top of the line instrument panels.  Attractive - undoubtedly - in the analysis -  bling! A fancy panel contributes very little to the flying qualities of an aircraft. 😈

I do not think you can call flying 3 high wings from South Africa to Oshkosh a stunt. Certainly it had marketing value but only because it showed what they were actually capable of.

 

Yes, a Sling TSI or HW is getting up there at $550,000 but let’s not forget a new Cessna 172 (with a lower useable load) is now $1.2 mil.

 

Edited October 7 by BurnieM

[skippydiesel]

Hi sfGnome,

 

I empathise with the lack of "readies".

 

Speculation:

 

When we own or fly a certain aircraft, to the exclusion of others, we become "familiar" with that machine. In this context familiar means we no longer consciously look for a particular instrument/read out, need to adjust for a certain handling characteristics,  take-off/landings do not require the intense concentration of our early days/new aircraft experince. Flying our baby becomes a pleasure not so much a challenge.

 

If the above is largely true, it may explain why almost every owner exhibits considerable posative bias, when talking about their aircraft.

 

For instance - its well known that student who learn in a high/low wing, will likly go on the purchase an aircraft with the same configuration. 

 

When questioned about their choice, pilots can get quit defensive. Their rational often not so rational ie its a personal (subjective) rather than objective decision.

 

Your ex-syndicate friend could be demonstrating  bias to the point of excluding other worthy, even better aircraft.

 

Adding to the above is clever/aggressive marketing (Sling), the lack of objective flight testing (Sport Pilot et al).  

 

Where does the discerning pilot get their information?

 

In the past there was competition eg NASA's CAFE Foundation/testing https://cafe.foundation/ - not sure its still functioning. It may be my faulty memory/imagination; aviator journalists actually tried for objective performance reports  - seems to have gone.

 

My philosophy is that all small aircraft that fly safely, are good. Better/worse then comes down to mission objective eg STOL, econamy cruise (my interest), comfort, access (some of us "mature" pilots can no longer easily step up onto a wing drop, down into/ out of a low cockpit), etc, etc.

 

In short I am very sceptical of anyone endorsement of their particular make/model of aircraft , without objective supporting information.

😈

[skippydiesel]

18 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

I do not think you can call flying 3 high wings from South Africa to Oshkosh a stunt. Certainly it had marketing value but only because it showed what they were actually capable of.

 

Yes, a Sling TSI or HW is getting up there at $550,000 but let’s not forget a new Cessna 172 (with a lower useable load) is now $1.2 mil.

 

Burnie,

 

Reality Check; Almost all small aircraft can, with suffice support (money, time, pilot will, etc), fly aground the World. 

For the pilot this may be a "bucket list" dream.

For the aircraft  it  proves nothing, other than it can be started up & flown day after day, much like any other modern small aircraft, of the last 30 years or so - its a stunt!

 

Sling aircraft are very nicely presented AND grossly overpriced, in comparison with a host of other worthy aircraft, in the same category, that can be acquired for many dollar less.

 

NOTE: I have not flown a Sling

 

😈

[facthunter]

Few people will admit they Bought a LEMON. Most Planes are a good way of sending you Broke. Bad weather affects them all. NO plane LEARNS to fly. You always have to get it to go where you want it to.  Autopilots have their OWN set of risks. You can't JUST leave them to it.  Nev

[BurnieM]

Currently GAP (the AUS Sling distributor) are on a demo/marketing tour of Western Australia from their base at Heck Field, Queensland.

 

With their Sling 4 TSI is a customer High Wing and customer TSi (both from NSW). I believe both owners are retired/semi retired and have the time for a trip. They are also helping to sell to others which says a lot about how owners view them.

 

While they are not cheap at least some pilots think they are worth it. 

[rgmwa]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Sling aircraft are very nicely presented AND grossly overpriced, in comparison with a host of other worthy aircraft, in the same category, that can be acquired for many dollar less.

What do you think would be a reasonable price for a new Sling 2 then?

[BurnieM]

9 minutes ago, rgmwa said:

What do you think would be a reasonable price for a new Sling 2 then?

🫢 Don't ask, don't tell

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, rgmwa said:

What do you think would be a reasonable price for a new Sling 2 then?

My knowledge based does not go much beyond 2 seat, Rotax 912 ULS powered aircraft. My guesses;

 

Similar Configuration;

Factory Base Model $180,K - 200,K

Kit Composite $ 160,K

Metal (flat pack) $ 120,K

😈

 

Edited October 7 by skippydiesel

[Student Pilot]

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

The video comes across as a full on marketing promotion for Sling.

 

All credit to Sling they are an aggressive marketer of their product. They are involved with training establishment, various stunts, like round the World flights, promote heavily in magazines, fly-ins, etc, etc -  Non of this makes for a better or a bad aircraft - just muddies the waters and sucks in the gullible.

 

Sling promotions feature aircraft with top of the line instrument panels.  Attractive - undoubtedly - in the analysis -  bling! A fancy panel contributes very little to the flying qualities of an aircraft. 😈

Seems different priorities these modern times. Now people have 3 TV's on the dash, cluttered with every conceivable bit of information including the buzzbar oxidation rate. As well as a blinged out full 3 axis auto pilot. 
Personally like steam gauges, fewer the better. I do like a GPS though, great bit of kit.
Most homebuilders now spend  three times more on avionics and instruments than a brand new 172 used to cost. GA going the way of the Dodo.

[BurnieM]

31 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

My knowledge based does not go much beyond 2 seat, Rotax 912 ULS powered aircraft. My guesses;

 

Similar Configuration;

Factory Base Model $180,K - 200,K

Kit Composite $ 160,K

Metal (flat pack) $ 120,K

😈

 

Factory built;

 

Sling 2 with

Rotax 912ULS

Garmin G3X Touch efis

Garmin radio and transponder

$270,000 ish

 

Sling 2 with

Rotax 912is

2 x Garmin G3X Touch efis

Garmin radio and transponder

Garmin GMC507 autopilot controller and servos

Parachute

$330,000 ish

 

Interesting fact;

you can register a factory built Sling 2 at 600kg MTOW but a kit built Sling can be registered at 700kg MTOW

 

Edited October 7 by BurnieM

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, BurnieM said:

Currently GAP (the AUS Sling distributor) are on a demo/marketing tour of Western Australia from their base at Heck Field, Queensland.

 

With their Sling 4 TSI is a customer High Wing and customer TSi (both from NSW). I believe both owners are retired/semi retired and have the time for a trip. They are also helping to sell to others which says a lot about how owners view them.

 

While they are not cheap at least some pilots think they are worth it. 

Seems to me you are coming very close to proving my hypostasis.

 

How about some real data instead of all this wishy washy feeling stuff?? :

 

 

	Wikipedia  & Sling	Comment	My Sonex Legacy	Comment
Engine	Rotax 912 ULS		Rotax 912 ULS
Construction	Metal	Wiki says UK life fatigue limited to 500hrs	Metal	No listed service life limits
Max TO Wt	600 kg in Au	Sling can go to 700 kg however not sure under what conditions & if this is retrospective.	554kg
Empty Weight	370-380 kg	Very heavy	340kg	Heavy for a Sonex usually close to 300kg
Fuel capacity	73-150L	Lower end awful. Upper fantastic.	95L	More than most Sonex
Useful Load	220-230kg		214kg	Sonex load & space challenged
After Full Fuel	177– 121 kg	Not great	145kg	Sonex not so bad after all
Approx. Cruise Duration to empty	5-10hrs	Assuming same rpm/MAP see below	6+ hrs	Assuming same RPM/MAP see below
Approx Still Air Range to empty	585-1170 Nm (Sling 850nm)	How does sling claim 15l/hr and then only 850 nm range??	780 nm	Actual
Stall	40 -48 + flap	Not so good – higher end- Nasty!	40 kn clean, 37 kn +flap	Would like a lower stall but cant have everything
Cruise speed	117- 120 kn True		130 kn True
Eco Cruise RPM/ MAP	5000/25”	MAP assumed - RPM Sling	5000 /25”	Actual
Planned cruise fuel consumption	15L/hr	From Sling	15L/hr	Actual 13.25-14L/hr
Best Climb			1500ft/min	Full fuel + pilot 5800 RPM
TO Ground Role			100 m (grass)	Full fuel + pilot
Landing Role			200M (grass, estimated)	Better pilot wild likely do a lot better
Max speed			147 kn Indicated 152 k True	Only been here a couple of times.
Max Speed RPM/ MAP			5500 /27”
Never Exceed Speed	135 kn	Bit close to Cruise	171 kn	Nice safe margin allowing for high speed descents
Interior	Looks very comfy		Basic
Looks	Sling has it		Utilitarian
Handling	Benign?	Assumed from looks - A stable flight platform?	Neutral Highly responsive	Designed for aerobatics - constant attention.

😈

[skippydiesel]

Note: Spell check is not always my friend. Please read hypothesis where hypostasis somehow got into the sentence.😈

[BurnieM]

I am not selling either.

 

All the specs are available on Slings website - https://slingaircraft.com/aircraft/sling-2/

but the basics for a factory built Sling 2 (912is) are;

Empty weight 380 kg

MTOW 600 kg

Useful load 220 kg

Fuel capacity 150 litres

 

8-10 hours is pretty typical with full fuel but not achievable with 2 POB.

 

The airframe life is a bit weird and only applies to Sling 2 in the UK.

There are many Sling 2 with over 3000 hours in South Africa and a few over 2000 hours in Australia.

 

[RFguy]

"Factory built"  - sure they're not all VH experimental with a nominated builder ?

[BurnieM]

I did not say 'certified' just factory built.

 

Yes, I believe they are experimental in VH land and Sling Aircraft is the builder.

 

Obviously CASA considers there to be a difference requiring 'factory built' for school aircraft, although why a factory built aircraft can be registered at 600 kg MTOW but an amateur built can be registered at 700 kg is beyond my understanding.

 

Edited October 7 by BurnieM

[rgmwa]

At 600kg it meets the LSA requirements and would be registered as an SLSA if factory built or ELSA if amateur built and could be either RAAus or VH. However, it's designed as a VLA in South Africa which is where the 700kg limit comes from, and can be built as a VH EAB and flown at that weight. 

Edited October 7 by rgmwa

[BurnieM]

I sort of understand the legalities and note a similar situation in the US.

However, there are no structural/engineering differences between them (except perhaps a higher assembly quality in the factory built).

 

Edited October 7 by BurnieM

[pmccarthy]

I am forced to have a placard on the panel that says “this aircraft is not built to blah blah blah standards” because it is RAAus reg, yet the identical aircraft can be reg GA. So it was built to the same standards. Go figure.

[RFguy]

the Vixxen - and registered full VH, not VH-exp, I beleive. 

The issue for VH-exp is the original builder is supposed to be the signature for anything goign forward even with a new owner.

The situation with Sling aircraft in Australia, AFAICT, is that thei're essentially a chequebook builder, though the aircraft airframes DO come in from the factory essentially fully built, wings off in a container. , leaving the local chequebook builder to do the final fitout with different avionics, options etc. 

And the user that purchases a Sling is 2nd owner, but not original builder, so there are limits on what can be done .

 

I have had the opportunity to look very carefully over a whole Sling 4. The aircraft is nice, I would thoroughly recommend the aircraft for a person that doesnt have time to build.

but there are variations between the local customization in the builds which can cause some head scratching. which is where the factory build and locally finished cause some fuzzyness due to the importer who does the fitout being indentured in the paperwork as the original builder which has a special meaning  in the regulations.

There are a few other aircraft  in this situation in Australia- SLing is not alone- IE there are other aircraft being marketed as factory built, and go on the register as VH-exp. I dont really regard them as factory built. FOr me factory built means that fly away complete from the headquarters like a 24- Jabiru, or a Piper Cherokee

 

Edited October 7 by RFguy