Sling 2 and C172 comparison

[skippydiesel]

"The aircraft is nice, I would thoroughly recommend the aircraft for a person that doesnt have time to build."

 

Yes its very pretty - how is this a characteristic that would induce anyone to "thoroughly recommend" it to anyone unless of course they are after an aesthetic hanger queen?

 

Sporty looking, red coloured, cars sell better than less aesthetically triggering ones. This is why certain aircraft manufactures go to a lot of trouble to make their aircraft aesthetically pleasing while not realy delivering anything out of the ordinary in performance/handling.😈

 

[BurnieM]

Sling have 3 levels of build;

kit build and quick build both considered amateur built.

Factory built come complete from the factory but with the wings off in a container. As do Bristells.

 

Slings can be customised with different engines, props, avionics, parachutes, paint jobs, upholsery etc but for factory builds all this work is done in the factory.

 

 

Edited October 8 by BurnieM

[BurnieM]

All the above have special certificates of airworthiness.

 

Perhaps someone can explain the different types of SCA.

 

[BurnieM]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

"The aircraft is nice, I would thoroughly recommend the aircraft for a person that doesnt have time to build."

 

Yes its very pretty - how is this a characteristic that would induce anyone to "thoroughly recommend" it to anyone unless of course they are after an aesthetic hanger queen?

 

Sporty looking, red coloured, cars sell better than less aesthetically triggering ones. This is why certain aircraft manufactures go to a lot of trouble to make their aircraft aesthetically pleasing while not realy delivering anything out of the ordinary in performance/handling.😈

People like shiny things (and EFISs).

 

If you can afford it, why not ?

 

[skippydiesel]

4 hours ago, BurnieM said:

People like shiny things (and EFISs).

 

If you can afford it, why not ?

 

If people want to spend their hard earned dough on aesthetics, I support them 100%

 

The crux of my argument is : - function should always be considered ahead of form, especially when thinking about acquiring/hiring a conveyance that must keep you safe, in an extraordinarily hostile environment.

 

Gushy observations about the appearance of an aircraft, will not inform the decision-making process,  when considering  the aircrafts ability to meet the "mission" objectives, that the prospective owner may have in mind. I am assuming that most owner / pilots are more intersted in objective performance data rather than "ramp appeal".

 

I like a good looking aircraft - who doesn't? BUT I am more impressed by objective performance , than looks.

 

Years ago the CAFE Foundation (an independent /third party free from vested interest) gave its top efficiency award to the Pipistrel Virus SW/ Rotax912 ULS.  I would love to own one, but its hardly a beauty queen. Pipistrel went on to promote its aircraft using the performance data from that competition. 

 

Magazines like Kit Planes used to have objective reports on aircraft performance/handling etc - sadly no more. Now its all gushy meaningless rubbish (Sport Pilot).

 

I have nothing against Toyota Corollas - worth everyday cars . Tart one up, paint it red,  "go faster stripes",  boot spoiler, mag weals and a nice sounding exhaust ,  what do you have ? A TOYOTA COROLA!😈

[RFguy]

I am an engineer, nice means functional, efficient, not necessarly pretty

When I say it was nice, it means there was not very much that I didnt like about it, both form and function.

Edited October 8 by RFguy

[facthunter]

You need function FIRST and form should FOLLOW it. Swept back rudders are a styling exercise unless it's High subsonic. Mooney never did it. and they are Slippery. Nev.

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, RFguy said:

I am an engineer, nice means functional, efficient, not necessarly pretty

When I say it was nice, it means there was not very much that I didnt like about it, both form and function.

I think most of us would agree with the form being nice or even very nice.

What of function -

• You did fly it?
• Did a few short field depart/landing as well as standard TO/Landing?
• Best Climb?
• How did the engine cooling go on an extended Climb?
• Recorded RPM/MAP/True Air Speed at various settings?
• Conducted the odd turn or two with without rudder inputs?
• A few vertical oscillations to asses return to set attitude/altitude?
• May be some stalls, power on off, clean, dirty, to compare against book figures?
• What is the cabin noise level like?
• Checked fuel before/after - actual L/hr?
• Engine access for pre-flight and servicing?

There are likly lots more features that a test pilot/purchaser might look at. Do tell?????😈

[facthunter]

Apply that to your Own stuff. Be consistent. It's not quite How a Forum  operates. Have YOU ever officially test flown anything?  Nev

[Student Pilot]

There are some fellows who seem to think you must be challenged for everything you say Nev 😂 

Don't know what their problem is, there's always something to learn in aviation. Maybe admitting they don't know everything would be a start? Don't let the hostility worry you, some of us are stilling willing to read your contributions and learn stuff.
Stuff is good and aviation stuff even betterer, keep up the good work Nev 👍

[RFguy]

I beleive that when discussing one's flying with one or a group., self admonishment / self criticism  / critical examination / reflection  of one's actions and judgements is the cornerstone of aviation and improvement. 

 

I've realised now in my 5 years, that even the villiage  idiot can land a Piper. But it's the judgement that you exercise that defines you, and if you are willing to self reflect on anything less than perfect flying.

 

I revel in the opportunity to discuss and workshop my less than textbook flying amongst my peers. That they enjoy doing same reflection for their own flying amongst a group.

[skippydiesel]

5 hours ago, Student Pilot said:

There are some fellows who seem to think you must be challenged for everything you say Nev 😂 

Don't know what their problem is, there's always something to learn in aviation. Maybe admitting they don't know everything would be a start? Don't let the hostility worry you, some of us are stilling willing to read your contributions and learn stuff.
Stuff is good and aviation stuff even betterer, keep up the good work Nev 👍

This Forum, like most, is not just an place for swopping yarns, its where ideas & experince are expressed. Debate ensues.  

 

"The essence of debate is the structured presentation and rigorous exploration of opposing viewpoints on a controversial issue to foster understanding, critical thinking, and potentially, informed decision-making . It involves logical reasoning, factual accuracy, respectful discourse, and a sincere desire to understand other perspectives, moving beyond mere argumentation to achieve deeper insight and refined solutions.” 

 

Those open to such debate, learn ie take on ideas, benefit from others experince.

 

Those who are hostile to the debate gain little if anything.

 

You may known absolutly nothing about a particular topic but can join in where you see a failure of logic eg when someone makes a statement without factual support.😈

[facthunter]

Debating is a contest, a Game that produces a Winner.  The actual topic is not of much Import. Like A Pissing contest.

         A sensible discussion takes the Good and  it can be built on, developed, clarified and explained .  No one should be PERSONALLY attacked but what they Propose they need to be able to explain. Back it up. People say......... It seems........ I read it somewhere. Not good enough for Aviation.  Nev

 

    Thanks SP. I needed that