Guys,
Take a look at this airplane http://www.rainbowsportaviation.com and let me know what you think. (specs & appearance - what else can you get from a web site?) They are not U.S. SLSA certified yet but are in the process of being certified. I have seen the aircraft in the U.S. awaiting certification and am really impressed (haven't been able to fly one yet though). The only plane I can compare them to is the Allegro 2000 and fit & finish on these is WAY above the Allegro.
Pilots are opinionated... Let's hear it ;>)
Phil
3X55
Moderator: drseti
The website you gave has a link to the factory. Follow that and there are some english reviews of the airplane.
The reviews were pretty well done and seemed happy with it.
I like the tough gear, steering nose wheel, yaw stability, little adverse yaw. normal control surfaces on the tail, easy to remove wings, fuselage fuel (no ladder needed).
Dislike electric trim, vernier throttle, no brakes copilot side, cowling styling, number of airplanes flying 60 (although I appreciate their honesty) unknown availability of spare parts and replacement airframe components. Importing from Canada who is importing from Poland. direct shipment should be possible.
The sales in USA will be hurt by the european looking paint schemes, blue tinted glass and european styling.
If the front glass was changed to wrap up to the forward cabin top like the CT, 172, Vagabond, etc. and the striping changed to more straight lines and primary colors it would sell better. I would suggest white wings, dark tips, light colored fuselage bottom and darker top similar to the Cirrus jet scheme. Depending on the paint colors the composite would tolerate. Simple schemes sell better. Some nice base colors with a metallic accent stripe can be done with stickers. They hold up very well in service.
No spanwise leading edge stripes. The paint line will disturb the airflow.
Also a little restyling of the aft windows behind the doors would help. More of a rounded triangle shape with the 90 deg angle forward and up would be nice.
I like forward hinged doors with aft sliding two piece windows better than flip up doors. Look at how the windows slide in a Stinson 108 for an example. Or swing out like the 150 or 172.
A two piece flip up and down like the cub works also. The flip up complete door hangs low when open and you need to duck under.
Then you could fly with 1/2 the door open and not have the falling out feeling. Dutch door style. I always wanted some doors similar to "rock crawler jeep tube doors" for my X air and Kitfox. Just something to rest your elbow on.
I spend hours and hours in the cub with only the bottom door closed. adds 50 FPM climb compared to all open.
The airfoil choice is interesting. If the tip airfoil was thinned slightly and some extra washout added would the top speed be higher? Stall would not be affected. Tip vortexes reduced.
Appears to be similar wing airfoil and shape to the Remos. Fuselage construction appears similar also.
The reviews were pretty well done and seemed happy with it.
I like the tough gear, steering nose wheel, yaw stability, little adverse yaw. normal control surfaces on the tail, easy to remove wings, fuselage fuel (no ladder needed).
Dislike electric trim, vernier throttle, no brakes copilot side, cowling styling, number of airplanes flying 60 (although I appreciate their honesty) unknown availability of spare parts and replacement airframe components. Importing from Canada who is importing from Poland. direct shipment should be possible.
The sales in USA will be hurt by the european looking paint schemes, blue tinted glass and european styling.
If the front glass was changed to wrap up to the forward cabin top like the CT, 172, Vagabond, etc. and the striping changed to more straight lines and primary colors it would sell better. I would suggest white wings, dark tips, light colored fuselage bottom and darker top similar to the Cirrus jet scheme. Depending on the paint colors the composite would tolerate. Simple schemes sell better. Some nice base colors with a metallic accent stripe can be done with stickers. They hold up very well in service.
No spanwise leading edge stripes. The paint line will disturb the airflow.
Also a little restyling of the aft windows behind the doors would help. More of a rounded triangle shape with the 90 deg angle forward and up would be nice.
I like forward hinged doors with aft sliding two piece windows better than flip up doors. Look at how the windows slide in a Stinson 108 for an example. Or swing out like the 150 or 172.
A two piece flip up and down like the cub works also. The flip up complete door hangs low when open and you need to duck under.
Then you could fly with 1/2 the door open and not have the falling out feeling. Dutch door style. I always wanted some doors similar to "rock crawler jeep tube doors" for my X air and Kitfox. Just something to rest your elbow on.
I spend hours and hours in the cub with only the bottom door closed. adds 50 FPM climb compared to all open.
The airfoil choice is interesting. If the tip airfoil was thinned slightly and some extra washout added would the top speed be higher? Stall would not be affected. Tip vortexes reduced.
Appears to be similar wing airfoil and shape to the Remos. Fuselage construction appears similar also.
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery
I love the fact that it's good for tall people, being tall myself.
There is a huge blind spot at the window/windscreen intersection. This no doubt allows a few grams weight saving, but it looks ugly and would be pain during maneuvers.
It seems to be the slow side. Many LSAs will cruise at 109kt while this a 109kt VNE. This alone could make it a hard sell.
Ron
There is a huge blind spot at the window/windscreen intersection. This no doubt allows a few grams weight saving, but it looks ugly and would be pain during maneuvers.
It seems to be the slow side. Many LSAs will cruise at 109kt while this a 109kt VNE. This alone could make it a hard sell.
Ron
Thanks for taking a look guys!
Cub - Very nice evaluation based on a web site - I'm impressed. I've seen the plane in person and thought almost exactly the same things. (Did you see the plane at Oshkosh?)
rsteele - The only one of these flying in North America currently is registered as an AULA in Canada. The guy that owns it is 6'2" and 220# he says he loves it because it "fits". I've sat in it (I'm 5'10 and 195#) and it seems extremely comfortable with everything feeling like it is right where it belongs, although, like Cub Flyer said, the flip-up type doors require "ducking under" to get in. Here's the rub though... neither the seats nor the rudder peddles are adjustable. Shorter people will need thicker seat cushions. And FYI, compared to a Cessna 150/172 visibility seems like it would be great.
I hope to be able to actually fly one in a couple of weeks and I'll let you guys know how it is.
Did anyone actually get to see it a Oshkosh (I wasn't able to attend)? I'm curious as to how it compares fit & finish wise to the Remos, CTLS, & Tecnam.
Cub - Very nice evaluation based on a web site - I'm impressed. I've seen the plane in person and thought almost exactly the same things. (Did you see the plane at Oshkosh?)
rsteele - The only one of these flying in North America currently is registered as an AULA in Canada. The guy that owns it is 6'2" and 220# he says he loves it because it "fits". I've sat in it (I'm 5'10 and 195#) and it seems extremely comfortable with everything feeling like it is right where it belongs, although, like Cub Flyer said, the flip-up type doors require "ducking under" to get in. Here's the rub though... neither the seats nor the rudder peddles are adjustable. Shorter people will need thicker seat cushions. And FYI, compared to a Cessna 150/172 visibility seems like it would be great.
I hope to be able to actually fly one in a couple of weeks and I'll let you guys know how it is.
Did anyone actually get to see it a Oshkosh (I wasn't able to attend)? I'm curious as to how it compares fit & finish wise to the Remos, CTLS, & Tecnam.
OK guys, I flew it. I can not express in words how impressed I am with this little aircraft. While I'm not the most experienced pilot by any means, I just have a little over 200 hours tt. Ive logged time in C150, C172, PA-18(on floats), PA-28, and an hour in an Allegro 2000, this is the best handling, quietest, easiest to fly, most fun aircraft that I've ever flown. No, it's not the fastest - it compares to the C150 on speed, but that is absolutely where the comparison ends. There were only two things I thought could/should be changed, first the throttle was too stiff (like the friction lock was too tight-even though it wasn't). Second, the electric trim seem too touchy. That's it, everything else was soooo much better than expected. I need time to decompress and digest then I'll post a complete flight review.
Flight Review 3X55 (to be renamed Navigator 600 for the US release).
The flight was conducted at approximately 95# less than MTOW. Little or no wind (<8kts) existed at the time of the flight.
Ground handling was good and the airplane was easily controlled without using differential breaking. This is good because even though the airplane I flew had toe brakes, they come standard with a single hand brake.
Take offs can be accomplished with either 0 or 15 degrees of flaps. Flaps are manually controlled by means of a johnson bar type assembly between the seats on the ceiling and have 15 and 30 degree positions.
I elected to take off the first time using 0 degrees of flaps (4000' paved runway). I was instructed to advance the throttle to full, glance at the engine gauges, and immediately assume a nose wheel up take off attitude. Lift off was fast (approx. 300') and climb out was done at 65kts which gave us about a 1000'/min climb rate. While the deck angle was higher than I was used to the forward visibility was still really good due to the design of the windows and panel.
Once at altitude we ran through a series of slow flight, stalls, and steep turns. With no flaps, level flight could be maintained down to about 42kts indicated on the EFIS. Below that no stall break would occur (I tried three times), but a 300-350'/min descent would begin at the same attitude. I was able to get a power on stall to break only by abruptly bringing the stick full back. (When I did it slowly it would just start that 300-350'/min. mush). Steep turns were easy to maintain altitude and airspeed in both directions. In cruise flight, I was able to match the web site numbers with 100kts at 5000rpm and 90kts at 4200rpm. So this isn't the fastest of the LSA aircraft.
Back for landings... approach speeds between 55-60kts, slow speed handling was excellent. I found this plane easier to land than a Cessna 150 and had three "greasers" in a row.
All in all (as I've said) I thought this plane is an absolute joy to fly.
Price as flown is $109,000
The flight was conducted at approximately 95# less than MTOW. Little or no wind (<8kts) existed at the time of the flight.
Ground handling was good and the airplane was easily controlled without using differential breaking. This is good because even though the airplane I flew had toe brakes, they come standard with a single hand brake.
Take offs can be accomplished with either 0 or 15 degrees of flaps. Flaps are manually controlled by means of a johnson bar type assembly between the seats on the ceiling and have 15 and 30 degree positions.
I elected to take off the first time using 0 degrees of flaps (4000' paved runway). I was instructed to advance the throttle to full, glance at the engine gauges, and immediately assume a nose wheel up take off attitude. Lift off was fast (approx. 300') and climb out was done at 65kts which gave us about a 1000'/min climb rate. While the deck angle was higher than I was used to the forward visibility was still really good due to the design of the windows and panel.
Once at altitude we ran through a series of slow flight, stalls, and steep turns. With no flaps, level flight could be maintained down to about 42kts indicated on the EFIS. Below that no stall break would occur (I tried three times), but a 300-350'/min descent would begin at the same attitude. I was able to get a power on stall to break only by abruptly bringing the stick full back. (When I did it slowly it would just start that 300-350'/min. mush). Steep turns were easy to maintain altitude and airspeed in both directions. In cruise flight, I was able to match the web site numbers with 100kts at 5000rpm and 90kts at 4200rpm. So this isn't the fastest of the LSA aircraft.
Back for landings... approach speeds between 55-60kts, slow speed handling was excellent. I found this plane easier to land than a Cessna 150 and had three "greasers" in a row.
All in all (as I've said) I thought this plane is an absolute joy to fly.
Price as flown is $109,000
3X55
iagflyer says the price for 3X55 is $109,000. It seems almost all new LSA are around $110,000. That is the price that is accepted, so if a European manufacturer has a lower price, the American manufacturer or assembler just loads it up until it reaches $110,000. Perhaps a lot of that price is because of ASTM certification. Canada chose to adapt to the European ultralight and microlight standards, so our prices are lower. A used 3X55 goes for $77,000. Go to upac.ca and click on "Classified". I was told a basic new 3X55 is $85,000 Canadian. I also took a short hop on a new Bilsam Skycruiser and really loved the way it handles. It sells for approx. $75,000 Can. new and I think I read somewhere that the LSA version will be in the $105,000 range.
Gone Flying
I agree, although I think $110000 represents the mid range of the US SLSA market right now with CT, TECNAM, & CubCrafters all basing out closer to $125000. A lot of it has to do with the US Dollar strength vs. Euro. I know that the $109000 that I mentioned came straight from the factory in Poland. (no US dealer for that plane yet - although I'm seriously considering being the first - that is one FUN plane to fly). The 3X55 listed on the UPAC site is Waldemar Wrona's and is the one I flew. It has a little over 300 hrs on it and is worth the $77000 he is asking - if a new one is worth $109000. When he sells it he is planning on buying a new one. I guess at this point, pricing is set more by what the market will bear, than the actual cost to manufacture and deliver.
You bring up a good question though... why are prices so much cheaper in Canada?
I don't know much about the Sky Cruiser except that it is built in Poland as well (different factory & city), and looks like it came out of the same mold, so to speak. I would assume that as both models (3X55 & Sky Cruiser) try to gain US market share there will be somewhat of a price war between them as they are so much alike.
You bring up a good question though... why are prices so much cheaper in Canada?
I don't know much about the Sky Cruiser except that it is built in Poland as well (different factory & city), and looks like it came out of the same mold, so to speak. I would assume that as both models (3X55 & Sky Cruiser) try to gain US market share there will be somewhat of a price war between them as they are so much alike.