Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

Post Reply
cogito
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:53 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by cogito »

Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

I need your help, SportPilotTalk-ers,

After flying many planes (Sportcruiser, Breezer, Sting (I once owned,) Bristell, Renegade Falcon, Phoenix motorglider, as well as Champs, Citabrias, and Decathlons) I found the (almost) perfect plane. The Sling is the best flying, most responsive, easiest to land, has a sliding canopy (important here in Southern California heat) and just the most comfortable, solid, and fun (aside from acro) plane I’ve flown.

http://www.airplanefactory.com

The Bristell is also a solid, well handling plane, although not as foolproof on landing, canopy doesn’t slide for heat relief, and frankly the dealer was a little arrogant saying he knew better than me what kind of EFIS I wanted and why would I want a parachute? The Bristell's not as attractive a plane as the Sling IMHO, but has a much better useful load. The Bristell is also quite a bit more expensive.

I also really like the dealer/importer of the Sling and he’s 25 miles away if I have any trouble with the plane. He was my DPE and an excellent pilot.

Here’s the problem: the airplane configured as I wish comes in with a useful load of 437 lbs. I’m 170 lbs. and my GF is 120 lbs. That leaves only 147 lbs. for fuel and luggage. And if I flew with someone else the useful load drops fast. (two standard 170lbs people and we’re down to 16 gals fuel with no bags at all)

Which leads me to the other option if I want this plane. They’re importing it as a kit and if I built it Experimental Amateur Built, the plane is rated for 700kg (1543lbs.) 220 lbs. more useful load in the same plane. I am only a sport pilot, but have no medical reason (I’m 49) I couldn’t get a PPL.

They’re building one of the kits now at the dealer’s hangar and I spent some time helping. It seems a very straightforward build, like an Erector Set. All holes drilled, Cleco and pull-rivet. I’ve rebuilt car and motorcycle engines, and have my LSRM-A (not applicable skills, but mentioned to show I have some manual dexterity.)

My (possibly irrational) wishes in a plane are that it be low-wing, fuel injected (this plane has the 912is) and have a parachute. I know there are other options if I gave up these requirements.

It might be fun to build an easy kit (600-800 hrs. complete they say) but there are always unforeseen expenses and time sinks with projects (guys at my EAA chapter have been working on the same RV for many years) and I’d have to get a PPL

I guess my biggest question is: Is 437 lbs. a reasonable useful load? When I go someplace solo, I could fill the 39 gallon tanks and still bring a good sized bag, but flying with anyone of larger size and useful load is tiny. When I go to sell the plane someday, would anyone buy a plane with 437 lbs. of useful load? Would you?

I really appreciate the help,
-Craig
Last edited by cogito on Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
roger lee
Posts: 807
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:47 am
Location: Tucson, Az. Ryan Airfield (KRYN)

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by roger lee »

A used Flight Design CTSW is around 600 lbs useful load, has a bigger cabin and bigger baggage area and probably more fuel and a high wing.
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
LSRM-A, Rotax Instructor & Rotax IRC
(520) 574-1080 (Home) Try Home First.
(520) 349-7056 (Cell)
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by drseti »

cogito wrote:the airplane configured as I wish comes in with a useful load of 436 lbs.
That's a little hard to fathom, Craig. Here are the specs I found from The Airplane Factory:

Empty weight: 794 lb (360 kg)
Loaded weight: 1320 lb (600 kg)
Useful load: 526 lb (240 kg)

Even that 794 pound empty weight is high for LSAs, so I imagine it includes some pretty complete standard equipment. So, what kind of extra equipment do you need (want?) that adds an additional 90 pounds?
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
cogito
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:53 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by cogito »

drseti wrote:
cogito wrote:the airplane configured as I wish comes in with a useful load of 436 lbs.
That's a little hard to fathom, Craig. Here are the specs I found from The Airplane Factory:

Empty weight: 794 lb (360 kg)
Loaded weight: 1320 lb (600 kg)
Useful load: 526 lb (240 kg)

Even that 794 pound empty weight is high for LSAs, so I imagine it includes some pretty complete standard equipment. So, what kind of extra equipment do you need (want?) that adds an additional 90 pounds?
Maybe someone did the math wrong (which would be great.) The weight quote they gave me is as follows:

Airplane Weight (with Rotax 912 iS) 820
Magnum Parachute 43
Servos 10
EFIS (x2) 2.2
Dual AHRS 1
Sandia Transponder 2
MGL V6 Comm Radio 1
ELT 2
NavWorx ADS-B 2

Total Airplane weight 883.2

1320 - 883.2 = 436.8

It really is a heavier plane. The Sportcruiser next to it on the ramp looks insubstantial.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by drseti »

cogito wrote:The weight quote they gave me is as follows:

Airplane Weight (with Rotax 912 iS) 820
Yes, the injected engine is still a bit heavier than the carbureted model, so this is possible. My numbers correlate well with the ones at http://www.airplanefactory.com/aircraft ... fications/. However:
Magnum Parachute 43
Servos 10
EFIS (x2) 2.2
Dual AHRS 1
Sandia Transponder 2
MGL V6 Comm Radio 1
ELT 2
NavWorx ADS-B 2

Total Airplane weight 883.2
According to the Sling website, a lot of that equipment is standard, hence should have been included in the empty weight! See, for example:
http://www.airplanefactory.com/aircraft ... /packages/

which is labeled "Standard Sling LSA Package (Day VFR)", and says
"* Note: day VFR package does not include Transponder, Autopilot, Strobes, Parachute."

So, add, the weight of just those items to even the claimed 820 (everything else checked in the packages page is supposed to be included), and you come up with a slightly different useful load. Still, the biggest hit you are taking is for the parachute, and going fuel injected -- each of which eats up nearly 10% of your useful load. I'd guess that if you similarly loaded up any LSA, you'd be in a similar situation. These planes were just never intended to carry all this crap -- sorry, I mean equipment.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
cogito
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:53 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by cogito »

drseti wrote:
cogito wrote:The weight quote they gave me is as follows:

Airplane Weight (with Rotax 912 iS) 820
Yes, the injected engine is still a bit heavier than the carbureted model, so this is possible. My numbers correlate well with the ones at http://www.airplanefactory.com/aircraft ... fications/. However:
Magnum Parachute 43
Servos 10
EFIS (x2) 2.2
Dual AHRS 1
Sandia Transponder 2
MGL V6 Comm Radio 1
ELT 2
NavWorx ADS-B 2

Total Airplane weight 883.2
According to the Sling website, a lot of that equipment is standard, hence should have been included in the empty weight! See, for example:
http://www.airplanefactory.com/aircraft ... /packages/

which is labeled "Standard Sling LSA Package (Day VFR)", and says
"* Note: day VFR package does not include Transponder, Autopilot, Strobes, Parachute."

So, add, the weight of just those items to even the claimed 820 (everything else checked in the packages page is supposed to be included), and you come up with a slightly different useful load. Still, the biggest hit you are taking is for the parachute, and going fuel injected -- each of which eats up nearly 10% of your useful load. I'd guess that if you similarly loaded up any LSA, you'd be in a similar situation. These planes were just never intended to carry all this crap -- sorry, I mean equipment.
The parachute is heavy, no question but if I ever need it I'll be glad to have, obviously.
The engine is a bit heavier, but with increased efficiency it's a wash at 4hrs.

Actually this plane was designed to carry all that crap, it's built for 700kg MTOW. Trouble is now it's supposed to be an LSA (or EAB.)
Mark Gregor
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:36 pm
Location: minnesota

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by Mark Gregor »

The weights are going to be similar on all the newer LSAs no matter the brand.
Will the salesman guarantee the weight on the Bristel? I doubt it and I bet by the time you put the same options on a bristel it will
be very close to the Sling.
This weight game has been going on a long time. What a sales person tells you and what the actual weight and balance says are many times two different things.

I have a suggestion,
Go to your local airport, find a cessna 150 owner, ask if he will show you his weight and balance, add full fuel, two normal sized adults and a bit for luggage and see what you get. The cessna 150 is the most produced two seat all metal aircraft produced. This is nothing new. Many LSAs were designed for and are flying at much higher weights in other countries.

Mark
roger lee
Posts: 807
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:47 am
Location: Tucson, Az. Ryan Airfield (KRYN)

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by roger lee »

A parachute could add 30 lbs and the new 912si engine is about 22 lbs.
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
LSRM-A, Rotax Instructor & Rotax IRC
(520) 574-1080 (Home) Try Home First.
(520) 349-7056 (Cell)
cogito
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:53 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by cogito »

jake wrote:The weights are going to be similar on all the newer LSAs no matter the brand.
Will the salesman guarantee the weight on the Bristel? I doubt it and I bet by the time you put the same options on a bristel it will
be very close to the Sling.
This weight game has been going on a long time. What a sales person tells you and what the actual weight and balance says are many times two different things.

I have a suggestion,
Go to your local airport, find a cessna 150 owner, ask if he will show you his weight and balance, add full fuel, two normal sized adults and a bit for luggage and see what you get. The cessna 150 is the most produced two seat all metal aircraft produced. This is nothing new. Many LSAs were designed for and are flying at much higher weights in other countries.

Mark
True? The published empty weight of the Bristell is 750, and the dealer said I'd get more than 550 lbs. useful load. Is the problem the Sling dealer is merely more honest? I thought everyone was unhappy with the C162 Skycatcher having only 490 lbs. useful load. That seems like a lot compared with the Sling. Maybe that was without a parachute.
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by Jack Tyler »

Craig, first things first: Great plane! Folks who want some interesting, adventuresome reading should take in the Around The World flight of the first Sling, departing South Africa about one week after it was (finally) certified by their aviation authority. It drew rave reviews when in Oshkosh, was obviously built to accommodate far more fuel & weight than intended, and returned with no airframe or engine squawks. Moreover, the guys building the kits and completed aircraft are the kind you want to see not just survive but thrive in GA.

Now on to the necessary, mundane issues. The list of a/c you have considered suggests you haven't yet fully resolved your mission. And without that being clear and complete, it's easy to be enamored with any a/c design that scratches some of your itches. Asking if the useful load you've been quoted is 'too little' is like asking how long is a piece of string. 'Will it accomplish your missions?' is the context in which weight becomes meaningful. Does your GF like to fly? Will she be doing enough of it she'd like to take a Pitch Hitter's course? Or OTOH does she like you and the idea of flying but, for whatever mix of reasons, is unlikely to be doing longer flights with you? Let's take your location into account: If I once again lived in SoCal, my view would be that a big (BIG) plus for owning an a/c is that I could get to all those interesting destinations (mountains, desert, wine country, America's breadbasket, that gorgeous coastal plain north of Santa Barbara and SLO) relatively quickly and easily. As opposed to slogging up the 805 or down the 5 or whatever. Now...that may not be you. But if it is, that means 'range' is a part of your mission...not to mention 'range = options' and 'options = safety'. I don't see much range in your useful load except flying solo. I genuinely encourage you to put some more work into the mission.

Considering the EAB route? You've just expanded the field to choose from and should compare the RV-12 with the Sling. You can arrange a ride in an RV-12 via the vansairforce.com website. And as you probably already know, the minute you start building EAB, finished weight is going to go up at least a bit. It's simply in the nature of having the freedom to do things YOU want to do when building the a/c. Re: resale, you'll definitely gain potential customers if EAB because you'll be selling an a/c that's more functional due to its higher GW. You'll also lose potential customers who only have a SP...but given the small numbers in that population, I'd say this is the less meaningful consequence. How do you feel about earning the PPL given the airspace density and expense of training in SoCal? Another (more long-term) consideration: SoCal's wx is chronically influenced by a marine layer (called among other things 'June Gloom' in late Spring/early Summer). The utility of any a/c located in SoCal is going to be significantly influenced by one essential element: Is it IFR certified? (And of course, flown by an IR pilot). That may seem to be an issue too far downstream to deserve attention now...but if you pick up the PPL, an IR is going to make you a far, far better & safer pilot in that dense airspace. And can you imagine the frustration of looking forward to a flight over to Palm Springs for the weekend all week long, only to sit on the ramp with baggage and lady friend, grounded on Saturday morning?

In your shoes, here are three things I would do:
-- skype the factory, ask to speak with either Mike or James (or at least the production manager), explain the dissonance that exists between the website's useful load stats and the distributor's stats, and get some clarity on what you can expect to come out of your garage or hangar.
-- go flying with your GF. Not around the pattern and not with her in the back seat. If it's a relationship that seems to have legs, you need to hear from your partner and, if she hasn't had much flying experience, how can she tell you what she actually feels?
-- get further clarity on just what capabilities you want your a/c to have. Write them down and then talk them thru with some experienced pilots & builders.

Errata: I'm in N Florida, fly a Grumman with a sliding canopy, have lived in SoCal multiple times, and so completely understand that preference. But you may be overemphasizing its benefit. When I flew an RV-12 (also in Florida), there was plenty of ventilation with the canopy cracked while taxiing. And unless you fly on the east side of the Sierras, air temps & humidity at altitude are not going to be anything like they are here. So you may be unnecessarily painting yourself into a corner with that one criterion. Also, I think there's a real disconnect between owning and using an LSA with its terribly limited useful load and useful volume and wanting a parachute. Yes, it's a clever, comforting accessory...but two planes every week crash due to fuel starvation, far more than the number of parachutes being deployed. BUT...if I was flying single-engine in SoCal, I confess I'd probably consider one. Not to save me and my crew alone but rather because, when trying to do so, the density of development there provides so little likelihood of an emergency landing spot that will be safe for both the crew and those on the ground. But geez, it sure works against the utility of the a/c.
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
cogito
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:53 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by cogito »

Jack Tyler wrote:Craig, first things first: Great plane! Folks who want some interesting, adventuresome reading should take in the Around The World flight of the first Sling, departing South Africa about one week after it was (finally) certified by their aviation authority. It drew rave reviews when in Oshkosh, was obviously built to accommodate far more fuel & weight than intended, and returned with no airframe or engine squawks. Moreover, the guys building the kits and completed aircraft are the kind you want to see not just survive but thrive in GA.

Now on to the necessary, mundane issues. The list of a/c you have considered suggests you haven't yet fully resolved your mission. And without that being clear and complete, it's easy to be enamored with any a/c design that scratches some of your itches. Asking if the useful load you've been quoted is 'too little' is like asking how long is a piece of string. 'Will it accomplish your missions?' is the context in which weight becomes meaningful. Does your GF like to fly? Will she be doing enough of it she'd like to take a Pitch Hitter's course? Or OTOH does she like you and the idea of flying but, for whatever mix of reasons, is unlikely to be doing longer flights with you? Let's take your location into account: If I once again lived in SoCal, my view would be that a big (BIG) plus for owning an a/c is that I could get to all those interesting destinations (mountains, desert, wine country, America's breadbasket, that gorgeous coastal plain north of Santa Barbara and SLO) relatively quickly and easily. As opposed to slogging up the 805 or down the 5 or whatever. Now...that may not be you. But if it is, that means 'range' is a part of your mission...not to mention 'range = options' and 'options = safety'. I don't see much range in your useful load except flying solo. I genuinely encourage you to put some more work into the mission.

Considering the EAB route? You've just expanded the field to choose from and should compare the RV-12 with the Sling. You can arrange a ride in an RV-12 via the vansairforce.com website. And as you probably already know, the minute you start building EAB, finished weight is going to go up at least a bit. It's simply in the nature of having the freedom to do things YOU want to do when building the a/c. Re: resale, you'll definitely gain potential customers if EAB because you'll be selling an a/c that's more functional due to its higher GW. You'll also lose potential customers who only have a SP...but given the small numbers in that population, I'd say this is the less meaningful consequence. How do you feel about earning the PPL given the airspace density and expense of training in SoCal? Another (more long-term) consideration: SoCal's wx is chronically influenced by a marine layer (called among other things 'June Gloom' in late Spring/early Summer). The utility of any a/c located in SoCal is going to be significantly influenced by one essential element: Is it IFR certified? (And of course, flown by an IR pilot). That may seem to be an issue too far downstream to deserve attention now...but if you pick up the PPL, an IR is going to make you a far, far better & safer pilot in that dense airspace. And can you imagine the frustration of looking forward to a flight over to Palm Springs for the weekend all week long, only to sit on the ramp with baggage and lady friend, grounded on Saturday morning?

In your shoes, here are three things I would do:
-- skype the factory, ask to speak with either Mike or James (or at least the production manager), explain the dissonance that exists between the website's useful load stats and the distributor's stats, and get some clarity on what you can expect to come out of your garage or hangar.
-- go flying with your GF. Not around the pattern and not with her in the back seat. If it's a relationship that seems to have legs, you need to hear from your partner and, if she hasn't had much flying experience, how can she tell you what she actually feels?
-- get further clarity on just what capabilities you want your a/c to have. Write them down and then talk them thru with some experienced pilots & builders.

Errata: I'm in N Florida, fly a Grumman with a sliding canopy, have lived in SoCal multiple times, and so completely understand that preference. But you may be overemphasizing its benefit. When I flew an RV-12 (also in Florida), there was plenty of ventilation with the canopy cracked while taxiing. And unless you fly on the east side of the Sierras, air temps & humidity at altitude are not going to be anything like they are here. So you may be unnecessarily painting yourself into a corner with that one criterion. Also, I think there's a real disconnect between owning and using an LSA with its terribly limited useful load and useful volume and wanting a parachute. Yes, it's a clever, comforting accessory...but two planes every week crash due to fuel starvation, far more than the number of parachutes being deployed. BUT...if I was flying single-engine in SoCal, I confess I'd probably consider one. Not to save me and my crew alone but rather because, when trying to do so, the density of development there provides so little likelihood of an emergency landing spot that will be safe for both the crew and those on the ground. But geez, it sure works against the utility of the a/c.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Jack. Much appreciated.

Yes, the plane/designers have earned some esteem with their round the world flight.

GF has the flying bug, she’s now taking lessons. Even took her mother up in a seaplane in Seattle when I wasn’t around. Been together 6 yrs, but who knows what the future will bring.

I narrowed my plane list to the Renegade, the Bristell, and the Sling last fall, but after I flew them all, I’m down to Bristell and Sling. Trips by plane are definitely a part of the mission. Both solo and with GF, that might be the deal breaker right there.

I looked at the RV12 at AOPA (sat in, not flown) and while I’m sure it’s capable, I thought it looked stubby and unfinished. I know I should be above the looks of a plane, but I found that with my last one I was always envious of the better-looking planes on the ramp. I’m shallow, I guess, but at least I know it.~

Once one is in the air, the non-sliding bubble canopies are fine, I learned to fly in a SportCruiser, but I usually keep my plane in the San Fernando valley during the foggy months you mentioned (I was once trapped at KSMO for a week due to fog) and by the time I finished the run-up I’d be sweaty and uncomfortable, I’m trying to avoid that. Cracking the canopy and forgetting to lock it has been the cause of more than one SportCruiser mishap. Also, if I had to ditch on the way to Catalina (a trip I make quite often,) it would be nice to have a canopy that wouldn’t trap you if the plane flipped on it’s back.

As far as IFR, the Sling is approved for IFR flight training, but “we do not recommend operation in IMC conditions.”

I agree with your thoughts on fuel starvation vs. parachute need. What I want is the belt and suspenders, I don't want to choose between being safe or legal.
Again, thanks for the considered response.
-Craig
cogito
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:53 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by cogito »

Jack Tyler wrote: In your shoes, here are three things I would do:
-- skype the factory, ask to speak with either Mike or James (or at least the production manager), explain the dissonance that exists between the website's useful load stats and the distributor's stats, and get some clarity on what you can expect to come out of your garage or hangar.
.
The Airplane Factory lists the standard empty weight of the Sling as 796 lbs. (max useful load: 524 lbs.) Add to that 25 lbs. for the 912is and 43 lbs. for the parachute and the figures add up.

http://www.airplanefactory.com/aircraft ... fications/
jnmeade
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:58 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by jnmeade »

I don't think this is enough airplane for your mission as you have elaborated on it. This will be fine for the first airplane, which you will fly most often on short hops or alone, but if you want a cross-country cruiser, you might want to look at a CTLS or even get your PPL and look at a C172 or PA28-141. Or, you could get this plane and your PPL and rent, but you and I know that's not usually all that attractive for many reasons.
It all boils down to defining your mission and setting your priorities, and both of those are moving targets as you learn more. Good luck.
User avatar
Daidalos
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: KHWV

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by Daidalos »

[quote=]......, but after I flew them all, I’m down to Bristell and Sling. Trips by plane are definitely a part of the mission. Both solo and with GF, that might be the deal breaker right there.
[/quote]

OK this is a little out of left field, but have you considered a Tecnam Sierra. I have time in that as well as the Sportcruiser (cousin to the Bristell, same designer).

The Sierra has a sliding canopy, decent useful load and I believe is a very nice flying machine. One of the things you must consider is support. Tecnam is well established. I think the CT is a good choice as well but you have narrowed it down to low wings. I get it, that is just a personal preference and we all have them.
Marcus - WA2DCI
PP ASEL Instrument

Daidalos Greek: Δαίδαλος
Remember don't fly too close to the Sun.
cogito
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:53 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Sling S-LSA vs. EAB vs. ???

Post by cogito »

Daidalos wrote: OK this is a little out of left field, but have you considered a Tecnam Sierra. I have time in that as well as the Sportcruiser (cousin to the Bristell, same designer).

The Sierra has a sliding canopy, decent useful load and I believe is a very nice flying machine. One of the things you must consider is support. Tecnam is well established. I think the CT is a good choice as well but you have narrowed it down to low wings. I get it, that is just a personal preference and we all have them.

I did consider the P2002 Sierra, but didn't think it looked as elegant as the Sling, the Renegade and the Bristell. The photos on their site make it look better, I wonder if there's been a redesign. The VSo of 26kts. is quite impressive, btw.

I don't see any indication on their site of the fuel injected option yet.
Post Reply