SportCruiser--handling differences, Classic v. glass panel

[saintlfd]

Today my actual landings were pretty good. (I'm working on my SP cert.) But, man, was I having a hard time holding airspeed and attitude! I was constantly making greater corrections than usual. Probably just an off day for me.

But I did have to fly a different aircraft than usual today. I normally fly a Classic version of the SportCruiser (traditional round gauges) but it was out of service. So today I flew a glass panel version.

I seem to recall reading that CSA (mfr.) had made some changes to make the SC less 'pitchy'. Also, the Classic has 5.5 lbs of ballast in the nose. But I would expect that to have been done in a way to make Classic fly much like its brethren.

Has anyone else noticed a need for a different 'touch' between the Classic and the glass version of the SportCruiser?

Thanks.

[Merlinspop]

Do you know the manufacture dates of the two?

Possibly the glass was more sensitive than the analog instruments so you were 'chasing needles' a bit more than the other one? (or visa versa and the excursions didn't register until a larger correction was needed). Maybe the trim system sensitivity is different and harder to get 'just right.' When you just looked out the window and flew it, did it feel different?

[saintlfd]

The Classic is a 2011 model while the glass panel version is a 2012 model. I don't have the actual dates of manufacture.

Your questions made me realize--the planes did not feel different. But the gauges did. I actually used the old-style airspeed indicator in the glass-panel model, since that is what I am used to. And that particular gauge seemed to have more lag than the airspeed indicator in the Classic. Couple that with a very hazy horizon, and I think I was chasing the (more erratic) needle.

It seems I have encountered a learning moment: uncertainty about the sight picture led me to focus too much on the gauges and the greater lag led me to over- and under-correct frequently. Not good. Gotta file that away for future use!

Thanks so much! (guess this should be in the Training section)

[drseti]

(guess this should be in the Training section)

And, through the magic of the Internet, now it is!

Next lesson, have your instructor cover up all the gauges, and fly by outside reference and sounds only. You'll be amazed at how well you can nail airspeeds and altitudes when you don't have all those instruments distracting you. And, whenever you're tempted to play Microsoft Flight Simulator , do it at home - it's cheaper with no Hobbs meter running.

[FastEddieB]

When you just looked out the window and flew it, did it feel different?

I was going to say..,

...with all that glass, why would you ever have to look out the window???

[drseti]

...with all that glass, why would you ever have to look out the window???

I knew there was a reason they equipped my dual Dynons with an "off" switch!

[AlanR]

I don't think for one moment the difference between glass and classic is the issue.
Early and late Sportcruisers have different flying control harmonisation. There has been three versions of elevator/taliplane and two version of aileron arms, all obviously affecting the handling of the aircraft.
Personally I prefer the original version which although light in pitch and slightly heavier in roll, is for me much better for picking a wing up when you get caught out in those gusty crosswind conditions on short final to land.

[designrs]

Prefer the late model SportCruiser feel which is less sensitive in pitch. Sometimes the PiperSport / SportCruiser can be really challenging to keep from balloon on landing. The most recent generation is slightly more resistant to that.

This is not to take away from the PiperSport or SportCruiser. Great planes. Students will most certainly learn how to deal with the issue of ballooning. You gotta know when you are "safe" on airspeed with existing energy, or if you need a little power to "goose it", or if you better go back up again!

No difference in feel between analog to glass, just the instruments!

[designrs]

Next lesson, have your instructor cover up all the gauges, and fly by outside reference and sounds only. You'll be amazed at how well you can nail airspeeds and altitudes when you don't have all those instruments distracting you.

Have NOT tried this yet! The thought of no airspeed indicator on base and final is really uncomfortable. It comes from one of my first instructors that said, "all that matters on final are the numbers (airspeed) and the numbers (on the runway). Yet, I'm sure after doing this exercise it will have been benificial.

[deltafox]

I Foolishly took off with a blocked pitot tube (mud daubers) departing Branson. The higher I went the faster I went (in a climb) so called the tower to let them know I was coming back in. Nice to have a huge runway for this kind of problem. One of my better landings.

[okent]

I went up today in a 172 with a G1000. I'm 10 hours away from my checkride.
Spent the first 30ish hours in a diamond DA20 with steam gauges and about 10 in a steam gauge 172.
The G1000 was completely distracting. So much so that I went back to the backup dials.
Spent just under 2 hours in it today and that will be the last for a while. Very hard for me to stay ahead of the airplane.
I can see where it would be good but I will stick with traditional gauges until I get done with my PPL and then
think about transitioning when I start doing IFR(someday)
Very surprising for me.
My instructor did cover up the gauges in the Diamond and had me fly the plane by feel and I agree, it is easier than I thought.
Right now the most fun I have is puttering around looking out the windows and just flying the plane.

[drseti]

About five or six years ago, when I checked out on the G1000, I started off with a few hours with the manuals, followed by a few hours in a sim, before I ever got in a plane. Then, I flew with an experienced CFII who knew the system well. It was the first time in my life that I was miles behind a C172! Total information overload. I would recommend getting lots of sim time before trying to fly the G1000 for real. (My flight school's Redbird Jay simulator has several different G1000-equipped models available, and several training scenarios loaded.)

The Dynon glass panels, OTOH, are much more intuitive. It only took me about three flights to get comfortable with the D100-series EFIS and EMS. The Skyview was a little more complicated, so I signed up for two Dynon courses (3 hours each of VFR and IFR familiarization) in Sebring this January. Their courses are taught by Kirk Kleinholz, who is an excellent instructor. Check out his EAA webinars online for free glass cockpit training.