Jay Maynard
February 27th 08, 12:59 AM
Since I'm now convinced I can fly the Zodiac given sufficient time and
practice, I can now make a decision as to which aircraft I want to purchase.
I haven't flown the Sierra. I did fly a Bravo last week, and the comments
I've gotten lead me to believe that the Sierra flies just about the same.
I'm going to proceed on that basis.
The Bravo was the first aircraft I'd flown in 15 years. I was immediately
comfortable in it. Everything felt and flew just like the 172s and Warriors
and such I was used to. It's very stable, and will fly hands-off easily. The
trim is quite effective and easy to adjust. I had no trouble nailing the
speeds I wanted, or flying a precise standard rate turn (and no back
pressure was needed to hold altitude in the turn; in fact, it'll stay in a
standard rate turn all day, hands off). It was also quite comfortable, due
to the slight bulge at the bottom of the windows. The one landing I
attempted was quite passable, once I recovered from overrotating the flare.
It'll do 108 knots or so on 4 GPH max. There's no mixture, no carb heat, no
twiddling, just push the throttle and go. Stalls are predictable and easily
manageable.
The verdict: A good, honest airplane that any 172 driver will love.
I've told the story of my Zodiac checkout in other posts, so I won't repeat
myself. I'll limit myself to saying that, on the first flight, I was never
comfortable with the airplane. It took me another flight, and a different
approach, to get to where I was flying the airplane instead of the other way
around. The controls are *very* sensitive, especially in pitch. In fairness,
the CFI did warn me, and I didn't listen to him about just using two
fingers. When I did that, it made all the difference in the world. The
aircraft seemed positively eager to do what it was told. I will still need
to spend some time at altitude figuring out power settings and pitch
attitudes for different flight regimes. The landing gear is hell for stout,
considering the arrivals I subjected it to over the past couple of days.
Visibility from the cockpit is outstanding except over the nose when it's
really high. (I'm not sure about the factory SLSA version; it may be better
in this regard.) Stalls are yawners, with not much of a break and plenty of
buffet before you get there, and recovery consists of letting go of the
stick. The cockpit is quite comfortable, with plenty of width; the seats
felt fine to me, and the seating position is not as weird in reality as it
looks when you first see one. The seats aren't adjustable, but the aircraft
fit me fine; we might have to do something to accommodate my 5-foot-6
roommate, however.
The verdict: Don't get in it and expect it to fly like a 172. Get a good
checkout from an instructor who knows the aircraft and how to transition
into it. Once you've done that, it's a blast to fly, with controls that let
you think the aircraft into going where you want it.
I can fly either aircraft, and do it well with enough practice. Therefore,
they're both still candidates. Now, the tradeoffs. These are individual for
me; others might well reach different conclusions.
The biggest difference, to me, is that the Sierra is made in Italy and uses
a Rotax engine, while the Zodiac is made in the US and uses a Continental
engine. As I've discussed before, I consider this a big advantage for the
Zodiac: any A&P can work on it, while that's not going to be true for the
Sierra (though that will be closer than a lot of other SLSAs, especially the
ones made with fewer aircraft parts and more composites).
That difference also affects another big consideration: price. I've
ballparked the Zodiac at $130k, and the quote I got on a Sierra with
comparable equipment is $155k. (Both prices omit Minnesota use tax of 6.5
percent of the base aircraft price (no options), which turns out to be
almost the same, since the base price is almost the same. They also omit
Minnesota registration of 1% of the total sale price for the first year.) As
the dollar sinks slowly into the west, that difference will only increase.
Part of the difference is that the Zodiac includes a full set of IFR
instrumentation, lighting, and certified engine and prop in the $99.9k base
price, while all of those are options on the Sierra. I do think a two-axis
autopilot is a necessity on the Zodiac for cross-country cruising,
especially IFR; the Sierra can probably get away without it. The prices
above reflect that.
Other differences aren't as major: the Zodiac is much more customizeable,
with paint that can be done to my exact specifications and a panel that's
designed from the ground up - but that's offset by the Sierra's *MUCH*
larger panel (large enough to hold a GNS530W and transponder and audio panel
with room left over). I may well have to put the GPS 496 on top of the
panel in the Zodiac. The Sierra's canopy can be opened on the ground or in
flight; the Zodiac's cannot be opened in flight, and is supposed to be
closed for taxi (though the CFI held it open a bit as we taxied back in both
days). The Zodiac I flew did not have the window that opened on the pilot's
side, and I think that's another very good option.
Bottom line: For me, it's the Zodiac. I can't ignore the price difference,
and having it all made in the US with aircraft-style parts throughout is a
major plus.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
practice, I can now make a decision as to which aircraft I want to purchase.
I haven't flown the Sierra. I did fly a Bravo last week, and the comments
I've gotten lead me to believe that the Sierra flies just about the same.
I'm going to proceed on that basis.
The Bravo was the first aircraft I'd flown in 15 years. I was immediately
comfortable in it. Everything felt and flew just like the 172s and Warriors
and such I was used to. It's very stable, and will fly hands-off easily. The
trim is quite effective and easy to adjust. I had no trouble nailing the
speeds I wanted, or flying a precise standard rate turn (and no back
pressure was needed to hold altitude in the turn; in fact, it'll stay in a
standard rate turn all day, hands off). It was also quite comfortable, due
to the slight bulge at the bottom of the windows. The one landing I
attempted was quite passable, once I recovered from overrotating the flare.
It'll do 108 knots or so on 4 GPH max. There's no mixture, no carb heat, no
twiddling, just push the throttle and go. Stalls are predictable and easily
manageable.
The verdict: A good, honest airplane that any 172 driver will love.
I've told the story of my Zodiac checkout in other posts, so I won't repeat
myself. I'll limit myself to saying that, on the first flight, I was never
comfortable with the airplane. It took me another flight, and a different
approach, to get to where I was flying the airplane instead of the other way
around. The controls are *very* sensitive, especially in pitch. In fairness,
the CFI did warn me, and I didn't listen to him about just using two
fingers. When I did that, it made all the difference in the world. The
aircraft seemed positively eager to do what it was told. I will still need
to spend some time at altitude figuring out power settings and pitch
attitudes for different flight regimes. The landing gear is hell for stout,
considering the arrivals I subjected it to over the past couple of days.
Visibility from the cockpit is outstanding except over the nose when it's
really high. (I'm not sure about the factory SLSA version; it may be better
in this regard.) Stalls are yawners, with not much of a break and plenty of
buffet before you get there, and recovery consists of letting go of the
stick. The cockpit is quite comfortable, with plenty of width; the seats
felt fine to me, and the seating position is not as weird in reality as it
looks when you first see one. The seats aren't adjustable, but the aircraft
fit me fine; we might have to do something to accommodate my 5-foot-6
roommate, however.
The verdict: Don't get in it and expect it to fly like a 172. Get a good
checkout from an instructor who knows the aircraft and how to transition
into it. Once you've done that, it's a blast to fly, with controls that let
you think the aircraft into going where you want it.
I can fly either aircraft, and do it well with enough practice. Therefore,
they're both still candidates. Now, the tradeoffs. These are individual for
me; others might well reach different conclusions.
The biggest difference, to me, is that the Sierra is made in Italy and uses
a Rotax engine, while the Zodiac is made in the US and uses a Continental
engine. As I've discussed before, I consider this a big advantage for the
Zodiac: any A&P can work on it, while that's not going to be true for the
Sierra (though that will be closer than a lot of other SLSAs, especially the
ones made with fewer aircraft parts and more composites).
That difference also affects another big consideration: price. I've
ballparked the Zodiac at $130k, and the quote I got on a Sierra with
comparable equipment is $155k. (Both prices omit Minnesota use tax of 6.5
percent of the base aircraft price (no options), which turns out to be
almost the same, since the base price is almost the same. They also omit
Minnesota registration of 1% of the total sale price for the first year.) As
the dollar sinks slowly into the west, that difference will only increase.
Part of the difference is that the Zodiac includes a full set of IFR
instrumentation, lighting, and certified engine and prop in the $99.9k base
price, while all of those are options on the Sierra. I do think a two-axis
autopilot is a necessity on the Zodiac for cross-country cruising,
especially IFR; the Sierra can probably get away without it. The prices
above reflect that.
Other differences aren't as major: the Zodiac is much more customizeable,
with paint that can be done to my exact specifications and a panel that's
designed from the ground up - but that's offset by the Sierra's *MUCH*
larger panel (large enough to hold a GNS530W and transponder and audio panel
with room left over). I may well have to put the GPS 496 on top of the
panel in the Zodiac. The Sierra's canopy can be opened on the ground or in
flight; the Zodiac's cannot be opened in flight, and is supposed to be
closed for taxi (though the CFI held it open a bit as we taxied back in both
days). The Zodiac I flew did not have the window that opened on the pilot's
side, and I think that's another very good option.
Bottom line: For me, it's the Zodiac. I can't ignore the price difference,
and having it all made in the US with aircraft-style parts throughout is a
major plus.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390