Savannah Performance

[paulh]

Didn’t really want to start a new thread for this comment but couldn’t see another place to post this so...............

 

 

Had the opportunity to do some flying in a Savannah S with the good guys at Go Fly Aviation, an enjoyable experience resulting in a LP endorsement, which wasn’t really my goal but welcome, the intention was just finding what these aircraft are about really.

 

 

Got comfortable with straight and level flight at 50kts and just enough vision over that long nose to have a good horizon, was amazed at the control authority at low speed and the nimble responsive handling at higher speeds. That fat wing is sensitive to thermals etc so the ride could be a bit bumpy.

 

 

My impression is that the Savannah and no doubt the Foxbat etc, whilst requiring training to fly safely, are actually quite high performance in the speed envelope for which they are designed.

 

 

An analogy being modern dirt bike verses road bike – no one who has ridden a good 450 enduro bike would call them “low performance”’ except maybe hard core desert racers and other adrenaline junkies - on the road the high stepping dirt bike is slow compared to a sports bike but in their element the dirt machine is definitely high performance and fun, but can still bite you on the backside.

 

 

So all you Savvy owners and builders actually have a high performance LP aircraft or is that a low HP aircraft?? Now I’m confused, anyway have fun flying these machines and be proud of the special performance abilities – yes, sleek low wings look cool and fast, but straight and level flight in long straight lines is possibly missing the point of flying just for fun.

 

 

This post isn’t intended to ruffle any feathers about the LP/HP endorsement thing, or restart the debate, just a positive observation from a newbie about an aircraft that is really a very good performer, irrespective of whatever endorsement category it fits in

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Well that is the issue everyone is pissed about. How can the Sav be classed as a LP aircraft. Mine cruises at almost 90 knots just because it stalls at 30knots clean and 26 knots with full flap how does someone actually come up with it being a LP the glide ratio is 11 to 1....it performs somewhat excessively over a drifter

 

 

[rankamateur]

It may be your salvation yet Mark, might be just what it takes to keep CASA from spearing you out of RAA into SAAA and E-LSA.

 

 

[Neil_S]

LOL - and there are people who fly Gazelles (which cruise at 70-75 kts) on a HP endo as the AI green arc goes up to 86kts (maximum structural cruising speed).

 

If the Sav cruises at 85-90 knots how does it classify as LP?

 

This just exposes the whole 80 knots LP/HP thing as a farce.

 

Neil

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I spoke to Zane Tully about this around 6 months ago at the YCAB AGM...he wouldn't or couldnt tell me why they were looking at doing this and were trying to come up with a "formula" to be able to do it. I can not see how you can even come up with the Sav being LP....take something like a Esqual those things are bullets and just barely get into the RAA specs for stall they should be a Extra HP... but this is what they want as HP anything that is remotely Stol they want in LP...its a big crock of you know what

 

 

[rankamateur]

Thinking about this http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/could-this-be-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-ra-aus-privileges.59415/#post-280909 if you are Only low performance they won't want you.

 

 

[terryc]

I'm interested way anyone cares if it is hp or lp. Am I missing something here.

 

 

[winsor68]

So all you Savvy owners and builders actually have a high performance LP aircraft or is that a low HP aircraft?? Now I’m confused

How can the Sav be classed as a LP aircraft.

You're confused??? I am confused... My Certificate (and I presume all the other students who utilized the same Sav S) has a HP endorsement only.

 

 

 

[winsor68]

I'm interested way anyone cares if it is hp or lp. Am I missing something here.

I would have thought from a License Certification viewpoint it would be obvious by some people would care...

 

 

[terryc]

I would have thought from a License Certification viewpoint it would be obvious by some people would care...

Sorry if I miss understood but my question was about the savannah aircraft and why anyone would care if it was classed as a lp aircraft. The aircraft doesn't fly any differently because someone thinks it's lp. As for license certification if the plane you fly is lp and you have lp on your certificate go fly, if the plane is hp and you have hp on your certificate go fly. I would have thought that to be obvious. The only other thing I can think of is that you might feel a lesser man because you fly a lp aircraft or maybe feel a better man because you fly a hp aircraft. That being the case get an extra endorsement. From the point of view of someone who owns one they might feel that the aircraft is under rated and so may be under valued and that might well be legitimate.

 

 

[rankamateur]

My certificate is HP training in a Savannah XL (Areoskill Flight Training), if Savannah are moved to LP then surely our certification gained on them will carry over also, can't imagine having to do more dual time in a NOW low performance Savannah to gain a LP endorsement if they are moved. If SAAA are trying to gain administration of High Performance RAA types then it may be a blessing to be reclassified Low Performance.

 

 

[Neil_S]

As for license certification if the plane you fly is lp and you have lp on your certificate go fly, if the plane is hp and you have hp on your certificate go fly..

....and that's just the point, Terry. Where does it say what your aircraft is? I have a Gazelle and fortunately both an HP and LP endo, but I know people flying Gazelles with only an HP endo because nobody knows for sure whether it is LP or HP.

 

So one day those nice people at CASA come along and ramp check you. They say you need an LP endo to fly your plane and you don't have one. Oooops! Busted!

 

Until we have a reference document with each plane listed we won't know.

 

Cheers

 

Neil

 

 

[frank marriott]

"Normal cruise speed" 20.01.8/9 I don't see the confusion. Whether one agrees with the definition or not, may be a different matter but what is written is what has to be used until/if changed in the future.

 

If cruise speed over 80 need HP endorsement and if under need LP to be LEGAL.

 

Gazelle - the only ones I have come across have a cruise speed below 80kts (answer in definition)

 

 

[Neil_S]

"Normal cruise speed" 20.01.8/9 I don't see the confusion. Whether one agrees with the definition or not, may be a different matter but what is written is what has to be used until/if changed in the future.If cruise speed over 80 need HP endorsement and if under need LP to be LEGAL.

 

Gazelle - the only ones I have come across have a cruise speed below 80kts (answer in definition)

...so if your POH has the phrase "Normal Cruise Speed" with a figure quoted then you're OK. But if it doesn't then what do you use? Do you interpret the top of the AI green arc as the cruise speed? Do you use TAS, or IAS? Or something else?

 

Cheers

 

Neil

 

 

[terryc]

....and that's just the point, Terry. Where does it say what your aircraft is? I have a Gazelle and fortunately both an HP and LP endo, but I know people flying Gazelles with only an HP endo because nobody knows for sure whether it is LP or HP.So one day those nice people at CASA come along and ramp check you. They say you need an LP endo to fly your plane and you don't have one. Oooops! Busted!

Until we have a reference document with each plane listed we won't know.

 

Cheers

 

Neil

Thanks Neil, I see that. I new somebody could enlighten me. I don't think there is any reason to be concerned as FrankM has answered that. The performance variation of gazelles shouldn't matter it would be the handbook that counts and the same goes for the savannahs.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Well Steve if they go ahead with changing the Sav to a LP then we will get a free endorsement....we already have the HP and because it is now a LP then we must already have the qualifications to fly them. Better send me the updated licence then RAAus office...They will need to send out a lot of updated cards me thinks

 

 

[Neil_S]

Well Steve if they go ahead with changing the Sav to a LP then we will get a free endorsement....we already have the HP and because it is now a LP then we must already have the qualifications to fly them. Better send me the updated licence then RAAus office...They will need to send out a lot of updated cards me thinks

LOL - I love your logic!

 

Cheers

 

Neil

 

 

[paulh]

Darn, I was being naive or inexperienced in forums to think I wouldn't get people upset by starting this thread.

 

It was meant, if you reread it, as a compliment to the Savannah, how good it flys and how much fun potential they have. Forums should also be about the positives of your special flying machine as well as all the information sharing etc.

 

I don't care if it is LP or HP as I now have both endorsements for a small cost

 

Just enjoy flying them

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

No one is getting "upset" just stating facts if it is good enough to fit in the specs of HP then its HP if not then LP.....The Sav is a awesome aircraft I love mine it is a good mix between being able to still actually go somewhere and then land and takeoff in half a football field if you need to

 

 

[XP503]

I would say Gazelle's are 'very LP'

 

 

[winsor68]

It is not about getting upset with the poster... but I will say I am damn upset with the smozzle that seems to be Ra-Aus.

 

I have a HP endorsement only in my Logbook... if the aircraft is really an LP then it will cost me more dollars to get the HP endo if I wish to fly most Ra-Aus aircraft...

 

It is all just bloody DODGY imo and not what I payed a lot of money for.

 

 

[Powerin]

I know nothing about flying LP. Isn't the main issue with flying LP aircraft that the cruise and stall speeds are relatively close together? And with high drag you can go from cruise to stall in a short amount of time after loss of power or in manoeuvring?

 

If that's the case wouldn't a good formula for HP or LP be the time taken to go from cruise to stall after loss of power?

 

 

[dazza 38]

The LP/HP could have been done better IMO . I personally think that it isn't needed. Anyway since we have it. I would have gone for a low inertia/ high inertia endorsement instead of LP/HP. The HP endo is a bit of a joke considering the "Fast Ultralights" are cruising at a similar speed to a basic GA trainer.

 

There a couple of exceptions I guess - Sting Carbon, Hawk 300, Esqual and Lightning and a couple more I suppose.

 

PS- The reason I say we dont need it is because normal pilots would go & get extra training, if they went from say a Tecnam to a Thruster or vise versa.

 

 

[eightyknots]

This is an interesting thread. Where is there more info about what are LP and HP definitions?