Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I am considering purhasing a 2nd hand Sting and I would like to hear from owners / pilots if there are any issues ,eg,maint.spares availability bad flying qualities etc .I have done a lot of research on the net and all seems good(have to be true its on the net right 004_oh_yeah.gif.82b3078adb230b2d9519fd79c5873d7f.gif).I intend to use it for touring and local flights and commuting to and from work every 2 weeks.Yep 2 on 2 off life's a bitch.

 

I am 180 cm tall and 100kg and wife is 55kg I am just completing my pilots cert (flight test to go next week) and I have a bit under 50 hrs total counting my time in GA a few years back plus doing pilots cert the last six months in a tecnam eaglet so a low time pilot.I have not seen a sting in the flesh so if there is anyone with one in southeast or south west Qld that would like to show me their aircraft ,even a demo flight would be nice also if you are considering selling I would be interested.

 

Cheers.

 

 

Posted

I could be wrong but I thought Go Fly has the south african built Sling different aircraft

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Oh maybe I am wrong...I thought it was a sting...you could be right....give them a ring they may know where one is if they don't have one anyway

 

 

Posted

To be honest I didn't go and fly it. I looked at so many aircraft that I couldn't decide what I really wanted because I liked everything that I flew in. So I changed my plan from buying a newer more expensive aircraft to buying something cheaper that I can just go flying in until I have decided what type of plane I really want. So no there was nothing that I didn't like about it, just that it no longer fitted into my shopping list.

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted

Geoff, if you have any idea of what a Sting ends up as after a crash that more robust aircraft would tolerate quite well, you'd be thankful that you've turned your interests elsewhere. The CS2000 Sting, at least, was so appalling in terms of crash-worthiness that it would be hard to find publishable words to express it.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Posted

Oscar do you have any links to reports to provide evidence of your claim of poor structural integrity of the Sting in an accident as I would not want to put myself or passengers at risk if I purchased the aircraft ?

 

 

Posted

409, I viewed the remains of the Goulburn Sting crash as part of the preparation of material for the subsequent Court case; the evidence collected there is not publicly available since the case was terminated. In the case of possible legal action I can't make any specific comments, however I can say that in my strictly personal opinion, the extent of the damage was so bad that it would be hard to imagine that anything worse could happen from a major explosion in the cockpit. ( http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http://www.recreationalflying.com/images/Smith%20and%20Guthrie%20Finding%20-%20Final.doc&ei=_AvCVJiNJMHTmgX15YCABw&usg=AFQjCNGM2DoUc4oFTxfiyw141_kLZuo3DA&sig2=WpxOUB4F_lkZ21ugmjfS4w&bvm=bv.84349003,d.dGY

 

 

Posted

Are there many other failures such as his Oscar? I know carbon in other uses onces it fails it tends to be catastrophic but is there any plane that would have good survivability for a nose first impact?

 

 

Posted

I see nothing in that report that blames the aircraft type or design. Usage maybe but that could happen with any airplane.

 

 

  • Informative 1
Posted

I flew one of the Goulburn Stings, either Neville Smith's or John Guthrie's, I don't remember which now. I flew to evaluate the aircraft type for a syndicate I was in that was looking to purchase an aircraft. My impressions were that it was delightful to fly. A little bit of tail wagging that is not uncommon in short coupled aircraft such as the sting but that wasn't disconcerting or difficult to manage. Once back on the ground I went over the both aircraft taking photographs and notes for the syndicate. I have to say that I came away less impressed than I had hoped. My overall impression of the build quality was that it was poor and for an aircraft that didn't have that many hours it was looking frayed around the edges with cracks appearing around the control surface hinge points and other placed on the fuselage where the glass seemed to be "working". My report to the syndicate was that it was not an aircraft that I could recommend we purchase. My personal opinion is that there are light aircraft, very light aircraft and flimsy aircraft. Delightful to fly, looked absolutely stunning but a bit too fragile for my liking. Akin to owning an early Alfa - Great fun but..........

 

I should emphasise that my syndicate was planning to purchase a new aircraft. I was not looking at the Goulburn aircraft with a view to purchasing either of them. They were not for sale but John (or Neville) had agreed to let my fly one of them for assessment of the type. No criticism is intended of the individual aircraft I flew or reported on or, of the owners and/or maintainers of those aircraft. I would not wish to cause any further distress to the families of John or Neville.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

The Sting has a strong airframe which is capable if aerobatics, but not in this nanny country. I can't comment on its crashworthness. Pay load is low I think as well.

 

 

Posted
Are there many other failures such as his Oscar? I know carbon in other uses onces it fails it tends to be catastrophic but is there any plane that would have good survivability for a nose first impact?

SD - it wasn't a steep nose first into the ground such as you get from a stall/spin, for instance, but a fairly shallow hit - a long furrow across the hillside, which I saw personally but about a year after the accident. It wasn't a desperately bad place for a crash, but equally not one that I would have been happy to put down on in anything other than a glider with strong airbrakes. A very experienced LAME and aircraft insurance assessor who attended the site of the crash with the Police on the day after it happened (while everything was in place, a gruesome experience) remains of the opinion that a Cessna or Piper single would have been heavily damaged but that it would have most likely been survivable with medium level injury at worst.

 

I'm not going to get into a major thing about this; I know what I saw, and that was a pile of pieces of cockpit back to around the rear bulkhead/mainspar area, most of which were fractured/torn into bits that would have fitted into a standard house moving packing carton. For those who feel that I have made unfair comment, I don't wish to enter an argument. I personally will never get into one to fly and I don't resile in stating that, but as with every aircraft, it is a matter of personal choice.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

For what it is worth, formula one use Carbon Fibre as its chassis material. I cannot be that bad in a crash.

 

 

Posted

Be very wary of carbon fibre in any aircraft. In the event of a crash-fire carbon gives of noxious fumes and must be disposed of in a regulated manner (as asbestos does). An RV-6 had carbon parts fitted, crashed at Gatton and fire crews had to dispose of carbon parts. Could very well push up insurance or leave you with a large bill......

 

 

  • Helpful 1
Posted

I know of one sting whose front wheel assembly collapsed twice until a LAME ended up strengthening it above manufacturers build standard. But, always remember that the aircraft is only a part of the purchase, the credibility of the distributor, prices and availability of parts, resale value etc should also be considered. Talk to other owners and people in the industry about this side of the equation

 

 

  • Informative 1
Posted
For what it is worth, formula one use Carbon Fibre as its chassis material. I cannot be that bad in a crash.

I don't know enough about formula one to know dazza, but do they use it for the cockpit? Or do they still have a chromemoly cage?

I use carbon arrows in my bow but when they fail it can be disastrous but I still use them, why? Well the benefits are aplenty and it's a balance of risk versus reward.

 

Thanks for your reply Oscar

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

I currently fly a 2007 Sting 2000 which imported from the USA. It is a True LSA not the lighter Ultralight version.

 

Great plane to fly, Fun to fly and great visibility.

 

I have also done many hours in a Tecnam and it only takes a little to get use to the Sting.

 

The Sting is much lighter on the controls and only requires small movements compared to the Tecnam.

 

This one is fitted with a Sensenich 2 bladed prop and set for around 5200rpm on climb out and sees 800-1000 fpm at 70kts at MTOW (600KG)

 

Cruise speed is 110-115 kts in this configuration and it doesen't change much with weight changes.

 

Stall takes a while to happen but if you hold it back it will drop the wing at a much faster rate than the Tecnam, but it warns you well before this happens.

 

If both a Tecnam and a Sting were sitting there for the taking for a flight, i'd take the Sting first every time!

 

Cheers

 

Lightstorm

 

 

  • Informative 1
Posted

There are so many great aircraft available these days, it is really hard to pick the right one. If I had the money I would have 1 of each but then I have had a Gazelle and 2 of these:

 

1720244536_Panel003-2.jpg.b959f4e39e71a8909a28371e6f3afd37.jpg

 

AND, if all goes according to plan I hope to have the money to buy my next aircraft late this year or early next year...wouldn't have a clue what to pick with all these great machines out there

 

1729985722_CTWallpaper.jpg.b4086d22f71a8464e9fef74490dbeb54.jpg

 

562093316_c-17800x600.jpg.25e3cbeddef4b48a83d878a0e5c983f2.jpg

 

 

Posted
I don't know enough about formula one to know dazza, but do they use it for the cockpit? Or do they still have a chromemoly cage?I use carbon arrows in my bow but when they fail it can be disastrous but I still use them, why? Well the benefits are aplenty and it's a balance of risk versus reward.

 

Thanks for your reply Oscar

Howdy, most of the F1 divers cockpit ( tub) is made of carbon fibre. 60 layers thick.

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Thanks Lightstorm this is the info I am looking for .Do you have any other maint, or part issues.The aircraft I am cosidering has MTOW of 544 kg would this be lsa or ultralight version

 

Cheers 409

 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...