Ibra wrote:
also that avionics upgrade is by far the cheapest one can get when moving from legacy to glass (just 600h of rental?)
Yes, I was thinking the premium for Glass was very modest. Consider a 172SP €140K for steam gauges on the used market if you can find one. A G1000 Cessna 172SP if you could find one is €280k. The whole subjective thing of a glass cockpit “feeling” modern is something we could never replicate economically in an early 70’s Cessna 172.
Used to work Evektor years ago so take my words with caution. Eurostar was always one of the most solid build and tested ultralightgs. And the weight was inside the limit for UL. Had 200+ hours an UL and VLA – pleasant handling with sufficient performance. Not the fastest on the market, not the roomest cockpit but overall a solid plane I am not affraid to recommend.
I’m with A and C. It won’t be robust enough. Why o why cant someone produce an airframe as strong as a C152 with a rotax engine in it.
Airborne_Again wrote:
How do you — and @A_and_C — know that?
They feel it in their bones I guess 
A C-152 is a severely cramped and under-powered aircraft. No one in their right mind would chose this instead of a modern glass cockpit VLA with a Rotax 912 that just runs. My club got a brand new P2008 this summer. It was an instant success, even among those who have never flown anything except C-172s and would previously swear not to do it.
The Evector looks nice. Only time will tell if it lasts for 50 years. The only reason we still have C-152s around is that up until recently there have been no new and better alternatives at a right price. Now that there are, the C-152s will vanish.
Bathman wrote:
Why o why cant someone produce an airframe as strong as a C152 with a rotax engine in it.
Weight is the main issue. The Rotax power curve is not flat enough to produce an acceptable ROC at climb speed and reduced RPM when pulling around a durable (relatively heavy) airframe with a fixed pitch propeller. Trainers don’t historically have a constant speed propellers – which are for very good reason installed when 150s are fitted with Rotax engines via the STC’d conversion.
There is no free lunch.
A few years back all the GA forums talked about the Sportcruiser telling us how these would revolutionise training .
About two years after the sport cruiser appeared on the market we had one of them in the hangar at the same time as 13,000 hour C152 .
It was not the C152 that had problems with landing gear or smoking rivets on the inner spar webs and the training company that operated the sport Cruiser when bust shortly afterwards.
Don’t misunderstand me, these modern small aircraft are great in private ownership but they simply cant take the abuse that the flying training environment dishes out.
A_and_C wrote:
Don’t misunderstand me, these modern small aircraft are great in private ownership but they simply cant take the abuse that the flying training environment dishes out.
The experience of operating the Evektor Sportstar RTC in a Swedish club seems to point in the opposite direction. It might make a difference that the Sportstar is an all-metal and not a composite material aircraft.
Airborne again wrote :-
The experience of operating the Evektor Sportstar RTC in a Swedish club seems to point in the opposite direction. It might make a difference that the Sportstar is an all-metal and not a composite material aircraft.
The sport cruiser is all metal primarily structure.
So to summarize you had one bad experience with one non-Cessna, so all non-Cessna’s are generally junk?
