Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

GoGetAir G750

Quite a while back my flying buddy and I were looking at other options for aircraft. The Cirrus was becoming simply way too expensive just for the two of us; we wanted ideally something which was more economical, capable of minimum 120 Knots true in cruise and included a ‘chute and where you didn’t have to clamber over seats for ease of entry and egress. We started by considering ULs such as a VL3, a Shark or a Blackshape Prime but then we decided we didn’t want the hassles of weight & balance limitations of ULs, nor the potential issues of cross border travel if heading to (eg) UK or even France with a 600kg UL. It should also be capable of being flown by each of us comfortably – I’m the best part of 6’4", my flying buddy is considerably smaller – so along with comfort, we wanted adjustable seats as a minimum. Also, we had flown a Pipistrel Virus and I was very cramped in it; we had also seen that this was fairly restricted with storage space on longer flights – you couldn’t access the baggage compartment in flight and there’s nowhere to really stow a coffee flask and / or 1.5L bottle of water.

I think we spent more than a year trawling through the various sites, considering different aircraft including experimentals such as Vans RV-9A, Alpi-Pioneer 400 – this thread was a gold mine for us when determining any potential pitfalls when delving into the realms of experimentals so a big thanks to this forum for that.

Earlier this year we saw an advert for a GoGetAir G750, being sold by the owner of the factory; GoGetAir is a Slovenian manufacturer. The plane was an original design by the owner of the factory and marketed as a One Aircraft – hence the ICAO nomenclature for this aircraft being ONE. However due to potential conflicts with the naming, the company rebranded itself GoGetAir a few years back. S5-MTI was their previous demonstrator, has a total of around 600 hours on it, at first glance it looks similar to a smaller Cirrus, albeit with centre stick and essentially ticks all the other boxes we wanted ticked. Some of you might have seen them exhibiting at the Aero this year, next year they expect to take two aircraft over to EAA (via container) which have already been sold.

We flew down to Zadar and met with the designer / factory owner – some times he is in Croatia, sometimes in Slovenia – and were pleasantly surprised to see that both of us had plenty of room inside, it has more room in cabin width than (eg) a P28A but not quite as much as in the Cirrus, however this was more than acceptable. Additionally, the aircraft could easily accommodate our different sizes due to having adjustable pedals and seats and finally, it’s a 4 seater, albeit the rear seats are designed specifically for kids – sort of like the rear seats of a Porsche 911.

For us, such a layout would be ideal because we could put our baggage in the lockable compartment in the back whilst placing refreshments on the rear seats to ensure that the “on board services” on our pan-European tours would be to a more satisfactory level. When looking at the wings etc, the more observant of you might notice that they bear more than a passing resemblance to those fitted to the Shark UL – this is because the owner of the factory had the Shark wings scaled up and indeed, the wings etc. are produced by Shark themselves.

The performance met what we were looking for – the aircraft is powered by a 912iS Sport engine (100hp, fuel injected) and will cruise at MCP burning 23l / h at 131Knots TAS, however the manufacturer said he typically cruised at 120knots burning around 14l an hour. With 138l tanks, the aircraft has a range of more than 9 hours or more than 1000NM – impressive. Typically the empty weights are around 400 – 440Kg with a maximum take off weight of 750kg but the manufacturer has tested the structure up to 800kg without issue.

What none of us liked – my flying partner, the aircraft manufacturer and I – was the fitted LX Nav eCopilot Glass cockpit. Aircraft manufacturers work together and LxNav wanted to enter into the Glass Cockpit foray hence they supplied this system to GoGetAir but unfortunately the concept was good but the implementation was – the firmware was intermittently being updated which would typically lead to additional issues which required further updates – as an example, at the time of our first test flight, LX had provided an update which crashed the fuel flow sensor readings. Additionally, they had been unable to integrate an autopilot into it. For me, with serious intents on long range cruising, I wanted a reliable glass cockpit and an autopilot.

We agreed to buy the aircraft once they had upgraded the cockpit, replacing the eCopilot with a Dynon Skyview HDX and installed the Dynon autopilot with both knob and button interfaces in order to offer auto trim. We also had Flarm / ADS-B traffic warnings integrated into the SkyView – previously, these were just shown on the Garmin 695 GPS. The updated cockpit now looks as below.

Here’s also a walk around video:




Last month my buddy and I flew down to Croatia to do some training with the aircraft and the company’s test pilot. Stalls were a non-event, the plane was just a delight to handle, very nimble and responsive. In the past, I’ve carried out plenty of PFL but this was the first time that I needed to perform them with the propeller stationary which was an additional experience. During my training session, the company’s test pilot killed the engine in total 4 times, from difference locations in the vicinity of the airfield – once was half way on downwind at pattern altitude – it’s a funny situation to be in but as the aircraft has a glide ratio of more than 17:1, making it wasn’t an issue – indeed, in most cases I still had altitude left so could slip it off. Below is an onboard video of the first time he cut the engine.




Unfortunately the weather wasn’t good enough to bring the aircraft back to our home base with low clouds and rain over the alps but hopefully the weather will be ok later this coming week, at which point it will make the trip up north, then we will be looking forward to flying S5-MTI to your meet-ups, meeting you all again.

For those who are interested, the G750 can be supplied with a 912iS, a 914 or the 915iS motors. They can be offered with onboard oxygen for those wanting to fly the Turbo motors at higher altitudes and the price is comparable with a typical VL3. CS-23 certification of the aircraft is expected in the coming 2 to 3 years, in total they have built 12 of these aircraft so far. Their homepage can be found here.

Last Edited by Steve6443 at 19 Nov 08:25
EDL*, Germany

If I understand correctly, this is a factory-built Experimental, which has a Slovenian CAA permit-to-fly. Can you explain the process for obtaining overflight permits for other European countries?

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

boscomantico wrote:

If I understand correctly, this is a factory-built Experimental, which has a Slovenian CAA permit-to-fly. Can you explain the process for obtaining overflight permits for other European countries

Looking at the AIPs, they don’t seem to differentiate between factory and amateur build aircraft – AIP Gen 1.2-15 is the source for Germany and it clearly states that a permit to entry is not required for aircraft registered in EAA states where the permit to fly includes the wording “issued in pursuance to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament”. For Hungary, the wording is

“No permission to enter the airspace of Hungary is required for aircraft with a limited certificate of airworthiness or permit to fly issued by the aviation authority of EU Member States in accordance with Annex (Part 21) to Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 and its amendments, validity of which is automatically recognised within the meaning of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as amended.”

Austrian AIP Gen 1.2 says that Aircraft operated with a permit to fly, issued according Regulation (EU) No. 748/2012, Part 21, Subpart P are excluded from any permit requirements

I also received a statement from the manufacturer that it’s not an issue to fly across Europe in such aircraft as long as the Permit was valid – currently this needs renewing every year but in Slovenia they are expecting an extension of 2 years validity; other manufacturers gave similar statements when viewing other factory built aircraft such as the Alpi 400 or the DynAero MCR4.

EDL*, Germany

Interesting why the people in the aerokurier article seem to make contrasting statements. But if it‘s automatic for a few European countries, then good for you. I am not an expert in this field, so don‘t know of the permit issued here is in fact compliant with the regs memtioned above.

Which countries will or would require paperwork to be legal to fly? What about the UK?

Have you sorted out maintenance? I guess minor work will be done by yourself and for bigger work, you will have to fly it to the factory?

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Same for Austria:

The following categories of aircraft are excluded from the permit requirements:
• Aircraft with a restricted certificate of airworthiness, issued according Regulation (EU) No. 748/2012, Part 21, Subpart H
• Aircraft operated with a permit to fly, issued according Regulation (EU) No. 748/2012, Part 21, Subpart P
• Ultra-light aircraft, which are covered by the Ordinance on the Recognition of Foreign Licenses for Aviation Person- nel and Certificates for the Allowed Usage in Flight (Gäste- flugverordnung), BGBl. II Nr. 49/2017 as amended, see GEN 1.5, item 4.1.
• Ultra-light airplanes and ultra-light helicopters, which are covered by the provisions in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (i.e. an equivalent “Opt-Out” by the other mem- ber state has been notified) AND when the requirements of the Ordinance on the Recognition of Foreign Licenses for Aviation Personnel and Certificates for the Allowed Usage in Flight (Gästeflugverordnung) are met, see GEN 1.5, item 4.1.
• Amateur-built aircraft which are registered in ECAC mem- ber states AND when conformity to the provisions accord- ing GEN 1.5, item 3. is established

always learning
LO__, Austria

Congratulations! Saw the aircraft at Aero and looked nice and well-built. A mini-Cirrus as you say and a capable cruiser for 2 persons.

As to speed and fuel consumption, no doubt the aircraft will perform better than my Bristell with all these rivets sticking out, but I think the numbers on their site and what they have told you are a tad on the optimistic side. Have you been able to verify them in flight?

To me the aircraft looks a lot like a Dynamic WT9 certified CS/LSA, 100HP Rotax, see published performance figures below. Assuming a similar performance you’d still be getting 120 KTAS which is what you are looking for, just not at 14 liters/hr.

Anyway, nitpicking. A few knots more or less does in reality not mean much. It becomes an issue when comparing aircraft doing 120 vs 180 knots.

Enjoy her and keep us posted how things work out!

Private field, Mallorca, Spain

boscomantico wrote:

Which countries will or would require paperwork to be legal to fly? What about the UK?

boscomantico wrote:

Interesting why the people in the aerokurier article seem to make contrasting statements. But if it‘s automatic for a few European countries, then good for you. I am not an expert in this field, so don‘t know of the permit issued here is in fact compliant with the regs memtioned above.

Which countries will or would require paperwork to be legal to fly? What about the UK?

Have you sorted out maintenance? I guess minor work will be done by yourself and for bigger work, you will have to fly it to the factory?

I asked the same question when I read the article. The response was: The author of the article either wasn’t listening or forgot what he was told so made (contradicting) statements in his article, reflecting what he thought he had heard. However I can confirm that the permit is in accordance with those regs, I’ve seen it.

Concerning maintenance, we have a local mechanic who can do pretty much everything but will be guided by the factory for any major work. Next year we will fly to Slovenia and follow how they prepare the docs for approval, then after that we will do the work ourselves without factory support. However we will have to determine whether we bring the plane to Slovenia or bring the inspector to us – all a question of costs, I presume.

EDL*, Germany

aart wrote:

As to speed and fuel consumption, no doubt the aircraft will perform better than my Bristell with all these rivets sticking out, but I think the numbers on their site and what they have told you are a tad on the optimistic side. Have you been able to verify them in flight?

Yes, I was able to verify them in flight – at least MCP figures.

Concerning the other figures, let’s not overlook the fact that there are significant differences between a Rotax 912ULS and a 912iS – the manufacturer claimed 20% better fuel efficiency, a club tested two identical aircraft, one with a 912ULS, the other with a 912iS – the saving was more than 30%, as Paul Bertorelli reported here:



As to cruise, I can only say from one longer flight and here the aircraft took off, climbed to FL100, flew for an hour and 9 minutes, landed, then took off again, climbed to 2000 feet and flew for an additional 10 minutes and landed again. During that time – including climb and cruise in Eco mode – the aircraft used a grand total of 19 liters – we refuelled fully before the flight and once again after, meaning 14liters an hour. During the cruise, TAS was around 120knots so yes, I’m pretty hopeful that it will meet those figures, but time will tell.

EDL*, Germany

A search here on something like
homebuilt privileges
gets you threads to read. And you always get somebody who says it isn’t true (which is no doubt true in his country) and then it goes the same old way. But that is the way this community has always been: denial. And to be fair some of the “rules” cannot be found anymore.

Bottom line is there is zero enforcement, not least because nobody in the tower is likely to notice. However, there have been reports (on EuroGA IIRC) that German UL meetups (and UL meetups tend to be big) have been hit by LBA inspectors looking for exactly this – although the UL border crossing matrix is not the same as the Annex 1 border crossing matrix. But this one may not be in any of these and then you have a third option.

I haven’t translated that German article.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Concerning the other figures, let’s not overlook the fact that there are significant differences between a Rotax 912ULS and a 912iS

True, I overlooked that.

Private field, Mallorca, Spain
29 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top