Any of you guys familiar with the Glasair Sportsman 2+2?? I've been looking real hard at this plane. I think it is awesome! Nice lines, good performance numbers. Looks like an all around good bush plane. But why don't I see more of them in Alaska?? What I like about it is the ease of switching from TW to Tricycle to floats. And with the folding wings it can be hangered in a 9' wide hanger!
What are some of your thoughts on this bird?
http://www.glasairaviation.com/

It looks like I'll be able to make a full report. I'm penciled in for the 2 weeks to taxi program for 01 June. Pen and ink schedule will be as soon as I can get a decent insurance quote
I know I have a good plane now, but when gross weight = 1.5 adults its hard to take anyone flying. And I've read here and other places that you can get a good performing plane for alot less, but I really am sold on the fact that I can keep it in my shop if I choose. Plus it looks to be awesome performer, resale looks OK on it. And throw in the Factory Special they have right now and it was hard to say no.

A friend of mine has a Sportsman with a 180-horse Lycoming. There are some things I would have designed diffeerently, but it is an awesome performer- both STOL and fast as well. I agree about the squirmy (or more accurately, flexy) gear, at least from what I've seen from my limited-to-the-airport perspective. I'm surprised that with as many people as seem to be operating them in the rough, nobody's come up with a set of stiff aluminium leaf-spring gear legs. I believe that the wings are the same as the 2-place model, I think they'd benefit from having more area but then again- it is an awesome performer as is. I prsonally don't like the looks of the swept tail, but then again my friend thinks it looks great- so there's no accounting for tastes.
That 2-weeks-to-taxi program sounds great, but I understand there is still quite a bit of work left to do afterward-- you know, the old "90% done 90% left to go" thing. What does the factory say about that? I do know a guy who not only did the 2 week to taxi thing, he did a complete owner-assisted build (or assisted-owner build) at the factory, it weren't cheap but he ended up with a helluva airplane.

Eric

I have also looked at the Sportsman 2+2. There was a nice one on amphibs at the BC Floatplane Assoc annual meeting at Nimpo Lake, BC last year that was beautiful. I have decided that based upon my building of r/c planes for many years, that I would never get into a plane that I built and get off the ground with it. I wish you well and hope you will keep us informed on your progress.

Yea definitely keep us informed. It sure looks like a good plane for what's in the video.

Check the local regulations on moving things on the highway. I think you may find that the horizontal tail of the airplane is too wide to be legal to move on the roads. BUT, if you have a shed or ??? near an airport, it's still a LOT easier to build something that will house such an airplane than to build a full out hangar. We invited the company to bring one of their aircraft to the Spring Air Fair in FAI, and put it inside the Carlson Center. The tail was too wide to be legal, but they moved it anyway, by towing it.....down Peger Road, past the Trooper HQ

I think the aircraft has a lot going for it. I too have heard some negatives about the gear, but....be careful, and don't land in rock piles.

I always liked the looks of those little airplanes.

MTV

I looked at several this last weekend and you had better be a circus midget to get in back seat ! I know of one of these Glasstars for sale where is as is for the price of the kit ! It's flown 6-8 times Try-5 engine failures .The BD-5 kit was restricted to the traffic pattern with the 2 stroke snowmobile engine because of failures.What ever you DO NOT use a SUBARU engine of any type ! Eggenfelter comes to mind. Get a REAL aircraft engine -Continental or Lycoming .Other than that looks like a good airplane . I'd rather have a Murphy Moose or Tundra for the same money than the Glasstar whatever. I see in your picture it looks like a 120 or 140 Cessna -I'd rather have that than one of these new fan dangled glasstars whatevers .For what you spend on one of these new fan dangled flying machines you could get several Maules or PA-12's or even Cessna 182 or180 type.YMMV

I believe that my friend has over $100K into his Sportsman (he ain't saying) plus a year and a half plus of full-time work by him -- it's a damn nice airplane & performs well, but think of the kind of totally rebuilt & cherried out early C180 you could buy for that amount. IMHO that'd be a better performer all the way around except at the gas pump.
But I sure know what you mean by a "rode hard & put away wet" old airplane. My current mount is 45 years old but has only about 150 hours since a post-wreck total rebuild, so most of the wear-outable stuff is new. Sure is nice when about half the airplane isn't about half wore out.

Eric

Thanks for all the input!
182 stol driver.....the only engine option for the factory assist kit is the 180 or 210 Lycoming. I'm going with the injected 180 and a 74" hartzell blended foil constant speed prop.
This is the only place I've heard about the gear being springy or squirrelly? Maybe I'll have to work on that.

MTV....Your right the tail might be to wide, but my 140 wasn't. I trailered it the day I brought it home. But they do say the horizontal removes quite easily than there is a bracing kit that attaches the wing to the vertical stab.

And yes, I can buy 3 old planes for what this cost, but than I have 3 annuals and have to find 3 tiedowns and like someone said, I have 3 old planes. Sounds like a hassle.

I've never even had a new truck! So I'm excited with this. I've lived within my means all my life. It time to splurge a little. I just hope I can cut an insurance deal so I can make this happen.

The three GlaStars on my airport (2 original GS's & a GS Sportsman) all have MT constant speed props, I'm thinking about 78"? One of them switched from a hartzell to the MT, the others started out with MT's. Another guy here switched to an MT (from a Mac?) on his Husky. They all like them, it might be an option worth considering.
The main gear is similar to an RV in that it's made from rod (or tube?), it will flex in all directions as compared to a Cessna-type leaf spring gear which flexes left and right only- not fore and aft. If you have ever watched an RV fast-taxi on uneven ground, you'll know what I mean by "flexy".The guy I know with the Sportsman bonded some shaped foam into the trailing edge of the gear legs to fair them in and also to try to stiffen them up in the fore-and-aft axis to eliminate or at least reduce that flexing.
Like I said, with the number of people using these airplanes in the rough I'm surprised nobody's came up with a mod to use a set of Grove (or whoever) leaf spring gear. I think making the transition from a leaf-spring shape to a round shape where the gear attaches to the airframe would be the problem- lots of stress there, maybe too much for a weld-the-rod-to-the-leaf attach.

Eric

I wouldn't buy ANY prop that says Hartzell on it. Do so, and next time Hartzell is a little low on funding, they'll cook up yet another AD that will condemn your hub, and you're out a couple thou more.

Trust me on that. I've had TWO prop hubs condemned by Hartzell AD's, and no compensation.

MTV

MTV.....I will take your advice and ask what else is available. I do know they offer a fixed pitch Sensinich (I know thats not spelled right ) But they were the only choices they threw at me.

Experimental -every flight your a test pilot ! Yes I've had (and have) a experimental in my past. They don't fly much (except the RV guys) as say a 172 .
Couple of doors down from me is a Lancair 4 P that haven't been in flight more than once in last 2 years.Lots of "lawn dart" varieze contraptions.
In my hanger is 2 LSA Zenth's (601 and 701) with less than 20 hours total (both aircraft) in the last year. If you care and have the time go by air.
I fly much less than I did years ago maybe 80-90 hours this last year. Maybe a motor glider in my future going out to my sail boat.

I've always looked at experimentals in 2 classes. You have your flying lawnmower class and your real airplane engine class. Personally Lawnmowers with wings scare me. As far as the second class, I think the ones that are tried and proven will be flown as much as any certified airplane.

chickenair wrote:I've always looked at experimentals in 2 classes. You have your flying lawnmower class and your real airplane engine class. Personally Lawnmowers with wings scare me. As far as the second class, I think the ones that are tried and proven will be flown as much as any certified airplane.

This is true. My Savannah has 435 hours on it in a little over 4 years. Another guy that got his in the air a little before me has nearly 700. I don't think experimental or not is the question. It is more whether it is fun to fly or not. And the time and money a particular pilot has to pursue the hobby.

There are some scary homebuilts out there, and that's why a prospective buyer needs to get real input on the plane he plans to build. I would not build one that didn't have hundreds actually flying to get enough real world data to study.

Have fun with your project,
tom

Thanks for that link Tito. That was one I haven't seen yet and it's 5 years old.

And it looks like the deal is sealed. I begin construction on 01 June. So if any of you guys are in or going to be in the Arlington area....Please drop by Glasairs hanger and check it out!

After the build, I need to get 40 hours on it before I can get the AW cert. Than I will be flying it back to Alaska. So if anyone wants to convoy to Alaska....get ready. I'm planning on heading north the week of the 21st of June sometime. As soon as it's ready for the trip.

Are you serious? I mean about starting the build June 1 and flying it to Alaska the week of june 21st.

The 21st of June, 2010. Maybe.

AOPA PIlot or some magazine had a story not long ago about the "2 week to taxi" program. Can't recall exactly what was said, but it was my impression that it was just that: "to taxi", and that "to flying" would take a fair bit more time. Chickenair, did the GlaStar people tell you 3 weeks for a flyable airplane? if so, I hope it works for you but that is a lot of work crammed into a very small amount of time. Good luck with her,

Eric