All:
I reread the Sport Aviation article the morning after I posted my little
whine and wonder why I thought so little of it. It is quite balanced. Some
of the opening comments set me off, as I have this perception that the EAA
reviewers get all lathered over big engined US speedsters more than they do
ultralights and foreign designs. Given this, the review was really rather
positive. The size issue for large pilots, brought up in the CAFE report,
was mentioned in passing here. The stall characteristics were different
than CAFE's, but this may be due to lack of the recommended stall strips.
The closing comments were quite fair, just not strong.
I still would like to hear other's opinions of the piece, but I now don't
think I was fair in my assessment. Sorry.
Shaun
A207
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve & Eileen Genotte" <gopack@sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: Sport Aviation review of the TriGear
>
>
> > Shaun Simpkins wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Overall, I wish that Sport Aviation would just publish the CAFE
> > reports instead of their flying qualities reports. I like the CAFE
> > reports' heavy dose of hard test data to back up their subjective
> > opinions.
> >
> > Anyone get a different read on the article?
>
> I did. I thought Ed Kolano's article was very straightforward. He
> described the airplane exactly as he saw it and did well comparing the
> tailwheel to the monowheel. It's not his job to recommend one design
> over another and he didn't; he flew the airplane and gave an honest
> appraisal of how it acts.
>
> What anyone looking to buy an aircraft should do is read reports like
> Mr. Kolano's *and* hard data like the CAFE report, then compare the
> two. Looking solely at one or the other is not enough.
>
> Steve G.
>
>
|