Question:
I am in the position of selling my RV4 and getting a Glastar. I'm lamenting the loss of my -4 as it's like the end of a hot date, but my real enjoyment in flying is the backcountry flying, camping, etc...
How does the RV-4 compare to the Glastar? I am just looking for comments on comparing the fun factor and performance comparisons.
Thanks out there!
Answer:
One of the frequent comments you'll hear about the Glastar is that control forces are not well harmonized, with pitch and yaw being considerably lighter than roll. Don't be too badly put off by this complaint because Glasair came up with a mod which puts a servo tab on the aileron and reduces roll force by 1/3, and it produces a much more harmonious feel. It'll never be light a nimble like an RV4, but then an RV4 will never carry very much baggage.
BTW, I'm building a Sportsman (Glastar's big brother) and had pretty much the same kind of questions in my mind since my "flying" airplane is very light and nimble. After flying a Glastar with modified ailerons I have to say it's indeed more like a sport cruiser than a flying truck, but definitely not a full sport airplane.
A Glastar with a 160hp and CS prop is a pretty decent performer. With an O-360 it's a GREAT performer, with cruise up in the 135-140kt range while hauling a bunch of bulky stuff. Plywood ripped into 2'x8' sheets can handily be loaded through the front door. There's no RV that has that kind of capacity, otherwise I'd likely be building one! LoL
Stability for instrument flight and long-haul cruising is great in the Glastar, and it's incredibly roomy (wider than a C-182). We like the Sportsman because, while our friends are folding up their expensive Dahon bikes to put in the back of their -6, -7 or -9, our bikes will go in the Sportsman pretty much fully intact. That means we have enough of a head start in taking off that it should negate some of the speed advantage of the RV.
Source: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=79263
Question:
Any cub drivers out there try out the new Glastar Sportsman? I'm curious about it's short field abilities compared to Supercubs. It's got a lot higher wing loading, but those big fowler flaps look effective too....
Answer:
I have about 300 hours over two years in a 160 hp Glastar I built as a taildragger and love it. I do not take it into rough or narrow spots anymore due to the spring gear and wide stance. It is on 26" Bushwheels and cruses at 125 mph at 2550 rpm and 140 mph on 600x6 wheels. It will haul 700 pounds and light gets of in 350' and normal load 450', climb out at 90 mph is in the 1000 fpm range and light and cold temperatures during timed climbs I have gotten 1600 fpm. It is great for trapping out of as I can be on the west side of the Alaska Range in a little over and an hour and who need a mountain pass when you can be at 7000' in an easy 10 min. climb. When it comes time to get serious about getting short or rough I used my 100 hp Lite Cub. The Star is not a Cub and stalls dirty 48 mph, I have found myself using it more the the Cub but would not be with out a Cub.
Source: http://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?29228-Glastar-Sportsman
Question:
I saw a Glasair Glastar w/ IO 320 for sale. But I'm concerned whether this aircraft uses 100LL fuel or not? Does anyone know what type of fuel is used with this Kitplane??
Answer:
Depends on the engine and fuel system. If you build it with components that are not affected by the additives in auto fuel (including ethanol) then you'll be OK. Otherwise, yes, you'll be burning avgas.
Question:
I’ve heard that lowering the flaps in the GlaStar requires a lot of muscle. Is that true?
Answer:
The GlaStar’s manually operated flaps have quite high operating forces, and lowering the flaps at airspeeds higher than the flap maximum extension speed (Vfe = 75 kt. / 86 mph) can be difficult. It is important to check that the combination of control-run friction and flap airload does not result in an excessively high flap deployment force being required. The best operating practice is to slow the airplane down below the GlaStar’s Vfe and avoid the problem.
Question:
Is the GlaStar’s engine mount strong enough for amphibious operations?
Answer:
The GlaStar's firewall has five attach points, making the Lycoming's dynafocal arrangement a little stiffer and adding some strength for floatplane operations, where the airplane gets a rough ride on the water. Typical composite firewalls might not have the usual hard points and associated load paths found on metal or wood structures, so the GlaStar's five attach points better distribute loads found in amphibious operations.