Around 1,800 pilots have invested in delivery positions for the highly-anticipated ICON A5 Light-Sport amphibian, which, by all accounts, is a great little seaplane.
However, production delays have frustrated many potential ICON owners who want to experience the fun of water flying sooner rather than later.
Enter Scoda Aeronautica, which manufactures the Super Petrel LS Light-Sport amphibious seaplane at a facility in Ipeúna, Brazil, a couple of hours outside of Sao Paulo.
With a recently-established sales, assembly and parts distribution center in Ormond Beach, Florida, the company is serious about serving the market in the United States and the plan is to eventually build the plane here.
Available now, the Super Petrel is a unique biplane amphibious flying boat that was designed in 2001 and FAA-certified in 2014 as an S-LSA.
Although not well known in the United States until recently, there are more than 350 Super Petrels flying in 23 countries worldwide.
Exhibiting for the past couple of years at SUN ‘n FUN and AirVenture has resulted in several sales. And the new headquarters in Ormond Beach shows the company’s commitment to the large market here.
Shevy Shevalier represents a target customer for Scoda. An airline pilot who loves to fly on his days off, Shevalier held ICON delivery position number 1,431 for several years until he discovered the Super Petrel at SUN ‘n FUN 2016.
“I showed up at their booth with my ICON hat on and they initially thought I was a spy,” said Shevalier with a laugh. “It took me awhile to convince them I was a real prospect.”
Further discussions and a visit to the Super Petrel factory in Brazil proved that Shevalier was serious and he was soon named Chief Pilot for the U.S. operation and provided with a demonstrator.
Now, he spends much of his spare time giving demo rides, including flights for me and my son when he overnighted in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on the trip north from Florida to exhibit the plane at Oshkosh 2017.
It’s hard to compare the Super Petrel to the ICON at this point, not having had a chance to fly the A5. However, I owned a Lake Buccaneer amphibian for several years and I have about a dozen hours in a Searey, which is another Light-Sport amphibian that’s certified S-LSA and currently available.
Not Just Cute
The Super Petrel has a pug nose when viewed from certain angles and my first thought when walking up to the biplane was that it’s small and “cute.”
However, I soon learned that the Super Petrel flies like a much larger plane and the twin wing design was chosen for 10 reasons:
- More efficient lift;
- Lower wing produces better ground effect;
- No need for flaps;
- Improved stall characteristics due to two different angles of incidence;
- Lower wing shields the prop from water spray;
- Main gear retracts into the lower wing;
- One wing braces the other for a high strength design;
- Sponsons secured to the lower wing facilitate tight turns on the water;
- Flip resistant;
- Unique look.
Although much of the wings are fabric-covered like many Light-Sport airplanes, the leading edges are carbon fiber for about the first 6″. Super Petrel’s airframe is also carbon fiber and the hull is impact-resistant Kevlar.
Unlike some other amphibians, the plane was designed from the start to be operated in salt water and, since it’s a certified S-LSA, it can be used in a commercial operation, such as a flight school.
Two cockpit doors fold forward for ease of entry and the plane can be flown with them removed, although Shevy said you’re likely to get wet in rough conditions.
Climbing into the 46″ cockpit involves stepping on the seat, which is adjustable fore and aft, and I was very comfortable once settled in.
After initially opting for the rearmost seat position, I asked Shevy to adjust it forward so I could reach the rudders and heel brakes easily.
Because most of my 6’, 1” height is from my waist up, I could have used a bit more headroom with a headset on, but it was workable.
Also, I noted that the baggage compartment available behind the seats is small and limited to 66 pounds. However, if flying solo, the right seat area can be used to hold more luggage if properly secured.
Start-up was typical Rotax…quick and easy. The Super Petrel demonstrator we flew was equipped with a 100-hp 912ULS engine, formerly standard equipment, but today a fuel-injected 912iS or a turbocharged 914UL are available at the same $175,000 list price.
Depending on the engine installed, useful load ranges from 533 to 550 pounds.
The Super Petrel also has a drainable water ballast tank built into the nose, which can be filled with up to six gallons (50 pounds) if needed to stay within the CG envelope.
The panel is well equipped with dual 10” Dynon Skyview EFIS panels and a Garmin Aera 795. Other standard equipment includes a two-axis autopilot, an integrated angle of attack system (AOA), electric trim, WAAS GPS, and 2020-compliant ADS-B In and Out.
“The Super Petrel is a good cross-country plane because it has 24 gallons of useable fuel, decent speed, and an autopilot,” Shevalier said. “I’ve flown it 10 hours in one day.”
There are no flaps and no water rudder to worry about and operation of the landing gear is absolutely reliable because it’s manually-operated with a Johnson bar.
There are audio and visual indications for gear position and, of course, it’s important to ensure that the gear is up for water landings. However, this is the only amphibian I know of that does not flip over on its back if landed on the water with the gear extended by accident.
I was shown a video of an owner doing just that and, despite the resulting sudden deceleration, no damage was done.
Time to Fly
Taxiing out from the FBO at Chattanooga brought back memories of my Lake, since it also had a castering nose wheel that retracts into the nose of the plane. I hope the controllers did not notice me wandering left and right on the taxiway as we headed for the active.
Since the wing is a high-lift design, our takeoff run was short and rotation at 45-50 knots worked well. Chickamauga Lake, our local Tennessee Valley Authority reservoir, is just a few miles north of KCHA, so I did not get to experience max climb rate for long, but it seemed adequate for our weight.
With a cruise speed of around 100 knots, soon we were lined up to land on a stretch of water in front of a lovely lakefront home. The plane handled a couple of swells with no problem and Shevy demonstrated an impressive high speed step turn that could be used to take off from a confined area.
After several more water landings, it was time to find a suitable boat ramp so Shevy could demonstrate how to taxi the plane out of the water, which delighted several onlookers who had just loaded jet skis on trailers.
With darkness falling, it was soon time to return to the airport. Landing on the runway was normal, although the sight picture was a bit different because the pilot’s feet are not exactly lined up with the plane’s nose. However, Shevy said he never notices the offset any more.
Wilson Air, our local FBO, graciously offered free overnight hangar space for the unique little biplane and the linemen just stood back and watched as Shevalier easily positioned it by himself.
The plane is so light and balanced that he merely pushed down on the tail boom until the nose wheel came off the ground, which allowed him to easily rotate and maneuver the plane on the mains and snuggle it up to several corporate jets.
To address concerns about maintaining a Brazilian-made plane in the U.S., Super Petrel is now offering hands-on maintenance training classes at its Ormond Beach facility.
Specs
Has anyone ueed the aircraft on grass/unimproved fields? I’d be interested to hear.
G’day from Yamba, Australia, I have a Super Petrel LSA 2012 model with a 100 horse Rotax, Dynon 10″ Skyview computer + Garmin 550 & adjustable prop. I live on a 300 mtr wide river which is over 100 miles long. We have beautiful white sandy beaches with fantastic rivers up and down the east coast. Are you kidding me… this little plane is unreal. I have 250 hours in it and love it. What a joy to take off and land on the water, visit islands and lakes or make smooth landings on grass and sealed runways. I burn approx. 15 to 20 ltrs hour and have 4.75 endurance with 90 ltrs fuel (either MOGAS or AVGAS). Cruise 85 to 90 knots. Roomy interior. The Super Petrel handles like a dream on and off the water. Cross wind landings at 20 knots. No problems… just fly. Very inexpensive 100 hourlies. Purchased used for AU$127,500 with under 200 hours on it and it had never been in the water (seller lived inland). The Icon may look the part but its price, delivery dates and in particular its tiny load capacity make it a no go. Plus, no flaps on the SP or carb heat. Workload is so simple when doing quick successive tight water landings. I can strongly recommend the Super Petrel. I am a private semi retired pilot and am not in anyway associated with the mfg. Whom by the way have gone out of their way to help me with parts, info, etc. If you want to know more I am happy to respond. Loving it like an uncaged Petrel… Super Petrel!!
Fred out …
Doooglassimo concurs!! Varied angle of incidence of biplane design is major winner. Have flown this with my brother and it was sublime in its ability to make short, effortless step turn takeoffs.
Capabilities of the Super Petrel made taking off from short, dirt runway surrounded by vertical rock faces at Kangaroo Canyon a safe, non-event.
Are there any accidents reccords related to this aircraft model? I would like to know how safe it is, I heard some bad comments related to Super Petrel.
Some accidents are presented at http://www.superpetrel.com
Hmmm. This site (www.superpetrel.com) looks like propaganda. It’s only accident reports, with lots of imagery pulled from the web, and a very explicit domain name.
Misinformation too. When I became interested in the Super Petrel I looked into its accident history last year just after visiting the Super Petrel at Oshkosh last year. Of the 11 reports listed on http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=PETR, only 6 appear to actually be the Super Petrel. The others, SMAN and Seabird were a very different aircraft and are unrelated, despite what this propganda site insinuates.
Still 6 of these appear to be the Super Petrel, and 5 of those I found elsewhere as well as the 6th seems new, and of those only 3 had fatalities. I was unable to find any others, so it looks like thsi is comprehensive.
So really there were 4 fatalities in 3 accidents, and 4 other accident/incidents with no injuries, much less fatalities.
With more than 350 Super Petrels flying, I’d have to say that this accident record is incredible! Incredibly good that is. What other aircraft has as good a record? Anyone?
Was this propaganda site perhaps published by a competitor? What other reason would it have to exist, or why would someone create it other than to try to hurt this plane’s reputation?
Good question regarding the web site, Trey. From the address I assumed it was a Super Petrel site. Digging a little deeper I found there is a lot of information floating around concerning the stall spin accident posted on the site offered by the father of the deceased pilot. Obviously there is a lot of emotional fervor in that kind of situation but the investigative reports look authentic (and it’s on the Internet so it must be true!).
Yes it is true, I am from Brazil and I can affirm it is true!
I have been researching about Super Petrel, and I discovered that in Brazil, the aircraft is falsely advertised as an S-LSA, and an Aeronautical Engineer who did a detailed investigation, confirmed that the Super Petrel in Brazil don’t meet the ASTM Standards, although the manufacturer falsely states that it meets, the engineer did an annalysys on the hull and its not carbon fiber as proclaimed, I dont know if those infos are real but I chabged my mind about getting a Super Petrel… Anyone knows anything about it?
The aircraft involved in this fatal crash was a 2012 model, at that time fiberglass or carbon fiber were options chosen by the purchaser at the time of construction. In 2014, fiberglass no longer was an option and the standard became carbon fiber. The company does advertise the hull to be carbon fiber today. It is. That is not to say it was back in 2012. Don’t you just love the spin?
SMAN, SEABIRD and Super Petrel are the same aircraft. Only the name has changed, the aircraft is the same. That’s it.
Some quick history on the Super Petrel aircraft. In 1997 EDRA Aeronáutica was founded by Rodrigo Scoda, pilot and aeronautical engineer. The name was changed in 2015 to Scoda Aeronautica due to so many Brazilian companies named “Edra”. Using the design concept of a bi-plane, retractable landing gear and pusher style engine, the complete redesigning of the aircraft began. Edra/Scoda did not purchase rights or make modifications to a previous aircraft, they began from a new. The only connection between all previous versions of the “Petrel” aircraft and the Super Petrel LSA is the name “Petrel”. In 2002, using much improved technology, production processes and building materials to include the ROTAX 912 engine, the Super Petrel LS 100 was born. Keep in mind, any previous aircraft, incidents or accidents had no connection with Scoda Aeronautica or the Super Petrel aircraft prior to 2002. The unfortunate loss of life accident that occurred in 1992 at Oshkosh was ten (10) years prior to the production of a Scoda Aeronautica aircraft. In 2008 the first Super Petrel LS was built and in 2014 the aircraft received FAA approval as a S-LSA.
In fact, is there more than more than 350 Super Petrels flying? or is it some misleading ad
Hey Scott, the aircraft have always been assigned a serial number from the factory when new. The very first aircraft was S0001. Currently in the USA the following numbers are registered with “N” numbers:
S0295
S0326
S0327
S0343 -S0352 (10 aircraft)
S0355 – S0358 (4 aircraft)
S0359 – S0360 will arrive in April
The numbers are accurate.
Thanks for the info.
Woow, what a shame, I heard the Super Petrel’s manufacturer is being prosecuted in Brazil for misleading andvertising and I also hear that the owner of the factory that manufactures the Super Petrel was denounced for the crime of willful homicide for not complying with a Mandatory alert Serice Bulletin and because he lied that he complied with this bulletin. It caused the death of a pilot. 🙁
Sergio,
Who you are, and who you represent is very transparent. Your not fooling anyone with your bashing of super petrel.
In light of this discussion, and assertions based on what some have “heard”. I have been working to confirm the following, directly with the factory and with others. What I have to say here is not spin, rumor, or innuendo. This information has been confirmed to the best of my ability and I am willing to stand behind it.
Firstly, the SMAN, Seabird aircraft ARE NOT the same aircraft as the Super Petrels. They were from different designers and manufacturers, built with different materials, and at a different time (all prior) to the Super Petrels, which began life in 2001. Anything existing prior to 2001, and not having the “Super” in its name is most definitely NOT an Edra/Scoda Super Petrel, despite what some may think they know or what you may find on the web. This has been confirmed, and the facts around the company and designer make this self-evident. This was a popular design concept in Brazil and just being a Brazilian manufacturer does not tie these designs together. Saying they are the same is like asserting the Thunder Mustang is the same aircraft as the original North American P-51D Mustang. Though they are based on the same design form, pretty much everything about them, their detail design, materials, dimensions, engine, avionics, and especially the manufacturer, are NOT the same; and any issues with the original aircraft are not directly attributable to the more modern design. Like the Super Petrel, the Thunder Mustang was a clean-board design, and used modern materials and manufacturing over its conceptual predecessors.
The Canadian AAC SeaStar IS a derivative of the Super Petrel, in so much as they included major components built from parts manufactured by the Super Petrel factory, but these aircraft were SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFIED by a Canadian company and resold by them as kits. They are no longer available, and I believe only 10 kits were ever produced.
Thus, the reported accident history of the “Super Petrel” design and aircraft, which includes a fleet of over 360 aircraft (this was confirmed to me by the manufacturer), is 7, not 11, or any more. Attributing other reports of ostensibly similar aircraft to the Super Petrel is, simply stated, incorrect.
With regards to being ASTM compliant, the Super Petrel is most certainly ASTM compliant and meets ALL of the qualifications established by the ASTM committee as well as the FAA, and is most certainly a compliant S-LSA. This was confirmed by the FAA itself when they sent a team of inspectors, including one of the leaders of the LSA division of the FAA, Edsel Ford himself, to the factory in Brazil to fully evaluate the aircraft, its manufacturing processes, quality assurance processes, documentation, and flight test regimen. The FAA made this visit and its audit prior to the plane’s introduction to the USA as an S-LSA a few years ago. This is quite significant and noteworthy, as not all aircraft that claim to be an S-LSA have undergone this exhaustive audit; but the Super Petrel has, and was found by the FAA to be in clean compliance both with the ASTM standards and as an S-LSA. It is, and has always been, listed on the FAA’s website as a compliant S-LSA. Any assertion to the contrary is against the findings of the FAA.
Regarding the fuselage not being Kevlar. The manufacturer has confirmed that it is Carbon/Kevlar, which is what the manufacturer and US distributor claim, and have always claimed. I can personally attest that it is Carbon Kevlar, and can easily show anyone if they personally visit a Super Petrel aircraft. It is clear and evident simply by looking inside the fuselage with the upholstery out. The yellowish weave of the Kevlar superimposed on the dark black weave of the carbon fiber is quite evident in the composite layup. And anyone with knowledge of composites, as I have, can see that it is a quality layup for sure. The Carbon/Kevlar composite gives the Super Petrel’s fuselage the proper attributes of both flexibility, strength, and puncture resistance, precisely what is needed for an aircraft boat hull. You can even feel this flexibility yourself; it is clearly less rigid than any purely carbon fiber and e-glass parts.
Regarding the http://www.superpetrel.com web site. This web site is not from the manufacturer or US distributor or dealer (confirmed). It is from someone who has published it clearly to besmirch the name and reputation of the Super Petrel aircraft and its manufacturer. It is also publishing misinformation and is likely in violation of federal and international trademark infringement laws by its mere existence.
This web site also contains much misinformation regarding the fatal crash of a Super Petrel in Brazil that took the life of a 19yr old boy. The real story here is still under investigation in Brazil and is not at all a closed and decided case. There are serious questions that have been raised by the local aviation community there regarding the reported information surrounding this accident. This includes the fact the boy pilot was not a licensed pilot (until the day AFTER his death), that he had a previous unreported accident in another aircraft months prior, and on the day of the accident in question had been encouraged by his father, against the boys misgivings, to fly in instrument weather conditions in a VFR-only plane, without instrument training, an instrument license, or even a basic private pilot’s license. This coming from local witnesses to the actual events. The current CENIPA report, which by its sheer existence is highly unusual as CENIPA has rarely (perhaps only 3 or 4 times ever) investigated and reported on an accident of an experimental aircraft; but even more significantly, has never begun the investigation of any accident several months after the accident itself occurred. The report was produced based on accounts by the boy’s father, and ostensibly an inspection of the aircraft’s remains contained in the father’s hangar, again months after the actual accident occurred. It was most certainly NOT equivalent to a controlled and precise US NTSB investigation or report and should not be regarded as such.
Regarding the assertion the manufacturer did not comply with a ROTAX service bulletin to replace the fuel line; this is also misinformation. The engine installed on that aircraft was not subject to that service bulletin. It was shipped from the ROTAX factory with the correct fuel line already installed. This has been confirmed and defended by ROTAX, and anyone can inspect the Service Bulletin itself online and see that it does not apply to this engine’s serial number.
While it is indeed true there is a pending lawsuit based on this false assertion; it is also quite true that the assertion itself is without merit. It is simply only a matter of time for this lawsuit to be dismissed.
Furthermore, the father asserts the accident occurred because (due to not replacing this fuel line per the SB) the engine failed in-flight, causing a spiral dive into terra-firma. However, as we pilots all know (and Hollywood doesn’t seem to) that the failure of an engine in flight doesn’t, as a forgone conclusion, unquestionably result in a spiraling dive. Even a full engine out on a Super Petrel in supposedly VFR conditions, having a 10:1 glide ratio, and a stall speed of only 35Kts, in the hands of a licensed pilot, would not lead to a high velocity impact in an out of control spiraling dive into a farm field. An engine failure in a Super Petrel, and likely most GA aircraft, is far more likely to have ended with a power-off upright landing in that large field.
Notwithstanding, the accident dynamics as recorded by the aircraft’s instruments, do not confirm an engine failure at all, but instead a change in power output, which would be consistent with a changing throttle position. The whole of the recorded data are consistent with pilot disorientation of an inexperienced pilot, uncertain throttle position, and loss of control in a VFR-only aircraft in instrument conditions.
To me and many others, including the Brazillian local aviation community, it truly appears the father of this boy is working hard to purposefully besmirch the name of the manufacturer, and that of the aircraft itself, in a desperate attempt to shed his own guilt in his role in his son’s death, by making up these stories and running them around as rumors. I believe strongly that the aforementioned web site is part of that attempt as is a paid-for article floating around on the web asserting the same things.
It is a shame that this accident has played out to hurt the reputation of what is a very fine aircraft indeed. It is not good for our aviation community, the LSA industry, or frankly anyone associated with aviation, to believe this type of information without maintaining some skepticism over it.
Registration information for Superpetrel.com website. Interesting that the domain has a private registration.
Raw WHOIS Record
Domain Name: SuperPetrel.com
Registry Domain ID: 2075593070_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS server: whois.NameBright.com
Registrar URL: http://www.NameBright.com
Updated Date: 2017-07-24T00:00:00.000Z
Creation Date: 2016-11-20T19:24:57.000Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2018-11-20T00:00:00.000Z
Registrar: DropCatch.com 616 LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 2096
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@NameBright.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.720.496.0020
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Private Registration
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: 2635 Walnut Street
Registrant City: Denver
Registrant State/Province: CO
Registrant Postal Code: 80205
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.7204960020
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: SuperPetrel.com@NameBrightPrivacy.com
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Private Registration
Admin Organization:
Admin Street: 2635 Walnut Street
Admin City: Denver
Admin State/Province: CO
Admin Postal Code: 80205
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.7204960020
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: SuperPetrel.com@NameBrightPrivacy.com
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: Private Registration
Tech Organization:
Tech Street: 2635 Walnut Street
Tech City: Denver
Tech State/Province: CO
Tech Postal Code: 80205
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.7204960020
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: SuperPetrel.com@NameBrightPrivacy.com
Name Server: ns1.metisagenciadigital.com.br
Name Server: ns2.metisagenciadigital.com.br
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System:
http://wdprs.internic.net
— Last update of WHOIS database: 2018-02-17T08:15:40.857Z —
John,
Thank you for setting the record strait. You sound very well informed.
Very interesting, where did the information about the aircraft come from?
Looks like a nice plane
First of all, let’s point out the points of this matter that deserve our comments:
1. “Available now, the Super Petrel is a unique biplane amphibious flying boat that was designed in 2001 and FAA-certified in 2014 as an S-LSA.”
The Super Petrel was not certified, at least until 2017, as S-LSA in the country of origin (BRAZIL) as determined by FAA standards. So, it is questionable how it was certified as a S-LSA in USA, once in Brazil it is only falsely advertised as an S-LSA. Beside that, an Aeronautical Engineer who did a detailed investigation, confirmed that the Super Petrel in Brazil don’t meet the ASTM Standards, although the manufacturer falsely states that it meets the ASTM Standards. Both those misleading advertisings has led to lawsuits in the country of origin (BRAZIL), where the sales dropped to zero, reason why they migrated to American market.
2. “Exhibiting for the past couple of years at SUN ‘n FUN and AirVenture has resulted in several sales”.
The sentence above is a overkill, because according to FAA records, in 2016 only 4 Super Petrel aircrafts were registered and in 2017 only 1. Meanwhile, Icon recorded 22 aircrafts and Searey has recorded 20.
3. “Super Petrel’s airframe is also carbon fiber […]”
The above statement is also a misleading advertising, because according to LACTEC laboratory and a report from an aeronautical engineer, the fuselage of the Super Petrel is mostly made of fiberglass not carbon fiber as announced.
4. “[…] and the hull is impact-resistant Kevlar”
The analysys of the cockpit made by an Aeronautical Engineer concluded that the Super Petrel’s cockpit was comparable to a MOUSE TRAP, as below:
“The lack of an appropriate structural connection, through connected caves and boosters, according to the good practice of aeronautical design, in the event of a collision or an emergency or hard landing causes the engine cradle to move towards the cockpit.
Such constructions, in addition to not being a good design practice, are popularly known as mouse traps, since the pilot has no chance to escape being pressed by the poorly anchored aircraft structure.”
In addition to that, it is also a misleading advertising the indication of the use of Kevlar® in the fuselage of the aircraft, once Kevlar® is an “aramid” with a trademark that belongs to DuPont company, which regarding to this subject, has positioned itself, as below:
“DuPont ™ of Brazil commercializes yarns and Kevlar® fiber, in this way I do not know this specific application of the “Kevlar Carbon”. We also do not sell Kevlar® yarns to Scoda Aeronautica.” (Scoda Aeronautica is the Super Petrel’s manufacturer in Brazil)
We warn the American consumers to be aware of all Super Petrel ads, because the Super Petrel manufacturer is responding for misleading advertising lawsuits and its responsible Engineer is under a criminal prosecution for a pilot’s homicide caused by the noncompliance with a Mandatory Bulletin which was falsely stated as complied.
About this serious false statement, CENIPA (correspond to NTSB in EUA), has pronounced in this way:
“ Thus, once the need for application of this bulletin has been proven, this Center expresses its concern when an aircraft manufacturer does not identify the need to apply Services Bulletins in aeronautical components.”
For more details, check the proves on the links below:
1. https://www.dropbox.com/s/nzaet3wsfnipue4/CENIPA%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%20PU%20PEK%20-%20English.pdf?dl=0;
2. https://www.dropbox.com/s/lm3w3imbm0hezuv/SAFETY%20REPORT%20TO%20FAA%20-%20SUPER%20PETREL.pdf?dl=0;
3.https://www.dropbox.com/s/uj2d5ikhufulfra/04.%20The%20chaos%20from%20Brazilian%20skies%20now%20flying%20to%20USA%20-%20FINAL.doc?dl=0;
4. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ffnbo28czmwbk0h/Super%20Petrel%20LS%20in%20USA%20-%20Press%20Release.pdf?dl=0;
5. https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxs3sieh8e4e85h/Tradu%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20Juramentada%20-%20Laudo%20Eng.%20Shailon.pdf?dl=0;
6. https://www.dropbox.com/s/pv1tb692ajb2il5/TRADU%C3%87%C3%83O%20JURAMENTADA%20-%20RESPOSTA%20CENIPA%20AO%20SCODA.pdf?dl=0;
For more information contact us at: acosta@abravagex.org.br and http://www.superpetrel.com
I wish I could afford one. I fly a 53 year old Cessna as it’s what I can pay for. I’m really glad to see companies designing and building airplanes for regular folks and I’ll take another look when they have some hours on them and are for sale on the used market. It looks like a beautiful product!
My my, all this nasty talk about how much, Trump supporters, which I am. Look it Comes down to one item, if you like the plane buy it, if not move on. If you can’t afford it, again, move on.
Just not sure why you would wish the builder to fail, don’t get it. Lucky for me I can afford it, maybe I’ll but 2. But hey that’s me, your typical Trump supporter. Yea for us.
So much hate, just jealous I guess. Oh well, let me get back to counting my money.
How come no one compares hull insirance costs?
How come no one talks about hull insurance costs
I think that would be very difficult to do for many reasons. First, insurance costs are based on a number of factors, including the named pilots, their ratings, total hours, flying frequency, home base location, and direct experience with the aircraft (time in type), and even time in a similar type. They are also based on the cost/value of the aircraft, including it’s replacement cost, which is affected by type, age, equipment, etc.
Then there is the fact that accident and claim histories on an aircraft type have the underwriters constantly updating their rates. So today’s quote may be different than the one from 6 months ago for the same pilot and same plane.
And then there is the difference in brokers, their ability to get a quote from the available underwriters for a particular plane, their fees, etc. And there are restrictions in the aircraft insurance industry for anyone to shop agents and the pricing they can get from various underwriters. Once you ask an agent for a quote from an underwriter, you’re bound to that agent for that underwriter for the first term. And different underwriters favor different pilots, their ratings, time in type, total time, etc. differently. That is of course one reason there is a need for brokers to work with more than one underwriter.
I.e., it is doubtful any two pilots, with even seemingly identical aircraft, will have anywhere near the same cost of insurance. The differences will vary GREATLY indeed, perhaps by 100%-300% or more difference between quotes.
The only practical comparison, it seems, would be for a pilot to compare, for their situation only (ratings, experience level, claim history, etc.) premiums for the various aircraft in question, and only for that specific time. But even if you could get those quotes, that comparison would likely not be valid for more than ~30 days, and not practical whatsoever for a different pilot. The different pilot’s different factors could flip everything on its head.
Anyway, that’s why no one is comparing insurance costs.
These comments make me think of a Far Side comic I once saw, created by Gary Larson. It was a group of people holding a sign which read “Imbeciles of America”; the sign was upside down. Perhaps a Go Fund Me page to pay for an economics class is in order.
Michael is obvious a troll decrying belief of all others.” do not feed the trolls”
The SeaMax is another that can withstand a gear water landing.
https://generalaviationnews.com/2010/09/16/landing-on-water-with-wheels-down/
This seems like a nice airplane and a great alternative to the A5. Nice features and design, and an added bonus that it doesn’t flip if you accidentally land gear down on the water. And, substantially less than the A5. I hope they sell well.
For those of you complaining about modern new airplane prices (all types: piston, turboprop, turbine, single, multi, certified, experimental, etc), it is EXPENSIVE to design and build airplanes. Consider the cost of the support staff (shop workers, QA, design engineering, manufacturing engineering, drafting, clerical, etc), tooling, machines, the factory itself, flight testing, materials, etc. Because they are expensive to build, they must have a high selling price in order that the company can stay in business. Because they cost a lot, not many folks can afford them, which in turn keeps volume down and prices high. Maybe if more people just all of the sudden started buying substantially more new airplanes for a long enough period of time, prices could drop due to higher production volume. But, it probably isn’t ever going to be the way it was 50 years ago. Perhaps because the used market is fierce competition to the new market, or perhaps because people just aren’t as interested in having their own airplane and all that is associated with having one as they used to be. New airplanes are expensive. If you think they should be less, then start an airplane manufacturing company and try to build and sell them for less than the going rate and stay in business. Otherwise, keep quiet about it and buy a used airplane.
Like all other LSA toy’s, they WONT sell well and they will be bye bye soon. Good. Couldn’t happen fast enough. They might be nice folks, but they are still thieves. Thieves deserve nothing less than failure. And people like you who actually think that this is normal, well, your obviously rich and could care less about anyone but yourself, so there’s that. You’re probably a Trump supporter as well, so there’s that as well…And saying this piece of overpriced fluff is “a good price” because the A5 cost’s as much as a NEW Cessna 172 is also pathetic….stop trying to defend the un-defendable, smart folks know better.
I bought one. Love it. I am who I am and am proud to be that. And you are, well who you are. I don’t see the need for anger or name calling here. Seems like that post belongs on a political blog somewhere, not here for sure.
No airplane manufacturer is a thief, LAS or not. They have the right to charge as little or as much as they like for whatever reason they like. No one forces anyone to buy their airplanes, so if you think it’s too expensive, don’t buy one. Kudos to the folks who can afford them and help keep modern GA manufacturers in business.
And no, I’m not a Trump supporter, nor am I wealthy. The kind of airplane I could afford is a 1940s or 1950s Taylorcraft or Luscombe. I am, however, an engineer at a GA aircraft manufacturer and thus have a good understanding of how much it costs to build airplanes, and why they are so expensive.
Excelente… Es así…
1800 waiting for the $280k ICON SLSA? Site your source for that piece of wild conjecture please.
http://www.iconaircraft.com/updates – Icon’s own news posts state as of June 17, 2015 they had 1250 orderes (really deposits, but Icon isn’t known for being clear if it will advantage them to be obfuscting). At shows since then Icon has stated to me and others that they had over 2,000 deposits in hand, which jives with the fact that my deposit holder number is >1800. But I’ve also heard that many deposit holders have cashed in their deposit when Icon told them they were ready to sell to them, with the greatly “enhanced” price, and always morphing outrageous terms.
https://www.iconaircraft.com/a5/own – Icon’s “Buy A5” page states a base price of $269,000, and fully loaded price of $389,000. It also states that only fully loaded aircraft are currently available, which means the price is really $389,000. What a base priced plane includes I cannot find on their site. I’ve only heard that for the base price it doesn’t include folding wings or even landing gear (i.e. water only operations); but I’m afraid I can’t confirm that personally, even as a deposit holder myself.
So the price is really $389,000. More for a trailer. More for a support system required to fold the wings.
I think I’ll take a peak at this Super Petrel.
Lord gbigs, if you’re going to do all this jabbering, get yourself a copy editor. A high school student will do. The word you want is “cite”.
If you DO flip it upside down, how do you get out? On the SeaRey the windows slide (not clear if they’ll do it with water pressure on them). On the Icon, the side panels will pop inward under water pressure, possibly whether you like it or not. But here, you’d have to open the hatch outward against water pressure…
Also, very few LSA seaplanes – including this one – address the issue of docking. You can’t come up alongside because of the wings – especially with that low wing. But if you come up nose-first, you can’t get from the cockpit over the nose and onto the dock – you basically have to jump into the water, swim to the dock, and somehow climb up onto the dock. There’s also no apparent way to tie the bow to a floating mooring.
Sure, but you’re assuming you can actually flip it over. Of the existing 360+ fleet, I’m not sure any have ever actually flipped over, as it was specifically, and successfully, been designed to be highly flip-resistant. If you watch the video of the gear down landing in water you’ll see the nose doesn’t even try to dive. This is very unlike a Searey, which will almost always immediately flip over in this situation, as will ALL float-based amphibs. And with the Super Petrel’s lower-wing and strong low sponsons, they don’t flip in tight turns either. They are just very forgiving and very stable.
Yes, all amphibs of this type have a docking challenge at regular docks. Of course, float planes have trouble docking at most docks with vertical protuberances, or that sit too high for a float to rest against, which is about 98% of all docks. But, anything with a sponson hanging down outboard will need an alternate plan other than even a float-plane friendly dock. Fortunately there are many options, including beaching, ramping (provided there’s clearance for the wing), and the available custom fitted inflatable dock seen in the picture. To be honest, I’ve landed my Super Petrel in many locations where I didn’t know the situation going in and was able to successfully, and safely land at the shore in some fashion. If a few cases, nope. But of course that is about the same for a float-plane too. Just different issues and different solutions, but overall about the same percentage of success.
All good points!
Suggestions for a future iteration, then…
– An emergency exit capability (Icon retrofitted the pop-in panels, if I’m not mistaken)
– Maybe a walk-rail along the side and non-slip “walk here” area on the nose for docking. Perhaps it would be overly acrobatic… But I’m thinking nose up to a bumper on the dock, climb onto the nose, tie the nose, pull one wing in, put a fender on it and tie it off also. For calm waters, loading/unloading – I wouldn’t want to leave it unattended like that.
SeaReys do not “almost always” flip over in gear down situations. Check the NTSB accident files. It is in fact extremely rare for that to happen.
Checking NTSB files for foreign aircraft does not cover many of the accidents. For more information regarding accidents involving the Brazilian made Super Petrel you can find more information at http://www.superpetrel.com .
Nice plane and all….but why is it so freaking expensive?? I could but a decent house at that price :/
No wonder Light Sport is all but dead…..greed is not a good thing…….
The Super Petrel is competitively priced with other LSA airplanes.
The $175,000 price tag is for a carbon fiber airplane that comes fully equipped (EFIS, autopilot, ADS-B in/out, and Lemo headset plugs). Compare this to the competition’s fully-loaded prices.
Well that’s a horrible excuse. Just because everyone else in the LSA community of thieves is ripping you off doesn’t make it ok….it just makes it pathetic. Enjoy your overpriced(by like $115,000….)toy and also enjoy watching them disappear in a year or two. After all there are only so many rich retired guys out there to exploit…..
We can put you into a ready to fly plane with a basic panel for about $80,000.
If you are looking for less you will have to provide the labor and parts yourself.
It costs what it costs; no manufacturer makes 10,000 units a month.
See the Classic at wwww.savage.aero