Flying a Sparrowhawk – First Impressions

Heather Poe

Gold Supporter
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
665
Location
Redmond, WA
Aircraft
Building a Sparrowhawk II
Total Flight Time
35
I have 16 hours of flight instruction in a RAF 2000 with AAI conversion with the drop-keel, and one hour in a Sparrowhawk. I would like to share my personal impressions, and I hope I don't get into a religious war comparing the two machines. I am also not trying to analyze whether the differences I notice are due to design, build quality, or maintenance.

When I would pull the aircraft in an arc from the hanger, the RAF nose wheel would stay straight, but the Sparrowhawk nose wheel would angle to assist the turn.

The Sparrowhawk seemed to require much less effort with the rudder and differential brakes to keep on track while taxing. The RAF 2000 required much more attention to keep it going straight down a taxiway.

The airport I use, S50, has a string of high power lines just past the north end of the runway that crosses the flight path. Especially as a student pilot, these always made me a bit nervous. With the carbureted 2.2-liter RAF 2000, I always had to be careful with air speed and rate of climb to miss them. The Sparrowhawk seems to have almost 50% greater rate of climb, with the fuel-injected 2.2-liter engine, an airport elevation of 57 feet, at 60 degrees F, and carrying (the same) 400 pounds of crew. I am usually well above the height of the power lines while still over the runway in the Sparrowhawk.

The Sparrowhawk seems to cruise best at 70 to 75 mph, instead of 65 mph in the RAF 2000. Without attention, the Sparrowhawk seems to want to go even faster than those speeds.

The flight controls (cyclic and rudder) seem to be "tighter" in the Sparrowhawk, subjectively similar to the difference between the looser feel in a Detroit car, and the tighter feel of a German car.

With my body shape, I usually felt that my knees were bent too much while flying, and I usually had a backache at the end of an hour of flying the RAF 2000. I could easily choose to comfortably fly in a seat-forward position in the Sparrowhawk because it has so much more legroom. I was also not shoulder-to-shoulder in the Sparrowhawk, as I was in the RAF 2000.

I like to fly with a cap with a visor on it. In the Sparrowhawk, it was inconvenient to look up and adjust the ceiling-mounted switches with the cap and visor on.

The fiberglass Sparrowhawk instrument pod is on a metal pedestal. In the Sparrowhawk that I was flying, the compass is mounted on top of the pod. Probably due to the harmonics of the instrument pod, rotor system, compass, and wind, we had the compass continuously rotating around while flying straight.

I was very under-impressed with the legibility of the standard Skydat Electronic instrumentation. I found the indicators to be small and dim.
 
Last edited:
Heather, did you notice any differences in pitch control between the 2? I forget, did the RAF you flew have a stab? Without a stab, I didn't like the nose-bobbing. The stab pretty much took care of that aspect. Good analysis between the 2. My impressions were just about the same until you got to the cabin and instruments, as I still have the RAF cabin on my conversion. How about the smoothness of the ride between the 2 as far as stick-shake and cabin "hop." I assume the RAF had RAF blades and the S-H had Sportcopters?
 
sounds like the Sparrowhawk is the better machine, but the instruments might be better in a regular panel like the RAF and don't wear a hat.... Sounds doable to me! thanks.

How did the two gyros " feel " in flight? Was there any tailwagging in the sparrowhawk? Did it feel more stable to you? Did it feel more or less " sporty " to you? Some have said the Sparrowhawk is a heavy pig on the controls...... I am still waiting for my ride in one to find out - Terry you hear that? do I get a free ride for all those instructor plugs I have thrown your way ;) - tell us more!
 
Ken,
I did not notice any pitch stability differences between the Sparrowhawk and the RAF 2000 modified using GBA parts to include a stabilizer. Both machines had Sportcopter rotor blades, and I did not notice a shake or cabin hop difference between them.

By the way, it was much easier for me to get in and out of the Sparrowhawk cabin. With the extra room around the cyclic, I would first put one than the other leg in on the lateral size of the cyclic, and then move the medial leg to straddle the control.

Ron,
I have not noticed any difference in tail wagging. It was a fairly gusty day, so I can't say which seemed more stable in flight. With the perception of more "power", the Sparrowhawk felt sportier. The Sparrowhawk did not have the anti-servo tab, but is rigged a bit differently than recommended. The cyclic feel was like a tightly controlled German car, and not at all a pig on the controls.

By the way Ron, the first computer that I programmed used a cardpunch controlled by vacuum tubes. My husband is a few years older than I.
 
Ken,
Yes, the "RAF" that I flew is an AAI conversion with the drop-keel.

Steven,
I have been a Blue Mountain Avionics fan for quite a while, and hope to order one as well as an S-mode transponder for traffic awareness. Evidently they have HITS working in their latest software release. Given the rain and fog of the Puget Sound area, I find their synthetic vision quite compelling in case the weather is surprising.
 
GyroRon said:
sounds like the Sparrowhawk is the better machine, but the instruments might be better in a regular panel like the RAF and don't wear a hat

The advantage of the pod in the Sparrowhawk is that it takes up much less room, and visibility is increased in the forward direction. Since it is attached directly to the keel, vibration is an issue. This seems to have been largely resolved by adding rubber "shock-mounts" to dampen the vibration.

The display on the Skydat worked OK for me, although I could see where some pilots would object to the size of the individual displays. One issue I had with it was that it is way too bright at night, and there are no options for dimming it. It lights up the whole cockpit and glares off the windscreen.

The overhead panel requires a bit of getting used to. Most of the switches will only be accessed once, during startup. I plan on putting a couple of the more important switches (e.g., master power switch and start button) on the pod in front of me.
 
Dear Heather:

Please pardon me for asking...you have made reference several times, to your size and shape, as regards the room and comfort level in the RAF...so, what is your size and shape...can you post a picture? :o

I'm trying to visualize your discomfort vs my comfort. I don't have a picture of myself to post...but I'm 6 ft. 3 in...weigh about 225 and have broad shoulders, narrow hips.

I do have a lower back and hip problem that causes me to walk funny if I fly more than say an hour and a half...but while I'm flying, I feel quite comfortable. ;)


Cheers :)
 
Harry,
I am large and tall, but height/weight appropriate. Sorry, I won't post a picture.
 
Heather Poe said:
Harry,
I am large and tall, but height/weight appropriate.


Heather, I still can't make a comparison. People have asked of me as to my "being cramped" in my machine and I say; no, I'm not; yet, you say you are!! :confused:


Cheers :)
 
Heather Poe said:
...Yes, the "RAF" that I flew is an AAI conversion with the drop-keel.
Aha! You've got to correct your first post where you wrote:
I have 16 hours of flight instruction in a RAF 2000, and one hour in a Sparrowhawk. I would like to share my personal impressions
Heather - you have 0 hours in a RAF 2000. The "RAF 2000" that you have flown has almost nothing in common with a stock RAF 2000. The AAI conversion have changed everything about how it flies. The differences in power between the two gyros you flew are only a result of the two specific power plants in these gyros. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you flew a stock RAF 2000.

Udi
 
Other Observations

Other Observations

Ron,
I did notice a slight "tail-wagging" in my lesson today. I was about 1000 ft AGL at 65 mph. I told the owner that I thought that adding the anti-servo tab might help. Part of the reason for the sporty feeling may be that the carbureted modified RAF had 109 hp; the fuel-injected Sparrowhawk with modified cams had 148 hp.

Harry,
I don't think that we can resolve this. Every body is different, even for the same total height; some people have more height in their legs, other in their trunk. Some people are more flexible than others. For a car, some people like to be right next to the steering wheel; others like to be at arm's length. I don't think that anyone can really read the forum and decide if they will fit in a specific cockpit and be comfortable, they just have to try it and see how it feels to them.

Udi,
You are right about my having zero hours in the original RAF 2000 design. I was not clear.
 
I am 6 ft. 2....and fly lots of cross countries. I definately am not cramped. I feel I am swimming in my RAF cabin. Sure...when my big son is in there..we are packed...but thats not that big a bother.

I dont see most of this negative RAF stuff at all. :)

I will say the foam in my seat cushion was way to light. I put two inches of armorflex in my seat and it really makes it nice...and raised my cg a tad.

Stan
 
Stan

I am 6"3" and when I flew in the RAF in 2003 at Mentone my legs was cramped. Maybe it was the old style seat, I hear that they don't have as much leg room as the new one. Seemed that my knees were up agains't the insturment panel.

I flew in the Sparrow Hawk on 2004 and with the seat slid back they was plenty of leg room for me to a point I think that I could have moved back up a inch or so. Plenty of knee room.

Again we are all built different and what fits one well will not some others.

Mike
 
Last edited:
To All

I am the builder so I can input a little here. The tail assembly was made exactly like the the instructions I received. Mariah is the first SparrowHawk shipped to a customer by AAI and at that time they had not thought of the anti-survo. I had finished my SparrowHawk before AAI added the anti-survo. The difference at one time was that I am running the cables tighter than what I saw on the RAF converted machines in the beginning. I think everyone is running the rudder cables a little tighter now. The only difference in my control system from the ones being shiped by the factory is that I haven't attached the anti-survo.

I or David Or Scott, my CFI's, have not noticed the tail-wagging but I will defer to Heather as a lady can notice some things that get by us guys. I have to also admit we have been busy getting all the fine tuning done on the machine and haven't looked for it. If it becomes an issue at all I will add the ant-survo. AAI sent one to me as a no charge upgrade.

I like the idea of the "Blue Mountain" for the EFIS. I would get one if I had the extra bucks.
 
Good point Heather...some folks will have the *same numbers* but have *different figures.* :D

So, I guess we can agree to disagree. ;)


Cheers :)
 
Heather makes a really good point about, having to try it. I was plenty comfortable in a regular RAF (well, I am a short, round kind of guy). I've never been in one with doors on and think it might feel tight, but then again a Kolb doesn't feel tight and that's a pretty small lightplane with less room for humans than the RAF.

I finally sat in the SH last Oshkosh. With no step and still recovering from my jump accident (my feet still don't have a normal range of motion even now) I found it kind of hard to get into; Hank found me a step. It was extremely roomy. I liked it and I think Harry will like it when he gets to try one on.

Yeah, the RAF panel gives you more scope for mounting stuff, but then people just go and mount stuff and don't take care about keeping weight down. It's a bigger issue with the SH cause its empty weight is significantly higher.

I do not care for the electronic instruments used in the SH. Perhaps they would grow on me with more use. I did not think I would like the electronic instruments in my old Corvette (1989) but they have grown on me and I dread the idea of trading it for a newer one with steam gages. (They changed back because the magazine writers kept slanging them for it).

A properly designed electronic panel conveys more information more clearly. The best EFIS in aviation is the Chelton unit, but it's costly.

cheers

-=K=-
 
Back
Top