StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For those who do not wish to plow through the whole sport pilot proposal, here are the highlights of the "privileges" section:

1) You can not fly at night or in Class A airspace, that is, above 18,000 feet. (You can fly at night in a sport aircraft equipped with lights if you have a private license or higher)
2) You can fly in Class B, C, and D airspace (that's towered airports to you ground-lovers) IF you have training and logbook endorsement
3) You can fly one passenger, and share operating costs with that passenger
4) You can not fly for compensation or hire, or tow any object.
5) You can not fly in a passenger-carrying airlift sponsored by a charitable organization
6) You can not fly at an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher
7) You can not fly when the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles
8) You must have visual reference to the surface at all times (under the clouds, not over them)
9) You are limited to a speed of 87 kts CAS unless you receive additional training and logbook endorsement (how fast is that T-51 mini-replica again...?)
10) You can not fly contrary to any limitations placed on an aircraft’s airworthiness certificate
11) You can not fly contrary to any limitation or endorsement on your pilot certificate, airman medical certificate, U.S. driver’s license or any other limitation or endorsement from an authorized instructor.

There is also a caution that many sport aircraft will not be authorized to fly over "congested areas", that is, cities, or may have other limitations due to lack of equipment (which might keep you out of controlled airspace) or operating limitations.

Note I keep saying "aircraft" rather than "airplane". Sport pilot will give a place to things such as trikes and powered parachutes which don't easily fit into exisitng regulations. It also recognizes that some of these aircraft have very different capabilities - for a powered parachute, for instance, a cross country is defined as 15 miles or greater, whereas for other aircraft it's 50 miles or greater. It also requires training to fly these aircraft regardless of the pilot's prior experience - it's been a chronic problem in the ultrlaight and lightplane world that an otherwise skilled and experienced pilot climbs into the cockpit of one of these with inadequate preparation and gets killed because they are not famillar with the differences in operating a small, lightweight, relatively high-drag machine of (often) unusual configuration.

As one example of these differences - in the GA world when your engine fails you are taught to go immediately to best glide speed, which usually requires a reduction in speed, which usually requires you to pull back on the yoke to some extent. In the pusher configured ultralights I used to fly, you are taught that as soon as the engine quits you throw the stick forward to maintain airspeed - you're normally crusing very close to best glide speed anyway, and your aircraft has little inertia and much drag. Your airspeed will disappear fast. Also, being a pusher, when you lose thrust the tendency is to pitch up. So... for the ultralights you apply forward stick, then adjust to best glide. And, by the way, power-off approach angles of 30 degrees relative to the ground are normal in this situation - you might need more. In GA, you stick back.

In an emergency, the wrong reaction can kill you. For private and higher certificate holders, this is a killer in ultralights and some of the lighter experimentals. It will also hold true for some of the sport planes.

Another example - trikes, which are weight shift and utilize a control bar. In a GA airplane, in a stall you push the controls forward to pitch down and resume normal flight. In a trike, you pull back to break the stall. Again, this difference has killed GA pilots moving too quickly to trikes.

On the flip side, it can mess up an ultralight pilot moving to GA - the first time a CFI did a simulated engine-out in a GA plane my old habits kicked in with a vengence and we pulled some negative g during the nose-over. (Yes, learning to fly can be an adventure...)

Can sport aircraft be operated safely? Yes - I know people who have been flying these sorts of machines since the late 1970's. But like all aircraft, you have to be properly trained and understand the capabilities and limitations of that particular machine.

I'm sure Wicked Pilot is very competent at what he does, and in many ways far exceeds my humble abilities. However, he is not qualified to fly an ultralight at this point in time. If he had such a desire, I would point him to one of the very good instructors I know for a proper hour or three of transition training with emphasis on the areas that are different from what he is accustomed to.

And while I feel I am very capable in the realm in which I fly (small general aviation and recreational flying) I am well aware that I am not qualified to operate a twin engine or jet. I just don't have the education and experience to do so - not a lack of ability but a lack of training.

The "wild west" spirit of freedom in the ultralight world is all very heady, but there are a lot of broken bodies in the mix as well. Some folks have the self-discipline to fly safely in an unregulated environment. Many do not. In some ways, I found the greater structure of Part 91 a relief - I no longer had to research and study and ponder every aspect of aviation from scratch, I had guidelines to follow. Yes, I also can get very frustrated with Part 91 as well - why do I have to talk to the FSDO to make a ferry flight when I know both I and the aircraft can safely make the planned flight to a repair shop under present conditions? (Yes, that did come up once). A missing piece of paper does NOT render the aircraft "unairworthy" (Yes, it does, according to the FAA). You can't be serious when you tell me this plane is safe at 99 hours past the last inspection but suddenly defective at 101 hours, can you? (Yet I cut short my flight yesterday to conform to that very rule). Then I remember seeing folks crash, and dragging wrecks off fields, and times when a group of ultralights arrived somewhere to find one of our number missing, and walking into hangars to see the smashed remnants of friends' flying machines, and hearing about people forgetting to attach bolts and losing a wing a hundred feet off the ground, and funerals, and young men in wheelchairs, and try to strike a happy medium in my own mind about the darker side of aviation.

Face it, the 'real thing' is in a point of stagnation, a point of stagnation that hasn't changed in the last 40 years. Other than radios and navigation, a brand new C172 isn't that different from one 30 years ago.

Oh, so I see you've flown both the older and newer Skyhawks? Tell me, how many hours have you logged in those aircraft.

0.0 hours, myself, but, from what I can see from readings, they don't appear to be all that different. Do tell me if I'm mistaken. Am I wrong that general aviation is stagnating?

I haven't actually flown a late model C172, just sat in the cockpit to look one over (I have thought of trying out a new one, there's an FBO not too far away that rents them)

So far, I've flown a 1963 C172, one built in 1976, and looked over the new model. There are some differences. I'll try to briefly hit the high points:

1) 1963 model: 6-cylinder, 145 hp engine. The 6 cylinders gives you a significantly smoother ride. Although it has the same maximum gross take off weight, the empty weight of the airplane is less (I'll get to that in a minute) which means your payload weight allowance is larger than most other models. In other words, if you put four adults in this one you might actually have a legal gross weight. This plane was built before most pilots had instrument ratings, and the assumption was that it would be used for VFR flight (although it has the minimum IFR instruments). So... fewer avionics (although this one in question had had a GPS installed), which means less weight on the airplane (hence, lower empty weight and more payload). The panel is also significantly lower than in other models I've sat in, allowing for better visibility - very important when flying VFR!

2) 1976 model: 4-cylinder, 160 hp engine. More vibration, but also more power. By 1976 more folks were getting their instrument rating, and the panel shows it. Dual VORs (actually, one is an ILS glideslope, but that might be getting two technical), dual nav radios, DME, NBD etc. As compared to the 1963 model, which has one VOR and one nav/comm radio. As a result, the panel is higher. In fact, it is so high that I have to sit on a two-inch thick cushion to see the runway out the front (admittedly, I'm not very tall). Less visibility.

As for flying, though - there's not a heck of a lot of difference between them. Oh, wait - the 1963 model has manual flaps, the 1976 has electric. The 1976 model climbs better (sort of ironic, since I fly that one on the flat and the lower-powered one in the mountains). Other than that, they handle much the same.

3) 2001 model: I didn't get to fly this one, but I did check out the cockpit. This one is clearly set up for single-pilot IFR, with the instruments clustered by the left seat and empty panel space on the right. That's a huge difference in assumptions about the end-user from the 1960's. Dual everything, including (on this one) a backup vacuum source. Even so, they've lower the panel - the forward visibility is not quite as good as in 1963 but better than 1976. I don't need a seat cushion to see out of this one.

So... while the basic airframe is not hugely different, and many flight characteristics should remain the same, there are a LOT more avionics on the new model C172 (at least on the one I looked at). Avionic$ co$t money. That accounts for some of the cost right there. Heck, my friend with the Mooney spent over $10,000 to buy, install, and integrate his Garmin 430 into his airplane just about two years ago. The late model C172's I've seen easily have $40-60k of avionics in them. That is, of course, reflected in the sticker price.

Now, here's another thought - I'm not an IFR pilot. Why would I want to pay for all those avionics when I don't need them? (Want them - that's a different matter) I also have a preference for manual flaps (weird, I know - this is not news in my case.) I like to take friends along for the ride. For me, I find the 1963 C172 more attractive than the 2001 C172 - better visibility, manual flaps, no excess avionics to worry about maintaining, and more payload. The trick, of course, is finding one in good condition - after all, we're talking about a machine 40 years old. If you gave me a brand new C172 would I refuse it? Hell no! But don't be surprised if later on I swap it for something else.

As far as the actual flying goes - over the decades, the C172 has been cleaned up a little aerodynamically over time. You do get slightly faster cruise time with the later ones - but only if you have the wheel pants installed, the fairings are in good condition, etc. (I don't like wheelpants - I fly in winter. Wheelpants suck up ice and snow and fuck up your landing gear and brakes. This is a Bad Thing when combined with an icy or snowy runway) Over time, airframes acquire drag. In the case of school planes, which get as much abuse as use, dents account for a good portion of that. But - the difference in thought process between VFR and IFR is significant. That might not change the aerodynamics, but it is a marked change in how the airplane is used and viewed.

Broomstick did a pretty good job of pointing out the most obvious differences, but there is one more that you won't notice until you fly the plane; the fuel injected engine. You will notice the lack of carb heat and a primer, and the addition of a fuel boost pump. The newer models are pretty difficult to start if you've never done it before; they require a different procedure, and flood easily. But I've found that once they're going they're much more stable and quieter, and you don't have to worry about carb icing.

And my hours if you are interested:
C-172R/S: 116.1
C-172P: 2.9
C-152: 94.3
T-37B: 24.7
PA-34-200T: 11.8
BE-76: 8.6
PA-28-181: 2.0
OMF-160: 1.6
M20J: 1.0

If you'll notice my earlier posts, I said myself that nothing has changed except for avionics and instruments.

Um... yes, and the change from manual to electric flaps, the better fairing designs, the improvement in lights so they last longer (including landing lights, which are infamous for burning out 50 feet above ground at night just as the runway lights go out), improved pilot/passenger restraint systems, improved seat reals to reduce the chances of sliding backward on takeoff, improved seats and gear that can soak up more g-force in a bad landing... there have been considerable improvements that are not obvious to the naked eye, and many older C172's have been upgraded with some of these improvements that add to the reliability of the airplane.

Does that change the aerodynamics? No. Frankly, there's no reason to - the C172 is a docile trainer that allows the beginner to fly without unreasonable risk of severe injury or death, and allows the more experienced pilot to fly a relatively simple machine. They aren't specialists - it's an airplane that does a little of everything. Rather like a family sedan - not a fancy sports car, not a heavy-hauling truck, just basic point A to B transportaion.

And don't knock those avionics. I started in aircraft that didn't even have a compass - I judged direction by the sun, large landmarks, and a Rand McNally street map (try hanging onto one of those in a 50 mph windstream. Don't drop it - there's no floor, so it's going to land way far down out of your reach) I tell you, GPS is a wonderful thing, yes it is. So are VOR's, NBD's, and all those other things. And today's avionics are more precise and more reliable than ever. Hell of a lot easier to get home with a VOR fix in low visibility than trying to puzzle out whether that's state route 49 or 41 below you - visibility can be twice the legal minimums and you can still get very lost.

The basic two and four seater tricycle gear fixed wing airplane design was pretty set by 1945 - saying it hasn't changed is like bitching we don't have six wheeled sports cars. But just as there has been a lot of changes in cars that aren't entirely obvious to the eye, so there has been for airplanes.

Wicked Pilot brought up the fuel injected engines - damn, that's an improvement over carbeuration and worrying about it icing up. (The Arrow I fly has fuel injection). One less thing I have to worry about while dodging traffic in the pattern. Between safety improvements and the tweaking of various components, today's Skyhawk is more reliable than it was 50 years ago, and if you are in an accident you're a hell of a lot more likely to survive or even walk away. Those two "features" are worth something.

Stagnating? I don't know. It does seem like all the pilots I meet are either young 20-somethings scrambling for a rung on the career ladder or folks 40+ finally learning to fly. But there are new students wallking into FBO's every day, even with the "difficult" and "expensive" current requirements. Would it really be a probablem if the average student pilot was 40 years old? One of the biggest killers of pilots is poor judgement - older pilots tend to be more cautious, and have a greater respect for their own mortality. (This may be why the military favors younger pilots - most of us old farts have grown too chicken to willingly fly into combat) Partly, it's hard for the average person to raise kids AND fly at the same time, so in the prime breeding years you get people dropping out to pay other bills. Then there's insurance - many health policies in the US exclude injuries connected to general aviation. Many life insurance companies either won't insure pilots, charge them exorbinant rates, or exclude death in a small plane from covereage - and if a person has kids to worry about you better believe that's a factor in decision making. And, in recent years, there is a definite hostility towards pilots among some segments of the general population - after 9/11/01 I had a manager at work threaten to fire me if I didn't stop flying. (I told her to go to hell)

My rambling is getting around to the point that there is not just one factor at work here. If you made airplanes $100 a throw that wouldn't necessarially revitalize the industry - you still have to pass a medical, get a license, obey the rules, deal with family and social pressures...

Not to mention the occassional big city mayor literally plowing up a runway in the middle of the night to shut down an airport - sends a rather strong message, don't you think?

Maybe I just remember hearing it all before with the "Recreational Pilot" certaificate (which abreviates to the unfortunate "Rec Pilot" - say it out loud, you'll see what I mean). Was going to usher in a new Golden Age of Aviation. HA! I doubt they ever issued more than a couple hundred, and most of those folks went on to earn their Privates. It didn't work. Which makes me very skeptical this "innovation" will work.

The BIGGEST problem with aviation is the PR angle. Let's say we had cheap planes, the licenses were easier to earn, etc. - well, the local cities and towns are still shutting down airfields, folks are scared of Death from the Skies... the average person just doesn't see anything in it for him. It's like ATV's, snowmobiles, motorcycles - there are elements in society who want to shut the activity down, never mind it doesn't impact them.

I've gotten it at work - people literally yelling at me that I'm being selfish for spending my own money on something I enjoy, that I'm being irresponsible, annoying, destorying the environment, upsetting them with my dangerous hobby - I've been told that I should not be allowed to fly, it should be left strictly to the military and the airlines (guess these folks thing pilots hatch out from under rocks), the "experts" and the "pros" because it's just too damn dangerous for normal mortals. Folks who look forward to the day when, as they put it, it will be unnecessary for a human being to take such risks and all flying will be automated ---

(This is the point where our speaker gets so agitated as to fall completely off the soapbox - that sound you hear is various objects in the near vicinity being knocked over as Broomstick goes down...)

If flying was a prestige activity the average person thought to be an achievable thing for the ordinary person - like golf, for instance - THEN you'd see another "Golden Age" (at least until the idiots start eliminating themselves from the gene pool) IF flying was seen as harmless and worthy as golf (a game at which people die while playing every year, and whose playing fields can easily cause more damage to a local environment than a small airport) THEN you'd see a resurgence. Even at current prices. Hell, I know a half dozen people where I work who spend on golf twice what I do on flying in a year. Ditto for bass fishing. Got one gal who knits scarves as a hobby using hand-dyed skeins of yarn at $50-75 a skein (and scarves take 2-4 skeins). Rock climbers - don't get me started. There are a lot of people spending a lot more money on their hobbies than I do on my obession to get off-planet. Until you get such a mindset, though, that flying is possible for the ordinary person AND an honorable activity, you can lower the price of planes and licenses all you want, I doubt there will be much effect.

Broomstick wrote:, improved seat reals to reduce the chances of sliding backward on takeoff,

Didn't they AD that situation some time back?

Yes - Nathan was claiming that aside from avionics and instruments were the only things changed in the Skyhawk in the last 30-40 years. The seat rail AD occured within that time frame. They should have all been upgraded by now.

A common mistake is to focus solely on surface qualities easily visible to the human eye - rather like someone who buys a car based more on the paint color and upholstery than the quality of the construction, cost of maintenance/insurance/gas, and other less visible factors that nonetheless contribute greatly to the worth of the vehicle.

You also have to consider what you're going to use the thing for. Last time I bought a car it was a pretty basic model. I don't need four wheel drive, power windows, a kick-ass sound system, On-Star, and heated seats in a vehicle used primarially for trips 10 miles or less - to and from my commuter train station, to the grocery store, the local airport, etc. It's not cost-effective The money I saved buying a basic model car I can spend on other things - like airplanes, CD's, movies, DVD's, clothes, a new hard drive...

I don't use an airplane as basic transportation and when I fly I don't have to be at a certain location at a certain time, or even a certain day. I don't need an all weather airplane that can fly through heavy IFR and it would be foolish to spend my money on one - or as I put it, I'd rather have 10 hours a month in a C150 than 2 hours in twin. If I suddenly developed a desire to fly extensive IFR and 500 to 1000 mile trips I would not be doing it in a "souped up" Skyhawk, I'd be looking at something like a Mooney - same fuel burn per hour, but 50% faster cruise and a heavier airframe.

If/when someone gets into flying they need to ask themselves "Why am I doing this?" and plan accordingly. Frankly, I use airplanes like some folks use mountain bikes - to take interesting trips as entertainment, but not as "serious" long-distance transportation. You can ride a mountain bike from Maine to California - but most owners don't, and don't want to. It would be laughable to propose mountain bikes as common long-distance transport. But, in a sense, that's what some people try to promote light/sport planes as.

Sure, a typical "sport plane" can climb 1200/fpm - at "standard atmosphere" which is 59 degrees F and barometric pressure 29.92 and some percentage of humidity I can't recall off the top of my head. On a 90 degree 80% humidity day you will NOT get that performance!

See, this is something that pisses me off about rags like Popular Mechanics - they don't tell the whole story. Oh, sure snazzy sport plane, look at how much better it is than that dowdy old Skyhawk --

Let me clue folks into some truths about the light plane experience. As I mentioned, the performance figures are based on two factors - "standard atmosphere" (which I've yet to experience in real life) and the performance of a test pilot. Take at least 10 knots off the listed cruise speed. If it's above 60 degrees you will NOT get the listed climb performance at gross weight (and the higher your take off elevation, the worse it gets, and the lower the "standard atmophere" reference temperature). The weight limit for sport pilot is what, 1200 gross? I don't recommend flying something like that in winds over 20-25 knots and that's straight down the runway and steady. Hit turbulence, gusty winds, or thermals you're going to be tossed around the skies. I had the misfortune to get into just that situation in a C150 - which is 400 lbs heavier than your sport plane - and had shit bouncing off the ceiling of the cockpit. The lighter the plane the more suspectible it is to this sort of air movement. Trust me, a little of that sort of thing goes a long way.

Let's go back to the OP and the comparison with the C172 and T-51 mini-rep:

Gross take off weight: 172: 2,450 pounds T-51: 1,220 pounds
Climb Rate: 172: 720 f/m T-51: 1,200 f/m
Here's an important concept - I seldom take off at full gross weight in the C172. With just me, it's around 1700 Around 1800-1850 with a passenger (most of the time, just one). At that weight I will exceed the listed rate of climb. I routinely peg 1000 fpm climb when flying solo, and 800-900 with a passenger when the temperature is 55 degrees or lower (approximate standard atmosphere.)

The next question is - how often are you taking off in that T-51 at full gross weight? It's a smaller airframe, seats one... without more information I can't know for sure, but particuarly if you load it up with avionics you will likely always be taking off at or near gross. You might even be over gross with full fuel - it's not that unusual in lightplanes. You might beat me climbing in the C172 flying solo - barely.

Takeoff roll: 172: 942 feet T-51: 300 feet
Unquestionably, the T-51 has the Cessna beat here.

Cruise Speed: 172: 140 mph T-51: 150 mph
Take this with a grain of salt - the presumption is that things like wheel pants are installed (and there are good reasons for leaving them off at times), full fairings, and various other conditions apply. As I said, subtract at least 10 knots/mph from these figures. For both airplanes.

Wing Loading: 172: 14.1 lb/ sq ft T-51: 10.16 lb/ sq ft
The lighter the wing loading the more suspectible you are to gusts, thermals, and other air disturbances. Getting tossed like a sock in a dryer is usually not considered an asset in an aircraft.

Range at Cruise: 172: 667 miles T-51: 710 miles
But you're not going to get maximum range at normal cruise speeds. You won't make it 667 miles in a C172 at normal cruise - that is, 75% power and 110 mph (which is what I usually get in real life). You want to go 667 on a single fill up of gas? You fly it at 90 knots/45-50% power - and the same rule will apply to that T-51. If you want the 710 mile range you'll be poking along either at or just above your "best glide" speed with 45-55% power.

Service Ceiling: 172: 13,500 ft T-51: 16,000 ft
Most folks don't achieve these figure, either - for one thing, they get impatient. You will not be maintaining a 1200 fpm climb at these altitudes. In fact, your rate of climb will noticably diminish long before you reach the half-way point. It will take some time to get there. "Service ceiling" is the point where the climb is 100 fpm. And you will be cold. Even in the summer, it will most likely be close to or below freezing at those altitudes. And lightplanes do not normally come equipped with a heater. Dress warmly. Also, you do know how to go about renting oxygen gear and how to use it, yes? Because you will need oxygen at those altitudes unless you routinely live at 10,000 feet. Actually, even then - it's an FAA reg. Also, very bad if you pass out from lack of oxygen - which can and does happen.

Truth is, I'm not going to use those altitudes - hell, I doubt I 'd go above 10k. So... why do I need something that can go higher?
Fuel Capacity: 172: 56 gal T-51: 23 gal
I'm more interested in fuel burn per hour. A plane that burns 5 gallons per hour with a 25 gallon usable fuel load has better range than a plane that burns 15 an hour and carries 60. What's the fuel burn at full power, 75%, and maximum range for both the C172 in question and the T-51?

Stall Speed: 172: 50~ MPH T-51: 39 MPH
OK, here's another area where the T-51 is ahead. Stall speed affects your safe landing speed, and in general you're better off the slower you hit the ground.

Here are some other things to consider. How beefy is the landing gear? Cessna gear can stand a 10 foot drop with no damage - can the T-51's? I once drove a Cessna through at farm field at 65-70 mph with no damage - is the T-51 that robust? (It seemed the best alternative at the time, and I can't give you an exact speed because I was rather busy between trying to remain upright and avoiding slamming into someone's garage) I don't see gear on that T-51 shown - is it a retract? Then the gear definitely isn't as strong as on a fixed gear airplane, and will require more maintenance. What about the restraint system? Even if you aren't planning to crash into something (like, who ever does?) a good restraint system can keep you solidly in your seat when you hit bumps and bounces.

What sort of engine is in the T-51 that provided the figures given above? A Continental? A Lycoming? A Rotax? Continentals and Lycomings are certified engines and require certified mechanics for maintenance and repair, but they are (if properly cared for) quite reliable. A Rotax is cheaper, but 5 years ago when I was flying one they were averaging one engine failure every 800 hours - be sure you practice your engine failure procedures.

Aviation involves that nasty little word called "compromise" There is no perfect airplane for all occassions. Hey, like I said, I've flown things in that size range and I had a blast. They're great fun. But don't get lost in the hype. Make an informed decision.

Consider, that to buy a new build airplane, the Cessna 172,
costs me $150,000, and a very expensive pilot certification program...

While with my drivers license, and some classes, I can fly this:

"With some classes..." What the hell do you think a "pilot certification program" is? It's a bunch of classes. Truth is, I did all my ground school as self-study (and passed the written with no problem), did my flight time, then took my checkride. Guess what - it's the same routine for Sport Pilot, buddy. You'll have ground school requirements, with a written test at the end of it - and you'll be videotaped while you're taking it, too. You'll have an oral test and a checkride, just like the "big pilots" do. The only difference is that my license required a medical exam by an AME and yours needs a driver's license. And you'll only need half the flight time - IF you do it in the minimum time, which is unlikely. So yeah, it's cheaper... but not that much cheaper.

Like I said - look behind the hype, get some real information, and make some intelligent decisions. I think flying is worth the effort (obviously) but goddamn it, I'm tired of people hyping and exaggerating and distorting what's involved and what it's really like. I tell people, whatever you're told it's going to cost add 50%. Ditto for time involved. That's the reality in general aviation.

One more thing, then I'll shut up for awhile.

If I was going to buy a single-seat "sport plane" I'd go for the Van's Aircraft RV-3. Sure, it's not some cool pseudo-warbird "replica", but here's what you get:

Maximum gross weight: 1100 lbs
Maximum climb: 1700 fpm with 125 hp, 2000 fpm with 150 hp engine
Regular cruise speed (75% power): 185 mph w/125 hp, 196 w/150 hp
Economy cruise (55% power): 166 mph w/125 hp, 176 mph w/150 hp
Stall speed (full flaps) 51 mph
Takeoff distance: 350 feet
Landing distance: 350 feet
Ceiling: 20,000+ - you can't fly that high with a sport pilot license anyhow
Range at regular cruise: 640 statute miles w/125 hp, 595 statute miles w/250 hp
Range at economy cruise: 770 statute miles w/125 hp, 715 statute miles at 150 hp
Useful payload: 350-400 lbs (variable, depending on electrical system, instruments, etc.)
Wing loading: 12 lbs/square foot

Here are some points I'd like to bring up - it's better performance than either the C172 or the T-51 mini-replica. Note the relatively high speed economy cruise vs. the stall speed - the slow landing speeds are achieved by some really big flaps that seriously reconfigure the wing. Short take off and landing. The manufacturer gives you some really useful information regarding cruise speeds and range. The payload for a 1 person airplane is very generous. The wing loading is higher than the T-51, meaning it will likely handle air disturbance better. It's a fixed gear airplane, by the way, with a fixed pitch prop for these figures - that's damn impressive. It's aerodynamically a very clean design with flush rivets and full fairings everywhere.

I've never flown an RV-3, but I did have the privilege of taking the stick on an RV-6 - the two-seat counsin. It's like flying the Jetson's car - big bubble canopy with excellent visibility, very responsive on the controls but not inclined to bite. We were clocking 180 knots at 75% power and landing at 65 knots. Truth is, I'd probably go for the RV-6A if I had the money - and the time/inclination to build, because it is a kit plane. The kit is around $30,000-$45,000, depending on engine and other options. Plus a lot of your own sweat and elbow grease. Oh, well, what was I saying about "compromises"...?

Broomstick, that was very, very well put. You've pretty much hit all of the points on the head. I'd just add that even when going for a Sport Pilot's License, there will be a LOT of material to master in the ground school portion. And you really have to master it, understand it very, very well. And as you upgrade your licenses, it only gets harder.