Sport Pilot Talk

yozz25 · Joined: 18 Dec 2009 Posts: 185 Location: vegas

Took out a lesson in remos gx this morning in scottsdale, it rocked, handled very well with joystick, rudder peddles easy to manipulate plane, view out of side doors spectacular.

The modern display with horizon, altitude read out, direction right in front of you first intimidated me, but after a few mins, I was converted. smooth as silk, like flying a light chopper,

The wheel brakes is operated with a hand lever, the turn coord is both digital and in analog, ? In any case, teaching sthick and rudder was a breeze, female instructor was shocked that former instructor did very little with rudder, she showed me how to land the sucker after a few go arounds, among other things. Lets see, take off was very quick, no need to shove throttle forward, just ease it and gently pull stick back, and up you go.

Runs on high test gas, or 100 fuel, they use the petrol from local gas station. Now that I have my big 16 hours, CFI told me I fly well, need radio work, ready to solo in a few lessons more. Guess I'll be commuting down to phoenix to finish up license.

Have another lesson on friday, booked for 2 hours in remos. I can only say that it is a pleasure to fly compared to the warrior and krusty special, tomahawk.

great plane, would take it home, with instructor, but couldn't fly no more do to crack skull via wife.

yozz
viagra really does work

FastEddieB · Joined: 07 Jan 2009 Posts: 186 Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

WOO HOO!

Congratulations!

AZPilot · Joined: 25 Jun 2009 Posts: 156

yozz25 wrote: Took out a lesson in remos gx this morning in scottsdale, it rocked, handled very well with joystick, rudder peddles easy to manipulate plane, view out of side doors spectacular.

The modern display with horizon, altitude read out, direction right in front of you first intimidated me, but after a few mins, I was converted. smooth as silk, like flying a light chopper,

The wheel brakes is operated with a hand lever, the turn coord is both digital and in analog, ? In any case, teaching sthick and rudder was a breeze, female instructor was shocked that former instructor did very little with rudder, she showed me how to land the sucker after a few go arounds, among other things. Lets see, take off was very quick, no need to shove throttle forward, just ease it and gently pull stick back, and up you go.

Runs on high test gas, or 100 fuel, they use the petrol from local gas station. Now that I have my big 16 hours, CFI told me I fly well, need radio work, ready to solo in a few lessons more. Guess I'll be commuting down to phoenix to finish up license.

Have another lesson on friday, booked for 2 hours in remos. I can only say that it is a pleasure to fly compared to the warrior and krusty special, tomahawk.

great plane, would take it home, with instructor, but couldn't fly no more do to crack skull via wife.
yozz
viagra really does work

Now that's cute. :D

Daidalos · Joined: 12 Feb 2009 Posts: 116 Location: KHWV

Congratulations!

You will find that most LSA’s are light and very responsive on the controls. You definitely need to use rudders. Because of their light weight they have less momentum so judging your flair is bit different. If you are too fast some will float way down the runway.

Never flew one, but Remos looks like a great plane. Unfortunately because of the folding wings they don’t keep the fuel there.

I'm glad you found a good fit of plane and instructor, but is she cute?

CharlieTango · Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:18 pm Post subject:

welcome to the world of SLSA. i quit flying for quite a while and then discovered this new category and flying became fun again.

flying short coupled designs requires more rudder.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1193 Location: Lock Haven PA

Congratulations, Yozz. Glad you found a plane and instructor to your liking.

I got a ride in the Remos about three weeks ago. Loved it. That plane is not suitable for use in my flight school, for a number of reasons -- but, it's a great personal aircraft, and flies nicely. If the flight school you found can use one and make it profitable, more power to them!

Fly safely, and enjoy.

yozz25 · Joined: 18 Dec 2009 Posts: 185 Location: vegas

Good question Doc.

Is it profitable. Instructor I believe mention ower of remos is looking to sell. hmmmmmm.

I would guess from a business standpoint, it's a craft that you would have to work day in day out with not much idle time to make it go. considering the high cost of insurance, cost of plane, among other things. The price tag I guess is what does it.

Its a fact that aviation is not as popular as it was, and the attempt at the sports thingy is IMHO iffy. I personally believe that for the average joe, sports plane, being more simple to fly as far as this newbie is concerned could make or break GA in the long run.

Its a matter of the small industry to make an appeal to the public to get more people to give it a whirl then go for it. However, what the hell do I know?

This type of craft could very well appeal to the millions of kids who were brought up with joy sticks in front of puter screens developing great hand to eye coordination. I believe something like remos can be made almost dummy proof through more advanced technology making the plane much safer than it is.

GA with it's aging fleet is still primitive IMHO.

These little planes could very well be the answer to continue GA for recreational purposes into the future,, just needs some more tweaking in dummy proofing them, along with a campaign to get more people into them,

yozz

CharlieTango · Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:42 am Post subject: Re: is it profitable?

yozz25 wrote: ...These little planes could very well be the answer to continue GA for recreational purposes into the future,, just needs some more tweaking in dummy proofing them...

yozz,

first you say it rocks then you want to dumb it down :? it is the performance you like, the responsiveness and maneuverablility make it fun like a sportscar.

some light sport designs are far more fun then the remos.

yozz25 · Joined: 18 Dec 2009 Posts: 185 Location: vegas

I think a new generation of small craft can be made safer to fly with better system, adding a small chute, using technology that if you get yourself into a situation you cannot control, it happens, then the puter overides you. Chute technology is there, but still primitive and expensive, but that will change, in an engine crap out, or whatever, should be no problem bringing light craft down.

Perhaps you are up there, and wham, you have a bad hair day, yes we try to avoid things, and are just not able to pull off a suitable landing, perhaps a system can overide us. just as we can over ride a system. People are thinking of stuff all the time for what if situations.

Otherwise, when thing are normal, 99 percent of the time, or whatever, you can then let your hair down and operate till your hearts content.

The gps alone has made it safer IMHO, yes we should learn navigation, but after hearing a friends tale of "where the hell is the airport" on a crosscountry with the panic that ensued, technology would have saved his day. In his case, his confidence was shot, even on a clear and sunny day.His bearing calcs where off 15 degrees, since out here that is what the adjustment is to the magnetic pole.

Basic skills and habits are essential, technology that can quickly analyze our flight situation which can safely guide us down will come, will give us the control inputs in the event we cannot safely judge for ourselves.

Just as gps has greatly reduced in price, other systems can be developed that track weather data of events we cannot see, and tell us not to go there or do that. Sounds weird, but it will come. This is what I mean by dumb it down, perhaps I should have worded it differently., such a make it fool proof.

Now let me go see what the local harem of instructors are doing today, they looked tired, maybe they want to play in the pool while the wife is sleeping.
yozz
I'm bad
yozz

Pawlander · Joined: 20 Jan 2009 Posts: 51 Location: Pawleys Island, SC

Yozz, many brands of LSAs come equipped with ballistic recovery parachutes.

The Remos was the first LSA I flew in, and it was a lot of fun and I was very impressed. But by the time I had done all my research, I ended up buying a Flight Design CTLS.

You will find that, compared to the Remos, the CTLS is roomier, has better visibility (particularly out the side windows - no ducking to look out), better performance, longer range, has fuel tanks in the wings rather than the cabin, and they are sold only with the BRS as standard equipment.

Even better for you, Flight Design's distributor for the western US is located right there in Vegas! http://www.flightdesignwest.com/

CodyPhil · Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 1

drseti wrote:
I got a ride in the Remos about three weeks ago. Loved it. That plane is not suitable for use in my flight school, for a number of reasons -- but, it's a great personal aircraft, and flies nicely.

Fly safely, and enjoy.

Paul - if you don't mind sharing, what were the reasons you didn't think the Remos suitable for your flight school?

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1193 Location: Lock Haven PA

CodyPhil wrote: Paul - if you don't mind sharing, what were the reasons you didn't think the Remos suitable for your flight school?

I don't mind at all. first off, I ruled out all composite structures (Remos, CT, Gobosh 800, etc.) because nobody around here is qualified to repair composites. Let's face it, in the course of normal flight training, things are occasionally going to get pranged. Fixing sheetmetal and rivet airplanes is easy - even I can do that! :wink:

Other considerations: fuel tank location -- with fuel in both wings and a fuel selector valve, student learns about fuel management and the impact of lateral loading. Single tank in the fueslage denies them that experience.

Hand brake vs. differential braking -- speaks for itself.

High vs. low wing is always a matter of personal preference. In the training environment, low wing acft are actually harder to land, and float more due to increased ground effect. So, what's a negative for a personal aircraft actually becomes a positive in terms of teaching the importance of airspeed control.

Note that these are considerations specifically related to the training environment. Without a doubt, the Remos is a fine aircraft!

PaulM · Joined: 17 Feb 2010 Posts: 4 Location: New Jersey

Hi guys,
I'm newly registered to the forum. Have recently started flying again (have PPL, current medical and bfr) and debating whether to buy an S-LSA. Ideally would like to rent but not many options in Northern NJ. Recently flew a Sportcruiser and liked it alot until I got airborne and was bounced all over the place (about 13 knot day). Is that typical for all LSA or are some less jumpy than others? In addition to Sportcrusier (because of new Piper affiliaton), I'm looking at Remos, CT, and Tecnam. I read that CT was pitching the MC (if it ever gets here) as more stable for the "older" crowd who are more used to that kind of ride. Am also considering a Diamond D-20. Any insight would be appreciated.
PaulM

rfane · Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 214 Location: Sunnyvale, CA

PaulM wrote: Hi guys,
I'm newly registered to the forum. Have recently started flying again (have PPL, current medical and bfr) and debating whether to buy an S-LSA. Ideally would like to rent but not many options in Northern NJ. Recently flew a Sportcruiser and liked it alot until I got airborne and was bounced all over the place (about 13 knot day). Is that typical for all LSA or are some less jumpy than others? In addition to Sportcrusier (because of new Piper affiliaton), I'm looking at Remos, CT, and Tecnam. I read that CT was pitching the MC (if it ever gets here) as more stable for the "older" crowd who are more used to that kind of ride. Am also considering a Diamond D-20. Any insight would be appreciated.
PaulM

Paul,

Likely you had a case of wind shear that caused the turbulence you described. The light wing loading of LSA, will generally cause you to feel more turbulence, than in a plane with a higher wing loading #. However, unless you flew both the LSA, and say a C-152, through the same conditions, at the same time, who is to say which was more "jumpy".

I've only had one case in close to 4 years of flying the CTSW, that I was concerned about the turbulence. That was with 50-60 knot winds aloft on the leeward side of the mountains in New Mexico. The forecast was that it would get worse for the next 2 days, so I wanted to get through El Paso and to the western side of New Mexico at least, if it was possible. I got up to about 1,500 AGL, over Carlsbad, and the turbulence got bad enough that things in the cabin began to float around, so I ended up setting it back down again, and waiting for more favorable conditions. Other than that, I've had a couple of cases of climbing higher to smooth out the ride.

Actually, Flight Design is pitching the MC to flight schools, such as Paul's, who would prefer to have metal aircraft. I personally don't care for the looks of the MC, and have no idea if it's "more stable", and if so, "more stable" than what? I personally love my CTSW. I've read where some people have called the CTSW "twitchy" or "unstable", but I haven't found that to be the case. The light and responsive controls are one of the things I like about it, and I have hand flown the thing across the country and back, in winter conditions, without any complaints. Of course, if you like the feel of the controls of a C-172, which is a very forgiving airplane, then the CTSW might seem unstable to you. To fly it well, requires you to have decent rudder skills, and not to overcontrol it.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1193 Location: Lock Haven PA

rfane wrote: To fly it well, requires you to have decent rudder skills, and not to overcontrol it.

That's pretty much true of all LSAs. Overcontrolling is probably the most common error, and (having flown big iron for decades), I'm as guilty as the next guy. These planes teach you about using control pressure instead of control deflection, and flying with fingertips and toes.