Remos G3/GX

[pilotjohn]

Has anyone flown a Remos? What were your impressions?

Apparently the wings on the new GX are now all composite - no more fabric. Supposedly, there's also more baggage space. I have yet to fly one, and I'm curious how those that have flown one would compare it to other aircraft, LSA or not.

[JerryG]

My last four hours have been in the Remos G-3. It's an easy to fly forgiving LSA that's pretty easy to land. The ergonomics leave a bit to be desired for a 245 lb. 5'8" guy. Believe it or not, the hardest thing for me is to lock and unlock the left side entry/exit door. It's hard to hold the door tightly closed with one hand and swivel the door lock with the other. Stalls were easy to conrtol and it jumps off the runway at takeoff. I feel totally in control and the plane can be easily trimmed into straight and level flight.

I just heard about the Remos GX today for the first time. It's hard to tell the wings are fabric in the G-3 ... thought they were aluminum ... composite wings are a good idea though.

I can rent the Remos at KSRQ, only 10 minutes from my home ... how sweet it is!

[atcjk]

Let me state, I'm a huge G-3 fan. With that said, the GX is wonderful, I flew it at Oshkosh. The wings are shorter, and totally carbon fiber. They tell me the wing loading is increased an that will improve stability in turbulence. It doesn't float as much as the G-3 does on landing. I guess that accounts for shorter landing distance. I like the new landing light in the wing, and the LED nav lights are way cool. It is VFR night legal. Performance and handling appear to be equal to or better than the G-3. What my wife really likes is the increased baggage capacity. Behind the pilot's seat, is a compartment that can hold a set of golf clubs.

Hope this helps

[Chuckhhill]

I was very impressed at the last light sport expo in Sebring, when the Remos was one of the few aircraft to fly almost continuously inspite of the high winds, and that was the older model.

[JRamos9920]

My career in Aviation has been re-born with my recent venture here with sportplanesflorida.com. I have gotten a few chances to fly the Remos G-3 and GX - fun fun and more FUN.

From the information I've gathered from other non-biased pilots and my own experiences in the airplane the Remos really is a nifty little critter that will put a big smile on even the most meticulous and scrutinous pilots.

I highly recommend trying one out as soon as the chance comes around!

John Ramos
www.sportplanesflorida.com

[vwvectors]

Not enough fuel capacity IMO only 21 gal . On their website the listed range is 857sm , cruise is 130mph at 5200rpm , fuel consumption is 2.3 at 4k. It appears that their playing with their performance numbers especially range.

I will say they have great marketing.

[KSCessnaDriver]

Not enough fuel capacity IMO only 21 gal . On their website the listed range is 857sm , cruise is 130mph at 5200rpm , fuel consumption is 2.3 at 4k. It appears that their playing with their performance numbers especially range.

I will say they have great marketing.

Of course the maximum range number isn't going to be at the best economy numbers. Every manufacture does it. Look at Cessna, Piper, Cirrus, etc.. They tell you what the numbers were obtained at. Nothing shady with that at all in my book.

[vwvectors]

Is there any other LSA OEM that uses the Rotax list fuel consumption at 2.3 gal @4k or somewhat close to that. Just because Cessna & Piper do something does not make it accurate . It sets a poor precedent
IMO.

[CharlieTango]

i think the 857 sm on 21 gal is out of range. thats 50% better then i get in my cleaner, ctsw.

i don't think anything in the nasa tests / competition last year came close either.

[CharlieTango]

Is there any other LSA OEM that uses the Rotax list fuel consumption at 2.3 gal @4k or somewhat close to that. Just because Cessna & Piper do something does not make it accurate . It sets a poor precedent
IMO.

the 912 was designed to run at 5,500rpm for its entire life. 4,000rpm isn't advisable.

[KSCessnaDriver]

Is there any other LSA OEM that uses the Rotax list fuel consumption at 2.3 gal @4k or somewhat close to that. Just because Cessna & Piper do something does not make it accurate . It sets a poor precedent
IMO.

They can list whatever they want on their marketing gimmicks. You just have to wise enough to realize it isn't true. I'd bet that whatever car you bought last doesn't get the MPG that the EPA says it does. Its all a game of numbers. Buyers have to be smart enough to cut through that, and actually look at the airplane before dropping over 100 AMU's.

[vwvectors]

You can not justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior.



I just had higher expectations from Remos .

[JRamos9920]

Actually they CAN'T list anything they want on their gimmicks it would be false advertising.

Don't see why anyone sees these numbers as shady. We recorded Rotax operating costs for an entire year at our flight school - 2.29 gallons/hour fuel burn in the Rotax 912.

If every company bends and stretches their numbers, even getting in to auto companies here it seems, then this variable applies to everyone. 2, or more, wrongs don't make a right. Why just pick on Rotax?

John

[vwvectors]

I'm not picking on Rotax I'm picking on Remos !

Their website gives a range of 857sm/745nm.

There is no way a Remos is going to go that distance at cruise with 21gal of gas without a tailwind PERIOD.

Aviation Consumer did a report on the Remos earlier this year they did not come away impressed.

IMO the Remos is not a bad LSA at all but the company is not being honest with the performance #'s . Which makes me question are those g-force limit numbers legit or embellished to .

[rfane]

I'm not picking on Rotax I'm picking on Remos !

Their website gives a range of 857sm/745nm.

There is no way a Remos is going to go that distance at cruise with 21gal of gas without a tailwind PERIOD.

Let's be fair. Throttled back to get 2.5 gph will give you close to 9 hour endurance, with no reserve. Of course cruise speed will be down to 85 - 90 kts. running those rpm's. Thus 9 hours at 82.5 kts. = 742.5 nm.

Flight Design has close to 1,100 nm range on those same rpm and fuel burn. That's why they have flown stock CT's around the world and across the Atlantic going west. For most of us, it's irrelevant. I get 4.5 - 5 gph in cruise, at 5,200 - 5,300 rpm's. I routinely see 120 KTAS at those settings, and can go faster if I choose. I typically like to fly 2 - 3 hour legs, and will usually fill the tanks every other stop, which usually results in 5 hours of fuel usage, and I put in close to 25 gallons, and have covered 550 - 575 nm in that time frame with no winds, and allowing for climbs, descents, and taxiing. With the same fuel burn, the Remos would require filling the tank every stop, distance covered will be less, etc.

Actually they CAN'T list anything they want on their gimmicks it would be false advertising.

Don't see why anyone sees these numbers as shady. We recorded Rotax operating costs for an entire year at our flight school - 2.29 gallons/hour fuel burn in the Rotax 912.

If every company bends and stretches their numbers, even getting in to auto companies here it seems, then this variable applies to everyone. 2, or more, wrongs don't make a right. Why just pick on Rotax?

John

No false advertising. If you only fly in the pattern, your fuel burn will be low. What's being said is why not advertise the #'s shown for a normal user? People unfamiliar with a Rotax 912 won't know the reality, and it appears that is how Remos is slanting the advertised specs.