Sport Pilot Talk

I would want to have the logbooks reviewed by a neutral party AND I would want to have the oil analysis reports reviewed both before and after the prop strike. Any metal in the post prop strike and I would run away. No oil analysis, and I would run even faster. Savvy will do a logbook review for FREE.

Atrosa wrote:I looked up on the FAA incident website and there is no record of this happening. Is the a black flag?

Not necessarily. In certified aircraft, repair of major damage usually results in filing of an FAA Form 337. 337s do not apply to an SLSA or ELSA, so you should look in the maintenance logbook for details of the repair. If there was no proper documentation (including what parts were replaced, by whom, and following what procedure), and especially if there was no gearbox inspection or engine teardown following a prop strike, then that would be a walk-away moment.

See my EAA webinar "how to buy a used LSA," online at:

http://www.eaavideo.org/detail/video/4206496475001

dstclair wrote: Savvy will do a logbook review for FREE.

Mike Busch told me that Savvy does not do LSA, only certified aircraft. But that was 2 years ago. Maybe they've expanded.

Have you flown either the Sportcruiser or the Lightning? If your going to drop cash I'd at least get an intro flight in both. Addison, TX has a plethora of Sportcruisers you can fly and get instruction in (I don't know where you are located), and Nick at Arion (Tennessee) will be more than happy to give you an intro I'm sure. The Arion was not designed as a trainer, Nick pretty much admitted so http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/ ... 349-1.html, it's a copy of a much faster bird slowed down (by design) to meet LSA requirements, I'd take that into account. As noted Jabriu engines are a bit different than ROTAX so you might want to check with your local A&P to see if they have any experience with either. These two also contain different construction materials. The Sportcruiser is aluminum, the Lightning is composite. It might be hard for you to find a composite shop if something like hangar rash occurs. Another word of warning: if the plane is hail damaged, it's almost impossible to spot in composite, aluminum it shows up nicely. All that said, if I were going to purchase an LSA for personal use, it would be one of those two or a Tecnam Astore, just my two cents...

Atrosa wrote:Ok someone give me a reality check please. My mission is to get a plane that i can train in then use to go from KMMK to 8B2. About 175 miles. I want a low wing because a high wing never looks good to me. I know kinda stupid. The arion lightning or sportcruiser just looks super cool and any highwing just looks like a Toyota Camry.... Ho hum.

Is this plane something a student pilot should consider? If there are any esqual experts i will get the mk2 tail upgrade. It makes the elevator more deliberate for those not familiar with this model. Im becoming quite the student of the arion and sportcruiser ac. But that is how i roll. Im a data sponge.

I don’t know much about the Arion and I know even less about the engine. Rotax owns about 80% of the LSA market and for good reason. Log books should tell you everything about the plane, if you find any discrepancies run, don’t walk.

As for your other aircraft choice, I can answer and all questions about the SportCruiser that you may have. I can fill you in on all the good and bad with it so you can make a well informed decision before you pony up the dough. I own a 2007 SportCruiser and love the plane, it does look supercool, but there is a lot you need to know before you purchase a used one. Please feel free to send me a private message and we can talk more.

Shawn

Low wings just look better...

...until the 100th time you have to get in or out of one...

...or you'd rather look at the ground than the empty sky while flying...

...or you need to taxi close to a 2ft tall ground obstruction...

I like both kinds of airplane, but there are practical considerations for each type. How and where you fly/land/taxi and what you need to do with the airplane should be a bigger determinant than what looks cool. There are very few bush planes that are low wing for example, and there are good reasons for that.

All airplanes are cool.

MrMorden wrote:Low wings just look better...

...until the 100th time you have to get in or out of one...

...or you'd rather look at the ground than the empty sky while flying...

...or you need to taxi close to a 2ft tall ground obstruction...

Not to mention . . . better wing-tip ground clearance during those gusty crosswind landing conditions.

Wm.Ince wrote:better wing-tip ground clearance during those gusty crosswind landing conditions.

Bill, this is exactly why (in my very low wing LSA) I teach how to land x-wind in a crab, rather than a slip.

MrMorden wrote:Low wings just look better...

...until the 100th time you have to get in or out of one...

...or you'd rather look at the ground than the empty sky while flying...

...or you need to taxi close to a 2ft tall ground obstruction...

I like both kinds of airplane, but there are practical considerations for each type. How and where you fly/land/taxi and what you need to do with the airplane should be a bigger determinant than what looks cool. There are very few bush planes that are low wing for example, and there are good reasons for that.

All airplanes are cool.

Yes, yes and yes ... all of that is pretty much true but still, for me, no higwings come close to that feeling of sitting on top of the world - and no, it is not just looking at the sky , not even close - it is about looking around and seeing everything around you without any obstructions for miles and miles.

PS.

Stilll, I will take your CTSW in a hartbeat if it ever becomes an unbearable burden for you ...

drseti wrote:

Wm.Ince wrote:better wing-tip ground clearance during those gusty crosswind landing conditions.

. . . I teach how to land x-wind in a crab, rather than a slip.

So, by “land x-wind in a crab” . . . I assume the airplane touches down misaligned.
Isn’t that kinda’ hard on the main gear?

Wm.Ince wrote: So, by that . . . I assume the airplane touches down misaligned.
Isn’t that kinda’ hard on the main gear?

Not if you kick out the crab in the flare.

drseti wrote:

Wm.Ince wrote: So, by that . . . I assume the airplane touches down misaligned.
Isn’t that kinda’ hard on the main gear?

Not if you kick out the crab in the flare.

My ‘take’ on your technique is a little different.
I’d say you teach an ‘approach’ using a crab, but the landing is done using a slip.
It is in that landing slip, to include the flare, where low wing into the wind is used. And that is where wingtip clearance can become an issue, with low wing airplanes.
Not so much a problem at all with high wing airplanes.

Semantics, Bill - but I don't disagree with you. And yes, high wing can handle that slip at the end better than low wing. And further, I agree that, at some level of crosswind, the technique becomes impractical. That's where it becomes important to know (and respect) a given aircraft's max demonstrated crosswind component.

drseti wrote:Semantics, Bill - but I don't disagree with you. And yes, high wing can handle that slip at the end better than low wing. And further, I agree that, at some level of crosswind, the technique becomes impractical. That's where it becomes important to know (and respect) a given aircraft's max demonstrated crosswind component.

Concur totally.

Warmi wrote:
Stilll, I will take your CTSW in a hartbeat if it ever becomes an unbearable burden for you ...