An instructor in Montgomery County airport now has an AMD 650XL as is looking for students. I talked on the phone with him today. He sounded very nice and has been teaching for about 20 years.
This plane is one of the first 650's build and was AMD's show plane at Osh Kosh this year. It's full IFR and has a Conti' O-200 engine.
http://www.forsythaviation.us/
Ron
New Sport Pilot Training in Gaithersburg Md.
Moderator: drseti
I started my Sport Pilot training in the previous model, 601XL, from AMD. I hope you find the 650 an improved airplane. The rudder pedals on the plane I was flying would stick in the middle making it hard to deal with. Another issue is the fact that AMD insists on hanging the Continental on the front of it instead of a Rotax. The nearly 100 pound the Continental adds usually means that if the instructor and student are in the 200 plus range you have to be careful how much fuel is in the plane when you fly. At 520 lbs of useful load if you put 24 gallons in it you only have 376 pounds left.
This is a problem for many LSA planes. If you want to carry two people and a small bag you may have to watch how much fuel you can put in.
I am still very interested in the category and have looked at a lot of the planes available and gotten rides in a half dozen or so. I did change my focus to PPL though as I had nearly 20 hours from the 70's and decided with that many hours I might as well finish up the PPL I started back then. I moved into a 172 and have enjoyed it very much. I only have a night cross-country and my 3 - leg solo cross country left before I prep for my check ride. This will allow me some latitude to fly at night and fly other aircraft as well if I can't find any Light Sport planes to rent locally.
Good luck on your training. I would love to hear back from you on your experience with the 650.
Randy Epstein
www.lightsportinfo.com
This is a problem for many LSA planes. If you want to carry two people and a small bag you may have to watch how much fuel you can put in.
I am still very interested in the category and have looked at a lot of the planes available and gotten rides in a half dozen or so. I did change my focus to PPL though as I had nearly 20 hours from the 70's and decided with that many hours I might as well finish up the PPL I started back then. I moved into a 172 and have enjoyed it very much. I only have a night cross-country and my 3 - leg solo cross country left before I prep for my check ride. This will allow me some latitude to fly at night and fly other aircraft as well if I can't find any Light Sport planes to rent locally.
Good luck on your training. I would love to hear back from you on your experience with the 650.
Randy Epstein
www.lightsportinfo.com
It sounds like the 601 you were renting is dangerously out of rig. It needs to be serviced. 601's are known for needing a very light touch on the controls and being easy to fly.
As to the O-200. I agree that it creates serious weight issues. On the other hand, I haven't been able to fly for 2 months while the Rotax in the trainer I fly is getting fixed - including waiting for parts from Austria. It's a tradeoff. I think the Rotax is a fine engine for a owner flown plane, I'm not so sure about a trainer. After flying behind one for about 20hrs, I won't be putting a Rotax my plane, and I'm personally heavy and thus weight sensitive.
The 650 in question is a brand new plane that is fully loaded with avionics. It's also fully IFR legal. I believe the quoted rate includes instructor time. I don't think you can rent a new 172 SP with instructor for that rate - and that would be a fair comparison for a training situation where the extra seats don't mean anything.
To each his own when it comes to planes. I personally love the visibility out of the low wing/bubble canopy. But I'm tall and always feel like I'm in a cave in a high wing, where I have to duck my head to get a good look outside. This is true even in a 182. First flight in 601 was pure joy.
Ron
As to the O-200. I agree that it creates serious weight issues. On the other hand, I haven't been able to fly for 2 months while the Rotax in the trainer I fly is getting fixed - including waiting for parts from Austria. It's a tradeoff. I think the Rotax is a fine engine for a owner flown plane, I'm not so sure about a trainer. After flying behind one for about 20hrs, I won't be putting a Rotax my plane, and I'm personally heavy and thus weight sensitive.
The 650 in question is a brand new plane that is fully loaded with avionics. It's also fully IFR legal. I believe the quoted rate includes instructor time. I don't think you can rent a new 172 SP with instructor for that rate - and that would be a fair comparison for a training situation where the extra seats don't mean anything.
To each his own when it comes to planes. I personally love the visibility out of the low wing/bubble canopy. But I'm tall and always feel like I'm in a cave in a high wing, where I have to duck my head to get a good look outside. This is true even in a 182. First flight in 601 was pure joy.
Ron
While that certainly is an attractive looking plane, I have to wonder who the instructor is going to train. According to the weight and balance data given on his web site, with 4 hours of fuel on board, pilot and passenger together can weigh no more than 326lbs. The Rotax equipped Tecnam Echo by comparison (also available IFR) carries 500lbs of pilot and passenger when 4 hours of fuel are loaded on board.
IFR is certainly out of the question for this O200 equipped LSA for anyone not flying solo or with a very tiny passenger. True IFR flying requires that the pilot be able to not only reach the destination airport and fly the entire approach there, but then fly to an alternate airport far enough away that it has better weather, fly the approach there, and then still have 45 minutes of fuel on board. This is not possible with the low fuel scenario required of a plane with such a small useful load.
While the O200 is a fine engine, the useful load of this plane illustrates why the 0200 is both impractical for flight training and IFR operations on an LSA.
Helen
IFR is certainly out of the question for this O200 equipped LSA for anyone not flying solo or with a very tiny passenger. True IFR flying requires that the pilot be able to not only reach the destination airport and fly the entire approach there, but then fly to an alternate airport far enough away that it has better weather, fly the approach there, and then still have 45 minutes of fuel on board. This is not possible with the low fuel scenario required of a plane with such a small useful load.
While the O200 is a fine engine, the useful load of this plane illustrates why the 0200 is both impractical for flight training and IFR operations on an LSA.
Helen
I rent the 172 G-1000 for $135 and $45 for my CFI. When I'm finished I would certainly rather have an LSA to fly since it will just be my wife and I wanting to take short hops. I am hopeful that if I cannot work out a deal though a partnership or fractional ownership for an LSA than I will at least be able to rent the 172 and have something to fly while I wait LSA's to show up in the rental fleets.
The school I'm training at decided to try and sell AMD's as well as use one for training. The one for training is getting some use, but the one they have for sale has been sitting on the ramp since March, that I know of. I feel the owner of the school just made the wrong choice and could have been better served to get on board with Flight Design, Tecnam or perhaps Remos. I've been in all three and they seem like fine airplanes. The Tecnam distributor is here in the local area. I would love to see the owner of the school here become a dealer for Tecnam since they currently do not have a dealer in the area.
I sure want to the LSA category expand and be successful. I would think more people would consider today with fuel prices as they are. Surely the entrance of Cirrus and Cessna into the LSA market has validated the category. Too bad, in Cessna's case, the LSA they offer has such poor useful load numbers as well.
Randy Epstein
www.lightsportinfo.com
The school I'm training at decided to try and sell AMD's as well as use one for training. The one for training is getting some use, but the one they have for sale has been sitting on the ramp since March, that I know of. I feel the owner of the school just made the wrong choice and could have been better served to get on board with Flight Design, Tecnam or perhaps Remos. I've been in all three and they seem like fine airplanes. The Tecnam distributor is here in the local area. I would love to see the owner of the school here become a dealer for Tecnam since they currently do not have a dealer in the area.
I sure want to the LSA category expand and be successful. I would think more people would consider today with fuel prices as they are. Surely the entrance of Cirrus and Cessna into the LSA market has validated the category. Too bad, in Cessna's case, the LSA they offer has such poor useful load numbers as well.
Randy Epstein
www.lightsportinfo.com
Randy Epstein