Quote:
I haven't flown an LSA but I don't need to fly one to know they are inferior to most certified FAR part 23 aircraft in terms of construction and that is exactly my point. I am not saying they are badly designed and its not the manufacturers fault in reality. Its just the necessity for these aircraft to be cheap make the product "cheaper". How they handle in the air aside. Crash a cessna 172 and any LSA and the odds of survival are lower in an LSA than a Cessna 172 for example. Make me believe that the wings in the REMOS which are detachable are stronger than that of a cessna and I will give you $100 (joke BTW).Originally Posted by KSCessnaDriver
You would think that, until you fly one. It took me about 3.5 hours to figure out how to get the flare and landing right in a CTSW, consistantly. It has one of the weirdest sight pictures I've ever seen. The panel is really, really, really low. Lower than a BE-76, much lower. It seems like it would be easy to realize that, but it took me about 3 hours to figure it out. Its all energy management. Throw 40 degree's of flaps in, with drooping ailerons, and the thing starts coming down like a space shutle. The nose wheel is really, really weak. So much so, there has been a lot of incidents due to pilots just slamming it down (ala 172/PA28).
It can be the easiest thing to fly, but no LSA will ever surpass a 172, Cherokee or DA-20 in terms of strength, safety and complexity and that is why I think LSAs are not good for college programs. Just my opinion mind you.