flynavyj

I'd say for flight training and time building, there's nothing wrong w/ a slow light airplane. To make yourself more competitive (in the end) you'll want the highest performance, most complex aircraft around.

Also, for a long time, people were cruising around in 152's for primary trainers, and as i recall, they don't go much more than 100kts if they'll even break the ton anyway. Only issue i'd see is if you're doing primary training on glass equipped airplanes, and that only really becomes an issue if you go from class to steam (which you probably will when converting to your twin). But leaving the glass behind will probably become a bigger hindrance if your first airline/corporate/135 flying gig is done in a dinosaur (not an RJ). As you'll be "struggling" to keep up with the sim.

just my .02.

Ottopilot

Where is this? Sign me up.

Gliders in my area:
New Jersey Glider Pilot Lessons and Training - Full Service Gliderport - Yards Creek Soaring - serving NY, PA, CT and NJ - 1n7 - 40°5816N 074°5951W

$40/hr Schweizer 2-33
$45 aerotow 2000'
$40/hr instructor
----------------
$125/hr total!

ChinookDriver47

Concur. Went for a ride in an Evektor and liked it actually. I was really skeptical about it but, at about 400 feet with wheels clear, my misconceptions were left on the ground.

Now, for GA I am used to 110 KIAS at least, 140 KIAS with the helicopter; but I have to say for shorter flights where you want to slow down and appreciate the area, these LSA's are in a strong running to beat out your primary trainers / rental fleet. I do not, however, recommend them as a primary trainer. The cockpits seem to touch on either end of the extreme in that they are oversimplified, or trying to compete with glass cockpits. I would recommend them only for rated pilots to build XC time and a cheaper rate to stretch the dollar. Getting that $100 hamburger might only turn into $85 now and pump some much needed life into GA.

My .02.

block30

The biggest program with Sport is the pilot group it goes after. Older, out of shape, guys with poor vision, who blindly believe they have what it takes to become a pilot in 20 hours-- their CFI's opinion be damned.

The second issue is not how these LSA handle in the air, so much as during takeoff and landing. Cessnas and Pipers can be just about crashed onto the runway but yet forgive the student. LSAs can and do bite back.

My background is decent, with over a thousand dual given, and I'm scared to death to solo someone in those damn LSA. Really.

So if you can get healthy, motivated, cautious, university students, that in itself is a HUGE step. BUT-the pattern work you'll really have to manage the risk based on the make/model, student, runway, winds, etc.

Not meant as flame bait, but to increase your situational awareness.
You have been briefed. (Gives a very serious look.)

block30

P.S.

The "Saving people from themselves" as my position was inspired by my flying of LSA. I feel it applies to the other kinds of instruction I do to a degree, but one day I thought that "saving people from themselves" was my job number one after dealing with Sport Pilots earlier that day.

I don't mean to be a downer on the subject, but do not confuse slow as a 152 with being as forgiving as a 152. In my experience, LSA are not. Do you notice a trend with my posts?

Again, saying all this with a sincere attitude for YOUR benefit. Feel free to PM me,

Best,

HectorD

I actually though LSAs where easier to fly.
That kind of backs up my "theory" even more.

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).

HectorD

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).

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.

KSCessnaDriver

First, how are they inferior to most part 23 certificated aircraft? Have you read the ASTM standards? Care to point out specifically how they are inferior? They are built very well, IMO. They passed the required testing to be flown, which, is a much newer standard.

Secondly, the name of the company is Remos, not REMOS. The wings on the Remos G3/GX are not removable, but foldable. They are hinged to allow them to twist and fold backwards, to be stored next to the fuselage, allowing for storage in small spaces. A crash occurred at the Sebring US Light Sport Expo this year, because apparently, the pilots neglected a basic 10 second check of the flight controls inside the cabin, and a few second check of some pins on the front of the wing.

Third, I fail to see how a Cessna 172/Piper PA28/Diamond DA-20 is any more complex than a LSA. They all have fixed landing gear and fixed pitch props. They all do roughly the same airspeeds. LSA's are great for college's and pilots alike. They will help to bring down astronomical costs of flying, which we see today. When the initial purchase costs are much lower, rental rates can be lower. Just my opinion, of course

Pilotpip

Hector,

The wings on your DA-20 are held on with two bolts. I've had one off a plane 40 minutes after a flight. There are a number of homebuilt aircraft out there that have folding wings and have never had a problem. And hundreds of perfectly good Bonanzas, Pipers and other low wing aircraft have been put into corn fields because pilots didn't switch fuel tanks.

Many of them are certified aircraft in Europe under regulations that are much more stringent than Part 23. They make a change such as lowering Vne or limiting the engine to lower horsepower to fit into the LSA rules. In fact part 23 hasn't been updated in years.

For somebody that has a few hours and is about to go to college you sure seem to have everything figured out.