Sport Pilot Talk

Jon V · Joined: 21 Apr 2011 Posts: 156 Location: Dallas...

I'm probably jumping the gun here, but....

Anyone have any thoughts on some of the single-seat LSA planes around? Titan Tornado, Hawk Arrow, Challenger Special, Rans S-14, etc.

Here's what has me thinking along those lines:

1) They look like fun. Not particularly practical for cross country flights or anything but in many ways they seem like they could be my "ideal" for non-aerobatic planes.

2) Pricing on the "max spec" LSA planes is simply absurd. I can buy a loaded RV-8 (and pay for the extra training) for the price of a used Remos G3 and that's not getting into the used Pipers, Cessnas, etc. that are routinely under half the price.

3) Buying a sub-$15K single seat plane for my fun flying and renting two-place machines at $100/hr or so when I want to go farther or carry a passenger seems like a very economical choice.

I can't see why these planes wouldn't work out just fine for 90% of the flying I actually want to do. My main concern is just the weather envelope...are they so sensitive to wind etc. that you would never have a chance to fly them in north Texas?

Logically, it seems like a used single-seater (~$11,000 cash purchase) should end up costing about $2000/yr (inspections, maintenance, taxes, etc) plus maybe $20/hr. to operate. Fly an hour a week (avg) and you are looking at around $60/hr assuming the airframe retains some value when sold ... more and the numbers look even better of course.

Thoughts? Reality checks? Similar dreams?

Jim Stewart · Joined: 12 Oct 2006 Posts: 259

A hangermate of mine had a titan tornado. He loved it. He routinely flew up into the Sierras, landed on a dirt strip, spent the night and then came home.

flyboy2007 · Joined: 27 Jan 2008 Posts: 79 Location: wisconsin

I built and flew a single seat challenger and loved it! It is a very fun and easy plane to fly and can handle wind very well. I did a few flights of 3 hours but nothing further. You would very much enjoy one I would think.

Jon V · Joined: 21 Apr 2011 Posts: 156 Location: Dallas...

Jim Stewart wrote: ... routinely flew up into the Sierras, landed on a dirt strip, spent the night and then came home.

That is the single biggest dream/aspiration I have in flying. Not the Sierras per se but doing exactly what I already do on my dual-sport motorcycle, by air. Traveling around, camping, exploring...adventuring I guess you'd say.

I guess the Tornado isn't really a single-seat now that I look further. It's just that the first one I happened to find mention of was single control/effectively single seat.

flyboy2007 wrote: I built and flew a single seat challenger and loved it!

What was it like to build? I know they talk about 300 hour build times but what is it realistically?

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

Jon V wrote: Anyone have any thoughts on some of the single-seat LSA planes around?

Most of them have a Vh less than 87 knots. Thus, you'll need an instructor checkout and logbook signoff. That's a bit tricky to accomplish in a one-seat aircraft! :wink:

Quote: should end up costing about $2000/yr (inspections, maintenance, taxes, etc) plus maybe $20/hr. to operate.

Don't underestimate the cost of insurance. Adequate liability protection can easily run as much as all other costs combined. You might want to post a query to the "ask the insurance agent" forum on this board.

Jon V · Joined: 21 Apr 2011 Posts: 156 Location: Dallas...

I was surprised by the speeds. Of the few I've researched most seem to claim 90+mph cruise speeds (so I would assume Vh > 87) but it's interesting and I've only been researching for a few hours and only looking at those I can find listed for sale used. For some reason I dismissed the singles early on (probably training concerns) and am only now looking at them seriously.

The check-out part is a tricky bit. Still, there must be a way....

Insurance ... I'm paying that already without even owning a plane. I'm sure it would be higher... definitely need to ask some questions there.

Good thoughts.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

Jon V wrote: most seem to claim 90+mph cruise speeds (so I would assume Vh > 87)

Well, let's analyze that. 90 MPH = 76.5 knots. If claimed cruise speed is 12% below Vh (not all that unusual), then Vh is just under 86 knots, and you're definitely into the low airspeed, high drag domain. But, more important, the claimed cruise speeds are often indicated airspeed at some specified altitude. Vh is defined as true airspeed, at sea level on an ISA standard day. So, you have to read those specs very carefully to find out whether a low-Vh signoff is required.

BTW, in 50 years of flying, I've yet to encounter an ISA standard day! :wink: (Nor do I spend much time cruising at sea level, unless I'm in a boat.)

Jon V · Joined: 21 Apr 2011 Posts: 156 Location: Dallas...

That makes a lot of sense.

So... dumb question... what is so different about a Vh < 87Kt plane that it needs a special sign-off?

I assume the process is to find someone with a Vh<87 2-seater, take a lesson (ehem), get that sign-off, and then I need a type sign-off for the specific model too so...is this where alcohol comes in? :wink:

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

Jon V wrote: So... dumb question...

Jon, there are no dumb questions. Dumb means mute. So ask me, verbally. If you can articulate the question out loud, you're obviously not dumb!

Quote: what is so different about a Vh < 87Kt plane that it needs a special sign-off?

First off, the number 87 is not at all arbitrary. That equates to exactly 100 mph (rounded off, of course). Specifically, a nautical mile is 15% longer than a statute mile. so, multiply 87 knots by 1.15 and you get: 100.05 MPH. (They had to draw the line somewhere...)

These types of aircraft are considered low-speed, high-drag machines. They have very little inertial stability, so they have to be flown somewhat differently from the more conventional LSAs. Originally, Sport Pilots were thought to be transitioning from ultralights, which are Vh<87knot machines. So, instruction and a logbook endorsement were required to transition to the faster machines.

When the LSA rules were rewritten last year, the FAA realized that now, most Sport Pilots train in the faster aircraft. So, if they want to transition in the other direction, an equivalent endorsement was added.

LeafAngel · Joined: 05 Aug 2010 Posts: 13 Location: Kilbourne, Ohio

Take a look at the Earthstar Thunder Gull and Odessey, single and two seaters respectively. My father inlaw has owned both. He really loved the Gull as a single, very sporty relatively speaking. He currentley has an Odessey and loves it also. They both offer great visibility. I have flown the Odessey and find it quite easy to fly. I'm training in a Sportstar but have found the transition to flying the Odessey very easy.

dstclair · Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 212 Location: Allen, TX

Academic question -- does a PP exercising sport pilot privileges need a < 87kts endorsement?

3Dreaming · Joined: 10 Jan 2010 Posts: 301 Location: noble, IL USA

dstclair wrote: Academic question -- does a PP exercising sport pilot privileges need a < 87kts endorsement?

No, but getting the training anyway is not a bad idea. Tom

Jim Stewart · Joined: 12 Oct 2006 Posts: 259

Quote: I guess the Tornado isn't really a single-seat now that I look further. It's just that the first one I happened to find mention of was single control/effectively single seat.

Well, my friend did mention that it is single-seat if you're bringing your equipment to camp in the Sierras.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

3Dreaming wrote: dstclair wrote: Academic question -- does a PP exercising sport pilot privileges need a < 87kts endorsement?

No, but getting the training anyway is not a bad idea. Tom

I agree with Tom. If your PP card says ASEL on it, you can technically fly any ASEL except for those which specifically require a type certificate or endorsement (such as conventional landing gear, complex, or turbine powered). But, any time you change planes, you should consider yourself a student pilot all over again. When, as a Commercial Pilot, I downsized from Beechcraft to LSA, I bought myself five hours of ground and five hours of dual. Best investment in safety I ever made!

Jack Tyler · Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:58 am Post subject:

Interesting discussion, as it takes the forum into an area I don't see discussed much nor do I know much about. Paul's 'mini-history' on the impact of (relatively) fast LSA training planes reversing the 'slow to faster' endorsement requirement was an interesting glimpse at the impact of the LSA evolution.

Jon, let me be provocative for just a minute...tho' in a 'good way', I'm hoping. Do you really mean what you initially stated...

"I can't see why these planes wouldn't work out just fine for 90% of the flying I actually want to do. ..Logically, it seems like a used single-seater (~$11,000 cash purchase) should end up costing about $2000/yr (inspections, maintenance, taxes, etc) plus maybe $20/hr. to operate."

...or is the real driver behind your question simply economics (which is certainly a driver for almost all of us, as well). I ask that because, a bit later in the thread, you voice what *really* seems to be the kind of flying you would like to be doing:

"That is the single biggest dream/aspiration I have in flying. Not the Sierras per se but doing exactly what I already do on my dual-sport motorcycle, by air. Traveling around, camping, exploring...adventuring I guess you'd say."

And of course, you'll notice Jim's comment just above, pointing out that some two-seaters can only take one person when used as you'd wish. I'm prodding you on the notion a bit only because, as you've heard time and again, it's best to choose the airplane based on the mission...and low speed/high drag, low payload/single person aircraft just don't seem to resonate with 'adventure' flying. (I say this due to my own concerns about picking an LSA that would permit Patricia and I to fly off to one of the 'aviation campsites' for the weekend - something I'd very much like to do. To pitch a tent and scramble some eggs, it's pretty eyeopening to tally up the payload required).

Or perhaps this is a corollary: When I got hooked on motorcycle touring, the notion of riding a bike with an open-ended, 'let's see where we end up' mindset was a *huge* draw for me. But the first time I actually headed out for the Rockies & Canada (from SoCal), I got my first 'payload lesson' while trying to handle my poor top-heavy bike. I picture 'your' single-seater being somewhat the same as my Honda. But at least the Honda could keep up with the traffic and put in the miles. If your work-style is somewhat conventional, leaving only weekends to go exploring, that low speed quality would also be less of a fit.

I don't mean to squash any dreams. Just trying to provoke the notion a bit to test how much it really boils down to cost. In which case, something also inexpensive but with a bit more payload and speed might be the better companion for you.