Sport Pilot Talk

theoarno · Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 59 Location: Texas

I flew the Remos GX today and thought I would post some observations in comparison to the C-152.

Within the last week or so "Above and Beyond Aviation" flying from Atlantic Aviation FBO at Austin Bergstrom (AUS) picked up a Remos GX for their rental fleet.

Keep in mind that prior to this all of my flying time was limited to the C-152 and I have only flown the Remos for a total of 1.3 hours with 5 landings.
I flew with instructor John Prickett who to the best of my knowledge is the only Sport Pilot instructor at Above and Beyond at this time. However I did notice from the aircraft log that one of the other instructors, George, had put in 3 or 4 flights in the AC.

The Remos took about and extra 3 to 5 minutes to preflight than the 152. This included pulling the prop through about 8 times to get the oil up into the holding tank, which wasn't necessary but John wanted me to know how to do it, in the event it was necessary.

The Remos is easier to refuel. A ladder is not needed. But it isn't possible to dip the tank. The fuel level is confirmed via a clear tube in the cockpit as well as the fuel guages.

The Remos is easier to get into and out of. The cockpit feels wider to me but there is less space to put stuff behind the seats and the storage area requires removing the seat.

The 152 will turn tighter in taxi. It was odd not having differential brakes but the nose wheel steering is very responsive and it will turn almost as tight as the 152.

The Remos does not have toe brakes. The 152 has good toe brakes. The most disconcerting part of the whole experience was having to trust the emergency brake during the run up. The Emergency brake was difficult to apply with the shoulder harness on. However it did not fail.
During run up/pre take off, you are unable to see the elevator without opening the door. The 152 has a nice rear window.

The Remos jumps off of the runway. It is a sports car compared to the 152. The Remos accelerates very quickly. I will not swear to it but suspect we were off the ground in 500 feet or less. We climbed out at 75 mph and I saw 900 fpm and even 1000 fpm on occasion. This is much better than the 152. The GX might even climb better than that.

Climb attitude is slightly nose higher than the 152 but visibility is actually better. In fact with exception of looking to the rear visibility is better all around on the Remos.

Cruise speed in the Remos is higher. I normally trim for cruise at 90 kts in the 152 that is about 103 mph. We trimmed the Remos to about 107 mph. I am sure it will cruise faster . I don't remember the exact RPM but it was below 5000 rpm.

Power off stalls are non existent. The AC stays nose up and starts to loose altitude. Power on stalls where similar to the 152 in nose drop but the tail did not shake and it drops the left wing quicker. Recovery was as easy as pushing the stick forward, right rudder and level off once at flying speed.

I had trouble getting trimmed for level flight in cruise. I kept climbing and then having to get back down to altitude.
I do this pretty well in the 152 but the GX is just a bit more responsive than I am used to.

We flew downwind at about 90 mph and abeam of the numbers all the way to level off at 75 MPH. The GX has carb heat but no mixture. Trim is through an electronic switch, and not quite as positive as the 152. Setting flaps is easier in the 152. Also you have to be careful with the flap switch on the Remos. If you just let it go when it is pressed down it will flip up into the up flap position and retract the flaps.

I made 3 bad landings, 2 really good landings. The remos is very responsive and it is easy to over control if you are used to a 152. The only redeeming quality to my bad landings was that I didn't land on the nose wheel. My instructor told me the Remos will not take the beating on the nose wheel that the Cessna can.

During decent to KAUS we throttled back to about 3700 rpm. The Remos has a vibration in that RPM range. The instructor said it was caused by carburetor synchronization.

The Dynon Panel was easy to use but I didn't mess with it in flight. I really liked it a lot. The altimeter responded much quicker than the steam gauges on the 152 and only took a short while to get used to.

I had to stow my iPad to the side of my leg during any maneuvering because it interfered with the stick. This isn't an issue with the Cessna. I will look at this next time

I really liked the Remos a lot and it is very responsive aircraft but takes some getting used to. I will definitely fly it again.

Theo

comperini · Joined: 24 Feb 2008 Posts: 152 Location: California

theoarno wrote: I flew with instructor John Prickett who to the best of my knowledge is the only Sport Pilot instructor at Above and Beyond at this time.

All of their instructors by definition are sport pilot instructors (or more accurately... can fly in LSAs and teach to the sport pilot level).

Quote:
This included pulling the prop through about 8 times to get the oil up into the holding tank, which wasn't necessary but John wanted me to know how to do it, in the event it was necessary.

The Rotax engine? If so, you know that's only necessary when you want to take an accurate oil level reading. I mention that because I have talked with people that somehow think the 912 needs to be "pulled thru" before every start.

[a bunch of good stuff about the Remos snipped]

Ok, LSAs have some limitations (two seats, often marginal luggage compartments... they're lighter so you'll feel turbulence quicker), but you just can't beat the short take off, climb performance, and low operating cost of pretty much any LSA. They are indeed fun to fly, aren't they?

good review. Thanks for posting!

theoarno · Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 59 Location: Texas

One thing I didn't like about the Remos GX.
The Pitot tube is really long and at eye level. It is possible to poke yourself in the eye with it.

zaitcev · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 258 Location: Albuquerque, NM

I compared the 150M and GX thus:

Quote: Firstly, the basics of specific airplanes. C150 N2966V weighs 1600 lbs gross, 1128 lbs empty, for 472 lbs useful load. Of that, it drains 5.5 gph. GX N28GX is 1320 lbs gross over 689 lbs (no chute), for 631 lbs useful. The difference in utility is very much pronounced. When I flew C150 with a small instructor (140 lbs), we had to off-load fuel down to 10 gallons! In GX, I can take my wife and a couple of bags, fly XC to an overnight destination. In 150 I can only take her for 1 circuit around the pattern.

Funnily enough, the C150 has a large, easily accessible baggage/cargo area, but GX has an adequate, but poorly accessible baggage hold (must remove seats to get to it). People of 1940s were so small, it was another world. They needed and used all that space.

As far as flying qualities go, GX wins by a mile. It is completely natural, all controls feel just right. It needs a light touch, but not excessively so: flaring for landing is quite easy. In contrast, in C150 you actually have to be a pilot, especially when dragging it in with power, and it is easier to overcook and balloon when flaring. For people with large and current experience in typical basic and advanced singles, there is probably not much difference, but for a low-time pilot it is quite noticeable. Of course, flying GX one must not get too complacent. In particular, you must be able to handle crosswinds.

Speaking of which, touching down with a crab in GX is undesirable, and wheelbarrowing is a strict taboo. I heard its landing gear was not not as sturdy, although I did not prang one yet. Unfortunately the cowl of GX is completely smooth, and also oddly and deceptively shaped. The right way to know the centerline is to extend the line between the rudder pedals up, then reference a part of Dynon display for visual alignment. The C150 is supposed to be more forgiving of harder landings.

Note that the Piper-style direct nosewheel steering requires the rudder to be straightened momentarily when nosewheel comes down at landing. Still, I found this skill easier to master than Cessna's toe brakes. And the bungee cords are a pure nightmare. To this day I taxi N2699V in zig-zags.

I touched upon the visibility before. For some reason I am more comfortable in C150. The visibility for the tall people is poor in both, but in C150 I do not have to fly bent over like a question mark. Also, the ventillation in GX blows at feet. I made a mistake of flying in shorts and sandals once and caught a good cold (I cruise at about 9.5/10.5).

If you are short though, GX offers excellent creature comforts (sans air conditioning of course). And the instrumentation is thoroughly modern. I suppose, one could plop an Aspen into C150. The cost is going to be more than the whole airplane.

And it's understandable. One thing I do not see mentioned much is how poorly C150 was designed and built. It's horrible. When I see the rudder assembly, I get scared. The flaps are horribly over-engineered for their function and yet require constant attention. It truly was a cheap airplane. To be fair, Cessna worked to improve it during the long production run. They gradually strengthened the tail and doubled up in the areas of worst cracking. I would say, the late-70s Ms are reasonably safe, as long as you have and use a seat stop and generally pay attention.

By contrast, GX is designed and built like a Lexus. Unfortunately, it comes with a price tag to match: $135k for a stripper model. Repairs are costly too. And its durability is unproven. Nonetheless, the owner of N28GX uses it for primary training. I really hope his business plan closes.
from http://zaitcev.mee.nu/flying_remos_gx_versus_cessna_150m

There is also a school at KAPA in Denver that uses GX for primary training.