Sport Pilot Talk

Wow... so much for my favorable impression of friendliness in the aviation community! I like to think this is an isolated incident.

IMO, differences in opinion are healthy, but I'm not so sure about the juvenile mudslinging.

Hopefully I can re-invigorate this thread without the engine mudslinging...

I'm curious to learn the prospective LSA student pilot's perception regarding training in an aircraft manufacturered by a company with Cessna's history and reputation.

Also, what about the Skycatcher becoming an LSA 'standard'? Wouldn't it be beneficial to have a 'standard' across the country (even around the world) to enhance training, rental, maintenance, parts, etc?

Ham,

From what I think is the perspective of MOST students...they don't really care what they fly. The word is AVAILABILITY. If there were Remos' on the ramp at most FBO's, then that would become the standard. Same case with any other of the NEW S-LSA's.

The problem is that none of these designs have become widely available for rent and training.

Your second idea, YES the 162 IS going to become the standard! Cessna has been slow getting out of the blocks, for many reasons, but production is ramping up now an the economy seems to be recovering, so I expect the influx of Skycatchers to speed up a lot in 2011.

I hate that Cessna chose to build it in China but that's not going to affect its' success.

NOW THERE'S A BIG BIG TRAIN THAT'S COMING!!!! The leaded avgas and ethanol-containing MOGAS issues. Right now, think 100LL is well over $5.00 per gallon. Probably 100LL will not be available ina few years. Ethanol in MOGAS has emerged as a problem for the engines in most S-LSA's.

SOME SOLUTION is going to have to be found since the 162 has a 100LL drinking Continental engine. SOME SOLUTION is going to have to be found for the S-LSA's that use MOGAS, since most SLSA operators have elected to use 100LL because of the unavailbility of ethanol free MOGAS.

I don't know where this is gonna go but I do know there's a LOT of high-up folks working frantically on the solution.

I am a student SP, training in a PiperSport. Looking forward, I can see availability being the primary constraint on what I will fly. So, others may be right that the C162 will become the standard simply by virtue of its 'being there'.
I anticipate my primary mission being a 300nm outbound segment for a long weekend with my wife. So I'm really looking for a craft with more useful load that the C162 and, for my wife's peace of mind especially, a high level of active and passive safety features (parachute, air bags, safety cage, roll bar, etc.)
So far I haven't identified a plane that really fits that bill though a few come close. But then there is that availability issue. I guess I'll need to buy it if I find one that meets my criteria.

bryancobb wrote:Ethanol in MOGAS has emerged as a problem for the engines in most S-LSA's.

Ethanol is not an issue with the Rotax. Rotax approves up to 10% ethanol. The other issue with ethanol is whether the aircraft manufacturer approves it, and the aircraft systems are able to handle it. Are the fuel tanks, lines, filters, etc., ethanol resistant? How much so? An example is a plastic fuel filter may be ethanol resistant to 20%, but what happens to it when the gas is left in the plane long enough for the ethanol to phase seperate, leaving 100% ethanol in the lower part of the fuel system, where that filter is located?

Hambone wrote: I'm curious to learn the prospective LSA student pilot's perception regarding training in an aircraft manufacturered by a company with Cessna's history and reputation.

I started training last month in a brand new 162 and I think it's awesome! I definitely like the fact that Cessna has been around for a long time and has built a solid following. Since I can't make comparisons between the 162 and other LSAs, I ask everyone that has flown the Skycatcher and virtually everyone tells me it's a very good/great handling plane. With my very limited experience, I can tell you I love flying in this plane!

That said, I'd agree that availability is key. I was just lucky to find a local flight school that picked up a new Skycatcher a month before I decided to start trainng.

rfane wrote: Ethanol is not an issue with the Rotax. Rotax approves up to 10% ethanol. The other issue with ethanol is whether the aircraft manufacturer approves it, and the aircraft systems are able to handle it. Are the fuel tanks, lines, filters, etc., ethanol resistant? How much so? An example is a plastic fuel filter may be ethanol resistant to 20%, but what happens to it when the gas is left in the plane long enough for the ethanol to phase seperate, leaving 100% ethanol in the lower part of the fuel system, where that filter is located?

Ethanol in MOGAS HAS emerged as a problem for the engines in most S-LSA's, whether it's actual or perceived. Rotax may allow up to 10%, but the variables that you list causes a question mark in all pilots' minds when it comes to actually squirting it into the tank on the plane you are about to fly.

The De-Facto human response is to take the path of least resistance and use 100LL "just in case."

bryancobb wrote:

rfane wrote: Ethanol is not an issue with the Rotax. Rotax approves up to 10% ethanol. The other issue with ethanol is whether the aircraft manufacturer approves it, and the aircraft systems are able to handle it. Are the fuel tanks, lines, filters, etc., ethanol resistant? How much so? An example is a plastic fuel filter may be ethanol resistant to 20%, but what happens to it when the gas is left in the plane long enough for the ethanol to phase seperate, leaving 100% ethanol in the lower part of the fuel system, where that filter is located?

Ethanol in MOGAS HAS emerged as a problem for the engines in most S-LSA's, whether it's actual or perceived. Rotax may allow up to 10%, but the variables that you list causes a question mark in all pilots' minds when it comes to actually squirting it into the tank on the plane you are about to fly.

The De-Facto human response is to take the path of least resistance and use 100LL "just in case."

The real problem with using mogas with ethanol in an airplane is that, unlike autos, airplanes often sit unused for long periods of time. Ethanol absorbs water and can undergo phase seperation if left to sit. Even aircraft at flight schools in many parts of the contry can sit for weeks unused due to wx. It's one reason I have become leary of purchasing a used sport plane because many owners I have spoken to have admitted to using mogas with ethanol in their airplanes. Unless the seller is willing to admit to using ethanol, you just don't have anyway of knowing. At least with 100 LL you know you are getting a quality product and 100 LL can sit for a long time without any degradation.

zdc wrote:It's one reason I have become leary of purchasing a used sport plane because many owners I have spoken to have admitted to using mogas with ethanol in their airplanes. Unless the seller is willing to admit to using ethanol, you just don't have anyway of knowing. At least with 100 LL you know you are getting a quality product and 100 LL can sit for a long time without any degradation.

Speaking only of the Rotax engine alone, not other engines, nor airframes, a steady diet of 100LL is far worse than even a case of phase seperated mogas. Yes, 100LL can sit for longer, but the lead will cause you to have early engine problems, primarily heads, valves, rings, and the gearbox. You can use Decalin, change the oil more often, etc., but the lead will still cause you problems eventually.

bryancobb wrote:Ethanol in MOGAS HAS emerged as a problem for the engines in most S-LSA's, whether it's actual or perceived. Rotax may allow up to 10%, but the variables that you list causes a question mark in all pilots' minds when it comes to actually squirting it into the tank on the plane you are about to fly.

The De-Facto human response is to take the path of least resistance and use 100LL "just in case."

Exactly how is a question mark in a pilot's mind (perception) an actual problem with the engine? Simply, it's not. The engine is designed to run on mogas, and the manufacturer is ok with 10% ethanol. Keep it fresh, and there is no issue concerning the engine itself. I myself would rather have Mogas in my tanks than 100LL. If we don't fly it enough to keep it from aging, which hasn't happened yet, I'd drain the tanks and put it in my car if I had concerns.

If buying a used sport plane, my concern about ethanol would not be with the engine, but the airfrmae. Have any sport plane manufactures approved 10 % ethanol fuel for the airframe? Not all owners are going to be dilligent about not letting the airplane sit idle for too long and drain the tanks. If the aircraft manufacturer hasn't approved the use of ethanol for the airframe it doesn't matter what Rotax has approved.

saintlfd wrote:I anticipate my primary mission being a 300nm outbound segment for a long weekend with my wife. So I'm really looking for a craft with more useful load that the C162 and, for my wife's peace of mind especially, a high level of active and passive safety features (parachute, air bags, safety cage, roll bar, etc.)

It would be helpful if you shared your findings. I look at exactly the same mission profile. So, I looked at it from various angles and just cannot make numbers to close. There is simply no capacity in a 600kg airplane to carry the stuff that 2000kg car carries with ease, and you know that getting women to travel light is a challenge even when the formal wear is not needed. My interim solution is to rent conventional airplanes and excercise PP privileges until my medical expires. Basically kick the can down the road and hope manufacturers come up with light composite airplanes while my wife is getting used to the downsides of travel by GA. The makers of Skylark II claim amazing numbers: useful load 643 lbs, 528 lbs w/ full fuel. But it still requires a different luggage phylosophy.

zdc wrote:Have any sport plane manufactures approved 10 % ethanol fuel for the airframe?

Flight Design does. On older CT's, you have to comply with a Service Bulletin to swap out a plastic fuel filter for an aluminum one. The newer CT's come with the aluminum one. This was due to the phase seperation issue I mentioned earlier that turned the plastic one to mush in one CT.

rfane wrote: Exactly how is a question mark in a pilot's mind (perception) an actual problem with the engine?

Who said it was an ENGINE problem? I sure didn't. I just said ethanol in MOGAS has become a R-E-A-L problem for pilots of light sport aircraft. I went on to imply that the problem may be actual or perceived, but it is REAL!

If you are hunting an argument with a ROTAX basher, you won't find it in me. I love ROTAXes. God! I have 100+ hours under a Mini-500 rotor, turned by a grayhead 582. I also have 100+ hours in a Tierra II with a single ignition, belt drive 503. I have never had a forced landing in ANY aircraft except a turbine powered UH-1h.

bryancobb wrote:

rfane wrote: Exactly how is a question mark in a pilot's mind (perception) an actual problem with the engine?

Who said it was an ENGINE problem? I sure didn't. I just said ethanol in MOGAS has become a R-E-A-L problem for pilots of light sport aircraft. I went on to imply that the problem may be actual or perceived, but it is REAL!

If you are hunting an argument with a ROTAX basher, you won't find it in me. I love ROTAXes. God! I have 100+ hours under a Mini-500 rotor, turned by a grayhead 582. I also have 100+ hours in a Tierra II with a single ignition, belt drive 503. I have never had a forced landing in ANY aircraft except a turbine powered UH-1h.

Bryan, I know you are not anti Rotax, but you were the one who said it was an engine problem. Quote "NOW THERE'S A BIG BIG TRAIN THAT'S COMING!!!! The leaded avgas and ethanol-containing MOGAS issues. Right now, think 100LL is well over $5.00 per gallon. Probably 100LL will not be available ina few years. Ethanol in MOGAS has emerged as a problem for the engines in most S-LSA's" un-quote. Since most LSA's use Rotax he thought you were saying it is a problem with Rotax. I know that is how I took it. When reading print in a post that is all you can go by, it is sometimes hard to tell the intent of the poster. Tom