Sport Pilot Talk

TimTaylor wrote:There is NOTHING resembling high performance with a 100 hp LSA

Can you relate to the concept of a high performance glider? zero hp but it can be designed to fly faster and climb better.

The Pipestrel Virus is the Nasa Cafe record holder. = high performance again.

I responded to the OP that an LSA would be perfectly fine flying where he is located in Colorado Springs. I also made the point that there is not as much opportunity to reduce the weight of an LSA as there is with other aircraft, which is a true statement. I did not say or imply an LSA was a better or worse option for his situation.

And yes, I would much much prefer flying the M20C to the SkyCatchers and Remos GX I am currently flying. So what? I am now relegated to LSA and am quite happy with it. I don't remember EVER bad mouthing LSA or Sport Pilots.

TimTaylor wrote:I responded to the OP that an LSA would be perfectly fine flying where he is located in Colorado Springs. I also made the point that there is not as much opportunity to reduce the weight of an LSA as there is with other aircraft, which is a true statement. I did not say or imply an LSA was a better or worse option for his situation.

And yes, I would much much prefer flying the M20C to the SkyCatchers and Remos GX I am currently flying. So what? I am now relegated to LSA and am quite happy with it. I don't remember EVER bad mouthing LSA or Sport Pilots.

And, by the way, I made no mention of flying a Mooney or preferring a Mooney or any other aircraft. Some other guy said that, out of the blue, and suggested I don't belong here. What the hell?

TimTaylor wrote:

TimTaylor wrote:I responded to the OP that an LSA would be perfectly fine flying where he is located in Colorado Springs. I also made the point that there is not as much opportunity to reduce the weight of an LSA as there is with other aircraft, which is a true statement. I did not say or imply an LSA was a better or worse option for his situation.

And yes, I would much much prefer flying the M20C to the SkyCatchers and Remos GX I am currently flying. So what? I am now relegated to LSA and am quite happy with it. I don't remember EVER bad mouthing LSA or Sport Pilots.

And, by the way, I made no mention of flying a Mooney or preferring a Mooney or any other aircraft. Some other guy said that, out of the blue, and suggested I don't belong here. What the hell?

I think his comments were based on more than just this thread. At times you comments come across as pretty negative towards sport pilot and LSA, even if that is not your intent.

I’m a pilot with 54 years experience in lots of planes. Never flew one I didn’t like. Like anything, I prefer some over others.

Let's take two airplanes:

1) 1320lb gross LSA (100hp)

2) 2640lb gross non-LSA (200hp)

To reduce weight and increase performance, aircraft B leaves two 200lb passengers behind. Aircraft A leaves one 200lb passenger behind. Which one gets the bigger performance bump? Answer: the performance increase on a percentage basis is identical.

It's not about power, it's about power to weight.

Sure, at 10,000ft takeoff roll might double...the same as it does for every normally-aspirated airplane. There's nothing inherently low performance about a 100hp airplane, it just depends on weight. And with wing loadings usually lower for LSA than other GA airplanes, the LSA might actually have an advantage at higher altitudes.

My CTSW breaks ground in about 600ft, and then climbs at 900fpm at gross; if my takeoff roll doubles I'm not going to sweat it on a decent length runway.

I have quite a few hours behind a 914 turbo in Idaho. The highest density altitude takeoff was at 8,700 ft and the climb rate at max gross was 750 FPM in a Tecnam P2008. Had the airplane up to 13,900 ft multiple times to clear the Grand Teton mountain range with ease.

I'm at 4800' MSL. 100hp Sportstar. I'm finding it quite nimble and comfortably airborne with plenty of runway to spare with full tanks and solo anytime of the year. So, weight management is important. With ~30 gallons available on full tanks and the endurance of the Rotax engine, I'm fine with flying dual, with half tanks at takeoff. Plan accordingly. You can't haul around excess weight in these airplanes like you can in the higher hp spam cans.

It's also about correct prop pitch for your flight altitude. The wrong prop pitch can be a game changer.

akroguy wrote:With ~30 gallons available on full tanks and the endurance of the Rotax engine, I'm fine with flying dual, with half tanks at takeoff.

I'm on my second flight school SportStar. For training, ten gallons in each side gives enough range for any lesson, including XC, with plenty of reserve (and enough payload to accommodate me and a student up to 250 pounds). When I travel solo I can load up with full baggage and full fuel, and vastly exceed my bladder range.

In some cases LSA might be preferable at high density altitudes, before I get crucified hear me out. How often have you seen a turbo piston single to rent at a reasonable cost? I know of only one Cirrus at the local FBO and if you consider $350/hr dry reasonable can we please exchange bank accounts? I'm sure you could find a Turbo Arrow or two, but in my experience (given it's a bit limited) they tend to be hard to find thanks to the increased wear and tear and cost to maintain. Now, compare that to a Tecnam or LSA with a turbo, much cheaper to own/operate. Both have the advantage of turbocharging so power will not decrease as fast in higher density altitudes than a normally aspirated C-150/152 and as long as your not hauling around 3 people plus the pilot, I'd say it's a much better economical equation. In areas like Colorado I would think a turbo LSA would be preferable to a typical C-150/152 in the training arena, but hey, that and $5.00 might buy you a coffee at Starbucks, so...

As has been said many times on this forum, the mission defines the aircraft. For many missions in high density altitude operations, Ed is entirely correct: an LSA might be the most economical choice.

Maybe something like this modified Harmon Rocket would do the trick?
https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-toda ... 180969512/

I don't think that's an LSA, Dan.

roger lee wrote:It's also about correct prop pitch for your flight altitude. The wrong prop pitch can be a game changer.

Absolutely true.