Second Try from Tennessee

flyingclay · Post by **flyingclay** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Hello from Tennessee,
8 years ago, (at then age 43),wanted to get involved in flying as a hobby. Took some lessons in c150,c172 and a few (what would soon be consisdered) LSA's. Thinking I wanted to train in what I would want for the long term, in 2003, purchased a new Interplane 912s Skyboy. First Solo scared me to death as I porposed over runway lights and landed in field. Wasn't expecting the different flight characteristics in the light plane when my 275 lb instructor was not in it. Trained in it for a few more weeks and was offered more for it than I paid for it. Hadnt been flying since but have missed it. Started back flying a few weeks ago and am really enjoying it. Want to simply enjoy flying and I enjoy learning and researching everything I can about it. Will probably purchase an LSA in about a year, maybe less. (1) Safety, (2) Simple to fly/land, (3) Performance cabability to take an occassional long trip if desired.
As for now, CTS, PiperSport, Skycatcher each look interesting to me.
Enjoying reading about the different perspectives from this forums experience and thoughts.

ArionAv8or · Post by **ArionAv8or** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:49 pm

Welcome to the boards.

Sorry to hear about your scare some time ago but happy to hear you are giving it another shot. There are a lot of options out there when it comes to choosing a LSA aircraft, I am sure you will find one that suits your needs and desires.

goinaround · Post by **goinaround** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:36 pm

Welcome, I don't post much but wanted to add what I can on this, I too took lessons in the cessnas back when and just got back to flying after an almost 30 year layoff.
I have flown 2 lsa's in the last year and after 14 hours in one I almost went back to flying 172's, nothing wrong with that only I only want to fly sport at this time. The plane was just hard to land and I couldn't get comfortable with it. I even went and flew a couple hours in larger aircraft to see if there was a difference. There was.
A local flight school aquired a Remos gx same one featured in last months Plane and Pilot. (118gx). Man what a Difference. I soled it in 5 hrs and was ready before then.
I know there are alot of good lsa's on the market but be very careful what you read, take the time to fly them, have fun. Certainly give Remos a shot, it fits your first and second requirements I promise.
Be careful of the koolaid drinkers.

flyingclay · Post by **flyingclay** » Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:23 pm

Thanks "goinaround". Curious as to what the other LSA's were that you found hard to land. Thanks

goinaround · Post by **goinaround** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:37 am

I have been told by several cfi's that the ctsw ain't no trainer and I would strongly agree.

ArionAv8or · Post by **ArionAv8or** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:24 am

The best way to tell is to just fly them, that is the only way to avoid biased opinions. The CTSW for example, I have heard from both sides of the fence. Some say it is a piece of cake and others say it is a little more difficult. I believe that every plane is different and very dependant on each persons abilities and "feel". My plane is a little "hot" as Dan Johnson put it for a flight school. That is not to say a school might not use it but I can tell you my airplane is not as easy to land as a lot of others out there. It has a 17:1 glide ratio with very sensitive pitch controls. If you are landing faster than 50 or 55 kts over the fence you are going to float a significant distance. I have flown in many different planes, 172, Sundowner, Warrior and several LSAs. I personally love the way mine flies and lands but will be the first to tell you it is not for everyone. The Aerostar Festival was probably the easiest to land and the Elitar Sigma was one of the most challenging. To really get the feel of their landing characteristics you need to fly them yourself, every person has a different perception and feel of what makes them easy or tough.

goinaround · Post by **goinaround** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:01 pm

goinaround wrote:Welcome, I don't post much but wanted to add what I can on this,
I know there are alot of good lsa's on the market but be very careful what you read, take the time to fly them, have fun.
Be careful of the koolaid drinkers.

ArionAv8or, You said it better than I. I would also look at any aircraft's ntsb history, I think that speaks volumes.

ArionAv8or · Post by **ArionAv8or** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:03 pm

I assure you I am not making that accusation and do not wish for this to turn into the "heated engine debate". I just believe that each person's feel for an aircraft makes a big difference on their ability to fly and land it. The NTSB reports are an excellent source if you look at all the parameters (ie. student, engine failure, weather, etc...) for making your decisions. I will list a few as an example:

CTSW: 10 accidents 2007-2010 and range from fuel starvation, loss of engine power to failure to maintain directional control and improper flare.

SportCruiser: 7 accidents 2008-2010 and two or three include failure to properly close and latch canopy. Nothing to do with landing characteristics.

Interplane Skyboy: 4 accidents 2003-2007 and none of these were landing related accidents. If you research the Skyboy you will see most articles related to this aircraft say it has "great flight characteristics; one of the best landing gears in the market (makes bad landings look good), and comfortable seating that has been described by many as a “Lazy Boy in the Sky”! They say it is an awesome aircraft, very easy to land and the NTSB reports would dictate the same. However, the most important thing to note here is that flyingclay didn't feel the same way. Every person here could fly the Skyboy and each would walk away with a different opinion. "Feel" is very individual and a very powerful factor. What I find hard to land you may find easy as pie, and vice versa.

And just to be fair I have included my plane as well.

Arion Lightning: 2 accidents 2008-2010 Both were owner built aircrafts and not landing related.

3Dreaming · Post by **3Dreaming** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:29 pm

ArionAv8or wrote:I assure you I am not making that accusation and do not wish for this to turn into the "heated engine debate". I just believe that each person's feel for an aircraft makes a big difference on their ability to fly and land it. The NTSB reports are an excellent source if you look at all the parameters (ie. student, engine failure, weather, etc...) for making your decisions. I will list a few as an example:

CTSW: 10 accidents 2007-2010 and range from fuel starvation, loss of engine power to failure to maintain directional control and improper flare.

SportCruiser: 7 accidents 2008-2010 and two or three include failure to properly close and latch canopy. Nothing to do with landing characteristics.

Interplane Skyboy: 4 accidents 2003-2007 and none of these were landing related accidents. If you research the Skyboy you will see most articles related to this aircraft say it has "great flight characteristics; one of the best landing gears in the market (makes bad landings look good), and comfortable seating that has been described by many as a “Lazy Boy in the Sky”! They say it is an awesome aircraft, very easy to land and the NTSB reports would dictate the same. However, the most important thing to note here is that flyingclay didn't feel the same way. Every person here could fly the Skyboy and each would walk away with a different opinion. "Feel" is very individual and a very powerful factor. What I find hard to land you may find easy as pie, and vice versa.

And just to be fair I have included my plane as well.

Arion Lightning: 2 accidents 2008-2010 Both were owner built aircrafts and not landing related.

You also need to look at the number flying in country.

dstclair · Post by **dstclair** » Mon Aug 16, 2010 8:40 pm

...and TL-Ultralight Sting with 0 Accidents

ArionAv8or · Post by **ArionAv8or** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:34 am

dstclair wrote:...and TL-Ultralight Sting with 0 Accidents

I couldn't list anything with less than mine

LOL, JK.

Sorry I forgot to include the Sting Dave.

I absolutely agree with you 3D, that is why I said there are so many parameters you have to look at when researching the NTSB records.

dstclair · Post by **dstclair** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:53 am

Couldn't resist the challenge

I believe Mark Twain is credited with the quote: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

The same can be said about NTSB stats. You have to take them in context and apply to your situation. Great point of reference, though.

Also want to keep in mind that many of the LSA's have evolved over the last few years. For instance, I'd certainly compare the workmanship of a CTSW to a CTLS but their flight handling will be different so NTSB stats for an SW may not apply to an LS.