Sport Pilot Talk

Better still: a heated classroom!

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

I hope a Cessna Skycatcher comes soon to my local NJ airport! I checked the FAA registry and it seems that there are a total of 68 C162s built.

Pure speculation without any facts to back it up.

You called me out specifically looking for a fight, you found one. Your comments are so sickeningly pro Rotax they're worthless. Next time leave my name out of it or we can go another round and you can ruin another good thread.

Hold on there, LightSportFlyer; comments that are pro anything (even sickeningly so) are the opinions to which the commenter is entitled, thus not at all worthless. Plus, we can all learn something from anyone's comments, if we keep an open mind.

I owned a Beechcraft for 30 years, was on the Board of the Beech Aero Club, and made many pro-Beechcraft comments on various forums. Some Mooney drivers probably thought my comments were sickening (to them), but did that make them worthless?

You are free to disagree with anything said on this forum. I ask you to do so without disparaging any of its members.

Safe (and civil) skies,
Paul

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

I called you out?? That is insane, because I posted before you in this thread. I posted a response to eidolon45's statement [Quote "Regarding the Continetal Engine? Somewhere, I read that the 162 Continental engine only weighs 100 pounds, so I am not convinced the engine is the sole culprit in the SkyCatcher weight problem. Maybe the extra upholstery and other pretty stuff that doesn't seem to fit in a trainer?" Quote]. Then it was you who started dispersing in-correct information. I tried to respond and you started in with personal attacks. I have looked at some of your post in other threads, and you have been anti Rotax engines for quite some time. I'm not sure what makes me pro Rotax in your eyes. If it is stating that Rotax has a 40-50 pound weight advantage over Continental and Lycoming that makes me pro Rotax, then sir you are also pro Rotax because you have stated that in threads before. [Quote "like the O-200 or IO-233 that weigh only about 50 lbs more than a Rotax" Quote] this was taken from a post of yours on Jan 31,2010.
I'm not anti Lycoming and Continental like you are anti Rotax. I think both Lycoming and Continental are good engines. I just don't think they are well suited for 80% of the light sport airplanes being produced right now, but they work much better in other applications than a Rotax would. That's my opinion, and yours can be different I don't care.
I am a CFI and the teacher in me makes me want to correct someone when they say or do something wrong. If I posted something that is incorrect let me know and I will correct it. When I tried to point out a mistake you made you became so bull headed and started with personal attacks. I just want to be helpful and get the correct information out there so people can make their own decisions. If being helpful and trying to get the correct information out there is looking for a fight, then I guess I was looking for one.
In an other one of your post from your post on Jan 15, 2010 you state that you are not a pilot [Quote "While I'm not a pilot" Quote]. You state in a Jan 21, 2010 post that [Quote "No I'm not employed in the aviation world" Quote"] Going back in your post you have a 2 year hatred of Rotax on this site based on the fact that you don't like foreign made engines. In other threads you have made personal attacks towards others because they have a different opinion than yours. I don't know what your agenda is, but it sure does seem questionable. Maybe it is you who was looking for a fight.

Did you say something 3D ? - cause whatever it was I've already told you I don't waste my time reading your biased nonsense. But rest assured I will continue to post facts about your precious Rotax and not from someone who's PAID to promote them.

You be sure to have a nice day now !

I'm sure I will have a good day. I've been having a good time all along.
I don't care if you read my post ot not. They are not put up there just for your benefit, but for everyone else. Most people here are smart enough to make up their own opinion. If you want to keep posting "facts" as you call them, go right ahead. When confronted about your incorrect "facts" if you want to continue with the personal attacks and making unfounded accusations go right ahead with that too. I am open to debating the facts if you want, but I know what to expect from that offer.

WOW, this thread turned ugly quick!!!

Can we please keep the childish remarks to ourselves? As drseti said "comments that are pro anything (even sickeningly so) are the opinions to which the commenter is entitled, thus not at all worthless"

I personally don't like the Rotax and don't fly one. I fly a Jabby and it falls under as much scrutiny from others as the Rotax does. Even though I DO NOT fly a Rotax, that does not mean it is not a great engine.

Let's all be adults here and allow each other to voice our opinions, address concerns but leave personal attacks out of our discussions.

Which is exactly what your utter nonsensical rants are as well.

And the sad thing is, without any moderation, trolls like yourself will continue to destroy boards such as these, because they drive off the people who actually contribute quality knowledge.

_________________
KSCessnaDriver (ATP MEL, Commerical LTA-Airship/SEL, Private SES, CFI/CFII)
LSA's flown: Remos G3, Flight Design CTSW, Aeronca L-16, Jabiru J170

KC the only thing I've got to say to you is:

"And the sad thing is, without any moderation, trolls like yourself will continue to destroy boards such as these, because they drive off the people who actually contribute quality knowledge."

Give it a rest, both of you!

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

You should take your own advise. Those of you who complain the loudest have the biggest conflicts of interest. Your opinions are bought and paid for by Rotax.

You are so pro Rotax simply because the ac your small business uses has one. I merely listed three FACTS that Rotax didn't have namely fuel injection, 115 hp engine, and 2400 TBO and you turned it all around to promote Rotaxes. You simply can't tolerate anything bad said about your precious Rotax because it puts money in your pocket.

If you're not happy with the direction this thread went you only have yourself and your biasies to blame. I'll stick to the facts and let the readers decide which engine is best for them based on those facts and not your biased opinions merely because it puts money in yours and others pockets.

This thread is NOT about engines. It's NOT the place to discuss engines.
This thread is about getting excited (or not) about the 162 Skycatcher becoming more accessible as rentals at your local airport!!!

_________________
Bryan Cobb
Sport Pilot CFI
Commercial/Instrument Airplane
Commercial Rotorcraft Helicopter
Cartersville, Ga
bryandcobb@att.net

If CFI's, flight school owners, and others of us who want to fly an S-LSA, just dismissed Rotax like you do, they wouldn't have a plane to fly. I have over 500 trouble free hours on my S-LSA that I have owned for over 4 years. If I waited for the Lycoming engine, who knows when I would own an airplane, as the engine hasn't made it to market yet. Paul wouldn't even have a business if he were to sit around waiting on Lycoming's promises. The local Cessna dealer / flight school has put two Remos on the line now, as they are frustrated waiting for Cessna to deliver the Continental powered 162's they have on order

TBO is a written spec. There are no guarantees that any individual engine will make TBO.

There are after-market experimental versions of the Rotax out with fuel injection, putting out 120+ HP. Rotax themselves are working on fuel injection, and I hope it will be available when I'm ready for a new engine.

_________________
Roger Fane
N510RF - 2006 Flight Design CTsw
KRHV - Reid Hillview - San Jose, CA