Sport Pilot Talk

FNG here; would value your opinions on several aircraft, or nominations for any I haven't considered. I'm a PP/SEL instrument rated, under Basic Med now because it's just more convenient. Also a member in a club with a 'travel' equipped 172 (AP, G530, Powerflow, EIS, etc.). So, I don't need IFR capability.

I'd like an all metal, low wing nose dragger, w/canopy and stick, with one or two seats (no more than two!) that handles "well", meaning a lot better than the pig-sickle like Cessna 172-182 types. Not necessarily balancing on the head of a pin handling, but crisp. If it helps in the description, my favorite handling airplane I've flown was a SF-260. Which I would buy, except I can't afford the $300K plus price.

My mission is fun, and my major requirements are astounding visibility, an engine that elicits trust, and basic acro. My teeth will start chattering once the price range exceeds the mid-$40K range. I've researched these:

RV-4 Tail dragger, I know, but incredibly good press.
Thorpedo - I think the LSA uses a Jabiru, the production airplanes an O-200
Pazmany PL-2 - good press, real airplane engine, acro capable.
LongEZ - rocket ship, real traveler. Also slippery going down-hill.
Thatcher CX-4 - not acro, but cute as a button. Dunno about the VW powerplant, though.
Sonex - butt ugly, but fills the bill, except VW, Jabiru, or sonmething called 'UL Power Aero' engines.

Am I missing a good alternative? Are the VW/Jabiru engines legit? I am NOT a gear-head, and NOT interested in being my own powerplant engineer.

My personal “hierarchy” for what I find acceptable engine choices would be:

Rotax, Lycoming and Continental - known quality , tens of thousands of engines sold and flying. For Lycoming and Continental tech support is abundant , for Rotax less so but still plenty of options.

Jabiru, UL power - purpose build airplane engines but with only thousands of units sold, much harder to find qualified support - if you happened to live close by to a support center , I guess it could work just fine.

VW,Corvair,Viking - various auto conversions .... no matter what the price, I wouldn’t touch them - I don’t want to be a test pilot for some garage project of an aspiring “engineer” ...

Sundancer wrote: an engine that elicits trust,

I wouldn't have said this a decade ago. But, in ten years of operating them in a flight school environment, and having taken a dozen maintenance courses on them, I've become a huge believer in the Rotax 912 series engines. Extremely reliable, easy to maintain (with modest training), and the best power to weight ratio in their class. Whereas current Lycoming and Continental engines are basically updated 1930s designs, the Rotax 4-strokers are a true 21st Century design. There are something like 50,000 of them out there, and they consistently exceed their 2000 hour TBO (sometimes by thousands more hours!) without ever needing a mid time top overhaul.

If you're interested in learning more about them, both Mike Busch and I have done EAA webinars on the Rotax. Here are a couple of links:

http://avsport.org/webinars/videos/rotax.mp4
http://avsport.org/webinars/videos/rotax2.mp4

drseti wrote:

Sundancer wrote: an engine that elicits trust,

I wouldn't have said this a decade ago. But, in ten years of operating them in a flight school environment, and having taken a dozen maintenance courses on them, I've become a huge believer in the Rotax 912 series engines. Extremely reliable, easy to maintain (with modest training), and the best power to weight ratio in their class. Whereas current Lycoming and Continental engines are basically updated 1930s designs, the Rotax 4-strokers are a true 21st Century design. There are something like 50,000 of them out there, and they consistently exceed their 2000 hour TBO (sometimes by thousands more hours!) without ever needing a mid time top overhaul.

If you're interested in learning more about them, both Mike Busch and I have done EAA webinars on the Rotax. Here are a couple of links:

http://avsport.org/webinars/videos/rotax.mp4
http://avsport.org/webinars/videos/rotax2.mp4

I agree with most of that except the 21st century part.

Sundancer wrote:FNG here; would value your opinions on several aircraft, or nominations for any I haven't considered. I'm a PP/SEL instrument rated, under Basic Med now because it's just more convenient. Also a member in a club with a 'travel' equipped 172 (AP, G530, Powerflow, EIS, etc.). So, I don't need IFR capability.

I'd like an all metal, low wing nose dragger, w/canopy and stick, with one or two seats (no more than two!) that handles "well", meaning a lot better than the pig-sickle like Cessna 172-182 types. Not necessarily balancing on the head of a pin handling, but crisp. If it helps in the description, my favorite handling airplane I've flown was a SF-260. Which I would buy, except I can't afford the $300K plus price.

My mission is fun, and my major requirements are astounding visibility, an engine that elicits trust, and basic acro. My teeth will start chattering once the price range exceeds the mid-$40K range. I've researched these:

RV-4 Tail dragger, I know, but incredibly good press.
Thorpedo - I think the LSA uses a Jabiru, the production airplanes an O-200
Pazmany PL-2 - good press, real airplane engine, acro capable.
LongEZ - rocket ship, real traveler. Also slippery going down-hill.
Thatcher CX-4 - not acro, but cute as a button. Dunno about the VW powerplant, though.
Sonex - butt ugly, but fills the bill, except VW, Jabiru, or sonmething called 'UL Power Aero' engines.

Am I missing a good alternative? Are the VW/Jabiru engines legit? I am NOT a gear-head, and NOT interested in being my own powerplant engineer.

Since you mentioned the RV-4 taildragger, I'll throw the Thorp T-18 in the mix. It fits your requirements to a T, no pun intended, with the exception of the nose wheel.

3Dreaming wrote: I agree with most of that except the 21st century part.

Well, OK, Tom. The iS anyway.

drseti wrote:

3Dreaming wrote: I agree with most of that except the 21st century part.

Well, OK, Tom. The iS anyway.

Still 20th century technology, though late 20th century. Avionics id a different story. I'm waiting on brushless electric motors and better battery technology.

3Dreaming wrote:

drseti wrote:

3Dreaming wrote: I agree with most of that except the 21st century part.

Well, OK, Tom. The iS anyway.

Still 20th century technology, though late 20th century. Avionics id a different story. I'm waiting on brushless electric motors and better battery technology.

Port fuel injection is still 21st century. Especially so in the world of available aviation engines.

Welcome. Good luck in your search though that’s out of my field of expertise.

Sundancer wrote:... meaning a lot better than the pig-sickle like Cessna 172-182 types.

Personally, I don’t see the need to come on a pilot’s forum and immediately start denigrating particular aircraft models. We had one other fellow do that a lot - and he didn’t last long.

Please respect other’s choices in planes. Or not - your call.

jetcat3 wrote:

3Dreaming wrote:

drseti wrote:
Well, OK, Tom. The iS anyway.

Still 20th century technology, though late 20th century. Avionics id a different story. I'm waiting on brushless electric motors and better battery technology.

Port fuel injection is still 21st century. Especially so in the world of available aviation engines.

What I remember from Rotax training was the injector design was 1980's technology.

Sundancer wrote:... meaning a lot better than the pig-sickle like Cessna 172-182 types.

FastEddieB wrote: Personally, I don’t see the need to come on a pilot’s forum and immediately start denigrating particular aircraft models. We had one other fellow do that a lot - and he didn’t last long.
Please respect other’s choices in planes. Or not - your call.

Concur.
That "other fellow" you referred to . . was here a lot longer than he should have been. He cut a wide swath.

Wm.Ince wrote:

Sundancer wrote:... meaning a lot better than the pig-sickle like Cessna 172-182 types.

FastEddieB wrote: Personally, I don’t see the need to come on a pilot’s forum and immediately start denigrating particular aircraft models. We had one other fellow do that a lot - and he didn’t last long.
Please respect other’s choices in planes. Or not - your call.

Concur.
That "other fellow" you referred to . . was here a lot longer than he should have been. He cut a wide swath.

I didn't quite take it like that, especially since he is a member of a club with a Cessna 172. I took it as he wanted something more sporty to fly as a personal airplane than the Cessna 172 he has access to. He could have used a better choice of words in conveying that if it is what he meant.

3Dreaming wrote:
I didn't quite take it like that, especially since he is a member of a club with a Cessna 172. I took it as he wanted something more sporty to fly as a personal airplane than the Cessna 172 he has access to. He could have used a better choice of words in conveying that if it is what he meant.

Applying the Principle of Charity, let’s assume that’s what he meant.

If you feel the 172/182 handling is fine for 'sporty' flying, which was the focus of my post, that's cool. I'd only suggest that someone who feels otherwise, and says so, is part and parcel of a forum like this. I was using the 172/182 as the baseline for what I don't want in a fun flyer.

My opinion of the 182 is that it's a fairly good IFR platform and traveler. For those purposes its handling is appropriate. For fun flying, I find its response ponderous and slow. The 172 is a bit sportier, though a whiffle-ball in turbulence. Both suffer from Cessna visibility.

I appreciate the useful responses about engines; I had anti-Rotax bias, pre the 912. Based on the preponderance of things I read now, the 912 is well regarded, and a viable option. The VW conversions have been around a long time, but I'm much less comfortable with those. I don't see myself becoming an accomplished gear head; not willing to give it that much time and attention, which I'm thinking would be necessary for the care and feeding of a VW conversion?

Also, not sure how I overlooked the Thorp T-18 - esepcially since I foubd the Thorpedo - thanks for the reference!

Warmi wrote:My personal “hierarchy” for what I find acceptable engine choices would be:

Rotax, Lycoming and Continental - known quality , tens of thousands of engines sold and flying. For Lycoming and Continental tech support is abundant , for Rotax less so but still plenty of options.

Jabiru, UL power - purpose build airplane engines but with only thousands of units sold, much harder to find qualified support - if you happened to live close by to a support center , I guess it could work just fine.

VW,Corvair,Viking - various auto conversions .... no matter what the price, I wouldn’t touch them - I don’t want to be a test pilot for some garage project of an aspiring “engineer” ...

Second on the Rotax, I learned to fly in the Cessna 162 which had the Continental 0-200D, was a pain to start in any weather, cold or hot. The Tecnam P92 I got checked out in afterwards with the Rotax 912ULS was a pleasure to fly with. Flew today and the particular plane hadn't flown in two days, the engine started in two super fast cranks like it was waiting to be started, no choke or prime of any kind.