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.
Airplane selection opinions
Moderator: drseti
Re: Airplane selection opinions
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” ...
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” ...
Flying Sting S4 ( N184WA ) out of Illinois
Re: Airplane selection opinions
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.Sundancer wrote: an engine that elicits trust,
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
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Re: Airplane selection opinions
I agree with most of that except the 21st century part.drseti wrote: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.Sundancer wrote: an engine that elicits trust,
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
Re: Airplane selection opinions
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.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.
Re: Airplane selection opinions
Well, OK, Tom. The iS anyway.3Dreaming wrote: I agree with most of that except the 21st century part.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Re: Airplane selection opinions
Still 20th century technology, though late 20th century. Avionics id a different story. I'm waiting on brushless electric motors and better battery technology.drseti wrote:Well, OK, Tom. The iS anyway.3Dreaming wrote: I agree with most of that except the 21st century part.
Re: Airplane selection opinions
Port fuel injection is still 21st century. Especially so in the world of available aviation engines.3Dreaming wrote:Still 20th century technology, though late 20th century. Avionics id a different story. I'm waiting on brushless electric motors and better battery technology.drseti wrote:Well, OK, Tom. The iS anyway.3Dreaming wrote: I agree with most of that except the 21st century part.
- FastEddieB
- Posts: 2880
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
- Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Re: Airplane selection opinions
Welcome. Good luck in your search though that’s out of my field of expertise.
Please respect other’s choices in planes. Or not - your call.
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.Sundancer wrote:... meaning a lot better than the pig-sickle like Cessna 172-182 types.
Please respect other’s choices in planes. Or not - your call.
Re: Airplane selection opinions
What I remember from Rotax training was the injector design was 1980's technology.jetcat3 wrote:Port fuel injection is still 21st century. Especially so in the world of available aviation engines.3Dreaming wrote:Still 20th century technology, though late 20th century. Avionics id a different story. I'm waiting on brushless electric motors and better battery technology.drseti wrote:
Well, OK, Tom. The iS anyway.
Re: Airplane selection opinions
Sundancer wrote:... meaning a lot better than the pig-sickle like Cessna 172-182 types.
Concur.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.
That "other fellow" you referred to . . was here a lot longer than he should have been. He cut a wide swath.
Bill Ince
LSRI
Retired Heavy Equipment Operator
LSRI
Retired Heavy Equipment Operator
Re: Airplane selection opinions
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.Wm.Ince wrote:Sundancer wrote:... meaning a lot better than the pig-sickle like Cessna 172-182 types.Concur.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.
That "other fellow" you referred to . . was here a lot longer than he should have been. He cut a wide swath.
- FastEddieB
- Posts: 2880
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
- Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Re: Airplane selection opinions
Applying the Principle of Charity, let’s assume that’s 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.
Re: Airplane selection opinions
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!
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!
- AviatorCrafty
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:21 pm
Re: Airplane selection opinions
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.
Commercial Pilot - Glider
Sport Pilot ASEL
Remote Pilot
John 3:16
Sport Pilot ASEL
Remote Pilot
John 3:16