That may be the most creative "high-wing/low-wing argument" I've heard yet
A 172 is not necessarily more difficult to fly under normal conditions. But thrown in a 15 knot crosswind and I'll venture the 172 will challenge the average pilot much more than a PA28. And for many this challenge is not relevant or necessary, but for those mired deep in the stick-and-rudder and tailwheel world, it's very germane. Plus the PA28 still has some dutch roll in it, even with the huge dihedral needed to compensate for the lack of a pendulum in a turn.That may be the most creative "high-wing/low-wing argument" I've heard yet
Sorry, I'm going to disagree on a number of points. The only thing I ever found more difficult in a 172 than a PA28 was the first time I turned downwind in one. I wondered where the heck the runway went. Other than that it was a non-event to me as a month-old private pilot.
Free-castering nosewheels are not just on LSAs but certificated airplanes too - Cirrus, Diamond, and Tigers come to mind. I do a lot of transitions into the Diamonds (and taught in DA20 also). Except for the first 5 minutes of taxiing, the free-castering nosewheel is a non-event, particularly on landing. The DA40 in particular is one of the easiest airplanes to land in a significant crosswind.
FIFY
interestingengineering.com
I just went from six to midnight. For shame sir, lewd and lascivious on your part.
The O-200 is not the best engine. We had some in the flight school fleet and they usually needed valve work at around 1000 hour or so. And they are widely suspected of not really being 100-HP engines. One prop maker in Europe uses 85 HP as the basis for his calculations for props for those engines. And I flew an Alon Aircoupe, the last iteration of the Ercoupe, that had a Continental C-90, the predecessor of the O-200. That Aircoupe had the same weight-to-HP numbers as the Cessna 150s we had, and the Aircoupe would run circles around the 150s. Took off shorter, climbed faster, cruised faster. I think the C-90's secret was that it redlined at considerably lower RPM than the O-200, and so less HP was lost to propeller drag. More of it went into thrust.
Much easier to get into a Champ/Citabria than a T-Craft, and lots of elbow room. But a really wide guy (if you know what I mean) in the front seat can spill over the sides of the seat and make the instructor's rudder control real difficult. The aft seat's rudder pedals are beside the front seat. Don't ask me how I know....
YMMV is right. there are probably some nationwide numbers, butI think that what is "generally" used for training varies a lot once you drill down. Back with my primary, my school taught in Tomahawks although that's probably no longer the case, but I saw more 172s than PA28s. When I was in Colorado, C172s (we had 4 different training operations with maybe 60 aircraft combined) seemed far more prevalent in the training world than PA28s. There are two flight schools at my current home base. One does primary in Cessnas; the other Piper. Cirrus schools have student pilots. Diamonds are becoming very popular initial trainers.
Just to clear, Vans only sells an S-LSA aircraft (RV-12iS) and E-LSA (RV12iS)/E-AB (RV 3,4,6,7,8,9,10,12, and 14) kits. There’s no STC to be had as there are no TCs. As Dana described, for the S-LSA owners Vans’s will just send out an updated W&B, and for E-LSA/E-ABs the owners do it themselves per their OPLIMs If they so choose.
E-LSA kits are only available for models that have a corresponding SLSA version. All others are EAB only
That single brake lever was possible because there was a solid steering link between the pedals and nosewheel. Didn't really need differential braking. The Cessnas use spring bungee steering, since the nosewheel has a cam that centers it in flight, and those bungees are the rudder-centering mechanism. It adds yaw stability. Mechanics who fool with it without knowing what the service manual says usually end up with the system way out of rig.
One goes through more brake pads and discs with castering nosewheels, since the steering at taxi speeds is entirely by differential braking. On many castering nosewheels there is a friction device to discourage shimmy, and that makes the steering sticky and a bit frustrating.
Not my experience. Both my Grummans, my Cirrus and now my Sky Arrow all have/had free-castering nosewheels. Except in fairly strong crosswind taxiing, rudder alone works at taxi speed.
I got close to 600 hours out of the tiny Marc Ingegno brake pads on my Sky Arrow. Still had some life left, but I replaced them proactively with a lightly used set a friend had removed from his CT when he switched over to MATCO brakes. Rotor are still fine. I'm sure poor technique is often the cause of short brake life with free-castering nosewheels.
Not if you are doing it right, with taps rather than riding it. And with some like the DA40, the rudder becomes effective at "brisk" taxi speeds.
Aeroprakt is pretty roomy from the numbers I remember
Love my Bristell It isn't for everyone and the cost of entry has went up 100k in the last 3 years but for my missions, it's perfect Now I want the 915
I'm 6'2" 290 and fit fine in my Bristell I'd have to sit sideways in a 150
