LSA vs. 152 Shootout

[Ed Cesnalis]

2 thumbs down on this video.

 

Part 1 = 152's are more economical to acquire and maintain

Part 2 = SLSA ( Remos ) not stable, doesn't hold trim speed and have to put up with light control forces.

 

The comment is '...difficulty in getting it to hold a trimmed arispeed, not very pitch stable' hmmmmmmm, if a plane won't hold a trimmed airspeed does this speak to its trim system or stability?

 

They make the assumption that a Remos is representative of LSA to the point where you can compare a 152 vs LSA by using a Remos alone. Also they shoot down the LSA on 2 points and their take on those to points, pitch stability and light control forces. Not much of a shootout Avweb.

 

[sandpiper]

The 150/152 is a proven trainer. That's why there are so many of them and why they keep getting refurbished.

 

Now, these people have very little to compare with. They have only one make, Remos, and they got it early on in the LSA process. LSA's have matured since their early model. Panel is not glass and it looks like it has an old FlyDat or whatever.

 

For Aviation Consumer to hold this out as a valid comparison is, IMHO, BS.

[dick747]

I am new to the CT community having just bought a 2008 CTLS. My previous airplane was a Remos GX and I strongly disagree with these comments about the Remos. Never had a problem with the trim stability and I actually liked the light controls. The CT controls with the centering springs are much heavier than those on the Remos. Not bad but just different.

[Jim]

Took 8 hours of instruction in a 152 while my airport was closed for resurfacing. The worst 8 hours I've spent in a GA plane. Better hope that the person next to you has used his mouthwash and deodorant.

[FlyingMonkey]

A Tecnam P92 has beautifully harmonized controls, and the CTs are pretty good too. Who wants to manhandle an airplane around when you can fly it with gentle pressures? I think there was a lot of bias in that video, I noticed there was not a single thing they didn't like better in the Remos over the 152. The examiner pilot said he even preferred an older style panel layout...the fix was in on this.

[John R]

The PE would have been a lot more believable without the US Aviation cap looked like a paid promo too me. Only thing I liked about the video was the mechanics USMC decal...Semper Fi Mac !

[FlyingMonkey]

Nobody is finding the Remos niche too useful these days, they have not sold a single airframe this year or last year. I'm a little stumped on that, it's so similar to the CT in many ways, and has some nice features compared to the CT, including a better useful load. I think the momentum FD has in the market combined with the tragic Remos crash at the Light Sport Expo in Florida (worst possible place to have a demo crash) just blew Remos out of the water.

[sandpiper]

 

Ultimately each model and each brand has a niche that someone will find suitable. Shootouts are a waste of time.

 

Participation is voluntary.

[WmInce]

. . . "Shootouts are a waste of time." . . .

 

Then why do you keep reloading?

[CT4ME]

Yup, the 1.5 year old comparison was flawed, as they try to draw conclusions about the LSA World based on one experience.

 

CTLSi.... why would you think folding wings makes the Remos superior to the CT? That is the ONE biggest reason I didn't consider the Remos. I don't want an aircraft designed around a feature I (and 90% of all flyers) would never use. Because of the folding wings, you are sharing space with the (reduced capacity) fuel tank in the fuselage. The folding/locking mechanism for wings has historically been a problem, and may have contributed to at least one recent Remos fatality. If you think the Remos and CT are "similar", then the CTSW and CTLSi are twins!

tim

[mocfly]

I'm sure he can find some correlation!

[FastEddieB]

Very positive PIREP on a Remos here:

 

http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3290

[207WF]

I flew an earlier Remos but decided not to buy. To me, it flew more like a cessna than the CT. Not much space for baggage, though. WF

[Mick]

I looked at Remos before going for my CTSW. I liked the CT range and payload and was put off by the fuel ay my back in the Remos.

[WmInce]

. . . "was put off by the fuel ay my back in the Remos." . . .

 

Same for me regarding the RV-12.

 

It's a great little airplane, actually flies better than than any of the Flight Design aircraft, IMHO. But I have some reservations sitting right next to 20 gallons of gasoline.

 

There was a structural incident where the RV-12 fuel tank was breached and the pilots got soaked. I thought they were lucky not to turn into crispy critters. As far as I am concerned, fuel tanks have no business occupying the same immediate space with the pilots. Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the CTLSi holding tank pretty close to the pilot stations?

[FlyingMonkey]

If the design is right, fuel in the cockpit doesn't worry me excessively. Cubs have it, Champs have it, and the Sonex I was building had it. There are 300+ Sonex flying and have been several accidents, but never a post crash fire, because the fuel system is well designed.

 

One can make the argument that fire is more likely in a crash with wing tanks, as wings are the most likely things to get crushed and ruptured, especially as the pilot tries to avoid hitting trees with the cockpit. That said, in the event a fire actually happens, wing tanks keep the flames away from you, at least for a few seconds until they burn through.

[WmInce]

If the design is right, fuel in the cockpit doesn't worry me excessively. Cubs have it, Champs have it, and the Sonex I was building had it. There are 300+ Sonex flying and have been several accidents, but never a post crash fire, because the fuel system is well designed.

 

One can make the argument that fire is more likely in a crash with wing tanks, as wings are the most likely things to get crushed and ruptured, especially as the pilot tries to avoid hitting trees with the cockpit. That said, in the event a fire actually happens, wing tanks keep the flames away from you, at least for a few seconds until they burn through.

 

All good points Andy . . . especially the last one.

Sounds like you are really enjoying your new found toy.

[Howardnmn]

I took delivery of a new Remos GX nXES in June 2012. I've seen photos of other owners taking delivery since my purchase. I posted a review of my first year and first 100 hrs at www.sportpilottalk.com

[FlyingMonkey]

All good points Andy . . . especially the last one.

Sounds like you are really enjoying your new found toy.

 

You have no idea! The CT is really a dream come true for me...I'm loving it!

[opticsguy]

The flight school at KDTO was all Remos until this year, when they went all Flight Design. I don't know all the reasons, but one reason was the air conditioning mod that they just go approval for. A/C in a plane is a big deal in TX.

[Rich]

The shoot-out comparison, IMO, was greatly flawed.

This morning I wrote to the Editor of AvWeb voicing concerns about the lack of due diligence by Paul on the topic.

 

I hope I didn't come across as an infomercial also.

 

Rich

[airhound]

What is REMOS status these days, we’re they at OSH 21?  

[airhound]

The 150/2 is 8 years older since this article. Weren’t they Produced with a certain lifespan? Solution for what this sellout video portends: Bring back an Ercoupe like trainer so this instructor and his students don’t have to coordinate controls and can only fly Ercoupes. 
 

 

[FlyingMonkey]

2 hours ago, BugBuster (BB) said:

The 150/2 is 8 years older since this article. Weren’t they Produced with a certain lifespan?
 

I don't believe the 150/152 series have a set lifespan, but some of the contemporary airplanes like the Piper Tomahawk do.  Hell, even the Cirrus airplanes have a 12,000hr limit on the entire airframe.  Nothing lasts forever.

[Madhatter]

Except  a DC 3