zaitcev.mee.nu

I cannot help contrasting what Meg in her review (via, with a broken link) with my impressions of Remos GX. I'm going to skip things that are similar between the two airplanes. But before that, one unique feature of Garmin 300, which I would like to critique irrespectively to GX:

Weight and balance is done via an application of the Garmin 300, a glass panel designed specficially for the Skycatcher.

To have the W&B in the cockpit is an extremely bad idea, because, unlike an airliner, W&B in a light airplane must impart the decision-making well before boarding. It plays no role when avionics are turned on. If any parameters are outside the envelope, having already boarded the airplane places an undue pressure on PIC to continue.

I was in a situation when the computation demonstrated the airplane being outside its W&B envelope. In one case, we were able to procure ballast (jugs of water). In other case, we switched the airplane to one more permissive. Both cases were helped by making decisions ahead of time so that the schedule was impaired minimally.

Meg missed this important point, instead focusing on students losing habit of calculating W&B by hand — as if they do not use iPad and 'droid apps to do it already.

{Update: Note that it is next to impossible to get a side-by-side 2-seater out of balance, as long as the design co-locates people with the projection of CG. Placing fuel in wings helps. However, my point still stands: W&B calculations must be done well ahead of the flight.}

And with that out of the way, points of comparison.

"We bought the Skycatcher specifically for training,” Cunneen said. "We looked at other light-sport aircraft, but they didn’t look like they would hold up in a training environment. The Skycatcher is all metal. It is built by Cessna, a company that has built a lot of training airplanes and knows how to do it. They went beyond the ASTM industry standards when they built it, so I think it is a really good training platform.”

Michael teaches PP and SP in the GX he lets me rent, and Dr. Shuch uses an all-metal Evektor SportStar, which seems holding fine for a few years now. But sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Getting into the Skycatcher involves bending over and lifting up a knee to your chest. This can be a challenge for some people, said Cunneen.

To board GX, which has a broadly similar layout, one plops the fanny into the seat first, then draws the limbs in. The technique is not difficult, and may be adopted to Skycatcher. It is clear that neither airplane offers a challenge of Piper Cub.

"There is no insulation in this airplane, no plastic, no cloth, no nothing,” said Cunneen. // Skycatcher is louder than the other Cessnas I routinely fly.

GX is reasonably quiet. In fact, Michael flies with a jet headset. I'm sure that it is not overloaded with insulation and it uses its plastic sandwich construction to an advantage.

Like most LSAs, the Skycatcher is easy on fuel consumption, averaging between five and six gallons per hour.

GX is noticeably more frugal than that. Cruising at 5000 rpm at level 95/105, it burns 3.8 gph. It will not hit 6 gph even at full power at sea level. Rotax 912 is simply a superior engine in every respect (for example, aside from a better fuel economy, its installation weighs less despite heavy coolant).

Although the Skycatcher is limited to daytime VFR flight only, the G300 comes equipped with synthetic vision and pre-loaded with VFR and IFR charts.

Since GX is used by private pilots in Europe, it is capable of night VFR, and I used it for my night currency. A stripper version exists that omits panel lighting, but fortunately it is not the only configuration.

Skycatcher does not have back-up instruments.

GX has steam-gauge airspeed, altimeter, and compass in all available specifications.

The flaps are actuated by a Johnson bar located between the seats.

Having trained in Piper Cherokee, mechanical flaps is actually something I would not mind in GX, which features a Cessna-like electrical switch. Of should I say "formerly Cessna-like"? It is unclear to me what design would be lighter, especially in a high-wing airplane.

Skycatcher has toe brakes [...] The Skycatcher also has a castering nosewheel.

Although toe brakes offer advantages to skilled pilots, they have to be mastered. GX is set up like an earlier Cherokee: center lever and rigid steering connection. It is extremely easy to steer, but now that I have flown airplanes with temperamental brakes, I feel like I may be outgrowing that arrangement. Mind, I do not have a tailwheel endorsement yet.

The elevator and ailerons are actuated by a stick that feels and moves like it should be connected to the floor between the pilot’s legs, but instead is inserted under the panel.

GX has a conventional stick, but I am not sure it's better than Skycatcher's arrangement. Meg's gripe misses that if one removes the "joystick" and bolts a yoke there, Skycatcher's hand control is a yoke! But it is better than a traditional yoke, because it provides a better knee clearance.

One thing Meg did not mention is restraints. GX has a 4-point harness, which is great for safety, but also added personal difficulties for me: my left shoulder strap keeps sliding off, and I have to struggle with the belly pack.

Another is that BRS is standard in Skycatcher, but optional in GX (Michael's plane is specced without). This is a matter of discussion, as LSAs are badly weight-constrained. Flying withou BRS allows to take that much more baggage or fuel, a point that residents of western states appreciate.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 05:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 968 words, total size 6 kb.