AircraftOwner Online

What are some of the questions you'd like answered (or topics you'd like covered) by our resident aviation attorney, Charles Morgenstein, our Master CFI, Chris Hope, or our favorite AME, Dr. Brent Blue?

Let us know below.

REMEMBER: You must be signed in to comment or post videos.

This week we ask "Where is your favorite fly-in vacation destination?"
Let us know your fav spot below.

This week we ask - Do you bring your pet flying with you? Do they enjoy it? Tell us about your furry co-pilot below. (Maybe pigs really do fly..)

REMEMBER: You must be signed in to comment.

LNH to LNA in an LSA           

            It was an interesting opportunity. I could fly from Palm Beach to Lancaster Pennsylvania in a late model Pilatus PC-12 and then ferry a Light Sport Aircraft back to Florida. Best of all, it was for a good cause. The local high school had developed an aerospace program in conjunction with Embry Riddle and someone had donated this LSA to them. All they needed to do was go pick it up. I got the call.

            I will be honest, I have virtually no experience with LSA’s. I have been to the LSA show in Sebring every year since it began, but I have yet to see an aircraft that truly excited me. I was hoping to get a chance to fly the Cessna Sky Catcher this year. Piper has just announced it would be branding the Sport Cruiser, a Czech built LSA as their LSA offering. Then I got this call. I figured by the time I got back from Pennsylvania, I’d know everything I wanted to know about the world of LSA’s.

            So off I went. Wheels up on the massive PC-12 and a climb to 23,000 feet took less than 18 minutes. I hand flew the plane through 18,000 feet before reluctantly punching on the autopilot. The PC-12 is a wonderful airplane to hand fly on instruments and I wanted to enjoy every minute. If you think the Swiss know how to build a watch, you should see what they do with an airplane.

            We honked along at just under 300 knots burning 50 gph of Jet –A, at cruise. The XM radio was playing softly through the headsets, as we sipped coffee and ate peanuts. It doesn’t get any better than this. The PC-12 is specifically designed to be flown single pilot and the level of automation makes it easy. Three and a half hours later it was over. Weather wasn’t a factor in the flight at all. The winter winds worked with us instead of against us and about the only concession we had to make was Flight Level 230 vs. Flight Level 280 and that was because of turbulence. This is single engine turbine transportation at its finest.

            I climbed down the air stair door of the PC-12 onto the ramp at the Lancaster Pa. airport and walked over to the little LSA. Clearly this would be the smallest aircraft I had ever flown. Even though the wing span was longer than the little Grumman AA1C I had learned in, it has a gross weight that is 300 lbs lower. Further, I am 30 lbs heaver then I was when I earned my private pilot certificate, more than half my life ago.  

            The Evektor Sport Star looks a lot like the Sport Cruiser that Piper is adopting. They are both built in Czech Republic so I am not surprised. Low wing, bubble canopy, all metal and both powered by a Rotax 912, 100 h.p. engine.

            The people at Adventure Flight, the operation that had the LSA I was to pick up were very forthcoming about flying the little plane all the way to Florida. They have several of them on the line and teach in them every day. They answered all of my questions and even sent their Chief Pilot out to “check me out” in the airplane.

            The first thing I noticed when reading the flight manual was the sensitivity to weight. With full fuel, 31.5 gallons, I could only carry 222 lbs of pilot and passengers. I opted to wait to fuel the airplane until after the check out.

            It took me longer to figure out the Rotax engine then the airplane. I had never flown an airplane that had one before. It started easily and idled smoothly. The fact that it is water cooled requires you to wait a while for it to warm up before you do your run up. The run up is conventional, testing the ignitions, and carburetor heat just like you would in a Lycoming or Continental engine. What is different is the fact that the engine is running at approximately twice the prop speed. We did the run up at 4,000 rpm. I was not impressed with the brakes at all. My instructor told me that this is a common problem with this design and that they were retrofitting their entire fleet with Matco brakes to correct the problem.

            This aircraft uses electric pitch trim. There is no manual system installed. In fact, everything on the plane is electric. The turn coordinator, artificial horizon and directional gyro are all electric. The aircraft features an auxiliary alternator to make sure there is enough juice to run everything. There is no amp or volt meter on the airplane, but the alternators have warning lights if they fail.

            Taxiing onto runway 31 at Lancaster I advanced the throttle and rotated at 45 knots as I was instructed. The control pressures struck me immediately as very light. It felt more like a Pitts Special then a training aircraft. The little LSA climbed well in the cold winter air, even with two of us on board. The aircraft takes off with 15 degrees of flaps. This particular aircraft featured the electric flaps vs. the stock (manual) Johnson bar. (Yet another electric accessory). 4000 rpm in level flight gives you flap speed, and deploying 15 degrees of flaps in level flight yielded 65 knots. I flew the first landing to touchdown with 15 degrees of flaps. The wind was pretty much right down the runway and we touched down and took off again in less than 1,000 feet. The wind is a big concern. In the flight manual it indicates a crosswind limit of just 12 mph, or 10 knots. That’s not much. The second landing happened with 30 degrees of flaps. Over the fence at 55 indicated felt better than the first landing. I was told not to use the full 50 degrees of flaps. I didn’t get a good answer as to why but I figured someone else already explored that issue so I stuck with what I knew. The third landing was a full stop. That was it. I was “checked out”.

            I had the tanks topped to their full 31.5 gallon capacity and loaded my flight and overnight bag into the compartment directly behind the seats. There was nothing left to do but go, so I taxied out on my first leg to Suffolk Executive, just south of Norfolk Va. I figured it would take three hours at the 85 knot normal cruise speed.

            Immediately I discovered that the compass was off by as much as 30 degrees on certain headings and the D.G. precessed continuously. Fortunately the plane had a Garmin 430 in it and I was smart enough to bring a current data card. Give me a Garmin 430 and I can take you anywhere. It had been a long time since I did a strictly VFR cross country of this magnitude. The aircraft is not IFR certified so you can’t even file.  Around the massive D.C.ADIZ, over the Chesapeake Bay and into Suffolk Executive took three hours exactly. I was able to fly at 3,500 feet and then 4,500 feet crossing the water. By the time I got to Suffolk, I had figured out the airplane.

            Unfortunately you can’t trim the thing to be totally hands off. You can get close with the electric trim then you must fine tune it with the throttle. But the control pressures are so light that you can cup the stick in your hand and use fingertip pressure to stay on heading and altitude. The electric trim switches are on the top of the stick and it is all too easy to accidentally push one or the other causing the aircraft to jerk in the direction of the trim.

            Cabin temperature changed dramatically with the suns exposure because of the large bubble canopy. There is cabin heat and it worked well enough. But when ever the sun came out from behind a cloud I’d have to open a vent window or I would begin to cook. The little vent windows increase cabin noise significantly.

            Suffolk Executive features self serve auto gas. I did not know that when I selected it as my stopping point but since the aircraft is approved to run on Mogas and I had been informed that it actually liked auto fuel, I took the opportunity to fill the tanks. 11.7 gallons is all it took, no kidding. That translated to 3.9 gallons per hour at the 4800 rpm factory recommended cruise power setting. Well I thought, if it’s all about economy, that is hard to beat.

            My next stop was Myrtle Beach. I use MYR because if you have to get stuck somewhere, it’s good to get stuck where there is an abundance of nice hotel rooms and good restaurants. Two hours and forty five minutes later I was on the ground at Myrtle Beach. I was beat and my butt was sore. The seats in the plane were not designed for 6 hours of continuous use. It had been a long day, and it was getting dark. I did not trust the plane well enough to fly it the remaining 400 nm. in the dark although it is approved for night VFR flight. I called it a day.

            Mother Nature put on a winter show the next day and I was stuck. I had plenty of time to reflect on the flight. Obviously, this airplane was not designed to fly half way across the country. No, it was designed to be an economical fair weather flyer, a lower cost alternative to a certified aircraft. At more than $100,000 a copy, you cannot call it cheap, and is limited in its ability to carry. You can carry fuel or passengers but not both at the same time. That’s not such a big deal since the fuel burn is so minimal there is no need to tanker a lot of fuel.  It is not comfortable for pilots taller than 6’1” or more than about 210 lbs, I don’t care what the brochure says. The construction is what I would call “delicate” especially the canopy components. I do not see how these aircraft will stand up to the rigors of flight school use. In 22 years as an instructor and a mechanic I have seen all kinds of abuse by students on training aircraft. To me, that question speaks directly to economic viability.

            The flight manual is not what most pilots are used to but it pretty informative. Because these aircraft are not certified aircraft, maintenance procedures and log entries are different from certified aircraft.

            The Rotax engine did not give me a lick of trouble. It started easily, ran smoothly and never gave me cause to question it. I understand that this engine comes in a certified version and an uncertified version. The aircraft I flew had the uncertified version in it. I am not clear on the differences, but I think it is fair to say that more pilots would accept the Rotax as a “real” aircraft engine if the certified version was installed. According to the flight manual it runs happily on 100 LL or premium auto fuel though additional oil changes are required for use on straight 100 LL. I know that Cessna did extensive market research on the Rotax engine while developing the Sky Catcher and they opted to go with the Continental O-200D even thought it cost more. What that tells me is the Rotax has a ways to go before it gains the acceptance of the mainstream aviation community.

            I had to wait a week before the weather allowed me to finish the trip. Winter winds reduced my ground speed to less than 50 knots and the leg home from Myrtle Beach took nearly 7 hours.

            So, what did I think of the LSA experience? To be honest, it was fun to fly, but not very practical. In my opinion, it was more suited for an experience pilot then for a novice. I’m not sure how these aircraft will stand up to flight school duty. In my opinion the Rotax engine is going to be an issue for acceptance from the existing pilot pool, while newcomers to aviation probably won’t care. The LSA movement is in its infancy. I believe that when Piper, Cessna and Cirrus get behind it, it may gain momentum.

            It was fun to compare the same trip (in opposite directions), from opposite ends of the single engine aircraft spectrum. I'm not ready to pass judgement on the LSA for flight training thing just yet. I'd love to hear from anyone with any experience on the subject.

 

Were you or was anyone you know or knew a pilot in WWII?
Please share your story here.

REMEMBER: You must be signed in to comment.

In this month's Pilot, What's Your Story?, Ev Lake shared his dismay with the encroaching obsolescence of his instruments and the cost to the average aviator:
 
    "I have a concern about the future of aviation for those of us that use an older aircraft that may have a selling price of about $60,000.00 or less. Some of us feel a strong pressure to replace our ‘entry level avionics’ with very capable expensive avionics. The pressure comes from the decommissioning of many VOR and NDB navaids as more GPS based approaches are added. The loss of the VOR and NDB approaches makes it more difficult to justify a used Skyhawk, Warrior, etc. for a small business and/ or personal travel. But, it is difficult to justify spending $12,000.00 or more to install a WAAS capable GPS receiver in an older aircraft. (NextGen will likely be even more difficult to justify.)
    Certainly this pressure to use expensive equipment must drive the cost for training upwards. A $250,000.00 glass cockpit aircraft must be more expensive for private pilot certificate training than a $60,000.00 ‘steam gage’ aircraft. That cost is bound to discourage many potential students from even taking an introductory ride."
 
Pilots: what are your feelings about this? Do you share Ev's concerns?
Sound off below.

REMEMBER: You must be signed in to comment or post videos.

What's your favorite plane to fly on floats? Brag about it below.

Aviations Dirty Little Secret-
By Michael Leighton

Last week, I watched as an RV-6, one of the most popular homebuilts ever designed, crashed on takeoff from my home field. The engine quit at an estimated altitude of just over 200 feet AGL, and the aircraft spun into the lake at the end of the runway. The pilot, a well liked and experience aviator, did not survive. That was the second fatal accident and the third serious accident of an experimential aircraft based at my little airport since the beginning of the year.
The dirty little seceret of general aviation is that experimental aircraft have a disporportionately higer fatal accident rate then the rest of the G.A. fleet. Further, they display a disproportiionately higher percentage of accidents attirbuted to mechnical failure, 28% , with more than 9% attributed to "unknown" causes. These are not my numbers, they are published by the EAA. AOPA publishes the NALL report, another telling document that echos these findings. NTSB's accident file database carries detailed accounts of many of these accidents.
The insurance companies are keenly aware of this. The F.A.A. has recently announced a study due to concern about handling characterisitics of homebuilt aircraft ( read experimental aircraft).  What no one has asked, or answered is why?
Are the handling qualities really the issue? Or is it the nature of the homebuilt aircraft? More emphysis on construction, less on flight?
While I have flown many types of homebuilts, and even owned one, I am not in that world. I want to hear from those who are.
Is this a flight training issue or an aircraft design issue?

 

Mandatory Re-registration And It’s Consequences

I have always had a great deal of respect for the FAA’s aircraft and pilot registration branch in Oklahoma City.  Perhaps it’s where they are located or the task they are assigned to do, but in my book those folks have always been very courteous and responsive.  However, the new aircraft registration rules may give us all a reason to fret.

It’s not the people working at the office I am concerned about, it’s the new aircraft “re-registration” rule they will soon be enforcing.  It basically requires that every aircraft be re-registered, every three years.  The reason is sound enough: To keep the registration data base up-to-date. It is the unintended consequences that I am most concerned about.

Re-Register – Or Else

As it is now, the FAA Registration Office sends out a triennial survey asking if there are any changes to the information on your aircraft record. If there are none, then you don’t have to do anything; if there are changes, you make them on the form and mail it back. In the new system, you MUST go on-line and confirm that the information is correct. If you don’t do that, in 90 days your n-number will be canceled. Canceled N-numbers will be put in a pool, held for five years then released for reassignment to another aircraft.

Your Newly Invalid Airworthiness “Is Not Our Problem”

There are several points of concern in this process. One is: When an aircraft registration is canceled, the Airworthiness becomes invalid [see: Title 14, Part 21, § 21.181, (3) (iv)].  If you re-instate the aircraft registration later, do you also re-instate the Airworthiness? Apparently not. What if the n-number is reassigned (remember the Airworthiness has the N-number on it)?  The attitude of the Registration Branch seems to be: “That’s your problem, not ours.”

Not Re-Registered? You Start From Scratch

Another issue: What happens to the proverbial “plane in a barn” (or anywhere else) whose owner has not re-registered?  For example: I am always on the lookout for vintage aircraft that have been parked in a barn for years. I have found and purchased just such aircraft in the past. I do what is necessary to return them to service, send in the Bill of Sale and change in Registration and I’m ready to fly. Under the new rules, I may well have to apply for a different n-number (changing n-numbers is something we cringe at doing) and apply for a completely new Airworthiness with the appropriate FSDO – not the Aircraft Registration Branch whose new rule led to the invalidation of my original Airworthiness to begin with.

Expired Registration?

Call me cynical but I believe that there is a sub-current in the FAA that does not really want vintage aircraft flying in the Standard Category. If you must apply for a new airworthiness, my bet is they will try to tell you to make the aircraft Experimental. This is just one more way to get older aircraft out of the Standard Category.

Then there is the issue of companies, or individuals, owning multiple aircraft. You would think that there would be a method to consolidate your fleet registrations so that you could renew all of them at once, but there is not.  It will be like Chinese Water Torture. Multiple aircraft owners will need to be filling out forms on the Internet as often as their aircraft come up for renewal. It would be far easier if those registrations could be consolidated into one time period.  The FAA’s argument against this is that there would be too many processing peaks in data being submitted.  But then again, they argue that the entire process has been simplified and sped up by the new all-electronic method.  Sure, some will need individual attention in special cases, but corporate and other multiple aircraft owners are more likely to have clean, easily processed data to begin.

To be sure, a good clean aircraft registration database is in everyone’s best interest. The problems are the unintended consequences, or perhaps convenient consequences furthering more subtle – and less desirable – agendas.  

We have reproduced the FAA brochure that was being handed out at Oshkosh explaining this program. Just click here to see it: FAA New Re-Registration and Renewal Procedures.