"Gokart" by Cessna

[iWantWings]

For various reasons, I wanted to get checked out in the school's Cessna 162 Skycatcher. During my flight training I had flown only Cessna 172 with steam guages, so this would be a little different in a number of ways.

Here's are my first impressions and remarks (consider I have a whopping 1 hour in my logbook as a "certificated" pilot, so what I write might not make total sense).

• This thing handles like a gokart, when airborn. Very responsive, feels agile, nimble.... I rest my left hand on the "armrest" and use 3 fingers on the control (is it a yoke? 1/2 yoke, 1/2 stick?)
• Taxing is done with differential braking - really not a problem at all during taxi, but rolling for takeoff at full power and trying to maintain centerline is a bit of a problem for me: it is only the airflow past the rudder that steers the nose at that point, so I felt it was noticeably different. (the local airport is known for wind swirling due to surrounding trees and some canyon effect so that makes it a bit harder on takeoffs and landing).
• It is nimble and feels light - which is also probably why it gets blown by the wind all over the place. It feels like a kite at times.
• I kept doing the roundout too early and too high, before the flare. I know why: first, the C162 seems way lower to the ground than a C172. I mean, it felt as if my butt was 6 inches off the ground at the moment the wheels finally touch the ground. Also, the forward visibility is excellent - not something I'm used to for a C172 attitude while landing. But I was able to adjust after my 3rd landing which was good.
• Seating position: kind of like in a gokart with feet extended forward (seat does not adjust, but the rudder pedals can be adjusted forward/aft as needed).
• Electric trim: i don't really like it. Especially cuz i need to find the stupid graphic indicator burried somewhere in a cluster of data on so many screens... But it does work and I just have to get used to it.
• Manaul lever/bar for flaps. The first time I ever had to use something like this, a bit unusual at first but then I quickly began to like it.
• Compared to the 172, the engine sounded very "buzzy" and quite loud. It sort of added to the feeling that the little C162 was on steroids or ran on Red Bull as alternate fuel. This is probably the thing I disliked the most. (I don't have an ANR headset, but in the C172 it was not anywhere this "buzzy").
• Very comfortable and roomy! I'm 5'11 and skinny, the instructor is somewhat shorter and weighs more (we were edging max weight with full fuel) but we had plenty of room.
• The PFD and MFD: I really can't say much about it because I am hardly familiar with them. Although there is an overwhelming amount of information on the PFD and MFD, I really wanted to see onl the data that was normally provided by the 6-pack guages. Anything else I was oblivious to. Amazing how much information the pilot has available, just need to know how to get to it without spending too much time with the eyse in the cockpit. I was impressed by the "trend function" where based on the current speed, VSI and surrounding terrain, the MFD screen would anticipate if the flight path would strike rising terrain or not.
• Many other things to say about PFD and MFD but no point in me mentioning anything else because that is one area where I don't know enough of after 1 hour in the plane.

Probably 1 more flight and I'll be "checked out" per the school's policy and if I can demonstrate I won't screw anything up.

One last personal opinion. If I had $100,000 to buy an airplane, I would never spend it on a SkyCatcher. There are many things I like about it, but oh boy, for that money there are so many other options of used aircraft that, if properly mantained, would make a better buy (my opinion anyways, and I am not taking into consideration a situation where a person's only hope of flying as PIC is LSA and sport pilot).

 

[somorris]

I have never flown a Skycatcher and appreciate the info. I do fly a C-150 and find they are a lot more responsive than a C-172. It would be interesting to have a comparison in flying characteristics between a Skycatcher and C-150. Hmm...

 

[Mafoo]

I don't think Cessna really expects many individuals with a PPL to buy the SkyCatcher. It an economical trainer, and for LSA pilots.

There are many people that due to medical conditions, can not get a PPL, so they fly LSA. This is for them (however I would not buy it as an LSA, and I dont't think many people do).

The main market I believe, is as a trainer. Half of my hours to date, are in a 150. I soloed in a 150, before I flew my first 172. Now everything is in the 172.

It cost less for the school to own, cost less for me to fly, and I actually like how it flys better. It has extremely limited use outside of training, but for it's intended purpose, it's a great plane

 

[MDeitch1976]

-I do my training in a Piper Sport LSA.
-There is a little savings in the training.
-The LSAs are fun. They do get kicked around a little more. Which may be a good thing because a little inattention, and your heading is off, and altitude has changed. I believe it forces you to keep an eye on things.
-I like the electric trim. I only look at the screen with them pre flight, and before T/O check. After that, it is all by feel. It is quick and easy. No movement necessary.
-I don't know about the SkyCatcher, but with the Piper Sport it can use 100LL or MOGAS. If I could only go with LSA, they have good fuel efficiency. Which I believe keeps the rental cost down.
-I like having the option of the Glass Cockpit. You get used to the Glass, and it is nice to have a lot of information available in a small window.
-They are fun. Great Visibility. Great control response. Even though I plan to move up to Pipers and Cessnas after I get my PPL, I still plan on going out in the Piper Sport, and maybe try out a couple other light sport. Maybe someone will rent, or add an ICON A5 to their flight school or club planes.

 

[jpower]

I have 0.6 hours in a Skycatcher, and I have to say that I don't like the trim on that airplane either. My normal chariot is a Tecnam Eaglet, which also has electric trim, and I love it on that plane. My gripe with the Skycatcher is that the trim indicator lags waayyyyy behind the actual placement of the trim, which leads to a lot of fishing around for the right setting on takeoff. And it's not like it's just a tick high or a tick low--you could off by a quarter of the whole range of motion if you're not really careful!

 

[tonycondon]

i've got about an hour in a skycatcher and really enjoyed it. fun airplane to fly.

 

[steingar]

I wasn't at all impressed by the fit and finish.

 

[Meanee]

I felt like a kite in C152. Never had a chance to fly any LSA. My FBO has Sportstar, maybe will give it a shot.

As for taxiing and taking off, I have 1 hour in DA40 (same castering nosewheel, differential braking for turns only), ditto on the centerline observation. I was always going to the left on takeoff.

 

[bbchien]

I wasn't at all impressed by the fit and finish.

There isn't much fit, and there is zero finish. 1320 lbs with a traditional engine, is very limiting...!

 

[Dan Thomas]

There isn't much fit, and there is zero finish. 1320 lbs with a traditional engine, is very limiting...!

Better than the draggy old C150 with the same engine and 1600 lb. gross.

Dan

 

[Old Geek]

I wouldn't trade my 6 year old Flight Design CTSW for a brand new Flycatcher.

 

[bbchien]

Better than the draggy old C150 with the same engine and 1600 lb. gross.

Dan

No. The difference in the loan note pays for all the drag.

 

[Artiom]

I have 0.6 hours in a Skycatcher, and I have to say that I don't like the trim on that airplane either. My normal chariot is a Tecnam Eaglet, which also has electric trim, and I love it on that plane. My gripe with the Skycatcher is that the trim indicator lags waayyyyy behind the actual placement of the trim, which leads to a lot of fishing around for the right setting on takeoff. And it's not like it's just a tick high or a tick low--you could off by a quarter of the whole range of motion if you're not really careful!

I never flew Skycatcher but why do you care about trim indicator?
The only time it matters is before takeoff. On runup set trim for takeoff and after that I just adjust trim in flight by feel. Never look where it is as long as the plane is trimmed and holds whatever I want it to hold. Do I miss something?

 

[HighFlyingA380]

Trim indicator? Never heard of it. :wink2:

 

[MDeitch1976]

I take my instruction in a Piper Sport. If I set the trim at the T/O setting as indicated, I will have to use a little force pushing forward on ground roll. So, i do not place the trim at the line. You will find the correct placement, and just put it there every time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Dan Thomas]

I take my instruction in a Piper Sport. If I set the trim at the T/O setting as indicated, I will have to use a little force pushing forward on ground roll. So, i do not place the trim at the line. You will find the correct placement, and just put it there every time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It's out of rig.

Dan

 

[Pilawt]

Sport Cub's "trim indicator" is a sticker on the aft fuselage next to the leading edge of the stabilizer. Set trim before you get in; otherwise, just look back and, with hand off the stick, blip the trim so that the elevator balance horn lines up with the leading edge of the stabilizer.

 

[DogDaddy]

I haven't flown the Skycatcher, but recently I got checked out in a different, high-wing LSA and did not like it.
First of all, in the particular plane I tried, there was nowhere to put anything. No door pockets, no center console. The seat bottom was on the floor; your legs stick out straight in front of you. After 15 minutes my lower back was hurting so much I had to get out and stand up. And I'm only 5'5" and 155 pounds. Also, the pedals do not move up and the seat does not move. The seat back slides forward on a track. But when I moved it forward far enough for me to reach the pedals, the seat belt couldn't reach the fastener. I tried moving the seat back just enough for the seatbelt to catch, but then the only way I could reach the pedals was with the very tips of my toes. (I'd have to wear ballerina shoes to fly this plane and Sporty's doesn't seem to carry ballerina shoes!)) The doors lifted up the same as they do in the Skycatcher, which created a terrible blind spot when taxiing with the doors open. By the time I finished doing the runup my back was hurting from stretching my legs out so I told the instructor we were done. We never bothered to take off.
From this experience I learned that before making an appointment to get checked out in any aircraft, I will sit in it and try different seat postions and make sure the seat belt reaches and that I can see.

 

[iWantWings]

I have never flown a Skycatcher and appreciate the info. I do fly a C-150 and find they are a lot more responsive than a C-172. It would be interesting to have a comparison in flying characteristics between a Skycatcher and C-150. Hmm...

My instructor mentioned that "there is no comparison to the C150 when it comes to climb rate; the C162 way outclimbs the C150". He didn't elaborate the conditions, but, even though I can't compare the C162 to C150, the C162 totally surprised me with its climb rate in the pattern at Vy; we got to TPA in no time.

 

[iWantWings]

I don't think Cessna really expects many individuals with a PPL to buy the SkyCatcher. It an economical trainer, and for LSA pilots.

There are many people that due to medical conditions, can not get a PPL, so they fly LSA. This is for them (however I would not buy it as an LSA, and I dont't think many people do).

The main market I believe, is as a trainer. Half of my hours to date, are in a 150. I soloed in a 150, before I flew my first 172. Now everything is in the 172.

It cost less for the school to own, cost less for me to fly, and I actually like how it flys better. It has extremely limited use outside of training, but for it's intended purpose, it's a great plane

I totally agree with how you described the training purpose of the C162, as well as it fitting the LSA/sport pilot requirement. It sips fuel at about 5 to 5.5 gph while ground speed was 104 at something like 2300 RPM - but my purpose of the flight was not to get performance data so don't quote me these numbers as I was busy with flying the little thing so my numbers might not be correct.

(I think there was a "wind" data as well on the G300 PFD, but I don't recall what the value was). Peppy litle plane it is.

And for once it is nice to see a plane that is clean and 1/4 of the rivetsare not missing

 

[iWantWings]

-I do my training in a Piper Sport LSA.
-There is a little savings in the training.
-The LSAs are fun. They do get kicked around a little more. Which may be a good thing because a little inattention, and your heading is off, and altitude has changed. I believe it forces you to keep an eye on things.
-I like the electric trim. I only look at the screen with them pre flight, and before T/O check. After that, it is all by feel. It is quick and easy. No movement necessary.
-I don't know about the SkyCatcher, but with the Piper Sport it can use 100LL or MOGAS. If I could only go with LSA, they have good fuel efficiency. Which I believe keeps the rental cost down.
-I like having the option of the Glass Cockpit. You get used to the Glass, and it is nice to have a lot of information available in a small window.
-They are fun. Great Visibility. Great control response. Even though I plan to move up to Pipers and Cessnas after I get my PPL, I still plan on going out in the Piper Sport, and maybe try out a couple other light sport. Maybe someone will rent, or add an ICON A5 to their flight school or club planes.

I wondered why around the airports i've been to i have not seen the Piper Sport LSA - based on the little i know and based only on what i read (never flown one), I always tought they were great. Most of all I liked the looks of the plane And it is one LSA that I could easely comfuse for a high performance airplane based on the looks alone. I would like to one day fly one.

 

[iWantWings]

I have 0.6 hours in a Skycatcher, and I have to say that I don't like the trim on that airplane either. My normal chariot is a Tecnam Eaglet, which also has electric trim, and I love it on that plane. My gripe with the Skycatcher is that the trim indicator lags waayyyyy behind the actual placement of the trim, which leads to a lot of fishing around for the right setting on takeoff. And it's not like it's just a tick high or a tick low--you could off by a quarter of the whole range of motion if you're not really careful!

I didn't know what Tecname Eaglet is - just looked it up and performance data seems comparable to the Skycatcher. Probably the biggest difference would be the Rotax engine (although it puts out 98hp, nearly the same continentals o-200d/e 100hp).

So the LSA market seems to have quite a few options, which is great! AOPA's flight training magazine had a main article on the different LSA's and it was interesting how each tried to distinguish themselves in unique ways or ephasize different factors. I hope the mature quickly and maybe 20 years from now I might dream about owning a used one?

 

[iWantWings]

i've got about an hour in a skycatcher and really enjoyed it. fun airplane to fly.

after 1 hour of flying in one with CFI on board (at pretty much max gross weight) I also taught it was fun and nible, gokart-like. I only wonder what it's like with 3/4 fuel and just myself on board. It could be a mini-Pitts!

 

[iWantWings]

Sport Cub's "trim indicator" is a sticker on the aft fuselage next to the leading edge of the stabilizer. Set trim before you get in; otherwise, just look back and, with hand off the stick, blip the trim so that the elevator balance horn lines up with the leading edge of the stabilizer.

i normally don't look at the trim indicator in flight - no need to. However, when doing full stop landings, one after another (field too short for the school's criteria to do touch-and-gos), after every landing I'd have to find the page that indicates the trim, look at the trim and then activate the electric trim until bars line up for take off.

Really not a big deal at all, no doubt, it's just that it has some shortcoming when copared to the manaul rotating wheel trim.

Sport Cub - saw one fly the pattern at local airport - that pilot was having way too much fun, a joy to watch him fly it.

 

[jpower]

I never flew Skycatcher but why do you care about trim indicator?
The only time it matters is before takeoff. On runup set trim for takeoff and after that I just adjust trim in flight by feel. Never look where it is as long as the plane is trimmed and holds whatever I want it to hold. Do I miss something?

Nope, you're not missing anything--right before takeoff is exactly when it irritated me a ton. Didn't matter at all afterwards. That's one of the two qualms I have with the plane. The other (which I forgot to mention earlier) is the visibility--I felt really closed in when flying it, but that may be because the Eaglet is above average--I'm not really sure, because I don't have anything really to compare it against except the Skycatcher and a Bonanza I bummed a ride in once. Other than those, I thought it was a decent airplane. Nothing really to complain about operations-wise, except the castering nosewheel, which I was already getting used to by the time we were taxiing back to the hanger. It flew fine, and the stick/yoke/stoke thing (what are they calling that these days anyway?) felt completely natural. It was a little bizarre for a Rotax driver like me to see the engine idling well under 1000 RPM, though .

I didn't know what Tecname Eaglet is - just looked it up and performance data seems comparable to the Skycatcher. Probably the biggest difference would be the Rotax engine (although it puts out 98hp, nearly the same continentals o-200d/e 100hp).

The other huge difference is the weight--depending on what sort of goodies you have installed, the Eaglet can weigh well over 100 lbs less than the Skycatcher empty, freeing up those pounds for payload / fuel.

 

[iWantWings]

I never flew Skycatcher but why do you care about trim indicator?
The only time it matters is before takeoff. On runup set trim for takeoff and after that I just adjust trim in flight by feel. Never look where it is as long as the plane is trimmed and holds whatever I want it to hold. Do I miss something?

I'm not the user you posted the question to, but I'll compare the manal trim wheel with electric

- You said trim indicator matters before takeoff. You sort of answered your own question when you consider that, during pattern and landing training with full stop, you might have to find the page on which the electrim trimi indicator is displayed, for every take off (5, 7, 10 times in a lesson?). I think there are 7 or 8 pages on the MFD that has the trim indicator - if the MFD is unavailable, it would be shown on the PFD which would make it easier.

Of course, by the end of a lesswn with multiple full-stop landings, the student will likely have learned where to find the trim indicator and this be totally a non-issue.

- On an electric trim i cannot control the rate at which I trim (I think that's the case on the c162 anyways). With a mechanical wheel trim i have that control.

- not likely to happen, but if there's electric failure then I'm not sure if there's a way to "trim". Not likely and maybe not an issue worth mentioning, but it could be.

Having said all this, I'm sure that with a bit of flying time I would get used to the electric trim and never think about it.

 

[iWantWings]

Trim indicator? Never heard of it. :wink2:

LOL. Withe the 172 i purpusely flew the pattern out of trim and left it that way for all phases for the pattern/landing/takeoff to see what the forces felt like. I'm sure glad there is a trim, no matter if electric or mechanical wheel

 

[iWantWings]

I haven't flown the Skycatcher, but recently I got checked out in a different, high-wing LSA and did not like it.
First of all, in the particular plane I tried, there was nowhere to put anything. No door pockets, no center console. The seat bottom was on the floor; your legs stick out straight in front of you. After 15 minutes my lower back was hurting so much I had to get out and stand up. And I'm only 5'5" and 155 pounds. Also, the pedals do not move up and the seat does not move. The seat back slides forward on a track. But when I moved it forward far enough for me to reach the pedals, the seat belt couldn't reach the fastener. I tried moving the seat back just enough for the seatbelt to catch, but then the only way I could reach the pedals was with the very tips of my toes. (I'd have to wear ballerina shoes to fly this plane and Sporty's doesn't seem to carry ballerina shoes!)) The doors lifted up the same as they do in the Skycatcher, which created a terrible blind spot when taxiing with the doors open. By the time I finished doing the runup my back was hurting from stretching my legs out so I told the instructor we were done. We never bothered to take off.
From this experience I learned that before making an appointment to get checked out in any aircraft, I will sit in it and try different seat postions and make sure the seat belt reaches and that I can see.

Interesting... or better said, unfortunate. If you don't feel good so early on, even before the flight starts, no point in making that flight. I never really thaught about ergonomics meaing that so far they were good enough (for me) to not be bothered by them.

So, you'd have to do ballet and stretch like during yoga! And reaching the pedals is overrate

Do you remember what LSA this was?

 

[iWantWings]

I wasn't at all impressed by the fit and finish.

I think I lack an eye for "fit and finish" so don't really know how to evaluate that. But for me the fact that the plane was clean, there was no puddle of oil or overwhelming semll of avgas, all rivets were in place, was excellent.

I actually liked the fact that in the interior I could see the pulleys and cables; it seemed like a "naked motorcycle", you know, the one without fairings. But i did have a minor concern of those cables being exposed: what if something in the cokpit gets tangled between them? And maybe this "naked" thing is why i taught it was more buzzy and loud than a 172.

In a funny sort of way, my first impression of the C162 was that it looked like an oversized RC (Radio Controlled) airplane

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I think the comment about PFD and MFD being overwhelming and hard to find info is interesting. Perhaps, don't want to step on toes, it has to do with age of the pilot in general, when it comes to traditional avionics and the new glass panels. I've never had any issue finding things on the multitude of EFIS/PFD&MFD setups I've flown, from the G3X in the Skycatcher, to the G1000, to the Avidyne system, the Dynon systems and the Grand Rapids EFIS. Perhaps it's because I've basically been using a computer since before I have memories of most anything. Maybe age has a factor in how long people take to transition to a glass setup?

I enjoyed flying the 162 I flew, handled well, once you got used to how low it sat for takeoff/landing sight picture.

 

[Mafoo]

I think I lack an eye for "fit and finish" so don't really know how to evaluate that. But for me the fact that the plane was clean, there was no puddle of oil or overwhelming semll of avgas, all rivets were in place, was excellent.

Wow, I have never had an issue. I think if even one rivet was out, I would be asking about it. My schools planes are older, but in good working condition. What do the planes you usually rent look like?

 

[Dan Thomas]

And for once it is nice to see a plane that is clean and 1/4 of the rivets are not missing

What sort of junk are you renting now anyway? ANY missing rivets are a bad sign: corrosion or overstress or rotten repairs; in any case, a weakened airframe. Better find another FBO.

Seems to me that the Skycatcher is composite. No rivets to go missing, but composite can also hide some serious damage. A good bump can crush the core material or fracture the backside while the outside membrane pops back out and looks fine. There are no foolproof construction methods, but metal is the easiest to inspect for damage and corrosion.

Dan

 

[zaitcev]

The other huge difference is the weight--depending on what sort of goodies you have installed, the Eaglet can weigh well over 100 lbs less than the Skycatcher empty, freeing up those pounds for payload / fuel.

Eaglet is powered by Rotax 912, which is much lighter than that good'ole lump-of-iron O-200 in Skycatcher. It's no wonder that Eaglet is lighter. It also cruises on 4 gph, so it does not need to carry as much fuel.

Eaglet surprised me by how conventional it felt. It's like a 150, only better, when compared to plastic wonders of CTLS and Remos GX. The only I flew, N137LM, even has conventional instrumentation.

 

[zaitcev]

Seems to me that the Skycatcher is composite.

No, Skycatched is all-aluminum construction (except the wingtips; remember Lexan wingtips on Beech Musketeer?). Note, however, that Cessna finally started to experiment with blind rivets that Henning so dislikes. I took a few pictures of Skycatcher to document what rivets used where. It seems that Cessna only used blind rivets in less critical places.

 

[iWantWings]

Wow, I have never had an issue. I think if even one rivet was out, I would be asking about it. My schools planes are older, but in good working condition. What do the planes you usually rent look like?

What sort of junk are you renting now anyway? ANY missing rivets are a bad sign: corrosion or overstress or rotten repairs; in any case, a weakened airframe. Better find another FBO.

I should be careful how I write things - sorry about misleading. The current school has a very good maintenance of all of their aircraft. All renters are encouraged to squak any possible issues and they are addressed in a timely manner.

Under different ownership, a "while back" (when i had a brief forey into flight training), is what I described regarding "iffy" aircraft. And you are both very right in expressing caution -here's an example. Under a previous ownership, (none of those planes are now in the current fleet under the current ownership), there was a 172 i started taking lessons in. During one of the early lessons there was an "unusual" mechanical sound that I heard. I asked the CFI what that was and he addmitted "I don't know". That sound I had not heard again during the training that followed - until about 2 weeks later when this had happened. I had a colegue at work who was interesting in taking a "demo" ride. After telling them about the FBO, he and his fiance were ready to take a flight with my CFI in the said 172. I was there that morning because there was a likelyhood that I would solo after my friend's demo ride. AFter takeoff the plane turned crosswind with all 3 onboard and, as normal, i lost sight due to some buildings but expected to see it again about 10 seconds later, on cosswind to downwind. But I didn't see the plane. The school had speakers outside the building tuned to the traffic frequency. That's why I heard my CFI asking if "anyone is in the pattern". That was odd. Eventually I saw the plane downind at less than 500 ft AGL, flying at a pretty high angle of attack. They made a descending 180 and did a power-off landing in themiddle of the runway, the entire time banking. One of the piston had "siezed", whatever that meant (CFI said he flew that "pattern" with the stall horn on shortly after takeoff). Well, I went to a different school (where I stopped flying due to lack of funds). So that was a long time ago under a different ownership - but your caution was spot on.

Seems to me that the Skycatcher is composite. No rivets to go missing, but composite can also hide some serious damage. A good bump can crush the core material or fracture the backside while the outside membrane pops back out and looks fine. There are no foolproof construction methods, but metal is the easiest to inspect for damage and corrosion.

Dan

Here's a quote from the C162 documentation - i think it is metal.

AIRFRAME
​

The airplane is an all metal, two-place, high wing, single-engine

airplane equipped with tricycle landing gear and is designed for sport
flying and introductory training purposes.
The construction of the fuselage is a conventional formed sheet metal​

bulkhead, stringer, and skin semi-monocoque

​

When I touched and lightly pressed against various areas of the fuselage, it felt just like pressing against an empty soda can.

 

[iWantWings]

I think the comment about PFD and MFD being overwhelming and hard to find info is interesting. Perhaps, don't want to step on toes, it has to do with age of the pilot in general, when it comes to traditional avionics and the new glass panels. I've never had any issue finding things on the multitude of EFIS/PFD&MFD setups I've flown, from the G3X in the Skycatcher, to the G1000, to the Avidyne system, the Dynon systems and the Grand Rapids EFIS. Perhaps it's because I've basically been using a computer since before I have memories of most anything. Maybe age has a factor in how long people take to transition to a glass setup?

I enjoyed flying the 162 I flew, handled well, once you got used to how low it sat for takeoff/landing sight picture.

LOL . I'm still under 80 years old so I don't consider myself old . I'm guessing you're right, in general. I won't go into details, but my "beef" with the curreng G300 PFD and MFD (PFD in particular) is that, in my opinion, there are specific things that could be done to help transition from steam guages to glass. But that would only be helpful during transition from one system to another and would likely not be used thereafter (again, I'm leaving out the details of what I"m thinking of).

I'm not conerned - was able to safely fly the plane but there is still a lot of functionality to learn on the PFD/MFD; so, yeah, during the first hour of my first all-glass experience I tought it was saturated with data and there were no "de-cluttered, simplified layered views".

 

[jpower]

Eaglet is powered by Rotax 912, which is much lighter than that good'ole lump-of-iron O-200 in Skycatcher. It's no wonder that Eaglet is lighter. It also cruises on 4 gph, so it does not need to carry as much fuel.

Eaglet surprised me by how conventional it felt. It's like a 150, only better, when compared to plastic wonders of CTLS and Remos GX. The only I flew, N137LM, even has conventional instrumentation.

That's very true about the engine. I like the Rotax a lot--no complaints at all yet, from a renter's perspective at least. And yes, the Eaglet is pretty conventional. Two of the three that I fly have conventional instrumentation as well, which I actually like. Chesapeake Sport Pilot likes to generally use those two for primary instruction and the other glass panel one for renters, but they do a little of both. Now that we have a Remos and a CT, both with glass cockpits, I don't think that's done as much.

 

[MSPAviator]

I'd like to fly a Remos GX. It seemed decent when I sat in one at Oshkosh.

 

[zaitcev]

I'd like to fly a Remos GX. It seemed decent when I sat in one at Oshkosh.

GX is the sweetest flying airplane out of those I have flown to date. Pilot's ergonomics is also the best, IMHO. However, it presents a few practical problems. #1 is the access to the baggage compartment by the way of removing the seats. Also, with myself being 6'5" tall, visibility to the sides is rather bad thanks to the wide door frames. I have to crane my neck constantly.

I also question the wing folding mechanism, or rather the need for such. At first blush it's very slick. I examined the sleeve-bayonet connectors on N28GX and I am 100% certain that the design and workmanship on those are solid. I continue to trust and fly the airplane. However, there were 2 fatals in GX due to taking off with outright disconnected or improperly latched connectors (1 for ailerons and 1 for elevator). Apparently pilots plainly have trouble remembering to verify. Granted, the elevator connector is somewhat difficult to examine, because it's buried in the tailcone.

Because of these issues, I would rather buy a CTLS, if I were on the market for an LSA of such kind. Its spring-loaded controls are not as natural and the trim is rather unpleasant to operate, but it seems better laid out for living with it and going places. Okay, I admit to feeling silly when I have to open doors on CT by reaching through the storm window, but having to disassemble the airplane just to reach for a bottle of water is sillier still. God forbid you ever forget keys in your flight bag and find about it after strapping in.

 

[DogDaddy]

Interesting... or better said, unfortunate. If you don't feel good so early on, even before the flight starts, no point in making that flight. I never really thaught about ergonomics meaing that so far they were good enough (for me) to not be bothered by them.

So, you'd have to do ballet and stretch like during yoga! And reaching the pedals is overrate

Do you remember what LSA this was?

This was a Kolb SS Flyer. However, many LSA's have the seats on the floor.
And usually any aircraft (LSA or not) that has a control stick has non-adjustable seats...usually the pedals adjust though. I had no trouble reaching the pedals in other aircraft that have a control stick, such as the Liberty XL, Zlin 242, Pitts Special 2B, Stearman, and others.