Light Sport Aircraft survey

Montblack wrote:

("Rick Pellicciotti" wrote)

Following the conventions of this group, I won't mention the airplane
I sell or the prices. If you are interested, email me off the group
and I will send you details.



It's not spam (IMHO) if the post is requested ...it's hangar talk. g

Post your plane's link and tell us what's special about it - and don't
forget those prices ($$$$$). Many interested people here. Be prepared
for some, um, feedback :-)

Will it, and you, be at Oshkosh?


Montblack

Sorry to take so long to respond to your post. I have been in Romania,
at the factory, taking delivery of our first two aircraft. Yes, we will
be at Airventure, display #39 and we will also have an airplane in the
"Light Sport Aircraft Mall".

Our airplane is the "Festival", manufactured by Aerostar S.A. of
Romania. Aerostar is the same company that builds the famous Yak52 that
I am sure many of you have seen at airshows and aerobatic competitions.

Festival is all-metal, and has side-by-side seating for two people. The
cockpit is 42" wide. The standard engine is the Rotax 912ULS, 100hp.
The airplane has a lot of small features that we think are important to
the owner such as locking gas caps and canopy, seats that adjust easily
and a large baggage compartment. The airplane has built-in, structural
roll-over protection. A lot of airplanes with canopies do not have
that. The biggest thing that we have done is that we have worked with
Aerostar to "americanize" the airplane. All parts that are subject to
wearing out or breaking such as brakes, wheels , tires, instruments and
avionics are all of American manufacture and can be sourced readily from
the usual places.

Aerostar is JAR21 and ISO9000 certified. They do sub-contract work for
Boeing and Airbus. They have about 2100 employees. Absolutley great to
work with and they build great airplanes. In the course of doing the
structural tests as required by the ASTM standards, they actually tested
one airframe to destruction. The standard requires 150% load at 4g's.
The airplane did 182%.

More details on our website at http://www.lightsportflying.com
Constructive suggestions are more than welcome.

Rick

"Rick Pellicciotti" wrote

More details on our website at http://www.lightsportflying.com
Constructive suggestions are more than welcome.

Good looking plane. It should do well.

Want a suggestion? Offer it with something other than a Rotax or Jabaru,
even if it costs more. I'm just one person, but I won't buy anything with
either of those choices.
--
Jim in NC

Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Rick Pellicciotti" wrote

More details on our website at http://www.lightsportflying.com
Constructive suggestions are more than welcome.

Good looking plane. It should do well.

Want a suggestion? Offer it with something other than a Rotax or Jabaru,
even if it costs more. I'm just one person, but I won't buy anything
with
either of those choices.
--
Jim in NC

In article , Lakeview Bill wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?

I would suspect lack of support from local GA facilities - the 4 stroke
Rotaxes and the Jabiru are not particularly common in the US so few
mechanics will be familiar with them. Other than that, they are decent
reliable engines.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote:

In article , Lakeview Bill wrote:

Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?


I would suspect lack of support from local GA facilities - the 4 stroke
Rotaxes and the Jabiru are not particularly common in the US so few
mechanics will be familiar with them. Other than that, they are decent
reliable engines.


Those engines seem to have a bad reputation in the U.S. They are seen
as cheapo engines for people who can't afford "real" engines from cont
or lyc. One flight school I know of had diamond katanas with Rotax
engines and only got 900 hours out of them despite regular use. I don't
know how typical that is, but you often hear stories like that. Maybe
it's the Avgas we use over here (it certainly isn't good for small
continentals either, but like you said those can be fixed by just about
anyone). Not having owned or maintained an engine myself I don't know
but I do know their reputation is not good here. For example one of the
new companies (I think it was Liberty) was initially going to use a
Rotax and got no interest, changed to a Continental and now are taken
more seriously.

Those engines seem to have a bad reputation in the U.S. They are seen as
cheapo engines for people who can't afford "real" engines from cont or
lyc. One flight school I know of had diamond katanas with Rotax engines
and only got 900 hours out of them despite regular use. I don't know how
typical that is, but you often hear stories like that. Maybe it's the
Avgas we use over here (it certainly isn't good for small continentals
either, but like you said those can be fixed by just about anyone). Not
having owned or maintained an engine myself I don't know but I do know
their reputation is not good here. For example one of the new companies
(I think it was Liberty) was initially going to use a Rotax and got no
interest, changed to a Continental and now are taken more seriously.


I am fairly familiar with the Diamond/Rotax issues. The engines are not
bad. Whoever said that there are support issues was spot on. Whether this
will change with Sport Pilot remains to be seen.

There are several aspects of the Rotax engines that the average Lyc/con AP
will set precisely backwards without proper training and support. Neither
of which has been forthcoming from Bombardier.

"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
. ..
Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?

How shall I count the ways?

They require their oil, their oil filters, their everything. You pay dearly
for this.

They always have seemed to be temperamental. Everything has to be just
right, to be even close to reliable.

See above. If everything is not just right, they are not reliable. I know
the 912 and 914's are not 2 strokes, but what pieces the 2 strokes are. I
know, some will testify that they have never had a minute's problem, but
there are more out there that have. My gut, and my but says to not trust
them. I don't and I won't. Gut means a llot, to me.

They don't sound "manly" enough. Kinda like a sewing machine, compared to a
Harley. Airplanes are supposed to be "cool", and they aren't. :-)
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Lakeview Bill" wrote in message
. ..

Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?


How shall I count the ways?

They require their oil, their oil filters, their everything. You pay dearly
for this.

They always have seemed to be temperamental. Everything has to be just
right, to be even close to reliable.

See above. If everything is not just right, they are not reliable. I know
the 912 and 914's are not 2 strokes, but what pieces the 2 strokes are. I
know, some will testify that they have never had a minute's problem, but
there are more out there that have. My gut, and my but says to not trust
them. I don't and I won't. Gut means a llot, to me.

I have to disagree with your assessment of the Rotax 2-strokes here,
it's just not informed. I've owned 6 of them over the years (just now
got #7 delivered a few weeks ago), 5 503's and a 2 447's. I have
hundreds of hours in front of/underneath Rotax 2-strokes at this point
(500 hours as a rough guess) so I've gotten to know some of their
strengths and weaknesses.

The chief strength of the Rotax 2-strokes is the field experience
available. We know how to install them, prop them, jet them, load them,
maintain them and what parts and peripherals to use with them. This is
the _#1_ strength of the Rotax - it's not so much that it's such a
superior design (it's not much more than a snomobile engine with a
beefed up bottom end and slightly different metallurgy in certain places
like the pistons), but again it's field experience we have available for
setup, installation and running that really makes them reliable.

They are also the only 2-stroke on the market that can really do
continuous high power for hundreds and hundreds of hours without failure
(provided it's installed, setup and run right, of course).

The chief weakness is probably the same as for all 2-strokes; they can't
handle a lot of abuse such as lean running, underpropping and so on.
They also require more frequent maintenance (typically for leaking seals).

But the truth is, the rotax 2-strokes are very reliable, long lasting
engines.

I know a lot less about the 912, since I've never owned one, so can't
comment on those (I don't know of any rampant reliability problems with
them, though, from the fairly numerous locals who fly them).

They

don't sound "manly" enough. Kinda like a sewing machine, compared to a
Harley. Airplanes are supposed to be "cool", and they aren't. :-)

I kind of like the scream of a 2-stroke rotax, but that might just be
because I'm used to it. OTOH, the coolest sounding is the merlin in the
P51.....

LS
N646F

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

They don't sound "manly" enough. Kinda like a sewing machine, compared to
a
Harley. Airplanes are supposed to be "cool", and they aren't. :-)

Yeah Jim. Know just what you mean. There I was, out in the desert slogging
along in my "manly" sounding Ducati when a rice-burning Yamazuki screamed
past me. . . again. Three 33-1/3 mile laps. When I pulled into the pits, the
winners had already packed up and gone home. But that Ducati still sounded
cool. POS!

Rich "Pass the Sake" S.

"Rich S." wrote

When I pulled into the pits, the
winners had already packed up and gone home. But that Ducati still sounded
cool. POS!

Yeah, but you were doing it in style. Cool counts!

It is already a given that sport planes are not going to be fast. Might as
well get the cool quotient up there! g
--
Jim in NC