RAA-Aus vs GA for training
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XXX, the aircraft is now 7 years old and time takes it's toll, even with the best of them. Tyres wear out, instruments need the occasional bit of work, the original 121.5 MHz ELT needed replacing, etc. And, as I said, that's for a respectable annual: all trim etc removed, cables inspected and so on. A dozen or so hours work, minimum. Could I get it done cheaper? Maybe, but I've taken pride in all my aircrafts' condition, and this one is no different.
I think the initial choice of LSA is probably more important than the difference between a certified and non-certified version of the same thing. That said, I don't object to having a tighter-tracked product. As you'll know though, it's entirely possible to run a GA registered LSA version but I have no data to tell me whether the reliability is better/worse than my EASA VLA certified model.
To return to the point, I guess it doesn't matter whether it's an LSA or whatever category of newer aircraft - providing good maintenance is costing less, and the capital cost is lower by a useful amount. The two factors combine to give a worthwhile reduction in operating cost.
I think the initial choice of LSA is probably more important than the difference between a certified and non-certified version of the same thing. That said, I don't object to having a tighter-tracked product. As you'll know though, it's entirely possible to run a GA registered LSA version but I have no data to tell me whether the reliability is better/worse than my EASA VLA certified model.
To return to the point, I guess it doesn't matter whether it's an LSA or whatever category of newer aircraft - providing good maintenance is costing less, and the capital cost is lower by a useful amount. The two factors combine to give a worthwhile reduction in operating cost.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the initial choice of LSA is probably more important than the difference between a certified and non-certified version of the same thing. That said, I don't object to having a tighter-tracked product. As you'll know though, it's entirely possible to run a GA registered LSA version but I have no data to tell me whether the reliability is better/worse than my EASA VLA certified model.
I would say you made the right choice with your aircraft purchase
Is yours the one where the backing plate on the tacho has been changed to only show max 3,000 rpm? I found that quite interesting.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I think that's a good point XXX. I had a very illuminating conversation with a helpful CASA guy about the merits of LSA vs VLA. It'd be academic for most people but a bit more interesting for me, with the aircraft as it is. In addition to the picture you paint, there's an equivalent GA twist. Put simply, if your LSA manufacturer goes bust, and you're VH registered, you're back to 'experimental' and all that entails. Another reason to choose your manufacturer carefully, I guess. While 60 years of Tecnam gives a bit of confidence in their corporate longevity, the discussion was enough to curtail any thoughts, however academic, of (possible?) re-certification to LSA.
That said, one downside with the VLA certified version is that new installations come with all the change order requirements etc that we know and love on other GA aircraft.
I didn't buy the aircraft new but the particular model and outfitting ticked a few boxes in terms of what I wanted as my Sunday afternoon puddle-jumper, so I was prepared to give the VLA world a go. So far, so good.
To answer your other question, yes the JF model tacho reads prop rpm, rather than Rotax engine rpm. I've always presumed it's to make pilots see more traditional numbers in GA training applications. I guess it's just a case of re-scaling the tacho face appropriately. JF also has Hoffman prop, btw.
That said, one downside with the VLA certified version is that new installations come with all the change order requirements etc that we know and love on other GA aircraft.
I didn't buy the aircraft new but the particular model and outfitting ticked a few boxes in terms of what I wanted as my Sunday afternoon puddle-jumper, so I was prepared to give the VLA world a go. So far, so good.
To answer your other question, yes the JF model tacho reads prop rpm, rather than Rotax engine rpm. I've always presumed it's to make pilots see more traditional numbers in GA training applications. I guess it's just a case of re-scaling the tacho face appropriately. JF also has Hoffman prop, btw.
Last edited by tecman; 2nd Jul 2013 at 09:17. Reason: added info
From one who comes from the GA world, the LSA's promise of cheap flying is hard to resist, until you realize that for a large bloke like me the range and useful payload is severely restricted. Having said that after flying a Tecnam P2008 I could not stop myself going back up in it, it's a wonderful way to fly.
Last edited by flyinkiwi; 4th Jul 2013 at 00:50.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitely no such thing as the perfect aircraft and the MTOW restrictions on LSAs mean than you're never going to get a C182 or Saratoga in the load carrying ability. That said, I'm no lightweight either but flying solo I get my 5.5-6 hrs endurance, 20 kg of baggage and a spare right seat in which to strap another 50 kg or so (if I could do so). It's true, though, that with a pax and 3.5-4 hrs of fuel, we'd both better have lightweight toothbrushes! Although my aircraft has been across the Tasman and around Australia, there are certainly times I'd be hiring the C182 for a comfortable trip. But for the frequent flights around the patch, the P2002 works well.
