Jack Tyler

Wilco on trying for some useful photos...except that there are so many sources of pics (of LSAs) on the web now that perhaps that it would be easy to just duplicate what's already there. Perhaps shooting for 'unique' or 'distinguishing' features might be a good theme. Glassair doesn't offer an LSA aircraft so they are unlikely to be exhibiting at Sebring. Remember: we're talking about sub-120 kt and sub 1320# aircraft when looking at LSA's - at least in the U.S. I can tell you that one topic I'm keen to better understand is what lies beyond the 'official' view from Rotax that running E10 fuel in their engines is OK. I hear a lot of rumbling from Experimental and LSA owners that it isn't that simple...and that's before we get to the issue of a given aircraft's fuel *system* (tanks to carburetor). Sebring will be a profitable venue for learning more about that topic. What else, folks? Jack

Hi, everyone... I know that most of you here are just a wee bit too far way to consider attending Sebring's LSA-Fest next month. It is perhaps the biggest expo of LSA type a/c we have in the USA right now, excluding Oshkosh and Sun 'n Fun. I hope to be going there and, if anyone here is especially interested in either info or a specific pic related to one or more LSA products (or other flying-related bits), feel free to PM me and I'll attempt to grab it for you. Obviously, getting it 'virtually' - in some kind of digital form - would make passing it on easy. But we'll be back in Brisbane in early February, so I can always post what I can't send via the Web. Just let me know... Jack

Thanks for the discussion, folks. My takeaway for now is that, if there is some fundamental benefit of one wing design over the other, those of us here are unaware of it. OTOH we seem to have accumulated a good list of each wing design's pro's & con's. One other reference that I found close to what I was looking for is here: Guide to Biennial Flight Review - MyPilotStore.com Buried in there amongst a lot of wordy chatter, near the end, is a discussion on some of the design implications when actually flying - e.g. when needing to slip the plane when the approach might be hot and/or fast. I hadn't seen that before. I'll revisit this after Sebring, assuming I get over there. Jack

Yenn: "I think you have a misunderstanding about the definition of LSA. As far as I know LSA aircraft are designed by someone like Cessna or Vans andthey are buile exactly to the design. there is no variation allowed in materials, equipment or design." No, I'm looking *across* the entire span of current LSA aircraft, where the designs vary (cantilevered low wing, cantilevered high wing, strut-in-tension high wing), the basic construction techniques & materials vary (composite, stressed skin, tube & fabric and a mix of several), and certainly the evolution of each builder and the designs themselves all vary significantly. So viewed comprehensively, I'm simply trying to understand what inherent, basic and functional benefits (or liabilities) exist for one wing design vs. the other. Perhaps - or perhaps not - a good example is TL Ultralight. They have chosen to build a composite low-wing and a composite high-wing. And not just a single model, but several iterations of each model. Was their motivation to simply fill the LSA pipeline so they can market their product to those of us with both types of wing preferences? The current versions - the low-wing Sting S4 and the high-wing TL 3000 - strike me as being equipped and also being marketed very similarly. So what was the design brief given to the designers by the company's directors? And why? Perhaps I'll have a chance to meet one of the TL principals at Sebring and get closer to at least their set of answers Jack Edit: Oops. Was no doubt thinking of the CT line, a series of strutless, composite a/c. But the basic Q I have for TL remains the same: How were they looking at the concurrent marketing of two different wing designs, and sustaining both design choices by freshening each model multiple times.

Thanks for that, Carl...and I agree re: your observation about the Sling. I was very impressed by their choice to immediately begin extensive and unmandated testing of production unit #1 right after it finished flying around the world, when they could instead have leaped into production mode while their publicity was fresh. And I *very* much agree with your other observation about the Sling: it really does look 'just right'. Unlike some low-wings with their bubble canopies that remind me of the Sunday comics. (Oops, I didn't say that out loud, did I?) Re: my initial Q (and despite its overly rational nature): I'm not asking why people choose the planes they do. My Q is about what significant design feature(s) distinguish one from the other, either for the builder or the pilot. This of course could be just one big snipe hunt (aka: fruitless search) and there is no significant functional difference. Just doesn't strike me as a logical conclusion to draw, however, given how distinctly different one is from the other. Do CFI's in Oz make their students wear hats when in the cockpit, just like in the other schools? Just wondering... Jack

I waded through most of this thread, and here's my observation: This thread is supposed to be about smartphones. Yet I didn't see a single comment about voice quality. Here in the U.S. and also around Brisbane, audio quality seems to range widely from one brand and model to the next (for a given network like Optus). Doesn't anyone there call people on their smartphones? <s> Jack

Well, so far I think we can all see that the appeal of one wing design vs. the other tends to be related solely to personal preferences. And there's nothing wrong with that, altho' I am interested in understanding if there aren't some more fundamental considerations when a designer and/or builder chooses a given wing design which will need to later be built with affordability and marketed and sold to the pilot population. I'm trying to position this Q as it relates to LSA-type aircraft, as that's where the newer and more varied design efforts lie, where the builder has more freedom in the construction of the aircraft, and where my current interest lies. And that aircraft category mitigates some of the functional reasons given earlier in this thread. To illustrate: -- Old view: High wings have less visibilty but better sun protection. New view: Some high wings have better visibility than some low wings, and some high wings (the current version of the Kitfox is an example) have virtually no sun protection and excellent viz in all 3 dimensions. -- Old view: High wings have a stronger wing structure because of the strut, but also more drag because of the strut. New view: Some high wings rely on a cantilevered wing design with no strut. Re: the 'best fits my mission' rationale, as I look at the current crop of LSA models it strikes me that the most common mission - a mix of cross country plus local currency flying - can be accomplished in multiple models of either design. And let's remember, the two LSA models that recently flew successfully around the world were (wait for it...) a high wing with a Swiss crew and a low wing with a SA crew. I'm hoping to attend the Sebring Expo in January - anyone else here attending? - where ~50 LSA-certified models supposedly will be on display. Most will probably be exhibited by distributors, who are likely not to have been involved back at the decision making stage where the design was chosen, but others may be represented in part by their designers and builders. I'm looking forward to hearing them respond to this question, assuming I can pry them off their 'my wing design is better because...' pitch. BTW for you Aussies here, has there been any traction in your marketplace for the Sling model? Some folks I know well (including a pilot who's done a record-setting Circle in her Mooney and is planning another Circle via pole and pole, and also a NASA engineer who's building a Highlander) had a chance to look at the Sling and were very impressed by it. That was at Oshkosh 1.5 years ago, as it was on its way around the globe. The Sling builders have just chosen their USA distributor so its presence in this marketplace is zero so far...but what about down in Oz? Thanks for the contributions, so far. An interesting discussion, even if we haven't cracked it yet... <s> Jack

Tony, a related suggestion for you: If you are thinking of ownership shares and a partnership arrangement, AOPA (and so, perhaps IAOPA) has a package of info available on setting up a partnership that I found to be very helpful. I started a partnership in 1998 that is still going well today, essentially for two main reasons: we got a good start via AOPA's info and we started with a good group of folks. Good luck to you. Jack

Very kind offer, Andrew - thanks for that and I'll follow up here when we're getting closer to locking down a visit. Jack

Yup, no doubt about it: Once one has a preference, any one can list the attributes of that preference to explain it. (I'm from a land of thunderstorms and rain showers; the low wing beats the high wing as a camping shelter (less driving rain)...so some traits can be ascribed to both wing forms!) But my question is more fundamental. By virtue of the wing choice itself, is the designer given a wider range of decisions or is the builder enabled by that choice to do something significantly different and better? Jack

...although being addressed to the care & feeding of 2-stroke engines. Jack

...is what? This is such a fundamental question...and yet most of us seem to start from the perspective that one or the other choice is, for us at least, preferred. Most contributors here seem to have that same initial preference that I see expressed on other aviation forums...or for that matter, on sailing forums where most folks start with the 'given' that a monohull or a multi-hull is simply the preferred hull form for them. But with such a distinct difference - low-wing to high-wing - surely there must be some fundamental and functional reasons for preferring one over the other, no? And by this, I don't mean the typical attributes or 'benefits' that are usually called out by those who already have an inherent preference, as e.g. when someone mentions the ease of fueling the low-wing or the ease of fuel sampling for the high-wing. For specialty uses, I can imagine wing placement being preferred - e.g. preferring a door-removable high-wing for some types of in-air photo work. But for the generic cross-country + currency flying that most of us do, what's to say one wing style is functionally better than the other? Most of my early flying was done in the (for the USA, anyway) traditional GA training high-wing aircraft - C-150's and C-172's. When we moved to a family airplane and 3 pilots started expressing their preferences, the choice was driven in large part by wanting a more responsive plane than the Pipers & Cessnas (and a few other GA brands) offered, which is how we came to own a Grumman American AA-5. And because the flying was taking place predominantly in hot, humid Florida, the sliding canopy (which could be opened in flight as well as while taxiing) was seen as a highly desirable feature. We couldn't find these traits in a high-wing...but these attributes relate to our personal preferences, not to some fundamental structural or design benefit of one wing choice over the other. It seems to me this is a good time to pose this question once again, as we stand at the front end of re-entering general aviation. Are there simply no basic, functional differentiators between the two wing designs? Is it essentially a matter of personal preference, which has always been my impression. Or am I missing something fundamental about the consequences of how the wing is hung onto the cabin structure & fuselage, at least for the smaller planes that are mostly discussed here? BTW I'd welcome a referral to any threads which already tackled this topic. The search function didn't bring me anything definitive...but perhaps I missed it. Jack

For those of us who do long distance sailing - and so carry a jugged supply of gasoline for the dink's outboard, the dink being the 'family car' upon arrival - ethanol-laced gas is known to lose more of its punch sooner, providing disappointing performance from the outboard. Not long ago, a Highlander builder and good buddy showed me an E10 summary that suggested one shouldn't store E10 fuel for more than 2 weeks if needing the performance from the gas they thought they were buying. I couldn't help but think, given all this, about aircraft owners who for a mix of reasons fuel the plane and then are unable to fly it for a period of time: travel commitments, illness, inhospitable seasonal weather and so forth. Where I'm located at the moment - St. Pete, FL USA - plane owners sometimes visit the local harbor fuel station to fill their jugs, since marinas are (for now...) exempt from the E10 mandate. I would think E10 fuel would be a special concern for those owners out in our western states, where high density altitude is a given on almost every flight. Jack

Thanks, fellas. Just like our general impressions of Oz so far, lots of friendly hospitality here, it seems. Jack

Vev, thanks for that. I now have to adjust my thinking about octane ratings along with monitoring my Oz Slang Dictionary and the exchange rate... <g> Jack

Thanks for the reply and encouraging answer, Walter. Much appreciated. Jack

We'll be back in the Brisbane area early in the new year and I'm hoping that some of our local traveling will include a drive up to Bundaberg. Since Jabiru is located there, a Bundy visit would ideally include a Jabiru visit...so I'd welcome being coached on how that is arranged. Certain days of the week, or time of day preferred by the Jab folks? And is a visit in any sense 'structured' - I'm wondering what we should expect. It would be helpful to have a sense for what amount of time we should allow (it will be our first chance to see their aircraft). All coaching welcome... Jack

I've been on this site less than 24 hrs and already been pinged 5 times to introduce myself...so here we go. I'm an instrument rated private pilot (land) with a good medical (both with the USA's FAA), but my wife (also a pilot) and I changed over a decade ago from flying to sailing. After visiting 52 (or was it 53...?) countries and island nations, we now find ourselves in Brisbane, Australia part of the year and St. Pete, FL USA the balance. We are interested in re-entering general aviation, and it sure seems like the LSA 'movement' is where most of the action is these days. Thus, my interest in joining this forum. I have been spending some time researching LSA aircraft and LSA manufacturers - at least those marketed in the USA - and for that matter LSA accidents, some of which make for chilling reading. Based on what I've seen so far - and by 'seen', I include video clips of some 'LSA Factories' (aka: hangars) - it seems to me that two issues which deserve more visibility are 'safety' and 'manufacturing capability'. I'm not really sure where either of these topics belong in this Forum's architecture. But more to the point, perhaps more discussion about both topics would be a bit more forthcoming if the Index more clearly called attention to them. (FYI: to me 'Accidents & Incidents' are just one subset of 'Safety'). E.g. I'm sure some (most? all?) of you here have already read the USA FAA's "Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturer Assessment - Final Report Summary". For those who are somewhat familiar with good manufacturing practices, there are IMO some very worrisome observations & conclusions in that summary. (For a link to the summary - and also a link to the full report - go to: www.bydanjohnson.com/index.cfm?b=6&m=4&i=10). It strikes me that, for now at least, 'Caveat Emptor' should be at the front of one's thinking with respect to LSA aircraft, no matter how appealing a design or pleasing its performance numbers might be. And so that's why I'll be looking for comment & discussion on issues like these. Thanks already to those of you who've contributed here. It's obvious there is substantial knowledge and experience available here for those of us with a lot to learn. Jack St. Pete, FL & Brisbane, QLD

E10 Fuels Yet another interesting discussion about fuels, which seems to be near the top of most plane owners' lists of worries. At the moment, I'm writing this from the Land of E10 Fuel - Florida, USA. This state (and others) have mandated E10 fuel and, even for cars the effects are noticeable. The mileage in our Honda Civic EX dropped 10% (33 to 30 mpg) once we had to shift to E10 fuel, so the '3% price difference' mentioned above is a bit low, IME. Experimental owners of all stripes have been very worried about the disappearance of non-Ethanol fuel supplies for some time here, and reports of leaking fuel tanks, failed fuel lines and such are, I'm told by a builder-pilot friend of mine here, not uncommon. There is a helpful website offering a USA-wide non-Ethanol fuel data base - Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada - for just this reason. We're fairly new to the Brisbane area but, so far, I haven't noticed these high-RON rated fuels at the local pumps. Presumably, only specialty vendors offer the fuels being discussed here. I must say: I'm very impressed you can find 98+ rated fuel. The highest mogas RON rating commonly available in Florida is 93...and even that is not available at all fuel pumps. Jack