First flight in an LSA 55...

[Thirsty]

Djh, agreed! I too learned on the 55 and if one of them and a 160 is available for a local flight I'll take the 55. Much better performance and more fun to fly in my opinion.

 

If you search for threads I've started you'll see my story I one of my first posts. I felt much the same as this thread starter but it doesn't take long to get the hang of the 55.

 

 

[Bandit12]

It’s amazing what perspective brings to an argument. While I had done a few flights in a Skyfox and an early Jab (with the throttle between the legs? It was a long time ago), I later learnt to fly in the Tomahawk. It was considered a good aircraft to learn in because it wasn’t perfectly stable, had to be flown hands on most of the time, and you could really tell when it stalled. We considered ourselves so superior to those learning in a C152….ah the arrogance of youth! When I climbed into a Warrior for navs, I thought it was the most stable aircraft imaginable, and I wondered why anyone would even need an autopilot as it almost flew itself.

 

I’ve never flown a drifter or similar but I do think that the early lessons really benefit from a relatively stable aircraft. It’s easy to look back with a wealth of experience and say that we should all learn in more challenging aircraft, but it is also easy to forget just how difficult it could be in those early days.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's my point Bandit. A student is going to spend thousands of dollars before he gets to be able to go on cross country flights to wherever he wants to go.

 

Many students in fact never reach that point because they run out of money.

 

In fact that's the achilles heel of flying as we know it today, people run out of money and either give up or just drip feed a few flights a year, and this makes it hard for the country schools to survive, and the problem just goes round and round.

 

For a student to feed in a few thousand more learning to cope with an unsatisfactory aircraft, then struggle to complete his training doesn't make any sense at all.

 

 

[Bandit12]

I'm with you there. Build confidence and hook them first!

 

 

[winsor68]

I reckon an old 55 airframe transferred to 19 rego would make a great little machine... chuck the anchor weight in the nose out... put a Rotax (or heaven forbid a Hirth 110hp 2 stroke!)... stick a little wheel on the tail... enlarge the rudder... turbulators on the elevator... and voila!

 

 

[facthunter]

Have a fly of a 3300 taildragger if you get the chance Winsor. Nev

 

 

[winsor68]

Have a fly of a 3300 taildragger if you get the chance Winsor. Nev

I saw one in a hanger at Temora... They truly are one of the sexiest aeroplanes in existence in this configuration. Plus they seem to look bigger somehow... much more accessible in the cockpit area... I doubt there would be a machine easier to mount....

 

Amazing what moving a wheel can do for the looks of a machine.

 

 

[ayavner]

you happen to get a pic of that, Winsor?

 

 

[deltacharlie]

Jabiru taildragger

 

http://www.recreationalpilots.com.au/gallery/details.php?image_id=73

 

 

[facthunter]

That's the one I've flown. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

That's the one I've flown. Nev

Looks like a substantially modified fin and rudder Nev.

 

 

[damoski]

Hey Jake,

 

I went through an identical experience last week (insofar as I went up in a JabLSA, having flown Foxbats the last year). I had just come back from a couple of trips away where being able to fly a Jab would have opened up my rental options, so thought I'd give it a go.

 

As it was, it was... interesting. The walkaround opened my eyes a little - especially looking over those tiny tyres, and when I realised that the sophisticated-sounding stall warning horn was a direct vacuum tube rather than electronic (I wonder how many people lock their lips around that leading edge every week), and when I was told about the size and travel of the stick. What was more interesting was when we started rolling with 2 decent-sized adults and some fuel, and I had to triple-take to check that, yes, the throttle was fully open....

 

Having said all that, possibly from the various comments here and in other places, I was expecting some kind of unmanageable dog I would barely manage to keep flying, and walk away from sweating and shaking. As such, it was instead, rather enjoyable. Maybe some of my prior experience in CTSWs (for more complex handling characteristics and trickier landings) and Skyranger 582 (for being patient in takeoffs) seeped from my subconscious back into my muscle memory, but it flew off the ground easily enough. In the circuit, I was pretty sloppy in turns and altitude, but no dramas, and I think I could tighten that up quickly enough.

 

Differences like leading strongly with the rudder, did actually feel to me 'more like flying' - more complex control inputs, more refinement needed - something else to learn, and more enjoyable in the process. Mind you, this is coming from someone who enjoyed tearing down A-roads in his 1.4l automatic (0-100kph, 22.6s), because it required more planning and energy management than simply driving a decent car, sitting on a car's bumper and gunning past it on the straights.

 

Again, from comparisons, I was expecting it to require constant management in the turns, and be barely recoverable in a stall. Both far from the truth - it seemed perfectly stable and happy to sit in a steep bank, and we were unable to get it to stall - minimum speed we could get, from memory, was 60kts clean, 50kts dirty (is that right?). That did get my mind racing as to what that would do, given approach speeds and contingencies. As for general control - on a fine day, it felt easier to fly, because of the lack of sensitivity - ie. bootfuls of control input to get it to do things. I remember a stick far forward-left to get out of a turn, and a half-bootful of rudder to get it into one. Surprisingly, I didn't really notice any issue with the stick or throttle positions from pretty much after take-off.

 

Finals and landing picture seemed to transfer well from the Foxbat; my instincts on glide slope turned out to be not too far out, even power-on rather than glide approaches, and flaring was, again, easier because of the lack of options. Compared to the Foxbat where you can easily strip-run, or twitch it back into the air if you're not careful, the Jab was going down and staying down - the stick was already back against the stop, and there wasn't much else to think about. Apart from remembering the carb heat.

 

So - my impression from only an hour and 3 touch and goes in the Jab, was that in fine conditions, zero wind, and zero problems, with an excellent instructor in the RHS, it was easy enough. However, conversely, that would translate to a heck of a lot to think about in less than ideal conditions, such as strong turbulence, shorter runways, heavier fuel load, etc. I did feel nervous about my prospects on an engine failure on approach, or EFATO, or rounding out in blustery conditions, which of course, you need to be able to do.

 

I can agree with the arguments for getting students started on a Foxbat rather than a Jab LSA; it's good to know how to handle an aircraft with less power and control authority available, but I would say that the Foxbat's handling allows for a student to get the basics down quicker, and also go on to learn how to control it in more challenging conditions where the Jab would just run out of control authority.

 

As to which Foxbat habits transferred badly to the Jab: I found myself pointing the nose upward a bit more than was decent on the Jab, on climb-out, although only slightly. I kept finding myself going downwind at 70kts rather than 80-85. I found myself approaching Vfe on base and final turns. I often reduced power where my instructor preferred I keep it at full. And I wasn't 100% on the ball with the additional controls in circuit checklists (carb heat, trim check, etc) - but I was almost there. I'll seek a few more sessions before going solo, but I didn't feel that I would be particularly nervous going solo in it - something I thought I would be.

 

D

 

 

[dazza 38]

I have a soft spot for the LSA 55.I did my Pilot Cert Test in one .

 

 

[HeadInTheClouds]

Thanks for the long reply there!

 

I actually flew the LSA 55 again recently and will bea gain tomorrow (Hopefully with some solo too) and felt much much better about it to be honest. The first two landings were crap, with the second actually being a go around due to me totally buggering it up but after a demo landing I seemed to pick it up quickly and thought my landings were rather good! I flew with a few knots of crosswind and seemed to get the hang of it and manage it fine. I do still find it feels powerful though, but after flying a Piper Warrior from an airport at 3500'MSL everything feels powerful in comparison.

 

My main dislike with the LSA 55 is actually the flap speed, it is quite easy to wander back above the white arc if you don't pay attention on base and final. I still don't appreciate the small cabin size either! Carb heat is also my mortal enemy and I keep forgetting it but I have been reviewing it in my head and I think I have it now so every time I pull back the throttle my first thought will be carb heat. Haven't done any stalls yet but I have heard that it just doesn't want to stall. Still not entirely sure if I'll be doing my RAA test in it or not but I wouldn't actually mind, would also open up more options for hiring.

 

Here is the most recent video of me flying it:

 

 

 

[damoski]

Thanks for the video!

 

Yes, the flap speed is a pain - thanks to my nervousness about the fewer options on final (less power, higher stall speed, running out of control authority), I tended to keep slightly high, and then also run out of options on how to get rid of that height without gaining speed, with limited access to sideslip. I guess it just takes more practice to keep it right within the parameters all the way around the circuit.

 

 

[diablo]

I have been flying my sk for 4 years and I love it. I have experience on piper warriors, cubs, Cessna 152 and 172, tiger moths katanas and others. the sk is by far the most economical and just as rewarding fly. It is a responsive, predictable, well behaved and easy to fly aircraft which once mastered makes flying many other types feel like riding a tricycle.

 

Yes , it may be a little demanding to start off but there is nothing challenging, mystical or frightening about its handling and is by far a stronger and better designed airframe that most aircraft of the category out there. It comes down to learning to fly with stick and rudder instead of just stick!

 

I have heard of problem on finals but following around four hours training, I found it very easy to nail down my approach speed to 60kts with full flaps and keep it on centre line. Full flaps and trim all the way back settles the aircraft at 60-62 lts with plenty of control to flare so landing is a doddle. The important part of flying an lsa Is use of the rudder and co-ordination with ailerons and ensuring you a have a trickle of power all the way down.

 

My personal view is that the jabiru sk or lsa is a great little aircraft that needs to be flown unlike the typical trainer and once mastered will provide you with the skills and confidence to fly anything.

 

Bad design? Absolute rubbish, more like bad piloting ...

 

 

[billwoodmason]

I've owned and flown an LSA 55 since 2003 and have found it a responsive and predictable little aircraft to fly - stable in the stall and easy to trim in all configurations and easy to land. I think the problems spoken about here are the perceptions of low time pilots with limited currency who perhaps may be wary of whatever aircraft they fly. It's the instructors job to make you at ease in the cockpit of whatever you fly and give you the skills to be able to cope. The LSA55 is an aircraft that cuts through turbulence that would have many ultralights in the hangar, having said that the only thing I think pilots need to be wary of is not to exceed the crosswind capability (14kts) the same as you shouldn't for any other aircraft as you may run out of effective rudder although this has not happened to me. Our home strip has no cross strip and is 18/36 so we are used to handling crosswind landings and fly accordingly. I would not hesitate to recommend you fly an LSA55 if you are given the opportunity.

 

 

[dodo]

I started learning on a J170, then continued through to certificate and cross-country on an LSA55. Other than that I have have a very few hours on the J230, Eurofox, Tecnam Sierra and Gazelle, so I am not very experienced.

 

I prefer the LSA55 to the J170, and enjoy flying it. All the criticisms earlier in this thread are probably true to a point, but it is nice to fly, keeps you engaged, and rewards your better efforts, without the consequences of your lesser efforts being too bad.

 

Certainly, it encourages constant pilot attention, and good speed control on approach. I haven't tried exceeding crosswind limits, but on a bumpy day with a cross-wind, circuits are good fun.

 

Maybe not the easiest aircraft for your first few hours of training, but a good one to continue learning with, even after certificate.

 

dodo

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

the little LSA Jabiru will teach you to really fly. the aircraft won't help you at all. and if you can master the LSA, then you can easily fly anything.

Yup, hop out of an LSA-55 into a T-300 with the large wheel option... they land exactly the same... NOT!

A lot of people who learned in Drifters had very high blood pressures when moving to a T-300 or T-500, because the Drifter's artificially enhanced stability tends to mask its adverse yaw, and the low ground angle makes aerodynamic bounce almost impossible. Does this make the Drifter a bad low-energy trainer? No. Do its ability to bounce, raw adverse yaw, and non-blown fin make the T-300/500 bad trainers? No. Provided the instructors managed to gauge the student's actual abilities and confidence levels accurately (not so easy, it seems!), either can be used to train a safe pilot; but the Drifter cannot be used to train a novice how to fly a Thruster; because they are not the same.

 

After doing my U/L training in a T-500, I found the LSA-55 a pussycat - and it had brakes!

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

BIG subject...... I wouldn't like the job of getting an ab-initio solo on a P-51. You'd lose a lot of planes, students and instructors, but you would get some through ( at a cost)A good instructor has the job of steering the student through the course dictated by the system, so must cover the plane used and it's characteristics, whatever ot is. A training aircraft should be tough ( most aren't, today) behave like a real aeroplane and be serviceable and cheap to purchase and repair.

I don't believe anLSA 55 is "twitchy". It is a bit quick and has limited control authority at lower speeds. It doesn't lend itself to ham fisted control and you don't put weight on the nosewheel. This is a little bit in conflict with the need to NOT get slow on the approach, hence some fairly precise flying is required at times. This also applies to a lot of other aircraft so the skill is not wasted .The throttle position is "something else". Thankfully it's not done like that any more. Nev

Bennet, of Pathfinders fame, was "lent" a P-51 to orchestrate target marking on a night bombing raid. His first flight of a single-engined aeroplane more powerful than the Miles Master, was in a P-51, at night, over Germany, controlling a squadron of pathfinders whilst flying at low altitude through the flak over the target. He succeeded. He was not trained on an "easy" or "well-behaved" trainer.

Now, I agree that a novice to flying should be eased in to the addiction; but to what degree a pilot's certificate is a professional qualification - as a Heavy Rigid d/l is - and to what degree it's a ticket to a pastime, is not so easy to define. One can't earn much money as an ultralight pilot; but the complexity of the task, and - here's the can of worms - the potential risk to third parties - makes it more similar to an HR licence than an ordinary D/L.

 

I suggest that all newly-elected politicians be strapped into a single-seat P-51 and sent off - those that return, may govern until the next election...

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

I reckon an old 55 airframe transferred to 19 rego would make a great little machine... chuck the anchor weight in the nose out... put a Rotax (or heaven forbid a Hirth 110hp 2 stroke!)... stick a little wheel on the tail... enlarge the rudder... turbulators on the elevator... and voila!

No, it would not be a viola...

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Point 1: The Jab LSA 55 is NOT unstable - provided you fly it within its certificated CG range. How do you know it's within the correct CG range? Oh, yes, you may not have valid information on the loading rules, because the RAA has only just realised that it's NOT exempt from the normal weight & balance requirements that apply to GA (and everything else.) However, if it's loaded behind its aft limit, it will tend to drop the tail on the ground when you get in - provided the undercarriage hasn't been damaged and incorrectly replaced.

 

Point 2: The Jab LSA 55, like many other of its contemporaries, does not have the optimum control harmonisation - that's the relative response for a given effort, about the three axes - difficult to quantify, but often described as that the ratio of the relative effort needed to get an equivalent response should be something like 1:2:4 for the ailerons:elevators:rudder - in other words, the elevators should be twice as "heavy" as the ailerons, and the rudder twice as "heavy" as the elevators. The Jab is more like 4:2:1, which makes it not quite as pleasant to fly. There are quite a lot of aircraft like that, especially the older gliders. It does not make them "difficult" to fly; it's just something to get used to. You need to learn to "feel" sideslip on your backside, and use the rudder. That's a good thing; far too many "pilots" have "lazy feet".

 

Point 3: I do wish that people who speak of "stability" or "instability" in an aircraft, would learn what the definitions of those terms actually are.

 

Point 4: The trick with flying the LSA 55 is to rest your arm on the armrest and fly it with your wrist and fingers only - do NOT move your arm. If you do that you will find that it's a delight to fly. The same trick - except you rest your arm on your thigh - works in most single-seat gliders, and I am told, in some helicopters, and in things like Lancair IVs that have a side-stick. However, again like many of its contemporaries, the Jab's stick-free stability (ability to hold a trimmed speed) is very light with the flaps down - especially if you're making a dragged-in approach with a fair bit of power - so you do need to watch your speed on approach. But you MUST use your feet.

 

The later Jab models had most of these quirks removed - so they are no doubt preferable ab-initio trainers, at least for the initial experience. But I find them a bit insipid, compared to the LSA 55.

 

Things like Cessna 172s and Piper Cherokees are truck-like compared to the LSA 55. I came to the prototype Jab LSA as an experienced pilot, and had no problem with it at all, Rod Stiff and Phil Ainsworth bundled me in it, showed me where the throttle was, and stood back. I found myself quite at home by the time I'd lined up to take off. As a personal economical hack, it is hard to beat. And yes, it handles turbulence and crosswind surprisingly well if you know what you're doing.

 

 

[rgmwa]

I suggest that all newly-elected politicians be strapped into a single-seat P-51 and sent off - those that return, may govern until the next election...

Novel idea .... but I like it!

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Novel idea .... but I like it!rgmwa

Much too expensive - no politician is worth it.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Much too expensive - no politician is worth it.

Look, the future of the nation is worth a high price... how about a replica P-51 with a drag-racing V-8 to provide the excitement of EFTO?