Light Sport Info Wanted

I am not familiar with the Gobosh but have flown many LSAs. Most of the LSAs of the type you are referring to that are fixed wing modern aircraft mostly manufactured in Europe or Eastern Bloc nations are designed and initially certified to the European standards.  These standards do not allow intentional spins and the full three turn spin certification is not required. The aircraft have however undergone some spin testing. Recall the Cesssna lost two aircraft in the Skycatcher spin test program.

One of the primary issues with performing aerobatice in a Light Sport involves the engine.  A Gobosh, Remos, or CTLS have Rotax 912 engines.  These engines use a dry sump oil system, which can cause oil starvation in steep banks or negative G situations.  The Rotax operating instructions only allow negative G's for a few seconds, after which you may either starve the engine of oil or introduce air into the oil feed lines (basically, same result).  My aircraft also restricts bank angle to 60 degrees, I believe for the same engine issues.

I have been flying since 1975, mostly low wing aircraft, and hold a commercial, instrument, multi-engine certificate.  I recently purchased a new Rotax powered Flight Design CTLS, which is a high-wing aircraft, very similar to the Remos.  I now have about 80 hours in it and enjoy it more each time I fly it!  I enjoy the high wing for the visibility, and the CTLS for its capabilities as a travelling machine.  My wife also has her private, and loves the airplane.

Bill,

I have flown both the Gobosh 700 and Remos out in the Denver area for about 10 hrs apiece and liked them both. Here are my impressions of both.  I'm an 1100 hr former flight instructor with experience in about 30 different aircraft types, including classic J-3, Champ, T-Craft, etc.  Caveat: The manuals that I have are from two years ago - some data may have been updated since then.

1) Maneuvers:

Gobosh flight manual lists approved maneuvers as:

Normal flight maneuvers

Stall (except tail slide)

Lazy eight

Chandelle

Steep turn not to exceed 60 deg of bank.

Aerobatics and Intentional spins are prohibited.

I didn't find max g loading info for the gobosh.

Remos is rated for +4/-2 Gs.  Note that this is roughly the same as normal category aircraft.

Permitted maneuvers:

Stall

Slow controlled figure-eight

turns - maximum bank angle 60 deg.

Specifically prohibited:

IFR flights

Night Flights

Aerobatics

Tailspin

Flights through or within clouds

Flight in icing conditions.

Other observations:

Based on the operating limitations and design loading, it is pretty apparent that neither of these LSA aircraft are suitable for aerobatics, particularly with a novice pilot at the controls.  Most aerobatic planes pull very heavy g-loads when recovering from a busted maneuver, which very often results in a spin and spin recovery.

Surprisingly, both planes had very good performance when taking off and landing in 8500 ft density altitudes in the summer, even at full gross weight.

Both planes were very responsive and were a delight to fly, as was the Sport Star that I also had a chance to fly regularly.

The Remos was about 5 knots faster than the Gobosh, based on some informal GPS based speed tests that I did over a rectangular course.  (The Sport Star was about 5 kts slower than the Gobosh.)

On landings, I found that the Gobosh was more sensitive to crosswinds than the Remos.  I guess the fact that the wing is only a foot or so above the ground puts the wing deeper into ground effect, making the plane lighter on the wheels until taxiing at very low speeds.  The Remos did not seem to be as sensitive to the crosswinds.

With the glass bubble cockpit, I loved the visibility in the Gobosh, but it got HOT in the cockpit when temps exceeded 75 degrees, even with pretty good cabin ventilation airflow.  The Remos' high wing provided some shade and seemed much cooler under the same conditions.  Good sunscreen lotion was a must in the Gobosh.

The Gobosh cockpit is tight - when we had two good size guys in it, we  were definitely rubbing shoulders the whole time.  The Remos had a noticibly wider cockpit, with a couple of inches separation between the two big guys.

The Gobosh useful load on the plane that I flew was 485 lbs.  With my 200 lb check-out instructor and my 225 lb body in the plane, that limited our fuel load to 10 gals, for a total of about two hrs total time aloft (no reserve).  There was a fuel warning light that came on when the fuel got down to about 5 gallons, which would occur after about an hour of flying.  A good indication that we were getting in to our VFR reserve fuel.

The Remos useful load on the plane that I flew was about 650 lbs.  There was never a fuel issue - we could fly with full fuel - 22 gal or about 4.25 hrs (no reserve). While the Remos has a fantastic useful load, there is no place to store significant baggage. (One of my wife's requirements is that we be able to carry two sets of golf clubs.  So far, only the Flight Design CT family and the Jabiru 230/250 seem to meet that requirement).

The Remos seemed more stable in turbulence than the Gobosh, although I never did fly them back to back on the same turbulent day.  Out in Denver, turbulence usually means that the winds are picking up over the mountains and you had better be careful about not exceed the maximum crosswind landing limits, which  were around 15 kts for both planes.  Once the turbulence starts, it is time to put the LSA planes away.

Both planes were a blast to fly.

 

Dave York

 

 Bill,

Any S-LSA is certified according to industry standardsdeveloped under ASTM protocols. S-LSAs are not an FAA type approved aircraft. Nomatter how an S-LSA may have been previously certificated in some country, the manufacturer must certify that all ASTM standards have been complied with. ASTM document F2245 lists the standards for spin testing and placarding, and the details can be found in section 4.5.9 of F2245. If the manufacturer has placarded the plane as not approved for intentional spins, it is not required to be tested beyond an incipient spin. I have heard some S-LSA manufacturers and sellers’claim that previous testing under foreign certification has proved their plane capable of maneuvers exceeding the S-LSA flight manual. However, I urge your friend to think twice before becoming a test pilot based on some unsubstantiated claim. If you friend decides to get “frisky,” I urge you to watch from the ground. I would hate to see a good airplane wrecked and another pilot prove the Darwin theory.      

Bill, 

I'm the Chief  Flight Instructor for Skyraider Aviation out of Erie and Centennial airports in Colorado.  We operate Gobosh and Remos aircraft, and neither are aerobatic.  Both are specifically placarded against aerobatics, and as far as I'm concerned that's more than enough to keep me or anyone in the club from doing intentional spins or aerobatics in the aircraft. 

That said,I've got about 700 hrs in the Gobosh, and about 400 in the Remos.  They're both fun aircraft, and I'd walk past a long line of Cessna's to fly either one of them. They're both extremely responsive on the controls, but I like the  looks of the Gobosh better, and it feels like a slightly heavier aircraft.  Wing loading on both is just over 10 lbs per sq. ft. but the Remos feels lighter and a little more ultralight like.  The Gobosh handles turbulence better in my opinion. Our version of the Remos is the G-3, not the GX that's being marketed now. The Remos does have a better payload and a wider cockpit, but If given a choice I'd take the Gobosh.  It just feels nicer, and it's sexier.  Oh yeah...control harmony is better with the Gobosh as well, not much need for rudder.  The Remos feels kinda like one of the early German glass sailplanes with lots of adverse yaw and an overly responsive rudder.

Hope this helps.

Guys, thanks for all the replies and info.

Dennis, you are the folks that I am trying to get my friend to go fly with. He has done one flght lesson in a 172. He was very aprehenensive, but loved it. The instructor was excellent and it was a perfect day,and my friend got to see one demo landing then made the next two himself with the CFI hands off the controls!

So he got excited. He has enough money to learn to fly, he prefers LSA, but work has interfered with him getting enouhg time off, he has been working 6 days a week.

I fly and spend a lot of time at Boulder, wish you were there, I might like to check out in a Gobosh myself, but it is a long drive to APA and I prefer not to have a control tower to deal with. Boulder is so nice in that respect.

Earl, I like to know the real story behind a new plane, especially as regards spins and recovery. And my friend is an engineer, he is not fully persuaded by just "somebody says" not to do something.

His other hobby is high wire acrobatics. He does of course use a net.

I am not at all planning on riding with  him or anyone else in spins in a plane not approved for it.

However, some planes have paperwork that says one something not sensical. For example T-6s( the real ones, not those air conditioned imitations we  have now) were good spin trainers for many years for many WWII and beyond pilots. But now many have a placquard that says "intentional spins prohibited". The plane hasn't changed, just the bumpfh that goes with it. I think it will recover from a spin just fine with the right technique and you are legal as long as the spin was not intentiaonal, maybe if you just bothed a loop or such. T-6/SNJ s are still approved for acro, thankfully.

I would not get close to a spin in a Cirrus or Grumman Tiger as testing showed they do not recover as they should. I don't know what the reg is now for T-34s, but they are or were a good spin practice aircraft.