Should I get checked out in a Remos GX or a Skycatcher?

[crowned]

Howdy--Just finishing up my SPL, and am going to get checked out in another plane. Right now I can fly Evektor Sportstars.

An FBO on Long Island has a Cessna 162 Skycatcher and a Remos GX. They ask for 5 local hours before a cross country flight (!!!) and so it's a big investment for me. I like the cabin of the GX, the folding wings make me nervous, and I don't like that the Skycatcher is made in China or the naval lavatory-style interior.

So my heart says Remos, but my head says Skycatcher, since I think I'll find more of them to rent around the country...

Any thoughts?

[tcj]

Folding wings have been around for a long time. Don't let that detur you from a particular airplane.

[soyAnarchisto]

I've seen far more remos around the country to rent than 162s. 5 hours is not that much. Its only money.

I think the remos performs better, too. But I don't have time in either - I did fly the evektor.

[Titus577]

I've been flying a skycatcher out of KHMT for the last year or so and have enjoyed it. Most of my hours are in a C172 so this aircraft has a lot of maneuverability and is very light on the controls. It is a very fun plane. The visibility outside and rather simple glass panel are very impressive. I can't speak to other aircraft but I would recommend the Skycatcher.

I have some photos on my blog @ http://www.flyingcalifornia.com

[L-19]

No experience with either, but could you do 1-2 hours in each before you decide which you'll pursue a check out in? If your more comfortable in one it will make things all the better right?

Don't fear the folding wing.

[mtv]

I'd choose the Skycatcher, and yes, I have done short flights in both. The Cessna airplane feels more like a "real" airplane, which is totally subjective. I really didn't care for the quality of workmanship I saw on the Remos, whereas the Skycatcher seemed very well built.

FWIW

MTV

[littlewheelinback]

I have given instruction in both...I didn't like either one until I had a few hours in them. Both are decent aircraft and have some upsides and downsides. The 162 is a more "standard" aircraft but not by much. The Remos didn't have to live up to the Cessna traditional image of a Continental engine and aluminum airframe. The Remos is a better performer by a noticeable amount. It handles more quickly and lightly. It is faster in climb and cruise. It's take off and landing performance is excellent (put a set of VGs on that thing and you could embarrass some Cub drivers). The Remos is also a kite and is demanding in windy conditions, like any lightly wing loaded aircraft.

The 162 carries it's fuel in the wings like god intended (not right behind the pilot's ass) and has the inventive dash mounted stick that make entry and exit easier without giving up the stick. Over all the 162 is easier to get in and out of. The 162 has a cavernous baggage compartment (Remos's is very small), and though it doesn't have a lot of payload (Remos's is pretty good) I am sure that the 162 was designed to carry more than the Light Sport gross weight (I am not in anyway suggesting you do that).

For me, if I was flying for fun or primary instruction, I would go with the Remos...it is a better teacher and is much more fun. If I was actually going to use the airplane for going anywhere, I'd take the 162 because it has better baggage and is a little more stable, with better avionics.

My two cents

Daryl