Back in the Game

[PropMan]

Yeah, I'll have a magnetometer installed in the wingtip.

[jaredyates]

In the US, 14CFR 91.205 (b)(3) requires a magnetic direction indicator (some folks mistakenly think this means a compass) for all VFR flight, day and night. This makes sense, because a GPS can only derive your track across the ground. A fancy GPS can take your magnetically-derived heading and compute winds and drift. In our plane, I don't have a panel-mounted compass, but instead use a magnetic sensor that displays its results on the instrument screens.

[Cguy]

I replaced my steam gauge ASI, VSI, Altimeter and compass (a compass isn't needed if you don't night fly I believe, after realizing I had NEVER looked at the compass in the last 25 years in several planes, since GPS came out, I yanked mine) and replaced them all with a GRT Mini. It works great, saved a LOT of weight and to my surprise there was no period of getting used to it, it felt "right" first flight. Plus, I can now fly blind, using the artificial horizon and turn indicator. Just kidding, but it's fun to play around with it sometimes, in VFR conditions.

[JimParker256]

I'm preparing to upgrade my panel on my RANS S-6ES to add a GRT EFIS as well. But I don't have room for the 10" version, so I've been going back and forth about whether I wanted to go with the Sport EX (7" display) or the Mini-AP (4" display – just barely larger than a 3 1/2" instrument it would replace). After doing some in-depth wiring planning (assigning serial port connections to all the various functions), it turns out that I would save less than $200 by going with the Mini, versus the Sport EX. So now that decision has been made. I will integrate my current GRT engine monitor (1-wire connection) to the Sport EX, and have graphical display of all the engine-related stuff as well.
To make panel access easier, I'm going to cut an oversized rectangular section out of the existing panel, and use a sub-panel that will contain the GRT and a couple of other instruments (Belinte Radiant Instruments "Angle-of-Attack" and "Digital Altimeter"), plus the "Low Fuel" and "EIS" warning lights. I'll post a "mockup" picture if/when I ever get my Internet connection up and running again.

[PropMan]

I really like the GRT stuff I have, and being a native Michigander feel good about sending them my money. If you mean the engine monitor I think you do, the concept is brilliantly simple. Once setup (and that's so easy to do, you can actually change the parameters in flight) a panel mounted light glows steady if all is AOK. If it starts flashing, you have reached the upper limit of a particular function. This frees you from continually scanning multiple readouts, it's an idiot light in effect, but a good one, freeing up your attention for flying the darn plane. I have had mine flash one time, and it worked. I blew a seam in my radiator (Rotax, 2600 hours, a seam got "work hardened" due to expansion and contraction, it was a Chinese core, not now) on climbout in 8 degree temps, the flashing light got my attention instantly, and I landed without further damage.

I opted for the Sport 10.1 EFIS and have the engine info on that screen to declutter the panel. And yes they have great features on the engine monitor, plus a reasonable price for the equipment.

[Cguy]

I really like the GRT stuff I have, and being a native Michigander feel good about sending them my money. If you mean the engine monitor I think you do, the concept is brilliantly simple. Once setup (and that's so easy to do, you can actually change the parameters in flight) a panel mounted light glows steady if all is AOK. If it starts flashing, you have reached the upper limit of a particular function. This frees you from continually scanning multiple readouts, it's an idiot light in effect, but a good one, freeing up your attention for flying the darn plane. I have had mine flash one time, and it worked. I blew a seam in my radiator (Rotax, 2600 hours, a seam got "work hardened" due to expansion and contraction, it was a Chinese core, not now) on climbout in 8 degree temps, the flashing light got my attention instantly, and I landed without further damage.

[PropMan]

Bunch of Good Stuff came in last week ! Radios and such. Changed my mind on instruments too. Ordered a GRT Sport 10.1 EFIS with their engine monitor, that'll be here in a few weeks. Then I can start wiring up the panel (-:

[stinger]

No I was just agreeing with you Jim, all is good ! Stinger

[JimParker256]

Stinger, I hope I didn't come across as saying the LSA was "kite-like" - I was intending the exact opposite. With what I know now, I'd pick the LSA as my personal "favorite" in the BH line, with the Patrol coming in a close second - almost a dead heat... But I'm cheap, so the 100HP fuel flow would sway my decision.
My RANS S-6 Coyote is a nice airplane, but compared to the BH LSA - well there's really no comparison... The little Coyote is nowhere near as robust of an airplane. But it IS inexpensive! LOL

[stinger]

Jim, let me touch on some of your observations . Regarding the Kite effect, for good or bad I went flying in a 25mph ground wind and 45 at 3000ft my air speed showed 132 down wind and 62mph into the brisk flow . The LSA handled very well as I had full control. My only thoughts were returning to my runway 36 with the 25mph blowing from the west but it was none eventful ducking under our tree line and grass strip.. Stinger

[JimParker256]

Bob's designs are pretty amazing. The Bearhawk LSA wingspan is almost 4 ft longer (34 ft versus 29.25 ft for the RANS S-7), and has a LOT more wing area (170 ft² versus 147 ft² for the RANS). And given they share the same gross weight (1320 lbs), the wing loading for the BH LSA is 14% lower (~7.7 lbs / ft², versus ~8.8 lbs / ft² for the S-7).

Given all that, you're think the BH LSA would be much more of a "kite" in turbulence, and be much more "draggy" than the S-7, but that's not the case, at all. The BH LSA's top speed is actually 10 mph faster (140 vs 130), and the cruise speeds are likewise at least as good, if not faster (110-125 mph vs 105-110 mph for the S-7). All that is a testament to Bob's design skills – especially when it came to the all-critical airfoil selection process, and the attention he paid to reducing fuselage, gear, and wing strut drag... The takeoff and landing performance is close enough between the two designs that the pilot probably makes more difference than the airplane itself...

One other huge difference: The BH LSA is designed and rated for 1500 lbs max gross (though often certificated at 1320 to meet the LSA specs). The S-7 is maxed out at 1320, and Randy Schlitter would NOT be happy if you arbitrarily raised the max gross above that limit. Thus the BH LSA has a LOT of "reserve" strength if flown as an LSA, or could be licensed at the higher gross weight if you don't need to meet the Light Sport rules.

All in all, the BH LSA is one heck of an airplane!

[Cguy]

WOW! My eyeballs were calibrated correctly, those are huge. Short of booting up and running through the snow drifts to the hangar, I'm going to guesstimate the chord on my 7 as 8-9 ". I think my elevator is closer in chord to those! I totally agree Mark, he pulls it off performance wise so why not go big. I remember being similarly stunned when eyeballing the first Bearhawk I saw, lots of control at very low speeds is what it all says to me.
A DAY LATER EDIT: The 7's ailerons are 7 to 9", tapered, and 66" long.

[Mark Goldberg]

Square foot of wing area is a big factor in just about all areas of flight. Normally - the additional wingspan and wing area compared to a Rans would mean the Rans should be faster in cruise than a BH LSA. That would be a downside to Bob's design. But the opposite is true. It is due to Bob's design ability. Mark

[PropMan]

Those ailerons look huge in chord, what do they measure? Just eyeballing them to my RANS.....I really like the way Bob designs his control surfaces, BIG.

Cguy- 16.5" x 68.75 is what the aileron measures. I don't recall what the S7 is but keep in mind the LSA has a 33' wingspan, that's a bit over 3' more than the 7.

[JimParker256]

When you see the Patrol wing in person, the whole thing looks HUGE compared to the wings on my RANS. Similar wing loading, but carrying 1.5X the gross weight... Everything is massive compared to the S-6.