Jetcat3 wrote:Of course they are! All STOL aircraft have their strengths and weaknesses inherit in their makeup, but I personally prefer lighter empty weight aircraft with more modern designs that provide exceptional handling, safety, with modern engine and avionics technology over their Part 23 counterparts.

The new Zlin Norden is the epitome of these preferences. It’s not only the best STOL tandem LSA being factory produced but I’d argue the best STOL tandem factory produced aircraft on the planet. But that’s because I place value in modern design, handling, performance, Rotax engines, and ultimately safety. The Norden checks all of these boxes for me personally which is where my convictions form from.

It’s all about trying them on for size and seeing which one brings you the most excitement in a given price bracket.

Good hell. Your as bad as a hashtag hoe on Instagram. Does Norden pay you per social media post or something. Either that or your the worlds most annoying fanboy.

People need to define “bush plane” first. Is it a toy that your using to bag landings or are you trying to get out into remote places for some kind of adventure? I used a Luscombe to fly into dirt strips all over Idaho and Utah. It was a lot of fun but I don’t consider a Luscombe, or any other low useful load airplane, a bush plane. You can’t haul anything in or out but they to work to have some fun and bag landing sites. Perhaps I read too many old AK bush flying books when I was young and impressionable.

Hey Whee, I appreciate the kind words.

By definition a bush plane is “a general aviation aircraft used to provide both scheduled and unscheduled passenger and flight services to remote, undeveloped areas, such as the Canadian north or bush, Alaskan tundra, the African bush, or savanna, Amazon rainforest or the Australian Outback.”

By that technical definition no SLSA or ELSA can considered a bush plane. There we go solved.

Well, apparently we are all reading the same forums

As per the definition above, I would have to agree, as the LSA rules are today, no LSA’s are really capable of the definition barring two very light people.

That being said, the Norden is the best short/slow takeoff and landing plane every built.

My Bearhawk will have over 1000#’s useful and will likely land and takeoff in under 300’, so I am covered

The first time I saw a KitFox in person, I was shocked by how small it was. In the videos on Youtube, they look like real airplanes. I have a little kit plane, I call it the flying go-cart, it is good clean fun, but it is a toy. For the purpose of getting in, flying around and looking at stuff, it is awesome, and cheap to fly and own. I feel like the 180 is a real plane, maybe even a "bush plane". Its like comparing a moped to an XR650, both can be fun, but...

I found the Kitfox to be a really fun little toy for landing cool places not too far from home.

A friend took me up in one for a couple of days of west coast back country flying and it was a ton of fun.

But then I hop in my 185 and it’s a whole different animal.

After flying my Kitfox, flying a Cub feels like driving a truck.

Wow, there’s that recurring theme again: “What’s YOUR mission?”.

MTV

mtv wrote:Wow, there’s that recurring theme again: “What’s YOUR mission?”.

MTV

^^^^ THIS! ^^^^
Capable means "able to do what {insert your name here} wants their bush plane to do."

To the folks who need an Otter, a C-180 would probably be a toy. To the folks who need a C-180 for their mission, any 2-seater (including RANS or KitFox) is probably a toy. Different strokes for different folks.

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I have a lot to consider. I should probably do my best to get airborne in some of the types mentioned in this thread to really understand what would be a good fit. Sounds like the LSA's are 'capable' based on how I 'imagine' bush or off airport flying will look like when based out of Toronto, realistic load is something I had not fully considered, and now I find myself thinking about potential for floats and skis, really helpful feedback, and lots more research to do.

Zzz wrote:Your profile says you're on Grand Cayman? What kind of flying is available to you there? Floats? Inland dirt strips?

I wish, never seen any float flying here apart from a Catalina visiting one time 10 years ago!, no dirt strips or sandbars open to GA, in fact GA here is a chore at the moment, but some driven folks trying to get a flying club going, we now have some GA friendly people in the local CAA, so thats good news, but right now I have to take a commercial flight to somewhere I can rent an airplane.

Ardent wrote:The LSAs are amazing at what they’re designed for: cost accessible weekending with very little equipment. Or accessing the shortest of the short strips, with a fishing rod and minimal gear. Pure flying for the joy of flying and seeing local honey holes. If you are more into the ground aspects of the trip than the aerial, be that game animals and camps, or very long distances afield, you need a much bigger aircraft.

So for what they’re built for, they’re amazing machines.

Great post, thank you!