Win This Gobosh 700 Light Sport Aircraft LSA | AT-4

April 18, 2011


Come along on a quick flight in a Light Sport Aircraft and see how much fun this new category of aircraft offers. In the Denver area, visit www.skyraideraviation.com to learn more. Enter to win a Gobosh just like this one at http The music in the video is Viva La Vida by Coldplay… www.reggiepaulk.com www.reggiepaulk.com

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Comments

25 Responses to “Win This Gobosh 700 Light Sport Aircraft LSA | AT-4”

  1. colopussy on April 18th, 2011 3:47 am

    Hey it a great looking aircraft and from what I can see it is what you want, Flying like a Bird on a Birds eye view. You can’t drive as fast a flying in a straight line. I would love to have this little Bird.

  2. sk8rguy178 on April 18th, 2011 4:29 am

    @MrBcustodio theres definitely flaps on this bird

  3. MrBcustodio on April 18th, 2011 4:40 am

    Nice landing. A nice change not having to set flaps or remember to lower the landing gears. I use Microsoft’s FS X and I fly the Piper J3 Cub during the day and the Cessna at nights. Love how the Piper J3 handles. Thank you for the video.

  4. flyingcub777 on April 18th, 2011 5:33 am

    This plane is on my dream-board… Enjoy the video!!!

  5. flyingcub777 on April 18th, 2011 6:17 am

    This plane is on my dreamboard… Enjoy the video!!!

  6. ControllerSky on April 18th, 2011 6:49 am

    @sk8rguy178 agree with you

  7. SizzlinNinja on April 18th, 2011 7:48 am

    How much does one of these cost? New? Used? Beautiful Aircraft!

  8. annedavis510 on April 18th, 2011 8:12 am

    Flew a Gobosh 800 xp a couple of weeks ago and it was amazing! Just too fun! I have 24 hours in a 172 and 152, but am going to switch to the Gobosh 700, I think. I love the clear canopy. It was just a blast and surprisingly roomy and cofortable. Waaaay better than a 152. Anyone out there flown the 800xp?

  9. ibgarrett on April 18th, 2011 8:29 am

    And the cool part is I’ve flown that exact plane. :D

  10. DrPilotRedC on April 18th, 2011 8:57 am

    Are these pipers now?

  11. myrandomspaces on April 18th, 2011 9:16 am

    it have winglets lol :D

  12. wlaziu on April 18th, 2011 9:48 am

    You can get a certified version ;]
    cost twice as much, and twice as much to operate… so it’s cheaper to fit an aircraft certified emergency safety parachute… just so

  13. gztsarmata on April 18th, 2011 10:20 am

    I think LSA in the case of AT-4 is a miss-leading term. AT-4 is in fact the same aircraft as AT-3, a certified aircraft in Europe came here to the US as AT-4 and LSA.
    This is why I like this aircraft a lot and consider purchasing one since it is : certified, robust and well flying machine.

  14. airste172 on April 18th, 2011 10:33 am

    Actually, the Wrights themselves didn’t call their invention an “airplane”, they called it a “Flyer”. Subsequently, the term “aeroplane” came into being and was later shortened to “plane” in a London Times article. Misspellings of aeroplane followed and eventually “airplane” was the word that stuck.
    In terms of license restrictions, it’s the highest ratings that have the fewest restrictions. Perhaps you were thinking of “requirements” for a license and sport indeed has the fewest of those. ;)

  15. ceroshaper on April 18th, 2011 11:05 am

    By that definition the Wright flyer was not an airplane! I understand your point about price. With a certified plane and an LSA side by side for the same price I’d take the cert. As far a less restrictive license, I’m comforted by anything that’s less confining than the normal result of our sue-happy society!

  16. airste172 on April 18th, 2011 11:13 am

    On page 14-6 of the Rotax engine manual is the following:

    WARNING!

    This is not a certificated aircraft engine. It has not received any safety or durability testing and conforms to no aircraft standards. It is for use in experimental, uncertificated aircraft and vehicles only in which an engine failure will not compromise safety.

    User assumes all risk of use and acknowledges by his use that he knows this engine is subject to sudden stoppage.”

    Pretty hilarious too, isn’t it? ;)

  17. ceroshaper on April 18th, 2011 11:48 am

    Comments like this are hilarious! You can’t figure out how anyone could enjoy something if you cannot imagine yourself enjoying it. How’s this ” I don’t know why anyone would want to fly a puny 4 place prop plane when they could fly a real plane with two jet engines.” Of course, I don’t fly jets but if I did, I wouldn’t be a unimaginative snot about it! BTW: I could pass an FAA physical with one lung tied behind my back.

  18. airste172 on April 18th, 2011 12:26 pm

    On top of that, the Rotax manual specifies automotive gasoline and cautions against using 100LL, so where do you fuel up? I don’t know of any airports that sell auto gas. I guess you just have to swoop into your local gas station and say fillerup to the startled attendant or the geriatric LSA pilot/owner is forced to lug around heavy containers of fuel for the plane. Oh yeah, that sounds like a LOT of fun! LOL

  19. airste172 on April 18th, 2011 1:02 pm

    Also, why would I want to buy a mobility scooter (no matter how many bells and whistles it may have or how cool it looks) when I can get a good used real car for a fraction of the cost? Ya know what I mean? ;) And yes, I like mobility scooters too as I find it hard to resist grabbing one to go riding up and down the aisles in the supermarket!

  20. airste172 on April 18th, 2011 1:37 pm

    I will readily admit that an LSA is fun to fly, so is a parachute. I’ve had fun in a Tecnam Eaglet, found it much easier to fly than to get in and out of, but I still strongly prefer a yoke to a stick in a non-aerobatic aircraft. An LSA flies and I like it for that fact, but anything that’s powered by a “lawnmower” engine is not something that I regard as an “airplane”. It is less than a normal airplane as evidenced by the fact that it takes less than a normal license to fly it.

  21. jeremyanddarcy on April 18th, 2011 2:28 pm

    Also airste172, having flown both 152/172 and the Gobosh and Sportcruiser, I have to disagree with you about LSA’s not being as user-friendly as a 152. The Rotax 912 has no mixture control (it’s barometric). The Gobosh is way easier to fly AFTER you get used to it’s mad left turning tendency on the takeoff roll. Stalls are a joke, if you didn’t look at your VSI you’d have no idea you were even in a stall. I concede tho, I already had a decade of flying in my logbook before I flew an LSA.

  22. jeremyanddarcy on April 18th, 2011 2:46 pm

    I’ve been a private pilot since 1991, I learned in the Cessna 152, and have logged time in several aircraft that you call “real” like the 172, the Archer, Warrior, Saratoga, etc. I had the same attitude you did until I decided to fly one just to find out what all the hype is about. HOLY CRAP these planes are fun to fly! When it’s just me and friend going up, there’s no other plane I’d rather fly. But taking the family on a trip, I gotta have the Archer or 172 for the seats and payload.

  23. airste172 on April 18th, 2011 3:12 pm

    As a skydiver, I have a reverence for flight in all it’s forms and variations. From a piloting perspective however, my preference is a real airplane, and a used Cessna 152 or a 172 is a LOT more affordable and user-friendly than any of these Rotax powered winged wheelchairs designed for the impaired who cannot pass an FAA physical.

  24. jr2ou on April 18th, 2011 3:49 pm

    I love this aircraft, looks like a lot of fun to fly. I would love to fly it

  25. freddytuber on April 18th, 2011 4:47 pm

    What a crap. About an inch or less between your legs and the panel. If you have even only a taxing accident, you end up in the hospital with broken legs. And what is this damn stick between your legs. Real planes have yokes. And where are the doors? Climb up and jump into it? Are you people mad? Why do you build garbage like this?

Got something to say?





Powered by Yahoo! Answers