Buying a LSA. Good idea?

Tusayan said:
I understand Bristell B23s are currently going thorough a bout of unexplained partial engine failures in Europe. Germany’s LBA, Switzerland’s BAZL and Austro Control have formed task force to draw EASA attention to Rotax 912 reliability issues that may also extend to Tecnam and Aquila planes, but that’s not clear. Bristell thinks it’s fuel related and has released a SB on 91UL but again there is data that indicates the issue is independent of fuel type. Seems to be a bit of a mess brewing, time will tell.
Click to expand...
What is a "partial engine failure"?
 
I started with a 172, out grew it in a few years (kids kept growing), bought a 182, now own a CTSW and love, love, love it. It fits my mission perfectly. Mostly aimless flights for the pure fun of it. Fuel burn or engine overhauls that will require donating a kidney are no longer at the center of my brain. I can throttle back and burn 3.5 gal/hr of non-ethanol auto gas. When going somewhere, I throttle forward and burn about 5.5 gal/hr but routinely go 120+ knots. Auto pilot and chute make XC flights safer imho. I flew a 172 the other week and it’s like driving a Buick through cement. A 182 is worse. If you want to go straight and level, and not have any fun, buy a 172/182. If you want a Miata, buy an LSA. Not very manly, but a heck of a lot of fun with very little costs compared to keeping an old relic, I mean legacy airplane flying.
I am on the lighter side, and I fit in my CTSW no problem. It’s no 182 in windy conditions, but the slippery aerodynamics make it handle winds pretty well. The more weight, the better on windy days. I have flown some lengthy flights of 6 hours and I’m in much better shape than my old 182 without an autopilot.
If you’re really tall or heavy set, you’ll probably need a 4 seater plane, but try some LSA’s on for size. I’m glad I did.
 
StraightnLevel said:
What is a "partial engine failure"?
Click to expand...
Repeated instances of power loss, preparation for forced landing, sometimes followed by recovery of power for as yet undetermined reasons. Bristell has put out a SB advising to avoid UL91 fuel (but its viewed as grasping at straws by some)

Aircraft - Bristell B23 loss of power

Forums: Aircraft - Bristell B23 loss of power
www.euroga.org www.euroga.org
 
Last edited:
I’ve flown several LSA’s and currently own 2 myself (a SkyBoy E-LSA and an experimental Arion Lightning). I liked the stability of the Sky Arrow that I used to fly and have flown Challengers, Cessna’s and now the two that I own. The Lightning is by far my favorite so far because it fits my mission of being able to travel. It took some getting used to direct linkage and how responsive it is but it’s a solid bird that wants to fly.

I love that people are sharing their experiences with them however. The Bristell company builds a great plane but the weight and balance issues they had when they first came out really bothers me since there was loss of life and it could have been prevented.

The Bristell are definitely ready when MOSAIC hits with their performance but then again the lightnings get up and go. The more only these light aircraft the more I like what Arion had built. I did like flying the clip wing and long wing challengers also but your not gonna travel far with them without a lot of stopping for fuel.

Thank you all for sharing, I like seeing other peoples perspectives. Maybe when I have an extra $300K laying around I’ll check out the Bristell line of aircraft now that they have fixed their issues.

IMG_6906.jpeg
 
Love my LSA, fits right behind my Saratoga and it’s perfect for its mission.
3aea26537e717bfb411987590f1d04d6.jpg
 
Theodore Farah said:
I have owned a 182 and a Cirrus but want to down size and cut my expenses and maintenance costs. I have been looking at a few LSA planes but concerned they are much lighter. Has anyone owned or flown an LSA longer distance? What is ur opinion on these planes? Reliable? Rotex a good engine. Thx for ur comments.
Click to expand...
What’s most interesting about this to me is that apparently you are certificated as a Private Pilot or better, so you are not limited to flying an LSA aircraft. In the lighter aircraft, there are many certificated aircraft beyond LSA’s that could accomplish what you’re looking for and are proven, fun to fly aircraft. Cessna 140’s, Luscombe, even Cubs come to mind.

I flew a friends small, Rotax powered, super small, high wing two place plane once on a two hour cross country flight and was ready to get out once I was on the ground. Many years ago I flew my ragwing 140 on a 7 hour cross country trip and was quite rested when the day was done.

Your results may vary, but for me such a plane, at least that one, was not a pleasurable experience. I wish I could remember what it was called, but it was much like a 150 that had been shrunk about 20%. It seems like the name started with an S and I think he bought it new from the Factory in Georgia. I have the information in an old logbook if I can remember to look for it.
 
A friend decided to buy a SportCruiser for his private training. Mostly because he plans to go further and wanted to start with a modern glass panel. Now he flies it all over the place - sometimes 2-3 hours each way - visiting friends for lunch.
 
915 w/constant speed prop is one of the quieter planes in the pattern for sure.

As far as turbulence, muh STOLdozer handles it as well or better than a 172, except that the control inputs are much lighter. A/P does have a hard time when you're getting bucked around.

The hack I found is altitude. Hopping around, I'll be ~1500' agl, but x/c will get as high as 6500' and the bumps normally go away.

For local flying, I chicken with gusts because of the tailwheel. X/C, I've found Foreflight to be all over the place and just had to land the plane when I got there, PawPaw.

A couple of pilot friends pointed out that you don't have to listen to the atis on a doom loop, get the wind direction figured out and change back to unicom!
 
"OK, since you got me started. A few more reasons why these AKA acft. are not real airplanes."
What's an AKA acft?

"In most you are flying with the engines in your lap."
I would be hard pressed to think of an example of that.

"Someone mentioned 2000 to 5800 RPM, actually is more like 1400-5800, I would like to see you fly it at 2000RPM."
Correct. Hard to maintain altitude with the engine at idle.

"Th Prop is Not the main reason for the noise, the engine is.
I have flown all that I am talking about for longer than 5 hrs /day and I would rather be in a 172, 182, SR22.. for those hrs. with my passive headset. I would not be in any Rotax for more than 2 with one."
I'm surprised to hear that. I have no issues flying for hours with my passive DCs. And I can't say that the noise level is any higher than any other aircraft I've been in. But I can say it is a lot quieter than some other airplanes I've been in. But to be fair, I have been in some forking loud aircraft.

"Do Not attempt to fly them in Any type of moisture, and I am not talking rain, or they will pee on you."
My ride does have a leak where the windscreen and skylight come together. (Personally, I blame the original builder.) But I've owned cars that were worse. Flying through rain showers is a good way to get some of the bug guts off the prop.

"Make sure you have plenty of tape around to seal the gaps."
Can't say as I have any tape on any gaps. But I did fabricate new fairings for the fuselage / wing intersections because I wasn't happy with what the original builder did.

"Do not taxi them in a 70F or above with some wind behind you, or if not careful you can easily blow your the engine up..."
I'm surprised to hear that. Since my condition inspection has "expired" I warmed up my ride on the ground for the oil change last Friday - probably 30 minutes wandering around the ramp at random. Sometimes at idle, sometimes running up some. But I wasn't paying attention to the wind direction. And, of course, my wife thought it was a good time to complain about something over the phone. So, perhaps it blew up and I just didn't notice.
 
bluesideup said:
Hi everyone.
OK, since you got me started. A few more reasons why these AKA acft. are not real airplanes.
In most you are flying with the engines in your lap.
Someone mentioned 2000 to 5800 RPM, actually is more like 1400-5800, I would like to see you fly it at 2000RPM.
Th Prop is Not the main reason for the noise, the engine is.
I have flown all that I am talking about for longer than 5 hrs /day and I would rather be in a 172, 182, SR22.. for those hrs. with my passive headset. I would not be in any Rotax for more than 2 with one.
Do Not attempt to fly them in Any type of moisture, and I am not talking rain, or they will pee on you.
Make sure you have plenty of tape around to seal the gaps.
Do not taxi them in a 70F or above with some wind behind you, or if not careful you can easily blow your the engine up...
Keep going and I will give you more reality checks.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your comments on LSA. We will consider them and take any appropriate action that might be advisable.
 
bluesideup said:
Hi everyone.
Some of you have too much time on your hands. I am not sure if some of you are actually grown ups?
Everything I post is a fact.
Ding, Ding...
A couple of more facts.
Did you know? That you have to treat the Rotax like a new born?
No, you say, Yes I say.
Did you know, you have to burp that sucker every time before you fly / start it.
Did you know that you cannot adjust the seats after you get in the plane, and they are held by straps?......
Did you know that you legally cannot fly fly it if the winds along your route exceed 20-25Kts?
Any of you mighty ones prove anything that I said is Not a fact, or shut up, because you do not know what you are talking about. You live in La, La land.
I got hundreds more facts about these toys.
Click to expand...
Are we certain Henning is dead??? This is exactly the kind of shark-feeding frenzy he would like to create after logging in under a new name. It was kind of fun when he did it...%^)
 
MBDiagMan said:
What’s most interesting about this to me is that apparently you are certificated as a Private Pilot or better, so you are not limited to flying an LSA aircraft. In the lighter aircraft, there are many certificated aircraft beyond LSA’s that could accomplish what you’re looking for and are proven, fun to fly aircraft. Cessna 140’s, Luscombe, even Cubs come to mind.

I flew a friends small, Rotax powered, super small, high wing two place plane once on a two hour cross country flight and was ready to get out once I was on the ground. Many years ago I flew my ragwing 140 on a 7 hour cross country trip and was quite rested when the day was done.

Your results may vary, but for me such a plane, at least that one, was not a pleasurable experience. I wish I could remember what it was called, but it was much like a 150 that had been shrunk about 20%. It seems like the name started with an S and I think he bought it new from the Factory in Georgia. I have the information in an old logbook if I can remember to look for it.
Click to expand...
My experience has been similar. I’m average sized (5’9”, 150#) and my “new lsa” experience is 15ish hours in an evaktor SportStar and a demo flight in a similar plane.
The light wing loading made it less enjoyable for a XC for me than a 152 or a skipper.

I’ve never flown a 140, but have thought it would be a neat solo xc vehicle.
 
Wifey and I built our LSA. Two years ago I loaded it with full camping gear and an electric scooter and flew it from central California to the east coast, along the southern route, and the back along the northern route thru Wyoming.

You have to have a limited (or very outdated) perspective on aviation to think that LSAs are somehow not capable aircraft.

I, too, remember the days when pilots scoffed at Rotax engines as "snowmobile engines". I was one of them. Those days are long gone too. I changed along with most of the rest of the world.

Those who can't accept change are stuck in a limited world of their own making.
 
I'm in a very similar boat to @Warmi and considering an LSA to get into flying. Compared to the spam cans I've been in, they look much more modern, comfortable and safe. For the most part they are exactly what I want: a convenient, enjoyable way to take 100-300 nm legs and put less $ into fuel and mx to save more $ for more travel.

The biggest downsides I see are with low useful load, small size and lighter wing loading since I'm larger (6'6" and 210 lbs) and 15-20 knot winds are the norm around here. But I'm hoping MOSAIC resolves those issues. The one issue that MOSAIC may not fix, at least not right away, is the limited number of flight schools that train in LSAs. There is one nearby that uses some older DA-20's, and a further airfield has a school that uses TL-Sport craft. But most are flying 30 year old 172s, which isn't a bad plane for the same price point but they look and feel every minute of their age.
 
DeadStick said:
The one issue that MOSAIC may not fix, at least not right away, is the limited number of flight schools that train in LSAs.
Click to expand...
Why is this an issue? What's wrong with training in a 172 or PA28 and then purchasing whatever LSA you like?
 
It's certainly not a deal breaker and I am comparing schools that offer both, but I'd prefer to train in what I would like to fly in, especially when it's much less per hr to rent them. But I do see the value in training in the types of models that you encounter most often, even if it means spending more time than I would like in them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top