54 knot CAS MOSAIC requirement, and only that. :)

MauleSkinner said:
Textron lost enough money on their last attempt that I doubt they’d even consider it.

Did Piper even try?
Click to expand...


They’d both be competing against Euro manufacturers who have existing products and who have likely already recouped their investments.

But I can see Textron entering some sort of partnership.
 
Half Fast said:
Folks, this isn’t about helping more people fly, it’s about helping more people buy. The airplane industry has no motivation to have more customers for 50-year-old Cherokees. But they would like to sell more new aircraft. And frankly, they harm themselves a bit by injecting more legacy planes into the LSA marketplace.
Click to expand...
Another angle is that the general trend of pushing non-rev aviation towards industry standards (whether it be MOSAIC or BasicMed) means less agency resources spent on rulemaking/enforcement/etc.
 
Half Fast said:
Put it this way: the true influencers of this rule are not thee and me. They are the people wielding money (manufacturers) and their supporters (AOPA) plus some supporters of kit planes (EAA). The Piper and Cessna and Beech type clubs swing no weight here.
Click to expand...

Nail on the head. This is the reason I mentioned in another thread why I don't believe that commenting will change much, if anything, of the rule going forward. Those looking for >60 knot Vs1, more seats, etc. are not, in my estimation, understanding how this thing works ... :dunno:
 
I don't understand how people feel like they have broken the code on this. MOSAIC - Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification. This was never about putting Sport Pilots into more capable legacy aircraft. It was always about allowing more capable aircraft to be manufactured and certified as a S-LSA. Hopefully this NPRM will make it into rules largely intact and aircraft manufacturers start producing new, more capable aircraft. Are these more capable aircraft going to be cheap right out of the gate? No, probably not. Will they be cheaper than a new C172? IDK, but I would be shocked if they're not substantially cheaper. They're definately going to be cheaper to operate and maintain, especially if you move an aircraft to E-LSA...
 
hindsight2020 said:
Naturally, people are latching on to the incidental impact (inclusion of a minority of legacy airplanes, and I include VS1-compliant EABs in that definition of "legacy" ) and rendering it the "primary effort" in their expectation-biased heads.
Click to expand...
Naturally indeed.

I think the reason people are doing that is that it will in fact be the primary impact of the MOSAIC regulation, regardless of intent.

Airframe manufacturers would like to see their business expand but doubling nothing is still close to nothing. Fantasizing that people will buy new $200K+ or maybe $300K+ factory built planes in volume when they can spend less and do more is not the real world. There are a lot of planes out there still, and people are resourceful in maintaining them. When there aren’t so many some day, and if people were forced by that circumstance to buy new, at that point US GA starts to contract and look more like the overseas GA disaster from which I emigrated. Let’s hope that day doesn’t come soon, that existing, inexpensive factory built planes keep us going a long time and that E-AB will continue to produce good value and high performance for many people buying E-AB kits and used E-AB planes.

I spent $35K on my plane. It’s wonderful and will likely last me forever. These are the good old days, and I think MOSAIC will help - primarily in further aligning FAA medical practice with modern healthcare that has overtaken it and made its impact statistically irrelevant for private pilots in the real world. But new factory built planes aren’t suddenly going to become high volume items. Flowery phraseology won’t make that any more real.

Switching to Vs0 and making the speed align with more existing planes would be the best thing for US GA.
 
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
I spent $35K in my plane, it’s wonderful and will likely last me forever. These are the good old days.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:


Gotcha beat; my baby Beech was $24k in 2021. ;) I don’t imagine needing or wanting another plane.
 
Great :) My $35K purchase a few years ago would equate to $49K in today’s dollars. Still not too bad.

Like I said, these are the good old days for individuals buying and owning planes.
 
MOSAIC is getting spicy. All types of conspiracy theory emerging. Post #46 says it all. Recommend re-reading #46 a sufficient number of times to understand what Tusayan is saying. As usual, TIME is the fourth dimension. Near term, legacy aircraft that meet MOSAIC specs, will fill the void in demand for those pilots that want to fly with driver license (ie, modern healthcare that Tusayan references). Prices on legacy aircraft will respond to the market with the "MOSAIC bump". Longer term, as legacy aircraft numbers continue to dwindle due to natural forces (nature/corrosion, accidents, lack of parts, etc.), the GA market in the US starts to look more like the markets in other countries, such as Europe. Very expensive and very exclusive. Perhaps we are in the declining "good old days" of GA and it will take time to realize where markets are heading in the longer term. Of course, there is always the wildcard of eVTOL aircraft (ie, personal Jetson time machine), which MOSAIC seems to be supporting, but that market is very uncertain at this time.

"Foreseer in the Fog"
 
wsquare said:
....the GA market in the US starts to look more like the markets in other countries, such as Europe. Very expensive and very exclusive. Perhaps we are in the declining "good old days" of GA and it will take time to realize where markets are heading in the longer term.
Click to expand...


Maybe.

As you suggest, we can’t ignore the time dimension. In time, those shiny new planes become the new fleet of aging legacy aircraft and sell at lower price points.

If the current legacy fleet holds out while the newer planes age, personal aviation may get along just fine. Look at the market for used LSAs and you’ll see decade-old planes selling in the same range as 50-year-old legacy planes. The same will happen with the new MOSAIC fleet as it ages.
 
I see MOSAIC as more of a long term answer and not a solution to aging pilots with medical conditions that might eke out another 5-10 years in the cockpit. Sure, we all want to fly well into our 80’s, but the reality is that it’s a relatively small demographic that remains in the cockpit that long. So MOSAIC is an answer not to get more pilots into the cockpit, but to build newer aircraft to replace aging legacy aircraft. It’s a look to the future.
Most two-place training aircraft will benefit from the new ruling and those that are content to fly around in cramped, slow trainers will have more options, but the majority of pilots want more than that. Even a lot of simple Cherokees will not be included and I believe the FAA is well aware of that fact and not as dull as we think. It’s not their goal to put great grandpa with only a driver’s license as proof of health back flying their Bonanza or Mooney.
MOSAIC is a step forward for everyone depending on your needs. The original LSA rules can put nearly anyone back into the cockpit, even those that would fail a medical by a Texas mile. You just won’t be flying around in that capable legacy aircraft that you’ve been deemed unworthy.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Textron lost enough money on their last attempt that I doubt they’d even consider it.

Did Piper even try?
Click to expand...
Last year at OSH, the Archer was $400,000. This year, same Archer was $650,000. There's the low-end 100i (sort of a stupid Archer) but only for sale to flight schools, about $300K. Neither will come under MOSAIC due to VS1.
 
wsquare said:
Longer term, as legacy aircraft numbers continue to dwindle due to natural forces (nature/corrosion, accidents, lack of parts, etc.), the GA market in the US starts to look more like the markets in other countries, such as Europe. Very expensive and very exclusive.
Click to expand...
One big difference between the US and Europe is the much more permissive experimental rules here, which is all that's keeping flying affordable for a growing percentage of pilots (including me).
 
murphey said:
Last year at OSH, the Archer was $400,000. This year, same Archer was $650,000. There's the low-end 100i (sort of a stupid Archer) but only for sale to flight schools, about $300K. Neither will come under MOSAIC due to VS1.
Click to expand...
Exactly…neither one currently has any interest in LSA. I can’t see MOSAIC changing that.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Exactly…neither one currently has any interest in LSA. I can’t see MOSAIC changing that.
Click to expand...


Nope. Other companies (Tecnam, Jabiru, etc.) already have products that will fit MOSAIC, developed in non-US markets. Piper and Cessna can’t start from scratch and be competitive so they won’t.

I can see Textron doing an acquisition or partnership, maybe. Makes more sense than doing expensive new development and playing catch-up. The Pipstrel acquisition might give them an entry.
 
Half Fast said:
Nope. Other companies (Tecnam, Jabiru, etc.) already have products that will fit MOSAIC, developed in non-US markets. Piper and Cessna can’t start from scratch and be competitive so they won’t.
Click to expand...

They don't have to start from scratch. They only need to address where there are differences between Part 23 and ASTM. Nothing is stopping them from taking a C172, C182 or Archer and producing them under ASTM...
 
Durability matters for long term resale value. Ten years is not a long time and while steep depreciation is not unexpected in the first 10 years of an LSA’s life, it’s also possible that after 30 years current LSAs will have continued to depreciate to zero. Anything can be fixed but many/most European LSAs are not manufactured with the same life-cycle expectation as aircraft built 50 years ago.
 
Half Fast said:
we can’t ignore the time dimension. In time, those shiny new planes become the new fleet of aging legacy aircraft and sell at lower price points.
Click to expand...
Only if they last long enough.
 
Dana said:
One big difference between the US and Europe is the much more permissive experimental rules here, which is all that's keeping flying affordable for a growing percentage of pilots (including me).
Click to expand...
This is the biggest competitive disadvantage for new factory built aircraft in the US, including LSAs that have in their home market been viable due to homebuilt licensing regs being far less open. Also countries are small, homebuilts are nationally regulated and have no ICAO TC - meaning cross border travel generally requires one to risk legal problems. These factors do not weight in much in the US market.
 
Last edited:
Brad Smith said:
Even a lot of simple Cherokees will not be included and I believe the FAA is well aware of that fact and not as dull as we think. It’s not their goal to put great grandpa with only a driver’s license as proof of health back flying their Bonanza or Mooney.
MOSAIC is a step forward for everyone depending on your needs. The original LSA rules can put nearly anyone back into the cockpit, even those that would fail a medical by a Texas mile. You just won’t be flying around in that capable legacy aircraft that you’ve been deemed unworthy.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%

Also agree that money is always a motivator, but if it's the only reason, why put a restriction on it at all?
So, the only real reason it for would seem to be safety.

No age restriction on retracts from the FAA, but insurance is taking care of that with rates. Which I can't imagine they would just turn down that revenue without the numbers saying it's the best idea safety wise.
So one way or the other, there's probably restrictions.

Who knows, maybe insurance companies were at the table for discussion as well.
 
idahoflier said:
They don't have to start from scratch. They only need to address where there are differences between Part 23 and ASTM. Nothing is stopping them from taking a C172, C182 or Archer and producing them under ASTM...
Click to expand...
Those airplanes are barely self-supporting as it is. They’d have no reason to go to the expense of recertification, which would only increase the price.
 
Last edited:
Most of RV planes ( perhaps even RV14 if they up the limit a bit ) , Sling TSI and others could be build as a factory made LSAs and thus opening doors to 200-300k modern planes - not exactly cheap but at least within a reach …
 
Half Fast said:
FIFY.

Folks, this isn’t about helping more people fly, it’s about helping more people buy. The airplane industry has no motivation to have more customers for 50-year-old Cherokees. But they would like to sell more new aircraft. And frankly, they harm themselves a bit by injecting more legacy planes into the LSA marketplace.
Click to expand...
A big thing they mention in the document is that they are trying to move more people from experimental planes to mLSA. Certified planes have a better safety record than experimental planes, and the safety record of LSA planes falls somewhere between the two. The FAA is hoping that many experimental manufacturers will choose to sell complete airplanes, with all of the improved quality that implies*, and that people who would have previously been tempted to buy a secondhand experimental or build themselves will instead choose to buy a factory-built model.

* Not that homebuilt planes can't be made well, but the level of quality you'll get from a factory will be a lot more consistent than you'll get from individual home builders.
 
Warmi said:
Most of RV planes ( perhaps even RV14 if they up the limit a bit ) , Sling TSI and others could be build as a factory made LSAs and thus opening doors to 200-300k modern planes - not exactly cheap but at least within a reach …
Click to expand...
I like that outcome, but I see obstacles to that.

I think that if Vans wanted to produce and sell complete, certified RV 14s and RV 10s, the certification process the FAA would require would be cost prohibitive.

And then the costs of Avionics. Garmin would double the cost from the experimental components in RV's now to the new "Certified Airplane Cost".

And then the cost of the engines. Continental and Lycoming engines would then be priced at the "certified" engine level vs the experimental level engines (Titan, etc.) cost in the RV's today.

A factory built RV 10 might end up around $500,000.
 
www.vansaircraft.com

Learn About the Van's RV-12iS SLSA Factory-Built Option - Van's Aircraft Total Performance RV Kit Planes

SLSA: We Build It – You Fly it Home! Starting at around $125,000 for our basic glass-panel VFR RV-12iS, yet remaining very affordable throughout the range of options (the fully-decked-out Platinum package with all the options including a GTN 650xi IFR navigator, digital autopilot, and dual EFIS...
www.vansaircraft.com www.vansaircraft.com
"Starting at around $125,000 for our basic glass-panel VFR RV-12iS, yet remaining very affordable throughout the range of options (the fully-decked-out Platinum package with all the options including a GTN 650xi IFR navigator, digital autopilot, and dual EFIS screens runs about $183,000). The RV-12iS is a great-to-fly, light sport machine with a high useful load and low operating costs."
 
Love the RV 12. But most people want/need the Skyhawk or Skylane size. IF they can make an S LSA RV 10 for even $250k, I’d buy it.
 
WDD said:
I like that outcome, but I see obstacles to that.

I think that if Vans wanted to produce and sell complete, certified RV 14s and RV 10s, the certification process the FAA would require would be cost prohibitive.

And then the costs of Avionics. Garmin would double the cost from the experimental components in RV's now to the new "Certified Airplane Cost".

And then the cost of the engines. Continental and Lycoming engines would then be priced at the "certified" engine level vs the experimental level engines (Titan, etc.) cost in the RV's today.

A factory built RV 10 might end up around $500,000.
Click to expand...
Well, the whole point is that LSAs are not certified yet still factory build planes so in essence they are more akin to automobiles where you rely on manufacturer reputation and industry standards rather then the actual certification process.
 
Good point on the FAA certification.

But will it be allowed to install a Garmin experimental version of the G 3, or will it be that a certified version - at a much higher cost - be required?
 
WDD said:
Good point on the FAA certification.

But will it be allowed to install a Garmin experimental version of the G 3, or will it be that a certified version - at a much higher cost - be required?
Click to expand...
With LSAs is the manufacturer who determines what sort of equipment is allowed on their planes ( and if you switch to ELSA then it is you who determines what can get installed, as long as whatever changes you make don’t take the plane out of LSA category )

Normally , the manufacturer would issue a document called Master Equipment List or something to that effect that spells out what you can install on the plane ( in this case it would be Vans if you were trying to purchase their LSA plane )
Here is a sample page from MEL for one of the European carbon fiber LSA planes …
IMG_0933.jpeg
 
If the manufacturer can indeed install or allow owners to install experimental equipment in a certified plane - and it remains certified - then that would be a huge improvement.
 
WDD said:
Good point on the FAA certification.

But will it be allowed to install a Garmin experimental version of the G 3, or will it be that a certified version - at a much higher cost - be required?
Click to expand...

Move the S-LSA to E-LSA then you can do what you want and with minimal training perform the condition inspection...
 
WDD said:
I think that if Vans wanted to produce and sell complete, certified RV 14s and RV 10s, the certification process the FAA would require would be cost prohibitive.
Click to expand...
I think the whole point is that they want to use the ASTM standards rather than certification, in the same way that LSAs do. Vans already sells a factory-built LSA, so I imagine it would be more of the same, except with more capable planes.
WDD said:
And then the costs of Avionics. Garmin would double the cost from the experimental components in RV's now to the new "Certified Airplane Cost".
Click to expand...
Likewise, LSAs can use non-certified avionics, so I imagine it would be the same for mLSAs. I also think they would continue to use non-certified Lycoming engines.
 
I've struggled for quite a while to settle on an aircraft I could afford to buy and maintain - MOSAIC doesn't seem relevant to my search, so yeah, I think it's about market expansion rather than legacy aircraft access for more folks. I've drilled down to the best compromise I can come up with - a factory built S-LSA that'll I'll move to E-LSA. It may be, with luck, I'll get operating limitations that include IMC - not that I'm ever gonna enter more than "light" IFR with it. I'll settle for day and night VMC. I may be missing something, but for me (SEL Intrument, BasicMed) MOSAIC has no impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top