LSA reality check

S

Sundancer

En-Route
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
3,513
Display Name
Display name:
Sundog
Factory built Zodiac S-LSA, well equipped, beautifully maintained, "real" airplane engine (0-200), AP, WAAS GPS. . .I'd never been near one in person, and so flew 200 miles to see it. And it was gorgeous. . .had I beat the system? A modern IFR capable aircraft, factory built in this century, for under $50K?

No. I didn't beat the system. 1320 lbs max gross is a small aircraft. At about 6' and 230 lbs I just don't (quite) fit. Oh, I can get in, but after a couple hours could I get out? My left upper arm was tight against the sidewall, and my knees were bent just a hair too much. Seat was great, but quite reclined.

Droning home in our Cherokee 140 in light-to-moderate turbulence I turned off the AP so it'd stop fighting every bump - and wondered what that would feel like in an airplane 600-700 pounds lighter? I dunnio, maybe a tandem LSA would work, but I think not. . .still looking. . .
 
Sundancer said:
...
Droning home in our Cherokee 140 in light-to-moderate turbulence I turned off the AP so it'd stop fighting every bump - and wondered what that would feel like in an airplane 600-700 pounds lighter? I dunnio, maybe a tandem LSA would work, but I think not. . .still looking. . .
Click to expand...
Having had an opportunity to get a brief ride and stick time in an LSA in gusty conditions (long before I started my current PPL training), from the ground we probably looked like a kid's kite bouncing around; it was the only time I ever wanted to immediately go back and land NOW. After the LSA landed, I left shortly afterward with a buddy in his 310 in the same conditions and it was night & day different (better). When I eventually buy a plane, I've given up trying to get light & cheap to seek out "regular" heavier & more stable options...as cheap as I can get, of course.
 
You can expect to feel every bump in a lightly loaded LSA. Gusty crosswind landings will be more challenging than a heavier aircraft. Momentum is a real thing.
 
Agreed, you won’t find barkolounger comfort and room in a light sport. And they will be bouncier in turbulence than a much heavier airplane; can’t get around physics.

But to each their own. I have several hours in a Remos and loved it. I compare my Cherokee 140 to a Toyota Camry, and the Remos to a Ford Fiesta or a Fiat 500. Both are very good at what they do, but they will not fill the role of the other. I loved flying the little light sport, and the giggle factor was quite high when I flew it.
 
Last edited:
Sundancer said:
Droning home in our Cherokee 140 in light-to-moderate turbulence I turned off the AP so it'd stop fighting every bump - and wondered what that would feel like in an airplane 600-700 pounds lighter?
Click to expand...

Light sport aircraft can be quite "sporty" in the rough and tumble but a lot of that is also part of the wing loading. A typical Cherokee 140 (according to Wikipedia) has a gross weight wing loading of 13.43. My Sonex has a wing loading of 12.75 whereas something like a Challenger II Long wing has a loading of 5.42. Now that will give you that "leaf in the wind" feeling!

FWIW ... the Zenith 601 is listed at 10.0 on wing loading. Obviously the wing span, airfoil, and other factors also enter into how well a plane does in turbulence ...
 
Over 15 years ago I made the move from a Cirrus SR22 to a Light Sport Sky Arrow. Zero regrets. I’m just flying for fun now, and I find the simplicity of Light Sport planes refreshing.

Of course they get bounced around a bit more in turbulence, but that’s just physics. And with landing speeds around 40k, one must pay more attention to gusty crosswinds. 12G20 in a Cirrus might be trivial. Not so much in a Light Sport.

But stipulated they’re not for everyone. At 6’1” and 170 lbs I fit pretty well in most of the Light Sports I’ve flown in: REMOS, CT, C162, Aeroprakt, Evektor and maybe a couple more I’m not remembering. They all fit me fine, but I can see how a bigger/heavier pilot might find them cramped.
 
Of course, the modern LSAs are very similar in terms of wing loading to the classic light planes like the Cub, T-Craft, Aeronca Champ, etc. If you're a big guy interested in LSA, I understand that the Champ has a reasonably roomy cockpit, though I've never flown one... I'm FAA standard size so I fit in my T-Craft, the tightest of the three.
 
Thanks all, good calls. I should have known better - I did a lot of volunteer flying 172s on rough and turbulent days, and it could be a whiffle ball sometimes at near twice the gross of a LSA. I had a distorted fantasy about traveling in a LSA - equipped for "light" IFR, since my time is my own and I could always wait for better weather. You can file IFR in many of them, and if you move it to E-LSA, do actual VMC if the DAR approves. Not a realistic plan, I see now.

Hope springs - I'm working on a demo ride in a LongEZ; they are plans built, all of them, of course. Very much buyer beware. . .hard to know what's going on deep inside that foam and epoxy. Maybe one built this century. . .so many were built back in the day. I'm done with high-wings, and that cuts out most of factory tail-draggers, too.
 
I have yet to even sit in one, but I have read a ton about them; maybe try to get a seat in a Bristell. As far as light sports go, they are supposed to be the bees knees.
 
I’ve had a 172M, a 182P, and now a CTSW LSA. So the 182 was a solid brick in about any weather. Great for straight line flying XC. Not fun for anything else. Loved the 172, but flying a plane built on technology that is 7 decades old is ridiculous this day and age. Flying one after my LSA is a chore. Heavy and boring, IMO. Love my CT, but you will be busy on a windy day. Then again, it’s light weight and nimbleness is what attracted me to it. It’s all about the mission and your expectations…
 
aterry1067 said:
Agreed, you won’t find barkolounger comfort and room in a light sport.
Click to expand...
That part is not necessarily true. For example, I flew a PiperSport to a golf outing. Golf bag, with all clubs, fit horizontally behind the seats. That's a decent amount of side-to-side room for two people compared to a lot of 4 and even 6 seaters. For comparison, I could not do that in an A36 Bonanza.

But we definitely agree that they are a blast to fly. And teaching in a SportCruiser was a joy. It's fun to watch the trainee's eyes widen as the ASI drops into the mid-20s before the stall.
 
Last edited:
Sundancer said:
Thanks all, good calls. I should have known better - I did a lot of volunteer flying 172s on rough and turbulent days, and it could be a whiffle ball sometimes at near twice the gross of a LSA. I had a distorted fantasy about traveling in a LSA - equipped for "light" IFR, since my time is my own and I could always wait for better weather. You can file IFR in many of them, and if you move it to E-LSA, do actual VMC if the DAR approves. Not a realistic plan, I see now.
Click to expand...
Maybe maybe not. If finalized, how would MOSAIC change your calculation?
 
aterry1067 said:
I have yet to even sit in one, but I have read a ton about them; maybe try to get a seat in a Bristell. As far as light sports go, they are supposed to be the bees knees.
Click to expand...
Saw one on the ramp one, very slick.
@Dave Anderson
 
Dana said:
Of course, the modern LSAs are very similar in terms of wing loading to the classic light planes like the Cub, T-Craft, Aeronca Champ, etc. If you're a big guy interested in LSA, I understand that the Champ has a reasonably roomy cockpit, though I've never flown one... I'm FAA standard size so I fit in my T-Craft, the tightest of the three.
Click to expand...
6' 230 would be tight in my C140 heavy sport. As said above, some LSAs make up for what they lack in gross weight with cabin width.
 
6' and 230 would be no problem in an RV-12. Plenty roomy.
 
Sundancer said:
At about 6' and 230 lbs I just don't (quite) fit.
Click to expand...


At that size, you’ll have difficulty carrying a passenger bigger than a Yorkie in any LSA if you want to bring some fuel along. Are there any single-seat planes that might work for you?
 
Whatever happened to the Texas Colt LSA? Similar to a 152, but met LSA limits. I looked at one at the Sport Aviation Expo a few years ago and really liked it. Seemed nice and roomy.

Did it die on the vine? The website seems dead, and I haven’t seen one displayed recently, let alone in the wild.
 
Browsing many of those LSA's I've noticed that many (maybe most) don't publish wing loading data...or wing area so that you can calculate it.
 
Half Fast said:
At that size, you’ll have difficulty carrying a passenger bigger than a Yorkie in any LSA if you want to bring some fuel along. Are there any single-seat planes that might work for you?
Click to expand...
That's simply not true for all of them. Take for example the RV-12. Max GW is 1320#. Empty weight 750, give or take a few pounds. Even with full fuel (120#) and a 230# pilot you can still haul a 220# passenger. Having flown mine at max gross many, many times I can tell you -- it flies just fine with the seats and tank really full. I haven't flown others, but I see several other LSA that have similar GW/EW/HP numbers.
 
DaleB said:
That's simply not true for all of them. Take for example the RV-12. Max GW is 1320#. Empty weight 750, give or take a few pounds. Even with full fuel (120#) and a 230# pilot you can still haul a 220# passenger. Having flown mine at max gross many, many times I can tell you -- it flies just fine with the seats and tank really full. I haven't flown others, but I see several other LSA that have similar GW/EW/HP numbers.
Click to expand...

That's pretty good. The Tecnam LSA I trained in couldn't come close to that. I don't recall the specific numbers, but I recall that, for my checkrides, with 170lb me and my DPE on board, we couldn't take full fuel. The DPE was a large guy, but I don't think he was over 190.
 
DaleB said:
That's simply not true for all of them. Take for example the RV-12. Max GW is 1320#. Empty weight 750, give or take a few pounds. Even with full fuel (120#) and a 230# pilot you can still haul a 220# passenger. Having flown mine at max gross many, many times I can tell you -- it flies just fine with the seats and tank really full. I haven't flown others, but I see several other LSA that have similar GW/EW/HP numbers.
Click to expand...


I would venture a guess that a few of the LSAs have the 1320 mgtow limit simply to adhere to Light Sport requirements, and the day that the weight restrictions for LSAs get raised or removed, that the mgtow of those aircraft will increase, some significantly. The Vashon Ranger comes to mind.
 
DaleB said:
Take for example the RV-12. Max GW is 1320#. Empty weight 750, give or take a few pounds. Even with full fuel (120#) and a 230# pilot you can still haul a 220# passenger.
Click to expand...
Yea, but the RV-12 typically uses a real aircraft engine not a clunky, overweight, 0-200.
 
Hi everyone.
I've flown most of the LSAs around since they first came out.
Some of the information in this post is incorrect, for most of them.
In just about everyone the cabin space, shoulder to shoulder.., is much better that most light GAs, 150s, 170s, 140s, 180s...
The response to turbulence is not nearly as different than some of the ones mentioned above.
Some start at emty wt. 500 lbs and go to 900 you can choose what you want, based on the equipment, make / model... but given the limitations most / all have a better performance, at max weight, at TO or in cruise, than the ones mentioned above.
The problem, in my opinion, is the price, and that is what will likely keep people from buying them and possibility eliminating most of the makers, is the price.
 
Half Fast said:
At that size, you’ll have difficulty carrying a passenger bigger than a Yorkie in any LSA if you want to bring some fuel along. Are there any single-seat planes that might work for you?
Click to expand...
I'm almost totally a solo pilot. . .enough useful load for a pax would be nice, but doesn't matter much for me.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Yea, but the RV-12 typically uses a real aircraft engine not a clunky, overweight, 0-200.
Click to expand...
I was fine with the 0-200; it was an "A", not the lighter "D", and the long history of reliability and simplicity was attractive. The wight didn't matter much, since carrying anothe person wasn't important to me.
 
My Sky Arrow has a relatively high EW over 850 lbs.

Here’s a cheat sheet I made back when I was about 190 lbs.

23159144630_b341f732fc.jpg


I now weigh 170 so my current cheat sheet is more forgiving. Bear in mind I only have about 18 gals usable.
 
I love my Vashon Ranger! It can get bounced around if the winds are bad (and here the winds are always bad) but I got used to that pretty quickly and it really is not much bumpier than other ‘full size’ planes I have flown. It is a blast to fly by hand and has an amazing autopilot if you'd rather not. The shoulder room is fantastic, huge luggage space for bikes or whatever, and only burns 4.5gph. Granted you are not setting any speed records but it fits my flying style perfectly.

The MOSAIC updates will bump the gross weight limit to 1,500lbs which is plenty for my wife and I, full fuel, and plenty of luggage.
 
Last edited:
Sundancer said:
Thanks all, good calls. I should have known better - I did a lot of volunteer flying 172s on rough and turbulent days, and it could be a whiffle ball sometimes at near twice the gross of a LSA. I had a distorted fantasy about traveling in a LSA - equipped for "light" IFR, since my time is my own and I could always wait for better weather. You can file IFR in many of them, and if you move it to E-LSA, do actual VMC if the DAR approves. Not a realistic plan, I see now.

Hope springs - I'm working on a demo ride in a LongEZ; they are plans built, all of them, of course. Very much buyer beware. . .hard to know what's going on deep inside that foam and epoxy. Maybe one built this century. . .so many were built back in the day. I'm done with high-wings, and that cuts out most of factory tail-draggers, too.
Click to expand...
Have you looked at the velocity if you are looking at homebuilt? When I spoke with them at Airventure, I got the impression that all the "important" stuff was built by them (wing roots, major attachment points, etc). That would lower my concerns that I would become the next john denver.

Another option to explore would be the sportsman 2+2 by glassair....especially one built with their 2 (3?) weeks to taxi program. I would think it would serve the same (beneficial) purpose as the velocity approach to building plastic planes.
 
I have the solution to your problem, get two planes. I have a Skyarrow S-LSA for fun, and a C175b for going places, and camping. Airplane poor in El Paso.
 
If you are going to compare, use actual numbers. These are just the planes I've flown in the last 5 years:
Cabin Width:
Piper PA28 - 42 inches wide.
C-150 - 39.25 inches wide.
C-172 - 39.50 inches wide.
C-182 - 42 inches wide.
Tecnam P92- 43 inches wide.
Remos - 43.5 inches wide.
Czech Sport - 47 inches wide.
Arion LS1 - 43 inches wide.

BTW: All the LSAs listed have longer leg room that all the "real" planes.

Bumpier? Yup. Worse in a crosswind? I've landed all 4 of the LSAs in 20+ knot crosswinds without undue mental stress. Something I can't say about the PA28.
And, the LS1flies like a fighter plane. You need to experience the thrill.
 
Shepherd said:
Bumpier? Yup. Worse in a crosswind? I've landed all 4 of the LSAs in 20+ knot crosswinds without undue mental stress. Something I can't say about the PA28.
And, the LS1flies like a fighter plane. You need to experience the thrill.
Click to expand...
No undue stress here either (not with a PA28 or any of the 30+ singles I've flown). OTOH there are a lot of pilots out there who are very uncomfortable in significant crosswinds. Also, the LSA landing accident rate is fairly high compared to normal category aircraft and I know of flight schools which post higher checkout requirements for their LSAs.

That's somewhat interesting. People joke about the piloting skills of those who go for sport certificates with it's lower time requirements (the "not a real pilot" syndrome). Truth is that the training differences are minimal and not related to stick-and-rudder skill. You get a pilot certificate in an LSA and chances are you are a more skilled pilot better than someone who gets one in a 172 or PA28.
 
Last edited:
Shepherd said:
If you are going to compare, use actual numbers. These are just the planes I've flown in the last 5 years:
Cabin Width:
Piper PA28 - 42 inches wide.
C-150 - 39.25 inches wide.
C-172 - 39.50 inches wide.
C-182 - 42 inches wide.
Tecnam P92- 43 inches wide.
Remos - 43.5 inches wide.
Czech Sport - 47 inches wide.
Arion LS1 - 43 inches wide.

BTW: All the LSAs listed have longer leg room that all the "real" planes.

Bumpier? Yup. Worse in a crosswind? I've landed all 4 of the LSAs in 20+ knot crosswinds without undue mental stress. Something I can't say about the PA28.
And, the LS1flies like a fighter plane. You need to experience the thrill.
Click to expand...
Four years+ with my Sportcruiser, and I gotta say I LOVE this bird. Roomy, well-equipped, amazingly stable, and most important of all, cheap to own and fly (comparatively… like anything in aviation is cheap?), and able to do the vast majority of my current missions.

Do I miss the Sundowner at times? Sure….
Usually about the time SnF or Oshkosh rolls around for useful load.
But my wallet doesn’t miss it.

Is it great in summers turbs? No.
I think it handles better than the Sundowner did in crosswinds, that big rudder certainly helps.
 
midlifeflyer said:
No undue stress here either (not with a PA28 or any of the 30+ singles I've flown). OTOH there are a lot of pilots out there who are very uncomfortable in significant crosswinds. Also, the LSA landing accident rate is fairly high compared to normal category aircraft and I know of flight schools which post higher checkout requirements for their LSAs.

That's somewhat interesting. People joke about the piloting skills of those who go for sport certificates with it's lower time requirements (the "not a real pilot syndrome). Truth is that the training differences are minimal and not related to stick-and-rudder skill. You get a pilot certificate in an LSA and chances are you are a more skilled pilot better than someone who gets one in a 172 or PA28.
Click to expand...
At least as far as my LSA is concerned, if you try to horse it around like you would a 172, it is going to bite you in the ass, especially at low speeds. The SC requires minimal stick inputs.
 

Light wing loading. Landing accidents.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You can expect to feel every bump in a lightly loaded LSA. Gusty crosswind landings will be more challenging than a heavier aircraft. Momentum is a real thing.
Click to expand...
OP… look for a higher wing loaded aircraft, GW/wing area. Better ride qualities. Something over 17 LBs/sq ft.
 
TXBob99 said:
I love my Vashon Ranger! It can get bounced around if the winds are bad (and here the winds are always bad) but I got used to that pretty quickly and it really is not much bumpier than other ‘full size’ planes I have flown. It is a blast to fly by hand and has an amazing autopilot if you'd rather not. The shoulder room is fantastic, huge luggage space for bikes or whatever, and only burns 4.5gph. Granted you are not setting any speed records but it fits my flying style perfectly.

The MOSAIC updates will bump the gross weight limit to 1,500lbs which is plenty for my wife and I, full fuel, and plenty of luggage.
Click to expand...
Bump up the GW? Legacy LSAs now limited to 1320 will inheriet the removal of GW limitations with MOSAIC? I didn't realize that's the case (if it is). I guess I assumed dropping the weight limit from the rules would apply to new aircraft designs. . .
 
I don't know about any of the other brands but Vashon will issue Ranger owners a revised W&B as soon as the new rules come out.
 
Probably Jabiru as well.
 
If it were a standard airworthiness certificate you'd need an STC to raise the gross weight, but for a SLSA the manufacturer can just update your W&B. For an ELSA or EAB, the owner can just put it back into phase 1 and test it for 5 hours at the higher gross weight, log it and it's done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top