LSAs. success or failure?

Strictly op-ed on the 162;

This was a textbook example that should be studied in MBA schools of how not to manage a product and bring it to market. in every milestone, and every decision point, Cessna made the exact wrong choice. It was amazing how badly they stumbled. I would like to know who the project manager was so that he can be held up as a poster boy for incompetence, notwithstanding the egregious mistakes at NBC in the past decade.

The whole thing was done wrong, wrong, wrong. I was one of those people who had such high hopes that Cessna would usher in a new generation of safe pilots with the 162. It could have been so great. But - they made the wrong choice for everything. The death knell was making it in China. W-T-F???

Such great things could have been done, and watching the slow motion train wreck was revolting.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Low price point? This is part of the problem. It's hard to have an objective argument when the peanut gallery accepts the idea that 100K (as equipped) is a low price point. It might be a low price point when you have to endure the inelasticity of not having a medical :rolleyes2:. Other than that, the premise is preposterous. 100K is a ton of money in a Country of decreasing median household wage a (paltry 51.3K/yr at that) while otherwise inflationary in money supply (read double pay cut).

The whole premise of LSA was to allow the indebted American proles to take to the skies with car sized price of entry, not starter homes price of entry. For 40K you can do a mooney E and do 145kts without flogging it. The kicker was you needed a medical for it, which sidelined the old guys.

It was never intened to morph into a way for old guys to pay extortion aviation money for 1/2 the capability for the price of no medical. That was a subversion of the spirit of intent. And don't tell me that's not true; there's enough CFI renewal software I've had to endure pushing that very fallacious agenda of cheap access to the masses. At any rate, that's where it went. Of course the old guys are ok with it, but that and a buck twenty gets a cup of coffee to the young guy looking for the car-sized price of entry to a new aircraft, as was intended. Demographic which btw is more relevant to the survival of the avocation.

It's been a failure. Remove the medical from part 23 and see what happens to these kites. RVs alone would steam roll them.
Click to expand...


If anyone was expecting a new airplane type LSA for 30 grand, that was a matter of unrealistic expectation. You'd have to get car sized production numbers to get the price reduced by any sort of meaningful amount, and the demand just isn't there.

I'd say LSA is a success. There are new aircraft being built, and the ASTM standards model seems to be working well. I don't think the lack of demand for LSAs is really the fault of the rule set. Even if you could crank out new 152s for $125K and new Skyhawks at $250K, I don't think you'd see that many new pilots.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Was that the market or a dud airplane?
Click to expand...

I spent a little time in the flyswatter and thought it was much less of an aircraft than some other LSA's I flew. It was really floppy, especially the doors. I felt like they were going to fly off, any second.
Didn't like the weight, and corespondingly small useful load, and the choice of engine.
 
In no way do I see it as a failure...It's simply a matter of getting more light sport aircraft into the rental fleet. The Sling Flying Cub in Torrance, CA will have two of The Airplane Factory's Sling light sport planes available for rental and instruction in Torrance within the next month.

I will continue to preach that this is without a doubt one of the nicest aircraft I have ever had the pleasure of flying in..Not the fastest plane ever, but with a 700nm range, generous useful load, full glass cockpit, emergency ballistic chute, and amazing handling characteristics it can't be beat.

2248478.jpg


http://www.airplanefactory.com/

At least in my neck of the woods light sport is alive and well. And no, I am not affiliated with the company that makes this plane other than being a big fan of the aircraft...
 
Last edited:
Also worth noting, there is a CZAW Sportcruiser available for rental/instruction at Santa Monica Airport, and a few CTSWs scattered across the basin, although I'm not a big fan of that plane..
 
Success!, especially considering the timing. If the economy hadn't tanked, and sales stayed like they were in 2006-2008, you'd see four times as many LSA. Here is a good article showing the LSA market using 2012 numbers. When you combine all the types of LSA, the numbers are impressive. Cheap flying machines was never the intent of LSA, it was cheaper pilot's licenses. And letting already certified pilots to fly with a DL in lieu of a medical. Look at the literature from 2005.
 
bullwinkle said:
BTW, I have not seen that Cherokee Six pilot out flying since that day, about eight months ago. :(
Click to expand...
I had a cherokee 6, too. I don't think I ever started it and burned only 11 gal of gas. You could probably count on one hand the number of times i flew it solo. Your comments here would have applied to us: You wouldn't have seen us flying either, because we only used it to go places, not to fly in little circles around the airport.

If your neighbor wants to fly solo in little circles then yes, he has the wrong airplane. Other than that, I don't see any point to your comparison.
 
CT4ME said:
Success!, especially considering the timing. If the economy hadn't tanked, and sales stayed like they were in 2006-2008, you'd see four times as many LSA. Here is a good article showing the LSA market using 2012 numbers. When you combine all the types of LSA, the numbers are impressive. Cheap flying machines was never the intent of LSA, it was cheaper pilot's licenses. And letting already certified pilots to fly with a DL in lieu of a medical. Look at the literature from 2005.
Click to expand...

The intent was to regulate 2 seat ultralights.
 
I rent a Tecman P92. For the same price that the 152 rents for I get a plane the flies better, has better performance, more useful load, wider cockpit, glass panel, built in Garmin 692 and was built 2007. As a pilot that rents, I say that the light sport category is a success.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Low price point? This is part of the problem. It's hard to have an objective argument when the peanut gallery accepts the idea that 100K (as equipped) is a low price point. It might be a low price point when you have to endure the inelasticity of not having a medical :rolleyes2:.
Click to expand...
$100K is a low price point for a factory new aircraft - how much is a new 172?

I paid $20K for my LSA. How does that compare to a new 172? If we do that comparison we find that an LSA costs 5% to 10% as much as a non LSA aircraft. How's that for a price point?

Is a brand ass new LSA expensive compared to a 40 year old POS something else? Sure. Is this a surprise? Apparently to some.
 
FormerHangie said:
If anyone was expecting a new airplane type LSA for 30 grand, that was a matter of unrealistic expectation. You'd have to get car sized production numbers to get the price reduced by any sort of meaningful amount, and the demand just isn't there.

I'd say LSA is a success. There are new aircraft being built, and the ASTM standards model seems to be working well. I don't think the lack of demand for LSAs is really the fault of the rule set. Even if you could crank out new 152s for $125K and new Skyhawks at $250K, I don't think you'd see that many new pilots.
Click to expand...

With the price of a Carbon Cub reaching 1/4 million dollars, my guess is .. Once the honeymoon is over , the sales will crater...

http://www.cubcrafters.com/inventory
 
Much of the cost of these lsa aircraft is owners choice of panels. No one has mentioned how many older taildraggers that have been completely rebuilt due to the lsa rules. Hundreds of them flown with simple original steam gauges. Many many champs, Taylorcrafts, cubs are now flown in great shape due to the lsa rules. 30 grand buys a real nice one with the exception of the j3 cub which is grossly overpriced.
 
vdehart said:
In no way do I see it as a failure...It's simply a matter of getting more light sport aircraft into the rental fleet. The Sling Flying Cub in Torrance, CA will have two of The Airplane Factory's Sling light sport planes available for rental and instruction in Torrance within the next month.

I will continue to preach that this is without a doubt one of the nicest aircraft I have ever had the pleasure of flying in..Not the fastest plane ever, but with a 700nm range, generous useful load, full glass cockpit, emergency ballistic chute, and amazing handling characteristics it can't be beat.

http://www.airplanefactory.com/

At least in my neck of the woods light sport is alive and well. And no, I am not affiliated with the company that makes this plane other than being a big fan of the aircraft...
Click to expand...

I am going to have to come and see you guys real soon! Do you have any other LSAs in Torrance?
 
It seems most LSAs are made in places other than the US. For example, the Sling someone mentioned in this thread is made in South Africa.

Are LSAs more popular, or less expensive in other countries?
 
Another question: three or four years ago I remember reading a lot about a amphibian or seaplane LSA. I forget the name, but it was pretty cool looking. It was going to be built in the US IIRC.

What happened to that project?
 
RalphInCA said:
It seems most LSAs are made in places other than the US. For example, the Sling someone mentioned in this thread is made in South Africa.

Are LSAs more popular, or less expensive in other countries?
Click to expand...

My hunch is that it has more to do with liability laws in other countries.

On the more general question of the thread topic, the LSA rule has been good for airplanes and possibly powered parachutes, but disastrous for trikes and even more so for gyroplanes. The whole trike world was much better off under the USUA / EAA exemptions.

-Rich
 
RalphInCA said:
Another question: three or four years ago I remember reading a lot about a amphibian or seaplane LSA. I forget the name, but it was pretty cool looking. It was going to be built in the US IIRC.

What happened to that project?
Click to expand...

Don't know but quite a few rans couriers and rans coyotes are flown on floats and amphib floats.
 
There was a bit of an S-LSA rush in the last year or two. Perhaps the interest in Icon and its endless delays helped. Of course SeaMax was always available, kinda. For some reason, however, it just wasn't selling. The first of the new wave of the S-LSAs was the good old SeaRey. Then we have Freedom S100, Super Petrel, and a bunch of others.

BTW, now that Icon won the weight exemption, they need to haul all that weight with the 100 hp Rotax 912iS. Vickers thought it created an opening for an LSA seaplane with IO-360. Yes, you read it right: a 180 hp LSA.

If I wanted an LSA seaplane today, I'd give SeaMax and SeaRey a good look, and possibly S100. The longer Icon drag their feet, the more it's going to happen.
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
With the price of a Carbon Cub reaching 1/4 million dollars, my guess is .. Once the honeymoon is over , the sales will crater...

http://www.cubcrafters.com/inventory
Click to expand...

I couldn't justify a Carbon Cub either. But I think an RV-12 would make a fine addition to most of the country's flight lines, and AT $123,000 fully equipped, I think you could rent it for at a reasonable rate and still make a little money.
 
SeaMax wouldn't sell me a plane when I contacted them. It was endless excuses on getting to fly a demo, sit in one, etc. They kept up the 'just write a check' stuff constantly until I walked away. I think they build them on spec, and there is NO WAY I was going to put money in for someone to build to spec.

Don't know about CubCrafters, but you can get a Legend Cub for $125-130k plus options. Built in TX. You can secure an order with about $1000 down, and you can go fly one right now at the factory, or other popular venues.

I came thiiiiiiiiiis close to giving Icon a check back in 08, or was it 07. Man, I look back now and think how big that bullet was I dodged. I don't think Icon will fly for at least 2-3 more years. When they do, it's going to be over $200k except for the first guys on the list who got guaranteed prices, but they've been waiting > 7 years with no plane. I was happy to see their weight exemption. Hope it translates into weight exemptions for other builders, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
docmirror said:
Strictly op-ed on the 162;

This was a textbook example that should be studied in MBA schools of how not to manage a product and bring it to market. in every milestone, and every decision point, Cessna made the exact wrong choice. It was amazing how badly they stumbled. I would like to know who the project manager was so that he can be held up as a poster boy for incompetence, notwithstanding the egregious mistakes at NBC in the past decade.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with this, but I think the failure can be distilled down to a single choice: The 0-200D for an engine. Weighting 80lb more than a Rotax 912ULS, this doomed the 162 to a very low useful load, in the 480-490lb range. That meant two normal American sized people could not launch with a reasonable amount of fuel (the 0-200D also burns 1-2gph more than a 912), not to mention any baggage.

Does anybody down that Cessna would have sold more airframes if the useful load was 560-580lb? Now you are talking two 200lb people, 40lb of bags, and 20 gallons of fuel (~4 hours at 5200rpm for a 912). In other words, a USEFUL load.

I understand that the 162 was marketed as a trainer, but instead of the 0-200D providing advantages in that environment, it only served to highlight the weight problem, as a student and instructor could rarely launch for a one hour lesson and still maintain VFR reserves.
 
bullwinkle said:
I mostly agree with this, but I think the failure can be distilled down to a single choice: The 0-200D for an engine. Weighting 80lb more than a Rotax 912ULS, this doomed the 162 to a very low useful load, in the 480-490lb range. That meant two normal American sized people could not launch with a reasonable amount of fuel (the 0-200D also burns 1-2gph more than a 912), not to mention any baggage.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no not a single choice of powerplant. I still maintain, and again for op-ed purposes that the 162 was done completely wrong. The engine was one - maybe a big one, error in a long line of errors. The Legend Cub offers an O-200 and it gets off the ground with a 490 payload. Same with the smaller Carbon Cub. These are two of the more popular LSA planes that are sold. I'm thinking that these aren't often used for training like the 162, so there is that I'll grant you, but the 162s failings in design, marketing, construction, etc make it a poster child for what not to do in aviation.
 
docmirror said:
Sorry, but no not a single choice of powerplant. I still maintain, and again for op-ed purposes that the 162 was done completely wrong. The engine was one - maybe a big one, error in a long line of errors. The Legend Cub offers an O-200 and it gets off the ground with a 490 payload. Same with the smaller Carbon Cub. These are two of the more popular LSA planes that are sold. I'm thinking that these aren't often used for training like the 162, so there is that I'll grant you, but the 162s failings in design, marketing, construction, etc make it a poster child for what not to do in aviation.
Click to expand...

I told you I agreed with you, I just see the engine choice as the biggest blunder that shows the whole mindet of ignoring the realities of building an LSA.
 
bullwinkle said:
I told you I agreed with you, I just see the engine choice as the biggest blunder that shows the whole mindet of ignoring the realities of building an LSA.
Click to expand...

No, you said it was "distilled down to a single choice", which is why I quoted you so that it would be retained. Had the plane otherwise been an outstanding representation of the LSA fleet, but only saddled with the O-200, there are workarounds. If the useful was 490, and we had only 90 Lbs left after the meat sacks are in, that is still 15 gallons which is certainly 2 hours plus an hour reserve.

I don't know that the other engine choices would have been better, but I'll take your word that it improve the overall product. But - it would still have been a failure, just not quite as massive.
 
RJM62 said:
My hunch is that it has more to do with liability laws in other countries.

On the more general question of the thread topic, the LSA rule has been good for airplanes and possibly powered parachutes, but disastrous for trikes and even more so for gyroplanes. The whole trike world was much better off under the USUA / EAA exemptions.

-Rich
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with that other countries were building LSA style aircraft before the FAA rule came into place. If you go to Dan Johnson's site, (bydanjohnson.com), he has a list of the number of LSA registrations since the rule started. Flight Design has the most registrations, but CubCrafters is #2 and gaining. Cessna is currently #3 but may fall out of that spot if the unsold Skycatchers are removed from the fleet. American Legend is #5 on the list, and I suspect that the Synergy Air built RV-12 will have the most registrations this year.
 
You can pick up a late model rans courier for around 100 grand on floats used. . It will perform on a par with a super cub. 912 engine is bulletproof if maintained properly. Without floats, around 55-75 grand for a nice late model used. Very well designed airplane, excellent factory support.
 
RalphInCA said:
The biggest telltale for me is Cessna's abandonment of the SkyCatcher.
Click to expand...

They sell RV12s as fast as the factory can assemble them. The 162 had little to do with the LSA market and a lot to do with poor decision making at Cessna.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top