Most Reliable/Longlived/Proven LSA Airplane?

[Catfish47]

Are the newer Legend and CubCrafter CC planes more durable than, say, an original J-3? I would think 75 years of use (and perhaps a lot of hard use with training) could provide less forgiveness with putting stress on those old tubes in certain maneuvers one might find themselves having to make (or accidentally making). Are the newer versions built tougher?

 

[Flocker]

Where are you located fish?

 

[Catfish47]

Where are you located fish?

Right now I'm living in Florida, about two hours west of Tallahassee.

 

[RyanShort1]

Are the newer Legend and CubCrafter CC planes more durable than, say, an original J-3? I would think 75 years of use (and perhaps a lot of hard use with training) could provide less forgiveness with putting stress on those old tubes in certain maneuvers one might find themselves having to make (or accidentally making). Are the newer versions built tougher?

I'd refer you again to Legend, but I believe they are essentially the same building strength. Also, the likelihood of a catastrophic structural failure with the Cub is pretty low. They're durable.

 

[Catfish47]

I'd refer you again to Legend, but I believe they are essentially the same building strength. Also, the likelihood of a catastrophic structural failure with the Cub is pretty low. They're durable.

I did take a look over at the CubCrafters forum just to glance at a few threads, there was one recently about the return springs for the pedals continually breaking and it seems generally accepted to be a design issue. A couple of other small issues like that were also discovered.

 

[Flocker]

Right now I'm living in Florida, about two hours west of Tallahassee.

Check out the Deland Sport Aviation Showcase. It's coming up in a few weeks.

 

[RyanShort1]

I did take a look over at the CubCrafters forum just to glance at a few threads, there was one recently about the return springs for the pedals continually breaking and it seems generally accepted to be a design issue. A couple of other small issues like that were also discovered.

I'm not sure that the Cubcrafters is to be compared to Legacy Cubs, Wag-Aero copies, or the Legend stuff. I have a friend who has one of the CubCrafters planes and they did a lot of stuff trying to lighten it up...

 

[Catfish47]

I'm not sure that the Cubcrafters is to be compared to Legacy Cubs, Wag-Aero copies, or the Legend stuff. I have a friend who has one of the CubCrafters planes and they did a lot of stuff trying to lighten it up...

Can you go into more detail on this? Do you think what they did to lighten up the plane compromises anything, and if so, what?

 

[RyanShort1]

Can you go into more detail on this? Do you think what they did to lighten up the plane compromises anything, and if so, what?

I'm not aware of any airframe issues, per-se, and I'm not trying at all to slander Cubcrafters, but for instance my friend's plane had a fuel line in the cockpit that became a problem and he thought it was too lightly constructed in order to save weight. They were going for lighter-weight, higher performing plane, and one way you can achieve that is by lightening things up.

 

[Catfish47]

I'm not aware of any airframe issues, per-se, and I'm not trying at all to slander Cubcrafters, but for instance my friend's plane had a fuel line in the cockpit that became a problem and he thought it was too lightly constructed in order to save weight. They were going for lighter-weight, higher performing plane, and one way you can achieve that is by lightening things up.

I understand you're not slandering Cubcrafters. Every plane has it's advantages and drawbacks. It just happens that durability and reliability are something I don't want to compromise on to save weight/gain performance.

 

[Flocker]

if I sell what I currently fly as a PPL.

What do you currently fly?

 

[Catfish47]

What do you currently fly?

Just a 172. It's possible I will have to start flying under LSA rules if things don't pan out with BasicMed how I want them to.

ETA: I should clarify that the 172 is still technically in the ownership of a family friend (ex-in-law) who's father left them the plane, which is why I'm not depending on that. That said, I'm the only one who flies it and I'm pretty sure said family friend would be receptive to this if I did my homework.

In any case, right now I'm just looking at it from the angle of "if money were no object", and I can whittle it down from there.

 

[Flocker]

Check out the Deland Sport Aviation Showcase. It's coming up in a few weeks.

I don't know your timing on the decision, but I'd try to make this trip happen. Check out the list of Exhibitors. Reach out to them. Schedule a demo if possible. This will help narrow down your search.

 

[Catfish47]

I don't know your timing on the decision, but I'd try to make this trip happen. Check out the list of Exhibitors. Reach out to them. Schedule a demo if possible. This will help narrow down your search.

Will do. DeLand is about 6 hours for me, definitely doable. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I’ll start clearing my schedule.

 

[Catfish47]

Well, it turns out that I’m good to go for flying PP under BasicMed, so my options have expanded but I’m still interested in the tail wheel utility airplane. I’ve been getting really sucked into the Cub/Super Cub and tailwheel utility planes.

 

[C-1 PILOT]

I considered a SEAREY and the RV-12, before going with the SLING 2. I’ve been more than happy with the SLING. Insurance turned me off the SEAREY, even with 500+ retract hours and less hull cost than the other two, they wanted $8k. Ridiculous!

 

[Dana]

Insurance turned me off the SEAREY, even with 500+ retract hours and less hull cost than the other two, they wanted $8k. Ridiculous!

Seaplanes have a much higher claim rate than landplanes, and it's reflected in the premiums.

 

[Albany Tom]

Glad to hear you're good for basic med! Tailwheel is a LOT of fun. If you do it, suggest that the training you get is more than the minimum. Particularly, make sure you're 100% comfortable with ground handling w/ a bit of wind, crosswind landing, and slips. The first two because you don't want to try to learn crosswind in a tailwheel on your own. While it really isn't any different than the 172, the precision required is a bit higher. The slips just because it's a lot of fun, and handy. Tailwheel isn't any more difficult, but it can make errors louder.

 

[WDD]

I'm having a hard time understanding the premise on which you've decided you need to go LSA.

I have my PPL, but for reasons I won't go into, I forsee the possibility that I will have to go to flying under Sport Pilot rules due to medical factors.

• It sounds like you're flying now, which means you either have a medical or Basic Med.
• If you have a 3rd class medical, and it gets revoked because of "new medical factors", you can't do LSA.
• If you have Basic Med, it can't be revoked by the FAA for "new medical factors" - so keep flying non LSA UNLESS
• These "new medical factors" are such that your family Doc can says "no, you don't pass this Basic Med medical checklist"......
• which means I wouldn't be flying anything.

 

[Catfish47]

I'm having a hard time understanding the premise on which you've decided you need to go LSA.

• It sounds like you're flying now, which means you either have a medical or Basic Med.
• If you have a 3rd class medical, and it gets revoked because of "new medical factors", you can't do LSA.
• If you have Basic Med, it can't be revoked by the FAA for "new medical factors" - so keep flying non LSA UNLESS
• These "new medical factors" are such that your family Doc can says "no, you don't pass this Basic Med medical checklist"......
• which means I wouldn't be flying anything.

I've been flying with an instructor serving as PIC since all this started. My 3rd class medical had expired but I would like to fly under BasicMed. I wasn't sure I would be signed off for BasicMed but going over it with my AME/physician, I'm well within the requirements for BasicMed and will be getting signed off for it in about a week when we meet in person again. My 3rd Class Medical has never been revoked and I had received it well after 2006.

I've been looking into LSA in case BasicMed was not an option. However, I'm still interested in LSA planes. Lower cost for plane, lower operating cost, and there's some really cool planes in this category. The Tecnams and various Cubs and Cub clones particularly interest me. I remember the first time I flew in a Super Cub with the doors down, I thought "now this is flying!". A lot different feel than the 172 flying car I normally fly.

 

[Catfish47]

Glad to hear you're good for basic med! Tailwheel is a LOT of fun. If you do it, suggest that the training you get is more than the minimum. Particularly, make sure you're 100% comfortable with ground handling w/ a bit of wind, crosswind landing, and slips. The first two because you don't want to try to learn crosswind in a tailwheel on your own. While it really isn't any different than the 172, the precision required is a bit higher. The slips just because it's a lot of fun, and handy. Tailwheel isn't any more difficult, but it can make errors louder.

Absolutely. Throughout my flying career as a student pilot and then private pilot I have always erred on the side of spending well more than the minimum time than required with an instructor for various things. I've been studying the nuances of piloting a tailwheel airplane and I definitely want to have an instructor with me until I'm well past the minimum proficiency to get the endorsement. Ground loops seem particularly common!

 

[C-120 8550]

Longest lived...
90 years, Taylor E-2 Cub, 2-358 June 1931
87 years, Taylor J-2 ATC-595, February 1936
84 years, multiple Aeronca 50s, precursors to the 7 and 11 series, under A-634 and A-675 January and April 1937
84 years, Taylorcraft, A series, A-643, February 1938
83 years, Piper J-3 Cub, A-691, June 1938
83 years, Luscombe 8 series, A-694, August 1938
83 years, Taylorcraft B series, A-696, August 1938
81 years, Aeronca Tandem, A-728, June 1940
80 years, Taylorcraft D series, A-746

 

[WDD]

Watching AV Web in why planes crash - LSA’s have a higher rate than GA because of lighter wing loading. Harder to land.

 

[RyanShort1]

Longest lived...
90 years, Taylor E-2 Cub, 2-358 June 1931
87 years, Taylor J-2 ATC-595, February 1936
84 years, multiple Aeronca 50s, precursors to the 7 and 11 series, under A-634 and A-675 January and April 1937
84 years, Taylorcraft, A series, A-643, February 1938
83 years, Piper J-3 Cub, A-691, June 1938
83 years, Luscombe 8 series, A-694, August 1938
83 years, Taylorcraft B series, A-696, August 1938
81 years, Aeronca Tandem, A-728, June 1940
80 years, Taylorcraft D series, A-746

Yeah. My '39 Luscombe is still flying!

 

[Catfish47]

Watching AV Web in why planes crash - LSA’s have a higher rate than GA because of lighter wing loading. Harder to land.

I've been looking into that. Yes, it would seem that the lighter weight does relate to the higher accident rate than non-LSA airplanes. I think some of it has to do with the landing gear being quite a bit smaller and less robust than the gear on those 150s and 172s that've been taking hard landings from student pilots for decades and decades. Though I would think that some of the tailwheel airplanes with their main gear are pretty robust, like on the Legend Cub.

 

[RyanShort1]

Watching AV Web in why planes crash - LSA’s have a higher rate than GA because of lighter wing loading. Harder to land.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a training issue.

 

[Albany Tom]

Agree. For a tailwheel, you have to have the tailwheel behind you when you land, and your speeds have to be right, but that's training. For most light sport, wing loading IS lighter, but that just means it's more sensitive to gusts and crosswinds. Training and knowing the limitations. On the other hand, landings speeds and distances are usually less, making off field landings often much less of an event. Land a champ in a field? Likely not a big deal. Land an F-104 in a field? You better have a long, smooth field, or you're going to have a problem... Higher stall speeds and wing loading isn't always better.

 

[FastEddieB]

Watching AV Web in why planes crash - LSA’s have a higher rate than GA because of lighter wing loading. Harder to land.

I think a large part of the problem is pilots who are “stepping up” to Light Sport from bigger planes. I think they’ve gotten used to certain winds as being manageable for them. I mean, 18G26 might be par for the course for a Cirrus or Bonanza, but at typical Light Sport landing speeds they could easily exceed a pilot’s ability to maintain control. It can be hard to remember that while I can handle 18G26, there’s a very real chance my new plane can’t.

 

[Stan Cooper]

If I were looking for an LSA today I'd be looking for something Rotax 912 powered with a better than average accident/incident rate and an empty weight of around 700 - 750 pounds. The Rotax 912 is 100 pounds lighter than the Continental O-200-A in my CH601XL-B, and that translates directly to more useful load staying under the LSA 1320 pound gross weight limit. With an unlimited budget, I'd probably choose a Bristell or an RV-12. Another choice I'd consider is the Texas Aircraft Colt 100, but even with the Rotax 912 its empty weight is 850 pounds which really limits its usefulness as a 2-place airplane to shorter flights carrying a lot less fuel than full tanks. The Colt probably flies as much like a 172 as any of its competition.

I sold my 172 in 2006 because of the expense of maintaining my special issuance 3rd class medical and started flying LSAs exercising the privileges of a sport pilot using my valid California driver license in lieu of a medical certificate. When BasicMed became available, I jumped on it but kept my Zodiac because I love the way it flies and it's inexpensive to fly and maintain. It's an S-LSA which I converted to experimental so I could do my own maintenance, and then I took the 16 hour light sport repairman-inspection class and got my FAA LSA repairman certificate-inspection so I could perform my own annual condition inspections. If I need to carry more passengers, I can rent a 172 or 182 from the FBO where I get my flight reviews.

LSAs are real airplanes and tons of fun.

Over Sedona, AZ. Photo by our own Jack Fleetwood.

 

[NorthEast Ohio]

One vote for: Pipistrel
The Pipistrel company has been in business since Yugoslavia was a communist country. They have built over 2000 of the sinus/virus models (same airframe different wingspan) worldwide.
I have the 80 hp version. The slick carbon fiber build plus the little Rotax equals an extremely low operating cost. But if you feel the need for speed, put in the big rotax, those guys claim 150 knots.
Add-in optional airbrakes for short field capability. And the BRS parachute for extremely short field capability.

 

[Catfish47]

If I were looking for an LSA today I'd be looking for something Rotax 912 powered with a better than average accident/incident rate and an empty weight of around 700 - 750 pounds. The Rotax 912 is 100 pounds lighter than the Continental O-200-A in my CH601XL-B, and that translates directly to more useful load staying under the LSA 1320 pound gross weight limit. With an unlimited budget, I'd probably choose a Bristell or an RV-12. Another choice I'd consider is the Texas Aircraft Colt 100, but even with the Rotax 912 its empty weight is 850 pounds which really limits its usefulness as a 2-place airplane to shorter flights carrying a lot less fuel than full tanks. The Colt probably flies as much like a 172 as any of its competition.

I sold my 172 in 2006 because of the expense of maintaining my special issuance 3rd class medical and started flying LSAs exercising the privileges of a sport pilot using my valid California driver license in lieu of a medical certificate. When BasicMed became available, I jumped on it but kept my Zodiac because I love the way it flies and it's inexpensive to fly and maintain. It's an S-LSA which I converted to experimental so I could do my own maintenance, and then I took the 16 hour light sport repairman-inspection class and got my FAA LSA repairman certificate-inspection so I could perform my own annual condition inspections. If I need to carry more passengers, I can rent a 172 or 182 from the FBO where I get my flight reviews.

LSAs are real airplanes and tons of fun.

Over Sedona, AZ. Photo by our own Jack Fleetwood.

Beautiful plane. The reasons you mentioned are a big part of why I'm interested in an LSA airplane for personal ownership, particularly reduced cost to operate and maintain. Even a Cessna 172 is pretty expensive in comparison.

 

[Kent Wien]

I think the new Flight Design F2 is worth looking at. Very spacious with a baggage area that can hold foldable bikes, impressive useful load and range, panel mounted airbags and parachute and they say it ‘flies like a 172’, although it’s cabin is wider.

 

[C-120 8550]

Watching AV Web in why planes crash - LSA’s have a higher rate than GA because of lighter wing loading. Harder to land.

Calling BS on that. With proper technique weight is meaningless. I can land a 253.9 pound "not quite an airplane" easier than an LSA. People had no problems landing GA aircraft when the typical GA aircraft had a GW of 1000-1500 pounds.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a training issue.

Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a wiener! Uh... Winner!

 

[C-120 8550]

panel mounted airbags and parachute...

Murphy: It is difficult to make anything "idiot proof" because idiots are so ingenious.
NTSB: Injury rates higher after passage of mandatory seat belt laws.
NCAA: More head injuries / concussions after requiring helmets.
My view, people have a perceived "acceptable risk." Make something objectively safer and they compensate by expanding the envelope.

 

[Dana]

Calling BS on that. With proper technique weight is meaningless. I can land a 253.9 pound "not quite an airplane" easier than an LSA. People had no problems landing GA aircraft when the typical GA aircraft had a GW of 1000-1500 pounds.

And tailwheels.

LSAs and ultralights aren't more difficult to fly and land than heavier aircraft, if anything they're easier, but they do require a different skill set, one that a pilot used to, say, a Bonanza, may not have.

But part of that skill set is understanding the aircraft's limitations. I fly my Hatz in winds that I never would have flown my ultralight in, and I flew the ultralight in winds that would have kept my paramotor grounded. OTOH, I flew my paramotor under low ceilings that I would never fly a faster plane under. Every aircraft is different.

 

[Kent Wien]

Hi Dana!

Sounds like we have similar taste in aircraft. I’d love to meet up. (I think you’re nearby)

I fly paragliders and used to paramotor as well. Now mostly just flying the Husky.

A friend once said “The judgement required to fly an aircraft is inversely proportional to it's gross weight.”

I definitely put more thought into the conditions I’d fly the paramotor in than when flying an airliner, or the Husky for that matter.

That said, I owned a light sport Flight Design CTsw and felt very comfortable in most GA weather conditions except when taxiing. 20 knots was my taxi wind limit.

Kent

 

[FlyingElvii]

Thank you, I will certainly keep in touch. I'm still in the very early stages of this endeavor and feel overwhelmed with all the choices. With most things I buy in life, I like to go for the most proven, reliable, and safest. I work in the firearms industry and this is my approach to both that and everything else. With the dizzying array of choices in LSA from 75 year old J-3s to modernized Cubs, to sporty sleek LSAs like the SportCruiser and Tecnam P92, I have a lot of homework and soul searching to do. I need to see if I can fly in some of these.

A lot of it seems to come down to whether I want to go with something more classic like an original Cub or modernized version thereof, or with one of the newer designs. As nostalgic as I am for the Cub, I have to keep in mind that I'm trying to find the best tool for the job. There's definitely some soul in an original J-3, but then again, a new airplane is a new airplane and that's hard to beat ("new" as in produced within the last 15-20 years or so, as well as fresh from the factory).

Wouldn’t you know it, the very Paradise I thought about buying got crunched this week in Florida.
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/10/paradise-p1-lsa-n912zz-incident.html

 

[FlyingElvii]

Hi Dana!

Sounds like we have similar taste in aircraft. I’d love to meet up. (I think you’re nearby)

I fly paragliders and used to paramotor as well. Now mostly just flying the Husky.

A friend once said “The judgement required to fly an aircraft is inversely proportional to it's gross weight.”

I definitely put more thought into the conditions I’d fly the paramotor in than when flying an airliner, or the Husky for that matter.

That said, I owned a light sport Flight Design CTsw and felt very comfortable in most GA weather conditions except when taxiing. 20 knots was my taxi wind limit.

Kent

Today was the highest gusty crosswinds I have taken off into or landed, so far, in the Sportcruiser. It handled it surprisingly well.

 

[Daleandee]

That said, I owned a light sport Flight Design CTsw and felt very comfortable in most GA weather conditions except when taxiing. 20 knots was my taxi wind limit.

Dana & you have hit the nail on the head. I have a Sonex and the manufacturer gives 17 MPH as the direct crosswind limit. Some folks have done better than that. I'm not the world's greatest tail wheel pilot by any means so while I've made some fair landings in tough crosswinds I do pick my days carefully.

The light wing loading does tend to bite those not used to it. We have a plane (ultralight like) in the hangar now waiting for some new gear because a GA pilot got it too slow before it was low and it landed hard. Pilot was fine (ego was damaged) and the aircraft is repairable. Lessons learned.

 

[Catfish47]

So far the 3 that interest me the most (in no particular order) are the Supercruiser, one of the Legend Cub models, and the Tecnam P92 Super Echo. One is a taildragger high wing, one is a tricycle low-wing, and one is a tricycle high wing. In terms of gear and wing configuration, the P92 lines up with what I have the most experience with, though I'm sure mastering low wing flying isn't a big deal at all. Tailwheel is definitely going to be quite different but it's a rating I've wanted to earn for a long time anyway.

Part of why the Legend Cub interests me is definitely nostalgia. As a kid we used to hunt on this farm where the farmer had so much land that he got his pilots license, made a little grass airstrip, and got a J-3 Cub so he could survey his land from the skies. I used to ride a fourwheeler down to the hangar and just admire the plane and fantasize about becoming a pilot. Years later, during high school once I was checked out to do so, I would fly my uncle's 172 up to the camp after school on Friday afternoons and land at the same airstrip and put the plane right next to that old J-3 Cub. All of that is to say, the Legend Cub is being considered for reasons other than pure performance.