The other shoe drops...Grounded.

[thepetrostate]

Those are better than the "premium" leather, which is harder than a freaking rock. Its almost like someone looked at the leather and said, "that looks good, put it in." They never ever, ever sat on it, because it sucks badly.

I've been on that "premium" leather stuff, wait till it ages for a couple of years. Granite hard. I'm 5'8" and average weight so the cockpit fits me OK but the lambs wool does help.

 

[Henning]

The flip side of this is that the Zodiac is now, without a doubt, the best-understood, most-tested, most-analyzed aircraft in the LSA market, bar none. The modifications strengthen the airframe significantly beyond the ASTm requirements, at a minimal cost in weight. They also remove even the slightest trace of any tendency for aileron flutter.

The flip side of that of course is, that according to Chris Heintz, since we never found out what caused those failures, we still aren't sure that even with this fix set if the problem has been corrected. To this day he says there was no deficiency in the design, so if we don't know what the problem was, how do we know the problem was solved? It's a Catch-22 situation from which there is no escape. Until you know what the problem is, you can't know if you fixed it.

 

[Henning]

Exactly. Every airplane is different, and no matter how experienced or talented the pilot, a thorough checkout in a new type is always a good idea.

LOL, around half of my hours are in single seat airplanes, about 10 different single seat types including stuff at 10,500 gross. If you don't know how to check yourself out in a new airplane, get training, but your statement is a bit far over reaching.

 

[Geico266]

The flip side of that of course is, that according to Chris Heintz, since we never found out what caused those failures, we still aren't sure that even with this fix set if the problem has been corrected. To this day he says there was no deficiency in the design, so if we don't know what the problem was, how do we know the problem was solved? It's a Catch-22 situation from which there is no escape. Until you know what the problem is, you can't know if you fixed it.

+1


Additional letters typed here.

 

[tonycondon]

Joel - thanks for posting the standards. Now I'm curious how the fuel tank in the Allegro is really oriented...

 

[thepetrostate]

The flip side of that of course is, that according to Chris Heintz, since we never found out what caused those failures, we still aren't sure that even with this fix set if the problem has been corrected. To this day he says there was no deficiency in the design, so if we don't know what the problem was, how do we know the problem was solved?

I understand from a business POV why he is saying that but have they fixed the ASI to true velocity or the stick gradient/overcontrol issues?

It's a Catch-22 situation from which there is no escape. Until you know what the problem is, you can't know if you fixed it.

I suppose your talking about the alleged aerodynamic flutter. Well, the planes are breaking up inflight, a couple or more were seen with folded wings and IMO this "fix" when you don't know what is broken just exacerbates the problem and further recedes the plane and the designers reputation.

Jeez, when you have dug yourself a hole...quit digging.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't think that comparing a day VFR fleet to the Cirri is that useful. How does the LSA fleet stack up to the C150/C152/C172?

I'll leave that to someone else to figure out - The Cirrus analysis is pretty easy, as there's only 10 years of production numbers to add up and 14 pages of NTSB reports to sift through. A similar analysis on the 172 would take more time than I have to dedicate to such things.

It's kind of hard to come up with a good example that's VFR-only - The Diamond DA20 is VFR-only but Diamond has an exceptional safety record. I can't think of another new-ish certified design that's VFR-only.

Anyway, the point is that people still buy Cirri even though they fall out of the sky at a rate significantly greater than LSA's do, that's all.

I guess "cheap" is a relative term, but to me, $100,000 to $120,000 for an LSA is a lot of money for what you get.

True, but it's cheaper than any other new airplane. Seen what a 172 costs lately? You can buy about 2.5 average LSA's for the price of a single 172.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

1) Ever flown a Remos G3/GX, or even a Dimaond DA-20. They've got the fuel tank under the seat deal, just like the Allegro does.

Negative. And the DA20 is behind the seat, not IN it.

3) I've flown a few planes with control rods/cable's that are visible. Perhaps not the the extent that you describe, but I don't really see anything wrong with it.

Visible isn't really the problem. I've flown other planes that have some visible controls, such as cables visible in the top of the cabin passing between the wings, etc. However, the Allegro has things at the bottom, and in easily-obstructable places like the baggage compartment where one bad shift in turbulence means controls getting jammed.

2) So, because YOU personally don't like it, it isn't safe?
4) Again, since you don't personally like it, it isn't safe?

Are you an aeronautical engineer who has looked at the numbers on the plane, or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Whether or not it's truly safe doesn't matter - My entire point was that a plane like the Allegro will be *perceived* as unsafe, regardless of the whether it actually is, and that turns a lot of potential pilots and/or LSA buyers who are already pilots off. That is NOT good for the LSA segment in general. Like I said, I got a very bad first impression of LSA's from the Allegro, and it took a flight in the SportStar to show me that LSA's are quite capable of being really great airplanes. Most people probably wouldn't have come back for seconds.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

7.3 Fuel System:
7.3.4 The filler must be located outside the passenger compartment and spilled fuel must be prevented from entering or accumulating in any enclosed part of the airplane.

Joel - thanks for posting the standards. Now I'm curious how the fuel tank in the Allegro is really oriented...

Man... IIRC, you had to open the pilot door on the Allegro and the fuel cap was on the left side of the seat. That certainly doesn't seem to fit with 7.3.4 above. Thanks for posting that, Joel.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Whether or not it's truly safe doesn't matter - My entire point was that a plane like the Allegro will be *perceived* as unsafe, regardless of the whether it actually is, and that turns a lot of potential pilots and/or LSA buyers who are already pilots off. That is NOT good for the LSA segment in general. Like I said, I got a very bad first impression of LSA's from the Allegro, and it took a flight in the SportStar to show me that LSA's are quite capable of being really great airplanes. Most people probably wouldn't have come back for seconds.

Fair enough. I think people have taken the whole LSA game the wrong way. The whole LSA's make flying cheaper deal. I look at it this way. The LSA rules were meant to govern the people who were flying 103 "legal", but not really legal", ultralights. The whole S-LSA is a side-product of the game. But in any case, there are some people who are willing to buy and fly them. Would I buy something like a Allegro, probably not. But, apparently they believe there is a market for it.

 

[tonycondon]

Man... IIRC, you had to open the pilot door on the Allegro and the fuel cap was on the left side of the seat. That certainly doesn't seem to fit with 7.3.4 above. Thanks for posting that, Joel.

I've never been around an Allegro at all. Remember they "self certify" to the ASTM standard...

 

[tonycondon]

i found a video review of the allegro on youtube and the fuel filler is below the pilot side door.

 

[thepetrostate]

I think people have taken the whole LSA game the wrong way. The whole LSA's make flying cheaper deal. I look at it this way. The LSA rules were meant to govern the people who were flying 103 "legal", but not really legal", ultralights. The whole S-LSA is a side-product of the game.

I would find it hard to believe that when the rules were being put together for LSA that the powers to be didn't have the likes of Cessna et al in the room if not to at least comment on their take on producing (cheaper) planes under the LSA regs. I firmly believe it wasn't, by the time the regs came out, a by product and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Cessna et al were a driving force behind the LSA regs.

It's of no surprise when the entry level cost for new planes has skyrocketed combined with the increasing cost and existing complevity of gaining a PP certification that there was a push to lower the costs of each. LSA and Sport Pilot is the answer.

But in any case, there are some people who are willing to buy and fly them. Would I buy something like a Allegro, probably not. But, apparently they believe there is a market for it.

Taking the side that the Allegro is the bottom end of the LSA market in terms of cost and safety (devils advocate), I see it fitting perfeclty into the market. It is aimed for those folks who also gain their xertifications with the minimum amout of study and effort.

We all know of schools who put these doofi into the air with the bare minimum of training. Just enough to get them by the checkride, the orazl and the written. Do they have a clue to much more hell no. Would they look at an Allegro and say, wow, shabby, hell no. They got their PPL on the cheap, here's another cheap toy that they can strect their PP wings with.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I would find it hard to believe that when the rules were being put together for LSA that the powers to be didn't have the likes of Cessna et al in the room if not to at least comment on their take on producing (cheaper) planes under the LSA regs. I firmly believe it wasn't, by the time the regs came out, a by product and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Cessna et al were a driving force behind the LSA regs.

We all know of schools who put these doofi into the air with the bare minimum of training. Just enough to get them by the checkride, the orazl and the written. Do they have a clue to much more hell no. Would they look at an Allegro and say, wow, shabby, hell no. They got their PPL on the cheap, here's another cheap toy that they can strect their PP wings with.

Of course the manufacture's pushed to get the weight limit up, and they did sucessfully bring it up. IIRC, it started somewhere around 800-900 pounds, and got pushed up to 1323 pounds, or 1430 if you've got a seaplane.

Yeah, there are lots of schools who do the bare minimum of training. Lots of the "pilot mills" do such a thing. Heck, to some extent, I'd say where I go to school is like that, and they are "the Harvard of the skies" (which, I firmly believe is a joke).

 

[thepetrostate]

Of course the manufacture's pushed to get the weight limit up, and they did sucessfully bring it up. IIRC, it started somewhere around 800-900 pounds, and got pushed up to 1323 pounds, or 1430 if you've got a seaplane.

Are you inferring that by pushing the weight up the larger manufacturers gained advantage in the market? I can see that might be the case, at least the inexpensive planes built with bamboo and papier mache wouldn't compete.

Yeah, there are lots of schools who do the bare minimum of training. Lots of the "pilot mills" do such a thing. Heck, to some extent, I'd say where I go to school is like that, and they are "the Harvard of the skies" (which, I firmly believe is a joke).

I had a school owner tell me quite frankly that he could only keep his doors open by offering as little expense of man-hours, fuel and flight time as possible to the majority of his students. The market demanded it; Fly Now, Fly For Cheap, Die Soon. His competitors were doing it, compete or fold.

Now WTS he also has a "Harvard" opportunity for anyone who wants to get as much training as possible. It means training beyond the FAR requirement minimums, you know, to actually understand why you trim, wing aero, stupid things like that.

I call minimum training the Angelina Jolie course (with advanced apologies to Ms. Jolie-Pitt in case she is a serious pilot or wishes to lay me).

 

[thepetrostate]

i found a video review of the allegro on youtube and the fuel filler is below the pilot side door.

Like on of those UHaul 26' foot truck rentals.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Are you inferring that by pushing the weight up the larger manufacturers gained advantage in the market? I can see that might be the case, at least the inexpensive planes built with bamboo and papier mache wouldn't compete.

Absolutely. You think that we'd have nearly as many S-LSA's out there if the maximum operating weight for the planes was at or below 900 pounds? At that weight, there may have been a few new factory built airplanes, but it would have basically locked LSA's into kit building. It would have done nothing more than regulate a whole bunch of the "unregulated" part 103 ultralights.

 

[RJM62]

....

Like I said, I got a very bad first impression of LSA's from the Allegro, and it took a flight in the SportStar to show me that LSA's are quite capable of being really great airplanes. Most people probably wouldn't have come back for seconds.

I haven't flown the Allegro nor seen one close enough to have an opinion. But I have flown the Evektor SportStar and agree that it's a very nice, well-built little airplane. I like the Tecnam Sierra even more (although I have to admit to a sentimental attachment to the Sierra because I did my first solo in one). I consider both of these LSA to examples of how good airplanes built under the LSA standards can be.

But let's look at the two companies, Evektor and Tecnam. Both are major European manufacturers of certificated and military aircraft, not just LSA. Evektor is based in the Czech Republic, and Tecnam in Italy, both countries with deep roots in aviation and a ready supply of educated, skilled workers.

Longevity-wise, both companies have been around for a while: Evektor since 1991, and Tecnam since 1949. Tecnam's sole business is aircraft manufacturing; Evektor is involved in automobile manufacturing and other types of engineering, in addition to aviation.

In short, both companies are well-established and benefit from broader and deeper experience, established design and manufacturing facilities, and better financial stability than most newer LSA manufacturers. They also have longer-established reputations and deeper pockets than the average upstart LSA manufacturer -- both of which they need to protect.

-Rich

 

[bullwinkle]

The flip side of that of course is, that according to Chris Heintz, since we never found out what caused those failures, we still aren't sure that even with this fix set if the problem has been corrected. To this day he says there was no deficiency in the design, so if we don't know what the problem was, how do we know the problem was solved? It's a Catch-22 situation from which there is no escape. Until you know what the problem is, you can't know if you fixed it.

This is my issue as well.

And some of the things in the Heintz letter I found a little disturbing. In one part of the letter he talks about how the new fix makes the Zodiac "massively overbuilt" and in another section says that the new structure exceeds all ASTM design requirements by at least 6%. I'm sorry, I don't consider 6% over spec "massively overbuilt," I consider it more like "the minimum safety margin."

 

[tonycondon]

This is my issue as well.

And some of the things in the Heintz letter I found a little disturbing. In one part of the letter he talks about how the new fix makes the Zodiac "massively overbuilt" and in another section says that the new structure exceeds all ASTM design requirements by at least 6%. I'm sorry, I don't consider 6% over spec "massively overbuilt," I consider it more like "the minimum safety margin."

Welcome to aviation. 150% is the requirement. 151% means that you built it too heavy.

 

[thepetrostate]

This is my issue as well.

And some of the things in the Heintz letter I found a little disturbing. In one part of the letter he talks about how the new fix makes the Zodiac "massively overbuilt" and in another section says that the new structure exceeds all ASTM design requirements by at least 6%. I'm sorry, I don't consider 6% over spec "massively overbuilt," I consider it more like "the minimum safety margin."

Jay finds himself in a serious moral dilemma crossed with a financial one. He will need 1) to buy into "it is fixed" mentality and sell the plane, 2) superficially buy into the "it's fixed" mentality and sell the plane or 3) take the plane off the market and eat the loss and any consequences.

At this juncture, my take is that he is 1) or 2), which I don't know, only he does.

Personally, I am not buying into the "it's fixed" because no logic I see supports that. Others MMV.

 

[Trapper John]

Welcome to aviation. 150% is the requirement. 151% means that you built it too heavy.

Such is the difficult and thankless life of the Aero-E. I bet you guys go through lots of keyboards, what with all that sweat from your brows dripping on them!


Trapper John

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

But let's look at the two companies, Evektor and Tecnam. Both are major European manufacturers of certificated and military aircraft, not just LSA. Evektor is based in the Czech Republic, and Tecnam in Italy, both countries with deep roots in aviation and a ready supply of educated, skilled workers.

Totally agree. Many of the European LSA's have been around for a significant amount of time, while the American S-LSA's are all relatively new planes/companies, or re-designs of the J-3 in some way/shape/form. Not that there is anything wrong with the cub, its just that not everyone wants the tailwheel, and that they are probably impossible to rent at a competitive price.

I wish Tecnam would bring the P2002JR to the United States. It looks like it would be an excellent commercial trainer, at an affordable cost. But, in the long run, it would probably cost them too much to redesign it for Part 23, thus driving the cost up too much to sell it here competitively.

 

[Henning]

I would find it hard to believe that when the rules were being put together for LSA that the powers to be didn't have the likes of Cessna et al in the room if not to at least comment on their take on producing (cheaper) planes under the LSA regs. I firmly believe it wasn't, by the time the regs came out, a by product and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Cessna et al were a driving force behind the LSA regs.

You would be way wrong then my dear sir, and your beliefs unfounded.

LSA came about because the pt 103 "Training and Demonstration for Sale" provision was being abused by a minority percentage to take passengers and even haul rides for money. There was an operation out of Stockton CA that would haul rides off Lost Island (a boat up bar/island that's a major party spot in the summer) in the Delta, it was $25 for 15 minutes which, if it had actually been a demonstration for sale ride, would have been legal. Not sure how many sales that marketing program generated.... Many others were taking family and friends for rides in these higher power 2 seat variants of their proper 103 intended ultralight siblings. Well, as is wont to happen, people were getting killed. Now, all in all, the FAA could give a rats a$$ if you kill yourself. "Death by Misadventure" is a God given right and if it's not Constitutionally protected, it should be. Back in the day when you bought your Quicksilver for $2500 (that was with the HP 25hp Chrysler 2 stroke), spent a week assembling it, read the operations leaflet, put on your helmet and football pads and taught yourself to fly, the FAA was perfectly happy to let you to it, and in fact still is. Part 103 still exists in its intended form, personal flight in ultralight aircraft. I was 16 and nobody gave a crap and the old dudes on the bench at the airport would watch us and shake their heads, that was it. Lot's of people died, it was ok.
But then, passengers started getting killed, lawsuits happenned, Insurance Companies started paying out claims, Congress Critters received phone calls about how these expenses would eat into the funds available for campaign donations, and they got on the FAA. The FAA didn't really want to deal with this, they had been turning a blind eye to it. If you gave a winking at the letter of the rules they would do a Sgt Schultz. However, something else came up, International Standardization... This had been years in the progress, and aircraft certification is one of the standards subjects. While most of the world had a sub-certification, LSA type aircraft category, we did not. So we basically took the tenets of JAA LSA type and the input of the US light aviation community and created our S-LSA aircraft certification rules and SP Airman Certification process. I personally doubt that Cessna had much to say about it. With the R&D expense into this program it won't generate a profit for a long time. Most of what Cessna will get out of this program is a tax deduction to use against the profits on their jets, and some upgrade customers to their legacy aircraft.

When we adopted LSA and created the SP rules, the FAA was able to take the 2 seat exclusion out of 103, and if you wanted to take people up in your "fat ultralight", you had to get an SP certificate, and the instructors in them had to be CFI-SP or whatever they call it. Their aircraft also came under the most rudimentary of inspection and certification standards as E-LSA. Meeting that burden is not a great one since nearly anything even close to safe to fly will pass. LSA/SP killed 2 birds with one stone, an international mandate (which makes international certification of aircraft simpler), and got a sore out of their side by providing a solution to the "Fat Ultralight Passenger" issue with no real extra effort. They even threw a bone to the old codgers at the EAA and told them basically "You can fly till you die if you like" which made them happy...kinda... but have you ever seen a happy old man? Nah, me neither, they're always complaining about something, kids on the lawn, gubmint, gophers....whatever... They wanted to be able to fly their non LSA compliant aircraft until they failed a medical, then step down to an SP qualifying aircraft, but they didn't get that and it burns their butts.

The one thing the FAA DID NOT intend was to make aviation cheaper and more accessible. I don't know who dreamed that up, but that would be a negative consequnce to the FAA, it would mean more work. They didn't want more work except to make sure if you took an ultralight up with a passenger, you were certified to be safe in that type of aircraft. As far as the S-LSA, they're sooo hands off. They said "Use industry standards" even. But if they make them cheap and there are a lot of them, they will become a nuisance and create more work which means arguing with Congress for more money, and that cuts into coffee break time and may reduce the funds for the breakroom donuts.

 

[flyersfan31]

The one thing the FAA DID NOT intend was to make aviation cheaper and more accessible. I don't know who dreamed that up, but that would be a negative consequnce to the FAA, it would mean more work. They didn't want more work except to make sure if you took an ultralight up with a passenger, you were certified to be safe in that type of aircraft. As far as the S-LSA, they're sooo hands off. They said "Use industry standards" even. But if they make them cheap and there are a lot of them, they will become a nuisance and create more work which means arguing with Congress for more money, and that cuts into coffee break time and may reduce the funds for the breakroom donuts.

I can't argue with that analysis. Sounds about right.

 

[wabower]

You would be way wrong then my dear sir, and your beliefs unfounded.

Most of what Cessna will get out of this program is a tax deduction to use against the profits on their jets, and some upgrade customers to their legacy aircraft.

Your second statement falls into the category of your opening statement. Public companies manage their businesses to generate earnings and cash flow. They are not looking to generate hard-dollar losses of any kind. Ever.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

The one thing the FAA DID NOT intend was to make aviation cheaper and more accessible. I don't know who dreamed that up, but that would be a negative consequnce to the FAA, it would mean more work. They didn't want more work except to make sure if you took an ultralight up with a passenger, you were certified to be safe in that type of aircraft. As far as the S-LSA, they're sooo hands off. They said "Use industry standards" even. But if they make them cheap and there are a lot of them, they will become a nuisance and create more work which means arguing with Congress for more money, and that cuts into coffee break time and may reduce the funds for the breakroom donuts.

My money is on EAA and AOPA as the leading contributor's to running the light sport is cheaper marketing tag. Perhaps the manufacture's jumped on board, once they saw EAA/AOPA run with it, but they sure didn't invent it.

 

[Geico266]

My money is on EAA and AOPA as the leading contributor's to running the light sport is cheaper marketing tag. Perhaps the manufacture's jumped on board, once they saw EAA/AOPA run with it, but they sure didn't invent it.

Don't throw AOPA into the same sentence with EAA when it comes to light sport getting approved. AOPA was dead set against LSA and tried to keep the old "Recreational" Pilot License as the light sport license requiring a 3rd class medical. Only after EAA had gotten the approval process to where in was inevitable did AOPA get on board the SLA bandwagon.

 

[bbchien]

I would find it hard to believe that when the rules were being put together for LSA that the powers to be didn't have the likes of Cessna et al in the room if not to at least comment on their take on producing (cheaper) planes under the LSA regs. I firmly believe it wasn't, by the time the regs came out, a by product and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Cessna et al were a driving force behind the LSA regs.

You sir are badly misinformed. Read Henning's post. He's right on point.

And, the final boost to 1320 pounds was brought about by the manufacturers to the Smal Airplane Directorate, who demonstrated that at 1200 there were numerous things they could not do- like dual spar load paths, etc.

Cessna also was thinking "this is going noplace" which is why they are late to the table.

 

[tdager]

Well, that's always the question with an lsa, where do you save the weight?

Which shows the absurdity of the current weight limits.

 

[Trapper John]

Which shows the absurdity of the current weight limits.

Exactly. You know there's just no way a person trained as a Sport Pilot could possibly handle big iron like a 1,600 lb C150 safely! Not to mention a 1,950 lb Cherokee 140...

No, it's much better to shave down structure to stay at 1,320 lb than to expose the world to the carnage that would surely result by letting people fly proven, sturdy and docile aircraft! Ugh.


Trapper John

 

[N801BH]

LSA has a important role in aviation.

It brings people into aviation that might not otherwise get bit by the flying bug. Hopefully those people enjoy it and with the two seat limitation there is a good chance they will expose someone else to flight and that "new" person might get bit by the bug.. So goes the addiction process... One person feeds the next his fix.. Does the LSA have some shortcoming ?
You bet.

Does it help perpetuate aviation ? Like nothing before it... Well, maybe the GI bill just after WW2, that did infuse the premier crop of pilots that are now retiring and to fill those ranks we need stimulation.. LSA seems to fit that bill..

Admit it guys and gals,, We are aviation addicts.. And there is NO cure.

My opinion only and please give me a few minutes to put on my Nomex flame suit.

Ben.

 

[Trapper John]

LSA has a important rule in aviation.

It brings people into aviation that might not otherwise get bit by the flying bug. Hopefully those people enjoy it and with the two seat limitation there is a good chance they will expose someone else to flight and that "new" person might get bit by the bug.. So goes the addiction process... One person feeds the next his fix.. Does the LSA have some shortcoming ?
You bet.

Does it help perpetuate aviation ? Like nothing before it... Well, maybe the GI bill just after WW2, that did infuse the premier crop of pilots that are now retiring and to fill those ranks we need stimulation.. LSA seems to fit that bill..

Admit it guys and gals,, We are aviation addicts.. And there is NO cure.

My opinion only and please give me a few minutes to put on my Nomex flame suit.

Ben.

Obviously the industry needs new pilots to survive, and LSA is one way to help that. But the industry also needs to realize that they are competing with a number of other activities for people's disposable income/recreation dollars. And at $100k plus for an LSA, that's going to exclude a lot of people from ownership. Sure you can say, well they can just rent, but a lot of people buy recreational things not just to use, but to also for the satisfaction of ownership and they like to wash and wax and tinker with them and admire them when they're not actually using it. And I know I'm pushing a regulatory rope here, but there are a lot of perfectly safe existing 2-seat aircraft that don't make the LSA cut but could be purchased for $20,000 to $30,000 which is right in the range of things like bass boats, classic cars, dressed-out motorcycles and the like.


Trapper John

 

[dmccormack]

And I know I'm pushing a regulatory rope here, but there are a lot of perfectly safe existing 2-seat aircraft that don't make the LSA cut but could be purchased for $20,000 to $30,000 which is right in the range of things like bass boats, classic cars, dressed-out motorcycles and the like.


Trapper John

Bingo.

Keep the price <30k and there will be an expansion of the market.

The problem is -- who can manufacture an airplane for that price?

My Chief sold for $1700 in 1940 (included instruction).

My guess is the liability burden on the cost was nil.

 

[EppyGA]

Obviously the industry needs new pilots to survive, and LSA is one way to help that. But the industry also needs to realize that they are competing with a number of other activities for people's disposable income/recreation dollars. And at $100k plus for an LSA, that's going to exclude a lot of people from ownership. Sure you can say, well they can just rent, but a lot of people buy recreational things not just to use, but to also for the satisfaction of ownership and they like to wash and wax and tinker with them and admire them when they're not actually using it. And I know I'm pushing a regulatory rope here, but there are a lot of perfectly safe existing 2-seat aircraft that don't make the LSA cut but could be purchased for $20,000 to $30,000 which is right in the range of things like bass boats, classic cars, dressed-out motorcycles and the like.


Trapper John

There are LSA available in that price range. Just like most people in GA don't run out and lay down $300,000+ on a new plane and instead buy a 30+ year old 172 to go flying. Nothing says you have to run out and buy a new Skycatcher, Tecnam, Remos, Flight Design, etc.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Don't throw AOPA into the same sentence with EAA when it comes to light sport getting approved. AOPA was dead set against LSA and tried to keep the old "Recreational" Pilot License as the light sport license requiring a 3rd class medical. Only after EAA had gotten the approval process to where in was inevitable did AOPA get on board the SLA bandwagon.

I wasn't. I'm saying that after it was approved, AOPA saw it as a way to make flying cheaper. And, in some ways it does. But not as many as the marketing people would like to make you think.

 

[Trapper John]

There are LSA available in that price range. Just like most people in GA don't run out and lay down $300,000+ on a new plane and instead buy a 30+ year old 172 to go flying. Nothing says you have to run out and buy a new Skycatcher, Tecnam, Remos, Flight Design, etc.

What kind of aircraft specifically designed as an LSA can you buy for $30,000 that doesn't involve a parachute and shopping cart wheels?


Trapper John

 

[wabower]

What kind of aircraft specifically designed as an LSA can you buy for $30,000 that doesn't involve a parachute and shopping cart wheels?


Trapper John

Where are the stone tablets that say "specifically designed" is part of the equation? If they qualify, they qualify.

 

[Trapper John]

Where are the stone tablets that say "specifically designed" is part of the equation? If they qualify, they qualify.

Yeah, I understand that. I've seen the list of pre-LSA designs that qualify as LSAs and there are some nice choices, like certain Champs, Chiefs and Cubs.


Trapper John

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

What kind of aircraft specifically designed as an LSA can you buy for $30,000 that doesn't involve a parachute and shopping cart wheels?


Trapper John

You could probably build a Challenger II for that price. Or some other kit built deals, but you aren't finding an S-LSA for less than about $60,000. The fancy ones are probably all over $100,000. Sad, but true.