Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:00:13 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:

> Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...

Are you getting your loan papers together?

--
Dallas

> > Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
>
> Are you getting your loan papers together?

Anyone else hear that CT -- the current LSA sales leader -- is
experiencing some real problems after a major structural break-up in
Europe? I was told that in Europe CTs are being speed-limited, and
are having their certification re-examined.

(I heard this through a third-party grapevine, so don't quote it as
accurate!)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Jul 10, 2:23 pm, Dallas > wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:00:13 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:
> > Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
>
> Are you getting your loan papers together?
>
> --
> Dallas

Not right this minute, but I'm hoping one or two migrate to a FBO here
in the PHX area. I'd love to try it out!

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Anyone else hear that CT -- the current LSA sales leader -- is
> experiencing some real problems after a major structural break-up in
> Europe? I was told that in Europe CTs are being speed-limited, and
> are having their certification re-examined.
>
> (I heard this through a third-party grapevine, so don't quote it as
> accurate!)

I wonder if this is the accident in question:

http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1075929&pagina_chiamante=corpo%3Dindex.php

Quoting from the article:

"It was around 11:45am of Saturday 23rd when a Flight Design CT-SW
airplane crashed during the performance, due to reasons still unknown,
causing the death of its pilot, Vittorio Magnani. The Saturday show has
been immediately stopped to let Carabinieri and the competent organs
investigate on the case.

A pilot commentary who was present says: "He dared beyond the limits of
the airplane's structure, thus provoking the in-flight breakdown of the
structure itself and the detachment of the aircraft's tail".

This was just a commentary of a pilot on the spur of the moment, not
coming from any official sources. We therefore refrain from making any
kind of commentary of our own.

Whichever might be the cause of this tragedy, it happened during a show
dedicated to pilots and audience and AVIONEWS joins the grief of the
dead pilot's family."

On Jul 10, 5:55 pm, Jay Beckman > wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2:23 pm, Dallas > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:00:13 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:
> > > Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
>
> > Are you getting your loan papers together?
>
> > --
> > Dallas
>
> Not right this minute, but I'm hoping one or two migrate to a FBO here
> in the PHX area. I'd love to try it out!
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZwww.pbase.com/flyingphotog

This should have a pretty significant impact on the cost of people
getting a license. If a brand new 172 goes for $110 to $130/hr then
one of the Cessna LSAs should be able to be rented for maybe $70/hr
with the lower fuel burn, cheaper plane, and lower insurance (2 seats
vs. 4). My guess is that the biggest impact of the new LSA airplanes &
license will be the fact that it provides a new generation of 2 seat
training aircraft that can be more economically used for training, and
that most of the training done in them will actually be people getting
their private rating vs a light sport rating. This will wind up being
the new generation of 152s or Tomahawks.

One of the issues with student starts has to be the fact that you
either wind up flying a relatively economical but old plane like a
20-30 year old 150/152 or you have to step up to a much more expensive
plane like a 172 to get anything new (I know that things like the
Alarus have been available, but not in the numbers that will happen
when Cessna Pilot Centers are required to each buy an LSA to keep
their affiliation). People have to really love planes to want to go
learn in a plane that looks worse than any car you would be willing to
rent (didn't stop me, but it probably stops a lot of people). The
combination of Cessna Pilot centers everywhere and a new trainer that
students won't be scared off by (either in pricing or appearance)
should lead to a lot more student starts for all ratings.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see where the Cessna LSA starts showing
up for rent, and for how much.

Eric Bartsch
1959 Pilatus P-3-05 A-848

Eric Bartsch wrote:
> On Jul 10, 5:55 pm, Jay Beckman > wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 2:23 pm, Dallas > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:00:13 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:
>>>> Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
>>> Are you getting your loan papers together?
>>> --
>>> Dallas
>> Not right this minute, but I'm hoping one or two migrate to a FBO here
>> in the PHX area. I'd love to try it out!
>>
>> Jay Beckman
>> PP-ASEL
>> Chandler, AZwww.pbase.com/flyingphotog
>
> This should have a pretty significant impact on the cost of people
> getting a license. If a brand new 172 goes for $110 to $130/hr then
> one of the Cessna LSAs should be able to be rented for maybe $70/hr
> with the lower fuel burn, cheaper plane, and lower insurance (2 seats
> vs. 4). My guess is that the biggest impact of the new LSA airplanes &
> license will be the fact that it provides a new generation of 2 seat
> training aircraft that can be more economically used for training, and
> that most of the training done in them will actually be people getting
> their private rating vs a light sport rating. This will wind up being
> the new generation of 152s or Tomahawks.

Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
made in the Chez republic...

http://www.evektoramerica.com/

> One of the issues with student starts has to be the fact that you
> either wind up flying a relatively economical but old plane like a
> 20-30 year old 150/152 or you have to step up to a much more expensive
> plane like a 172 to get anything new (I know that things like the
> Alarus have been available, but not in the numbers that will happen
> when Cessna Pilot Centers are required to each buy an LSA to keep
> their affiliation). People have to really love planes to want to go
> learn in a plane that looks worse than any car you would be willing to
> rent (didn't stop me, but it probably stops a lot of people). The
> combination of Cessna Pilot centers everywhere and a new trainer that
> students won't be scared off by (either in pricing or appearance)
> should lead to a lot more student starts for all ratings.
>
> Anyway, I'll be interested to see where the Cessna LSA starts showing
> up for rent, and for how much.
>
> Eric Bartsch
> 1959 Pilatus P-3-05 A-848
>

"Jim Stewart" > wrote

> Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
> It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
> made in the Chez republic...

Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.

I'll bet Cessna doesn't use a Rotax! <g>
--
Jim in NC

On Jul 10, 4:31 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Eric Bartsch wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 5:55 pm, Jay Beckman > wrote:
> >> On Jul 10, 2:23 pm, Dallas > wrote:
>
> >>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:00:13 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:
> >>>> Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
> >>> Are you getting your loan papers together?
> >>> --
> >>> Dallas
> >> Not right this minute, but I'm hoping one or two migrate to a FBO here
> >> in the PHX area. I'd love to try it out!
>
> >> Jay Beckman
> >> PP-ASEL
> >> Chandler, AZwww.pbase.com/flyingphotog
>
> > This should have a pretty significant impact on the cost of people
> > getting a license. If a brand new 172 goes for $110 to $130/hr then
> > one of the Cessna LSAs should be able to be rented for maybe $70/hr
> > with the lower fuel burn, cheaper plane, and lower insurance (2 seats
> > vs. 4). My guess is that the biggest impact of the new LSA airplanes &
> > license will be the fact that it provides a new generation of 2 seat
> > training aircraft that can be more economically used for training, and
> > that most of the training done in them will actually be people getting
> > their private rating vs a light sport rating. This will wind up being
> > the new generation of 152s or Tomahawks.
>
> Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
> It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
> made in the Chez republic...
>
> http://www.evektoramerica.com/
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I sat in one at the AOPA clambake last fall at Palm Springs. It's
seems really well built, comfy, great vis and can be very well
equipped. The dealer on hand flew this particular plane from Texas.
IIRC, the gentleman who climbed in and taxied it out for the Parade Of
Planes back to the airport was (putting it nicely) "a couple of
biscuits over average" and he didn't appear to be cramped or
uncomfortable at all.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:31:28 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> I was told that in Europe CTs are being speed-limited, and
> are having their certification re-examined.

That would be a shame as the CTs look great on paper.

--
Dallas

On Jul 10, 5:04 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Jim Stewart" > wrote
>
> > Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
> > It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
> > made in the Chez republic...
>
> Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.
>
> I'll bet Cessna doesn't use a Rotax! <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

IIRC, Cessna is going Continental (?)

Jay B

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:31:56 -0700, Jim Stewart wrote:

> Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
> It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
> made in the Chez republic...

Do they ferry those things across the Atlantic?


--
Dallas

("Jim Stewart" wrote)
> Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
> It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
> made in the Chez republic...


Oh wait, this one is made in the U.S. of A.

http://www.ionaircraft.com/update.html
I'm heading over to ION World Headquarters in 10 minutes.

Flight tests begin very, very soon.

Very ....soon.

Very.

Soon.

This plane will beat Cessna's LSA in:

1... Price
2... Speed
3... Cool factor :-)
4... Removable wings
5... VISIBILITY!
6... Cool factor, again :-)

I want to see the build times for ION #2 and ION #3.

Steve WILL NOT put a number out there yet. He disapproves of companies
promising things, then not delivering.

Personally, I think with proper support from ION World Headquarters, build
time will be...

(I'd better let Steve post that number - when he's sure!)


Paul-Mont
<NOT speaking for ION management>
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19770718,00.html
What? I didn't say anything. It's a story about airports, that's all. <g>

"Jay Beckman" > wrote

> I sat in one at the AOPA clambake last fall at Palm Springs. It's
> seems really well built, comfy, great vis and can be very well
> equipped. The dealer on hand flew this particular plane from Texas.
> IIRC, the gentleman who climbed in and taxied it out for the Parade Of
> Planes back to the airport was (putting it nicely) "a couple of
> biscuits over average" and he didn't appear to be cramped or
> uncomfortable at all.

It is wider than a 152, by 7 big inches, at 46 1/2 inches.

One of the other new LSA has a 49 1/2 inch wide cockpit, but I don't remember
which one.

I'll bet that Cessna's new LSA has a good width, to accommodate US pilot's
increased girths.
--
Jim in NC

Dallas wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:31:56 -0700, Jim Stewart wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
>> It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
>> made in the Chez republic...
>
> Do they ferry those things across the Atlantic?

They probably come over the same way my CT did,
wings off, 2-up in an ocean-going cargo container.

On Jul 10, 2:00 pm, Jay Beckman > wrote:
> Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZwww.pbase.com/flyingphotog

Thats really good news. I've not seen much about this plane, but a
"C-153" so to speak sounds like a good idea. In these days of high gas
prices, going smaller is the way to go. Actually I don't know what
they're going to call it, but I hope they go with C-153. Isn't that
basically what is it? An lighter (all though completely redesigned)
152?

Now if they'll only release details on the NGP...

("Jay Beckman" wrote)
> IIRC, the gentleman who climbed in and taxied it out for the Parade Of
> Planes back to the airport was (putting it nicely) "a couple of
> biscuits over average" and he didn't appear to be cramped or
> uncomfortable at all.


"a couple of biscuits over average"

I don't know what in the hell that even means?? :-))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUTJQIBI1oA
Ok, she needed an editor, but she put ...it all ...out there. <g>


Paul-Mont
Has to snow twice for me to get the drift

On Jul 10, 5:45 pm, buttman > wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2:00 pm, Jay Beckman > wrote:
>
> > Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
>
> > Jay Beckman
> > PP-ASEL
> > Chandler, AZwww.pbase.com/flyingphotog
>
> Thats really good news. I've not seen much about this plane, but a
> "C-153" so to speak sounds like a good idea. In these days of high gas
> prices, going smaller is the way to go. Actually I don't know what
> they're going to call it, but I hope they go with C-153. Isn't that
> basically what is it? An lighter (all though completely redesigned)
> 152?
>
> Now if they'll only release details on the NGP...

A couple of shots of it here in the Parade Of Planes at last fall's
AOPA convention in Palm Springs:

http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/image/70301772
http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/image/70301773

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

("Jay Beckman" wrote)
> A couple of shots of it here in the Parade Of Planes at last fall's AOPA
> convention in Palm Springs:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/image/70301772
> http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/image/70301773


That is so cool. How many planes participate in the parade each year?

http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/aopa_expo_2006
Palm Springs Parade of Planes


Paul-Mont

On Jul 10, 11:23 pm, "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...
> wrote:
> ("Jay Beckman" wrote)
>
> > A couple of shots of it here in the Parade Of Planes at last fall's AOPA
> > convention in Palm Springs:
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/image/70301772
> >http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/image/70301773
>
> That is so cool. How many planes participate in the parade each year?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/aopa_expo_2006
> Palm Springs Parade of Planes
>
> Paul-Mont

Basically, most of what was on display around the convention center
taxied down the street. There were a few prototypes that got
disassembled and trucked out and a few (mostly jets) probably stayed
put until much later at night and got towed out via tugs.

As you can see by the photos, some made your intrepid light gatherer
duck under passing wing tips.

Jay B

Jay,

> Anyone else hear that CT -- the current LSA sales leader -- is
> experiencing some real problems after a major structural break-up in
> Europe?

You are probably confusing this with Fläming Air and their Smaragd.

> I was told that in Europe CTs are being speed-limited,

The critical limit for ultralights in Germany is MTOW, not speed.

> are having their certification re-examined.

Fläming Air, not CT.

> (I heard this through a third-party grapevine, so don't quote it as
> accurate!)

Well, it doesn't stop everybody...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jim,

> Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
> It's called the Evektor SportStar.
>

Yes, but it doesn't carry the Cessna brand name.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:04:47 -0400, "Morgans"

>Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.


I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
engines. Why is this? They certainly seem to be popular with the
homebuilt and LSA crew. I have no experience with the aviation
versions.

-Nathan

Morgans wrote:
> "Jim Stewart" > wrote
>
>> Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
>> It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
>> made in the Chez republic...
>
> Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.
>
> I'll bet Cessna doesn't use a Rotax! <g>

Don't want a Rotax how about an O-200 in an IFR certified LSA.

http://www.newplane.com/amd/amd/601_SLSA/601.html

Nathan,

> I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
> engines. Why is this?
>

It's new. It's different. It's not "the way we have always done it".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:20:57 GMT, Nathan Young >
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:04:47 -0400, "Morgans"
>
>>Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.
>
>I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
>engines. Why is this? They certainly seem to be popular with the
>homebuilt and LSA crew. I have no experience with the aviation
>versions.

One reason: They don't like 100LL. They're approved (and certified) to operate
on it, but the lead forms an abrasive sludge that means the oil has to be
changed more frequently.

Not that big of a deal with a private owner, but an FBO won't like having to
take a rental off the line twice as often to change the oil. The solution is to
run unleaded car gas, but the FBOs would have to add the infrastructure to
manage it as well as 100LL. It's for this reason I suspect the production
version of Cessna's LSA will have a Continental or Lycoming.

I believe Diamond's original Katana was the first certified Rotax-powered
aircraft sold in the US. However, FBOs had enough problems that the
Continental-powered version replaced it.

Keep in mind, though, not all LSAs are using Rotaxes. The ones that come from
Europe do (where they have more a tradition of running on car gas), but the
Cub-clones made in the US don't.

Ron Wanttaja

> I wonder if this is the accident in question:
> http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=107...

I believe that is the one I heard about. The folks who told me about
this (not surprisingly) own the US distribution rights for several
other competing LSAs.

The story goes (supposedly) that upon investigation (again, this is in
Europe) it was found that the CT was never properly certified to the
structural required limits, and their entire certification is now in
question.

Having flown a CT last summer, I can vouch for the fact that it is an
awesome little plane, and it would truly be a shame if this hurt
them. It's always hard to sift the wheat from the chaff in these
stories, though. If anyone knows the straight dope, please post it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
> Keep in mind, though, not all LSAs are using Rotaxes. The ones that come
> from
> Europe do (where they have more a tradition of running on car gas), but
> the
> Cub-clones made in the US don't.


This is a sweet sounding engine, out on the ramp.

http://www.usjabiru.com/jabiru_3300.htm
120 hp Jabiru 3300 (100LL or 92+ mogas)

http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/3300.html
The Jabiru 3300 is a six-cylinder direct-drive air-cooled aircraft engine

http://www.ionaircraft.com/
ION Aircraft has the Jabiru in a pusher configuration


Paul-Mont
Off to ION World Headquarters this afternoon @ 2
(I think there might be wing polishing in my future...)

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Nathan,
>
> > I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
> > engines. Why is this?
> >
>
> It's new. It's different. It's not "the way we have always done it".

Maybe that's partly the reason. There are probably also some left-over bad
feelings about Rotax engines from their earlier days in ultralight
applications where failures were rather common and they developed somewhat
of a bad reputation for reliability and support.

BDS

Ron Wanttaja schrieb:

> One reason: They don't like 100LL.

Being designed to run on unleaded car gas is a disadvantage? Hilarious.
The world gets crazier every day.

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Wanttaja schrieb:
>
>> One reason: They don't like 100LL.
>
> Being designed to run on unleaded car gas is a disadvantage? Hilarious.
> The world gets crazier every day.

Yeah, it does: first, car gas has other nasties, and second, it's seldom
available at airports. What's more, the FAA gets really ****ed if you pull a
LSA up to a Conoco or Diamond Shamrock station.

They have absolutely NO sense of humor.

They're going with a O-200, not a rotax. Unless they changed their minds
again?

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Jim Stewart" > wrote
>
>> Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
>> It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
>> made in the Chez republic...
>
> Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.
>
> I'll bet Cessna doesn't use a Rotax! <g>

Different factors I guess. "everyone has heard of 2 stroke engine
stoppages", never mind the LSA's pretty much use the 4 stroke 9xx
series. The mechanics may be just afraid of having to learn new stuff
and buying metric tools.
The 4 stroke rotax engines are very economical and dependable. I would
imagine that Cessna may bring back the rotax version LSA in the future.

Nathan Young wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:04:47 -0400, "Morgans"
>
>> Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.
>
>
> I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
> engines. Why is this? They certainly seem to be popular with the
> homebuilt and LSA crew. I have no experience with the aviation
> versions.
>
> -Nathan
>

In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>Yeah, it does: first, car gas has other nasties, and second, it's seldom
>available at airports. What's more, the FAA gets really ****ed if you pull a
>LSA up to a Conoco or Diamond Shamrock station.

James Bond did it. Why can't I?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Don't even get me started on the MCSEs I know. It's a miracle of
modern technology that some of these fsckwits still draw breath,
much less a paycheck. -- Marc Bowden

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>>Yeah, it does: first, car gas has other nasties, and second, it's seldom
>>available at airports. What's more, the FAA gets really ****ed if you pull
>>a
>>LSA up to a Conoco or Diamond Shamrock station.
>
> James Bond did it. Why can't I?
>

Because you can't kill them if they give you lip.

On 2007-07-10 14:55:36 -0700, Jay Beckman > said:

> On Jul 10, 2:23 pm, Dallas > wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:00:13 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:
>>> Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
>>
>> Are you getting your loan papers together?
>>
>> --
>> Dallas
>
> Not right this minute, but I'm hoping one or two migrate to a FBO here
> in the PHX area. I'd love to try it out!
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ
> www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

Glendale Aviation will probably be allowed to buy one this year and
they will probably be allowed to sell one to a customer this year. The
customer will have to go to Oshkosh with (what's his name, John?) with
a $10,000 deposit one week before the air show. You will probably camp
out, because all the hotel rooms are filled. Delivery will be in 2008
or 2010 or whenever.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-07-10 15:38:13 -0700, Eric Bartsch > said:

>>
>
> This should have a pretty significant impact on the cost of people
> getting a license. If a brand new 172 goes for $110 to $130/hr then
> one of the Cessna LSAs should be able to be rented for maybe $70/hr
> with the lower fuel burn, cheaper plane, and lower insurance (2 seats
> vs. 4).

You hit it right on the head. That is how much we will rent it for at
PAVCO. We will get at least one, maybe two. They will be a great
replacement for our 152s, which are getting a little long in the tooth.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-07-10 17:45:35 -0700, buttman > said:

> On Jul 10, 2:00 pm, Jay Beckman > wrote:
>> Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
>>
>> Jay Beckman
>> PP-ASEL
>> Chandler, AZwww.pbase.com/flyingphotog
>
> Thats really good news. I've not seen much about this plane, but a
> "C-153" so to speak sounds like a good idea. In these days of high gas
> prices, going smaller is the way to go. Actually I don't know what
> they're going to call it, but I hope they go with C-153. Isn't that
> basically what is it? An lighter (all though completely redesigned)
> 152?
>
> Now if they'll only release details on the NGP...

I think they are just going to call it Cessna LSA. C-153 would be all
right with me, though.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-07-10 14:00:13 -0700, Jay Beckman > said:

> Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ
> www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

This plane will be sold out before Oshkosh. They will exhibit the
prototype, but the entire production will have been sold a week before.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-07-10 15:38:13 -0700, Eric Bartsch > said:
>
>>>
>>
>> This should have a pretty significant impact on the cost of people
>> getting a license. If a brand new 172 goes for $110 to $130/hr then
>> one of the Cessna LSAs should be able to be rented for maybe $70/hr
>> with the lower fuel burn, cheaper plane, and lower insurance (2 seats
>> vs. 4).
>
> You hit it right on the head. That is how much we will rent it for at
> PAVCO. We will get at least one, maybe two. They will be a great
> replacement for our 152s, which are getting a little long in the
> tooth.

Most of the guys renting LSA aircraft so far have them set at ~$100.00 and
some more. The ones I've looked at are all small operation though and they
might not have the volume to support them at lower rates.

C,

> You hit it right on the head. That is how much we will rent it for at
> PAVCO.
>

You know what the Cessna LSA will cost? Otherwise, how would you arrive
at a rental price?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>>> This should have a pretty significant impact on the cost of people
>>> getting a license. If a brand new 172 goes for $110 to $130/hr then
>>> one of the Cessna LSAs should be able to be rented for maybe $70/hr
>>> with the lower fuel burn, cheaper plane, and lower insurance (2 seats
>>> vs. 4).
>>
>> You hit it right on the head. That is how much we will rent it for at
>> PAVCO. We will get at least one, maybe two. They will be a great
>> replacement for our 152s, which are getting a little long in the
>> tooth.
>
> Most of the guys renting LSA aircraft so far have them set at ~$100.00 and
> some more. The ones I've looked at are all small operation though and they
> might not have the volume to support them at lower rates.

I pay $80.00 for a Zodiac at Lantana, FL. That same operation gets $75.00
for a 152 that I also fly often. Although I would love to see it, I don't see
how they will be able to rent a $100,000+ Cessna LSA for less than they now
charge for a $40,000 (generous estimate) 152.


>
>

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:04:47 -0400, "Morgans"
>
>>Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.
>
>
> I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
> engines. Why is this? They certainly seem to be popular with the
> homebuilt and LSA crew. I have no experience with the aviation
> versions.
>
> -Nathan
>

And they seem to power the predators OK...

Blueskies wrote:
> "Nathan Young" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:04:47 -0400, "Morgans"
>>
>>> Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.
>>
>> I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
>> engines. Why is this? They certainly seem to be popular with the
>> homebuilt and LSA crew. I have no experience with the aviation
>> versions.
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>
> And they seem to power the predators OK...

I'd be interested to know what the problem is
as well... The 80 or so hours I've logged behind
them have been totally without issue. No mixture
control, no need for carb heat. The engine seems
more like a big electric motor with a speed control
than a gas engine.

Just to be clear, we're talking about the
4-stroke water-cooled 912, not a 2-stroke.

Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

>One reason: They don't like 100LL. They're approved (and certified) to operate
>on it, but the lead forms an abrasive sludge that means the oil has to be
>changed more frequently.
>
>Not that big of a deal with a private owner, but an FBO won't like having to
>take a rental off the line twice as often to change the oil.

The Rotax specified oil change interval if you run unleaded is 100
hours. If you use 100LL, it is 50 hours.

They're reasonably specific about what type of oil to use though - the
best seems to be semi-synthetic motorcycle oil. Full synthetic is also
a no-no if you're using 100LL.

What is the typical oil change interval for a Lycoming or Continental?
--
Andrew Rowley

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:04:40 +0200, Stefan > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja schrieb:
>
>> One reason: They don't like 100LL.
>
>Being designed to run on unleaded car gas is a disadvantage? Hilarious.
>The world gets crazier every day.

It's certainly a disadvantage if unleaded car gas isn't available at the
airport.

We've got one airport locally that sells mogas. Last year a local LSA dealer
asked the local pilots to petition the supplier to change to PREMIMUM unleaded
instead of regular unleaded. Turns out the line of plane he was selling
required premium. The guy didn't care that it would run everyone ELSE'S costs
up; he was desperate for his customers to avoid leaded fuel.

Ron Wanttaja

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:06:54 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>>Yeah, it does: first, car gas has other nasties, and second, it's seldom
>>available at airports. What's more, the FAA gets really ****ed if you pull a
>>LSA up to a Conoco or Diamond Shamrock station.
>
>James Bond did it. Why can't I?

'Cause you don't own a tuxedo.

Besides, if I remember that movie, the airport was in the Caribbean (e.g., not
on US soil).

Ron Wanttaja

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:20:48 +1000, Andrew Rowley > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
>>One reason: They don't like 100LL. They're approved (and certified) to operate
>>on it, but the lead forms an abrasive sludge that means the oil has to be
>>changed more frequently.
>>
>>Not that big of a deal with a private owner, but an FBO won't like having to
>>take a rental off the line twice as often to change the oil.
>
>The Rotax specified oil change interval if you run unleaded is 100
>hours. If you use 100LL, it is 50 hours.
>
>They're reasonably specific about what type of oil to use though - the
>best seems to be semi-synthetic motorcycle oil. Full synthetic is also
>a no-no if you're using 100LL.
>
>What is the typical oil change interval for a Lycoming or Continental?

Typically 50 hours if the engine mounts a filter, 25 hours if it doesn't. It's
just that whole "abrasive sludge" thing, especially as it's getting into the
gearbox.

The fact is, Diamond initially sold the Katana with the Rotax (DA-20), then
apparently offered a upgraded 100 HP Rotax conversion (DA-20-A1), then finally
abandoned the Rotax for a Continental in the DA-20-C1. Certainly some FBOs
would be biased against the Rotax as something new, but I think if the promised
fuel and maintenance savings had come true, it would have overcome that.

Most of the homebuilders with 912s seem to like them; my own analysis of
homebuilt crashes shows the four-stroke Rotaxes are about as reliable as more
traditional engines. But there's a difference between fifty hours per year vs.
fifty hours per month.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron,

> The fact is, Diamond initially sold the Katana with the Rotax (DA-20), then
> apparently offered a upgraded 100 HP Rotax conversion (DA-20-A1), then finally
> abandoned the Rotax for a Continental in the DA-20-C1.

Yeah, but why? Pure market acceptance problems in the US. They continued to sell
the Rotax variant in Europe.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Blueskies wrote:
> "Nathan Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:04:47 -0400, "Morgans"
>>
>>> Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.
>>
>>
>> I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
>> engines. Why is this? They certainly seem to be popular with the
>> homebuilt and LSA crew. I have no experience with the aviation
>> versions.
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>
> And they seem to power the predators OK...

That's a good point. There are going to be some very expereinced Rotax
mechanics coming out on the market because of that.

In a previous article, said:
>On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:06:54 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
>Tomblin) wrote:
>>In a previous article, "Matt Barrow" > said:
>>>Yeah, it does: first, car gas has other nasties, and second, it's seldom
>>>available at airports. What's more, the FAA gets really ****ed if you pull a
>>>LSA up to a Conoco or Diamond Shamrock station.
>>
>>James Bond did it. Why can't I?
>
>'Cause you don't own a tuxedo.

But I have a license to "kill -9".

(Geek joke. Sorry.)


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Orcs killed: none. Disappointing. Stubble update: I look rugged and
manly. Yes! Keep wanting to drop-kick Gimli. Holding myself back. Still
not King." - the very secret diary of Aragorn son of Arathron

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>We've got one airport locally that sells mogas. Last year a local LSA dealer
>asked the local pilots to petition the supplier to change to PREMIMUM unleaded
>instead of regular unleaded. Turns out the line of plane he was selling
>required premium. The guy didn't care that it would run everyone ELSE'S costs
>up; he was desperate for his customers to avoid leaded fuel.
>

If the airport can sell more gas by selling premium instead of regular
unleaded, then they'd probably go that route. More and more of the Rotax
powered LSAs need premium, as does anyone flying with a 91 octane STC.
Unleaded premium might be the default autofuel of the future.

John Galban

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200707/1

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:48:37 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe>
wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>>We've got one airport locally that sells mogas. Last year a local LSA dealer
>>asked the local pilots to petition the supplier to change to PREMIMUM unleaded
>>instead of regular unleaded. Turns out the line of plane he was selling
>>required premium. The guy didn't care that it would run everyone ELSE'S costs
>>up; he was desperate for his customers to avoid leaded fuel.
>
> If the airport can sell more gas by selling premium instead of regular
>unleaded, then they'd probably go that route. More and more of the Rotax
>powered LSAs need premium, as does anyone flying with a 91 octane STC.
>Unleaded premium might be the default autofuel of the future.

Certainly, and that's the argument I made to the LSA dealer. But there was just
(apparently) one LSA ready to buy premium vs. the guys who, together, were
buying thousands of gallons of regular.

To the dealer's credit, he started taking action to get his home airport to sell
autofuel. Don't think he was successful, though.

Ron Wanttaja