http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080424_affordable.html

On Apr 26, 7:13*pm, " > wrote:
> http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080424_affordable.html

Yeah real sad....but the tail has been waggin' the dog for a long time
now.

>> wrote:
>> http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080424_affordable.html

> wrote ...
> Yeah real sad....but the tail has been waggin' the dog for a long
> time now.

Not sure I get what you guys are implying ?!?

On Apr 27, 12:05 am, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080424_affordable.html
> > wrote ...
> > Yeah real sad....but the tail has been waggin' the dog for a long
> > time now.
>
> Not sure I get what you guys are implying ?!?

Perhaps it could be that EAA was founded to focus on the HOMEBUILDER
not the "order a kit and have a professional shop build your $500,000
pressurized monster for you"

The EAA seems to have forgotten what the E stands for.

It was always supposed to be about the joy of flight / affordable
aircraft. It seem shocking that they now have to go searching for
affordable airplanes

Oh Well its the best option we've got right now, The AOPA caters to
the money crowd and theres not really anybody else to go to bat for
the little guy right now

The EAA does try but somewhere along the way they changed from grass
roots organization to big business. Oshkosh brings in a lot of money
and it too tempting to leave on the table and get back to your roots

Later

Larry

wrote:
>
> Perhaps it could be that EAA was founded to focus on the HOMEBUILDER
> not the "order a kit and have a professional shop build your $500,000
> pressurized monster for you"
>
> The EAA seems to have forgotten what the E stands for.

I don't think they forgot - just changed a bit.

Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.

cavelamb himself > wrote:
> Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.

Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?

wrote:
> Perhaps it could be that EAA was founded to focus on the HOMEBUILDER
> not the "order a kit and have a professional shop build your $500,000
> pressurized monster for you"

Seriously, what percentage of finished experimentals fall into that
category?

> It was always supposed to be about the joy of flight / affordable
> aircraft. It seem shocking that they now have to go searching for
> affordable airplanes

At about what price point would you define "afforable aircraft?"

Jim Logajan wrote:
> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>
>>Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.
>
>
> Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?
>
> Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already made.


Richard

Ok so I took a bit of poetic license But you have to admit the
majority of the displays at Oshkosh are for airplanes costing over
$100,000 Hell I'm building a 601XL from a kit, and the Factory built
LSA version from AMD is around $80,000


It's impossible to bring the recreational discretionary income dollars
to the sport with entry costs that high, and thus we have no next
generation coming up in aviation

For reference the typical toys Americans spend their Recreational
Discretionary dollars are Boats ( saw really nice one at Bass Pro a
couple of weeks ago for less then $30,000. Campers / Trailers Same or
lower price range Motorcycles, classic cars, snow mobiles the list
goes on.....

Its just very difficult to get new people into aviation and to get the
sales up enough to lower costs with an entry price of $80,000

Yes I know UL types cost less but these are perceived by the general
public as the domain of the daredevil and don't really help up get new
blood into the sport. Not everybody is gonna build their own either

You wanna see an explosion in sales Gimme a $40,000 RTF enclosed
cabin metal 100 MPH airplane and I'll show you the revolution

Its just my opinion i would be happy to be wrong if it would mean more
people would get exposed to flying

Later

Larry

On Apr 27, 5:58 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Perhaps it could be that EAA was founded to focus on the HOMEBUILDER
> > not the "order a kit and have a professional shop build your $500,000
> > pressurized monster for you"
>
> Seriously, what percentage of finished experimentals fall into that
> category?
>
> > It was always supposed to be about the joy of flight / affordable
> > aircraft. It seem shocking that they now have to go searching for
> > affordable airplanes
>
> At about what price point would you define "afforable aircraft?"

cavelamb himself > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>
>>>Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.
>>
>>
>> Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?
>>
>> Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?
>
>
> Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already made.

That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.

I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being taken to
task for a situation not of its making?

wrote:
> Ok so I took a bit of poetic license But you have to admit the
> majority of the displays at Oshkosh are for airplanes costing over
> $100,000 Hell I'm building a 601XL from a kit, and the Factory built
> LSA version from AMD is around $80,000

Well, there are a couple RTF planes that don't look like ultralights that
cost under $80k, though not by much:

http://www.tampabayaerosport.com/ApolloFox.html

$69k RTF - even includes BRS at that price.

And this:

http://www.interplaneaircraft.com/skyboy.htm

~$60k RTF.

> For reference the typical toys Americans spend their Recreational
> Discretionary dollars are Boats ( saw really nice one at Bass Pro a
> couple of weeks ago for less then $30,000. Campers / Trailers Same or
> lower price range Motorcycles, classic cars, snow mobiles the list
> goes on.....

When a new engine of sufficient HP and acceptability costs $18k and up,
it is tough to fit a whole new RTF plane under $30k!

> You wanna see an explosion in sales Gimme a $40,000 RTF enclosed
> cabin metal 100 MPH airplane and I'll show you the revolution

Maybe. Such a price point might do it.

> Its just my opinion i would be happy to be wrong if it would mean more
> people would get exposed to flying

I've done some admittedly crude estimates and I suspect it would be
possible to build and ship a RTF S-LSA hot-air airship (with a few novel
concepts) for under $35k, but I don't know if anyone here considers that
proper "flying". Great for sight seeing and touring, and probably could
be flown from large enough yards (save on hangar and even tie-down fees -
and the need for land transport to/from the airport), but at a top speed
of maybe 40 to 50 mph, not really viable for long distance transportation
(unless of course one has the time and is willing to take a few weeks to
go low-and-slow over the U.S.).

The thing about airships is that an engine loss doesn't translate into
the need to land "right now". So I suspect one can save some money there
by accepting a bit more risk.

Jim Logajan wrote:

> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>
>>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>>cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.
>>>
>>>
>>>Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?
>>>
>>>Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?
>>
>>
>>Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already made.
>
>
> That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.
>
> I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being taken to
> task for a situation not of its making?


I don't remember the ELSA rules being that way.

Any project can qualify as ELSA if it meets the
weight and performance criteria.

Maybe I got that wrong?

Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

cavelamb himself > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>
>>>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>
>>>>cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?
>>>>
>>>>Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already
>>>made.
>>
>>
>> That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.
>>
>> I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being
>> taken to task for a situation not of its making?
>
>
> I don't remember the ELSA rules being that way.
>
> Any project can qualify as ELSA if it meets the
> weight and performance criteria.
>
> Maybe I got that wrong?

I suspect that we are both wrong. As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.

Anyway, maybe I don't have the history right, but didn't the whole xLSA
concept originate with the EAA? I mean they basically managed to find a
way to get the FAA to adopt something less than the normal full
certification process for a class of RTF aircraft. And for a new class of
pilots - lowering the barrier there - or trying. Not perfect but I'm not
sure it is fair to fault them for any aspect of a decline of experimental
aviation.

"Jim Logajan" > wrote:
.. . . > As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
> it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
> has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
> performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
> according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
> that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
> technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
> ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.

You keep repeating "kit" as if it is something magical. The EAA started out
with guys building airplanes - not assembling kits.

The revolution in homebuilding came in the guise of a Vari-EZ. New
construction techniques allowed homebuilders to build their dreams in a more
reasonable time frame, albeit at a slightly higher cost for materials.
Instead of 4000 hours, the time was halved.

Now there is a new "sport" in the spotlight. Assembling an $80K quick build
is a long, long way from the roots. Yet, it is still easy to build a 140 mph
closed cockpit two-place monoplane with IFR capability and autopilot for
under $35K. Apparently the EAA thinks that such an animal is a rarity. How
quickly they forget.

That's what's "Kinda sad".

By the way, a buddy of mine is selling his almost-new Super Emeraude. In his
words:

***********************************************
If anyone is interested the aircraft has a gyro panel, 760D Terra radio and
transponder (AD complied) strobes, with nav lights, Nav Aid auto pilot, in
panel GPS, all leather interior, lyc 0-290G with less than 300 hours and 56
hours on the airframe. Covered with Ceconite, polyurethane paint, all new in
2003. Prop is a 3 blade Warp Drive. Aircraft cruises at 115MPH at 2400. It
also has a sliding canopy. I'm asking $21,500 Please mail inquiries to
. The aircraft is located at Midwest National Air center
(GPH) near Liberty Mo.
************************************************

I've seen his work and it's nice.

Rich S.

In article >,
"Rich S." > wrote:

> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
> . . . > As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
> > it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
> > has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
> > performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
> > according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
> > that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
> > technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
> > ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.
>
> You keep repeating "kit" as if it is something magical. The EAA started out
> with guys building airplanes - not assembling kits.
>
> The revolution in homebuilding came in the guise of a Vari-EZ. New
> construction techniques allowed homebuilders to build their dreams in a more
> reasonable time frame, albeit at a slightly higher cost for materials.
> Instead of 4000 hours, the time was halved.
>
> Now there is a new "sport" in the spotlight. Assembling an $80K quick build
> is a long, long way from the roots. Yet, it is still easy to build a 140 mph
> closed cockpit two-place monoplane with IFR capability and autopilot for
> under $35K. Apparently the EAA thinks that such an animal is a rarity. How
> quickly they forget.
>
> That's what's "Kinda sad".

The public has changed since the EAA was originally formed. More people
had the wood- and metal-working skills to build an aircraft from plans.

Some still do, but fewer, at least as a percentage of the market, obtain
and maintain those skills.

This has got to have an effect on the market/hobby.

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
>
> The public has changed since the EAA was originally formed. More people
> had the wood- and metal-working skills to build an aircraft from plans.
>
> Some still do, but fewer, at least as a percentage of the market, obtain
> and maintain those skills.
>
> This has got to have an effect on the market/hobby.

The whole concept of the amateur-built, experimental category revolves
around the development of those skills. Other certification categories exist
for those who want to purchase a ready-to-fly airplane.

The whole (original) concept of the EAA was to provide support for the
amateur-built, experimental builders and flyers.

That's another thing that makes EAA's search for "budget" ideas and aircraft
"kinda sad". Maybe they should look in the Sport Aviation archives?

Rich S.

"Rich S." > wrote

about a guy selling his plane:
> I'm asking $21,500 Please mail inquiries to
> . The aircraft is located at Midwest National Air center
> (GPH) near Liberty Mo.
> ************************************************
>
> I've seen his work and it's nice.

It shouldn't last long, at that price, I would think.
--
Jim in NC

In article >,
"Rich S." > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The public has changed since the EAA was originally formed. More people
> > had the wood- and metal-working skills to build an aircraft from plans.
> >
> > Some still do, but fewer, at least as a percentage of the market, obtain
> > and maintain those skills.
> >
> > This has got to have an effect on the market/hobby.
>
> The whole concept of the amateur-built, experimental category revolves
> around the development of those skills.

And I know people who, for example, hand weld rifle barrels from iron
stock, up to and including hand making the lock, stock, furniture and
all. (Some spectacularly beautiful work, too.)

A lot more that build their from parts supplied from vendors like Track
of the Wolf. Sort of like building a kit from Rans or similar vendors.

Most, of course, buy them complete, new or used.

> Other certification categories exist
> for those who want to purchase a ready-to-fly airplane.

Quite a jump from "plans-built" (assumes building from raw stock) to
"ready-to-fly". I suppose I wasn't clear enough differentiating between
the plans builder and the kit builder.

Wasn't even thinking of the "build it for me" market, frankly.

> The whole (original) concept of the EAA was to provide support for the
> amateur-built, experimental builders and flyers.

Which they still seem to be doing. If not strictly to everyone's liking.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich S." > wrote
> about a guy selling his plane:
>> I'm asking $21,500 Please mail inquiries to . The
>> aircraft is located at Midwest National Air center (GPH) near Liberty Mo.
>>
>> ************************************************
>>
>> I've seen his work and it's nice.
>
> It shouldn't last long, at that price, I would think.
> --
> Jim in NC

I'm surprised he's had it more than a couple of weeks. There are pictures of
it on the Yahoo Emerauders group, but you have to sign up and get approved
in order to see them. We've had to go to that because of spammers signing in
to the group, sending out a bunch of crap, and then disappearing.

I think I'll change the home page picture to one of Max's bird. That way a
guest can see it without having to go through the rigmarole. It'll take me a
couple of minutes to change. There! It's done. Contact Max if you want more
details. Jim - How do you like his Em?

You can find the home page (and Max's Emeraude picture) at:
http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/Emerauders/

Rich S.

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Rich S." > wrote:

> Wasn't even thinking of the "build it for me" market, frankly.
>
>> The whole (original) concept of the EAA was to provide support for the
>> amateur-built, experimental builders and flyers.
>
> Which they still seem to be doing. If not strictly to everyone's liking.

Which is, of course, a bit off of the OP's point about the EAA's seeming
ignorance of aircraft costing less than a King's ransom. My fault, as I
drifted along. :)

I'll go back and read the original post to refresh my ancient mind as to the
subject of the discussion.

Rich S.

In article >,
"Rich S." > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Rich S." > wrote:
>
> > Wasn't even thinking of the "build it for me" market, frankly.
> >
> >> The whole (original) concept of the EAA was to provide support for the
> >> amateur-built, experimental builders and flyers.
> >
> > Which they still seem to be doing. If not strictly to everyone's liking.
>
> Which is, of course, a bit off of the OP's point about the EAA's seeming
> ignorance of aircraft costing less than a King's ransom. My fault, as I
> drifted along. :)

I thought we was supposed to drift. Nice warm afternoon, in the kayak,
in the shade...

> I'll go back and read the original post to refresh my ancient mind as to the
> subject of the discussion.

Somehow, what sticks in my mind was someone's statement that the costs
of homebuilt aircraft kits (and S-LSA aircraft) had gotten so expensive
that pre-retired persons were going to be able to afford them, and we'd
never see any of the more recent generation(s) entering GA.

And I'm wondering why all the old, but still flyable/refurbishable,
Champs, T-Craft, and similar used experimentals had suddenly disappeared.

At least, they *used* to fill the gap between ultralights and commercial
ready-to-fly offerings.

> wrote in message ...
On Apr 26, 7:13 pm, " > wrote:
> http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080424_affordable.html

Yeah real sad....but the tail has been waggin' the dog for a long time
now.


The C-172A cost us ~25,000, plus all the annual costs, etc...

"Rich S." > wrote

> Jim - How do you like his Em?
>
> You can find the home page (and Max's Emeraude picture) at:
> http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/Emerauders/

Dang nice. If I could get a full medical, I would FIND a way to buy it.
--
Jim in NC

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> On Apr 26, 7:13 pm, " > wrote:
> > http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080424_affordable.html
>
> Yeah real sad....but the tail has been waggin' the dog for a long time
> now.
>
>
> The C-172A cost us ~25,000, plus all the annual costs, etc...

I recall that the FBO that I worked for in the early '70s paid $20K for
a new Cherokee 140 to use for instruction. They bought a new Warrior,
slightly better equipped, four years later for about $104K.

It certainly wasn't *that* much nicer, either.

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?
>>>>>
>>>>>Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already
>>>>made.
>>>
>>>
>>> That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.
>>>
>>> I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being
>>> taken to task for a situation not of its making?
>>
>>
>> I don't remember the ELSA rules being that way.
>>
>> Any project can qualify as ELSA if it meets the
>> weight and performance criteria.
>>
>> Maybe I got that wrong?
>
> I suspect that we are both wrong. As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
> it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
> has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
> performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
> according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
> that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
> technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
> ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.
>
> Anyway, maybe I don't have the history right, but didn't the whole xLSA
> concept originate with the EAA? I mean they basically managed to find a
> way to get the FAA to adopt something less than the normal full
> certification process for a class of RTF aircraft. And for a new class of
> pilots - lowering the barrier there - or trying. Not perfect but I'm not
> sure it is fair to fault them for any aspect of a decline of experimental
> aviation.

Part of this has been discussed here a couple of times.

As I understand it, ELSA is a kit; but it is a special category of kit and
not in any way intended to fall into the 51% concept. Instead, an ELSA kit
is a kit version of an SLSA and must be built such as to be identical to the
original and factory assembled SLSA version. Basically, it is "assemble it
yourself" but it is not intended to be "build it yourself" and the SLSA
itself is certified to a lower standard than we are otherwise accustomed to
seeing--although, AFAIK, there is probably not much practical difference in
day VFR service.

However, any simple single piston engined aircraft which conforms to the
operating envelope and weight limits of LSA may be treated as an LSA by an
LSP--regardless of whether it is type certified, custom built, plans built,
or kit built (whether materials, quick build, prepunched, or whatever).

Therefore, LSA is simply a subset of single engined fixed gear aircraft,
based upon weight and operating envelope, and SLSA and ELSA are subsets of
LSA. I also had to read Ron W's explanations several times before I
fianally got it through my head that most of it reallys is pretty
simple--presuming that I now undertand it correctly.

Actually, the obvious remaining question (and it may be trivial in the
current scheme of things) is whether the builder of an Amateur Built
Experimental, which is expected to fall within the LSA specifications, can
make the initial flights as an LSP; or whether he would be required to have
a PPL or better in order to first demonstrate that the performance is within
the LSA performance envelope.

I hope this helps.

Peter

On 2008-05-02, Peter Dohm > wrote:
> the SLSA itself is certified to a lower standard than we are otherwise
> accustomed to seeing--although, AFAIK, there is probably not much
> practical difference in day VFR service.

I was told recently that the flight testing standards for an SLSA are 4
pages long, while the flight testing standards for a normal category part 23
certificated aircraft are 38 pages long.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

On Fri, 02 May 2008 01:03:38 GMT, Jay Maynard >
wrote:

> On 2008-05-02, Peter Dohm > wrote:
> > the SLSA itself is certified to a lower standard than we are otherwise
> > accustomed to seeing--although, AFAIK, there is probably not much
> > practical difference in day VFR service.
>
> I was told recently that the flight testing standards for an SLSA are 4
> pages long, while the flight testing standards for a normal category part 23
> certificated aircraft are 38 pages long.

Not really a fair comparison, since the ASTM Airplane standard only covers one
narrowly-defined type of aircraft, while Part 23 covers four broad categories
(Normal, Utility, Aerobatic, and Commuter) and covers aircraft with
constant-speed props, more than one engine, turbines, jets, etc.

My paper copy of 14CFR Part 23 has ~14 pages for the requirements for flight
characteristics; ASTM F2245-04 runs about two for the same topic.

Ron Wanttaja

"Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> Actually, the obvious remaining question (and it may be trivial in the
> current scheme of things) is whether the builder of an Amateur Built
> Experimental, which is expected to fall within the LSA specifications,
> can make the initial flights as an LSP; or whether he would be
> required to have a PPL or better in order to first demonstrate that
> the performance is within the LSA performance envelope.

That is something of a chicken-and-egg situation. Would like to know the
answer - in the mean time some speculation:

I believe FAR 61.31(k) (specifically 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B)) does not disallow
such flights by any certificated pilot per se. But obviously it isn't the
only operative FAR (such as the limitations of LSP).

Still, ss I understand it, 61.31(k) allows a private pilot, SEL, to fly
(for example) an experimental airship without having an airship rating.
Perhaps by the same line of reasoning a sport pilot may fly an experimental
aircraft that is not within the performance envelope of an LSA??

Hmmm.