Light Sport Aircraft for Private Pilots (Long)

[Jimbob]

Hi all.

I'm a current student pilot(PPSEL) and I have been reading up on the
new sport pilot/LSA stuff that has come about. My interest, like most
potential pilots, is to eventually own an aircraft, but that will be
several years down the road. However, the new Light Sport Aircraft
class caught my attention. I wanted to throw a few
observations/opinions out and get some comments.

When I was deciding to go for my certificate, the one of the things
that I weighed was the cost of aviation. Since the general pool of
pilots has been decreasing for a while, I didn't see much of a
possibility for prices to drop any time in the near future.

Generally, I see the issue as FAA certifications costs. Massive, to
say the least. Couple that with a lack of pilots to purchase
aircraft, preventing manufacturers from spreading those and other
tooling costs over a large volume.

Then I started reading up on the new sport pilot rules. I don't see a
rush of sport pilots in the near future, unless this thing gets pushed
by AOPA/EAA big time. Doubt it. I think they view it as a way to
bring ultralight pilots into the fold. However, this LSA thing
appears to have some serious promise for current private pilots.

From most of the pilots I've talked to, A LOTof their flying consists
of tooling around flying, usually involving themselves and maybe
another passenger. The quest for the $100 hamburger, etc. Hence, the
popularity of the Cenna 15X/17X and Piper 140 class airplanes. A
quick check of my local airfield showed roughly 70% in this class.

From what I am told, it seems that LSA can meet this need nicely. The
speeds are within range. It is my understanding that these aircraft
can be night and IFR certified as long as the pilot holds the
appropriate ratings. It is also my understanding that the owner could
self maintain after as little as 16 hours of training.

With the consensus standards, the initial prices for the airframes
will be much cheaper. The homebuilt companies appear to be already
chomping at the bit. I have seen some nice aircraft advertised for
much less than $80K. However, these prices are using FAA certified
engines and instruments. In the future, I would expect consensus
standard powerplants (Honda, perhaps?) and instruments. Some of the
nice homebuilt glass panels and FADEC systems may meet ASTM standards
in the near future and they cost a fraction of a G1000.

Given this, I'm pretty jazzed about this development. If things go
this way, I would expect sales of LSA's to rocket as current pilots
trade in their older, expensive to maintain A/C for newer, cheaper
ones.

Speculation: If this really takes off and the industry starts making
some money, could the FAA be pressured to expand speeds, weight limits
and # of seats. Include retracts? Maybe incorporate all
non-commercial A/C operations under the LSA rule? It may be far
fetched, but not outside the realm of possibility.

The only downside I can see is that the bottom may drop out of the
Cessna 152/172 - Piper 140 market.

And of course if Dateline runs a story about those new "dangerous
uncertified" airplanes.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:30:13 GMT, Jimbob > wrote:

>...In the future, I would expect consensus
>standard powerplants (Honda, perhaps?) and instruments. Some of the
>nice homebuilt glass panels and FADEC systems may meet ASTM standards
>in the near future and they cost a fraction of a G1000.

The consensus standard for the engines is out as well...it's all of three pages
long. The part I got the biggest kick out of? To meet the consensus standard,
an LSA must have an engine with the number of ignition systems equal to the
number of seats.

Anyway, the majority of the engine standard addresses establishing a TBO. A
company can either base the TBO on bench testing or on an engine installed in a
flying aircraft ("Fleet Leader").

>Speculation: If this really takes off and the industry starts making
>some money, could the FAA be pressured to expand speeds, weight limits
>and # of seats. Include retracts? Maybe incorporate all
>non-commercial A/C operations under the LSA rule? It may be far
>fetched, but not outside the realm of possibility.

I don't think we're likely to see this, but who knows? The program limits were
set based on the desire to minimize the forces involved in a crash. The FAA
published a pretty big press release at the time the program was instituted, and
they discuss the reasons for limiting the speed and carrying capacity.

>The only downside I can see is that the bottom may drop out of the
>Cessna 152/172 - Piper 140 market.

*If* the FAA bumps the limits of the rule high enough to cover the 150/152
range, these airplanes will be much more valuable. The trouble is, the LSA
definition covers few production type airplanes built since ~1955 or so.

>And of course if Dateline runs a story about those new "dangerous
>uncertified" airplanes.

....or one of the new manufacturers DOESN'T do the required substantiation and
lies about it on their certification application....

Ron Wanttaja

[Vaughn]

"Jimbob" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all.
>
> I'm a current student pilot(PPSEL) and I have been reading up on the
> new sport pilot/LSA stuff that has come about.

Welcome!

>My interest, like most
> potential pilots, is to eventually own an aircraft, but that will be
> several years down the road.

Good! That is about the soonest that we will be seeing any new airframes.

> When I was deciding to go for my certificate, the one of the things
> that I weighed was the cost of aviation. Since the general pool of
> pilots has been decreasing for a while, I didn't see much of a
> possibility for prices to drop any time in the near future.

I still don't.

> Generally, I see the issue as FAA certifications costs. Massive, to
> say the least. Couple that with a lack of pilots to purchase
> aircraft, preventing manufacturers from spreading those and other
> tooling costs over a large volume.

That is only part of the problem. Other problems include the small market
(compared to that for other major manufactured goods) and product liability.
>
> Then I started reading up on the new sport pilot rules. I don't see a
> rush of sport pilots in the near future, unless this thing gets pushed
> by AOPA/EAA big time. Doubt it.

Is it terrible to say that I do not have a great desire to experience a
glut of new lesser-trained pilots? New airplanes are another matter!

> I think they view it as a way to
> bring ultralight pilots into the fold.

They will be welcome.

>However, this LSA thing
> appears to have some serious promise for current private pilots.

I agree 100%
>It is also my understanding that the owner could
> self maintain after as little as 16 hours of training.

This could have a great effect on flying costs. On the other hand, a owner
who can sign off on his/her own annual would have an opportunity to defer needed
maintenance. This will have a negative effect on both safety and resale value.

>
> With the consensus standards, the initial prices for the airframes
> will be much cheaper.

This is yet to be seen.

> The homebuilt companies appear to be already
> chomping at the bit. I have seen some nice aircraft advertised for
> much less than $80K. However, these prices are using FAA certified
> engines and instruments. In the future, I would expect consensus
> standard powerplants (Honda, perhaps?)

After that big court decision ($96 million, Textron Lycoming) last week do
you really think that Honda would want anything to do with that market?

> and instruments. Some of the
> nice homebuilt glass panels and FADEC systems may meet ASTM standards
> in the near future and they cost a fraction of a G1000.

True. Do you think that they will last for 30 years like today's
instrument panels?

>
> Given this, I'm pretty jazzed about this development. If things go
> this way, I would expect sales of LSA's to rocket as current pilots
> trade in their older, expensive to maintain A/C for newer, cheaper
> ones.

I have been following aviation for the last 40 years. There have always
been hoards of cheap new GA aircraft on the horizon. I remain slightly hopeful,
but am no longer a believer.

>
> The only downside I can see is that the bottom may drop out of the
> Cessna 152/172 - Piper 140 market.

As a licensed non-owner pilot, I would not consider that altogether bad.
That said, the value of the 172 will never be impacted by today's LSA rules. If
you want an airplane that can really carry two normal-sized adults and their
luggage to a real place, the 152 is not your answer, and I doubt if any LSA will
be your answer; for that you need, at minimum, a plane in the 172 class. If you
don't believe me, just do a weight and balance on a real 152 (that has likely
gained 20 or 30 pounds since it has left the factory) and assume two 190#
passengers and full tanks.

As another poster noted. a slight change in the LSA ruling could
significantly improve the value of Cessna 15X planes, making flying that much
more expensive for us weekend renters.

Vaughn

[George Patterson]

Jimbob wrote:
>
> Speculation: If this really takes off and the industry starts making
> some money, could the FAA be pressured to expand speeds, weight limits
> and # of seats. Include retracts? Maybe incorporate all
> non-commercial A/C operations under the LSA rule? It may be far
> fetched, but not outside the realm of possibility.

Not a chance. The only way the FAA was convinced to relax the requirement for a
medical certificate was to convince the powers that be that an LSA can't do very
much damage when the pilot has a heart attack. Expand the size or speed of those
planes, and they'll start requiring medicals for that class.

George Patterson
He who tries to carry a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in
no other way.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:18:02 GMT, "Vaughn" >
wrote:

>"Jimbob" > wrote in message
...
<
> I agree 100%
>>It is also my understanding that the owner could
>> self maintain after as little as 16 hours of training.
>
> This could have a great effect on flying costs. On the other hand, a owner
>who can sign off on his/her own annual would have an opportunity to defer needed
>maintenance. This will have a negative effect on both safety and resale value.

I missed this item on the original posting.

Owners can do no more maintenance on a production-type LSA (technical term is
Special Light Sport Aircraft, or SLSA) than they can do now on any
production-type airplane (e.g., they can only perform preventative maintenance).

The FAA has instituted a new "mechanic's license"; a Repairman Certificate
called "Light Sport Maintenance" (LS-M). These individuals can perform all
maintenance and inspections on SLSAs. The minimum course length for the LS-M
repairman certificate for fixed-wing SLSAs is 120 hours. A&Ps can also perform
maintenance and all inspections on SLSAs.

There is another type of LSA aircraft certificate, called Experimental LSA
(ELSA). This category is for former two-seat ultralights and for LSAs
constructed from kits. The rules on this are similar to that of conventional
homebuilts. An owner of an ELSA can perform all maintenance on that aircraft,
just like owners of amateur-built aircraft can. No training is required.

However, where ELSA and Amateur-Built differ is in the annual inspection. The
builders of Amateur-Built aircraft can receive a Repairman Certificate to enable
them to perform the annual condition inspection on aircraft they built. This is
based on the assumption that, as the manufacturers of the aircraft, they are the
ones most knowledgeable about the plane.

There is no such program for ELSAs. Instead, the FAA has instituted another
repairman certificate, called Light Sport - Inspection (LS-I). After a 16-hour
course, an individual will be authorized to perform the annual inspection on any
ELSA that they own.

The key difference is the holder of an Amateur-Built aircraft repairman
certificate can only exercise the certificate on a specific plane that he built.
If he builds an RV-7, gets the repairman certificate, and later buys someone
else's completed RV-7, he *cannot* perform the condition inspection on that new
airplane. If they were ELSAs and he had the LS-I repairman certificate, he
could.

However, by regulation, the owner of a production LSA can convert it to ELSA.
If that happens, the plane is then covered by the ELSA rules...the owner can now
do all his own maintenance and, after taking the 16-hour LS-I course, do his own
annuals.

Note that Canada has had similar rules for several years, called the "Owner
Maintenance" Category.

SLSAs and ELSAs are simple aircraft...their maintenance shouldn't be too
complex. The developers of the aircraft are required to develop complete
maintenance manuals for their planes, too, which gives an amateur maintainer a
lot of help.

Finally, remember that aircraft that have already received their airworthiness
certificates *cannot* be converted to either LSA category. A Champ, for
instance, can be flown by a Sport Pilot since it meets the LSA definition, but
it cannot be re-licensed as a Special Light Sport Aircraft or an Experimental
Light Sport Aircraft. Maintenance rules for the Champs et al don't change.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jimbob]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:18:02 GMT, "Vaughn"
> wrote:

>
>"Jimbob" > wrote in message
...
>> Hi all.
>>
>> I'm a current student pilot(PPSEL) and I have been reading up on the
>> new sport pilot/LSA stuff that has come about.
>
> Welcome!

Thanks!

>> Generally, I see the issue as FAA certifications costs. Massive, to
>> say the least. Couple that with a lack of pilots to purchase
>> aircraft, preventing manufacturers from spreading those and other
>> tooling costs over a large volume.
>
> That is only part of the problem. Other problems include the small market
>(compared to that for other major manufactured goods) and product liability.

Product liabily is a large variable. Unfortunately it is hinged more
on marketing and public perception than law. Maybe tort reform will
fix this. I can't even being to speculate on the future direction
this takes with LSA.


>>It is also my understanding that the owner could
>> self maintain after as little as 16 hours of training.
>
> This could have a great effect on flying costs. On the other hand, a owner
>who can sign off on his/her own annual would have an opportunity to defer needed
>maintenance. This will have a negative effect on both safety and resale value.

Good point. However, I don't think an owner can sign off on the
inspection. That requires a different rating. He can just do the
maintenance required to bring it up to snuff. Therefore, there is a
little check and balance here.

(I could be wrong here.)

>
>>
>> With the consensus standards, the initial prices for the airframes
>> will be much cheaper.
>
> This is yet to be seen.

Given, since nothing has been delivered yet. But the companies are
taking preorders at reasonable prices. If they start losing their
shirts, things might change.

>
>> The homebuilt companies appear to be already
>> chomping at the bit. I have seen some nice aircraft advertised for
>> much less than $80K. However, these prices are using FAA certified
>> engines and instruments. In the future, I would expect consensus
>> standard powerplants (Honda, perhaps?)
>
> After that big court decision ($96 million, Textron Lycoming) last week do
>you really think that Honda would want anything to do with that market?
>

(I think the damnages will be reduced on appeal)

Yes, actually I do. I think Toyota is still toying with a GA plane and
Honda is working on the HondaJet. Commercial aviation is pretty
litigous, so think they would be prepared.

I would expect it work more like FlyBoys, inc has licensed honda
engine technology for use in GA. Some minimal liability protection,
but not much.


>> and instruments. Some of the
>> nice homebuilt glass panels and FADEC systems may meet ASTM standards
>> in the near future and they cost a fraction of a G1000.
>
> True. Do you think that they will last for 30 years like today's
>instrument panels?


Hard to say. Solid state electronics don't wear out as much as they
become obsolete. Sensors need to be replaced, etc. But compared to
truely mechanical devices like gyros, they could potentially have a
much longer life.

But if the price comes down enough, they wont have to.


>
> As another poster noted. a slight change in the LSA ruling could
>significantly improve the value of Cessna 15X planes, making flying that much
>more expensive for us weekend renters.
>

Maybe for a short speculative period, but not in the long term.

1) If the rule allowed more pilots to use it, but the number of pilots
was unchanged and no new planes enter the market, demand remains
constant. Therefore, the value would not change.

2) If the number of pilots increased without an increase in supply of
new cheap aircraft, then demand increases and supply remains fixed.
Their value would go up. i.e. increased interest in sportpilot.

3) However, if the rule changed, # of pilots remained fixed and there
were new competative products on the market that were more desireable
and cost effective, then their value would drop. i.e. LSA are released
on the market and they are cheaper to maintain.

The questions are; How interested are people in sportpilot and will
the new planes really hit the market? I see #3 personally.

[Jimbob]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:07:22 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:18:02 GMT, "Vaughn" >
>wrote:
>
>>"Jimbob" > wrote in message
...
><
>> I agree 100%
>>>It is also my understanding that the owner could
>>> self maintain after as little as 16 hours of training.
>>
>> This could have a great effect on flying costs. On the other hand, a owner
>>who can sign off on his/her own annual would have an opportunity to defer needed
>>maintenance. This will have a negative effect on both safety and resale value.
>
>I missed this item on the original posting.
>
>Owners can do no more maintenance on a production-type LSA (technical term is
>Special Light Sport Aircraft, or SLSA) than they can do now on any
>production-type airplane (e.g., they can only perform preventative maintenance).
>

> [snippage]

>However, by regulation, the owner of a production LSA can convert it to ELSA.
>If that happens, the plane is then covered by the ELSA rules...the owner can now
>do all his own maintenance and, after taking the 16-hour LS-I course, do his own
>annuals.
>
>Note that Canada has had similar rules for several years, called the "Owner
>Maintenance" Category.
>
>SLSAs and ELSAs are simple aircraft...their maintenance shouldn't be too
>complex. The developers of the aircraft are required to develop complete
>maintenance manuals for their planes, too, which gives an amateur maintainer a
>lot of help.
>


I got my facts screwed but, but the S-LSA to E-LSA conversion was what
I was referring to. Am I correct in assuming that the only limitation
after this after this are that the A/C has to be labeled as
"Experimental" and can't be used for commercial/leaseback operations?

The resale value would probably take a hit also.

[Dude]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jimbob wrote:
>>
>> Speculation: If this really takes off and the industry starts making
>> some money, could the FAA be pressured to expand speeds, weight limits
>> and # of seats. Include retracts? Maybe incorporate all
>> non-commercial A/C operations under the LSA rule? It may be far
>> fetched, but not outside the realm of possibility.
>
> Not a chance. The only way the FAA was convinced to relax the requirement
> for a
> medical certificate was to convince the powers that be that an LSA can't
> do very
> much damage when the pilot has a heart attack. Expand the size or speed of
> those
> planes, and they'll start requiring medicals for that class.
>

Gotta agree. Increase the plane capabilities and you increase the impact on
others in the system and on the ground. If you are going to fly over two
nautical miles per minute, you likely need to learn about the airspace rules
and get your PPL anyway. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

If LSA is successful in letting more members into the club, I would hope we
would look into rewriting a lot of the mishmash we now have as regulations
to make things simpler. The simpler the regulations, the more time we can
devote to training real safety issues.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:30:32 GMT, Jimbob > wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:07:22 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
>wrote:
>
>>However, by regulation, the owner of a production LSA can convert it to ELSA.
>>If that happens, the plane is then covered by the ELSA rules...the owner can now
>>do all his own maintenance and, after taking the 16-hour LS-I course, do his own
>>annuals.
>
>I got my facts screwed but, but the S-LSA to E-LSA conversion was what
>I was referring to. Am I correct in assuming that the only limitation
>after this after this are that the A/C has to be labeled as
>"Experimental" and can't be used for commercial/leaseback operations?

Once it's switched to ELSA, it's supposedly treated just the same as any other
Experimental aircraft.

However, I'm not sure if the FAA is going to let it work like that. They may
well instigate policies to govern this switchover. For instance, if you put an
auto engine in a Cessna and license it as Experimental/R&D or
Experimental/Market Survey, the FAA often requires that the airframe maintenance
still be performed by a licensed mechanic. The Operating Limits for most types
of experimental aircraft are still pretty much left to the local FSDOs to
define, and an SLSA-ELSA conversion may end up with its OLs still requiring
annualling by an LS-M or A&P.

>The resale value would probably take a hit also.

I suspect this'll depend on a number of factors. The ability to do *all* the
maintenance and inspections yourself will be an attractant. We still don't know
if the rental lines at FBOs will see scads of LSAs...if not, SLSA vs. ELSA
certification may not make that much difference in price. Personally, I'd
prefer a machine that I could work on myself. But just because an airplane is
licensed as ELSA doesn't mean the owner cannot have an A&P do the work, if they
prefer. ELSA certification at least gives the owner a choice.

Ron Wanttaja

[George Patterson]

Dude wrote:
>
> If LSA is successful in letting more members into the club, I would hope we
> would look into rewriting a lot of the mishmash we now have as regulations
> to make things simpler. The simpler the regulations, the more time we can
> devote to training real safety issues.

I sincerely hope that the next 20 years will provide the statistical ammunition
to overturn the requirement for third-class medical certificates. My personal
belief is that there will be no significant difference in the number of
accidents caused by medical problems in the SP and PP/RP categories. It probably
won't matter to me by that time, though.

George Patterson
He who tries to carry a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in
no other way.

[Vaughn]

"Jimbob" > wrote in message
...
>> As another poster noted. a slight change in the LSA ruling could
>>significantly improve the value of Cessna 15X planes, making flying that much
>>more expensive for us weekend renters.
>>
>
> Maybe for a short speculative period, but not in the long term.
>
> 1) If the rule allowed more pilots to use it, but the number of pilots
> was unchanged and no new planes enter the market, demand remains
> constant. Therefore, the value would not change.

There is one factor that you are not taking into account. If no new LSA
planes hit the market (unlikely), if the hoard of new LSA pilots fails to
materialize (very possible), there is still one big sport pilot-driven change in
the aircraft market that will certainly happen, older pilots who are concerned
about passing their next medical will gravitate towards sport-eligible airplanes
and those airframes will be in greater demand. This might be a really good time
to own a cherry Ercoupe or Cub.

>
> 2) If the number of pilots increased without an increase in supply of
> new cheap aircraft, then demand increases and supply remains fixed.
> Their value would go up. i.e. increased interest in sportpilot.
>
> 3) However, if the rule changed, # of pilots remained fixed and there
> were new competative products on the market that were more desireable
> and cost effective, then their value would drop. i.e. LSA are released
> on the market and they are cheaper to maintain.

1 thru 3 above are a good analysis of the possibilities.

Vaughn

>
> The questions are; How interested are people in sportpilot and will
> the new planes really hit the market? I see #3 personally.
>
>

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I sincerely hope that the next 20 years will provide the statistical
ammunition
> to overturn the requirement for third-class medical certificates. My
personal
> belief is that there will be no significant difference in the number of
> accidents caused by medical problems in the SP and PP/RP categories.

This is the real hope. If you want to fly a Bonanza, getting a PPL should be
the least of your concerns.

Of course, 20 years ago you couldn't get a special issuance for any number
of things that are routine now, and so long as we don't do something stupid
to the pharmaceutical/healthcare industries, they will probably find cures
for an awful lot of qhat is now disqualifying.

-cwk.

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Jimbob" > wrote in message
...
> Hi all.
>
> Then I started reading up on the new sport pilot rules. I don't see a
> rush of sport pilots in the near future, unless this thing gets pushed
> by AOPA/EAA big time. Doubt it. I think they view it as a way to
> bring ultralight pilots into the fold. However, this LSA thing
> appears to have some serious promise for current private pilots.

I'm a little more optimistic.

The single biggest problem (IMHO) in GA right now is student pilot
attrition. IIRC, half of students who show up for a second lesson drop out
before soloing, half of those who solo drop out before getting their
certificate, or somehting like that.

A good friend of mine is a classic case study. He graduated 1 year behind me
in college. I started working in journalism, he in software. He took a
couple lessons and decided he wanted to do it, but got busy and didn't
follow through. Fast forward three years, I'm in software too and he's
working for me (don't ask me how I managed that one). Anyway, I started
working on my license and had it in about a year. He started, and since our
office was near an airport and he had a very understanding boss, he very
quickly soloed and then got signed off for unsupervised. Well, things got
busy again, and it was well over a year ago since he last flew, and I
wouldn't be surprised if another year passes before he flies again.

Anyway, here's a guy in his twenties, making great money, drives a $40,000
german car, and is enthused, but simply ran out of time. With Sport Pilot,
he'd likely have gotten his license (he'd put in about 35 hours when he
stopped) or been within spitting distance. Now he can rent a plane and take
a friend for a joyride on the weekend, which is all most PPLs around here do
anyway. This is a lot more likely to keep someone in the fold than not.

> From what I am told, it seems that LSA can meet this need nicely. The
> speeds are within range.

You'll have a lot more fun with the Miata in your garage than with the BMW
M3 you stare at in the dealer's lot.

> much less than $80K. However, these prices are using FAA certified
> engines and instruments.

Actually, getting rid of certification of airframes is much more important,
since there are far more airframes than there are engines. You'll have 15
different airplanes, all using a Rotax 912, so Bombardier *can* spread costs
pretty widely. Ditto instruments, which aren't that big a deal anyway. What
the hell do you need a glass panel in a sportplane for anyway? The most fun
I ever had was in a PA-18 in Alaska, and if I looked at anything besides the
tach and ASI, the instructor in back yelled at me.

> The only downside I can see is that the bottom may drop out of the
> Cessna 152/172 - Piper 140 market.

Others have convinced me that the 150/152/Tomahawk market is in much greater
danger than C-172/PA-28-140 planes. The fact that I own a 172 might have
somehting to do with it, but I think the slide is going to be slow enough
that no one's going to get killed.

> And of course if Dateline runs a story about those new "dangerous
> uncertified" airplanes.

Like those dangerous exploding trucks they did a story on some years ago? Or
those dangerous charter helicopters they tried to rent while carrying a bag
full of box cutters?

Actually, Dateline's ratings are in the s---er along with all the newsmags.
There's serious talk inside the nets about replacing them with reality shows
that cost less to produce.

-cwk.

[Jimbob]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:49:23 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>
>"Jimbob" > wrote in message
...

>
>The single biggest problem (IMHO) in GA right now is student pilot
>attrition. IIRC, half of students who show up for a second lesson drop out
>before soloing, half of those who solo drop out before getting their
>certificate, or somehting like that.
>
>A good friend of mine is a classic case study. He graduated 1 year behind me
>in college. I started working in journalism, he in software. He took a
>couple lessons and decided he wanted to do it, but got busy and didn't
>follow through. Fast forward three years, I'm in software too and he's
>working for me (don't ask me how I managed that one). Anyway, I started
>working on my license and had it in about a year. He started, and since our
>office was near an airport and he had a very understanding boss, he very
>quickly soloed and then got signed off for unsupervised. Well, things got
>busy again, and it was well over a year ago since he last flew, and I
>wouldn't be surprised if another year passes before he flies again.
>
>Anyway, here's a guy in his twenties, making great money, drives a $40,000
>german car, and is enthused, but simply ran out of time. With Sport Pilot,
>he'd likely have gotten his license (he'd put in about 35 hours when he
>stopped) or been within spitting distance. Now he can rent a plane and take
>a friend for a joyride on the weekend, which is all most PPLs around here do
>anyway. This is a lot more likely to keep someone in the fold than not.
>

That's a good scenerio, but I think Sportpilot needs a little more
than that. I think the point of the license was two fold. First
bring homebuilts into the fold. Second, the combination of LSA and
sportpilot was supposed to reduces the COST of learning and flying
which I think anyone here would agree is expensive. It needs to
become the "Everyman's" license so your blue collor worker can get his
ass in the air.

I don't expect a plane in evey pot, but In a perfect world, anyone
that has an urge and a job should be able ot afford it.

IMHO, that is what GA needs to survive.


>> much less than $80K. However, these prices are using FAA certified
>> engines and instruments.
>
>Actually, getting rid of certification of airframes is much more important,
>since there are far more airframes than there are engines. You'll have 15
>different airplanes, all using a Rotax 912, so Bombardier *can* spread costs
>pretty widely. Ditto instruments, which aren't that big a deal anyway. What
>the hell do you need a glass panel in a sportplane for anyway? The most fun
>I ever had was in a PA-18 in Alaska, and if I looked at anything besides the
>tach and ASI, the instructor in back yelled at me.
>

Engines are equally if not more important. The cost of buying an
aircraft is just the beginning (from what I am told).

What would happen to the market if engines only cost $6K That's the
cost of a brand new Porsche 911 (approx 1991 model) replacement engine
that produces 250HP and has full computer control. I use the Porsche
engine as an example of a low production run engine that is designed
for regular high performance, built like a tank and is well known for
going 200K before a rebuild.

Wouldn't you think that a lighter, fadec controlled engine that only
produced 180HP could be built for that?. How about a 120HP rotax
killer? You get that, and the cost of LSA power plants just halved.
Your aircraft maintenance just reduced drastically. A rebuild would
never exceed the cost of an engine plus installation.

I don't neccessarily want glass, but alot of people do. All I'm after
is cheap technological growth. I see FADEC, GPS w/ WAAS approaches
and Sirius WX as important technologies for fuel efficiency, safety
and convienence. Tech growth is cheaper without FAA certification.

Airframes are expensive, toys in the cockpit less so. The cheaper the
accessories, the more potential buyers. More buyers, more revenue.
More rev., brings more people entering the industry to make money.
More competitors brings lower prices and more innovation.

Industries that stagnate, die. GA is currently perking up a bit due
the above technolgoes (my impression) and I hope consesus stanards
fuel this growth.



>> And of course if Dateline runs a story about those new "dangerous
>> uncertified" airplanes.
>
>Like those dangerous exploding trucks they did a story on some years ago? Or
>those dangerous charter helicopters they tried to rent while carrying a bag
>full of box cutters?
>
>Actually, Dateline's ratings are in the s---er along with all the newsmags.
>There's serious talk inside the nets about replacing them with reality shows
>that cost less to produce.
>


The only costant in the universe is that if GA takes off, we will see
one of these "news specials" I only hope that John Stossel (my
personal hero) is the one doing it.

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Jimbob" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:49:23 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> > wrote:
> >
> >"Jimbob" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> which I think anyone here would agree is expensive. It needs to
> become the "Everyman's" license so your blue collor worker can get his
> ass in the air.
>
> I don't expect a plane in evey pot, but In a perfect world, anyone
> that has an urge and a job should be able ot afford it.

I spent about $7000 getting my private near Boston where an hour of dual is
heading north of $130 and it took me about 70 hours. Considering salaries in
this area, that's hardly out of reach. In cheaper cost-of-living areas the
prices go lower. Out here I see plenty of blue collar guys riding around in
$40k pickups or on $20k Harleys or in $100k boats. None of those require you
to spend 40-50 hours practicing to get a license.

Sure, if licensing were cheaper more people would do it, but the real issue
is time. Flying is never going to be accessible to everyone to the same
degree boating is. Well, I suppose powered 'chutes could make a case, but
you get my point. We could double the number of pilots and still have
relatively few, but it would be a huge boost for the industry.

> IMHO, that is what GA needs to survive.

GA survives in a lot of places where it's far less accessible than it is
here.

>
> Engines are equally if not more important. The cost of buying an
> aircraft is just the beginning (from what I am told).

Actually maintenance is a far bigger issue than acquisition cost. LSA will
help in one way, that we'll all be able to get a repairman certificate in
around 120 hours versus 18 months (!) to get an A&P. Inspection authority
will only require another 16 hours. This means people with jobs could
seriously think about doing a night school type class and fix their own
plane and do annuals.

Anyway, my A&P charges less per hour than the import car dealer mechanics
do, and in the same ballpark as the marina where my father keeps his boat.
My dad's sailboat cost twice as much (new) as my 172 (used) and costs more
per year in maintenance. Maintenance costs are not the primary issue.

> What would happen to the market if engines only cost $6K That's the
> cost of a brand new Porsche 911 (approx 1991 model) replacement engine
> that produces 250HP and has full computer control.

My friend (the one who quit working on his license) had to replace the
engine in his 2001 Audi when the timing belt slipped. It cost him close to
$20,000. He'd done maintenance religiously and didn't abuse the car. My
0-320 will cost $15k for a major overhaul, $25k factory new (ish).

Here, operating cost is the real issue. Again, LSAs burning 4 gallons per
hour of mogas at $2/gal will cost a lot less to fly than 8gph of 100LL at
3-4 bucks. You're talking a 25-50% instant reduction.

> I use the Porsche
> engine as an example of a low production run engine that is designed
> for regular high performance, built like a tank and is well known for
> going 200K before a rebuild.

Funny you bring up Porsche. They actually did try and build an airplane
engine with Mooney back in the late 80s and it was a disaster.
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html for one opinion. I don't
disagree that we're dealing with some pretty bronze-age technologies in our
engines, but the homebuilt set has been f---ing around with auto conversions
for 30 years with no really great success stories. If it were so simple,
somebody would have figured it out by now.

> Wouldn't you think that a lighter, fadec controlled engine that only
> produced 180HP could be built for that?. How about a 120HP rotax
> killer? You get that, and the cost of LSA power plants just halved.

A Rotax 912 is around $12k in a crate. Bringing it down $6k doesn't make
that much difference in the cost of a $70k plane, especially when you
consider that cost is likely to be amortized over 10 years or more (i.e. a
loan).

> Your aircraft maintenance just reduced drastically. A rebuild would
> never exceed the cost of an engine plus installation.

I'm not buying it. Why did maintenance get cheaper?

> I don't neccessarily want glass, but alot of people do. All I'm after
> is cheap technological growth. I see FADEC, GPS w/ WAAS approaches
> and Sirius WX as important technologies for fuel efficiency, safety
> and convienence. Tech growth is cheaper without FAA certification.

Now you're mixing metaphors. I agree that a glass cockpit in an LSA adds sex
appeal, but zero utility. However we are getting to the point where
non-certified pseudo-glass panels are starting to cost less than round
gauges. It will be a long time before the FAA allows easier certification of
IFR instrumentation, and likely they never will. As the skies get more
crowded, they will become more exclusive. Look at RVSM for an example.

> Industries that stagnate, die. GA is currently perking up a bit due
> the above technolgoes (my impression) and I hope consesus stanards
> fuel this growth.

My opinion is that LSA is something of a parallel track. Basically, if all
you want to do is pull back on the stick and see the houses get smaller, LSA
will offer a substantially lower-cost path to licensing and ownership. If
you want to use airplanes as real transportation, you will need to go the
traditional GA route with its higher costs. Nothing wrong with this. More
LSAs mean more customers for airports, mechanics, and AOPA/EAA members
keeping political heat on anti-GA forces. It doesn't matter what the machine
looks like, the more people flying the better for all of us.

-cwk.

[Dude]

> Anyway, my A&P charges less per hour than the import car dealer mechanics
> do, and in the same ballpark as the marina where my father keeps his boat.
> My dad's sailboat cost twice as much (new) as my 172 (used) and costs more
> per year in maintenance. Maintenance costs are not the primary issue.
>

Per hour rates are very fair. Its the amount of hours that gets you.
Unless you do much of your own work, this IS a dramatic amount of money. If
I can buy a 150/152 in nice condition for 20 to 30k and sell it for same
when you need to, its not a problem. However, the 2 to 3k it takes to keep
it nice and safe each year gets old fast. The price of parts and engines is
no small part of that either.

If the planes are simpler, and the owners can safely do more of the work,
then LSA could really be a boon.


> Funny you bring up Porsche. They actually did try and build an airplane
> engine with Mooney back in the late 80s and it was a disaster.
> http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html for one opinion. I don't
> disagree that we're dealing with some pretty bronze-age technologies in
> our
> engines, but the homebuilt set has been f---ing around with auto
> conversions
> for 30 years with no really great success stories. If it were so simple,
> somebody would have figured it out by now.
>


I am no expert on this engines and its history, but I heard a plausible
argument that the real downfall of that engine was lack of AP knowledge to
maintain it properly. It was too complex.

>> Wouldn't you think that a lighter, fadec controlled engine that only
>> produced 180HP could be built for that?. How about a 120HP rotax
>> killer? You get that, and the cost of LSA power plants just halved.
>
> A Rotax 912 is around $12k in a crate. Bringing it down $6k doesn't make
> that much difference in the cost of a $70k plane, especially when you
> consider that cost is likely to be amortized over 10 years or more (i.e. a
> loan).
>
>> Your aircraft maintenance just reduced drastically. A rebuild would
>> never exceed the cost of an engine plus installation.
>
> I'm not buying it. Why did maintenance get cheaper?
>

Reserves just halved, and a top is eliminated by a cheap replacement job.
However, the rotax is a lame example because of the low TBO.


>> I don't neccessarily want glass, but alot of people do. All I'm after
>> is cheap technological growth. I see FADEC, GPS w/ WAAS approaches
>> and Sirius WX as important technologies for fuel efficiency, safety
>> and convienence. Tech growth is cheaper without FAA certification.
>
> Now you're mixing metaphors. I agree that a glass cockpit in an LSA adds
> sex
> appeal, but zero utility. However we are getting to the point where
> non-certified pseudo-glass panels are starting to cost less than round
> gauges. It will be a long time before the FAA allows easier certification
> of
> IFR instrumentation, and likely they never will. As the skies get more
> crowded, they will become more exclusive. Look at RVSM for an example.
>

At some point the FAA will need to relent or they will be at odds with their
own purpose. Experimental planes are beyond much of their control and will
continue to get more and more popular. Seriously, can anyone make an
argument that a 172 or 182 is really all that safer than an RV10? The
experimental crowd is starting to produce more stable, quality planes, and
less dangerous ones too. Given the choice, an RV10 with a Blue Mountain
glass cockpit looks a lot nicer than an Archer with an Avidyne and is half
the price. Given these new build it yourself programs, people who can take
the time off will take this choice in ever increasing numbers.


>> Industries that stagnate, die. GA is currently perking up a bit due
>> the above technolgoes (my impression) and I hope consesus stanards
>> fuel this growth.
>
> My opinion is that LSA is something of a parallel track. Basically, if all
> you want to do is pull back on the stick and see the houses get smaller,
> LSA
> will offer a substantially lower-cost path to licensing and ownership. If
> you want to use airplanes as real transportation, you will need to go the
> traditional GA route with its higher costs. Nothing wrong with this. More
> LSAs mean more customers for airports, mechanics, and AOPA/EAA members
> keeping political heat on anti-GA forces. It doesn't matter what the
> machine
> looks like, the more people flying the better for all of us.
>

Yep.

[Jimbob]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:33:11 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>My friend (the one who quit working on his license) had to replace the
>engine in his 2001 Audi when the timing belt slipped. It cost him close to
>$20,000. He'd done maintenance religiously and didn't abuse the car. My
>0-320 will cost $15k for a major overhaul, $25k factory new (ish).
>


Not to knock your buddy, but either he's driving one of the S8
Bi-turbos or he got royally hammered. New recent model Audi engines
in the same HP range, normally aspirated are running $3000 brand new.
Installation is $1000-2500. These, however, are water cooled.

>Funny you bring up Porsche. They actually did try and build an airplane
>engine with Mooney back in the late 80s and it was a disaster.
>http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html for one opinion. I don't
>disagree that we're dealing with some pretty bronze-age technologies in our
>engines, but the homebuilt set has been f---ing around with auto conversions
>for 30 years with no really great success stories. If it were so simple,
>somebody would have figured it out by now.


Actually, I think the VW engines are quite popular.

However, I'm not talking about conversions. I'm comparing
technologies. VW/Audi and Porsche produced aircooled engines that
are similar to the Lycoming and Contential powerplants.

The point I'm trying to make is that if Porsche ($$$$$) can produce an
aircooled engine for a reasonable amount, then other other companies
using the same technology targeted for aircraft should be able too as
well. There is nothing inherently different about aircooled
automobile and aircraft powerplants, excluding building to FAA
certification standards.

IIRC, the reason for the spectacular failure of the Porsche Mooney was
that instead of redesigning the powerplant from the ground up, the
Porsche design used existing technology adapted for flight; i.e. A
conversion.

>> I don't neccessarily want glass, but alot of people do. All I'm after
>> is cheap technological growth. I see FADEC, GPS w/ WAAS approaches
>> and Sirius WX as important technologies for fuel efficiency, safety
>> and convienence. Tech growth is cheaper without FAA certification.
>
>Now you're mixing metaphors. I agree that a glass cockpit in an LSA adds sex
>appeal, but zero utility. However we are getting to the point where
>non-certified pseudo-glass panels are starting to cost less than round
>gauges. It will be a long time before the FAA allows easier certification of
>IFR instrumentation, and likely they never will. As the skies get more
>crowded, they will become more exclusive. Look at RVSM for an example.

Glass can add MASSIVE utility. Automatic performance calculations,
Synthetic vision, GPS terrain avoidance, built-in airport databases
with autotuning radios. FADEC based auto-leaning, spark advance tied
to EGT to prevent detonation. I could continue for quite a while.

A well designed, centralized glass system could be as expandable as a
PC. Want Sirius WX weather? Add a $300 receiver and upgrade the
software instead of a $3000 brain/receiver. If you have autopilot,
complete flight management is only a software upgrade away.
Remember, we are talking microprocessor vs. steam gauge.


>My opinion is that LSA is something of a parallel track. Basically, if all
>you want to do is pull back on the stick and see the houses get smaller, LSA
>will offer a substantially lower-cost path to licensing and ownership. If
>you want to use airplanes as real transportation, you will need to go the
>traditional GA route with its higher costs.


You could be right and only time will tell. However, there would be a
great amount of utility available to the businessman to be able to fly
himself and a cohort to a customer site in a LSA. How about a couple
for a quick weekend?

I see far more possibilities.

Jim

[Aaron Coolidge]

Jimbob > wrote:
: On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:33:11 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
: > wrote:

:>My friend (the one who quit working on his license) had to replace the
:>engine in his 2001 Audi when the timing belt slipped. It cost him close to
:>$20,000. He'd done maintenance religiously and didn't abuse the car. My
:>0-320 will cost $15k for a major overhaul, $25k factory new (ish).
: Not to knock your buddy, but either he's driving one of the S8
: Bi-turbos or he got royally hammered. New recent model Audi engines
: in the same HP range, normally aspirated are running $3000 brand new.
: Installation is $1000-2500. These, however, are water cooled.

A factory-reman 2.8 liter VR6 engine for my Volkswagen Corrado was $7,700
at the friendly VW dealer (in 1995!). That was for a long block. It's a
water cooled iron block V-6, 180 HP at 5700 RPM. A (very low quality)
reman was $2,000.
Installation was $1,000.
YMMV.
I don't want to think about the cost of the engine in my M3.
--
Aaron C.