Light Sport Aircraft survey

[gilan]

Do you own or are you planning to buy or build an aircraft that fits into
the Light Sport Aircraft rules? The airplane can be an older "factory"
certified airplane such as the Cub or Ercoupe, a new "factory" S-LSA or an
experimental that does or will comply with the LSA rules.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/surveys?id=1690505

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

[Morgans]

"gilan" > wrote

> Do you own or are you planning to buy or build an aircraft that fits into
> the Light Sport Aircraft rules?

I plan to build, but at this time, I do not know what. I have been
seriously considering designing my own, for two reasons. One, I don't see
exactly what I want, and two, I find extreme satisfaction at taking a
project from beginning to end, on my own. I do have the skills (IMHO) to
make an undertaking of this magnitude (with advise, and help) succeed.
--
Jim in NC

[Paul kgyy]

If I took this route, it would probably be driven by price, and I don't
think I would build. If I'm going to invest the time to build
something, I'd rather build something fast like a Velocity. If I could
get a new LSA aircraft for less than $75K, I'd consider a new one,
otherwise probably go with an oldie for which parts were still easily
available - maybe an ERcoupe so I could learn to do crosswind landings
with feet on the floor :-)

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "gilan" > said:
>Do you own or are you planning to buy or build an aircraft that fits into
>the Light Sport Aircraft rules? The airplane can be an older "factory"
>certified airplane such as the Cub or Ercoupe, a new "factory" S-LSA or an
>experimental that does or will comply with the LSA rules.

Somebody emailed me as the contact for my flying club trying to convince
us to buy a new LSA. The only problem was that this thing only carried
about 500 pounds, and it cost $120,000. If I went to my members and said
we're spending $120,000 and getting something that can't fly as far and
carry as much as the Piper Dakota we spent $85,000 for a few years ago,
they'd lynch me.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Quando omni flunkus moritati (when all else fails play dead)

[houstondan]

i've read-up on all the light sport stuff i can find and it looks like
$60-80,000 to fly 2 people, vfr for maybe 350 miles or so at 90-100
mph. the idea of having a brand new craft does have some appeal but
pushing a headwind and getting a net ground speed in the 40-50mph range
while getting beat to death does not sound like fun.

as i'm pushing 60 years old i do have to consider that i could be
forced into light sports in not too many years.

i dunno


dan

[Jimbob]

Most of the stuff I have seen is rated at 120 mph cruise and about 350
miles.. I just saw one this morning other day for 54K

http://www.bbardaviation.com/PRODUCTS/allegro2000.html

I expect prices to drop a bit over the next year as competition starts
heating up and the market equalizes.

IMHO, you should see them about $40-44K in next couple of years.








On 25 May 2005 10:30:09 -0700, "houstondan"
> wrote:

>i've read-up on all the light sport stuff i can find and it looks like
>$60-80,000 to fly 2 people, vfr for maybe 350 miles or so at 90-100
>mph. the idea of having a brand new craft does have some appeal but
>pushing a headwind and getting a net ground speed in the 40-50mph range
>while getting beat to death does not sound like fun.
>
>as i'm pushing 60 years old i do have to consider that i could be
>forced into light sports in not too many years.
>
>i dunno
>
>
>dan

Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

[Morgans]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote

> Somebody emailed me as the contact for my flying club trying to convince
> us to buy a new LSA. The only problem was that this thing only carried
> about 500 pounds, and it cost $120,000.

What is selling for 120,000 bucks? I have not seen any that cost anywhere
near that!
--
Jim in NC

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Morgans" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote
>> Somebody emailed me as the contact for my flying club trying to convince
>> us to buy a new LSA. The only problem was that this thing only carried
>> about 500 pounds, and it cost $120,000.
>
>What is selling for 120,000 bucks? I have not seen any that cost anywhere
>near that!

It's called "AMD Alarus". Useful load 607 pounds, fully IFR equipped
$129,900.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Grove giveth and Gates taketh away."
- Bob Metcalfe (inventor of Ethernet) on the trend of hardware speedups
not being able to keep up with software demands

[Morgans]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote

> It's called "AMD Alarus". Useful load 607 pounds, fully IFR equipped
> $129,900.

Someone was trying to sell you a bill of goods. It is way over weight, at
1,692 pounds, gross; over 1,000 pounds, empty!

Is there something I am missing? It doesn't look like a sport airplane, to
me.
--
Jim in NC

[Lakeview Bill]

The Alaraus is not a Light Sport Aircraft by US standards.

Among other things, it has a gross weight of 1,692 lbs; the LSA maximum is
1,320 lbs for SEL.

And by definition, there cannot be an IFR certified LSA, as they are only
approved for day VFR as an LSA.

I've been researching these aircraft for quite a while, and the magic
numbers pretty much fall into the $75,000 - $85,000 range, reasonably
equipped. Of course, most of them offer upgrades that could push them to
$100,000.


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Morgans" > said:
> >"Paul Tomblin" > wrote
> >> Somebody emailed me as the contact for my flying club trying to
convince
> >> us to buy a new LSA. The only problem was that this thing only carried
> >> about 500 pounds, and it cost $120,000.
> >
> >What is selling for 120,000 bucks? I have not seen any that cost
anywhere
> >near that!
>
> It's called "AMD Alarus". Useful load 607 pounds, fully IFR equipped
> $129,900.
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> "Grove giveth and Gates taketh away."
> - Bob Metcalfe (inventor of Ethernet) on the trend of hardware
speedups
> not being able to keep up with software demands

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Lakeview Bill" > said:
>The Alaraus is not a Light Sport Aircraft by US standards.

Reading over the email, he never actually said it was a LSA - I
misinterpreted since first he introduced the Alarus, and then he asked if
the club was interested in adding a LSA to the fleet.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
It's better to be on the ground wishing you were flying, than up there
wishing you were on the ground.

[ls]

gilan wrote:
> Do you own or are you planning to buy or build an aircraft that fits into
> the Light Sport Aircraft rules? The airplane can be an older "factory"
> certified airplane such as the Cub or Ercoupe, a new "factory" S-LSA or an
> experimental that does or will comply with the LSA rules.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/surveys?id=1690505
>

I just bought N646F, a Kolb Firestar II that's registered experimental
A/B (and is well within the LSA restrictions).

I don't plan to buy an SLSA. What few that are currently are available
are way way too expensive...

If I build my next plane, I'll likely simply register it experimental,
since about the same amount of work and paperwork will likely be
involved and I'll be able to get the repairman's cert without taking the
class.

I personally don't see any utility for the ELSA and especially the SLSA
classifications, at least not at this point.

Right now, you basically already have to have a ticket to participate in
Sport Pilot since you can't really get a Sport Pilot ticket yet. This is
more or less the same situation with the planes as well....... May as
well go experimental..

LS
N646F

[AINut]

Morgans wrote:
> "gilan" > wrote
>
>
>>Do you own or are you planning to buy or build an aircraft that fits into
>>the Light Sport Aircraft rules?
> No, certainly not until the prices get out of the stratosphere and back
to something reasonable, like, say, ultralights! (which they are!)

David
PP-ASEL

[Rick Pellicciotti]

Paul kgyy wrote:

> If I took this route, it would probably be driven by price, and I don't
> think I would build. If I'm going to invest the time to build
> something, I'd rather build something fast like a Velocity. If I could
> get a new LSA aircraft for less than $75K, I'd consider a new one,
> otherwise probably go with an oldie for which parts were still easily
> available - maybe an ERcoupe so I could learn to do crosswind landings
> with feet on the floor :-)
>
>

Paul,
You can certainly get a new LSA aircraft for that price. There are
several out there in that range. At the moment, I think thare are 3
types that are actually certified, more coming every week or so.

Following the conventions of this group, I won't mention the airplane I
sell or the prices. If you are interested, email me off the group and I
will send you details.

Regards,

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.lightsportflying.com

[Allen]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If I took this route, it would probably be driven by price, and I don't
> think I would build. If I'm going to invest the time to build
> something, I'd rather build something fast like a Velocity. If I could
> get a new LSA aircraft for less than $75K, I'd consider a new one,
> otherwise probably go with an oldie for which parts were still easily
> available - maybe an ERcoupe so I could learn to do crosswind landings
> with feet on the floor :-)


I read somewhere that a company plans on tooling up to build the Taylorcraft
in an old bus manufacturing plant in Brownsville, TX. Retail estimate of
about $60,000 per aircraft.

Allen

[Montblack]

("Rick Pellicciotti" wrote)
> Following the conventions of this group, I won't mention the airplane I
> sell or the prices. If you are interested, email me off the group and I
> will send you details.


It's not spam (IMHO) if the post is requested ...it's hangar talk. <g>

Post your plane's link and tell us what's special about it - and don't
forget those prices ($$$$$). Many interested people here. Be prepared for
some, um, feedback :-)

Will it, and you, be at Oshkosh?


Montblack

[Allen]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Rick Pellicciotti" wrote)
>> Following the conventions of this group, I won't mention the airplane I
>> sell or the prices. If you are interested, email me off the group and I
>> will send you details.
>
>
> It's not spam (IMHO) if the post is requested ...it's hangar talk. <g>
>
> Post your plane's link and tell us what's special about it - and don't
> forget those prices ($$$$$). Many interested people here. Be prepared for
> some, um, feedback :-)
>

Uh, I think he did in the original post. ;)

[Montblack]

("Allen" wrote)
> Uh, I think he did in the original post. ;)


You are correct.

I clicked his sig link the first time around and thought it was just an
industry info page - didn't investigate any further.

This time I went in: "Our subsidiary, LightSportFlying.com" ---- now I get
it.


Montblack

[xyzzy]

Paul kgyy wrote:

> If I took this route, it would probably be driven by price, and I don't
> think I would build. If I'm going to invest the time to build
> something, I'd rather build something fast like a Velocity. If I could
> get a new LSA aircraft for less than $75K, I'd consider a new one,
> otherwise probably go with an oldie for which parts were still easily
> available - maybe an ERcoupe so I could learn to do crosswind landings
> with feet on the floor :-)
>

I've found Ercoupes fascinating for a long time and have been watching
them, looks like they took about a $5,000+ jump in price when the LSA
rule came out. That's a lot for an airplane that used to sell in the
high teens and low 20's.

[W P Dixon]

Sport Pilot definitely caused a rush to buy older planes that would meet the
category. It was great to see those old classic planes being wanted again. I
have noticed here lately that the price jump is going back to a modest
amount, which is a good thing for us poor pilots ! :) There is a Ercoupe for
sale here for 14,500 with 24 SMOH , could use a paint job, but all in all
not a bad deal. From what I have seen prices are from 13,000 -18,000 with a
few here and there above or below it.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Paul kgyy wrote:
>
>> If I took this route, it would probably be driven by price, and I don't
>> think I would build. If I'm going to invest the time to build
>> something, I'd rather build something fast like a Velocity. If I could
>> get a new LSA aircraft for less than $75K, I'd consider a new one,
>> otherwise probably go with an oldie for which parts were still easily
>> available - maybe an ERcoupe so I could learn to do crosswind landings
>> with feet on the floor :-)
>>
>
> I've found Ercoupes fascinating for a long time and have been watching
> them, looks like they took about a $5,000+ jump in price when the LSA rule
> came out. That's a lot for an airplane that used to sell in the high teens
> and low 20's.
>

[ls]

Bryan Martin wrote:
> in article , Lakeview Bill at
> wrote on 5/25/05 8:43 PM:
>
>
>>The Alaraus is not a Light Sport Aircraft by US standards.
>>
>>Among other things, it has a gross weight of 1,692 lbs; the LSA maximum is
>>1,320 lbs for SEL.
>>
>>And by definition, there cannot be an IFR certified LSA, as they are only
>>approved for day VFR as an LSA.
>>
>
>
> Sport PILOTS are prohibited from flying in IFR or at night, there's nothing
> in the rules that prohibit an aircraft that otherwise fits the definition of
> LSA from being flown in IFR or at night if it is properly equipped.

Actually... and I'm still researching this to be sure... but this might
not be the case. For either the SLSA or ELSA (or both, not sure), there
might be an automatic permanant inclusion of 'day VFR only' in the op
limits mandated by the rule!

Again, I"m not certain of this yet (nothing about SP is really very
certain ;)), but I think this will be the case..... All the more reason
to go experimental A/B, IMO.......

LS
N646F

[Lakeview Bill]

A lack of time for research is the reason that I didn't reply to this...

From what I have read, an airplane must be certified for IFR, either from
the factory, or in the field. And it must have periodic inspections to
insure IFR certification. Again, this is just what I believe I have read.

But keep in mind that Light Sport Aircraft are not certificated in the same
manner as other aircraft. I doubt that there is even an IFR certification
available for a Light Sport Aircraft.



"ls" > wrote in message
...
> Bryan Martin wrote:
> > in article , Lakeview Bill
at
> > wrote on 5/25/05 8:43 PM:
> >
> >
> >>The Alaraus is not a Light Sport Aircraft by US standards.
> >>
> >>Among other things, it has a gross weight of 1,692 lbs; the LSA maximum
is
> >>1,320 lbs for SEL.
> >>
> >>And by definition, there cannot be an IFR certified LSA, as they are
only
> >>approved for day VFR as an LSA.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Sport PILOTS are prohibited from flying in IFR or at night, there's
nothing
> > in the rules that prohibit an aircraft that otherwise fits the
definition of
> > LSA from being flown in IFR or at night if it is properly equipped.
>
> Actually... and I'm still researching this to be sure... but this might
> not be the case. For either the SLSA or ELSA (or both, not sure), there
> might be an automatic permanant inclusion of 'day VFR only' in the op
> limits mandated by the rule!
>
> Again, I"m not certain of this yet (nothing about SP is really very
> certain ;)), but I think this will be the case..... All the more reason
> to go experimental A/B, IMO.......
>
> LS
> N646F

[ls]

Lakeview Bill wrote:
> A lack of time for research is the reason that I didn't reply to this...
>
> From what I have read, an airplane must be certified for IFR, either from
> the factory, or in the field. And it must have periodic inspections to
> insure IFR certification. Again, this is just what I believe I have read.
>
> But keep in mind that Light Sport Aircraft are not certificated in the same
> manner as other aircraft. I doubt that there is even an IFR certification
> available for a Light Sport Aircraft.

I appear to have been wrong. The preamble to the SP rule states:

"Light-sport aircraft issued an experimental light-sport or special
light-sport airworthiness certificate that are authorized to operate in
Class B, C, and D airspace must have the equipment for VFR or IFR
operations specified in the applicable consensus standards....."

which pretty clearly indicates that nothing in the rule limits ELSA or
SLSA from being IFR certified......

I also couldn't find anything in the amendments elsewhere (such as parts
21 or 91) that specifically restricted ELSA or SLSA from being IFR
certified.....

So I guess you can do it.... Not sure I'd want to fly an LSA in actual,
but hey maybe I'm just not that fun of a guy... ;)

LS
N646F

[snippage for space]

[Jerry]

My understanding was that the no IFR flying applies to the sport pilot not
to the aircraft. A private pilot or above could fly a SLSA IFR if it is
equipped with IFR instruments.

Jerry in NC

"ls" > wrote in message
...
> Bryan Martin wrote:
>> in article , Lakeview Bill at
>> wrote on 5/25/05 8:43 PM:
>>
>>
>>>The Alaraus is not a Light Sport Aircraft by US standards.
>>>
>>>Among other things, it has a gross weight of 1,692 lbs; the LSA maximum
>>>is
>>>1,320 lbs for SEL.
>>>
>>>And by definition, there cannot be an IFR certified LSA, as they are only
>>>approved for day VFR as an LSA.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sport PILOTS are prohibited from flying in IFR or at night, there's
>> nothing
>> in the rules that prohibit an aircraft that otherwise fits the definition
>> of
>> LSA from being flown in IFR or at night if it is properly equipped.
>
> Actually... and I'm still researching this to be sure... but this might
> not be the case. For either the SLSA or ELSA (or both, not sure), there
> might be an automatic permanant inclusion of 'day VFR only' in the op
> limits mandated by the rule!
>
> Again, I"m not certain of this yet (nothing about SP is really very
> certain ;)), but I think this will be the case..... All the more reason to
> go experimental A/B, IMO.......
>
> LS
> N646F

[W P Dixon]

You are correct Jerry,
The plane itself can be IFR certified and capable of night flight, but
the sport pilot could not fly in those conditions. but a PPL can fly the
capable sport plane at night and with an instrument rating could fly the
same plane IFR. So when you build your 601 , put lights on it and
instruments ..it will be a light sport plane but will have a nice resale
value to PPL's as well ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Jerry" > wrote in message
m...
> My understanding was that the no IFR flying applies to the sport pilot not
> to the aircraft. A private pilot or above could fly a SLSA IFR if it is
> equipped with IFR instruments.
>
> Jerry in NC
>

[Rick Pellicciotti]

Montblack wrote:

> ("Rick Pellicciotti" wrote)
>
>> Following the conventions of this group, I won't mention the airplane
>> I sell or the prices. If you are interested, email me off the group
>> and I will send you details.
>
>
>
> It's not spam (IMHO) if the post is requested ...it's hangar talk. <g>
>
> Post your plane's link and tell us what's special about it - and don't
> forget those prices ($$$$$). Many interested people here. Be prepared
> for some, um, feedback :-)
>
> Will it, and you, be at Oshkosh?
>
>
> Montblack

Sorry to take so long to respond to your post. I have been in Romania,
at the factory, taking delivery of our first two aircraft. Yes, we will
be at Airventure, display #39 and we will also have an airplane in the
"Light Sport Aircraft Mall".

Our airplane is the "Festival", manufactured by Aerostar S.A. of
Romania. Aerostar is the same company that builds the famous Yak52 that
I am sure many of you have seen at airshows and aerobatic competitions.

Festival is all-metal, and has side-by-side seating for two people. The
cockpit is 42" wide. The standard engine is the Rotax 912ULS, 100hp.
The airplane has a lot of small features that we think are important to
the owner such as locking gas caps and canopy, seats that adjust easily
and a large baggage compartment. The airplane has built-in, structural
roll-over protection. A lot of airplanes with canopies do not have
that. The biggest thing that we have done is that we have worked with
Aerostar to "americanize" the airplane. All parts that are subject to
wearing out or breaking such as brakes, wheels , tires, instruments and
avionics are all of American manufacture and can be sourced readily from
the usual places.

Aerostar is JAR21 and ISO9000 certified. They do sub-contract work for
Boeing and Airbus. They have about 2100 employees. Absolutley great to
work with and they build great airplanes. In the course of doing the
structural tests as required by the ASTM standards, they actually tested
one airframe to destruction. The standard requires 150% load at 4g's.
The airplane did 182%.

More details on our website at http://www.lightsportflying.com
Constructive suggestions are more than welcome.

Rick

[Morgans]

"Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote

> More details on our website at http://www.lightsportflying.com
> Constructive suggestions are more than welcome.

Good looking plane. It should do well.

Want a suggestion? Offer it with something other than a Rotax or Jabaru,
even if it costs more. I'm just one person, but I won't buy anything with
either of those choices.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

"Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote
>
> More details on our website at http://www.lightsportflying.com
> Constructive suggestions are more than welcome.

Rick, have the planes indeed received their FAA Special Light Sport
certification? They're not included on the May 25th news release on the EAA
Sport Pilot Page.

http://www.sportpilot.org/

Ron Wanttaja

[Lakeview Bill]

Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote
>
> > More details on our website at http://www.lightsportflying.com
> > Constructive suggestions are more than welcome.
>
> Good looking plane. It should do well.
>
> Want a suggestion? Offer it with something other than a Rotax or Jabaru,
> even if it costs more. I'm just one person, but I won't buy anything
with
> either of those choices.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Lakeview Bill wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?

I would suspect lack of support from local GA facilities - the 4 stroke
Rotaxes and the Jabiru are not particularly common in the US so few
mechanics will be familiar with them. Other than that, they are decent
reliable engines.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Mark Smith]

Lakeview Bill wrote:
>
> A lack of time for research is the reason that I didn't reply to this...
>
> From what I have read, an airplane must be certified for IFR, either from
> the factory, or in the field. And it must have periodic inspections to
> insure IFR certification. Again, this is just what I believe I have read.
>
> But keep in mind that Light Sport Aircraft are not certificated in the same
> manner as other aircraft. I doubt that there is even an IFR certification
> available for a Light Sport Aircraft.


If a plane is IFR rated, a sprot pile it may fly it fine, just not use
most of the gauges and stuff,,,,,,

the sprot pile it is limited, not the plane,,,,

however there are weight limits, seating, etc,

so an IFR plane may weigh too much, have complex controls, retracts,
that would preclude the sprot pile it from flying it even under the
sprot rules,,,,,,,,,

--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

[Mark Smith]

Rick Pellicciotti wrote:
>
> Montblack wrote:
>
> > ("Rick Pellicciotti" wrote)
> >
> >> Following the conventions of this group, I won't mention the airplane
> >> I sell or the prices. If you are interested, email me off the group
> >> and I will send you details.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's not spam (IMHO) if the post is requested ...it's hangar talk. <g>
> >
> > Post your plane's link and tell us what's special about it - and don't
> > forget those prices ($$$$$). Many interested people here. Be prepared
> > for some, um, feedback :-)
> >
> > Will it, and you, be at Oshkosh?
> >
> >
> > Montblack
>
> Sorry to take so long to respond to your post. I have been in Romania,
> at the factory, taking delivery of our first two aircraft. Yes, we will
> be at Airventure, display #39 and we will also have an airplane in the
> "Light Sport Aircraft Mall".
>
> Our airplane is the "Festival", manufactured by Aerostar S.A. of
> Romania. Aerostar is the same company that builds the famous Yak52 that
> I am sure many of you have seen at airshows and aerobatic competitions.
>
> Festival is all-metal, and has side-by-side seating for two people. The
> cockpit is 42" wide. The standard engine is the Rotax 912ULS, 100hp.
> The airplane has a lot of small features that we think are important to
> the owner such as locking gas caps and canopy, seats that adjust easily
> and a large baggage compartment. The airplane has built-in, structural
> roll-over protection. A lot of airplanes with canopies do not have
> that. The biggest thing that we have done is that we have worked with
> Aerostar to "americanize" the airplane. All parts that are subject to
> wearing out or breaking such as brakes, wheels , tires, instruments and
> avionics are all of American manufacture and can be sourced readily from
> the usual places.
>
> Aerostar is JAR21 and ISO9000 certified. They do sub-contract work for
> Boeing and Airbus. They have about 2100 employees. Absolutley great to
> work with and they build great airplanes. In the course of doing the
> structural tests as required by the ASTM standards, they actually tested
> one airframe to destruction. The standard requires 150% load at 4g's.
> The airplane did 182%.
>
> More details on our website at http://www.lightsportflying.com
> Constructive suggestions are more than welcome.
>
> Rick


Will you be offering a model for initial sport pilot training ?
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

[rpellicciotti]

Jim,
I appreciate your comments. Obviously, we think the airplane is a
winner or we would have bought a different one. Would you mind
expanding on your comment a bit? I don't have any experience with the
Jabaru but I have flown a lot of airplanes with the 4-stroke, Rotax.
In one form, it is a FAR33 certified engine. I hear people make
comments like yours and I wonder what the reasoning is behind it. I
have found the 912 to be a good engine.

What engine would you prefer? We could put a O-200-LS in the airplane
but it would cost about $6,000.00 more and your useful load would drop
to 460 pounds. Fuel consumption would go up about a gallon per hour.
In 1600 hours of personal flying, the only in-flight engine failure I
ever experienced was on a Continental engine.

Regards,

Rick Pellicciotti
Belle Aire Aviation
LightSportFlying.com

[rpellicciotti]

Mark,
We think Festival will make an excellent trainer. The landing gear is
very rugged. The visibility is great. I have flown the airplane from
both seats and it is easy to fly. The airplane is quiet enough that
you can talk between each other without headsets. We even offer an
optional, left-hand throttle for the pilot position. This allows both
the pilot and instructor to fly with their left hand on the throttle
and right hand on the stick.

Flight schools will like the airplane because it is easy to inspect and
maintain. All consumable items are available off the shelf from US
suppliers.

We would love to have you and other flight schools that are interested
in the airplane to come down to Memphis and see it once it gets here.
We will be at Airventure, display #39.

Regards,

Rick Pellicciotti
Belle Aire Aviation
LightSportFlying.com

[xyzzy]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> In article >, Lakeview Bill wrote:
>
>>Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?
>
>
> I would suspect lack of support from local GA facilities - the 4 stroke
> Rotaxes and the Jabiru are not particularly common in the US so few
> mechanics will be familiar with them. Other than that, they are decent
> reliable engines.
>

Those engines seem to have a bad reputation in the U.S. They are seen
as cheapo engines for people who can't afford "real" engines from cont
or lyc. One flight school I know of had diamond katanas with Rotax
engines and only got 900 hours out of them despite regular use. I don't
know how typical that is, but you often hear stories like that. Maybe
it's the Avgas we use over here (it certainly isn't good for small
continentals either, but like you said those can be fixed by just about
anyone). Not having owned or maintained an engine myself I don't know
but I do know their reputation is not good here. For example one of the
new companies (I think it was Liberty) was initially going to use a
Rotax and got no interest, changed to a Continental and now are taken
more seriously.

[rpellicciotti]

Ron,
First of all, let me say that I really enjoy your writings. I have
found them most informative over the years.

The airplanes have just completed certification in Romania and they
will be here in a couple of weeks. At that time, our local FSDO along
with our DAR will work on finishing up the S-LSA certification. We
haven't quite gotten it done but we expect to have the certification in
hand in time for Airventure.

We would have it done by now because we had built the airplane for the
proposed 1232 pound weight limit. When the final rule came out, we
made the business decision to re-engineer the airplane for 1350 pounds
and we had to build new prototypes for testing. We finished testing
the new prototypes last week (one was tested to destruction) and the
first two production airplanes have flown. Hopefully, it won't be long
now.

I realize that the website says it is a Special Light Sport Aircraft,
sold ready to fly. That is our intent. We put it on the web site that
way so that people could easily understand that it is not a kit.
Having been around since the BD-5 debacle, we haven't taken anyone's
money and we won't until the certification is done. We have allowed a
couple of people that wanted to be at the head of the line to setup
escrow accounts at their own banks and put deposits in them that they
control. In return, we have reserved production spots for them.

Regards,

Rick Pellicciotti
Belle Aire Aviation
LightSportFlying.com

[Mark Smith]

rpellicciotti wrote:
>
> Mark,
> We think Festival will make an excellent trainer. The landing gear is
> very rugged. The visibility is great. I have flown the airplane from
> both seats and it is easy to fly. The airplane is quiet enough that
> you can talk between each other without headsets. We even offer an
> optional, left-hand throttle for the pilot position. This allows both
> the pilot and instructor to fly with their left hand on the throttle
> and right hand on the stick.
>
> Flight schools will like the airplane because it is easy to inspect and
> maintain. All consumable items are available off the shelf from US
> suppliers.
>
> We would love to have you and other flight schools that are interested
> in the airplane to come down to Memphis and see it once it gets here.
> We will be at Airventure, display #39.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rick Pellicciotti
> Belle Aire Aviation
> LightSportFlying.com

It's just that it flies too fast for basic sprot training,,,,,,,,

87 knots is the max flat out speed for a trainer.

a sign off after you are sprot certified may be obtained for the faster
plane,,,,,

--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

[rpellicciotti]

Mark,
You have two options here. You can ground adjust the prop to limit the
speed or you can simply endorse your student for the required higher
speed training prior to solo. At least that is what I am told by the
folks I have talked with at EAA and FAA.

Regards,

Rick Pellicciotti
Belle Aire Aviation
LightSportFlying.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mark Smith" > wrote in message
...
> rpellicciotti wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>> We think Festival will make an excellent trainer. The landing gear is
>> very rugged. The visibility is great. I have flown the airplane from
>> both seats and it is easy to fly. The airplane is quiet enough that
>> you can talk between each other without headsets. We even offer an
>> optional, left-hand throttle for the pilot position. This allows both
>> the pilot and instructor to fly with their left hand on the throttle
>> and right hand on the stick.
>>
>> Flight schools will like the airplane because it is easy to inspect and
>> maintain. All consumable items are available off the shelf from US
>> suppliers.
>>
>> We would love to have you and other flight schools that are interested
>> in the airplane to come down to Memphis and see it once it gets here.
>> We will be at Airventure, display #39.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rick Pellicciotti
>> Belle Aire Aviation
>> LightSportFlying.com
>
> It's just that it flies too fast for basic sprot training,,,,,,,,
>
> 87 knots is the max flat out speed for a trainer.
>
> a sign off after you are sprot certified may be obtained for the faster
> plane,,,,,
>
> --
> Mark Smith
> Tri-State Kite Sales
> 1121 N Locust St
> Mt Vernon, IN 47620
> 1-812-838-6351
> http://www.trikite.com
>


Mark what are you talking about? Where exactly is that in the regs?

[W P Dixon]

Gig 601,
Check out FAR 61.327 , you will find it there. Of course if you are
trining in a plane already faster, it's really no big deal. I think maybe it
was put in there to keep ultralighters from just hopping in a Luscombe :)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:GRone.21384$DC2.15030@okepread01...
>
>
> Mark what are you talking about? Where exactly is that in the regs?
>
>

[Morgans]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
> Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?

How shall I count the ways?

They require their oil, their oil filters, their everything. You pay dearly
for this.

They always have seemed to be temperamental. Everything has to be just
right, to be even close to reliable.

See above. If everything is not just right, they are not reliable. I know
the 912 and 914's are not 2 strokes, but what pieces the 2 strokes are. I
know, some will testify that they have never had a minute's problem, but
there are more out there that have. My gut, and my but says to not trust
them. I don't and I won't. Gut means a llot, to me.

They don't sound "manly" enough. Kinda like a sewing machine, compared to a
Harley. Airplanes are supposed to be "cool", and they aren't. :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"rpellicciotti" > wrote in message

> Jim,
> I appreciate your comments. Obviously, we think the airplane is a
> winner or we would have bought a different one. Would you mind
> expanding on your comment a bit?

See my post, and the other posts from other people. They all raise (or
most, anyway) some good points.

As far as the 6 thousand, I could live with that. The useful load is a
problem, but that is tolerable, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("rpellicciotti" wrote)
> We would have it done by now because we had built the airplane for the
> proposed 1232 pound weight limit. When the final rule came out, we
> made the business decision to re-engineer the airplane for 1350 pounds
> and we had to build new prototypes for testing.


Is there a market for a single seat production plane?

One seat (S)LSA: Now you have (maybe) 150#'s extra to play with. Diesel!

Crotch-rocket motorcycle, single person jet-ski, single person hang-glider,
single person glider, single person kayak, ....single person plane. Where do
I sign up? Also, no need to insure that second seat!!! Plus low purchase
price = lower hull insurance.

Wings that remove, or fold back, for a (max) width of 7-ft. Plane not longer
than 22-ft (20-ft would be better). Prop rests at 9-3 so plane can be towed
backwards - home to the garage. (Plane up on a trailer can't clear the
garage door - never tried <g>)

Anyone have something like that on the drawing board? Small, certified,
production (RV-3 type? Or a high wing?) single seater LSA ...that I can tow
home? Under $45K? Oh, 2 miles per minute in cruise would be nice :-)


Montblack

[Dude]

>
> Those engines seem to have a bad reputation in the U.S. They are seen as
> cheapo engines for people who can't afford "real" engines from cont or
> lyc. One flight school I know of had diamond katanas with Rotax engines
> and only got 900 hours out of them despite regular use. I don't know how
> typical that is, but you often hear stories like that. Maybe it's the
> Avgas we use over here (it certainly isn't good for small continentals
> either, but like you said those can be fixed by just about anyone). Not
> having owned or maintained an engine myself I don't know but I do know
> their reputation is not good here. For example one of the new companies
> (I think it was Liberty) was initially going to use a Rotax and got no
> interest, changed to a Continental and now are taken more seriously.
>

I am fairly familiar with the Diamond/Rotax issues. The engines are not
bad. Whoever said that there are support issues was spot on. Whether this
will change with Sport Pilot remains to be seen.

There are several aspects of the Rotax engines that the average Lyc/con AP
will set precisely backwards without proper training and support. Neither
of which has been forthcoming from Bombardier.

[Mark Smith]

rpellicciotti wrote:
>
> Mark,
> You have two options here. You can ground adjust the prop to limit the
> speed or you can simply endorse your student for the required higher
> speed training prior to solo. At least that is what I am told by the
> folks I have talked with at EAA and FAA.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rick Pellicciotti
> Belle Aire Aviation
> LightSportFlying.com

I've asked around, and it seems solo in the faster plane isn't mpossible
until you have a signoff for the faster plane,

and the signoff is only given to sport pilots,,,,,,,,,,not students

not sure what the deal is,

i thought this was stupid from the gitgo,

obviously, the FnAA has backed down or is mistaken,

again, sport pile it, written by those who don't fly much about planes
they don't fly at all !

--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

[Mark Smith]

W P Dixon wrote:
>
> Gig 601,
> Check out FAR 61.327 , you will find it there. Of course if you are
> trining in a plane already faster, it's really no big deal. I think maybe it
> was put in there to keep ultralighters from just hopping in a Luscombe :)
>
> Patrick
> student SPL


how do you do a cross country in a plane you are not signed off on ?

or is all the sprot pile it training dual ?

--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

[W P Dixon]

Mark,
I believe it will work the same as getting a PPL. A PPL has to have a sign
off while a student in order to solo different planes. I believe you are
trying to make sport "pile" as you call it more complicated than what it is
...just because you don't like it.
There is a sport pilot place up in MASS. that is doing it's training in
Ercoupe's , which is alittle faster than the "high speed" cutoff ;) Sounds
funny calling it a high speed cut off doesn't it! ;) Evidently people are
soloing,..getting the endorsement to solo and soloing the Ercoupe.
I would imagine you can get an endorsement for it anyway, look at the
places that give PPL's taildragger endorsements with no solo , because of
insurance.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Mark Smith" > wrote in message
...
>W P Dixon wrote:
>>
>> Gig 601,
>> Check out FAR 61.327 , you will find it there. Of course if you are
>> trining in a plane already faster, it's really no big deal. I think maybe
>> it
>> was put in there to keep ultralighters from just hopping in a Luscombe :)
>>
>> Patrick
>> student SPL
>
>
> how do you do a cross country in a plane you are not signed off on ?
>
> or is all the sprot pile it training dual ?
>
> --
> Mark Smith
> Tri-State Kite Sales
> 1121 N Locust St
> Mt Vernon, IN 47620
> 1-812-838-6351
> http://www.trikite.com
>

[ls]

Morgans wrote:
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Just out of curiosity, why do you dislike the Rotax?
>
>
> How shall I count the ways?
>
> They require their oil, their oil filters, their everything. You pay dearly
> for this.
>
> They always have seemed to be temperamental. Everything has to be just
> right, to be even close to reliable.
>
> See above. If everything is not just right, they are not reliable. I know
> the 912 and 914's are not 2 strokes, but what pieces the 2 strokes are. I
> know, some will testify that they have never had a minute's problem, but
> there are more out there that have. My gut, and my but says to not trust
> them. I don't and I won't. Gut means a llot, to me.

I have to disagree with your assessment of the Rotax 2-strokes here,
it's just not informed. I've owned 6 of them over the years (just now
got #7 delivered a few weeks ago), 5 503's and a 2 447's. I have
hundreds of hours in front of/underneath Rotax 2-strokes at this point
(500 hours as a rough guess) so I've gotten to know some of their
strengths and weaknesses.

The chief strength of the Rotax 2-strokes is the field experience
available. We know how to install them, prop them, jet them, load them,
maintain them and what parts and peripherals to use with them. This is
the _#1_ strength of the Rotax - it's not so much that it's such a
superior design (it's not much more than a snomobile engine with a
beefed up bottom end and slightly different metallurgy in certain places
like the pistons), but again it's field experience we have available for
setup, installation and running that really makes them reliable.

They are also the only 2-stroke on the market that can really do
continuous high power for hundreds and hundreds of hours without failure
(provided it's installed, setup and run right, of course).

The chief weakness is probably the same as for all 2-strokes; they can't
handle a lot of abuse such as lean running, underpropping and so on.
They also require more frequent maintenance (typically for leaking seals).

But the truth is, the rotax 2-strokes are very reliable, long lasting
engines.

I know a lot less about the 912, since I've never owned one, so can't
comment on those (I don't know of any rampant reliability problems with
them, though, from the fairly numerous locals who fly them).

> They

don't sound "manly" enough. Kinda like a sewing machine, compared to a
> Harley. Airplanes are supposed to be "cool", and they aren't. :-)

I kind of like the scream of a 2-stroke rotax, but that might just be
because I'm used to it. OTOH, the coolest sounding is the merlin in the
P51.....

LS
N646F

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 00:42:06 GMT, ls > wrote:

>I have to disagree with your assessment of the Rotax 2-strokes here,
>it's just not informed. I've owned 6 of them over the years (just now
>got #7 delivered a few weeks ago), 5 503's and a 2 447's. I have
>hundreds of hours in front of/underneath Rotax 2-strokes at this point
>(500 hours as a rough guess) so I've gotten to know some of their
>strengths and weaknesses.

Have you had any engine failures?

Ron Wanttaja

[Mark Smith]

W P Dixon wrote:
>
> Mark,
> I believe it will work the same as getting a PPL. A PPL has to have a sign
> off while a student in order to solo different planes. I believe you are
> trying to make sport "pile" as you call it more complicated than what it is
> ..just because you don't like it.
> There is a sport pilot place up in MASS. that is doing it's training in
> Ercoupe's , which is alittle faster than the "high speed" cutoff ;) Sounds
> funny calling it a high speed cut off doesn't it! ;) Evidently people are
> soloing,..getting the endorsement to solo and soloing the Ercoupe.
> I would imagine you can get an endorsement for it anyway, look at the
> places that give PPL's taildragger endorsements with no solo , because of
> insurance.
>
> Patrick
> student SPL


A friend has noted that this stupid provision in the proposed rule was
eliminated after almost everyone thought it was stupid,

again, written by folks who don't fly much about planes hey don't fly at
all,

but now you are saying students may take lessons in a plane that exceeds
the higher upper limit ?

I quit,,,,,,
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620
1-812-838-6351
http://www.trikite.com

[UltraJohn]

>
> but now you are saying students may take lessons in a plane that exceeds
> the higher upper limit ?
>
> I quit,,,,,,


You can take lessons in anything that allows commercial operation or that
you own! The limitation is you can't solo in something exceeding SP
criteria unless you have a medical. Any lesson you take for PPL counts for
SP as far as time etc. it's just the practical and written test are
different (and number of hours).
So if you want you can do all your duel in a Cessna 150 (or 210P ;-) ). But
when you come to solo you will need a SP legal plane and a sign off.
Possibly even a single seater if your cfi is willing to sign you off! ;-0
John

[W P Dixon]

Yep,
I have time in Cherokee 140, Warrior, and Aeronca Champs...all on the
way to getting my sport pilot! Ain't life grand!!! But I will have to solo
and take the check ride in something "sport pilot" rated. But I am sure
after the dual in faster planes the sign off for the "speedsters" in my
class will not be a problem. And hey I don't have to fly a weedeater!!!! ;)
Embrace it Mark and you may have some fun with it,...and you may actually
make some money in it as well if you buy a few sport planes to rent out!
Heck I drove over 5 hours to fly a Champ, and am fixing to drive 7 to fly
another one and a Cub.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>> but now you are saying students may take lessons in a plane that exceeds
>> the higher upper limit ?
>>
>> I quit,,,,,,
>
>
> You can take lessons in anything that allows commercial operation or that
> you own! The limitation is you can't solo in something exceeding SP
> criteria unless you have a medical. Any lesson you take for PPL counts for
> SP as far as time etc. it's just the practical and written test are
> different (and number of hours).
> So if you want you can do all your duel in a Cessna 150 (or 210P ;-) ).
> But
> when you come to solo you will need a SP legal plane and a sign off.
> Possibly even a single seater if your cfi is willing to sign you off! ;-0
> John
>

[Rich S.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> They don't sound "manly" enough. Kinda like a sewing machine, compared to
> a
> Harley. Airplanes are supposed to be "cool", and they aren't. :-)

Yeah Jim. Know just what you mean. There I was, out in the desert slogging
along in my "manly" sounding Ducati when a rice-burning Yamazuki screamed
past me. . . again. Three 33-1/3 mile laps. When I pulled into the pits, the
winners had already packed up and gone home. But that Ducati still sounded
cool. POS!

Rich "Pass the Sake" S.

[Morgans]

"Rich S." > wrote

When I pulled into the pits, the
> winners had already packed up and gone home. But that Ducati still sounded
> cool. POS!

Yeah, but you were doing it in style. Cool counts!

It is already a given that sport planes are not going to be fast. Might as
well get the cool quotient up there! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"UltraJohn" > wrote

The limitation is you can't solo in something exceeding SP
> criteria unless you have a medical. Any lesson you take for PPL counts for
> SP as far as time etc.

> So if you want you can do all your duel in a Cessna 150 (or 210P ;-) ).
But
> when you come to solo you will need a SP legal plane and a sign off.
> Possibly even a single seater if your cfi is willing to sign you off! ;-0

That is the first time I have heard that, but it makes sense. Where did you
get this information?
--
Jim in NC

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Morgans wrote:
> They always have seemed to be temperamental. Everything has to be just
> right, to be even close to reliable.

That certainly doesn't hold true on the 4-strokes. The 4-stroke Rotax
(914UL, the turbosupercharged engine) seems to be pretty robust. In
particular, temperature control is FAR better because it's mainly
thermostatically liquid cooled, so there are fewer concerns over the
engine cooling too fast in a descent or overheating in a climb.

> They don't sound "manly" enough. Kinda like a sewing machine, compared to a
> Harley. Airplanes are supposed to be "cool", and they aren't. :-)

They sound manly enough to me. They certainly FEEL manly enough when you
push the throttle all the way through to get max boost from the turbo.
Once in cruise, getting 50nm/gal (no wind) in the Europa is nice too.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[ls]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 00:42:06 GMT, ls > wrote:
>
>
>>I have to disagree with your assessment of the Rotax 2-strokes here,
>>it's just not informed. I've owned 6 of them over the years (just now
>>got #7 delivered a few weeks ago), 5 503's and a 2 447's. I have
>>hundreds of hours in front of/underneath Rotax 2-strokes at this point
>>(500 hours as a rough guess) so I've gotten to know some of their
>>strengths and weaknesses.
>
>
> Have you had any engine failures?
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I've had one engine out, with my second 447 on my trike several years
ago due to a bad wiring harness job (by me). This allowed the tach lead
to make contact with ground in flight, shutting the motor down (tach
lead to ground shuts off the 447). Once fixed, the motor went back into
service and flew about another 50 hours until it was sold (new owner
still flies the motor).

I've never had a mechanical failure of any type in any of the Rotaxen
I've flown........ Even the old non-provision points motor I had on my
first plane on which I never checked the points...........


LS
N646F

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Your right about that Patrick but the original post claimed that there was
some reason a faster LSA couldn't be used for training of a new sport pilot.
That just isn't the case.


"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601,
> Check out FAR 61.327 , you will find it there. Of course if you are
> trining in a plane already faster, it's really no big deal. I think maybe
> it was put in there to keep ultralighters from just hopping in a Luscombe
> :)
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:GRone.21384$DC2.15030@okepread01...
>>
>>
>> Mark what are you talking about? Where exactly is that in the regs?
>>
>>
>

[rpellicciotti]

My experience is that single place airplanes don't sell. Even though a
lot of people fly their airplanes solo 90% of the time, they feel like
they need the extra seat to justify the purchase. Also, some people
don't like the idea of going solo on a new aircraft type without being
able to get a check out.

A perfect example of this is the RANS S-9. One of the greatest little
airplanes ever. I had one and loved it. They never sold very well
until Randy Schlitter designed a similar but bigger airplane that had
two seats. The S-10 as it was called sold at a clip more than 3 times
the number of S-9's.

Rick Pellicciotti

[rpellicciotti]

Yes, I did my first solo glider flight in a single place 1-26. Gliders
are different, performance is everything.

Rick

[Morgans]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote

> In
> particular, temperature control is FAR better because it's mainly
> thermostatically liquid cooled, so there are fewer concerns over the
> engine cooling too fast in a descent or overheating in a climb.

Are you 100% positive about the thermostat being in a 914? I know it is
water cooled, but I could have sworn that someone recently said (in a
different thread) that there was no thermostat.

I'm glad you feel warm and fuzzy flying a Rotax. The 912 and 914 could be
great, but with all of the other (IMHO) pieces of work Rotax has produced, I
have no faith in anything with that name of it. Sorry, but not my butt!
--
Jim in NC

[ls]

rpellicciotti wrote:
> My experience is that single place airplanes don't sell. Even though a
> lot of people fly their airplanes solo 90% of the time, they feel like
> they need the extra seat to justify the purchase. Also, some people
> don't like the idea of going solo on a new aircraft type without being
> able to get a check out.
>
> A perfect example of this is the RANS S-9. One of the greatest little
> airplanes ever. I had one and loved it. They never sold very well
> until Randy Schlitter designed a similar but bigger airplane that had
> two seats. The S-10 as it was called sold at a clip more than 3 times
> the number of S-9's.
>
> Rick Pellicciotti
>

This is all true..... This is what makes the single-place aircraft is
one of aviation's best kept secrets, especially for guys like myself
whose friends are all either already pilots or don't want to fly, and
whom women won't come within 100' of under any circumstances.

In fact, for light aircraft, the single place:

- requires a lot less motor. Many designs (including the S9) can get by
with a Rotax 503 and a good prop, cutting the motor costs down to as low
as 1/4 of what would need to be spent on the 2-place version (i.e. a 912
or a Jabiru or such).

- weighs between somewhat and a hell of a lot less than the 2-place version.

- offers similar performance, most of the time, to the 2-place version

- has significantly reduced control system complexity, due to the lack
of the second set of controls

- are often significantly less expensive to buy on the used market, due
to their unpopularity.

This last point is the best part from a buyers perspective. True, a
single-place is a lousy investment for an airplane seller, but they're a
great investment for an airplane buyer/flyer.

I got N646F, for example, for less than half what the equivalent 2-place
would have gone for on the used market (assuming similar condition), but
it has probably 80 to 90% of the performance and other capabilities of
the 2-place versions. Not to mention the cheaper cost of operation due
to the 503 engine as opposed to the Jabiru or 912 you'd need on the
2-place to get matching performance (well, you could run a 582 on a Kolb
2-place, but two-up, you'd probably not get the most wonderful performance).

So, yeah, if you plan to sell your airplane, get a 2-place. But if you
want to fly affordably, a single-place is one of the better (if not the
best) options available......

LS
N646F

[ls]

Morgans wrote:
> "rpellicciotti" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Jim,
>>I appreciate your comments. Obviously, we think the airplane is a
>>winner or we would have bought a different one. Would you mind
>>expanding on your comment a bit?
>
>
> See my post, and the other posts from other people. They all raise (or
> most, anyway) some good points.

Actually, those points that have been raised are not so good, because
they don't jive well with what we're seeing out in the field with these
motors.

The Jabiru in particular is actually working out _very_ well locally,
which is a kind of nice surprise. We have a few of these flying in our
area and the results are actually very good. A friend of mine is using
one on his 2-place kolb and it may actually outlive the airframe itself
;) I think the motor is now at 400 hours or something in that region and
it continues to give the owner very low maintenance service.

I personally don't like the 3300 typical rpm and thus the teensy prop,
but I can't argue with the performance of that plane, even in climb.

The 912, well, its record is even longer and it's also known as a very
reliable and long-lasting motor (there's even a certificated version,
the 912S I think it is).

> As far as the 6 thousand, I could live with that. The useful load is a
> problem, but that is tolerable, too.

The continental and lycomings are good motors, but needlessly expensive
and heavy choices for light a/c with the 912 and now the Jabiru as
reliable options. That's why we're starting to see these motors used on
an increasing basis........

LS
N646F