60 Minutes 4/17

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:03:01 -0700, "aluckyguess" wrote:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:05:19 GMT, Jimbob
wrote in ::



It will never have the speed of a Glassair. I just don't think that is
possible.
I thought at one time everyone should fly then I realized it is already
crowded up there and it would suck.
It would be nice if Piper sold its Cherokee 180 for around 50k then most
everyday pilots could have a new plane. This would be economical carry an
average 2 person family and still get you their in a decent time.



Who needs Piper. The new Light Sport's have reasonable performance
and are selling for about 70K. Less range and slightly less speed but
the price is right.

Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

If there was enough volume they could build the plane for less than 50k. It
would replace all the old Piper, Cessna and Beech 2 and 4 seat aircraft.
They sell new cars for way less and there looks to be more work in a new car
than a small plane.
I think if they could sell 1000 a month you could build it for under 50k or
close to it. The only thing I don't know is what the insurance would cost.
I know if Lycoming had a quote come in for 12000 IO 360 engines the price
would drop quite a bit.
You can buy a brand new LS6 corvette engine for 5000.00 that tells me they
are building it for around 1500.

Just my 2 cents.
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"aluckyguess" wrote:
It would be nice if Piper sold its Cherokee 180 for around 50k

Nice for whom? Certainly not for the insane New Piper executive who
approved
such an idea. That would be a lot less than NP's direct cost to build the
airplanes (if they did still build the 180, that is), never mind any
overhead
and profit.

I guess it would be nice if prime ribeye steaks were a dollar a pound,
too,
until all the beef businesses collapsed.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Jimbob" wrote in message
...
snip



Who needs Piper. The new Light Sport's have reasonable performance
and are selling for about 70K. Less range and slightly less speed but
the price is right.

Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

To some extent, Piper sells transportation. Light Sport aircraft will never
be in the same transportation as aircraft that have 2x the mass (good in
turbulence and helps with stability), higher speed, IFR ability, etc.
Performance and capability wise, LSA's are the equivalent of the C-152
without the ability to be upgraded to IFR...

If you're looking for a 100, maybe 120 mph airplane that carries 2 people,
you can get a nice Ercoupe or C-150 for under $20k...

KB

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:03:01 -0700, "aluckyguess" wrote in
::

It will never have the speed of a Glassair.

For the CarterCopter to achieve the speed of a Glassair, would require
considerable power I believe. There's also the stability issue of the
rotor disk in the relative wind at high speed to address. It would
take a cleaver fellow in deed to successfully meet Carter's goals.
But I wouldn't characterize them as impossible.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:21:17 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:



To some extent, Piper sells transportation. Light Sport aircraft will never
be in the same transportation as aircraft that have 2x the mass (good in
turbulence and helps with stability), higher speed, IFR ability, etc.
Performance and capability wise, LSA's are the equivalent of the C-152
without the ability to be upgraded to IFR...

If you're looking for a 100, maybe 120 mph airplane that carries 2 people,
you can get a nice Ercoupe or C-150 for under $20k...

KB


To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing prevent an LSA from
becoming IFR certified. The pilot must have a private rating to take
advantage of this. However, if that pilot was operating under the
sportpilot rule, they can't fly IFR.

The weight issue is a valid argument. On the plus side, you are
looking at a new aircraft vs. 30yo.

I don't expect LSA to replace mooneys or lancairs, but I can see a
segment of the population that could consider it for the
transportation roles that c-152 performance class aircraft are used
for.




Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:25:43 -0700, Scott Moore
wrote:


- Again another promotion of the idea that aircraft have to land vertical,
or drive on streets, in order to be "common".

It would have to be VTOL to truely replace the car whcih is really the
angle the piece was going for. However, to be competative with the
airlines, it does not. I think they touched on both scenerios.



- They were promoting Nasa's HITS program and calling it "future" aviation,
instead of simply going down to Cirrus and showing that most of that technology
is shipping right now.

That's why I'm not concerned about the lack of funding through NASA.
We've got everything needed to implement HITS now. Glass, GPS and
Synthetic vision. We just need FAA guidance for the routes, protocol
and a business case for a company to write the software.

FAA certificaiton of the software is the real problem. It wouldn't
surprise me for it to be in in experimentals 5 years before standard
category aircraft got it.


Just say yes to FAA deregulation


Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

"Jimbob" wrote

I don't expect LSA to replace mooneys or lancairs, but I can see a
segment of the population that could consider it for the
transportation roles that c-152 performance class aircraft are used
for.

A LSA could be much more capable than a 152. A nice slippery one could bop
along at the LSA top speed of 120 knots, compared to the 152's top speed of
108 knots. That means it would take the 152 an extra 33 minutes to get to
where the LSA got to, when taking a 5 hour trip. Not huge, but notable, I
think. That assumes the 152 could maintain the book top speed for 5.55
hours, which is unlikely, unless it is factory fresh. Never mind the little
detail of the book duration given for the 152 is only at a little over 3.5
hours. The difference in distance traveled could be close to double the
152's range, for only an extra 1.5 hours in the air, for the LSA.

Given, this dream LSA I am talking about would have to be an _exceptional_
plane; light, low fuel consumption, and fast.

Beauty is, that it could be possible. Hey, a guy made a plane with a Briggs
and Stratton engine that could go _too fast_ to be a LSA, and with loads of
weight left over for fuel. Anything is possible with an experimental.

Still, the shame is that the FAA made the new LSA maximum weight rule so low
that a 152 is too heavy. It is a shame that this harmless little airplane,
along with the 150, and dozens of other AC could have made training and use
of the new rule so much more meaningful.
--
Jim in NC

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:38:33 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


Still, the shame is that the FAA made the new LSA maximum weight rule so low
that a 152 is too heavy. It is a shame that this harmless little airplane,
along with the 150, and dozens of other AC could have made training and use
of the new rule so much more meaningful.

IMHO, I think the LSA regs are a test case to see how FAA deregulation
will work out. In a couple of years, if the safety record is solid, I
would expect some gradual expansion of the capabilities of the
aircraft.

It would not surprise me to see all non-commercial uses of aircraft
covered by the rule in my lifetime. It's the only way that personal
air transportation will flourish.




Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org

"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
snip
The only thing I don't know is what the insurance would cost.
I know if Lycoming had a quote come in for 12000 IO 360 engines the price
would drop quite a bit.
You can buy a brand new LS6 corvette engine for 5000.00 that tells me they
are building it for around 1500.


Actually if Lycoming had an order for 12000 IO360 engines from one customer
the price would probably go up and the quality would go down. Lycoming sold
all of their machinery and has all of their parts made outside by
subcontractors. Each subcontractor has a significant "learning curve"
coming up to speed. ( See the court case that Lycoming lost recently about
crankshaft specifications and manufacturing procedures ) They would be
unable to get enough parts at any price to assemble them in a reasonable
time. ( NOTE: this is an opinion based on my knowledge of the aircraft
engine business. )

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Still, the shame is that the FAA made the new LSA maximum weight rule so
low
that a 152 is too heavy. It is a shame that this harmless little
airplane,
along with the 150, and dozens of other AC could have made training and
use
of the new rule so much more meaningful.
--
Jim in NC


That happened because the FAA asked the current manufacturers of little
airplanes what the rules should be. They got together and ruled out as many
as they could of the competitive certified airplanes with the restrictive
weight limits.

The gross weight, within rather wide limits, doesn't make an airplane easier
or harder to fly. Many of these LSA legal small airplanes are much trickier
to fly than the venerable Cessna 150 or 152. ALL of them are more
expensive to buy.

They did NOT want to have to compete with all of those airplanes that are
already out there in the fleet. They did NOT want LSA instructors able to
go out and instruct in the same Cessna 150 they have been teaching people to
fly in for years. They did not was LSA instructors able to go out and
instruct in the same "two place Ultralights" that they have been giving
Ultralight instruction in for years. They DID want anyone who wants to
instruct in LSA categories to have to go out and buy a new LSA certified
aircraft from one of the helpful manufacturers who helped to set the rules.

If you do not already know how to fly, where would you go today to get a
Light Sport Pilots License?

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )