60 Minutes 4/17

"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

"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 )

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


"Jimbob" wrote

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.


I agree completely. The specs are in line. The planes look great.
The fuel consumption is awesome and most use mogas. Consensus repair
parts should be significantly less expensive. And current total costs
are with certified powerplants that still have amortized FAA
certification costs associated with them.

When engines come out that were designed to consensus standards
without the FAA overhead, price should move down. Imaginge a rebuild
for only $4K. That should make cost of ownership drop quite a bit.

I am really interested in what shakes out from the inital sales in the
next few months(And at sun&fun). I would really be stunned if LSA
does not take off like a rocket.

Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org