Light Sport Aircraft for Private Pilots (Long)

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.