Sport Pilot Talk

airshowfan · Joined: 28 Dec 2011 Posts: 4 Location: Seattle, WA

Hey everyone. I just joined this website. I realize that my question has been addressed on other threads, but only tangentially. I would like to ask it directly.

There are a lot of LSAs out there that cost well over $100K. The Sting, the Remos, the Skycatcher, the Bristell, the SportCruiser... My question is: Who buys these airplanes? Are there enough people who would prefer an expensive LSA over a used Part 23 airplane (cheaper and almost certainly more capable in every way) to justify these markets?

I can think of two kinds of customers for these airplanes.

One, of course, is pilots who lost their medical. They can afford a two-hundred-thousand-dollar airplane, but the FAA will only let them fly airplanes that weigh under 1320 lbs. Some manufacturers have invested into catering for that market, and decided that it will be a worthwhile investment to develop the fanciest nicest LSAs they can.

(Notice, however, that if the FAA ends up allowing Recreational Pilots to fly without a medical, then this market evaporates... unless most of these pilots need to fly long trips, which maybe they do. How many current LSA pilots will switch to Recreational if the medical requirement for Recreational is dropped?)

The other is flight schools / FBOs. Sure, it would be cheaper to buy a used 150 or 172. But buying an LSA, which burns less fuel (and might be cheaper to maintain, for all I know), allows a flight school / FBO to offer rentals at lower prices. It's a tough market right now, with fewer students, and flight schools are closing... so having a low-cost rental option might be what draws pilots to your FBO, so the one that goes out of business is the one next door instead of yours.

(But LSAs have been available for years now. I would think that any FBO that was contemplating getting an LSA... would already have by now. What are they waiting for?)

Am I missing something, or is that about it?

And are sales to these two markets big enough to justify the development of all these expensive LSAs? How well are they selling, really?

It has also occurred to me that, for some reason, these LSAs might not seem overpriced to people in other countries. Most of them are Czech or German or Italian after all. Maybe a used Cessna or Piper is really expensive over there. Is that the case?

And, of course, there's the fact that LSAs burn less fuel. A Cessna 172 might burn 8ish gph, and an LSA might burn 5ish. But the LSA still costs a few times what the 172 costs, a difference of at least a few dozens of thousands of dollars. That will not pay for itself unless you're flying thousands and thousands of hours. You'll probably wear out the LSA before the fuel savings make up for the huge initial price.

Sure, LSAs are arguably more fun to fly, and the ones with bubble canopies have unbeatable views. I still rent a SportStar once in a while, even though I can rent a Cessna 170 for a lower price and closer to my home (and carry more than one passenger if I want). But when it comes to buying airplanes; Is the SportStar's "cool factor" worth paying two or three times the cost of a Cessna? Probably not.

artp · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 154 Location: Odenton, Md

airshowfan wrote: But when it comes to buying airplanes; Is the SportStar's "cool factor" worth paying two or three times the cost of a Cessna? Probably not.

I am buying a new Tecnam Sierra for more than $150,000. I certainly think that was a better option than a old Cessna. Fuel economy, low wing, higher crosswind capability, 2 year warranty, easier to move around on the ground, more advanced avionics, and if I get tired of dealing with the medical every 2 years I can still fly it.

designrs · Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 144

Re the flight school part of your question:
I've seen flight schools that had one very nice LSA just sit on the ramp mixed in with their other aircraft. The plane wasn't getting rented/used enough so they sold it.

On the other hand I've seen other flight schools with dedicated LSA training programs and their LSA's are flying all the time.

Some flight schools see mostly older students come for the LSA (no medical required) while other flight schools attract a whole bunch of younger pilots that like the modern aircraft and state of the art avionics.

LSA might not really be a cheeper option for flight schools compared to an old Cessna for a low capital investment.

Maintence is another reason why LSA needs a very consientious and dedicated program. Rotax is a great motor, but it must be maintained properly ways that are different from other motors. If a flight school is going to buy a Rotax powered LSA they need a plan to properly maintain and fuel it.

It really is a whole mix of factors going on with LSA.

For me, I like a modern aircraft but I'm not going to pay $350k + for one (unless Cirrus offers 150 year finance otions!) So the LSA is a much more likely option.

RyanShort1 · Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Posts: 101 Location: San Antonio, TX

The truth of the matter is that there is segment of the market that just has to have NEW. I think that's great. A tailwheel customer of mine bought a Carbon Cub. It's an awesome plane and I'm glad that there are manufacturers out there for guys like him.

Ryan

zaitcev · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 258 Location: Albuquerque, NM

I know a guy who plopped a deposit for Icon. Not something I'd do but it takes all kinds.

3Dreaming · Joined: 10 Jan 2010 Posts: 301 Location: noble, IL USA

I heard this from the owner of an LSA company. When you go car shopping do you buy a new car with a warranty $20,000 and up, or a 35 year old low mileage car for next to nothing. Some will opt for the older car, but most go for something newer. Most of the old school aircraft owners a cheap. I've dealt with them wanting to cut corners for over 30 years. Some of the new people coming into aviation have the new car mind set which is not a bad thing.

deltafox · Joined: 06 Apr 2010 Posts: 89

I bought a PiperSport. I wanted a glass panel, full autopilot driven by the navigation system, and low operating costs. I have flown old Cessnas and Pipers and grew up with steam gauges, but also transitioned to the Cirrus and fell in love with the situational awareness its cockpit provides. I love flying in "the system" but have had my fair share of single pilot IFR and no longer find that desirable. Since I like flying at night, I've kept my medical and understand that age will eventually catch up with me. So my LSA accomplishes 90% of MY mission. (...and it IS really fun to fly a new airplane.)

artp · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 154 Location: Odenton, Md

deltafox wrote: I love flying in "the system" but have had my fair share of single pilot IFR and no longer find that desirable.

Install a WAAS certified GPS or an SL30 and you can still fly IFR (but not IMC).

Daidalos · Joined: 12 Feb 2009 Posts: 137 Location: KHWV

artp wrote: deltafox wrote: I love flying in "the system" but have had my fair share of single pilot IFR and no longer find that desirable.

Install a WAAS certified GPS or an SL30 and you can still fly IFR (but not IMC).

There is a certified version of the Rotax available. I have seen IFR certified Tecnams and Sportstars. Very frankly not worth the price difference. IMHO.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

For me, the excellent utility of an LSA came as a surprise. I just took my first "real" trip in the SportStar (for the past two years, I've been too busy instructing to get the chance for much fun flying). Went to Sport Aviation Expo in Florida, from home base in PA. Took me 9.1 hours Hobbs going down, and 9.0 coming back - only about two hours more each way than it used to take me in my Beechcraft. I burned about 80 gallons total, which is maybe half the fuel I used to use for the same trip. That's really not so bad -- but it took me two days down, and three days back, to accomplish those 18.1 hours, due to wx. The day VFR limitations of the Sport Pilot privileges mean you have to be more adaptable (and patient). Fortunately, I had a wide-open schedule.

Bottom line: the trip was affordable, and fun, and I had plenty of room (and weight allowance) for just me, full fuel, and a bunch more baggage than I really needed. Since 99% of my flying in the Beech was with a whole bunch of empty seats, LSA suits my needs just fine!

artp · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 154 Location: Odenton, Md

[quote="Daidalos"][quote="artp"] deltafox wrote:
There is a certified version of the Rotax available. I have seen IFR certified Tecnams and Sportstars. Very frankly not worth the price difference. IMHO.

Flying in and out of the DC area IFR makes life a lot easier. You don't need the 912S (certified Rotax) to fly IFR.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

airshowfan wrote: the LSA still costs a few times what the 172 costs

Not really, if you compare apples to apples. A new LSA with good avionics and glass costs, let's say, $150,000. A new 172, similarly equipped, runs $297,000!

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

artp wrote: You don't need the 912S (certified Rotax) to fly IFR.

The ASTM rules regarding actual IMC were changed last year -- I don't know the details, but I do know that there are only two IFR-legal SportStars in the US (they predate the rule change), and there will be no additional ones. Those two planes have the certified 912S, and my understanding is that the FARs do require a Part 33 certified engine and prop to go actual.

The 912S is, for all practical purposes, identical to the 912 ULS. It is built by the same workers, on the same assembly line, with parts taken from the same parts bins. The only differences are the paperwork, the data plate, the certification process, the liability being assumed by the manufacturer -- and, of course, the price (ULS currently costs $18.250 new in the crate -- S costs 10k more). I wonder how much of that 10k goes to the lawyers...

artp · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 154 Location: Odenton, Md

drseti wrote: artp wrote: You don't need the 912S (certified Rotax) to fly IFR.

The ASTM rules regarding actual IMC were changed last year -- I don't know the details, but I do know that there are only two IFR-legal SportStars in the

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. The ASTM rules (which have yet to be approved) address IMC not IFR. That means you can fly and fly IFR with only a certified navigation source (not even that if you can get vectors) as long as you don't get into IMC. This gets you into the system and receiving all of the ATC separation services.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

artp wrote: The ASTM rules (which have yet to be approved) address IMC not IFR.

Yes, that's exactly what I said:

drseti wrote: The ASTM rules regarding actual IMC were changed last year

artp wrote: That means you can fly and fly IFR <snip> as long as you don't get into IMC.

Well, yes, but...

When you accept an IFR clearance, you get assigned a heading and a hard altitude. If you find yourself on a course that is going to penetrate IMC, you end up having to cancel IFR. If you're already in airspace that requires a clearance (say, the DC special use airspace), you can end up with a major violation! I'd prefer not to file IFR if I can't go actual IMC.