Does LSA really make flying cheaper?

[Aerco]

I am all for the new Sport Pilot certificate - it is bound to increase the number of new pilots and make aviation more popular among people who may never have considered previously,

Howeve, as far as Light Sport Aircraft themselves are concerned, this new category has done nothing to bring down the cost of flying. An average two seat LSA now costs around $100,000. If, for a prospective new aviator, the cost of obtaining a regular Private License seems out of reach at around $6000-7000, how on earth can (s)he afford to buy a new LSA?

The pool of Standard Category aircraft that can be flown on SP license is limited. Many homebuilts fit this niche, purely by accident, rather than design, though.

So has this new Category really achieved its aims? Flight Design for example have sold nearly 200 airplanes, but I am willing to bet these are mostly to existing pilots, who are financially well off, or retired. I doubt it is bringing in new pilots at that cost.

I am fully aware of the cost of aircraft production and what can and can't be done, but I am convinced that it ought to be possible to produce an LSA
for substantially less than the current prices. As a bit of food for thought - the cost of a kit version of a certain LSA is about half the cost of the fly-away version. In other words you are paying about $50,000 to have a kit assembled. Considering the man-hours quoted for a typical kit assembly, that is a pretty steep workshop rate. Not insanely expensive, but steep - what you might pay at a Lexus or Mercedes dealer's work shop.

Whatever the justification for the cost, I would argue LSA does very little to bring down the cost new aircraft.

Any thoughts?

[KSCessnaDriver]

The light sport aircraft and rating weren't designed to bring more people into aviation, and turn them into pilots. It was designed to regulate many, many, many Part 103 "compliant" airplanes, that weren't really compliant with the regulations. The FAA compromised, and came up with light sport. EAA/AOPA are the ones who turned it into a marketing scheme, to get new pilots into the game.

[frfly172]

Some thoughts.The lsa was designed for several reasons and origanally they where going to be way under 100k.Another reason was for those that couldnot or would not maintain a medical and still wanted to fly legally.The cocept is good a two person aircraft with fun handling and still handy for short cross countries in good weather.I have to agree the price of an lsa is high and going higher with each new model the lsa is starting to compete with sklightly used ifr capable aircraft.Still i think there is definately a market for lsa especialy when they start to hit the used market in greater volume.

[rfane]

KSCD is correct. LSA was not approved by the FAA to bring the cost of flying down. It was to bring all of the fat ultralights, and their pilots, under regulation. Period. What makes you think that the FAA cares how much a plane costs, or how much it costs to get earn a Pilot's Cert.?

The FAA was then persuaded to accept the international microlight standards, as the limitations for LSA aircraft. That's where the 1320 lb. (600 kilo) gross weight comes from, and the ASTM standards, etc. This is why the LSA and SP rules took 10 years to get approved.

Flight Design has actually sold over 300 CT's.

Does the kit you mentioned include the engine, prop, instruments, paint, and interior? Or do you have to provide those seperately? How many man hours does that manufacturer estimate that it takes to build that kit? For a first time builder, you can usually triple that estimate to get the actual build time.

You have to remember, these are hand built for the most part. Tooling and molds are only good for so long, and the cost of them is included in each plane built. The only real way to bring the costs down, is to mass produce the things on an assembly line, and bring more auitomation into the process. Until the market supports that, costs will remain high.

New LSA are far less expensive than New standard category aircraft. My CT was roughly 40% of the cost of a new Cessna 172, at the time I bought it. It also burns half the fuel, while outperforming that 172. You can't compare the cost of a brand new S-LSA, to a 30 year old used aircraft, and then say the S-LSA is expensive. That's the old apples to oranges comparison. Wait 10 years, then compare the same aged S-LSA and standard category aircraft, and you will find that they are more in line.

[KSCessnaDriver]

New LSA are far less expensive than New standard category aircraft. My CT was roughly 40% of the cost of a new Cessna 172, at the time I bought it. It also burns half the fuel, while outperforming that 172. You can't compare the cost of a brand new S-LSA, to a 30 year old used aircraft, and then say the S-LSA is expensive. That's the old apples to oranges comparison. Wait 10 years, then compare the same aged S-LSA and standard category aircraft, and you will find that they are more in line.

Its not real fair to compare your 2 seat CTSW (and this is by no means a bash on CTSW's, I like flying them) versus a 4 seat C172. If you want to compare it to something, you'd need to do it versus a 2 seat, something like a DA-20, Liberty XL-2 or Symphony 160. Make it a closer analysis, and you'll find that LSA's are still cheaper, but not by the same amount.

[rfane]

Its not real fair to compare your 2 seat CTSW (and this is by no means a bash on CTSW's, I like flying them) versus a 4 seat C172. If you want to compare it to something, you'd need to do it versus a 2 seat, something like a DA-20, Liberty XL-2 or Symphony 160. Make it a closer analysis, and you'll find that LSA's are still cheaper, but not by the same amount.

Why isn't it fair? The 172 is one of the top seller's in the GA market. The CT is the top seller in the S-LSA market. The 172SP comes close on performance to a CT. Just because the 172 has 4 seats, doesn't mean it's not a fair comparison. I was flying 172's prior to transitioning to a CT. I had people in the back seat a grand total of 7 times in 9 years of flying them. The only two seat standard category aircraft I have ever flown, is a 152, which is no longer made.

The DA-20 is a fair comparison, but I personally don't like the looks of them, and don't know much about them. I have no idea what a new one is priced at.

I'm less prone to compare against the Liberty and Symphony, due to their financial issues. Is Symphony still in business? Liberty strung their customers out for quite a while waiting for deliveries. I'm not sure how well they are doing. The interesting thing about both of those companies, is they both have taken experimental aircraft, and got them certified. The Symphony 160 is basically a GlaStar. I have flown those, and heavily considered building one, as they are great performers. The Liberty is a Europa, which I have not flown.

[rfane]

I just went to Diamond's website, and priced out a DA-20, similarly equipped to my CT. $213K was the price. The website says that prices are subject to a 3% increase each year, so we'll say the price has increased 10% from 2006. That puts it at the $195K range. I paid just less than 60% of that for my CT.

[KSCessnaDriver]

I mean, comparing a CTSW and a C172 would be the equivalent of comparing a CRJ900 and a Boeing 737-800. Only twice as much seating, but its clearly not the same type of aircraft.

But, I do understand why you wanted to compare to the 172. I love flying LSA's, but I probably never will own one. For the price of a nice LSA, there are so many other certificated planes out there that do so much more, if you can keep the medical. But I digress. Your correct on the Symphony (no longer in business, but someone is trying to bring it back, IIRC) and Liberty is really struggling.

If you want to compare operating costs, I've got no problem comparing a 172 and a CTSW. You can divide it out by seat cost, and make it a fair comparison, but we're talking acquisition costs.

[rfane]

I mean, comparing a CTSW and a C172 would be the equivalent of comparing a CRJ900 and a Boeing 737-800. Only twice as much seating, but its clearly not the same type of aircraft.

But, I do understand why you wanted to compare to the 172. I love flying LSA's, but I probably never will own one. For the price of a nice LSA, there are so many other certificated planes out there that do so much more, if you can keep the medical. But I digress. Your correct on the Symphony (no longer in business, but someone is trying to bring it back, IIRC) and Liberty is really struggling.

If you want to compare operating costs, I've got no problem comparing a 172 and a CTSW. You can divide it out by seat cost, and make it a fair comparison, but we're talking acquisition costs.

The only thing different between the 172 and the CT, is IFR ability in the 172. As a VFR only pilot, to me the 172 and the CT are the same type of aircraft. I fly the same mission with both. Long cross-country's with my wife or a friend, and often solo. All of my flights with anyone in the back seat, were local flights for food, etc. Most 172's can't handle filling the seats, plus luggage, plus enough fuel to get somewhere. All the seats in the back did for me, was to allow me to take bigger luggage. Now I have to pack in a smaller case, that will fit through the baggage door. This still gives me a weeks worth of baggage, if I have a passenger. Two week plus trips aren't an issue with the laundry facilities at motels, or if I'm solo. I've flown my CT across the country and back, with no issue.

The operating cost per seat comparison is nice, if you fill all the seats.

Yes, we were talking about acquisition costs. Are there any standard category aircraft being built now, that can beat an S-LSA in acquisition cost for a brand new one?

For my mission, S-LSA are far cheaper to acquire and operate. I understand that others don't have the same mission, and I don't fault anyone their choice of aircraft. I don't have a problem keeping my medical, but I chose to buy an LSA anyways. Don't take any of this as being a CT positive post. It's what I own, and I know how much I paid for it. Many other S-LSA can be substituted in place of CT in my posts in this thread.

[zdc]

Most Light Sports are produced in Europe. If the dollar hadn't loss so much value they could be had for less than 100K.

[rfane]

Most Light Sports are produced in Europe. If the dollar hadn't loss so much value they could be had for less than 100K.

The exchange rate with the Euro is certainly a large part of the increase in S-LSA prices in the last few years. The rest is that the manufacturers have kept the higher prices, even when the Euro has fallen some.

On July 1st, 2006, $1 was worth .78618 Euro. On July 1, 2008, that same dollar only got .63381 euro. That is a 19.38% increase in the euro's value. Today, one dollar will get you .69347 euro, which is a 9.4% loss in the Euro's value from July 1, 2008. Have the prices of new S-LSA been reduced by that amount as well?

[zdc]

No. As a matter of fact some manufacturers are requiring a premium payment in additon to the sticker price to protect against currency fluctuations.

[zdc]

Is LSA cheaper? As far as getting the initial pilot certification, yes. Owning a production model LSA cheaper than a certified acft? Only if you compare new to new. There aren't many used LSA's on the market and the asking prices for those are quite high. Maybe after 5-10 years we will see a big drop in used LSA prices. Unless you have a medical problem, it just doesn't make sense to me to buy a new LSA. Having a new airplane is not the same as worry free ownership. You are going to have issues no matter who makes it. There are some really good deals out there right now for used certified acft in the $30,000 to $50,000 price range. Considering that the price for a new LSA is well over $100,000, the difference can pay for many years of operating cost. Although the payload of some certifed acft leave a lot to be desired, you have to admit that if two people take a flying trip it's nice to be able to carry all the luggage you need and perhaps some golf clubs. I like Sport airplanes, I think they are fun and since they are not subject to FAA certification can be produced for a lot less. Designs like the ICON represent to me what Sport is all about. The designer is not emphasizing things like glass cockpits that are a waste on money on a sport plane. ICON is saying this plane is fun and when you are done flying load it on a trailer and park it at your house like you would a small boat. If production sport planes started at $70,000 rather than $100,000 then I'd be tempted to look.

[KSCessnaDriver]

Yes, we were talking about acquisition costs. Are there any standard category aircraft being built now, that can beat an S-LSA in acquisition cost for a brand new one?

For my mission, S-LSA are far cheaper to acquire and operate. I understand that others don't have the same mission, and I don't fault anyone their choice of aircraft. I don't have a problem keeping my medical, but I chose to buy an LSA anyways. Don't take any of this as being a CT positive post. It's what I own, and I know how much I paid for it. Many other S-LSA can be substituted in place of CT in my posts in this thread.

Nope, and there never will be a Part 23/25 certificated airplane cheaper than an ASTM compliant airplane. The testing/design required will dictate that. As will the insurance costs built into the purchase price on that new airplane. But, long term, your going to find that the older you get, the closer LSA and certificated airplanes are going to get in cost.

By all means, if your mission profile fits an LSA, buy one. But, if it doesn't, don't buy one because its cheaper, and then complain about it.

[Jim Stewart]

Not to mention the cost of certificated avionics. Try comparing the cost of a Dynon D100/D120 in an LSA vs whatever equivalent certificated glass panel instruments.