A question for Paul...

[Jack Tyler]

Paul, based on the experience outlined in your signature tag line and your presence here, I'm assuming you've had a relatively broad exposure to LSA aircraft in the marketplace by now. Given that, I'm wondering what your reactions are to the FAA's mid-2010 report (both summary and detail) "Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturer Assessment". Do you find, in the LSA aircraft you have examined and flown, the range of good-to-lousy manufacturing practices that the FAA is documenting? Have you formed your own opinion on the LSA manufacturing facilities (aka for some: big, messy hangars) that the FAA was examining? (Just one of many data points: 8 of 17 S-LSA mfgrs completing an FAA survey reported they had been building aircraft - of any type - for less than 2 years).

It seems that the consistency of build quality, insofar as the FAA assessment reports it, is an extremely weak part of the LSA picture right now. What are your thoughts?

[Cub flyer]

I'm not Paul but reading the report a couple things are disturbing

Avweb Link to report,

http://www.avweb.com/pdf/lsama-final-re ... -04-14.pdf

section 4.2.1 Pg 16,17,18

There still does not appear to be any FAA person or other independent person who actually flies one of the airplanes to see for themselves as part of any of the audits.

The audit recommends the FAA publish guidance for things like flutter tests, spin tests and determining unusable fuel. This should all be standard aircraft design items. The airplane does not know it's a LSA. It won't decide not to fall apart, flutter, or feed fuel based on the fact that there is no FAA guidance published only for LSA. Like the old saying about a cub.. It's so safe it can barely kill you.

I am amazed some of the manufacturers are producing airplanes to sell without knowing, testing, or fixing these types of items.
I can say from first hand experience with it is true in the LSA and experimental homebuilt airplanes.

Buyer beware and do your homework on a manufacturer. Also do your homework on a used LSA because the manufacturer will make changes and updates to fix problems found after a few years of production. This was not found due to inadequate testing of the prototypes. An early production airplane may not have incorporated these changes and could fail. Since this is all so new a 2-3 year old airplane might be the "old model" and needing thousands of dollars in upgrades to fly correctly.
If your looking at a used LSA contact the manufacturer and see what changes have been made to compare to the airplane you are buying.

Again not all manufacturers but be careful. The ones that have done the testing required are usually very proud of that fact and can document what testing has been done under what conditions. This is a good sign and really will narrow down the choices of manufacturers.

The other thing in the report is that few manufacturers have procedures in place for airworthiness concerns to be addressed if something happens to them

Last I checked if the manufacturer does not do this and goes out of business all airplanes of that type in the fleet lose their SLSA status and become ELSA.

Compare values of SLSA Vs ELSA.

The manufacturing facilities conditions are tough to judge. If it's in or near your country you could go visit. See for yourself. A simple shop can build a very good airplane. It's attention to detail.

[Jack Tyler]

Here's how I would describe the LSA marketplace right now:
-- This is a relatively young industry with many individual products that are still immature and, from a design and build standpoint, dynamic. Consequently...
-- Most available info on the products has a 'promotional' tone to it. It sounds & looks to me like car ads from the 50's. Meanwhile, discriminating & objective info - both positive & critical - is hard to find and based on limited history.
-- Similarly, many LSA builders have very limited experience in building these products AND/OR the U.S. distributors have little experience in supporting them. To illustrate, some brands have had 2 or 3 'new' U.S. distributors in the last 2 or 3 years.
-- As with any new/immature industry, once all the LSA flight schools finish ramping up their LSA rental/training fleets and that portion of the marketplace plateaus, there is likely to be a shakeup among the 70+ manufacturers. Some (many?) products currently being sold will unavoidably become orphans.
-- To sum up, it's very much a Caveat Emptor market place. And in that regard, the FAA Assessment seems one of the few current, objective views of the LSA industry that a buyer has available. And as one example of how to use that assessment, I would not consider purchasing any LSA aircraft without visiting its factory. Which makes European built products especially difficult to assess.

[Cub flyer]

What we've come to at 76N is that I purchased a Beech Skipper instead of a LSA for training. It looks modern and has light controls like a modern LSA. None of the odd characteristics of a Tomahawk and easy to fly.

It's also cheap at $23,500 and has 2400 hour TBO. Mature airframe design with no surprises and capable of many hours of use. Rents for $85 per hour.

If they still are persistent and want a Sport Pilot rating then I can use the
PA-11.

We found it's better to give the student a private rating and then they have no restrictions on what type of airplane they purchase.

[Jack Tyler]

Well...that's an understandable approach for a flight school to take, but there are two sides to that approach for most of the folks on this forum.

I can see why an inexpensive, old (and old looking) but hopefully not used-up GA aircraft would suit a flying school. That certainly makes economic sense for both the school and the student. For comparison's sake, a number of the flight school rates I recently checked - who are offering fresh currency and initial training in new LSA a/c - are charging $120/hr. So much for the LSA/SP movement making flight training more accessible, financially speaking. I've seen multiple examples of local LSA resellers & flight training programs ballparking a PP license now as *at least* $8K. In fact, I think I saw Paul's own website ballparking an LSA ticket - quite accurately, I thought - in that $8K range. Moreover, those early Beech, Piper and Cessna 'entry level' planes were designed and built with the understanding they would serve, at least in part, as training & rental aircraft...so that's horses for courses when viewed from the flight school's perspective.

But of course that kind of a/c is not the focus of this forum, nor is it the driver for the current interest in the Sport Pilot license nor the LSA industry as a whole. A large portion of the interest in the 'airplane' segment of the current LSA models out there - which are steeply priced in the $120-$150K range for S-LSA models - is being driven by two types of customer (if what I'm reading is representative):
-- by folks who have & have had the money to spend on a GA aircraft (and its higher maintenance & certification costs) but lost or fear losing their medicals. For them, buying a brand new a/c (with all those whiz-bang modern features) and only needing a SP license with no medical can look like a desirable alternative.
-- secondarily, by distributorships and aircraft sales operators who are responding to the *perceived* need to offer modern, LSA a/c for training and rental purposes, and to build up their demo fleets.

How long both these levels of demand will be sustained is of course unclear.

There's another angle that's worth us remembering, as well: Future-proofing of the a/c purchase by anyone of middle age or older. Here's an example: I may well be in the market for a (new to me) plane during the next year. Given the high price of most airplane-type LSA's (even the used ones are still almost new, and so remain expensive), an old but not abused GA aircraft (like my previous AA-5) seems worth considering. Except that it hinges on me keeping my Class III medical for the duration of time I wish to fly. Under the pre-LSA rules, that was the 'norm' and so we didn't think twice about that issue. 'Should I lose my medical, I'll just put my plane back on the market,' we thought.

Now it's a bit different. First, we have the option of future-proofing our purchase by buying an LSA, which brings with it no risk of losing one's medical. (Remember: Losing one's medical while flying a GA aircraft makes the person ineligible for the SP rating unless s/he successfully wades thru the special approval process that may/may not be available). For some folks, that insurance alone is worth some portion of a any LSA's purchase price. And second, it's not hard to imagine a used marketplace in a few years where the used LSA products can't pull the same high price from the Buyer. And so the inventory in the marketplace boils down to either (at that later point) even older, really used models or much newer, better equipped but still somewhat more expensive LSA models. So both from a financial perspective and a flying perspective, today's Buyer has a bit more to think about and each choice has some uncertainty.

At least that's what it looks like to me...

Jack

[dstclair]

Jack,

You missed at least one group of LSA buyers:

- by folks who have & have had the money to spend on a GA aircraft (and its higher maintenance & certification costs) but no longer need/want the speed or seats of some GA aircraft. For them, buying a brand new a/c (with all those whiz-bang modern features) fits their purpose.

I don't have any near or long term concerns on keeping my 3rd class medical. The $120k LSA fits what I want in a plane today.

I'd say 2/3 of the owners I know fit this category.

[zdc]

Jack,

You missed at least one group of LSA buyers:

- by folks who have & have had the money to spend on a GA aircraft (and its higher maintenance & certification costs) but no longer need/want the speed or seats of some GA aircraft. For them, buying a brand new a/c (with all those whiz-bang modern features) fits their purpose.

I don't have any near or long term concerns on keeping my 3rd class medical. The $120k LSA fits what I want in a plane today.

I'd say 2/3 of the owners I know fit this category.

Just to play devils advocate, if there are no medical issues involved, why buy a sport plane? I don't think maintenance is going to be any cheaper for a sport plane than for a non-complex certified aircraft. Insuring a 120K sport plane is also more expensive than a 50K certified plane. As for the wiz bang stuff, for VFR flying why do you need or want it? If you are on a trip and have a mechanical problem with your Piper or Cessna, any acft mechanic can aquire the parts needed quickly and fix it; not so for a sport plane. If all you want out of an airplane is to do $100 hamburgers, a sport plane is fine. But if you want to vacation with your airplane, where does the luggage, golf clubs...etc go.

[Paul Hamilton]

Thanks for the question. This is an important issue. I will provide my opinion on this but is this is simply my overall perspective.

First off, let’s look at the big picture. Some of the biggest, most highly regulated airliners have had design, conformity and maintenance problems. The FAA regulated “certified” aircraft will always have things not perfect. There are mechanical things, people and a bad economy.

We wanted less expensive airplanes, we got them. Although the $100,000 plus/minus price tag of the new LSA’s hurts, it is still less half of a new 172. Less requirements, testing and easier design changes creates lower prices, less proven/quality control/designs but more innovative and evolving aircraft.

With a brand new industry, it is going to take a while for the manufacturers to get their procedures in place. The other side is that the FAA does like regulation and control, so it is their nature to try to regulate the LSA industry towards the “FAA certified” aircraft system. The problem is that there are some FAA people who do not care about aviation, especially LSA, and would like to get rid of this LSA problem. There is the middle of the road who want to do their job as directed by their superiors, for the good or bad of LSA. There are our friends at the FAA who realize that LSA is a new industry, realize that LSA is a great contribution to aviation, want it to succeed, and will be helpful to make it work. This is no different than any other industry. As a manufacturer, you can only hope you get the latter of these.

The reality is that in these hard economic times, the aircraft manufacturers are not or barely able to operate as they are now. Being more regulated and spending more time with paperwork, procedures, tracking, etc, will put them out of business and/or raise the price of the airplanes.

Yes the manufacturers could do better to cross the “T’s” and dot the “I’s”.

The advice I would give the FAA is: try to understand this is a new industry and help the companies rather than put them out of business. Do not impose too much regulation to fast. Give the industry a chance to evolve.

Advice to the manufacturers: Try to understand the FAA is trying to adapt old ways to new systems. Show interest and an effort to be cooperative. Realize it will produce a better product and reduce your liability. Try to let the FAA see your contribution to aviation and eventually their job security.

For consumers and those looking at LSA products to fly. First, read the label required on every aircraft that clearly indicates it is not “certified by the FAA”. Realize that FAA over regulation may turn your S-LSA into an E-LSA. Look at the company/aircraft history and the quality of aircraft coming out. What do the current customers/pilot think about the aircraft. Do the documents look organized. What does the form/fit/quality of the aircraft when you see one. If you can visit the factory or importer this can only help you understand their operations.

In summary, if a LSA company is doing a bad job, evolution will eliminate them. Product quality rules in the end. Those who purchase these aircraft will be impacted.

Overall, I feel the FAA needs to try and work with the aircraft companies while realizing they are in the victims of a bad economy, while the aircraft companies need to try and head towards doing a better job at meeting the ASTM specks so conform and minimize the FAA cracking down on them. I think both sides need to meet in the middle.

[Paul Hamilton]

why buy a sport plane?

Look sexier. Same reason people buy sports cars rather than station wagons.

You would be surprised. I have found that even if there are no medical issues, people do not want to take that chance they may be surprised with a failed medical and lose their ability to fly. That medical is on the mind for many.

[Cub flyer]

What give me the heebies in all this is the airplanes are being sold to the public NOW.

The report shows the FAA knows that some manufacturers do not have the knowledge to engineer or test an airplane. Or cannot produce data to back up testing that was done.

To say it's a fledgling industry is great, This is EXACTLY when the FAA should test fly the SLSA being produced to see if it meets the handling criteria and engineering the ATSM standards call for.

Don't let them produce airplanes for a few years, Financing their startup company at 110K+ per airplane. Then learn from owner feedback to produce a good flying airplane later.

What constitutes a good flying airplane has been known for years. There are certain types of handling that should be avoided and has been. Then you see mistakes being made again that were fixed years ago in certified airplanes.

Let the manufacturers earn the trust from the FAA that the ATSM standards are being complied with before the sell a single airplane.

If you buy serial #2 and fly more hours than the prototype you are now the test pilot. If you buy serial #2 and use it in training or other conditions the prototype did not encounter you are the test pilot.
If the manufacturer gets audited by the FAA and they find changes are needed to comply to the ATSM standards and you already have your airplane do you think the manufacturer is going to fix your airplane to comply with standards it should have met to begin with?

Ask the Zenith guys.

Somewhere I read about Cessna testing the C-140 just after WWII. They flew a fleet of them in their flight school for fuel just to get time on the airplanes. Accelerated field testing. Ask the LSA manufacturer if it's been done or what's the highest time airplane in the fleet.

If I were a manufacturer / designer I'd like to know this information. Same goes for any Experimental design.

Truth is most manufacturers can't afford to do this. At least test the airplane in hot and cold weather and get some time on it before selling to the public. During demo rides pay attention to what gives people trouble. Fix the problems before selling airplanes.

A manufacturer not fully testing this type of product is an accident waiting to happen. Look at Cessna's luck with the engineering power they have. It could have easily not have been tested and found later. The first bunch of spin accidents would have just been called "Pilot error" which is common in LSA accidents. Most accidents are pilot error at some point but there is a darker side and the airplane may have a characteristic that is waiting. The low time LSA pilot or transitioning instructor is going to get the blame. A pilot who has found this characteristic and figured it out will tell others and help reduce the accident rate but proper design would have fixed the problem in the first place. Saving injury, insurance rates and FAA hassle on the whole industry. But the manufacturer wants to save development costs and get airplanes sold to appease investors.

Sorry for the rant but I've been burned too many times over the last years.

[zdc]

Burned by purchasing a sport plane? I'd like to hear about your experience.

[Cub flyer]

I'd rather not based on the Remos post history. PM me and I can give details.

I can say my Flybaby flies good, It has flown perfectly since it was built in 1967. Wood fuselage would NOT be my choice to crash. Not perfect but good

My Cub flies good, Has flown well since 1946, PA-11 flies fine, Has since 1947. No major changes needed. Room for improvement yes. Look at all the cub clones and copies with changes. But the basic airplane flew fine.

My father built a 180hp Pitts S1C in 1972. I flew the airplane also. It had no bad habits,was stable and easy to fly. It performed great and needed to be told exactly what you wanted it to do but was predictable. Good airplane but not very practical.

When you look at certified airplanes the majority fly pretty well. Some have characteristics that are not perfect but they fly ok. As the manufacturer makes improvements the older airplanes still fly correctly. Just better performance, load carrying or modern equipment.

The oddest flying certified airplanes I have flown were all certified under the current Part 23 regulations. Strange but true. Should have gotten better than the old Car 7 airplanes but no.

My minimum qualities for a good sport pilot airplane I would buy are:

Easy entrance and exit
logical control layout
easy to understand visible fuel system and level indication
conventional controls
simple engine operation suitable for all temperatures
easy ground handling
Good visibility
adequate heating and cooling
comfortable seating
Little P factor on climb or takeoff
low adverse yaw in cruise
gentle stall all configurations
aerodynamic stall warning
balanced control forces with normal centering
stable in all axis
ability to pick up low wing with rudder
little pitch change with power
little pitch change with flap application
cruise below yellow airspeed arc
decent maneuvering speed
decent useful load
easy servicing / available parts
crashworthy structure/harnesses

If I could find this airplane I would smile every flight. I would sell my 172 and Skipper to bring the new airplane into the flight school. The LSA / experimental designs I have built/flown/purchased so far fell short of these requirements or literally fell apart. Same with experimental avionics, engine, propeller, parachute and float manufacturers.

Of course I've also had problems with certified engine overhaul shops, instrument overhaul shops and buying used airplanes so there is no perfect world. I'm currently sending a new Hartzell 3 blade prop back, sending an overhauled R-985 back to the overhauler. I have three defective overhauled manifold pressure gauges on the shelf and an Aspen Glass primary flight display that does rolls when I'm taxing around.

I keep a file of horrible maintenance practices that come in when an airplane arrives for it's first annual. Last summer I had to tell a guy his 172 wings were junk. A mechanic cut holes in the with spar with tin snips. We took the fuel tank access panels off and the wing sagged so far you could not open the doors.

The lack of quality control / knowledge about products is alarming and seems to be across the board.

[roger lee]

Hi Cub Flyer,

Darn if you didn't just describe a CT in all your points you want in
a plane.

[Cub flyer]

Just to clarify. I have no experience with a Remos, I was just referring to the posts and problems with the negative posting

[Cub flyer]

Sorry Roger, We got one too early. Ordered September 05, Delivered spring 06. Flew 40 hours and got rid of it.

There were MAJOR changes after 05