162's Coming

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

User avatar
bryancobb
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:35 pm
Location: Cartersville Georgia

Shoulda

Post by bryancobb »

I guess my wording could have been better. What I was MEANING is ...
Ethanol-Containing MOGAS is not an option for a lot of pilots of Light Sport airplanes because the generally PERCIEVED belief is THERE MAY BE UNKNOWN PROBLEMS WITH ITS' USE as food for the animal hanging on your firewall! How's that?
Bryan Cobb
Sport Pilot CFI
Commercial/Instrument Airplane
Commercial Rotorcraft Helicopter
Manufacturing Engineer II, Meggitt Airframe Systems, Fuel Systems & Composites Group
Cartersville, Ga
[email protected]
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Post by 3Dreaming »

The big thing is that it is not an engine problem, but an airframe problem.
bshort
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Ca

Post by bshort »

Ethanol in fuel has been an issue in all types of vehicles for years. Ethanol softens rubber parts, attracts water, imo promotes vapor lock and icing, and is basically an inefficient fuel anyway. This is nothing new. If your going to use a fuel with ethanol, just set your fuel system up for it. Otherwise, check into an ethanol-free fuel like Sunoco GTX. It's 100 octane, lead free, and ethanol free. Won't cost you any more than 100ll.
User avatar
rfane
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Post by rfane »

Bryan,

I wasn't trying to pick a fight, but just stated the facts concerning the Rotax and Ethanol. Two of your posts specifically said it is a "problem for the engines in most LSA". I have no idea what Lycoming, Continental, or Jabiru, think of Ethanol. Thus, I limited my comments to the Rotax specifically, and pointed out that it also depends on the airframe manufacturer as well. They have the final say for S-LSA's.
bshort wrote:Otherwise, check into an ethanol-free fuel like Sunoco GTX. It's 100 octane, lead free, and ethanol free. Won't cost you any more than 100ll.
If it was available near me, I would certainly use the Sunoco fuel. I am looking forward to UL AvGas!!
Roger Fane
Former owner of a 2006 Flight Design CTsw
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: LSA "standard'

Post by drseti »

zaitcev wrote:The makers of Skylark II claim amazing numbers: useful load 643 lbs, 528 lbs w/ full fuel.
I wouldn't call those numbers amazing, but they are better than average. That comes to 677 pounds empty weight, which is 68 pounds better than my SportStar, but not unexpected for a composite (vs. all metal) airframe. Of course, the cited difference between useful load and payload implies only 19 gal max fuel capacity, which is a little less than I would like. I'd prefer larger tanks (my SportStar holds 31 usable), with the option to carry less fuel when the mission demands a greater payload (and can accept a reduced range).
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

bshort wrote:check into an ethanol-free fuel like Sunoco GTX. It's 100 octane, lead free, and ethanol free.
And also unavailable (and illegal to sell) in my state. That's right, our state legislature has, in its questionable wisdom, outlawed the sale of any auto fuel that does not contain at least 10% ethanol! How's that for selling out to the corn lobby?? :cry:
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: LSA "standard'

Post by drseti »

drseti wrote:not unexpected for a composite (vs. all metal) airframe.
I'd better correct myself, before someone else corrects me. The Dova Skylark was an all-metal airplane, so I have to assume the Skylark II is as well. Disregard my comment about composites. Yes, this is a pretty amazing empty weight.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
bshort
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: Ca

Post by bshort »

I have 50 or so hours in a Dova Skylark. It is all-metal, empty weight was 647, and it has two 12 gal wing tanks. Useful load was 673. I transitioned over to a Sting Sport and have never looked back.
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Post by Jack Tyler »

A couple of data points to add to this usually-informative, sometimes juvenile discussion:

The RV-12 I'm hoping to begin building soon - so far, the best selling LSA if we count kits as well as mfg'd a/c - has both an airframe & engine approved for E-10 mogas. Rotax 912 engines are using E15 fuel in some non-U.S. venues, so far without incident.

I happened to visit a flight school just yesterday that flies CT and Tecnam a/c, and the line of 20L fuel jugs told the story on which fuel they use. Moreover, a 50-hr oil change reduces the per hour flight cost a bit, while 100LL's 25 hr. oil change (with add'l labor to clean out the accumulated lead) adds cost.

It's helpful to hear CubFlyer's description of choosing a Beech Skipper as a training and rental a/c. In these discussions we tend to become fixated on the LSA world, when in reality the Part 23 GA a/c were well built and the current inventory still has some that are relatively inexpensive to buy and own. (And altho' this is nothing more than a personal observation - no 'data point' involved - most LSA a/c I've been in (a fair number) do not look or feel to me like they will last 20 years, let alone the 30 or 40 years that most GA a/c are capable of lasting (assuming of course decent care). Even tho' I'm eager to begin building an LSA class a/c, its construction won't vary from the mfg. standards and specs used since WWII for metal a/c. I wonder what the lifespan of the typical LSA will turn out to be if used for training.

I'm assuming everyone here who volunteers opinions about the new C-162 has at least seen one and settled into the cockpit. I thought it looked and felt like one of the more substantial LSA products, altho' embarrassingly unfinished (actually, it was a decision not to finish) in the interior. But roughly half the 2011 162 sales are to Cessna training centers, if the AOPA reports are accurate...so 2011's projected sales in fact do not tell us how well received it will be. Also, those training centers that are buying 162's will fill their inventories in the near term, whereas a viable product (let alone 'new standard') has to sustain its presence in the marketplace for many years. I think its fair to say these sales #s just indicate there is an installed base of Cessna training centers who are financially incented to purchase that training product. The 'availability' issue will matter, but only to students who find their local (and sole provider) training center has a 162. (Same will be true for the student who finds a Tecnam, Sport Cruiser, etc. at their flight center). The retail sales market, new & used, is a different setting. Does Cessna really enjoy a country-wide tailwind these days? That's not the impression I have, tho' perhaps this could be somewhat region-based.

Based on the cost figures I'm seeing and marginal retail demand in the LSA marketplace that the industry reports reflect, I think we're still on the front end of the LSA wedge. The Sport Pilot rule has opened things up considerably - and that's true in Europe and where I'm living right now, Australia, not just in the USA. But the fixed wing, practical useful load LSA products currently being marketed still seem to be too costly to finalize a new, affordable flying formula in any of these marketplaces.

One illustration of this: a new Foxbat (912 powered two-seat high-wing 'Ultralight' - same category as a U.S. S-LSA) was imported to Sydney a few months ago, sold for A$125K (that's the equivalent of $125K USD, given the American peso has now permanently weakened) and after some tens of hours, the buyer decided he didn't like it. It was put up for sale by the distributor here and purchased by an 11-member 'syndicate' in Brisbane. (That's just the somewhat antipodean term that means nothing more than a group of mates, sharing a plane - aka: a 'partnership'). Price it sold for? $85K (after being available for some time, I should add). That strikes me as the difference between what the mfgr/distributor/retailer would like to see happening - the $125K LSA - and what is feasible and realistic - the <$90K LSA.

For those of you with substantial hands-on GA experience that contributed to this thread, thanks for chipping in. Some useful observations here...
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
rsteele
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:40 pm

Post by rsteele »

Jack, any insights into how Jabiru is doing in Austria. As I understand it at least one of their LSAs in the US is sold as a 4 seat GA plane in Oz. It it also sold as a microlight there? I'm not clear if Australia has an equivalent to a sport pilot rule (2 seat, weight limit etc).

Ron
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

Jack Tyler wrote:The RV-12 <snip> has both an airframe & engine approved for E-10 mogas.
That's a big plus for an already great plane. If E-LSAs were allowed for flight school use, I'd have gone that route.
It's helpful to hear CubFlyer's description of choosing a Beech Skipper as a training and rental a/c.
I too love the Skipper. I used to instruct in one in the 1980s (when they were new), and until last month, I was a Regional Director for the Beech Aero Club, whose members include many a Skipper owner. They're a solid and stable platform, and I only wish there were S-LSAs as well built.
In these discussions we tend to become fixated on the LSA world,
Jack, this is Sport Pilot Talk. Duh... :wink:
I'm assuming everyone here who volunteers opinions about the new C-162 has at least seen one and settled into the cockpit.
Yes, at Sun-n-Fun a couple of years ago. But it was only a mockup; I haven't seen the final product.
I thought it looked and felt like one of the more substantial LSA products, altho' embarrassingly unfinished (actually, it was a decision not to finish) in the interior.
That was my impression as well. The only reason I didn't lean that way is that I'm a pretty good sheet metal mechanic, but am not really qualified to patch composites. And flight school planes are going to get dinged, no way around that.
The retail sales market, new & used, is a different setting. Does Cessna really enjoy a country-wide tailwind these days?
Yes, but the pro-Cessna contingent I know favors Wichita spam-cans, not Chinese plastic.
I think we're still on the front end of the LSA wedge.
Yes, we in the industry at this point are pioneers (and well advised to remember how pioneers end up -- with arrows in their backs).
Price it sold for? $85K (after being available for some time, I should add). That strikes me as the difference between what the mfgr/distributor/retailer would like to see happening - the $125K LSA - and what is feasible and realistic
This is a familiar story. My SportStar sold new for $119k. I purchased it used for $85k. The best bargains out there are the gently used S-LSAs.

Thanks, Jack and everybody else, for your insights and varied observations/opinions.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Problem with the Board

Post by drseti »

Well, I tried to quote a snippet of Roger's latest post in my response. Clicked "Quote" (as I often do), and received this error message:
Sorry, but only can reply to posts in this forum.
I'm hoping the webmaster is monitoring, and can resolve this.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
zdc

Post by zdc »

drseti wrote:
Jack Tyler wrote:The RV-12 <snip> has both an airframe & engine approved for E-10 mogas.
That's a big plus for an already great plane. If E-LSAs were allowed for flight school use, I'd have gone that route.
It's helpful to hear CubFlyer's description of choosing a Beech Skipper as a training and rental a/c.
I too love the Skipper. I used to instruct in one in the 1980s (when they were new), and until last month, I was a Regional Director for the Beech Aero Club, whose members include many a Skipper owner. They're a solid and stable platform, and I only wish there were S-LSAs as well built.
In these discussions we tend to become fixated on the LSA world,
Jack, this is Sport Pilot Talk. Duh... :wink:
I'm assuming everyone here who volunteers opinions about the new C-162 has at least seen one and settled into the cockpit.
Yes, at Sun-n-Fun a couple of years ago. But it was only a mockup; I haven't seen the final product.
I thought it looked and felt like one of the more substantial LSA products, altho' embarrassingly unfinished (actually, it was a decision not to finish) in the interior.
That was my impression as well. The only reason I didn't lean that way is that I'm a pretty good sheet metal mechanic, but am not really qualified to patch composites. And flight school planes are going to get dinged, no way around that.
The retail sales market, new & used, is a different setting. Does Cessna really enjoy a country-wide tailwind these days?
Yes, but the pro-Cessna contingent I know favors Wichita spam-cans, not Chinese plastic.
I think we're still on the front end of the LSA wedge.
Yes, we in the industry at this point are pioneers (and well advised to remember how pioneers end up -- with arrows in their backs).
Price it sold for? $85K (after being available for some time, I should add). That strikes me as the difference between what the mfgr/distributor/retailer would like to see happening - the $125K LSA - and what is feasible and realistic
This is a familiar story. My SportStar sold new for $119k. I purchased it used for $85k. The best bargains out there are the gently used S-LSAs.

Thanks, Jack and everybody else, for your insights and varied observations/opinions.
Are you saying the C162 is a composite airplane, or am I misinterpreting what you wrote? I've flown a C162, and while it has some "plastic" parts, cowling, tips etc, the basic structure is metal.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

zdc wrote:Are you saying the C162 is a composite airplane, or am I misinterpreting what you wrote?
Well, the mockup that they showed at Sun-n-Fun was indeed composite. If you're telling me that the production version is metal, then that is very good news.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
zaitcev
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by zaitcev »

You guys know that Flight Design offers "MC" to compete with 162, right? It's also a heavy, all-metal training S-LSA, just like 162. But so far they only had 2 flying in a partner school.
Post Reply