Can you identify this LSA?

[Jack Tyler]

This letter from an AVWeb reader appeared this morning, in response to a previous letter dismissing the cost of the 3rd class medical. Aside from (or along with, if you choose) the general rebuttal, I was wondering which LSA this writer was referring to. (Note the cost of the a/c mentioned). Here's the letter:

"He states the following, "Over the longer term, changes in the third class medical will have no significant impact because its cost is negligible, roughly the cost of 15 gallons of av fuel every two years for us older pilots."

While I agree with the author on several points he made throughout the article, I believe he really misses the point regarding the benefits of eliminating the third class medical.

The issue here isn't the cost but the uncertainty of aircraft owners being on a "two-year plan." In my business of selling airplanes, I come in contact with a large percentage of pilots that would love to either own a plane outright or in a partnership but are concerned about the medical every two years.

I know from my own interaction that a large number of idle pilots are anxiously awaiting the FAA's ruling on the third class medical. Should it be eliminated, they intend to "get current" and start shopping for an older Piper or Cessna. This will be great for flight instructors, mechanics, avionic shops, fuel providers, and for my business.

Regarding the negative impact on the LSA market: True, some will fall by the wayside, but there are others that have certified their maximum take-off weight to the same weight as a Cessna 152. I've talked with one LSA company that did this, and they indicated it will just be a matter of paperwork filing to increase their plane's weight limit from 1,320 to 1,690 pounds. This would give a potential buyer a new airplane with performance and avionics that far exceed a typical 152 for $80-90,000.

In my opinion, eliminating the third class will have a positive impact on general aviation for years to come.

Mark Bohstedt
Kelmar Aviation"

[BrianL99]

Regarding the negative impact on the LSA market: True, some will fall by the wayside, but there are others that have certified their maximum take-off weight to the same weight as a Cessna 152. I've talked with one LSA company that did this, and they indicated it will just be a matter of paperwork filing to increase their plane's weight limit from 1,320 to 1,690 pounds. This would give a potential buyer a new airplane with performance and avionics that far exceed a typical 152 for $80-90,000.

Huh ?

[Merlinspop]

It isn't possible for a plane to "certified" to a maximum take-off weight to the same weight as a Cessna 152 and still be marketed as an LSA. I know of a few LSAs that are also available in kit form that can be certified as a E-AB to a higher than LSA weight, but then it is forevermore not Sport Pilot Eligible (CarbonCub, Legend Cub, Kitfox come to mind).

[3Dreaming]

The only LSA on the market that can have this done that I know of is the Champ by American Champion. They have been selling a new version of the Champ that is a LSA, but it is certified in the standard category. They couldn't build it under ASTM, because the empty weight was to heavy. If they did this as pointed out above, it would no longer be a LSA.

The bigger problem is most of the LSA aircraft get their airworthiness certificates because they are built under ASTM standards. To increase the gross weight they will need to find some other way to get their airworthiness certificates. I think American Champion is the only company that is building a LSA in the standard category. I also know that Flight Design is now EASA type certified, which might allow a path for issue of an airworthiness certificate in other than the light sport category.

[drseti]

As I've said in several other threads:

The 1320 pound LSA limit isn't about what the aircraft is capable of carrying without structural failure. It's all about kinetic energy limits. Raise the weight and the stall speed goes up (by the square root of thr load factor). Kinetic energy goes up as mass times velocity squared. That "squared" in velocity roughly cancels that "square root" in stall speed, but KE still goes up pretty fast. The weight and speed limits on an LSA keep KE low enough to minimize injury on the event of a takeoff or landing accident. As was already stated, raise the weight and it's no longer an LSA.

"Already certified at higher weights"? Maybe in Europe, Australia, or South Africa under different certification standards. Not in the US, because of certification costs. Remember that Cessna had announced it was going to certify the Skycatcher in the Primary Aircraft category, then abandoned that effort and dropped the 162 from its product line.

OK, so how about the premise that the manufacturer can raise the weight, and recertify as a non-LSA? One of the major cost drivers for Cessna, Piper, Cirrus, etc. iscertification costs. Some of that is the financial cost of assuming the additional liability that goes along with selling a certified aircraft. Raise the weight of a former LSA, certify it under Parts 23 and 33, and you can be sure it will not only no longer be an LSA, it will also no longer cost $80-90k. It will end up priced more like -- a Cessna, Piper, or Cirrus!

[FastEddieB]

Surprised no one has mentions the Icon A5, which DID manage to get an exemption to 1,510 lbs.

With the HUGE caveat that you can't yet buy one, and there's some debate about whether it will ever be available.

[dstclair]

OK, so how about the premise that the manufacturer can raise the weight, and recertify as a non-LSA? One of the major cost drivers for Cessna, Piper, Cirrus, etc. Is certification costs. Some of that is the financjial cost of assuming the additional liability that goes along with selling a certified aircrFt. Raise the weight of a former LSA, certify it under Parts 23 and 33, and you can be sure it will not only no longer be an LSA, it will also no longer cost $80-90k. It wilp emd up priced more like -- a Cessna, Piper, or Cirrus!

Not that it's material but I'd guess a new LSA certified in some way outside of ASTM would end up priced similar to a Diamond DA20 (VFR, 2 seater, glass panel). A new 2014 pretty well equipped lists for $227K. Maybe cut $10K if they could go with the G3X panel instead of G500).

[MrMorden]

There are several LSA that are certified at weights higher than 1320lb elsewhere. The most notable is the Jabiru J230/J250, which is just a J430 with the rear seat deleted. The J430 is certified in Australia at 1675lb. Flight Design CTs are certified at various weights in various jurisdictions, and I believe the Paradise P1 is certified around 1500lb in South America.

But I don't know how this would help existing owners. Even if the LSA weight limit was raised on a blanket basis to 1500lb and manufacturers started selling most new aircraft at that weight, they have zero incentive to issue changes allowing previous airframes to fly at those weights. They already have those owners' money, there are liability concerns, and they are going to want us buying the new airplanes with the higher weight limits.

About the only way I could see Flight Design doing this for the CTSW, for example, would be if they would sell an LoA for a particular airframe to up the weight, and I'm sure it would not be cheap, probably $1000-5000.

I think if you have a current LSA, any hope of the useful load just magically going up legally have no basis in reality. That might change at some point, but right now there is just no reason to think it will.

[drseti]

, they have zero incentive to issue changes allowing previous airframes to fly at those weights. They already have those owners' money, there are liability concerns, and they are going to want us buying the new airplanes with the higher weight limits.

And yet, Evektor did just that when they allowed (via an LoA) owners of a 1268 pound SportStar to upgrade it to a 1320 pound SportStar Max. They sold a $2000 kit, consisting of $200 worth of vortex generators, and $1800 worth of paperwork.

[MrMorden]

, they have zero incentive to issue changes allowing previous airframes to fly at those weights. They already have those owners' money, there are liability concerns, and they are going to want us buying the new airplanes with the higher weight limits.

And yet, Evektor did just that when they allowed (via an LoA) owners of a 1268 pound SportStar to upgrade it to a 1320 pound SportStar Max. They sold a $2000 kit, consisting of $200 worth of vortex generators, and $1800 worth of paperwork.

So it sounds like you are agreeing with me on the upgrade path most manufacturers would allow on weight changes.

Do you buy the kit for your Evektor? Even for $2000, a 52lb load increase would be tempting.

[dstclair]

About the only way I could see Flight Design doing this for the CTSW, for example, would be if they would sell an LoA for a particular airframe to up the weight, and I'm sure it would not be cheap, probably $1000-5000.

I'd guess all the manufacturers would offer LOA's for weight increases for their existing fleet for a fee, provided the other ASTM requirements were met. The certified world has been doing this for a while so the precedent is set. For instance, there is an STC for the Cessna 182P that increases the weight by 150/160 lbs with no changes to the aircraft. I think the STC runs $750.

[CTLSi]

......

[MrMorden]

About the only way I could see Flight Design doing this for the CTSW, for example, would be if they would sell an LoA for a particular airframe to up the weight, and I'm sure it would not be cheap, probably $1000-5000.

I'd guess all the manufacturers would offer LOA's for weight increases for their existing fleet for a fee, provided the other ASTM requirements were met. The certified world has been doing this for a while so the precedent is set. For instance, there is an STC for the Cessna 182P that increases the weight by 150/160 lbs with no changes to the aircraft. I think the STC runs $750.

Sure, I'm not saying it's entirely unreasonable. If a manufacturer is going to accept the additional liability of running an airframe closer to its ultimate limits, they need some cash to offset that.

But as an example, Flight Design wanted $600 in "engineering study" fees to allow me to replace my pitot tube with an AoA version and run an additional pitot line through the wing...even though many CTSWs came that way from the factory. I'm sure the cost of a weight upgrade would be much higher than that. I think LSA authorizations are much more expensive than a lot of STCs for certified planes, based on what I have seen and heard.

As Paul mentioned...$2000 for a 52lb upgrade...how much do you think they'd charge for a 180lb change to go from 1320lb to 1500lb?

[drseti]

Yes, Andy, I did upgrade mine several years ago, just as soon as the mod was available. It's a good safety mod. Translates to 8 gallons more fuel, or another hour and 40 minutes in the air.

[dstclair]

[quote]But as an example, Flight Design wanted $600 in "engineering study" fees to allow me to replace my pitot tube with an AoA version and run an additional pitot line through the wing...even though many CTSWs came that way from the factory. I'm sure the cost of a weight upgrade would be much higher than that. I think LSA authorizations are much more expensive than a lot of STCs for certified planes, based on what I have seen and heard.[/quot
I've observed the fees for modifications vary greatly between manufacturers. For instance, I've received approval for a different battery, the first install of of a Dynon AP, first install of a Garmin 795 and GDL-39 and a couple other items for the grand total of $0. I did have the distributor do the work so they made $$ on me, though. Every modification I've done has then been incorporated in the manufacturer's approved parts list.