Stereotypes about LSAs: True, False, or both?

[designrs]

Re: Sebring

Bristell brought two aircraft.
The red tail-dragger is sooo very sexy that it is almost obscene!

SeaRey is fully developed. Amazing product.
Other similar aircraft as well.

Numerous short/grass strip taildragger STOL options of varying prices and configurations.
Many are trailerable with folding wings.

FlightDesign is doing their thing. They were one of the first and are still going strong.

SportCruiser is there.

Tecnam has the Astore.

Evektor has the Harmony.

Vans of course with the RV-12.

Parachutes, trikes, ultralights, etc.

Lockwood has the AirCam and both the the 912 ULS and 912is on display.

... and Paul is there lecturing and performing with the flying musicians.

Something for everyone.
What's not to like?

[designrs]

Here's Dan Johnson's blog leading up to Sebring...
I'm sure he will be posting and blogging more about the Sebring show:
http://www.bydanjohnson.com

[MrMorden]

There is one aspect of the modern LSAs that we really don't know about yet: longevity/durability.

Many of the legacy LSA like Ercoupes, Cubs, Champs, Luscombes, etc. have survived many decades of use. We just don't know if these newer machines will hold up as well. We don't have any real reason to believe they won't, but it's still an unknown. The composite construction of many of them only compounds the mystery, as we don't really have many fiberglass or carbon fiber 30+ year old airplanes to compare and gauge against.

[designrs]

Seems that it might be the parts, manufacture supply issue as well. Eg. Will parts be available in 15 years? That's where the longevity of manufacturer and quantity of aircraft produced comes in play. You could probably always get ROTAX parts... or upgrade to a rebuilt / new motor. Some aircraft might just depreciate to zero over time. Even cars do that unless they become collectable.

[Merlinspop]

Seems that it might be the parts, manufacture supply issue as well. Eg. Will parts be available in 15 years? That's where the longevity of manufacturer and quantity of aircraft produced comes in play. You could probably always get ROTAX parts... or upgrade to a rebuilt / new motor. Some aircraft might just depreciate to zero over time. Even cars do that unless they become collectable.

That's where aircraft like yours have (in my opinion) an advantage. In 15 years you ding a horizontal stab beyond repair. Fabricating out a new one wouldn't be an insurmountable challenge. Laying up an replacement stab for a composit aircraft (assuming the molds are not available) will probably be a challenge. Even if the molds ARE available, I suspect whoever owns them will want a pretty penny to produce a new one.

[3Dreaming]

Seems that it might be the parts, manufacture supply issue as well. Eg. Will parts be available in 15 years? That's where the longevity of manufacturer and quantity of aircraft produced comes in play. You could probably always get ROTAX parts... or upgrade to a rebuilt / new motor. Some aircraft might just depreciate to zero over time. Even cars do that unless they become collectable.

That's where aircraft like yours have (in my opinion) an advantage. In 15 years you ding a horizontal stab beyond repair. Fabricating out a new one wouldn't be an insurmountable challenge. Laying up an replacement stab for a composit aircraft (assuming the molds are not available) will probably be a challenge. Even if the molds ARE available, I suspect whoever owns them will want a pretty penny to produce a new one.

This falls right in with this thread. In my opinion this sounds like a stereotype put forth by someone who isn't familiar with composite structures. I have knowledge and training in both types of structures, and I don't think the composite part would be that difficult. Starting with or without a mold.

[zaitcev]

Many of the legacy LSA like Ercoupes, Cubs, Champs, Luscombes, etc. have survived many decades of use. We just don't know if these newer machines will hold up as well. We don't have any real reason to believe they won't, but it's still an unknown. The composite construction of many of them only compounds the mystery, as we don't really have many fiberglass or carbon fiber 30+ year old airplanes to compare and gauge against.

I'm not terribly concerned about the longevity of LSAs. Note that a number of them were all-metal to begin with, but very, very thinly made (I'm looking at Dova Skylark here, which has better useful load than most plastic LSAs, despite being made out of aluminum alloys). In my personal opinion, the GA world is attached to antiques primarily because of cost. This includes the regulatory barriers, which also figure into cost.

If I could buy a 5-year-old CT for $16k, I would not be looking at 1962 150s. So if the longevity of LSAs was considered poor, it would play into my hands very well, as they depreciate at the end of the life cycle. But as it is, look where they bottom out. There's no flyable Sky Arrow for less than $50k, for example, no matter how poor the shape. Heck, some try sell them for $38k without an engine.

This longevity thing is clearly screwed up.

[MrMorden]

This falls right in with this thread. In my opinion this sounds like a stereotype put forth by someone who isn't familiar with composite structures. I have knowledge and training in both types of structures, and I don't think the composite part would be that difficult. Starting with or without a mold.

I know there is a guy locally who completely repaired a Remos after the carbon fiber tail BROKE OFF in a landing accident. The airplane now looks brand new. So those kinds of repairs are possible, though probably not always economical for composites. Metal is definitely cheaper to repair.

With the ability to convert a plane from S-LSA to E-LSA, even planes from extinct companies should be able to keep flying. In 20 years we might see some "mash up" airplanes flying that were originally composite with some custom made metal replacement structures.

[3Dreaming]

This falls right in with this thread. In my opinion this sounds like a stereotype put forth by someone who isn't familiar with composite structures. I have knowledge and training in both types of structures, and I don't think the composite part would be that difficult. Starting with or without a mold.

I know there is a guy locally who completely repaired a Remos after the carbon fiber tail BROKE OFF in a landing accident. The airplane now looks brand new. So those kinds of repairs are possible, though probably not always economical for composites. Metal is definitely cheaper to repair.

With the ability to convert a plane from S-LSA to E-LSA, even planes from extinct companies should be able to keep flying. In 20 years we might see some "mash up" airplanes flying that were originally composite with some custom made metal replacement structures.

Andy, I am still going to disagree. Metal structures are not always as simple as what the Sonex was. I know of one amateur built aircraft that uses an extrusion for the main spar that is no longer available. You bend that and you are out of luck without do a complete redesign and engineering. When you start dealing with factory built aircraft they use castings, extrusions, or special stampings that can be hard to come by if the company is no longer in business.

[CTLSi]

......

[Merlinspop]

This falls right in with this thread. In my opinion this sounds like a stereotype put forth by someone who isn't familiar with composite structures. I have knowledge and training in both types of structures, and I don't think the composite part would be that difficult. Starting with or without a mold.

Well, that's good to hear. Obviously I have no experience with composites. My understanding was patching was more or less pretty straight forward, but full replacements of major components was problematic in terms of matching weights and strengths when you might not know the details about how the original was done.

I stand (well, sit) corrected and better educated!

[FastEddieB]

The Bristell taildragger was very intriguing once Prof. Shuch brought it to my attention.

At the other extreme the little Aerotrek taildragger was also pretty cute.

More, with photos, to follow when I can.

For now, the Bristell:

[rgstubbsjr]

I fly a Tecnam P-92 with full fuel and 2 full size adults (I am not a little guy). I've flown 4 hours at 90% power, 110 kts true airspeed. It's responsive, agile, and fun to fly.
The hardest thing about a Tecnam and other high wing LSA, they are hard to get in and out of the darn things.
But the P-92 is a little bit "brittle". It can't pull any kind of "G" and survive. That being said, I've only read of 1 case where a P-92 broke up in mid air, and that was CFI error in Australia.
Just my firsthand account. Maybe next week I'll be able to report on the Remos GX. I'm supposed to fly one as soon as the weather allows.

[rgstubbsjr]

The Bristell taildragger was very intriguing once Prof. Shuch brought it to my attention.

At the other extreme the little Aerotrek taildragger was also pretty cute.

More, with photos, to follow when I can.

For now, the Bristell:

Wow! I like the looks of that.

[Nomore767]

Eddie,

Is the bristle tail-dragger the same as the nose-wheel version, except for the landing gear configuration? Or, is it a redesigned version inside the cockpit?

Thanks for the report! Nice paint-job too!