"Of the top ten selling SLSA models listed on bydanjohnson.com, four are indeed composite, four are metal, and two are fabric. And, those four composite aircraft rank #1, 7, 8, and 10. A good start, but hardly dominant."
Exactly. And probably the main reason for that diversity in sales success is what we keep emphasizing here: Choose the mission, then choose the a/c. Different buyers have different flying goals. And this sales diversity also reflects the financial side of 'the mission' since different buyers have different amounts of discretionary income and/or funds. Only a small minority of buyers to date have chosen to pay $150K+ for an LSA as, adjusted for inflation, the sales reports have consistently shown since 2005. At this year's Sun 'n Fun, the busiest LSA distributor/USA sales company I saw - by far - was the Aerotrek tube-and-fabric S-LSA, which was being sold well equipped for $87K.
Pull the curtains back further - to include the E-LSA and E-AB marketplace - and the composite slice of the market grows much smaller, for the obvious reason that it's less suitable (skill sets, sometimes more expensive/sophisticated build tools) for owner completion. I haven't checked the certification numbers for E-LSA category, completed RV-12's lately, but that metal model would I believe rank pretty high in the Top Ten if all X-LSA a/c were counted. Add the E-AB RV-12's and that model would likely be near the top.
"In fact, LSA has already seen a half dozen companies fold..."
Far more than that. I believe there are now ~130 S-LSA models which have been approved by the FAA since 2004. How many of those models are currently being built, sold and certified, at least a few every year, in the USA? A pretty small percentage.
sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
Moderator: drseti
-
- Posts: 1380
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
- Location: Prescott AZ
- Contact:
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:43 pm
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
Of all the S-LSA rules that would aid the LSA market would be to increase the maximum take off weight. Even a modest increase to 1400 lbs would be a huge improvement in the appeal of these otherwise terrific airplanes. One pictured earlier in this thread, the Arion Lightning, empty weight, 820 pounds, would be a much more attractive piece of hardware with a useable weight of 580 pounds than 500.
And something like the Bristell that comes in around 750 lbs empty weight becomes a serious two person cross country craft, bladder capacity not withstanding.
David
And something like the Bristell that comes in around 750 lbs empty weight becomes a serious two person cross country craft, bladder capacity not withstanding.
David
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
I don't disagree one bit, David. However, from a practical viewpoint, the FAA has absolutely no incentive to move in this direction. Their mission is to improve safety, not to aid the marketplace. They've already met their safety mission by reigning in the fat ultralights. Mission accomplished, as far as FAA is concerned.David Pavlich wrote:Of all the S-LSA rules that would aid the LSA market would be to increase the maximum take off 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
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
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
The FAA's mission is to make rules to improve safety, not merely to not jeopardize it. Unless that we can show (quantitatively) that such a change will decrease the number and severity of accidents, we don't have a case.
As for comparing the relative safety of the C162 vs. the C152, there is a quantifiable difference in kinetic energy to dissipate in the event of an accident, which has relevance to survivability. I'll try to do the research, crunch the numbers, and post my findings here later.
As for comparing the relative safety of the C162 vs. the C152, there is a quantifiable difference in kinetic energy to dissipate in the event of an accident, which has relevance to survivability. I'll try to do the research, crunch the numbers, and post my findings here later.
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
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
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
......
Last edited by CTLSi on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
True, the #1 seller is carbon fiber. The #2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 aren't. So, as I said, it's a good start, but hardly dominant.CTLSi wrote:The hands-down sales leader is Flight Design and all their models are all carbon fiber.
The name Carbon Cub is a clever marketing trick. It's a tube and fabric airplane, isn't it? The fact that some of the tubes are carbon is, as I keep saying, a good start.Cubcrafters Carbon Cub - again carbon fiber.
My post has nothing to do with what Dan is saying or writing about. It merely cites the Top Ten statistics that happen to be on his website.Dont know what Dan Johnson said or is writing about, but no one questions who the LSA leaders are.
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
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
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
......
Last edited by CTLSi on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
Good article. Says in one place,CTLSi wrote:Leader Of The Pack
Which is consistent with Phil Lockwood's test on the AirCam (which I described in a separate thread). That's far more believable than the 35% fuel reduction some have claimed.documented 21% lower fuel consumption
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
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
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:43 pm
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
That's a good point, Paul. Heck, look how long it's been since the petition about changing the medical requirements.drseti wrote:I don't disagree one bit, David. However, from a practical viewpoint, the FAA has absolutely no incentive to move in this direction. Their mission is to improve safety, not to aid the marketplace. They've already met their safety mission by reigning in the fat ultralights. Mission accomplished, as far as FAA is concerned.David Pavlich wrote:Of all the S-LSA rules that would aid the LSA market would be to increase the maximum take off weight.
David
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
I would disagree with a previous statement about their not being schools that could survive on LSA training only. The school I learned at in Denver had two locations and at its peak six LSA's in the fleet. They wanted you to be a SP. They would and could provide PP training in their LSA's but the school sold itself as LSA and SP. The school merged with a traditional flight school and unfortunately is down to only two LSA's and don't emphasize SP. The chief pilot and the senior CFI's are not huge fans of LSA's. It is unfortunate. I am glad that I got my ticket when this school was in its heyday and I really enjoyed a school that was exclusively LSA and almost exclusively SP.
Carl
Carl
Private Pilot and RV-12 Builder
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: sport pilot schools vs. traditional flight schools w/ SP
That school kept those LSA's flying a ton. When the LSA's initially went into the traditional school they flew quite a bit. It all comes down to what is sold. They are selling PP in non-LSA's. They make more money on the non-LSA's that they buy more cheaply used. I am quite sure it is economics and not a lack of demand. I know of another school in the Springs area that has told me that they get quite a few calls about SP. There is demand.FlyingForFun wrote:But, maybe that means there wasn't enough demand for Sport Pilot/LSA.
Carl
Private Pilot and RV-12 Builder