Sport Pilot Talk

About the only monitoring of the LSA marketplace I've found takes place on Dan Johnson's hyper-promotional LSA website. A European fellow, Jan Fridrich, actually does the FAA records research and his Q3 2011 LSA sales results are now published:
http://www.bydanjohnson.com/index.cfm

As is typical, one actually learns very little about current sales trends because the report rolls up total LSA sales by manufacturer - bigger numbers look better, I suppose. What's really happening in the near term? Pretty hard to say. Consider: In the first 6 months of 2011, 126 S-LSA sales were reported (Johnson has no report for Q1 2011) while in the single 3-month period of Q3, 124 sales are reported. That's ~100% increase in sales...which on the face of it would produce wild claims of the LSA marketplace booming. But the only thing it probably reflects is that Cessna's Skycatcher production line problems are being ironed out and they are now delivering a/c at an improved rate to people and schools who asked to buy them 3 years ago.

An area consistently ignored in these reports is the E-LSA & E-AB/LSA world, probably because Fridrich's interest is commercial and the USA's market for European kits, while it exists, is very small. Yet just as with new non-LSA piston single registrations, experimental registrations are a significant and growing percentage of all a/c registrations. At least this time Johnson manages to acknowledge it.

As an industry - created out of whole cloth by a set of sanctioned rules - it continues to look very young. Less than 300 sales in the past 12 months, among a group of 120+ approved models.

_________________
Jack
RAF Florida State Liaison
Please visit www.theraf.org

The other issue here is that what looks like sales are only planes that were registered with the FAA and are sitting at dealers. The way the list is populated isn't actual individual sales, but new registrations. This is why Remos looks like they have a lot of aircraft out in the field, when they actually have a ton of them sitting at the distributor and just registered with the FAA. The actual sales numbers are less for all LSA.

_________________
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maint. Rated
Rotax Repair Center - Heavy Maint Rated
(520) 574-1080 (Home) Try Home First.
(520) 349-7056 (Cell)

From a short term manufacturer's viewpoint, those sales are what counts as they keep workers employed and the lights on. But as an indicator of how healthy (or anemic) LSA sales are - which is the emphasis placed on these LSA sales numbers by Johnson - you make a very relevant point, Roger.

Ironically, it's the opposite with E-LSA and E-AB/LSA sales. Johnson (finally...) is acknowledging the popularity of the RV-12 E-LSA kit by mentioning 120+ RV-12's have been registered. What he doesn't mention is that well over 500 kits have been sold now and are in some phase of construction.

_________________
Jack
RAF Florida State Liaison
Please visit www.theraf.org

GAMA just released the worldwide sales volume of piston aircraft through the 3rd quarter of this year: 577. Of those, 102 are for the Skycatcher giving Light Sport about 18% of the total shipped. I don't believe any of the other S-LSA manufacturers are GAMA members so it's next to impossible to guess the worldwide S-LSA shipments but....

It looks like Dan Johnson's site has about 75 non-Skycatcher registrations and we can take a leap of faith that Remos (and others?) aren't just adding to their inventory so this can reasonably assumed to represent sales. Also, most of the larger companies sell more aircraft outside the US. I'll stay conservative and just double the 75. This now gives light sport 252 out of 727 global shipments for just a bit over 1/3 of the market.

Could be an interesting trend if S-LSA starts carrying piston sales globally.

_________________
dave

More impressive to me is that Cessna shipped 41 C162's in the 3rd quarter vs a total of 26 C172R and C172SP Skyhawks. In the same period Cirrus only shipped 26 SR22's which was the market leader in non-LSA shipments. So a LSA model is out shipping all other piston aircraft. Yes, Cessna is working their way through their prior backlog, but perhaps another message is that in this economy LSA aircraft are more attractive than the existing 4 place singles certified aircraft.

The lower price point will inevitably eat into the crusty brains of chief pilots and school owners over time, and LSAs will continue to establish themselves, but the sad part is how small the overall market has become these days.

_________________
http://zaitcev.mee.nu/

Maybe, just maybe, but the weight issues will continue to be a headache.

Ryan

_________________
Independent Flight Instructor at http://www.TexasTailwheel.com. Come fly tailwheel LSA's.

Slightly off topic but I didn't want the weight comment to stand without context.

The Skycatcher notwithstanding, many LSA's have very good useful loads (Allegro and CTSW come to mind) and most are better than the typical 2 seater Part 23 aircraft:

* 1977 C150 489lbs useful load/354 lbs payload (with full fuel)
* 1985 C152 510 lbs useful load/363 lbs payload
* 200X DA20C1 540lbs useful load/393 lbs payload

My Sting S3 comes in at 516 lbs useful load/390 lbs payload which works well for my mission(s). And I have more range than any of the above and a much more comfortable cockpit

Sure I'd like to see a MTOW increase, maybe a 35lbs allowance for safety equippment (chute, airbag restraints, etc.) but I don't see the industry having the appetite (or $$$) to take on the FAA. In the meantime, I'd say we have a pretty varied fleet available that will meet the mission of most VFR pilots looking for two-seaters.

_________________
dave

The CTSW has a 570 useful load and the CTLS has a 530 useful load. Plus you really can't get the CT out of CG unless you have a tiny 100 lb. solo pilot or lead in the tail. Put weight where it goes and it is always in CG. Even though the legal weight limit is 1320 lbs it can easily handle 1500. It can fly out of a 10K density altitude with at least 1450 lbs and maybe more. It can carry 34 gal. of fuel, has a 49.5" cabin width, BRS chute as standard equipment, tons of head and leg room for the tallest and biggest pilots, dual controls for easy training capabilities, 14:1 glide ratio, light controls, 120 knot speed capable, easy in and out doors, nice big luggage area on both sides of the plane, digital panels, auto pilot, electric flaps from -6 to 40 degrees. What else do you need. It has more than most GA aircraft from yester year.

_________________
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maint. Rated
Rotax Repair Center - Heavy Maint Rated
(520) 574-1080 (Home) Try Home First.
(520) 349-7056 (Cell)

Weight is STILL a problem, especially with the number of older guys who weigh in at 200+. The instructor in that case has to be light (I'm trying hard to stay under 150 long-term) in order to have a good load. Why do you think there are so many Cessna 172's at flight schools instead of 150s anymore?

Ryan

_________________
Independent Flight Instructor at http://www.TexasTailwheel.com. Come fly tailwheel LSA's.

"I'd say we have a pretty varied fleet available that will meet the mission of most VFR pilots looking for two-seaters."

It's certainly true that there's immense choice available. And given in-flight times that are possible with the fuel load of many LSA vs. in-flight bladder capacity of at least one crew member, all the payload numbers are, in practice, larger than it might appear.

But not when it comes to instructing, as Ryan points out. No training facility wants to be tanking training a/c inbetween training flights.

These LSA a/c do not have a gross weight problem. Many Americans have a gross behavioral problem WRT their weight. And ~25% of us are even morbidly obese, which means so grossly overweight that we've chosen to shorten our otherwise likely lifespan.

_________________
Jack
RAF Florida State Liaison
Please visit www.theraf.org

And THAT IMO is the real problem... too many of us are "fat." I hear the weight complaints all the time, but most of 'em should be "right back at you" - lose some weight, and that LSA will be plenty viable. Most of what I see is that the LSA market mostly appeals to guys in their late 50s and 60s. They are the guys who have the money, and many of them are weight challenged.

Ryan

_________________
Independent Flight Instructor at http://www.TexasTailwheel.com. Come fly tailwheel LSA's.

Trim the excess fat, which is exactly what I did. I have lost 75lbs over the
last 2 years with 10 more to go until my goal weight. In 2010 I weighed in
at 265. I now weigh 195 and my Remos G3-600 with it's dry weight of
650lbs (just did a weight and balance on it) has more then enough range.
We really do want to stretch our legs after 2.5-3hrs. Even fully loaded, (like
for our upcoming trip to Orlando) we will still have almost 75lbs available.

Happy Flying!

_________________
Gene Mohr
Sport Pilot -- Owner of N838BF, E/AB Arion Lightning
180hrs and counting

Well it looks to me that Cessna will have a winner with the 162 if for no other reason that they have agreements with flight schools and those 152’s are getting old. It should benefit the sport pilot program as I wouldn’t think too many schools would turn down sport pilot students and many of those students will eventually continue on to private anyway.

A couple of things concern me about the 162 though and the first has been mentioned here many times and that is weight. The 152’s at the school I am looking at have a full fuel load average of 375 lbs and it looks like the 162 is only about 340. I know I need to lose weight, and have been working on it, but I am dangerously close to 200 myself. Considering the average sport pilot student is over 50 I would guess there are lots of people in my boat. Now I know in the 152 the weight limit is often treated as a suggestion by flight schools and I wonder if that will be the case with the 162 too. If they go strictly by the weight limit they are going to eliminate lots of potential sport pilot students out there. I also wonder just how durable the 162’s are going to be for training.

As also mentioned before is that many of these LSA’s are capable of hauling lots more than they are certified for. I kind of wonder what that will do for the sport pilot program if a few people end up screwing themselves into the ground and are later found to be overweight. Even if that was not the cause of the accident I think it might cause the FAA to possibly take a harder line against the sport pilot program. I know the new Kitfoxes I have been looking at are capable of being certified at 1550 but are often certified for the light sport 1320. Reading online I get the feeling that most of these guys are not too worried about flying them up to the designed 1550.

For you guys lucky enough to be flying the CTSW’s, that looks like a great airplane. I can see why you guys love them so much.

"Agreements"? I'm afraid it's a little more insidious than that. I'm told that, in order to be listed as an official Cessna pilot center, each school is being required to purchase a 162. That's giving them some great initial sales figures, but is of course unsustainable.

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org