Sport Pilot Talk

The CT can carry up to 55 lbs of baggage in each side. I have seen them carry golf clubs, full size bikes, full camp gear, ect.. It has more room than most LSA. There are 360 CT's in the US and most of us use them to travel all over the country from border to border and coast to coast. One of the best things about a CT is if you put weight where it was designed to go you can't get it out of CG.
You should talk to all of us that fly to Page, AZ every October for our LSA
Fly-In. The Ct's come from every corner of the US.

_________________
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)

.I feel the need to respond. I was well aware of the fact that many LSA's will out fly many low end Part 23 A/C. Having owned a Cherokee 140 for ober ten years. It was slower but I could take a lot of baggge and 50 gallons of fuel if only 2 pax.There are many Part 23 A/C that will outperform LSA’s. Most are not as efficient as any LSA’s.

There are many LSA’s that were four place A/C originally, but is you load them over gross you risk your ticket and even at more risk is your insurance coverage. Many LSA’s have been slowed down to meet the speed limit. The CT owners needn't be so defensive. It was not an attack on them or anyone else. Even if we restricted the discussion to LSA’s only there can be debate on the merits of each.

I still stand by my opinion (note opinion) that a medical-less RP will hurt LSA sales. I t really depends upon your needs, desires and budget. This a moot point until and if it ever gets passed.

_________________
Marcus - WA2DCI
PP ASEL IA

Daidalos Greek: Δαίδαλος
Remember don't fly too close to the Sun.

Interesting discussion. And it clearly shows how individual opinions (e.g. on LSA "vs." Part 23 a/c) are centered around our individual circumstances. Here are a couple of follow-ups based on the most recent posts - just some things that came to mind while reading them:

Consider for a moment the hypothesis that most performance measures are essentially irrelevant when it comes to LSA sales. To be sure, this isn't true for all buyers nor for all LSA a/c...but in general, I think discussions of 4 vs. 5 vs. 6 hrs of flight endurance might be an interesting exercise but doesn't apply to any of us. Speed is mostly irrelevant for two reasons: first, the top tier of LSA models do not vary that much in capability, one from the other. Second, these speeds are not that different from Part 23 'simple singles'. Pete makes a good point about flying out west with its vast distances, but that doesn't differentiate between simple singles and LSA's. Payload is another variable that isn't all that 'variable'. If one had payload as a critical criterion. there are enough LSA choices to meet most buyers' reasonable demands. And in some LSA's - Jabiru's 230, Brazil's very impressive looking Paradise and one of the pseudo-SuperCubs - the airframe was not only designed to carry more than the LSA-allowable gross weight but has the room for it.

I described 3 categories of LSA buyers in an earlier post, but let me slice the loaf differently this time. I'll propose that there are two broad 'buyer types' when it comes to new/almost new $100K+/- LSA's: those who have specific and relatively demanding mission specs they are trying to meet, and those that are buying toys. Yes, I know that sounds pejorative but I don't mean it that way. I simply mean the pleasures of a relatively modern LSA is the driver rather than the mission specs. Low-time airframe, safety parachute, gee-whiz panel and/or the overall image of a 21st Century aircraft could all be reasons that fit here. The 'missions' for this buyer could be flown by almost any aircraft: lunch runs, burrowing holes in the sky, and the sheer pleasure of flying and maintaining skills.

OTOH common mission specific criteria are bladder-compatible distance covered (or perhaps stated differently, sheer speed), payload requirements that include flying a family vs. a partner, hauling more than two duffles of 'stuff', and/or needing a baggage area 'form factor' that handles large/odd shaped items, the ability to fly legally in safe but less-than-VFR weather (e.g. penetrate a coastal marine layer) and/or the ability to expand the flying hours beyond what the short winter days provide. LSA's don't compete well against properly equipped, capably flown 'simple singles' in these areas, altho' I grant that some of them lie outside the proposed rule change we are discussing. And for the mission-specific buyer that can fly the mission in a 'recreational' mode, the Part 23 a/c will be a half to a quarter the acquisition cost.

Gotta run...

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

I was refering to stopping the steady decline in PPs that's been going on for many years. Keeping them in GA and buying used aircraft proposed by the EAA / AOPA rule change will be very good for business for the many struggling FBOs out there through additional service and fuel sales.

One of the things that bother me about the current certified LSA offerings is that it they are almost all from overseas. Hell even Cessna is building it’s now overpriced bird in China. If I was looking for a “high performance” LSA, I would be hard pressed to look past the RV-12. You get an American made kit, admittedly not an American engine. There have been over 500 kits sold and I would bet that almost all will eventually be built. There are three, basically brand new ones on Barnstormers right now for 80k. The just listed one today for 68k and 25 hours but I am guessing it is not painted yet. You get an airplane that has almost 100 pounds more useful load, will fly farther on less fuel and is 70k less than the 162. I love that you can pull the wings for trailering and can run 10% ethanol. Sure it is not certified but unless I am going to teach in it I would be better off with the ELSA anyway because I could, with a little training, do my own annuals.

I don’t think LSA’s were ever supposed to be cross country machines but I live in California and most every place I really want to go is within 500 miles or so. I know I would much rather spend 4 hours flying than 10 hours driving. I guess one argument for the driver’s license medical is I think you would be pretty hard pressed to argue that these new, faster types, LSA’s are easier or safer to fly than the average Cessna 152 or 172.

As pointed out earlier I doubt this new rule would be the great savior of GA aircraft but I don’t think it would necessarily kill all light sport manufactures either. Many of the better designs, like the CT, would most likely stand on their own and with relaxed rules may even be able to improve and offer an airplane that has more appeal to a wider group of pilots. Just look how many pilots fly sport pilot legal planes but use the PP. I also think that anything we can do to safely get more pilots in the game would be great for the overall industry. If we can get younger pilots, they may not be able to purchase a new airplane now but may at some point in their life be able to do so. In the mean time they will most likely rent or join a flying club that will often end up purchasing newer aircraft.

One thing I don’t hear talked about on here much is the fun factor. I don’t think that the sport pilot rule was ever really designed for people that expected to fly halfway across the country but more for people who just wanted to get up there and fly around. I recently got a ride in a Kitfox 4. I could not imagine something more fun to fly that will do just about anything I really want it to do. It is not fast but will do a little over 100 mph on cruise and only be burning 3.5 gph doing it. You can find a decent used one for under 30k. You can fold the wings and share a hanger or tow it home. Annuals are usually pretty cheap. Insurance can be a little high if you don’t have tail-dragger time but you can even build or change the Model 4’s to nose gear. Lots of guys around here fly them up to Idaho and don’t seem to have any problem doing it. If I have to land a couple of times to stretch my legs and empty my bladder so what, I spend far too much of my working life in a hurry and too me flying is supposed to be fun. It will never be cheap but compared with some of my other hobbies I don’t think it will kill me either.

Actually I think Flight Design in particular would try to push C4 instead. In fact many of those overseas companies are capable in GA area. Heck I was surprised to learn that Evektor's primary business is building military transports about the size of Twin Otter.

_________________
http://zaitcev.mee.nu/

"One thing I don’t hear talked about on here much is the fun factor."

I think that's a great point. We seem to gravitate to 'numbers' in these discussions and weigh one a/c vs. another using 'specification myopia'. If my experience is a fair indication, once you are an owner you tend to focus on the 'cost vs. pleasure' equation and much of the 'pleasure' side of the equation has to do with whether the a/c allows you to do what you enjoy and does it pleasingly.

In that regard, if I'd had more time when writing the above post, I would have added one more observation re: the discussion here: No one is mentioning how 'pleasing' any of these aircraft fly. Some suffer from unbalanced controls (e.g. heavier pitch vs. lighter roll control) and LSA a/c generically relatively suffer more from uncomfortable motion in turbulent air and can be a handful to land in any kind of meaningful crosswind. Therefore, those LSA's that offer more control harmony, handle turbulence relatively better, and are more stable during cross wind landings are going to be significantly more enjoyable to fly - during every minute of flight, on every mission. We tend to overlook these less measurable factors when comparing range numbers or talking about glass panels and ballistic parachutes. IMO this is one of the best things about a good LSA. One is not destined forever to drive the equivalent of a 65' Chevy pick-up (C172) or a '65 Impala with blown shocks (PA28). Apologies to car buffs and Chevy fans everywhere...

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

I think this proposal of no medicals for pp's is a good thing for everyone. It might bring more people into GA again. But that is not the real problem, the real problem is that GA is not affordable to the average Joe anymore. The prices of airplanes are on the uprise and it will be almost impossible to get even training in the near future. That's the real reason for the decline in GA.....

_________________
Comm Ins SEL HP TW
AGI/IGI

Just wondering, does the AOPA EAA medical proposal cover student pilots too who are looking to fly only for recreation under the proposal limitations?

Also, what about the SP catch 22. Would that catch 22 apply to the proposal as well?

I can't seem to find anything that has the answers I was looking for.

I just sent your two questions over to aopa for an 'official' answer. I'll post back when they respond.

Just found two links that are amazing:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2 ... cense.html

The second one is an FAQ, basically i believe it states that you can start out without a medical, take the course, then upgrade, or begin training as a recreational pilot.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2 ... cense.html

That being said -- anybody know of a super fast 2-seater with fixed gear/prop and 180hp? I'm thinking a vans rv-7/9 would be absolutely fantastic to fit the category and still do 200mph on decent fuel burn...

About ten years ago I got a ride in an RV 6 and have been in love them ever since. I think the RV 7 or 9 would be a great option if they ever do decide to do this. If money was an issue, and for most of us it is, I think I would still look at the RV 6. You can find a pretty good example for around 50-70k and there is not a huge difference between it and the 7. You have to be a little more careful as, unlike the RV 12, they were built will all types of engines and setups but there still are lots of good low time ones out there.

I know this is a forum for sport pilots but I always assumed that the Recreational License did not allow the use of IFA props, just like the Sport License, but all I can find is it does not allow the use of retractable gear. Does anyone know for sure if in flight adjustable props are OK for the Recreational License?

"Just wondering, does the AOPA EAA medical proposal cover student pilots too who are looking to fly only for recreation under the proposal limitations?"

Keep in mind there is no formal proposal yet. AOPA & EAA floated the basics some weeks ago in order to listen to feedback, initially grease the various administrative and political skids, and have a chance to learn what they didn't think about initially. Pretty smart of them, IMO. But 'the proposal' doesn't exist in any formal sense yet.

"...anybody know of a super fast 2-seater with fixed gear/prop and 180hp?"

Consider the Grumman AA-1 series, for which there are STC's to install an O-320 150 hp Lycoming. Inexpensive 2-seater with FG & FP, better baggage area than most (not all) LSA's, and a fair number have been converted over the years so finding one for sale is feasible. Good support still available too, via Northwest Mods, Fletchair, the GG email list and via the AYA.org owners' group. Some of the models are quite slippery and are pleasing to fly.

As for the RV series, we thought the RV6/7/9 models were the answer for us, too. But it didn't turn out that way. For a $50K budget, the only option will be the RV-6 (just barely). The -6 series has less payload, less range and a somewhat smaller baggage area than the 7 & 9. We found payload limits prevented us from some 'camping' flying we intend to do, and we're not even big people (310# combined). The small baggage area was a second concern, and most 6's we found for sale were tail draggers - not a disqualifier, but with its own implications that must be embraced, including initially higher insurance premiums. Finally, the RV experts counsel being especially cautious and thorough when choosing/inspecting a -6 because it was built with owner-constructed jigs, before the CNC punching that Vans began using with all its models after the -6. Every amateur built a/c probably deviates a bit from the intended end result, but some6's can deviate significantly.

I still think the RV series are well engineered, nicely designed, and worthy of consideration...but all the above reasons just underline the importance of being clear about one's mission and being a savvy shopper, too.

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

FYI for those of you who don't get the weekly AOPA ePilot, it contained an interesting 'update' of sorts on the EAA/AOPA proposal. It acknowledged that one of the causes of immediate LSA Industry concern and anger was the lack of advance communication to that Industry from both organizations, leaving them no time to discuss the proposal's implications with either the two sponsoring orgs or within themselves. As the dust has settled, AOPA's write (by Alton Marsh) suggests that, on reflection, even most of the LSA Industry acknowledge that the proposal will benefit GA as a whole, and that in turn will have a ripple effect on the LSA/Sport Pilot segment. Nevertheless, some LSA distributors worry about it reducing the number of LSA sales.

Somewhat in contradiction to that concern, there was an interesting data point offered by one used-LSA retailer whom AOPA contacted re: the proposal. "John Hurst of Sebring Aircraft in Sebring, Fla., sells light sport aircraft, most of them used. He has concerns about the proposed third-class medical exemption, although he doesn’t feel the new exemption would make it more difficult for him to sell his [used] light-sport inventory. The sport pilot certificate got some good pilots back in the air and brought in new pilots, he said. “With the initial crowd [of light sport aircraft buyers], 80 percent did not have medicals. There was pent-up demand. Now, 80 percent do have medicals, but just like the features of the LSA.”

On perhaps the most influential factor re: the EAA/AOPA proposal, there was widespread agreement: FAA acceptance, if ti comes, will only come after much due diligence and a lengthy review process. E.g. Dan Johnson commented that he'd been told that the elimination of the 3rd Class medical in the SP proposal had, all by itself, extended the FAA's deliberation by a full two years.

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

I think the financial crunch will accelerate their deliberations. I look for them to accept this within a couple of years. Things have changed, savings on admin costs now matters. Welcome to the new normal, in this case it could benefit us.

_________________
Sport Pilot