Light Sport Aircraft for Private Pilots (Long)

"Jimbob" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:49:23 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:

"Jimbob" wrote in message
.. .


which I think anyone here would agree is expensive. It needs to
become the "Everyman's" license so your blue collor worker can get his
ass in the air.

I don't expect a plane in evey pot, but In a perfect world, anyone
that has an urge and a job should be able ot afford it.

I spent about $7000 getting my private near Boston where an hour of dual is
heading north of $130 and it took me about 70 hours. Considering salaries in
this area, that's hardly out of reach. In cheaper cost-of-living areas the
prices go lower. Out here I see plenty of blue collar guys riding around in
$40k pickups or on $20k Harleys or in $100k boats. None of those require you
to spend 40-50 hours practicing to get a license.

Sure, if licensing were cheaper more people would do it, but the real issue
is time. Flying is never going to be accessible to everyone to the same
degree boating is. Well, I suppose powered 'chutes could make a case, but
you get my point. We could double the number of pilots and still have
relatively few, but it would be a huge boost for the industry.

IMHO, that is what GA needs to survive.

GA survives in a lot of places where it's far less accessible than it is
here.


Engines are equally if not more important. The cost of buying an
aircraft is just the beginning (from what I am told).

Actually maintenance is a far bigger issue than acquisition cost. LSA will
help in one way, that we'll all be able to get a repairman certificate in
around 120 hours versus 18 months (!) to get an A&P. Inspection authority
will only require another 16 hours. This means people with jobs could
seriously think about doing a night school type class and fix their own
plane and do annuals.

Anyway, my A&P charges less per hour than the import car dealer mechanics
do, and in the same ballpark as the marina where my father keeps his boat.
My dad's sailboat cost twice as much (new) as my 172 (used) and costs more
per year in maintenance. Maintenance costs are not the primary issue.

What would happen to the market if engines only cost $6K That's the
cost of a brand new Porsche 911 (approx 1991 model) replacement engine
that produces 250HP and has full computer control.

My friend (the one who quit working on his license) had to replace the
engine in his 2001 Audi when the timing belt slipped. It cost him close to
$20,000. He'd done maintenance religiously and didn't abuse the car. My
0-320 will cost $15k for a major overhaul, $25k factory new (ish).

Here, operating cost is the real issue. Again, LSAs burning 4 gallons per
hour of mogas at $2/gal will cost a lot less to fly than 8gph of 100LL at
3-4 bucks. You're talking a 25-50% instant reduction.

I use the Porsche
engine as an example of a low production run engine that is designed
for regular high performance, built like a tank and is well known for
going 200K before a rebuild.

Funny you bring up Porsche. They actually did try and build an airplane
engine with Mooney back in the late 80s and it was a disaster.
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html for one opinion. I don't
disagree that we're dealing with some pretty bronze-age technologies in our
engines, but the homebuilt set has been f---ing around with auto conversions
for 30 years with no really great success stories. If it were so simple,
somebody would have figured it out by now.

Wouldn't you think that a lighter, fadec controlled engine that only
produced 180HP could be built for that?. How about a 120HP rotax
killer? You get that, and the cost of LSA power plants just halved.

A Rotax 912 is around $12k in a crate. Bringing it down $6k doesn't make
that much difference in the cost of a $70k plane, especially when you
consider that cost is likely to be amortized over 10 years or more (i.e. a
loan).

Your aircraft maintenance just reduced drastically. A rebuild would
never exceed the cost of an engine plus installation.

I'm not buying it. Why did maintenance get cheaper?

I don't neccessarily want glass, but alot of people do. All I'm after
is cheap technological growth. I see FADEC, GPS w/ WAAS approaches
and Sirius WX as important technologies for fuel efficiency, safety
and convienence. Tech growth is cheaper without FAA certification.

Now you're mixing metaphors. I agree that a glass cockpit in an LSA adds sex
appeal, but zero utility. However we are getting to the point where
non-certified pseudo-glass panels are starting to cost less than round
gauges. It will be a long time before the FAA allows easier certification of
IFR instrumentation, and likely they never will. As the skies get more
crowded, they will become more exclusive. Look at RVSM for an example.

Industries that stagnate, die. GA is currently perking up a bit due
the above technolgoes (my impression) and I hope consesus stanards
fuel this growth.

My opinion is that LSA is something of a parallel track. Basically, if all
you want to do is pull back on the stick and see the houses get smaller, LSA
will offer a substantially lower-cost path to licensing and ownership. If
you want to use airplanes as real transportation, you will need to go the
traditional GA route with its higher costs. Nothing wrong with this. More
LSAs mean more customers for airports, mechanics, and AOPA/EAA members
keeping political heat on anti-GA forces. It doesn't matter what the machine
looks like, the more people flying the better for all of us.

-cwk.