Cessna Greenlights LSA

Eric Bartsch wrote:
On Jul 10, 5:55 pm, Jay Beckman wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:23 pm, Dallas wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:00:13 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:
Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
Are you getting your loan papers together?
--
Dallas
Not right this minute, but I'm hoping one or two migrate to a FBO here
in the PHX area. I'd love to try it out!

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZwww.pbase.com/flyingphotog

This should have a pretty significant impact on the cost of people
getting a license. If a brand new 172 goes for $110 to $130/hr then
one of the Cessna LSAs should be able to be rented for maybe $70/hr
with the lower fuel burn, cheaper plane, and lower insurance (2 seats
vs. 4). My guess is that the biggest impact of the new LSA airplanes &
license will be the fact that it provides a new generation of 2 seat
training aircraft that can be more economically used for training, and
that most of the training done in them will actually be people getting
their private rating vs a light sport rating. This will wind up being
the new generation of 152s or Tomahawks.

Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
made in the Chez republic...

http://www.evektoramerica.com/

One of the issues with student starts has to be the fact that you
either wind up flying a relatively economical but old plane like a
20-30 year old 150/152 or you have to step up to a much more expensive
plane like a 172 to get anything new (I know that things like the
Alarus have been available, but not in the numbers that will happen
when Cessna Pilot Centers are required to each buy an LSA to keep
their affiliation). People have to really love planes to want to go
learn in a plane that looks worse than any car you would be willing to
rent (didn't stop me, but it probably stops a lot of people). The
combination of Cessna Pilot centers everywhere and a new trainer that
students won't be scared off by (either in pricing or appearance)
should lead to a lot more student starts for all ratings.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see where the Cessna LSA starts showing
up for rent, and for how much.

Eric Bartsch
1959 Pilatus P-3-05 A-848

On Jul 10, 4:31 pm, Jim Stewart wrote:
Eric Bartsch wrote:
On Jul 10, 5:55 pm, Jay Beckman wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:23 pm, Dallas wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:00:13 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:
Just got an AvWeb flash announcing same...
Are you getting your loan papers together?
--
Dallas
Not right this minute, but I'm hoping one or two migrate to a FBO here
in the PHX area. I'd love to try it out!

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZwww.pbase.com/flyingphotog

This should have a pretty significant impact on the cost of people
getting a license. If a brand new 172 goes for $110 to $130/hr then
one of the Cessna LSAs should be able to be rented for maybe $70/hr
with the lower fuel burn, cheaper plane, and lower insurance (2 seats
vs. 4). My guess is that the biggest impact of the new LSA airplanes &
license will be the fact that it provides a new generation of 2 seat
training aircraft that can be more economically used for training, and
that most of the training done in them will actually be people getting
their private rating vs a light sport rating. This will wind up being
the new generation of 152s or Tomahawks.

Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
made in the Chez republic...

http://www.evektoramerica.com/




- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I sat in one at the AOPA clambake last fall at Palm Springs. It's
seems really well built, comfy, great vis and can be very well
equipped. The dealer on hand flew this particular plane from Texas.
IIRC, the gentleman who climbed in and taxied it out for the Parade Of
Planes back to the airport was (putting it nicely) "a couple of
biscuits over average" and he didn't appear to be cramped or
uncomfortable at all.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

"Jay Beckman" wrote

I sat in one at the AOPA clambake last fall at Palm Springs. It's
seems really well built, comfy, great vis and can be very well
equipped. The dealer on hand flew this particular plane from Texas.
IIRC, the gentleman who climbed in and taxied it out for the Parade Of
Planes back to the airport was (putting it nicely) "a couple of
biscuits over average" and he didn't appear to be cramped or
uncomfortable at all.

It is wider than a 152, by 7 big inches, at 46 1/2 inches.

One of the other new LSA has a 49 1/2 inch wide cockpit, but I don't remember
which one.

I'll bet that Cessna's new LSA has a good width, to accommodate US pilot's
increased girths.
--
Jim in NC

("Jay Beckman" wrote)
IIRC, the gentleman who climbed in and taxied it out for the Parade Of
Planes back to the airport was (putting it nicely) "a couple of
biscuits over average" and he didn't appear to be cramped or
uncomfortable at all.


"a couple of biscuits over average"

I don't know what in the hell that even means?? :-))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUTJQIBI1oA
Ok, she needed an editor, but she put ...it all ...out there. g


Paul-Mont
Has to snow twice for me to get the drift

"Jim Stewart" wrote

Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
made in the Chez republic...

Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.

I'll bet Cessna doesn't use a Rotax! g
--
Jim in NC

On Jul 10, 5:04 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Jim Stewart" wrote

Unfortunately for Cessna, that plane already exists.
It's called the Evektor SportStar. Oh wait, it's
made in the Chez republic...

Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.

I'll bet Cessna doesn't use a Rotax! g
--
Jim in NC

IIRC, Cessna is going Continental (?)

Jay B

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:04:47 -0400, "Morgans"

Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.


I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
engines. Why is this? They certainly seem to be popular with the
homebuilt and LSA crew. I have no experience with the aviation
versions.

-Nathan

Nathan,

I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
engines. Why is this?


It's new. It's different. It's not "the way we have always done it".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Nathan,

I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
engines. Why is this?


It's new. It's different. It's not "the way we have always done it".

Maybe that's partly the reason. There are probably also some left-over bad
feelings about Rotax engines from their earlier days in ultralight
applications where failures were rather common and they developed somewhat
of a bad reputation for reliability and support.

BDS

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:20:57 GMT, Nathan Young
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:04:47 -0400, "Morgans"

Now, if they would put something in it other than a Rotax.

I have heard several pilots and my A&P express disdain for Rotax
engines. Why is this? They certainly seem to be popular with the
homebuilt and LSA crew. I have no experience with the aviation
versions.

One reason: They don't like 100LL. They're approved (and certified) to operate
on it, but the lead forms an abrasive sludge that means the oil has to be
changed more frequently.

Not that big of a deal with a private owner, but an FBO won't like having to
take a rental off the line twice as often to change the oil. The solution is to
run unleaded car gas, but the FBOs would have to add the infrastructure to
manage it as well as 100LL. It's for this reason I suspect the production
version of Cessna's LSA will have a Continental or Lycoming.

I believe Diamond's original Katana was the first certified Rotax-powered
aircraft sold in the US. However, FBOs had enough problems that the
Continental-powered version replaced it.

Keep in mind, though, not all LSAs are using Rotaxes. The ones that come from
Europe do (where they have more a tradition of running on car gas), but the
Cub-clones made in the US don't.

Ron Wanttaja