Cessna's LSA Plans

News from AERO-NEWS (link: http://www.aero-news.net/):

Top News

Big News! Cessna To Unveil LSA Concept At Oshkosh
Tue, 06 Jun '06

Production Decision To Be Made In Early 2007
ANN has been hearing the rumors for some time now... and took note when we saw Cessna bigwigs fly in to Sebring for the annual LSA expo earlier this year. Well, Cessna has just let the feline out of the paper enclosure... by confirming that not only is the company studying the LSA market VERY closely... but that Cessna will be showing a full-scale proof-of-concept design for a new light-sport aircraft at this year's AirVenture 2006.



Cessna calls the newly-emerging Light Sport Aircraft category "the highest growth sector of general aviation."

"As the world's largest producer of single engine piston airplanes, we believe we could bring unique capabilities to this exciting market," said Cessna Chairman, President and CEO Jack Pelton. "Our extensive sales and service network could provide an important market advantage, which, in concert with our design and manufacturing experience, could make this an attractive extension of our product line."

Pelton added Cessna is currently studying a wide range of issues associated with entering the sector, to determine if there is a favorable business case. That decision is expected to be made in the first quarter of 2007.

"An important part of our thought process in looking at LSA is the value in terms of new pilot starts. Experience has shown that Cessna brand loyalty is a powerful force in our success, and we believe this new category of aircraft could provide a conduit for new pilots to grow through the Cessna product line in the years ahead," he said.

Even if you're not in the market for an LSA, consider this: the mockup -- to be unveiled at a July 24 press conference at AirVenture 2006 -- could provide the first look at what might be Cessna's first single-engine, piston-driven aircraft since the 172, 182, and 206 were reintroduced in 1996.

In the meantime, we join the aviation community in speculating what the Cessna LSA -- even in proof-of-concept-form -- will look like. Although constrained by the limitations of the sport-pilot category -- max 1,320-lbs gross, two passenger seating, fixed gear -- several companies have already shown there is a wide range of possibilities within the category for some REALLY neat little planes.

Of course, it also bears mentioning that over its long history, Cessna has produced several airplanes that met nearly all the LSA requirements... most recently, the venerable 150 (below), which off the production line was simple and slow enough to meet LSA guidelines. It's slightly too heavy, though, with a gross weight rating of 1,600 lbs... but a lot of advancements in weight reduction have been made since then...



So, will Cessna look to its past to produce a light-sport plane? Or will we see something strikingly new from Cessna for the LSA market? Questions like these are why we LOVE this business. Tune in next month.


Deene

Marc Cook had a blurb about this last week in Kitplanes. Makes sense since Cessna already has a network of flight school affiliates. This is a great way to get the training ships to the airport. The homebuilts LSA will still, I think, have their place too, but there simply HAD to be large-scale production of these things in order to bring in the new students.

Cessna would be good for LSA

deene said:

So, will Cessna look to its past to produce a light-sport plane? Or will we see something strikingly new from Cessna for the LSA market? Questions like these are why we LOVE this business. Tune in next month.
Deene

Click to expand...

I could definately see Cessna using a 150/152 derivative design. My reasons:

* With the exception of weight, the 150 is a LSA. You just need to lob several hundred pounds off it.
* On a diet down to 1320 lb, the 150 would be a much better performer.
* The existing fleet of 150/152 are getting old and high-time.
* Flight schools would love a low-cost 150 replacement, particularly if it had the same docile qualities as the 150.

Having a manufacturer like Cessna get behind the LSA concept will do a lot to help establish LSA as a viable, mainstream concept. It would also drive the price down, which would be a boon.

I'm wondering which engine they will use. Given that Textron owns Lycoming and Cessna, I'm guessing that the Lyc O-235 will be used. Maybe they will take a cue from TCM and update it like the IO-240B that the DA-20C1 Katana uses.

the_other_dougreeves said:

It would also drive the price down, which would be a boon.

Click to expand...

We can hope this will be true. I will believe it when I see it though. Considering that prices for a new 172 can go north of $200K now, I hope they don't think that the LSA market will be interested in paying a premium for a name.

RVbySDI said:

We can hope this will be true. I will believe it when I see it though. Considering that prices for a new 172 can go north of $200K now, I hope they don't think that the LSA market will be interested in paying a premium for a name.

Click to expand...

100% agreed - hopefully Cessna's LSA will not cost more, but will be competitive with other LSA makers (e.g., AMD's 601XL, which is about $75k VFR).

Under $100K? Don't bet on it

I'd be surprised to see Cessna's LSA under $100K. The leading LSAs are all in that ballpark now, equipped, and I can easily see that as Cessna's marketing target.

The company is a long way from feeling like it needs to undercut the competition in price to sell airplanes.

--Marc

KPmarc said:

I'd be surprised to see Cessna's LSA under $100K. The leading LSAs are all in that ballpark now, equipped, and I can easily see that as Cessna's marketing target.

The company is a long way from feeling like it needs to undercut the competition in price to sell airplanes.

--Marc

Click to expand...

I fully agree with Marc. I just don't think there is the overall sales number to build enough competition in the aircraft industry. Look at some of the Cub-clones on the market. Tube/rag/motor = $75k minimum - and more like $100k for most. If you look at the technology (tubular steel/fabric&dope/ and what amounts to an iteration of the people's aircooled motor) involved - you SHOULD be able to pick a fully built one up for $25K. It isn't a rocket guys... it is pretty much the same plane it was 50 years ago!

As I noted in a previous post:

Unfortunately, I don't see anyone anywhere in the aviation market pushing to undercut their competition and drive up sales. It seems like everyone is content to price in the same neighbor hood and rely on unit margins for profit instead of volume. Sad for the consumer.

Click to expand...

So, between that issue, and our bleeding heart liberal lawsuit driven society... most of America (actually the world) is priced out of one of the greatest achievements and joys of mankind...

And thus you have the kit-build industry which partially compensates. But even then we are stuck with $20,000 engines!!!

This is indeed fantastic news for the Sport Pilot/LSA aviation world that brings a bit of legitamacy along with it. A large and well known aviation company such as Cessna having enough confidence in the future of LSA's to be willing to invest the time, money and resources it takes to develope a 'relatively' (essentially a 150) new line of aircraft is a tremendous boost for Sport aviation and a big leap in the right direction. Most of the pilots I know of earned their wings in a Cessna, be it the 150 or 172 and it seems most flight schools stock them as a standard aircraft to learn in. For them (flight schools) to replace their aging 150's with an LSA from the same familiar and trusted company is a natural.

It's good for Sport aviation to then have an adaquate number of LSA's out there to learn in, it's good for the flight schools interested in training Sport Pilots to have the ability to purchase an LSA from an established aircraft manufacturer and it's good for new Sport Pilot students to have the peace of mind knowing that their climbing into a new type of aircraft that has the familiar Cessna company name on it.

I would suspect the Cessna LSA will essentially be a slightly scaled down version of it's venerable 150, though a newly designed low wing would be welcomed.

Phyrcooler said:

I fully agree with Marc. I just don't think there is the overall sales number to build enough competition in the aircraft industry. Look at some of the Cub-clones on the market. Tube/rag/motor = $75k minimum - and more like $100k for most. If you look at the technology (tubular steel/fabric&dope/ and what amounts to an iteration of the people's aircooled motor) involved - you SHOULD be able to pick a fully built one up for $25K. It isn't a rocket guys... it is pretty much the same plane it was 50 years ago!

Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. The days of selling a product at a fair price no matter what others may be selling things at are no more I am afraid. Price is no longer based on what it costs to produce but rather on what the market will bare. I have posted on other threads about this issue of economics before. I still believe that anyone who wants to can make as good a profit selling more of their product at a lower price as they can selling at a high price and limiting the number sold. Not many out there (if any) who still believe this but it used to be considered a legitimate way of doing business.

If Cessna enters the LSA market I can not help but envision a huge benefit to aviation. The aircraft may be seem to be high priced today but it has always been that way in aviation, even in the Cub days. The benefit will be when a large number of aircraft enter the market and become affordable used aircraft. Cessna has the reputation of being able to produce aircraft that withstand the rigors of time and are still airworthy after 50 years and more of service. we can all talk of the high price of aircraft but in perspective,what are used RV aircraft selling for these days? Close to 100K?

RVbySDI and Phyrcooler:

A Cessna 172 costs $172,500. At what price do you think Cessna could sell that airplane for and still make money? How much are they making off that one airplane?

Joey said:

RVbySDI and Phyrcooler:

A Cessna 172 costs $172,500. At what price do you think Cessna could sell that airplane for and still make money? How much are they making off that one airplane?

Click to expand...

I have no inside information. Although materials costs seem to be ever on the rise my guess is that the vast majority of any costs of manufacter are in the labor. That includes the always present legal costs of defending themselves against any money grabbers.

ah yes, the money grabbers. Cessna had ceased building single engine aircraft in 1986 because lawsuits from crashes caused extreme costs in litagation and insurance. The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 reopened the doors at Cessna for single engine production again. I also agree wages are a major factor in the equation. For example, how much of the cost for a General Motors vehicle goes to pay pensions for retired workers? Any aircraft is going to be expensive, even an LSA aircraft because they all share the same factors. material cost, engine costs, liability insurance, and time,(whether you build it yourself or a factory worker did) .
One thing to remember when you buy a kit, you are buying a material package only, and you become the manufacturer. Down the road when you decide to sell your product with your name on it and something like a crash happens, you might as well be Cessna because the money grabbers will be on your door step.

Again - I reiterate that I believe that costs have been driven up by:

Lack of volume
Excessive litigation

Just for exercise - compare an airplane to an automobile when consdering the cost arguments.

Cost of raw materials. If this were the cause - a 4,000 lb. car should cost about $300,000 or more.

Sophistication: The engine/transmission/AWD/ABS/Electronic Management systems of today's auto's are way more leading edge than our basic LSA. Oh yeah, and climate control, Video, CD, GPS/Nav, On-Star, etc....

Cost of labor: I guarantee that if you broke out all the labor used to make every component of an automobile - and then assemble it in its final configuration - you will find that there are probably as many or probably more hours in a car. And while the production line of an automobile factory is a factor - it just backs up what I say about volume of aircraft.

Yet - I can buy leading edge automobile for 30K, but a basic VFR - Tube and fabric LSA cost $100K??!!

agreed lack of volume and excessive litigation and one more item. If that LSA is a turn key and fly away model there were some government hoops to jump through in a certification process.

brules said:

One thing to remember when you buy a kit, you are buying a material package only, and you become the manufacturer. Down the road when you decide to sell your product with your name on it and something like a crash happens, you might as well be Cessna because the money grabbers will be on your door step.

Click to expand...

I think that this issue has been rehashed online before - so I won't belabor or get into chicken little postulating. I would ask anyone to bring forward proof of an award of damages against a private person for negligence in construction of an Experimental aircraft that they sold and was later crashed by another party.

This is why the FAA makes us put the "EXPERIMENTAL" predominately displayed in/on these craft. A basic warning - whether deserved or not - that "hey - I built this, and sxxx may fall off - fly with me at your own risk".

There is an article about who is liable by Philip J. Kolczynski on Avweb that is worth the read.

brules said:

There is an article about who is liable by Philip J. Kolczynski on Avweb that is worth the read.

Click to expand...

I understand the theory of the argument. I'll be much more worried once I hear of a homebuilder actually being sued.

We're failing to see the bright side here. Market economics allow higher pricing until a tipping point is reached. The fact that everyone is making money with high priced machines tells us that there are a lot of buyers. Prices will come down. A bigger the market will lower the prices due to the efficiencies of mass production. That Cessna is involved is sign of great things to come.

plossl said:

We're failing to see the bright side here. Market economics allow higher pricing until a tipping point is reached. The fact that everyone is making money with high priced machines tells us that there are a lot of buyers. Prices will come down. A bigger the market will lower the prices due to the efficiencies of mass production. That Cessna is involved is sign of great things to come.

Click to expand...

Good point.

Production costs

brules said:

... I also agree wages are a major factor in the equation. For example, how much of the cost for a General Motors vehicle goes to pay pensions for retired workers? ...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. GM sells vehicles pretty cheap compared to Cessna...do you think pension costs are a major factor in Cessna aircraft pricing? How are pension costs different from any other known cost, except that it seems lately companies can find ways to weasel out of them at the expense of their retired workforce.

Getting a bit off topic, but this whole pension thing is indeed a pisser. A company blaming their loyal, hard working 30yr employees for it not making high enough profits because of pension benifits that that same company AGREED to at the negotiating table but now refuse to honor after the company's own mismanagement is absoluty reprehensible in my book.

OK, sorry, struck a nerve that one did.

Mike Armstrong said:

Getting a bit off topic, but this whole pension thing is indeed a pisser. A company blaming their loyal, hard working 30yr employees for it not making high enough profits because of pension benifits that that same company AGREED to at the negotiating table but now refuse to honor after the company's own misanagement is absoluty reprehensible in my book.

Click to expand...

I'm really tempted to reply to this in substance, but it would probably get too political. If anyone wants to discuss this, PM me.

Again, sorry 'bout the rant I hate politics, I'm not a big proponent of unions and at the end of the day as long as I have a couple of bucks left over in my pocket I'm happy. Thats all, back on topic.

Aviation is what makes me happy. Vans is tops, I want to build an LSA, and the RV-12 is #1 on my list

Some Assembly Required

Phyrcooler said:

Again - I reiterate that I believe that costs have been driven up by:

Lack of volume
Excessive litigation

Just for exercise - compare an airplane to an automobile when consdering the cost arguments.
....
Yet - I can buy leading edge automobile for 30K, but a basic VFR - Tube and fabric LSA cost $100K??!!

Click to expand...

I totaly agree. Think of the difference of thne economy of mass production for automobiles, both in terms of assembly cost and parts / engineering. The most productive American assembly plants take less than 40 worker hours to build a SUV. Yes, a lot of assemblies are highly pre-assembled, but these are produced by the millions.

Now, think about one of the brand-new old cubs. It probably takes 400 hours to make, since they're starting from tubing and fabric. There are no significant assemblies to buy, other than engines.

Handmade is going to be more expensive than mass produced almost every time, whether it's watches, cars or aircraft. Thus, a mass-produced Lexus will cost more than a handmade cub.

The only LSA that have some economy on labor right now are IndUS (sub-assemblies made in India, shipped to US for final assembly) and the various Czech and eastern European designs (e.g., Evektor). However, these aren't selling for less due to supply (not much) and demand (lots).

But don't get me wrong - I'm ready for the price to come down too.

If the market is big enough, the price will drop like a rock as competitors fight for the iconic brands, the first big names. Get ready to buy when there are about a dozen big players left and they are all trying to gut each other on price.

plossl said:

If the market is big enough, the price will drop like a rock as competitors fight for the iconic brands, the first big names. Get ready to buy when there are about a dozen big players left and they are all trying to gut each other on price.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, as someone previously has noted, it is the chicken and the egg syndrome...

Prices are too high to get volume and volume won't pick up until the price drops.


Well... we'll all watch and see... but hey... in the end, this is why we are all here at the VAN's website. The only cost effective way to purchase a new aircraft is to build it yourself!

I look forward to seeing what VAN's produces for the LSA/entry level market. If they undercut Zenith on price and come near to matching their quickbuild hours... I will be making an investment in their product.

Phyrcooler said:

I look forward to seeing what VAN's produces for the LSA/entry level market. If they undercut Zenith on price and come near to matching their quickbuild hours... I will be making an investment in their product.

Click to expand...

Ditto that!

Catch 22 pilots medical

Van wrote about the LSA issue in the last issue of the RVator. Van has been cool to less than enthusiastic about the class altogether. Read it, very good. Is anyone going to buy a $90,000.00 plane that goes slow, carries two and can only fly at or below 10,000 feet MSL (regardless of AGL!) by regulation.

When you can go out and buy a nice C-150, C-152, C-172 Tomahawk, Cherokee 140 or Grumman for 1/3 rd the price. Not sure but what is the maintenance requirements for a LSA factory plane? I just don't see the cost being way less. Even with a LSA kit like a RV-12, most people have shown their prefrence for performance. If you could build a RV-9A or RV-12 for about the same money and time, what would you rather have?

One thing Van did not mention and my complaint about the LSA class, is how they made it so a guy who has held a FAA medical for years flunks it, can not qualify for a LSA until they clear their medical; where a guy that just lets his medical lapse or never had one, getting a state "driver licence" medical, even with the same medical condition, is good to go. That's not fair. To AOPA's credit they are taking issue with this (may be because a GAMA, manufacture member is involved?).

I just don't see the LSA class at all, but more power to them. We shall see. Is this another recreational pilot deal? How many recreational pilots do you know? How many are there vs private?

The LSA class requires even less training. However as a CFI/II/MEI I can tell you training is to proficiency. Many of my Pvt students did complete their check ride close to the min in the FAR's. However just because the number of training hours in the book, does not mean they can achieve it. Most Pvts I recall statistically are close to 2 times the hours in getting their ticket. I suspect LSA pilots will end up with near private pilot times in getting the rating anyway.

WHERE DID THE LSA CLASS COME FROM? As I understand it, it was to fill the gap between the Private pilot and Ultralight pilot. The Ultralight guys have a catch 22 all of their own. They need dual instruction, but ultralights can't have two seats. So the FAA gave wavers to have 2-seat planes, which did not meet the ultralight category so they could be flown for ultralight training. Well that 2-seat ultralight waiver is going, I understand. So I see this as a good thing for the ultra light community, but until they get the COST, TRAINING, MAINTENANCE and MEDICAL thing solved, success or popularity is questionable, Cessna or not. I see ultra light guys with fast / heavy single seats and 2 seat'ers getting the LSA pilots licence so they can fly Legally in the LSA category, verses flying outside the ultralight charter illegally.

The biggest allure of the LSA class is COST of doing business. It is flat out cheaper to stay in the flying game by creating and establishing the LSA class of aircraft and licencing. Build times will be signifiantly reduced: which will attract more clients; kit costs will be comparable which is a wash; but new engine costs will be cheaper; maintenance costs will be cheaper, and finally gas costs might be cheaper (especially given the environmental problems with 100LL sustainablity). The current homebuilt business is getting just too expensive and this could be a solution to significantly drive the costs down.

This is about business and number uno rule is get costs down and volume up.

I will be on the RV-12 order list when the total up in the air cost is around $50K. After 30 years of flying, the most enjoyable part is the local VFR buggie flying. The high speed race from A to B is just beyond me now!!

JMHO

Will LSA be way cheaper than a traditional experimental?

otterhunter2 said:

The biggest allure of the LSA class is COST of doing business. It is flat out cheaper to stay in the flying game by creating and establishing the LSA class of aircraft and licencing. The current homebuilt business is getting just too expensive and this could be a solution to significantly drive the costs down.

This is about business and number uno rule is get costs down and volume up.

RV-12 <snip> cost is around $50K.

JMHO

Click to expand...

Otterhunter2, I am not picking on you and your well thought out post, and I agree mostly. You make excellent points, but it raises some questions and CON's.

I agree with your volume comment, but that is the question; will it ever be popular enough to reach volume or just be a nitch, like ultralights. I don't think enough will be attract to achieve the volumn. People want fancy GPS, instruments and yes, performance. There're plenty of low performance experimental's on the market, but the market has spoken for higher performance, not less.

My question is will it really ever be cheaper? What do you get for your money?

Otterhunter2, those Rotax's are not cheap, especially the water cooled ones, starting at $17K going to $24K, $33,500 for a turbo version! They cost as much or more than a new Lycoming. A used O235/O320 cost less? Even the little 39hp, 2-cyl, 2-stroke rotax cost 6 Grand!

Van thinks factory LSA planes will be $90K, volumn or not. You can buy a nice flying RV for less. I'm not willing to fly behind two-stroke snowmobile chainsaw engines either. I know many former ultra lighter's who "converted" to full size planes due safety.

Maintenance? A kit plane will enjoy the same advantage as any experimental, but if it's a factory plane? I assume you need an A&P? Hanger, insurance and maintenance are same or similar to a "regular" plane. A foldable wing plane and trailer makes sense.

100LL? Good point, but it looks like we are headed to 91UL Av gas in the future. Most 320/360's work just fine on 91UL. The problem child are big fire breathing supercharged / turbocharged planes.

What plane fits into the LSA class. The ones I have seen look very small or single seat. I admit some of the LSA designs look cool, but the idea of an underpowered plane struggling to climb on a hot day, with 2 up is just not for me. I spent way way way too many T/G's in C-152's with student pilots as a CFI to want to go back to that.

Last I don't agree that the experimental business is too expensive. You can build a day VFR RV for $30K (challenge yes but has and can be done). I am talking DAY VFR, basic instruments, used engine and fixed prop and no "Pro" interior/paint. You'll still have a very fast airplane that will travel coast to coast at or above 10,000 feet. If you just want to fly above you farm field in the middle of Idaho, taking off from your rural front yard, than an ultralight is the way to go, Kolb, quicksilver, Loehle sport parasol to name a few.

I love the Air-Bike for some reason? http://www.lightsportaircraft.ca/lsa-blog/6.html , but I think I might be afraid to fly out in the open . This one is obviously a trainer I talked to that will need to go to LSA since 2-place ultralight wavers are going. A representative example is the single seat version, http://www.ultralightflyer.com/airbike-aircraftvideo.html. I like the 22 mph stall.

Is there a market for Airplane "Lite". Most Ultralighter's are anti-regulations, a breed unto themselves. The LSA is too much regulation for them. The rest are likely to go the full meal deal and get a Pvt and real plane. A used Cherokee 140 or C-152 cost less than any new kit or factory LSA plane to come.

I guess I'm back to the basic point of the COST. If you can get the price point below $50K complete and with a decent modern low time build airframe, I think you have a winner. The major current turnoffs for potential first time builders of metal homebuilds are time and cost. A great example of the potential benifits is the Zenith 601 XL which is a great LSA with low initial cost and low build time. It can be equipped for local VFR or Xrty flying. However, the design is a little dated and there are newer designs in the works such as the RANS S-19 which could meet the basic criteria for an entry level buggie, local or VFR xtry. You could say the Vans RV-12 is a clone of the RANS S-19, so far they look like close cousins.

I feel that VAN'S has no choice in entering this market, they must to ensure their dominance in their field. Same as the auto industry, you must be present in all the price points unless you're a Bimmer or Merc then you live by different rules. Below are two good examples of the emerging LSA competition for VAN'S. The RANS in particular is very appealing as a totally new aircraft and as you can see the pricing is bang-on in the ball park.

I look upon VAN'S as the Honda of the homebuilts. Outstanding quality, reasonable pricing and excellent support. Cessna understands the emerging market aspects in the US and particularly outside of having a product line from entry to luxury. With these new LSA rules and the potential world recreational market it could be well worth it for the likes of Cessna, Piper, Bombardier, etc. Face it, if it is good for the FAA, it must be the gold standard. Exciting times!!

Again, JMHO.

http://www.qualitysportplanes.com/qsp-_019.htm

http://www.rans.com/3S19.htm

Another well known and established aircraft manufacturer, Kolb, has entered into the LSA arena with their proposed, Laser 2. Aircraft manufacturers come and go but those that have remained prominent thru the years have only done so because of the quality of their aircraft designs and the good business sence to know when and on what to make substantial investments in time and money. This is again good news for Sport aviation and shows continued confidence in this emerging market.

I'm really looking forward to next years AirVenture '07 (just 'cause I cant go this year ), the LSA Mall should be interesting and Vans should have the -12 on hand.


http://www.kolbsport.com/

The Medical is THE LSA issue

gmcjetpilot said:

When you can go out and buy a nice C-150, C-152, C-172 Tomahawk, Cherokee 140 or Grumman for 1/3 rd the price. Not sure but what is the maintenance requirements for a LSA factory plane? I just don't see the cost being way less. Even with a LSA kit like a RV-12, most people have shown their prefrence for performance. If you could build a RV-9A or RV-12 for about the same money and time, what would you rather have?

Click to expand...

I'd rather have one that I can fly. Currently, no medical = no 152/172/RV-9/etc - period.

IF the FAA ever realizes that the current 3rd class medical requirements are too restrictive and allows, say, VFR private pilots to just hold a drivers license, I think that the whole concept of LSA is much less important. As everyone has noted, the cost to build a LSA isn't that different from a traditional aircraft. I'd much rather have the performance of a RV-9 over a Zenith 601XL despite the added cost.

However, I'm not holding my breath that the FAA is going to change any time soon, and am going the LSA route. Flying LSA is more fun than not flying.

LSA Restrictions

gmcjetpilot said:

Is anyone going to buy a $90,000.00 plane that goes slow, carries two and can only fly at or below 10,000 feet MSL (regardless of AGL!) by regulation.

Click to expand...

LSA aren't limited to 10k MSL - Sport Pilots are. Private Pilots can fly LSA to over 10k MSL.

Similarly, LSA are not restricted to Day VFR - Sport Pilots are. If the aircraft's operating limitations allow it, LSA can be operated by Private Pilots Night VFR and, it would appear, IFR as well (e.g., AMD's 601XL).

LSA are limited to 120kt and 1,320 lb. The RV-12 will be the slowest RV for sure.

I think that the 10k limit really puts Sport Pilots in the western US at a real disadvantage. Why not 12,500 where oxygen is required? Sure, oxygen is useful even below 10k, but 12,500 would offer you a lot more space between the airplane and the mountains.

Then again, LSA and mountains may not mix all that well. Some will be Ok (power and wing loadings around 13 lb/hp and 12 lb/sf) and some will not. 10k makes sense, but the case can be made for 12.5k as well.

To perform maintenance on an S-LSA (factory built) one must have either a repairman certificate for Light Sport with a "maintenance" rating (none of which is offered yet as far as I know), a mechanic with A&P rating, or a certified repair station. For airplanes, the repairman maintenance course will be a 120 hr. course. This will allow the repairman to do both maintenance, preventative maintenance, and the condition inspection. There is a 16 hr course (inspection rating) that allows the repairman to sign off the condition inspection only.

And why should that cost so much?

brules said:

agreed lack of volume and excessive litigation and one more item. If that LSA is a turn key and fly away model there were some government hoops to jump through in a certification process.

Click to expand...

I agree that companies are using the government certification process to justify their exhorbatant prices but that is still labor costs. They are passing on, "up front" I may add, the R&D costs associated with complying with government regulations to every purchaser of their product. These costs are still heavily weighted by paying people to do the testing and file the paperwork appropriately.

plossl said:

We're failing to see the bright side here. Market economics allow higher pricing until a tipping point is reached. The fact that everyone is making money with high priced machines tells us that there are a lot of buyers. Prices will come down. A bigger the market will lower the prices due to the efficiencies of mass production. That Cessna is involved is sign of great things to come.

Click to expand...

Whatever that "tipping point" is in the aviation industry I don't know if I have seen it in my lifetime. My contention is that whatever that "tipping point' is, it is being ignored by this industry. There is very little competition by startups or small companies with some measure of ethics that can pressure the established government supported monopolies to change their ways of pricing products. Once the government backs your monopolistic practices by regulating specific requirements that favor the status quo for the sake of "safety" we cannot help but see high prices. Government and big business are not interested in providing reasonably priced goods for consumers. Both are only interested in maintaining a business environment that allows for their continued reign of power and profit. This is evidenced by the vast number of lobyists employed by big businesses who wine and dine the power brokers in D.C.

RVbySDI said:

They are passing on, "up front" I may add, the R&D costs associated with complying with government regulations to every purchaser of their product.

Click to expand...

Of course they are. How else are they going to pay for it?

Joey said:

Of course they are. How else are they going to pay for it?

Click to expand...

By spreading that cost out over time rather than try to recoupe it up front.

gmcjetpilot said:

Is anyone going to buy a $90,000.00 plane that goes slow, carries two and can only fly at or below 10,000 feet MSL (regardless of AGL!) by regulation.

Click to expand...

I think that is a valid issue that has the manufacturers a little baffled who are looking at the current box they are in. That is the ultimate problem with the chicken and the egg comments posted earlier. If that price stays up there where it currently is there will be no "masses" flocking to fly. The non-aviation world looks at aviation as an "expensive hobby" that only the "Rich" can afford. However, if some pardigm shift can occur and somehow those prices for entry into aviation can come down to a figure that is more palitable perhaps the demand numbers can be driven up to the point where mass production can occur. There is no reason other than economics that would prevent the mass production of aviation products rather than one of a kind building that currently exists in this industry.

When you can go out and buy a nice C-150, C-152, C-172 Tomahawk, Cherokee 140 or Grumman for 1/3 rd the price.

Click to expand...

These planes are 40 to 50 years old. You tell me what other industry pushes for new consumers to be happy with working with products that are half a century old?

My question is will it really ever be cheaper? What do you get for your money?

Otterhunter2, those Rotax's are not cheap, especially the water cooled ones, starting at $17K going to $24K, $33,500 for a turbo version! They cost as much or more than a new Lycoming. A used O235/O320 cost less? Even the little 39hp, 2-cyl, 2-stroke rotax cost 6 Grand!

Click to expand...

I agree here with Otterhunter2 on costs. These engine costs have got to be part of the paradigm shift that must occur eventully if there is ever going to be a "tipping point" that Plossl eluded to in his post. If mass production is a primary key to reducing costs but mass production cannot occur before there is mass demand, then someone somewhere is going to have to take a chance on sticking their economic neck out. Someone needs to take a chance on producing aviation engines, components, airframes, aircraft at a price that will welcome the new consumer to take the plunge and try this new thing out.

For LSA to be successful it needs to be geared toward the new aviator who wants to get involved. At present the only ones who are thinking about LSA and trying to decide on whether it is going to be good for aviation are those pilots like gmcjetpilot who see little or no personal benefit from it or those who are thinking about their regulation restricted medical requirements that may keep them from continuing to fly without it. Neither of these two markets can or will sustain LSA. The LSA market is going to be controlled by costs. Either those costs are going to allow for new consumption or they are going to restrict new consumption. Either way, I agree with Otterhunter2, cost is the underlying factor associated with LSA.

I'm wondering if the 'economics' of aviation is about to turn. Aviation (GA) so far has been for those either wealthy (I dont mean rich) enough to have the amount of disposable income it takes to be a PP and own your own 'standard' GA aircraft or for the rest that cannot afford that and instead opt for the more 'affordable' UL, Powered parachute, Trike ect. and wish there was a middle ground they could afford to enter into. You'll see thousands of these folks at Oshkosh alone and throughout the masses that attend the many airshows across the country. There haven't been a whole lot of inbetween options, until Sport Pilot and LSA's that is. Now those folks have a new catagory of Pilot ticket and aircraft to step up to, a middle ground if you will. Up until now I dont think the aviation business world has had to even consider the word 'affordable'. I would suspect there are a huge number of aviation enthusiasts, most of them middle incomers, that dream about being pilots and building or owning their own plane. Now these many folks have a new option, a middle of the road entry level that will lead them past the tube and fabric UL's (not that theres anything wrong with UL's) and into GA. I would suspect as a whole, these folks can have a heavy economic impact on aviation, perhaps beyond what GA has been accustomed to.

Sport Pilot is SLOWLY gaining momentum. I think due in large part to a serious lack of actual LSA available. For instance, I was given a gift certificate for introductory flight lessons at a major local flight academy. When Sport Pilot was approved I decided to hold off until I could take a ride in an LSA and inquire about Sport Pilot training. Well, that was two years ago and still not a single LSA is part of the fleet. If someone is really interested in becoming a Sport Pilot and cant even take an introductory flight in one to 'seal the deal', like alot of prospective pilots have done in GA, then it's really going to slow things down. I think a big company like Cessna can change that. LSA's in exchange for aging 150's would make a huge difference in the ability of Sport aviation to get rolling.

Mike Armstrong said:

I think a big company like Cessna can change that. LSA's in exchange for aging 150's would make a huge difference in the ability of Sport aviation to get rolling.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. As secretary for our EAA chapter I am always having interested parties calling me or coming up to me to ask where they could fly in an LSA or if I knew of any CFI's that could train them. I am sure there are CFI's out there with interests in training Light Sport Pilots but, so far, I have only had one CFI acquaintence tell me that he would be interested in training a Light Sport Pilot. The others see no need for the new license or see it as just like the Recreational Pilot license. Therefore, they generally think of it as a "short cut" license and do not wish to be involved in training pilots for this new license.

I think Rec Pilot came and went because it had very little bearing on the masses not to mention the total lack of publicity, even to aviation enthusiasts, as compared to Sport Pilot ( take a walk around AirVenture and 'try' not to trip over the 'Sport Pilot is here!' signs, displays and booths that are everywhere). Why would one stop just short of being a full PP and choose to be a Rec Pilot if you had already invested such a substantial amount time and money to get to that point. Also, most of the aircraft you then had to choose from were still way too expensive for the average blue collar worker to afford.

At least, in theory, Sport Pilot offers not only less time and money to get certified but in addition, once again, in theory, the affordable aircraft to then build/buy and fly in. I think for the average joe/jane aviation enthusiast, a Sport Pilot ticket offers just enough in the way of flying ('round the patch, short x-country) and aircraft (meaning aircraft that look and fly enough like 'real' airplanes) that it should fullfill most of their flying aspirations/dreams. I dont think Rec Pilot offered either one of these advantages.

RVbySDI said:

By spreading that cost out over time rather than try to recoupe it up front.

Click to expand...

You must have more information about their finances than I do. I've never seen them release that kind of information to the public.

Joey said:

You must have more information about their finances than I do. I've never seen them release that kind of information to the public.

Click to expand...

No, I have no inside information. Just know that is the normal way of doing business when pushing out a new product. A company will attempt to recoupe all up front costs at the beginning of the product life cycle rather than spread it out over the life of the product.

The $30K LSA

There's barely 600,000 pilots in the US. With only 600,000 potential customers, the only reason Cessna or anyone else is in this business is for the love of it. They'd make more money if they built golfcarts.

If a Lexus was a hard to drive as a Cub, do you think there would be 100 million licensed drivers?

LSA is not going to succeed until somebody builds a plane that you don't have to be a pilot to fly. That's the day you'll be able to buy a plane for $30K.

The crazy thing is, we have all the technology to do it. We've known how to build a stall-proof, easy-to-land plane since the Ercoupe. Rotax gives us single-lever power management. GPS solves the navigation problem. Half a dozen technologies exist for collision and weather avoidance. An autopilot can fly you out of trouble and a whole-plane parachute can save your bacon when all else fails.

If someone put all this stuff together in one plane, you'd have a vehicle that Joe Duffer could putt around on alternate Saturdays instead of his golfcart (which would also cost $100K if there weren't 20 million golfers).

In the meantime, I'm thrilled with the idea of LSA if it means I can quit begging the government for my right to fly every two years. But I'm not holding my breath for a $30K airplane.

I agree with Jon's analysis of the market size, however I think it should be mentioned that the potential LSA market ISN'T licensed pilots. In fact, of those 600,000 people most aren't interested in LSAs. The LSA market is for the most part:

1) Older pilots who don't want to deal with the hassles of getting a medical
2) Non-pilots who are interested in getting into flying.

I personally think there are some serious flaws in the LSA market. I don't think new pilots are going to be willing to pay more than 100 grand for a Cub replica (yes, that's what they're costing out the door). We just had the EAA Sport Pilot tour stop by our airport and I was suprised to see that the cheapest aircraft there was more than 80K. I believe the Cub replicas were the only ones that were domestically manufactured (if that means anything anymore).

I'll take my RV, thank you very much. If I were up in years I would most certainly look at the RV-12.

Jamie said:

I agree with Jon's analysis of the market size, however I think it should be mentioned that the potential LSA market ISN'T licensed pilots. In fact, of those 600,000 people most aren't interested in LSAs. The LSA market is for the most part:

1) Older pilots who don't want to deal with the hassles of getting a medical
2) Non-pilots who are interested in getting into flying.

Click to expand...

Jamie, your first point here is exactly my contention in the post above about the "masses" flocking to the LSA market.

Jamie said:

I personally think there are some serious flaws in the LSA market. I don't think new pilots are going to be willing to pay more than 100 grand for a Cub replica (yes, that's what they're costing out the door).

Click to expand...

These "masses" do not currently have the mindset that flying is even an option for them. That is why the number of pilots in the US is in the 600,000 range as Jon mentions. In order for that 600,000 to grow there has to be some incentive for the rest of the 270,000,000 or so of the US population to make a decision that flying may be an option for them. Without some change in cost I fail to see where the "average joe" is going to be able to do it (perhaps that is part of the problem. Perhaps there are those in the industry who do not want the "average joe" flying.)

jonbakerok said:

LSA is not going to succeed until somebody builds a plane that you don't have to be a pilot to fly.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, the latest issue of Popular Mechanics discusses this issue in some detail. It is intriguing to think about this capability but, realistically, how affordable do you suppose a self flying plane would be? I don't think it would fall in the $30,000 (more than the average income of that "average joe") price range. I would even wager that it wouldn't even fall under the "affordable" category Flying magazine currently calls a VLJ that sells for $2 million.

jonbakerok said:

If a Lexus was a hard to drive as a Cub, do you think there would be 100 million licensed drivers?

LSA is not going to succeed until somebody builds a plane that you don't have to be a pilot to fly. That's the day you'll be able to buy a plane for $30K.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the $30k figure is that realistic. I don't know what the average cost of a car is, but I'm guessing that it's less than but close to 30k. In Dallas, I see plenty of $60k SUVs (we have not one but two Hummer dealerships here in Plano) and Lexus (Lexi?) around. So maybe $50k is a better figure?

jonbakerok said:

The crazy thing is, we have all the technology to do it. We've known how to build a stall-proof, easy-to-land plane since the Ercoupe. Rotax gives us single-lever power management. GPS solves the navigation problem. Half a dozen technologies exist for collision and weather avoidance. An autopilot can fly you out of trouble and a whole-plane parachute can save your bacon when all else fails.

Click to expand...

AGREED! Simple is better. We don't have manual chokes in our cars anymore and cruise control is a $300 option.

It's great that Cessna is getting involved in the LSA market, but they aren't exactly providing leading-edge technology in the single engine market. I don't expect anything radical from them.

Perhaps we need a 21st Century Ercoupe?