What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

50+ Cessnas per day!?!?!

westexflyboy

westexflyboy

Active Member
I'm flabberghasted!!! Could I have been wrong all this time? I thought more LSA buyers were waiting for the price to drop down to a reasonable range. And, I thought Cessna, with their promise of "well south of $100K" would be just the ticket to squash all the imports and their artificially inflated prices.

So I ask: Who is buying all the new SkyCatchers?

And why!? Are these 720 buyers flight schools only? Or are there private individuals that would opt for a new "dog" over a high-performance plane? Seems to me that the new Cessna LSA buyer is more concerned with quality control than price for performance.

Somebody help me understand. The pricey lane of this road is getting crowded, and that's quite the opposite of where I thought we were headed with Sport Pilot. On the other hand, the value of completed kitplanes may have just gone up as well. I welcome this boost in the market, as more pilots are about to be created to fly all those new Cessnas.

Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, Tx
http://flybigbend.com
 
Uneducated Guess?

I was thinking about this during lunchtime, reading the AvWeb bulletin, and my first thought was that what those 720 buyers represent are the folks that have been waiting for new 152's. Let's face it, the 152 is and always has been a mainstay of the training fleet, and I have been somewhat amazed that Cessna didn't reactivate production wen they started building piston singles again.

The 150/152 is primarily a training, local flying, and short cross-country recreational machine - which pretty much describes their new LSA as well, so my guess is that what we're seeing is a very smart move on Cessna's part to satisfy a pent-up demand for their old product with one that has been newly engineered and will be produced under financially kinder conditions for them.

Of course, what do I know about business? I've been a Guv'mnt man my whole working career.... :rolleyes:
 
I don't know how to take LSA pricing. On one hand, $110k is a lot to pay for a 2-seat, VFR 110kt airplane. OTOH, $110k is pretty good when compared to a new Katana or any new 4-seater.

We have a bi-modal distribution of certified airplanes out there - old cheap ones and new expensive ones, and not a lot in between. This is because of the lull in manufacturing for about, what, 20 years?

IF the 162 proves durable and easy to fly, then flight schools will buy a lot of them. If they're not durable or are hard to fly, then the market will go away. Cessna has a reputation of being durable and easy to fly from the 152/172/182 series of airplanes. Will the 162 follow suit? We will just have to wait and see....

TODR
 
Ironflight said:
I was thinking about this during lunchtime, reading the AvWeb bulletin, and my first thought was that what those 720 buyers represent are the folks that have been waiting for new 152's. Let's face it, the 152 is and always has been a mainstay of the training fleet, and I have been somewhat amazed that Cessna didn't reactivate production wen they started building piston singles again.

The 150/152 is primarily a training, local flying, and short cross-country recreational machine - which pretty much describes their new LSA as well, so my guess is that what we're seeing is a very smart move on Cessna's part to satisfy a pent-up demand for their old product with one that has been newly engineered and will be produced under financially kinder conditions for them.

Of course, what do I know about business? I've been a Guv'mnt man my whole working career.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That has been my argument to all the naysayers. The C-162 will sell because there has been a huge vacuum since the 152 ceased production. And compared to the 172 - these things are relatively cheap. There are a LOT of worn out old 150's and 152's on flightlines just waiting to be replaced. And those new birds will train a lot of pilots - both LSA and PPL.

I think that the "Old Pilot/no medical" part of the sport pilot program will actually be a small factor. I see LSA as a way to get entry level folks into aviation. Yeah, I am disappointed that it isn't cheaper... but hey... I think any movement in the right direction is good for us all.

I too have fed at the Gov'mnt trough for the past 20+ years - But I manage a multi-million dollar budget quite carefully. It IS a business. I am sure you can relate. Those $1,000 toilet seats that make the news really Pixx me off! :(

DJ
 
Last edited:
Cessna's 720 orders of the 162 benefits Van's

If there is training going on in the SkyCatcher's then there could be quite a few new pilots looking for their own planes. That's good.

Point 2 is that people are showing themselves as quite picky about having their aircraft go thru complete fatigue testing. Van's has really been testing their RV-12. Van's should benefit from a sophisticated audience of fliers.

The RV-12 is one plane I might be able to actually build and finish!

On another note Sporty's purchased the 1st Cirrus LSA off the line for $170K (at auction) and is going to use it for LSA training in the future. The money goes to the EAA?s Young Eagles.
 
Last edited:
rlundahl said:
Point 2 is that people are showing themselves as quite picky about having their aircraft go thru complete fatigue testing. Van's has really been testing their RV-12. Van's should benefit from a sophisticated audience of fliers.
Click to expand...
Where did you get the info that Van will do fatigue testing of the RV-12? Fatigue testing (i.e putting the airframe, or at least the major elements, in a big fixture hooked up to hydraulic rams to automatically cycle the loads to simulate several times the expected airframe life) is extremely expensive. I'd be amazed if Van is doing fatigue testing.
 
Just a thought if an LSA (sport pilot) aircraft is limited to 50 mile radius, how can a flight school train a private pilot in that aircraft? Remember the long cross country requires one leg to be greater than 50 miles. Will students have to fly an old 150/152 or some another AC.
 
Metalman9A said:
Just a thought if an LSA (sport pilot) aircraft is limited to 50 mile radius, how can a flight school train a private pilot in that aircraft? Remember the long cross country requires one leg to be greater than 50 miles. Will students have to fly an old 150/152 or some another AC.
Click to expand...

Not following this entire movement very much but I do not think this 50 mile thing applies to either a LSA or a Sport Pilot. Isnt this only for a recreational pilot? Does the recreational rating still exist?
 
Metalman9A said:
Just a thought if an LSA (sport pilot) aircraft is limited to 50 mile radius, how can a flight school train a private pilot in that aircraft? Remember the long cross country requires one leg to be greater than 50 miles. Will students have to fly an old 150/152 or some another AC.
Click to expand...
LSA are not limited to any geographic area. My longest XC leg in a LSA so far is a tick under 300NM.

Sport pilots are limited to flight in the US unless reciproical rights are granted with other countries, and are limited to 10k MSL.

Are you thinking of the Recreational Pilot?
 
This just in from AOPA on progress of the O-200D. Sad that the FADEC version is still somewhere out there in ether....

Interesting that American Champion has committed to this engine for the New Champ - makes sense, really.

TODR


CESSNA, CONTINENTAL WORK ON O-200D CERTIFICATION
Continental Motors, in conjunction with Cessna Aircraft,
is debating the best way to certify the 100-horsepower O-200D
lightweight engine for the Cessna SkyCatcher and other aircraft.
It will be used on the American Champion Champ when available.
The FAA felt the engine, which features smaller cooling fins and
lightweight components, was different enough from the O-200A that
it required new certification. Continental can either fully
certify it under FAA guidelines or certify it as a light sport
engine under ASTM International (formerly known as the
American Society for Testing and Materials) guidelines that rule
the self-governed light sport world. At the moment, Continental
is leaning toward ASTM certification. Continental officials
confirmed that its light sport FADEC (full authority digital
engine control) engine under development will weigh more than the
O-200D.
 
50 mile radius

sport pilot doesn't have a 50 mile limit, recreational pilot has that limit,
part of the reason it was a failure.

Danny..
 
No Such Limits

Metalman9A said:
Just a thought if an LSA (sport pilot) aircraft is limited to 50 mile radius, how can a flight school train a private pilot in that aircraft? Remember the long cross country requires one leg to be greater than 50 miles. Will students have to fly an old 150/152 or some another AC.
Click to expand...
The rules for Sport Pilot/Light Sport Aircraft are quite different from the failed Recreational Pilot thing. The limits for Sport Pilots are 10,000' and day VFR, but there are no distance limits. I can assure you there is no distance limitation in the regulations, and no such limitation was ever proposed. More importantly, the limitations are on the pilot, and not the aircraft. A private pilot can fly any Light Sport Aircraft at night and above 10,000' and IFR if he/she and the airplane are properly rated and equipped. So, to answer your question - NO, a pilot candidate will not have to change airplanes to complete the requirements for a private pilot certificate. Hard to belive, but the SkyCatcher will be the least expensive name brand airplane available. I anticipate that many Cessna Pilot Centers will use this airplane for all training right up through Commercial and Instrument, with the last few hours of Commercial prep and checkride in a complex airplane.

What do you think? Are Piper and Beechcraft feeling stupid and jealous that they didn't get in on this initial wave of orders? or are we just seeing the beginning of a big boom from which all the Big Three will benefit?

Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, TX
http://flybigbend.com
 
Last edited:
Am I missing something? Cessna cuts the ribbon on the SkyCatcher at OSH. Then they get 700+ orders in the next two weeks.

Has anybody flown it? Cessna SkyCatcher web site says you can download a brochure and specs - and download the order form.

Seems like a demo flight might be a nice idea....
 
jsherblon said:
Am I missing something? Cessna cuts the ribbon on the SkyCatcher at OSH... Seems like a demo flight might be a nice idea....
Click to expand...
Well yes, it would be nice, but sort of like Van's, Cessna has a pretty good reputation and that counts for a whole lot. Cessna also has lots and lots of experience over a very long period of time.
 
Why is this so hard to believe?

I'm amazed that everyone has such a hard time believing that Cessna is selling so many planes.

The people on this site are -experimenters-, how many people build their own cars? And yet, we are all wondering why Cessna is doing so well selling a ho-hum airplane at a not-too-appealing price.

Clyde Cessna build his first airplane before Van was even born! Cessna has pilot centers/experienced mechanics all over the world. In addition, as a huge company, one that has built more airplanes than any other in the world, it has access to resources and market leverage that no kitbuilt company could even dream of.

As an engineer at a major defense contractor I have another reason for why people buy from big companies: if a bus load of Cessna engineers goes off a cliff, Cessna just puts out a help wanted add for 40 engineers, whereas if a bus load of Van's people goes off a cliff, well, that's the whole company! Kitplane companies come and go, Cessna will likely be around forever.

Bottom line, Cessna meets a different market than Van's does: name brand, nearly 100 years of history, more planes than I have hairs on my head (haven't lost any yet), reliable, dependable, service centers, instructors, mechanics, same product every time.

Van's does something totally different: customizable, experimental, you take on the risk, spend 2 years, etc.

I've been helping a friend build his -9, and I was trying to fix up my uncle's old experimental, but at the end of the day I found a great partnership for an old Luscombe. It requires no work, only a few thousand bucks to buy into a partnership where I will do most of the flying. Remember the adage, "If you want to build a plane, build a palne; if you want to fly a plane, buy a plane."

To many people this idea is very appealing. (of course not us, we want to squeeze every last knot out of the lastest beta quizmo we can get, we are EXPERIMENTERS!)

Jeff
 
Last edited:
The flycatcher announcement has moved a lot of fence-sitters on to other LSA planes due to it's limited (almost none) x-country capability and payload.

I don't see how a 220 lb student and a 200 lb instructor are going to do a x-country without stopping for fuel every hour. Some flight schools' insurance require full tanks on every flight (or so one school's owner told me at OSH). That would cause a problem with a heavy instructor, eh?

I would think the 162 empty weight will increase as Cessna approaches production.
 
Blastr42 said:
I'm amazed that everyone has such a hard time believing that Cessna is selling so many planes.

The people on this site are -experimenters-, how many people build their own cars? And yet, we are all wondering why Cessna is doing so well selling a ho-hum airplane at a not-too-appealing price.

Clyde Cessna build his first airplane before Van was even born! Cessna has pilot centers/experienced mechanics all over the world. In addition, as a huge company, one that has built more airplanes than any other in the world, it has access to resources and market leverage that no kitbuilt company could even dream of.

As an engineer at a major defense contractor I have another reason for why people buy from big companies: if a bus load of Cessna engineers goes off a cliff, Cessna just puts out a help wanted add for 40 engineers, whereas if a bus load of Van's people goes off a cliff, well, that's the whole company! Kitplane companies come and go, Cessna will likely be around forever.

Bottom line, Cessna meets a different market than Van's does: name brand, nearly 100 years of history, more planes than I have hairs on my head (haven't lost any yet), reliable, dependable, service centers, instructors, mechanics, same product every time.

Van's does something totally different: customizable, experimental, you take on the risk, spend 2 years, etc.

I've been helping a friend build his -9, and I was trying to fix up my uncle's old experimental, but at the end of the day I found a great partnership for an old Luscombe. It requires no work, only a few thousand bucks to buy into a partnership where I will do most of the flying. Remember the adage, "If you want to build a plane, build a palne; if you want to fly a plane, buy a plane."

To many people this idea is very appealing. (of course not us, we want to squeeze every last knot out of the lastest beta quizmo we can get, we are EXPERIMENTERS!)

Jeff
Click to expand...


Excellent points Jeff. Cessna and Vans, the perverbiable apples and oranges analogy. The best thing about the 162 is the boost to Sport Pilot, a stamp of legitimacy if you will. I'm hoping the majority of those sales are to flight schools, either replacing their aging 150/152's to expand their PP program to also offer SP or better yet, buying them with the intention of opening new Sport Pilot centers. Maybe those that are interested in becoming Sport Pilots will soon finaly be able to go to their 'local' flight school and be able to enroll in a Sport Pilot program, much less have the person behind the desk there look at you funny and ask 'what the heck is Sport Pilot?'
 
I know a couple of guys who have put $$ down on the 162 purely for speculation on the delivery slot. That's something that happens quite often, particularly on hot selling airplanes with a backlog of orders. One guy I know sold his production slot on one of the Citation CJ's and made 300K...
 
One thing I thing that we might be missing...

Somewhat on the technology side of what Van's is doing...

I think the comment that I read on the forums that Van's has been able to hone their CNC manufacturing process to the point where builders don't have to match drill is going to huge! And this is going to be huge to two very different groups:

1) Kitbuilders - Kitbuilders will save hundreds of hours if all they have to do is dimple, hang and bang all the rivets that go into these aircraft (no dimpling on the -12, it's got pop rivets...but wait there's more:). If it works well on the -12, Van's will adapt the process to all new designs and will probably retroactively apply it to the -7, -8, -9 and -10. They came out with that new (was it the -8?) wing kit with the predrilled pilot holes, or whatever it was, at OSH last year. Imagine cutting the time to complete your ship by a third. These holes will be more precisely located (it's easy to mess up a skin/double/rib/etc. sandwich) and more precisely drilled (less microcracks mean less fatigue issues). This will save time and money, making kitbuilt (Van's) aircraft even more affordable for those wanting to get into the plane game.

2) Production aircraft manufacturers (Cessna) - If you told me that you could eliminate an entire manufacturing process that takes hundreds of hours and adds tens of thousands of dollars to the price of each airplane I produce, I'd make you VP of production in an instant. Even though I've never seen Cessna's tooling, the guys I work with that used to be at Beech say they have to do the whole dance on ancient tooling: hang skins, drill, disassemble, dimple, hang, bang. Getting rid of an entire hang, drill, disassemble sequence could really put Cessna in a great position to make thousands of 162s/NGPs. Cessna has said they are cherry picking some of Van's best manufacturing techniques for the NGP, so there is obviously a desire to learn from the market leaders. If I were Jack Pelton, I'd have a deal with Van's to advise the production team on the state of the art for cost effective aircraft construction.

One of the main problems with aluminum for large scale production is that you simply have to use the same techniques that were developed 50+ years ago. This stagnation has really hurt aluminum in comparison to composites, where newer techniques are being used all the time. Van's has really done a superb job of taking ideas that others have imagined and maturing them to the point that where it creates a competitive advantage for their company and benefits the experimental community with better/easier planes to build.
 
Last edited:
Over gross

opticsguy said:
I don't see how a 220 lb student and a 200 lb instructor are going to do a x-country without stopping for fuel every hour.
Click to expand...

At 200lbs with a 180lb instructor and full fuel, virtually every hour of dual instruction I had in 150's was over gross. In hindsight, far from a good example from which to begin my flying career, but probably safer in a new 162 than a 30 year old 150. Just a thought...
 
If the goal is not to conform to the sport pilot 1320 lb limit, yes, it will make a good trainer. Can a CFI and a student operate over 120kt, 1320 lb, or at night if properly equipped in the 162? I'm pretty sure.

I think the spirit of the SP rule is being lost. Build a plane that is barely light enough to qualify as S-LSA then operate it as a replacement for a certified trainer (over the LSA weight). Not to say I haven't done that.
 
opticsguy said:
If the goal is not to conform to the sport pilot 1320 lb limit, yes, it will make a good trainer. Can a CFI and a student operate over 120kt, 1320 lb, or at night if properly equipped in the 162? I'm pretty sure.

I think the spirit of the SP rule is being lost. Build a plane that is barely light enough to qualify as S-LSA then operate it as a replacement for a certified trainer (over the LSA weight). Not to say I haven't done that.
Click to expand...
I don't think they can do that. If it is certificated as an LSA - I don't think you can operate it outside of the parameters of its airworthiness cert. If they don't Cert it as an LSA - than they have to go to full (Part 23?) certification testing... which is cost prohibitive and part of the reason for bringing out the consensus driven, ASTM standard LSA program in the first place.

Or so I believe. I would defer to so many of those here on the boards more knowledgeable than I. :eek:

DJ
 
Phyrcooler said:
I don't think they can do that. If it is certificated as an LSA - I don't think you can operate it outside of the parameters of its airworthiness cert. If they don't Cert it as an LSA - than they have to go to full (Part 23?) certification testing... which is cost prohibitive and part of the reason for bringing out the consensus driven, ASTM standard LSA program in the first place.

Or so I believe. I would defer to so many of those here on the boards more knowledgeable than I. :eek:

DJ
Click to expand...
The reason there are so many pre-sale orders for the Cessna is that all of these flight schools are recognizing the value in using LSA aircraft for training. An LSA can be used for any training not just for Sport Pilot training (note there is a significant difference between the requirements for certification of an E or S-LSA aircraft and the requirements for licensing of a Sport Pilot who can then fly such aircraft). If the airplane is equipped with lights it can be used for night operations as long as the pilot in command has the appropriate certification to fly at night (PPL with no night flying restriction). If it is equipped with IFR equipment it can be used for IFR flight as long as the pilot in command has the appropriate certification to fly IFR. The airplane is not restricted to use only by Sport Pilots or training for Sport Pilots exclusively, nor is the airplane restricted to fly day VFR, for example, if the PIC can legally fly outside the scope of that restriction.

So you can bet the flight schools that have signed up for these airplanes are going to use them to train all types of pilots, not just Sport Pilots. Because of this I can see where Cessna is using this "SkyCatcher" as a replacement for the 152.
 
RVbySDI said:
The reason there are so many pre-sale orders for the Cessna is that all of these flight schools are recognizing the value in using LSA aircraft for training. An LSA can be used for any training not just for Sport Pilot training...
So you can bet the flight schools that have signed up for these airplanes are going to use them to train all types of pilots, not just Sport Pilots. Because of this I can see where Cessna is using this "SkyCatcher" as a replacement for the 152.
Click to expand...
I have been saying the same thing all along (that it would be a trainer for PPL as well as SP) - but am not sure how you get around (or if you can legally do so) operating it beyond its certificated capability. I just figured that the MTOW and speed restrictions were not an issue, and you would just operate within those limitations. It is certificated to those requirements. I honesty don't think you can legally operate it over LSA gross. However, I honestly never thought about the night flight requirement of PPL. I guess you can equip it with additional instruments and lights - just the SP just doesn't use them? I wonder what the airworthiness certificate will say? Can it say LSA... but IFR/night if you are a PP?? THAT is my question. :)

Mel... or one of the other DAR's?

DJ
 
C-150

Phyrcooler said:
.....
I honesty don't think you can legally operate it over LSA gross.
........
DJ
Click to expand...
You could say the same for a C-150 operated with two "real sized" folks on board.... :)

How many instructors have you do a W&B with them on board, not just for your first solo cross country?

gil A
 
I thought one of the reasons there were so many orders from flight schools is that every Cessna Pilot Center was REQUIRED to order a "Skycatcher". Also, you guys that plan on selling your positions might want to confirm your paperwork, but I thought Cessna said at Oshkosh that those positions could not be transferred.

Interesting that the money you give them for a delivery position neither earns interest, nor guarantees you a delivery price.

Makes that RV12 or S19 look pretty darn affordable!

None of the LSA's are an option for me for quite a while (hopefully), since I need a two person aircraft and am more of a bubba size guy (240)...so for now, if I need a single seater, I'll build a -3. My wife and I did the w/b on many of the LSA's we liked at Osh and determined that apart from a short hop around the valley, we are outsized for them. Not to say they wouldn't fly a little over gross, but I think that's the wrong way to approach looking at a new airplane.

Those LSA's that are used for pilot training ought to winnow out a new breed of flight instructor...5'1 and 115 lbs... so they can carry a passenger, their charts and headsets and flashlight and still get fuel aboard.
 
Bob Brown said:
I thought one of the reasons there were so many orders from flight schools is that every Cessna Pilot Center was REQUIRED to order a "Skycatcher".
Click to expand...
LOL - Internet Rubbish! :rolleyes: (From my friend/CFII who also runs a CPC).

My instructor was short/light... so I was able to do some initial training in a 152. But if you were going to be over gross with your instructor/full fuel - they put you in a 172.

The POC RV-12 had a full fuel useful load of 455 lbs. Be interesting to see how much this changes with the new wing and other accoutrement's.

DJ
 
Weight vs strength

"If the goal is not to conform to the sport pilot 1320 lb limit, yes, it will make a good trainer. Can a CFI and a student operate over 120kt, 1320 lb, or at night if properly equipped in the 162? I'm pretty sure. "

The 1320 lb limit seems to be relatively challenging with a practical payload, else why are most LSA's stressed to just 4g?

So if a plane is stressed to 'just' achieve 1320 lb at a, typical, 4g load it won't be a 4g airplane at a higher gross weight. Forget aerobatics, it won't even be a 4g plane at over gross. Don't go flying overweight in the mountains on a windy day.
 
gblwy said:
The 1320 lb limit seems to be relatively challenging with a practical payload, else why are most LSA's stressed to just 4g?

So if a plane is stressed to 'just' achieve 1320 lb at a, typical, 4g load it won't be a 4g airplane at a higher gross weight. Forget aerobatics, it won't even be a 4g plane at over gross. Don't go flying overweight in the mountains on a windy day.
Click to expand...
One data point - the CT POH says that g limits are +4 / -2. Ultimate load (failure) was 4,320kg, or 7.2g at 600kg.
 
Sooo, yeah it's a 152 replacement. It replaces the 152 with a little better fuel burn, more comfy cabin, better radios, and ZERO TIME (152 fleet probably averages up close to 10K hours now). Of the three I fly on a regular basis one has 14K hours, another 10K and the low time one has 8K hours. These need replacement and the 162 does a great job of that. NO you can't operate overgross legally.
 
Load Testing

opticsguy said:
Aren't the wings tested at +9 before shipment?
Click to expand...
I don't think any manufacturer, kit or production, physically tests the wing strength of any specific airplane before it's sold or shipped. In most cases a mathematical stress analysis is completed before a design is offered for sale. Some companies do static load testing on a single wing panel to prove the numbers obtained during mathematical analysis. A subset of those companies test the wing to failure, and may or may not publish the ultimate weight which broke the wing. Dynamic load testing is also possible, but less common.

A box of parts that an RV builder may opt to use to construct a wing cannot be tested prior to shipment, however we do prefer quality control measures for the materials. And no, the wings of the SkyCatcher will not be tested to their rated load prior to shipment either.

Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, TX
http://flybigbend.com
 
westexflyboy said:
Some companies do static load testing on a single wing panel to prove the numbers obtained during mathematical analysis. A subset of those companies test the wing to failure, and may or may not publish the ultimate weight which broke the wing. Dynamic load testing is also possible, but less common.

http://flybigbend.com
Click to expand...
Even with this, the wing would normally not be tested to 9gs unless the aircraft is to be OKd for acro.
 
Well, I flew a 172 for the first time yesterday. No kidding, 130 hr and this was my first flight in a Cessna or even an airplane with a yoke.

Gotta say that I wasn't impressed with the performance, with one major exception. Compared to most LSA, it handled like a truck. It was heavier and slower on the controls than the T-211, which is already a stable and predictable LSA. It lost more altitude in turns. Stalls were perhaps a little more gentle.

What it did give back was stability, particularly in the flare. I was laughing during the roll out, amazed at how simple the landing was - That's it?" I cackled. It required rudder only when flying slow and at high power settings.

For students, this could be a plus in terms of reducing accidents with low time pilots. It makes sense for IFR training (as an instrument student, I am appreciating this already). However, if someone only flew airplanes like the 152/172, then getting into a LSA might be an eye opener (See Lane Wallace's latest column in Flying).

On the plus side, having trained and flown exclusively in LSA has probably given me different flying skills than I would have had I trained in Cessnas.

Anyway, I am skeptical that Cessna can make an airplane with this kind of stability in the LSA category. And if they did, I wouldn't be buying it.

TODR
 
In a 172, if you lose power less than 1000ft AGL, pick the place straight ahead where you're going to crash.

Were you flying the 172 in Dallas? How did you like the 200-300 ft/m climbs?
 
opticsguy said:
In a 172, if you lose power less than 1000ft AGL, pick the place straight ahead where you're going to crash.

Were you flying the 172 in Dallas? How did you like the 200-300 ft/m climbs?
Click to expand...
We actually climbed decently, but that was with 2 and full fuel. I'm used to better performance from the CT with 2 aboard...

I basically "interviewed" one instructor at ADS to see if I wanted to work with him and am flying with another next week. It's been hard to find people who have interest in convert someone from Sport Pilot to Private and then on to Instrument, but these two guys seem to be. Will let the board know how it goes.

TODR
 
Help me understand a couple of LSA aircraft rules

There are no issues with getting your Private in a plane like the Skycather or Van's RV-12 as long as the instructor is properly rated, right?

Also, I talked to a local Sport Pilot instructor here in Draper, UT the other day and I think he mentioned that you will be able to get your Sport Pilot license in an Experimental up to 2010 as long as the instructor is willing to fly in your experimenta. Do you know if that is accurate?

If there is a cutoff date for training in your experimental, this may be a good reason to get your RV-12 done quickly. Just some info, the local sport pilot instructor will rent his Rans for $110/hour with instruction. He said he is getting most pilots through at 20 hours. Not too bad, it really does make it affordable to a much larger group. I must admit though, 20 hours does worry me when it comes to safety and proficiency.

Like many of you, I was amazed at how many Cessnas they pre-sold. I know Cirrus will do just as good or better. But if you will be able to get your private in one as well, I can see why. Just 11 years ago I paid $37/hour for a 152. Now, there are no 152's around here and the 172 is around $110. If they can lower the price of a Skycatcher to $70-$80 / hour, I can see a big market for student pilots.
 
E-LSA Rentals

Scott Schmidt said:
no issues getting Private in RV-12 as long as the instructor is properly rated, right? Also... local SP instructor mentioned that you will be able to get your Sport Pilot license in an Experimental up to 2010... Do you know if that is accurate?
Click to expand...
Yes, a prospective pilot may train for private and above in an LSA airplane if the instructor is a regular CFI, and not SP CFI only.

Regarding the transition period ending January 2010, there seems to be some confusion. You may train in your owned experimental any time, and the transition period does not apply. The privilege to train in an experimental will not end in 2010. There is absolutely no need to rush or even consider any dates if you wish to learn to fly in an experimental you are building or intend to build at some future date. The transition period only applies to flight schools that wish to use an Experimental LSA (a specific type of airworthiness certificate). For the only time in history, when properly inspected and documented, certain experimental aircraft may be rented to students for flight training now through January 2010. After that, it will not be legal to receive rental payments for that same airplane, and its use will revert to rules similar to other experimentals. Our RANS S-12 has such an E-LSA airworthiness certificate, and we rent it for $35/hour wet. Sometimes I feel like we're the only ones still trying to implement the rule as intended (i.e. to lower the cost of learning to fly).

Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, TX
http://flybigbend.com
 
Last edited:
The expiration date of 1/31/2010 is for E-LSA certified under 21.191(i)(1). These aircraft are "existing aircraft" which MUST obtain their airworthiness certificate before 2/2008. They must have their airworthiness certificate amended before 2/2010 to a "non-commercial" status. After that instruction/rental must be done in a certificated aircraft or an S-LSA.
Exemptions for experimental amateur-built will still exist just as they are now for transition training only.
 
Mel said:
The expiration date of 1/31/2010 is for E-LSA certified under 21.191(i)(1). These aircraft are "existing aircraft" which MUST obtain their airworthiness certificate before 2/2008. They must have their airworthiness certificate amended before 2/2010 to a "non-commercial" status. After that instruction/rental must be done in a certificated aircraft or an S-LSA.
Exemptions for experimental amateur-built will still exist just as they are now for transition training only.
Click to expand...

So you will not be able use your own RV-12 after 2010 to get your sport pilot lisence.
 
Normally the RV-12 will be certified as an experimental amateur-built aircraft (21.191g). Nothing about E-LSAs will affect amateur-built. If you were to certify the -12 as E-LSA (21.191(i)(1), it would have to be done before 2/2008. That is unless Van offers it as an "E-LSA kit" (21.191(i)(2). To do this, first he would have to certify at least one S-LSA. In that case you would have to build the kit exactly as per plans with no modifications, even down to the instrument panel and instruments.
The 1/31/2010 deadline only affects E-LSA (21.191(i)(1) that are used for commercial purposes.
You can always use you own amateur-built for your own instruction. You just can't rent it to someone else for instruction. 972-784-7544 for more information.
 
Last edited:
NO!

I have worked on Rotax enough to know that I don't want to work on them regularly. In my opinion, they are a pain to work on. There are quite a few things that I don't like about the 4-stroke Rotax. I'll leave them to someone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top