Piper changes direction

I have a few hundred hours in LSAs and I like them for what they are. Excellent primary trainers. They allow pilots to focus on learning to fly rather than be overhwhelmed with advanced avionics. They are good for local flights. Anything beyond 1 hour though and I would begin to feel cramped and uncomfortable. Plus, they are extremely light and buffet at the slightest thermals. Great sight pictures from most that I have flown thus far.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Look at the high volume flight schools, where many of the sales occur. They all want new airplanes, for marketing purposes. Quite frankly, I'd be inclined to pay $10 an hour more for a brand new airplane over something built in the 1970's, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

I did almost all my training in older airplanes with the exception of some IFR training in an SP. I'm still alive, and I didn't have to borrow that extra $2500+. But, to each his own.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
Fantastic. More outsourcing.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it is fair to call this one "outsourcing." The Czech (in general and it would appear this company in particular) have been designing and building aircraft long before Piper came along asking for a licensing agreement. Between the Germans and the Czech, the Europeans appear to be farther along in developing certified aircraft for the LSA market. Performance gliders are also exclusively European. Aside from American Champion and the kit building population, European companies have been focused on sport flying for longer, at least in recent history.
 
scooter2525 said:
Times have changed. Rented the da-20 at 67 an hour back in 2005.
Click to expand...

Times have indeed changed. Rented a Warrior II for $65/hour wet in 2000! Anyone renting in the 70's or 80's want to chime in? :)

N519AT said:
$80/hr seems pretty cheap compared to $158/hr for a brand new whizz bang C172 G1000.
Click to expand...

scooter2525 said:
such a waste. at that stage of the game, 1 hour is 1 hour in the logbook.
Click to expand...

Agreed...absolute waste of money to begin training in a $150-160/hr, G1000 equipped 172 or similar. Learn to fly first, then drop money on practicing the advanced avionics skills (that you can learn on a simulator) in the air after you've mastered basic airmanship. I believe that's the ultimate advantage that LSA's can bring to the table...a cheaper alternative to the very expensive glass cockpit "basic" trainers that are becoming more and more prevalent.
 
AirmetTango said:
Agreed...absolute waste of money to begin training in a $150-160/hr, G1000 equipped 172 or similar. Learn to fly first, then drop money on practicing the advanced avionics skills (that you can learn on a simulator) in the air after you've mastered basic airmanship. I believe that's the ultimate advantage that LSA's can bring to the table...a cheaper alternative to the very expensive glass cockpit "basic" trainers that are becoming more and more prevalent.
Click to expand...

Wow, that steep for a 172 G1000. Heck, I pay 130/hr for a G1000 or 114/hr for a Nav II SP. For the CTSW I fly, I pay like either 100 or 105/hr, can't remember for sure. Hopefully these new LSA's can run right around 100/hr. One of the big problems with lowering operating costs on an LSA, is running Mogas. Its hard to get that at the bigger airports, and may not be legal to have at some airports, from what I've seen. Another issue is getting the manufacture to approve Ethanol in the gas. Rotax is good with up to E10, but the airframe people have to approve it as well, which is often a problem due to fuel tanks and lines. Hopefully, Piper can sort it out, and get the E10 approved.
 
scooter2525 said:
such a waste. at that stage of the game, 1 hour is 1 hour in the logbook.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why I don't get why Cessna offers nothing but the G1000 in a 172 now. I can comprehend that schools/FBOs may want to have a couple around for those who want to train or can afford to fly them. However, when the 70s and 80s era 172s start becoming too long in the tooth to rent, I can forsee these places being in a hurt when all they have to choose from are equipped with glass.

I speculate that lawyers are the biggest problem (but no, we don't need tort reform!), after the FAAs own draconian regs, to achieve this, but if someone can bring a 4 place airplane to the market for $150k, they'd have an instant winner.
 
Realms09 said:
How do you like flying the CTSW? I want to try out some LSAs, but the only one I've found around here is the Evektor.
Click to expand...

I love flying it. I don't really know how I would describe it. Maybe like flying a kite, in some ways. Very, very light on the controls, maybe too light. Feels like it will go straight up on take off. Getting back down is interesting. It will either go down, or slow down. Not both. Kind of funny to land, with a weird sight picture, but it gets better after time. I love cruising in it, with the flaps re-flexed up to -6. I've heard the new model (CTLS) puts a little more weight into the controls, and is much simpler to land.
 
TXaviator said:
whoa. negative flaps? sweet!
Click to expand...

Yeah, in Europe, the CTSW has -12 degrees of flaps. They had to limit it to -6 over here, in order to meet the speed limit for LSA's. Takes a little bit getting used to having to retract the flaps at 100 knots, from 0 to -6. Can't say that I'd ever seen a maximum flap speed for the neutral flap setting before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top