LSA's For Initial flight training

mooneyguy

mooneyguy

been around forever
Cost are an obvious issue for student pilots (yeah like anyone here doesn't know that). With the market as tough as it is right now I'm curious what others think about using an LSA as a primary trainer for PPL training.

I have zero experience with LSA's. I know one local fbo bought one but they have had a multitude of issues with it. Something like the Tecnam eaglet seems like it would make a nice trainer.

Does anyone have experience with cost associated with LSA's (Operating, insurance etc), or how about experience as a student using an LSA. How did you like it, and how did it compare to a typical trainer (172, 152, pa28 etc).
 
The problem lies in the fact that it's really not any cheaper. If you're comparing flying a LSA to a brand new 172, sure it's cheaper, but when you compare the LSA (of which the only option is a new or almost new aircraft) to a not-so-new 172 or PA-28, it winds up being a wash.

A lot of operators were attracted to the various LSA aircraft for their low fuel burn and seemingly cheap operating costs, but when you factor in the additional maintenance (shorter TBOs, reduction gearbox inspection/ overhauls, etc) it doesn't actually work out to be any cheaper than a "real" training aircraft.
 
I didn't want to be the first one to jump in on this one. I'm a big, big fan of LSA's, and think they have the possibility to really change the small end of GA and training. The only big differences in cost between a LSA and a Part 23 aircraft, is if you compare NEW airplane prices. Hopefully, in time, the price of used LSA's comes down, but they seem to be holding their value really well right now.

Operating costs are going to be lower, IF you use Mogas. Use Avgas, and you open yourself to oil changes twice as often (25 hours versus 50), and end up paying more in fuel costs. One of the big opporutinies to save some money in LSA's, is maintenance. If you are setting up a flight school, consider taking the 120 hour Light Sport Repairman Maintenance course. That certification allows you to complete annual inspections and 100 hour inspections on S-LSA's, and other maintenance.

Many of the S-LSA's fly a bit differently than say a 172 or Piper Warrior. Primarily due to the much lower wing loadings. You will feel much more turbulence, also due to the low loadings. However, they are a blast to fly. Very, very maneuverable (the ones I've flown) and agile. They are also much more comfortable for the pilot. You can sit in something like a Remos GX or Flight Design CTSW/CTLS and not rub arms with the person next to (like you would in a 150/152). Even the new Cessna 162 Skycatcher has a wide cabin (I believe as wide, if not wider than the 206).

If you look around enough, you can find some S-LSA's that are IFR equipped and are permitted to fly IFR. Tecnam is one of the few companies allowing it at this point, but there was talk about a new standard allowing for IFR flight in the near future this past weekend at the US Light Sport Expo.

Patrick said:
A lot of operators were attracted to the various LSA aircraft for their low fuel burn and seemingly cheap operating costs, but when you factor in the additional maintenance (shorter TBOs, reduction gearbox inspection/ overhauls, etc) it doesn't actually work out to be any cheaper than a "real" training aircraft.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't follow the LSA market closely, but Rotax recently (this past December) just extended the TBO on the Rotax 912 to 2000 hours. Last I checked, that's the same as an O-200/320/360. In regards to the overhaul cost of the 912, not many people are willing to give a number on it. I've seen people say somewhere around $6-8,000, but I really haven't heard anything solid on it.
 
LSA doesn't just encompass the new modern plastic toys they make. LSA also incoporates Many Aeronca's (with the exception of the Sedan), Luscombe's, Cubs, Cub Cruisers (J-4/5), Vagabonds, T-crafts, and other excellent old machinery. All of those airplanes are superior for training.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I didn't want to be the first one to jump in on this one. I'm a big, big fan of LSA's, and think they have the possibility to really change the small end of GA and training. The only big differences in cost between a LSA and a Part 23 aircraft, is if you compare NEW airplane prices. Hopefully, in time, the price of used LSA's comes down, but they seem to be holding their value really well right now.

Operating costs are going to be lower, IF you use Mogas. Use Avgas, and you open yourself to oil changes twice as often (25 hours versus 50), and end up paying more in fuel costs. One of the big opporutinies to save some money in LSA's, is maintenance. If you are setting up a flight school, consider taking the 120 hour Light Sport Repairman Maintenance course. That certification allows you to complete annual inspections and 100 hour inspections on S-LSA's, and other maintenance.

Many of the S-LSA's fly a bit differently than say a 172 or Piper Warrior. Primarily due to the much lower wing loadings. You will feel much more turbulence, also due to the low loadings. However, they are a blast to fly. Very, very maneuverable (the ones I've flown) and agile. They are also much more comfortable for the pilot. You can sit in something like a Remos GX or Flight Design CTSW/CTLS and not rub arms with the person next to (like you would in a 150/152). Even the new Cessna 162 Skycatcher has a wide cabin (I believe as wide, if not wider than the 206).

If you look around enough, you can find some S-LSA's that are IFR equipped and are permitted to fly IFR. Tecnam is one of the few companies allowing it at this point, but there was talk about a new standard allowing for IFR flight in the near future this past weekend at the US Light Sport Expo.



Perhaps you don't follow the LSA market closely, but Rotax recently (this past December) just extended the TBO on the Rotax 912 to 2000 hours. Last I checked, that's the same as an O-200/320/360. In regards to the overhaul cost of the 912, not many people are willing to give a number on it. I've seen people say somewhere around $6-8,000, but I really haven't heard anything solid on it.
Click to expand...


You're correct, I don't follow the market that closely. I do think LSA is a fantastic idea, but the examples that I've seen have not wound up being cheaper in actuality to operate than the "standard older 172/ PA-28."

I think if the prices on used LSA's come down, and the maintenance improves (extended TBOs, etc) and the availability of mogas improves, that could all shift the scales in LSA's favor.
 
WacoFan said:
LSA doesn't just encompass the new modern plastic toys they make. LSA also incoporates Many Aeronca's (with the exception of the Sedan), Luscombe's, Cubs, Cub Cruisers (J-4/5), Vagabonds, T-crafts, and other excellent old machinery. All of those airplanes are superior for training.
Click to expand...


I had assumed this discussion was based on the newer LSA variants :)
 
I'm a big fan of LSAs. Mainly because of costs...

Around here, the only rental airplanes locally cost $160/hr wet, and above $200/hr with instructor.

I drove two hours away to fly an LSA for $79/hr. And it all goes into the SEL column in my logbook. No different than flying a 172, and I get to fly a brand new airplane.

In my mind, they're a heck of a lot more fun to fly too.
 
I have heard but have no idea if it's true that a students rudder work is better when starting in LSA's when they transition to larger a/c. It seems to me the rudder work would be as good as the instructor taught in either one.

I also have this picture in my mind of large groups of anarchists sitting around falling down rusted out T-hangers with camping coolers full of beer about to go chase dragonfly's down the river. Where this stereotype came from in my mind is anybody's guess. I think if I had some exposure to LSA I'd quickly change that but the few I've met who are involved are dangerous I think.

Many large flight schools are getting them and I'm trying my best to get on with a busy school so I look forward to flying them and learning first hand about them and the community.
 
Patrick said:
The problem lies in the fact that it's really not any cheaper. If you're comparing flying a LSA to a brand new 172, sure it's cheaper, but when you compare the LSA (of which the only option is a new or almost new aircraft) to a not-so-new 172 or PA-28, it winds up being a wash.

A lot of operators were attracted to the various LSA aircraft for their low fuel burn and seemingly cheap operating costs, but when you factor in the additional maintenance (shorter TBOs, reduction gearbox inspection/ overhauls, etc) it doesn't actually work out to be any cheaper than a "real" training aircraft.
Click to expand...
Yup.
 
We just got a brand new Remos GX, and I have to say that I've been impressed with it so far. It doesn't fly like a 172, or a Warrior. As mentioned before, it is VERY responsive to stick input, has pretty good visibility, and can climb way, way better than I imagined with only 100 ponies under the cowling.

I don't know much about the numbers in comparison to older 172s and the like. I know the owner thinks it's a great deal because it was cheaper to obtain, burns ~4 gals./hour, and is relatively easy to maintain. I am very curious to see what the truth is after 3-4 years of operating to see if it is truly cheaper to operate. I know one other big motivating factor was that the owner can write-off, or depreciate a large portion of the cost of the airplane, and that was a big motivating factor for him. I'm sure that some of you here know a lot more about that than I do.

I think teaching in it is fine for PPL. But honestly, we just got it, so I may feel differently after teaching in it a year from now.
 
WacoFan said:
There are two companies making Cub variants and they are building Luscombes again. So, are those new or old?
Click to expand...

New, because they cost a heck of a lot more than a real Cub or Luscombe. Speaking of the new Luscombe, I'd love to see the model they are making with a radial engine on it. I know they've built at least one, but I haven't heard much about it.
 
WacoFan said:
LSA doesn't just encompass the new modern plastic toys they make. LSA also incoporates Many Aeronca's (with the exception of the Sedan), Luscombe's, Cubs, Cub Cruisers (J-4/5), Vagabonds, T-crafts, and other excellent old machinery. All of those airplanes are superior for training.
Click to expand...
Amen to this. I'm a big fan of LSA's and the newer models are awesome but a bit pricey for rentals and such. Training on older Champs and Chiefs and Luscombs etc would be great for training. Also, with the sport pilot rule you can get a sport pilot cfi and instruct in any of these types with just a few hundred hours. I always recommend this path to new pilots with financial issues and many who have followed through have not regretted it.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
New, because they cost a heck of a lot more than a real Cub or Luscombe. Speaking of the new Luscombe, I'd love to see the model they are making with a radial engine on it. I know they've built at least one, but I haven't heard much about it.
Click to expand...

Here you go, with video:
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/air...uscombe-phantom-ii-a-modern-time-machine.html

The first Luscombe was the Luscombe Phantom, which featured a 145 HP Warner. Absolutely beautiful machine and you can really see a lot of Monocoupe D-145 in that airplane.

After the Phantom, there was a smaller machine made - akin in size to the Model 8 series - but with a 90 HP Warner. This is what the new Luscombe people were going for. The only thing I don't like about the looks of the Rotec installation is that it is mounted way far foward (compared to the model 4) and the sheet metal where the cowling meets the fuselage is awkward. The model 4 was designed to have the Warner, whereas the airplane in the link was designed for an O-200 and the sheet metal reflects that. Still a pretty airplane though.
 
WacoFan said:
Here you go, with video:
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/air...uscombe-phantom-ii-a-modern-time-machine.html
Click to expand...

The thing that I don't understand with the new Luscbome people, is I haven't seen them at any of the show's I've been to in the last year. Not at the US Light Sport Expo for the last two years, they weren't at Sun'N'Fun last year, and they weren't at the AOPA expo this fall. One of the reasons the big LSA companies get so many planes out the door, is they show up with huge setups at the airshows. They do lots of demonstration flights, and get people generally talking about their airplanes. Without showing up to the big shows, Luscombe isn't really helping themselves at all.
 
And to further the Luscombe thing, to supplement my previous post:

The Phantom - 145hp Warner.
Phantom-1.jpg


Luscombe Model 4 (90hp Warner):
lusco-4.jpg


Rotec powered Luscombe:
NewLuscombe.jpg


And, a turbine Luscombe:
speedbir.jpg


3083.jpg
 
Many years ago, I was the test pilot for Jabiru aircraft coming off of the assembly line and have flown many hours in J250SP & J170SP aircraft. It is quite the natural airplane to fly.

Not too long ago I trained a person in their CTLS and noticed quite a different feel both flying and landings. Not to compare these two airplanes together but it just didn't feel natural.

The Jabiru (which nobody knows where it came from) is an aircraft that was designed in Australia. Both the engine and aircraft were designed with Australian technique and expertise. So if there any complaints or suggestions about anything you can go to one place, unlike other airplane designers.

Of course the airplane has three doors. The aft door was used originally for two seats in the back, which made it a four seat airplane. But LSA aircraft can only have two seats. So, the whole back compartment can be used for luggage! This area is huge and can haul a lot of things back there. If you don't need all that space you can fly the J170 which I think has the same max weight of the J250, but I can't remember.

The engine is a 120 horsepower natural six-cylinder horizontally-opposed, air-cooled, normally aspirated, direct-drive engine. What most of GA is use to. It weighs only 180 lbs with EVERYTHING attached to it. Only burns about 5 gallons per hour. At a full tank of gas it gets about 7 hours of flying. Great when you don't want to make fuel stops at expensive places. Oh yeah, the TBO is 2000 hours.

Airplane control is a little different, but no different than a Cirrus because of the where the control stick is located. If you can get use to the control stick located between both seats then you'll live. It is not very un-original but different.

Flying characteristics is just like a 172 or 152 where it is high-wing and easy to fly. Some people complain though because it is too easy to fly due to the stall characteristics of the aircraft. Easy being that it doesn't have abrupt stall characteristics, it is very smooth.

The operating cost are around $30/hour, overhaul at $6,000 or $3.00/hour. Not really sure what insurance companies want but there are a few that know the aircraft and don't charge that much.

The website address is: www.usjabiru.com, and it is assembled in Middle Tennessee.

Hope you enjoyed this!
 

Attachments

  • DSC03570.jpg
    DSC03570.jpg
    285.4 KB · Views: 130
flyingmaniac said:
Airplane control is a little different, but no different than a Cirrus because of the where the control stick is located. If you can get use to the control stick located between both seats then you'll live. It is not very un-original but different.
Click to expand...

Can't say I'm a big fan of the Jabiru control setup. Granted, I've never flown it, but I've sat in one, and just didn't like how it felt. Plane had tons of room in it, but to me its a waste. Your going to run out of weight long, long before you bulk out that plane. But, I suppose some people will like it. I do like their engine, but like everything, its been overshadowed by the Rotax. Market share is everything in the LSA game. With the new PiperSport, there is a potential to have a nationwide Rotax support system, care of Piper. Until Jabiru can get that going, they're going to be at a disadvantage.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Can't say I'm a big fan of the Jabiru control setup. Granted, I've never flown it, but I've sat in one, and just didn't like how it felt. Plane had tons of room in it, but to me its a waste. Your going to run out of weight long, long before you bulk out that plane. But, I suppose some people will like it. I do like their engine, but like everything, its been overshadowed by the Rotax. Market share is everything in the LSA game. With the new PiperSport, there is a potential to have a nationwide Rotax support system, care of Piper. Until Jabiru can get that going, they're going to be at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Understood, but who normally fly with 7 hours of fuel in a GA plane??? Put in 4 hours of fuel and you save around 100 lbs.

But also remember the airplane was normally certificated at 1600 lbs. It can fly that weight if needed although it is not light sport weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top