Buying a LSA. Good idea?

T

Theodore Farah

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 29, 2021
Messages
13
Display Name
Display name:
Teddy
I have owned a 182 and a Cirrus but want to down size and cut my expenses and maintenance costs. I have been looking at a few LSA planes but concerned they are much lighter. Has anyone owned or flown an LSA longer distance? What is ur opinion on these planes? Reliable? Rotex a good engine. Thx for ur comments.
 
A Rotax 912/914 is about as reliable as any other aircraft engine. Parts are not any less expensive.
What is a longer distance? Which LSA are you looking at? What kind of "LSA": S-LSA, E-LSA, Type certificated, E-AB?
Some of the Cubish LSAs (or even a real Cub) are not very fast - 700ish miles in my ride (Merlin GT) takes the better part of a day. Headwinds can really clobber you when you are cruising at 70ish.
Lighter means you get bounced around more in turbulence.
My ride works for me.
 
I don't have any Cirrus time, but I was in a 182 club and rented sportcruisers and a skycatcher.

They are lighter, like flying a kite. My appetite for wind was much less in the 162 than 182.

Long distance is the same as any other plane, just slower. Might be nicer (some LSAs have wide cabins), might be less so (some are loud and/or uncomfortable).

Rotax is good.

Welcome to PoA!
 
There are plenty to choose from,you need to decide what the mission is. They are much lighter so you spend some time bouncing around.
 
@FastEddieB has done some long XCs in his Sky Arrow LSA and might have a meaningful comment or two. Luggage will be limited so pack like you were taking a motorcycle trip.

I trained in Tecnam LSAs. LSAs are decent planes but have very little wing loading. In strong, gusty winds you’ll feel like a butterfly being attacked by a leaf blower. This can be a problem if conditions at your destination are worse than forecast, so flight planning should be very conservative with options to land at airports with a choice of runways.
 
As others have mentioned an LSA will be like a leaf in even moderate wind. I have several hundred hours in a 162 and about a dozen in a Remos G3. I like the space for my flight bag, jacket, etc. in the 162...space that is missing from the G3. Beyond that they fly just about the same although the Remos glides better. With a little practice every landing was a "power off 180" landing. I also prefered the panel in the 162. Suggest you do a ton of homework and fly as many as you can.
 
If you like small planes and can get used to the lighter weights they are great. I probably have 400ish hours teaching in some LSAs and got to where I preferred it over the 172s I was also flying whenever it made sense.
 
A higher end “fast” LSA will typically be more comfortable than your average GA plane (C-172/182) , much better equipped in terms of avionics and other modern contraptions like BRS/GRS chute etc, about as fast as C-172 and feel much more like a sport car ( and thus more fun ) with the main downside being lighter wing loading ( I personally tend to avoid mid day flying unless I have to which I almost never do ) and being overall less robust ( again , related to gross weight limits ).

If your goal is to have some fun flying , they are a lot more fun than old school GA planes - kind of like a motorcycle vs a family van , certainly less practical but then again , thats not why you buy a bike…..

Btw .. i believe my longest trip so far was from Chicago to North Little Rock to get my chute repacked - It was OK with the main issue being typical GA ”I am not going unless it is 100% VFR along the way” dilemma but , thats not why i bought this plane for :)

Here is some random FP video flying my little LSA …
 
Last edited:
Warmi said:
If your goal is to have some fun flying , they are a lot more fun than old school GA planes - kind of like a motorcycle vs a family van , certainly less practical but then again , thats not why you buy a bike…..
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

When I first flew a 172 after training in LSAs it was like driving an Econoline van after being used to a Miata. LSAs are fun, but like a sports car or a motorcycle they're not the most versatile transportation. Sure, you can do long trips, but be flexible and plan around the constraints.
 
Maybe biggest issue with FAA LSA ownership is that by regulation parts generally need to come from the manufacturer, as do any avionics designs and approval for any modifications. It’s something like having a car for which the only source of parts is the dealer, which can’t be updated without dealer approval. This increases the cost and hassle of maintenance, and makes delays possible.

When an LSA manufacturer disappears someday, as many do, the FAA answer is to put the plane into E-LSA (experimental) category, which has a lot of merit but needs to be understood.

I would recommend flying before buying. My preference is for lighter and more responsive planes but if you’re used to planes that operate as an all weather transportation tool, I think an LSA might feel like a big step.
 
Last edited:
I had a Flight Design CTsw and loved it. Flew from New York to Seattle and back. The return flight took 2 days. The autopilot made it very relaxing and fun. Fantastic range and great efficiency. Parachute was a bonus when flying at night.
 
If you're serious about it you really need to find an FBO that will rent the LSA you're considering and see for yourself. It would be a much cheaper endeavor than being disappointed after buying one. I like the Rotax 912. It's different and has quirks compared to Lycomings and Continentals. Parts are still expensive, but are readily available. The engines themselves are less than half the price of an equivalent Lyc or Cont. In general, from a maintenance perspective, unless you go E-LSA and plan on doing your own wrenching, you're probably not going to see a huge savings in maintenance costs.
 
I like LSAs and that kind of flying (my Hatz is "almost' an LSA, only the gross weight is a bit too high), but if your primary goal is to save money compared to a larger standard aircraft, you have no medical issues, and your mission still involves going places quickly, you might consider a non-LSA experimental.
 
idahoflier said:
In general, from a maintenance perspective, unless you go E-LSA and plan on doing your own wrenching, you're probably not going to see a huge savings in maintenance costs.
Click to expand...
Maybe LSAs are lighter on mx because they are not 50-70 years old like the rest of the fleet?

@Theodore Farah, if you're coming from a Cirrus, maybe check out Bristell.

@Dave Anderson
 
Theodore Farah said:
I have owned a 182 and a Cirrus but want to down size and cut my expenses and maintenance costs. I have been looking at a few LSA planes but concerned they are much lighter. Has anyone owned or flown an LSA longer distance? What is ur opinion on these planes? Reliable? Rotex a good engine. Thx for ur comments.
Click to expand...
Define long XC? I’ve regularly done 300 miles in my Bristell. It holds 32 gallons and burns about 6gph with the 914T. Full fuel is longer than my bladder. I typically carry 22G and can fly 3 hrs w 400lbs useful if you hold the 1320 LSA gross.

It also has a roomy cabin 51” wide and is a comfortable. Of course it’s lighter so you pick your days with X-winds under 15 and nothing super choppy.

I’ve flown mine from KHGR to Hudson several times and would easily take it 1000+ miles. It was based in Utah when I bought it.

It also has wing lockers and a 30lb baggage in the back so you can carry a decent amount vs other LSAs. The wing lockers each hold a large backpack.

As for cheaper, it’s an airplane is there such a thing? My avg annual is costing around 2500 although the dealer says typically is 1500 but I fix whatever is broke or needs it. One was 6k because I had to rebuild the gearbox because the previous owner skipped an inspection. I will say I prefer the fuel injected rotax over the carbs which my 914T is. But they are fairly reliable engines and I can do the basics myself.
 
Last edited:
It's been noted that Rotax parts aren't any cheaper than Lycoming or Continental parts. That's sort of true, but not the whole story. We replace all the plugs on our Rotax during the condition inspection -- which is more often than is required, but at under $4 per plug it's cheap. Oil changes are done every 100 hours since we burn about 90% MOGAS, and an oil change consists of three liters of oil and a filter, so less than $75 per 100 hours for oil. Our oil consumption between changes is close to zero. There are no magnetos to rebuild, but you'll probably need a carb overhaul every few years so that's probably about a wash. I haven't heard of anyone replacing cylinders on a Rotax... usually at overhaul it's the crank that gets replaced.

Our fuel burn is typically 5 GPH or so for 120 knots true. The thing is very nimble and a ball to fly, but yes, light wing loading means you're going to get bounced around more than you would in a flying pickup truck. The modern panel and AP are nice too. And yes, you'll need to pack light.
 
I'm kinda in the same boat. For missions other than the usual $100* hamburger run I can see XC's of just under 200nm to see Mom a few times a year (and if wx sucks I'm well accustomed to driving 4 hours out I-70 already) and maybe once or twice a summer up to TVC so roughly 300nm, I have no desire to fly it literally across the country or whatever. It's only me and the wife so we really only need 2 seats and some room for clothes. So our options are basically an RV whatever (wife gets scared of kit builds and the big "E" word decals, and I'm not looking to wrench on it myself), some old clapped out 150/Tomahawk/Ercoupe, and AA1 don't have enough useful load. For my mission some LSA actually would work well.
*And with the lower fuel burn on pump unleaded it may actually only cost $100 in a LSA.

I've flown in a Remos on a typically breezy day (G20kt but mostly down CL) and didn't seem much more kite-like than a 150 would but I just couldn't get comfortable in it. I also flew an Aeroprakt A22 and an Aerotrek but those seemed too flimsy for my liking. Looking to get my hands on an Evektor to try on for size at some point. If I did buy any LSA I'd be trying to get one from the more established companies, so that hopefully I don't end up with an orphan 6 months later. That said with how parts availability has gotten for some of the mainstream airplanes out there, especially Continental engine stuff lately, some LSA's may actually be better supported than the old C/P/B classics.
 
My 140 is a "heavy sport" in the sense that it's just over the LSA weight limit.

Todd82 said:
with the lower fuel burn on pump unleaded it may actually only cost $100 in a LSA.
Click to expand...

Maybe less. I can do a burger run with a kid for <$50 in E0 mogas (shh, I know this is not TCO), and a Rotax LSA can probably run E10, even cheaper.

Dave Anderson said:
My avg annual is costing around 2500...
Click to expand...

My annuals are around the same.

I frequently look at the opportunity cost / alternatives. I bought for ~35k. For twice that, I could get into a CTSW with a Rotax 912 (burns E10= lower opex). I'm not sure one can get into a 912iS for under 100k (making opex an even smaller drop in the overall ownership bucket).
Also in the 70-100 ballpark, one could consider a 170. More fuel burn, everything else stays about the same.
Also in the 70-100 ballpark, one could consider an RV6. More fuel burn, faster, everything else stays about the same.

It does feel like the small 2 seater is near a Pareto optimum for TCO. You can improve things (rotax=cheaper overhauls+lower fuel burn, or RV=fast), but it drives up the acquisition cost, and the perfect is the enemy of the good.

As usual, I suppose it all boils down to mission and medical.
 
Theodore Farah said:
I have owned a 182 and a Cirrus but want to down size and cut my expenses and maintenance costs. I have been looking at a few LSA planes but concerned they are much lighter. Has anyone owned or flown an LSA longer distance? What is ur opinion on these planes? Reliable? Rotex a good engine. Thx for ur comments.
Click to expand...


In short, it's a good idea.

I bought a factory demo SR22 in 2003. Sold it in 2007 to buy my 2007 Sky Arrow LSA. Took it Experimental Light Sport in 2009 and took the class in order to do my own Annual Condition Inspections, which I've done annually since then.

I cruise at about 95-100 kts. At about 5.5 gph I'm planning about 2 to 2 1/2 hour legs of 200-250 nm on my 18 gal tank. Our longest cross country was to Page, AZ and back from our then home base in Copperhill, TN. Took 4 days, with a 1 day weather delay. Here's a link to the planning and execution of that trip in another forum:

Fast Eddie & Kool Karen's Excellent (planned) Page Adventure

Well, Kool Karen and I are now committed (or should be!) We have reservations and plan to attend the CT Page flyin in our Sky Arrow. This would be the longest crosscountry we’ve attempted in the Sky Arrow. Many years ago I flew to both Page and Bullfrog Basin in my Tiger (from Florida). The plan ...
www.ctflier.com

No regrets at all. PM me with a phone number if you'd like to chat.
 
Last edited:
I've flown a lot of LSA aircraft. These immediately come to mind.
Tecnam P-92, Remos, Seamax, Searey, SportCruiser, Arion LS1, J3, PA-11, PA-12, PA-17, Taylorcraft BC12D, Aeronca 7AC, Aeronca Chief, Luscombe, Ercoupe..
These are all fine airplanes.

I would buy a Tecnam. They fly well, I've done some serious crosswind work in the 92 and they are comfortable. I think all the various models have 5+ hours at 105 kts cruise.
The Seamax is my choice over the Searey. Both carry 4+ hours of fuel, at 105 kts cruise.
I like the Sport Cruiser, but it was a little pitch sensitive. Took about 30 minutes to get over it. 4+ hours at, tada. 105 kts cruise.
Remos is nice, but in a hard slip the tail stalls.4+ hours on board. Meh.
What's not to like about an Ercoupe? It's a solid airplane with or without rudder pedals. (I prefer with). My wife wants me to buy one, because they are cute. yeah.

I love me a taildragger. But all the draggers I listed come with 12-13 gallon tanks. Very limited range, very slow 85 mph cruise speed. But So Much Fun.
We've all heard the horror stories about the Luscombe. If the gear is straight, and many of them aren't, they are much tamer. I almost bought one, but my wife nixed it. No handy place to put her purse. yeah. Faster than the rest of that era.
Taylorcraft. A lovely airplane, especially with the C-85.
I owned the PA-17. 12 gallons usable, would do 100 mph flat out. Cruised at 85 mph, Maybe it was just my plane (only ever flew the one I owned) It was so loud that at full throttle you couldn't crank the radio up high enough to hear if the tower was calling you. And I didn't dare spin it like all the other Pipers.
The Aeronca Chief I flew was the easiest airplane to fly and to land of any taildragger I have ever flown. Set your approach speed, set your pitch and try to figure out if it's on the ground.

My absolute favorite of all of them is the Arion LS1. OMG.
Flies like it's on rails, fast (faster than it should be) Vne of over 180 kts. Be aware! This is a fast, slippery airplane. Slowing it down to land requires a lot of attention.

JMHO.
I hope this helps.
 
I've met three people who own one of these so far, and I think if I could afford to start a small flight school, I'd give them a serious look.

www.aopa.org

Texas Aircraft pitches basic Colt

Flight schools asked for an affordable, factory-built light sport aircraft with Garmin in the panel and an all-metal airframe. Texas Aircraft Manufacturing responded.
www.aopa.org

COLT 100 | Texas Aircraft

www.texasaircraft.com www.texasaircraft.com

www.flyingmag.com

Can Texas Aircraft's Colt Become a Real 21st-Century Trainer? - FLYING Magazine

Dan Johnson told me, “The first light-sport airplane arrived in the U.S. in April 2005. The first two FAA-accepted special light-sport aircraft were announced…almost exactly 15 years ago.” Johnson reviews recreational aircraft and posts those reports on his site, bydanjohnson.com. A flight...
www.flyingmag.com www.flyingmag.com

One owner brought his to Dallas Executive and let me look at it before we took off for a photo mission and he couldn't stop saying good things about it.

The flight school at the FBO we often stop at in San Angelo just bought a pair and from talking to them they like them so far.

photo_2024-02-02_10-09-19.jpgphoto_2024-02-02_10-10-28.jpgphoto_2024-02-02_10-10-58.jpg
 
Maybe LSAs are lighter on mx because they are not 50-70 years old like the rest of the fleet?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but based on my experience and the experience of friends and acquaintances that own LSA's, it seems like they are about the same from a maintenance cost perspective. Labor is almost always the majority of my maintenance bills and you still need an A&P or a LSRM-A to perform the maintenance on LSA's. If you are good wrenching and have the time to spare then a pretty good savings is obtainable by either the E-LSA route or obtaining an appropriate LSRM rating.
 
Theodore Farah said:
I have owned a 182 and a Cirrus but want to down size and cut my expenses and maintenance costs. I have been looking at a few LSA planes but concerned they are much lighter.
Click to expand...
Hi.
The Only reason I would suggest to anyone to get an S/LSA is if you cannot get a medical / 3rd class.
Given your background, acft you are used to, it will take a long time to get adjusted to an LSA. Must have a serious motivation factor.
The lighter part is a small issue, you can pick your days you fly in Wx..., but everything beyond that can be an issue. Many of the SLSA, CTLSis, Tecnam, Remos.. do not have any good mechanics that can fix them, parts can be difficult to get, fixed costs are about the same...
Yes, you can get an LSA that has 36 gal fly for 5 Hrs+... but realistically you are looking at 6 GPH @ 90-100 Kts.
Rotax are very noisy, 5800-5500 RPM, make sure you get an ANR headset, and most mechs that work on them are the off road type, that you have to be very careful of. Very few take flying seriously.
You can get very close to the same distance, in shorter time, in other 4 seats acft. There will be many days when you wished you had 4 seats.
 
Hi.
RyanShort1 said:
I disagree with it.
Click to expand...
Really?
Just think about it, in simple terms. What RPM do they run at? What conclusion can you come at from just that simple fact? It's not brain surgery.
 
bluesideup said:
Hi.

Really?
Just think about it, in simple terms. What RPM do they run at? What conclusion can you come at from just that simple fact? It's not brain surgery.
Click to expand...
I have 300+ hours behind a Rotax 912 doing flight training. Engine RPM isn't always what the prop is running at in a geared situation, and a lot of these have more modern, and efficient props. Coupled with a decent modern muffler, they aren't super noisy.
 
The rotaxes I've been around have been incredibly quiet, but at least they're easy to start.

Colt: no tailwheel, denied!
Ranger: no rotax (or tailwheel), denied!
 
bluesideup said:
Hi.
The Only reason I would suggest to anyone to get an S/LSA is if you cannot get a medical / 3rd class.
Given your background, acft you are used to, it will take a long time to get adjusted to an LSA. Must have a serious motivation factor.
The lighter part is a small issue, you can pick your days you fly in Wx..., but everything beyond that can be an issue. Many of the SLSA, CTLSis, Tecnam, Remos.. do not have any good mechanics that can fix them, parts can be difficult to get, fixed costs are about the same...
Yes, you can get an LSA that has 36 gal fly for 5 Hrs+... but realistically you are looking at 6 GPH @ 90-100 Kts.
Rotax are very noisy, 5800-5500 RPM, make sure you get an ANR headset, and most mechs that work on them are the off road type, that you have to be very careful of. Very few take flying seriously.
You can get very close to the same distance, in shorter time, in other 4 seats acft. There will be many days when you wished you had 4 seats.
Click to expand...
Typically I run at 5200 rpm and burn 6GPH doing 115-117 knots. I have a friend that has a turbo 206 and I guarantee that is louder than the rotax on takeoff. I like that my avionics are very modern dual panel glass and I spent much less yearly that most at the airport flying 40 yr old aircraft. But there are limitations!
 
Shepherd said:
I've flown a lot of LSA aircraft. These immediately come to mind.
Tecnam P-92, Remos, Seamax, Searey, SportCruiser, Arion LS1, J3, PA-11, PA-12, PA-17, Taylorcraft BC12D, Aeronca 7AC, Aeronca Chief, Luscombe, Ercoupe..
These are all fine airplanes.

I would buy a Tecnam. They fly well, I've done some serious crosswind work in the 92 and they are comfortable. I think all the various models have 5+ hours at 105 kts cruise.
The Seamax is my choice over the Searey. Both carry 4+ hours of fuel, at 105 kts cruise.
I like the Sport Cruiser, but it was a little pitch sensitive. Took about 30 minutes to get over it. 4+ hours at, tada. 105 kts cruise.
Remos is nice, but in a hard slip the tail stalls.4+ hours on board. Meh.
What's not to like about an Ercoupe? It's a solid airplane with or without rudder pedals. (I prefer with). My wife wants me to buy one, because they are cute. yeah.

I love me a taildragger. But all the draggers I listed come with 12-13 gallon tanks. Very limited range, very slow 85 mph cruise speed. But So Much Fun.
We've all heard the horror stories about the Luscombe. If the gear is straight, and many of them aren't, they are much tamer. I almost bought one, but my wife nixed it. No handy place to put her purse. yeah. Faster than the rest of that era.
Taylorcraft. A lovely airplane, especially with the C-85.
I owned the PA-17. 12 gallons usable, would do 100 mph flat out. Cruised at 85 mph, Maybe it was just my plane (only ever flew the one I owned) It was so loud that at full throttle you couldn't crank the radio up high enough to hear if the tower was calling you. And I didn't dare spin it like all the other Pipers.
The Aeronca Chief I flew was the easiest airplane to fly and to land of any taildragger I have ever flown. Set your approach speed, set your pitch and try to figure out if it's on the ground.

My absolute favorite of all of them is the Arion LS1. OMG.
Flies like it's on rails, fast (faster than it should be) Vne of over 180 kts. Be aware! This is a fast, slippery airplane. Slowing it down to land requires a lot of attention.

JMHO.
I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
I’m anxious to try the VL3 for this reason. 180 knots cruise with the 915 and Mosiac. With a 912 I’m not sure! The Bristell is a redesigned sportcruiser from the same designer. Just better bit and finish, price tag and more speed.
 
bluesideup said:
Just think about it, in simple terms. What RPM do they run at? What conclusion can you come at from just that simple fact? It's not brain surgery.
Click to expand...
Have you ever actually heard one? Many of us have.

Engine RPM ranges from roughly 2K to redline of 5800 RPM. In cruise we generally run 5000-5300 or so. The gearbox runs a 1:2.43 reduction, so that equates to a prop RPM of roughly 825 to 2400, or about 2000-2200 in cruise flight. The engine itself is really fairly quiet, as anyone who has heard one take off or fly overhead can attest. They sound different than a typical LyCon for sure. Certainly not louder though.
 
GeorgeC said:
The rotaxes I've been around have been incredibly quiet, but at least they're easy to start.

Colt: no tailwheel, denied!
Ranger: no rotax (or tailwheel), denied!
Click to expand...
I'm a tailwheel guy, but there are people out there who would be better off with a training wheel.

There, I said it.
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
I'm a tailwheel guy, but there are people out there who would be better off with a training wheel.
Click to expand...
It is a wheel that you end up using for a very short time since you are flying a plane… so in the end what difference does it make once you up in the air ?
 
bluesideup said:
Hi.

Really?
Just think about it, in simple terms. What RPM do they run at? What conclusion can you come at from just that simple fact? It's not brain surgery.
Click to expand...
Local flight school here has a few 172's and a Rotax powered Aerotrek. While the Rotax Aerotrek is a "unique" sound it's definitely lower decibels flying over than the Cessnas (not complaining about airplane noise at all of course, just an observation)

Likewise, in flying anything with a Rotax it was no more noisy than any C/P I've ever flown and in some cases (Remos) noticably quieter inside.
 
Hi everyone.
OK, since you got me started. A few more reasons why these AKA acft. are not real airplanes.
In most you are flying with the engines in your lap.
Someone mentioned 2000 to 5800 RPM, actually is more like 1400-5800, I would like to see you fly it at 2000RPM.
Th Prop is Not the main reason for the noise, the engine is.
I have flown all that I am talking about for longer than 5 hrs /day and I would rather be in a 172, 182, SR22.. for those hrs. with my passive headset. I would not be in any Rotax for more than 2 with one.
Do Not attempt to fly them in Any type of moisture, and I am not talking rain, or they will pee on you.
Make sure you have plenty of tape around to seal the gaps.
Do not taxi them in a 70F or above with some wind behind you, or if not careful you can easily blow your the engine up...
Keep going and I will give you more reality checks.
 
bluesideup said:
Hi everyone.
OK, since you got me started. A few more reasons why these AKA acft. are not real airplanes.
In most you are flying with the engines in your lap.
Someone mentioned 2000 to 5800 RPM, actually is more like 1400-5800, I would like to see you fly it at 2000RPM.
Th Prop is Not the main reason for the noise, the engine is.
I have flown all that I am talking about for longer than 5 hrs /day and I would rather be in a 172, 182, SR22.. for those hrs. with my passive headset. I would not be in any Rotax for more than 2 with one.
Do Not attempt to fly them in Any type of moisture, and I am not talking rain, or they will pee on you.
Make sure you have plenty of tape around to seal the gaps.
Do not taxi them in a 70F or above with some wind behind you, or if not careful you can easily blow your the engine up...
Keep going and I will give you more reality checks.
Click to expand...
You’re hiding behind a screen name - I’m using my real name and my actual flight training website with a personally owned Luscombe, 500ish hours of Cub training, and over 300 hours training people to fly light sport aircraft. Your take is over-the top derogatory towards LSAs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top