Cessna 120A

Note that that report is from 2008... hopefully the new proposed MOSAIC rulemaking will improve things.

Did anybody really believe the weight limit is actually about safety? It benefits the manufacturers of new LSA aircraft, since their $100K+ LSAs are competing with $15K Cessna 150s (and 120s, and 140s, etc...). Follow the money...
 
Dana said:
Note that that report is from 2008... hopefully the new proposed MOSAIC rulemaking will improve things.

Did anybody really believe the weight limit is actually about safety? It benefits the manufacturers of new LSA aircraft, since their $100K+ LSAs are competing with $15K Cessna 150s (and 120s, and 140s, etc...). Follow the money...
Click to expand...

With all due respect.......
Old Cessnas are not competing with new LSA.
Trying to compare a new top of the line LSA $150,000 aircraft with an old post WW2 Cessna is not a valid comparison. If you want a valid comparison compare the $150,000 new LSA to a new Cessna 172 that are selling at 3 times that, $450,000 is what they are being delivered at NEW with avionics and lights. This would be a valid comparison.

Comparing A new Tesla with a 50 year old beat up truck, etc. Not valid.

This is a common misunderstanding at looking at LSA. The oldest LSA are no more than 15 years old now. If you look you will see reasonable LSA for sale simply based on their condition.

Be better to compare apples to apples.

When the new MOSAIC comes out to include the 172, I bet the $150,000 LSA able to carry a reasonable payload at 1/3 the initial cost and half as much to operate will look like a bargain verses a new 172.

Note that the weight limit was not about safety, it was some arbitrary number the FAA pulled out of their (xxxxx insert your own word) to get LSA started. 15 years later this will be updated with MOSAIC to be more (xxxxxxxx insert your own word here).
 
Last edited:
Paul Hamilton CFI said:
f you want a valid comparison compare the $150,000 new LSA to a new Cessna 172 that are selling at 3 times that, $450,000 is what they are being delivered at NEW with avionics and lights. This would be a valid comparison.
Click to expand...
With all due respect... that is not a valid comparison either. Once you require that LSA to be certified at the FAA/EASA/ICAO levels, the price would be closer to the new 172. You can't compare an industry consensus standard to a International certification standard either. FAA Primary Non-Commercial, TCCA Owner-Maintained and the MOSAIC effort were/are simply workarounds to breath life into private GA. Unfortunately, that part of the industry has been declining and it has less to do with the cost of aircraft than it has to do with an individual's desire to engage in that side of the industry. Just look at the drone numbers.;)
 
Bell206 said:
FAA Primary Non-Commercial, TCCA Owner-Maintained and the MOSAIC effort were/are simply workarounds to breath life into private GA. Unfortunately, that part of the industry has been declining and it has less to do with the cost of aircraft than it has to do with an individual's desire to engage in that side of the industry.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This is true.

However, the aircraft buyer is simply looking at the new costs. I know many who are looking at a new $150,000 LSA and not one who is looking at a new $450,000 Cessna 172. Yes some are considering an old beat up Cessna but after looking most want a modern LSA. As great as it may appear, the highly regulated FAA certification simply drives up the cost and does not really provide any additional benefit to an aircraft. Ten years from now we will see if the Cessnas, Pipers, etc. join in to the LSA consensus standards to lower the costs of their airplanes or keep pricing themselves out of the market for NEW aircraft sales.
 
Cessna discontinued the 120 when the 140A began production for the 1949 model year.

There is no such thing as a 120A, so this is a 140A with no side windows or electrical system. As stated in the article, he built it from scratch, so it is a unicorn for sure...
 
Original weight limit at the time LSA was proposed at 1232 pounds, so there was initially no intention to make any current production aircraft Sport Pilot eligible. This was the logic used to extend the limit to 1320 pounds:

"The FAA agrees that there may be a safety benefit to light-sport aircraft designs to include provisions for currently produced type-certificated four-stroke engines and ballistic parachute recovery systems. Commenters submitted data that indicated that an additional 60 to 70 pounds would accommodate four-stroke aviation powerplants, and that an additional 30 to 40 pounds would accommodate the ballistic parachute recovery systems. For these reasons, the FAA has revised its proposed maximum takeoff weight limitation to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft designed for operation on land. "

(RIN 2120–AH19, "Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft", 16 July 2004)

Ron Wanttaja
 
The original 1232 weight was when the FAA thought LSA were going to look like a two place ultralight with fabric wings, wire bracing and two stroke engines. The industry had a different idea and here we are.
 
The original weight limit was 1,200 pounds. It came from the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee set up by the FAA, which was chaired by the USUA (US Ultralight Association). The FAA originally raised it to 1,232 to match some of the European standards.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Paul Hamilton CFI said:
However, the aircraft buyer is simply looking at the new costs. I know many who are looking at a new $150,000 LSA
Click to expand...
And how many have bought one at $150,000? The LSA category was to light the private GA world on fire 15 years ago but was more a flash in the pan. But if it is only price why are there not more LSAs at a price point were the market will flourish?
Paul Hamilton CFI said:
As great as it may appear, the highly regulated FAA certification simply drives up the cost and does not really provide any additional benefit to an aircraft.
Click to expand...
Not 100% accurate. The one part of the equation never mentioned along with the cost/benefit argument is that the certification process is a requirement of a number of international and bi-lateral aviation agreements the US is a signatory of starting with the Chicago Convention. If the US relaxed their certification standards below those of any agreement requirement then any aircraft certified in the US at those relaxed standards could only be used in the US or have to go through another certification in country where you wish to sell it. Just ask any TCCA Owner-Maintained category aircraft owner of the restrictions on their aircraft. So there’s a bit more to the story on that topic than just cost/benefit.
Paul Hamilton CFI said:
Ten years from now we will see if the Cessnas, Pipers, etc. join in to the LSA consensus standards to lower the costs of their airplanes or keep pricing themselves out of the market for NEW aircraft sales.
Click to expand...
Why wait 10 years? Four years ago the FAA finished the rewrite of Part 23 and replaced 60%+ of the regulations with consensus standards all designed to reduce costs to the industry. So why isn’t there a rush to get out a new design Cessna or Piper or a certified Vans or Glasair? Demand? Market? What? Seems like it is the perfect storm to make GA great again. No?

In my opinion, the only thing that might give private GA a chance for growth in the foreseeable future is a reasonable cap on tort damages for privately operated GA small aircraft beyond the limits of the GARA. But with over 50% of congress current/former attorneys I doubt that will ever happen. However, I think the GA train left the station in the 90s with the advent of the digital world. And with the major money being pumped into the drone industry by UPS, Google, Amazon, etc. private GA is sliding down that slope toward Class G space ops or the dreaded fee based NAS usage system. I hope I’m wrong, but time will tell.
 
asicer said:
558.8kg?
Click to expand...
The FAA rounds it off to 560 kg.

"The FAA is increasing the weight limitation of the light-sport aircraft from the proposed 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms). "

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
The FAA rounds it off to 560 kg.

"The FAA is increasing the weight limitation of the light-sport aircraft from the proposed 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms). "
Click to expand...
That's some strange rounding. 560kg = 1234.59lbs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top