LSAs as cross country airplanes

jmaynard

jmaynard

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,487
Location
Fairmont, Minnesota
Display Name
Display name:
Jay Maynard
I just submitted this letter to AVweb's editor:

Aviation Consumer and AOPA Pilot both seem to be answering some amount of belief that an LSA can't be a cross-country airplane. I don't understand what's the big deal, myself.

Planning a long VFR cross-country trip is the same whether the aircraft is a Cub or a Cirrus. You have to fit fuel, pilot, passenger, and other payload into the aircraft's capabilities, and you have to plan around weather and be flexible in diverting if things go to pot.

I flew my AMD Zodiac XLi home from the factory in Georgia to southern Minnesota. I didn't go straight home, either. I visited friends in North Carolina, Arkansas, and Texas along the way. The total trip was over 2000 miles, and took nine days in all, with 25.0 hours flight time enroute and an average fuel burn of 5.8 GPH. Overall, there wouldn't have been anything done differently if I'd been flying a 172, aside from having to spend more money on fuel for the same airspeed.

LSAs are quite capable aircraft. Sure, a Cub qualifies as one, but an LSA doesn't have to be at that level of capability, and it would do pilots well to stop thinking of them that way.
 
I think the reasoning is quite simple. This is why I bought a 172RG instead of the FlightDesgin CT I fell in love with.

Speed of travel, payload, cost. An LSA is really a 1 person possible 2 with little luggage vehicle. Because of size and rules it is slow and even sacrificing fuel does not buy a lot of payload. Plus it is less capable in the kind of variable weather you are likely to encounter on a long trip.

As an analogy take a family of four on a cross country road trip and you have your choice of these three auto's VW Beetle, Chevy Malibu, Lincoln Town Car. THey can all take four people and luggage at freeway speeds with about six hours of fuel. But is the VW really a cross country car?

Of course an LSA can be used Cross country.
 
This is silly. An LSA can do everything any VFR aircraft can do, just slower. A Cessna 150 isn't much more than an LSA, and I flew mine everywhere, and it was probably slower than Jay's Zodiak. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if my Cherokee was slower than Jay's Zodiak. Yeah, you won't take much luggage with two people, but I couldn't in my 150 either. They're airplanes, and they'll do what we want them to do.
 
People take motorcycles on cross-country trips. What's the problem?
 
RMCN172RG said:
I think the reasoning is quite simple. This is why I bought a 172RG instead of the FlightDesgin CT I fell in love with.

Speed of travel, payload, cost. An LSA is really a 1 person possible 2 with little luggage vehicle. Because of size and rules it is slow and even sacrificing fuel does not buy a lot of payload. Plus it is less capable in the kind of variable weather you are likely to encounter on a long trip.

As an analogy take a family of four on a cross country road trip and you have your choice of these three auto's VW Beetle, Chevy Malibu, Lincoln Town Car. THey can all take four people and luggage at freeway speeds with about six hours of fuel. But is the VW really a cross country car?

Of course an LSA can be used Cross country.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I prefer the 757 to the less capable 172rg. You just can't get the speed, payload, or all weather capability out of a 172 that's really needed for a comfortable cross country.:rolleyes:

Come on, If you're going to compare capabilities, at least make it apples to apples and not apples to washing machines. There are plenty of LSAs that will carry two people, reasonable luggage, and have a 110+ KTAS cruise speed. I've done Atlanta to Oshkosh in several different LSAs as well as a Cherokee Six. Got there in the same length of time with the same number of stops with max occupants in each plane. Had a lot more fun in the LSAs.

To expand on your analogy, If my wife and I were taking a weekend trip and I had a choice between a Prosche Speedster, a Chevy Malibu, and the Lincoln Towncar, I'd take the Speedster in a heart beat. It's just as practical for the two of us and you'd have a lot more fun doing it!!
 
On longer trips, you're more likely to want longer range, more seats, and more load. Yes, you can travel long distances in a plane with short range, 2 seats, and very little luggage, but we seem to be offering "possible" in response to an expectation of "suitable".
-harry
 
mantakos said:
On longer trips, you're more likely to want longer range, more seats, and more load. Yes, you can travel long distances in a plane with short range, 2 seats, and very little luggage, but we seem to be offering "possible" in response to an expectation of "suitable".
-harry
Click to expand...

Define "suitable". That's a pretty subjective term unless the parameters are defined.
 
We can argue all day long about which airplane is best for XC flying, but it all boils down to one thing "the mission". If I want to take the wife on a weekend trip I can take her and an overnight bag and jump in a LSA and go. If I want to fly the family to Disneyland for a week, I am going to need a C-182, Bonanza, etc. I know of one person on this board who did a 3000+ mile low and slow trip and had the time of her life. I have done several long XC's in a 150, was it comfy as a Bonanaza, NO, but I had a great time doing it and it accomlished my mission.
 
My experience is that most of us, even if we have a Bonanza, could do 90% of what we do with the Bonanza with a LSA. If you really have a long trip, you can take the airlines. Most business trips that I do are 1 person, sometimes two, with minimal baggage, up to 200 to 300 miles. An LSA can do that too.
 
Define "suitable". That's a pretty subjective term unless the parameters are defined.
Click to expand...
Well, the parameters are range, speed, seats, load, and high DA performance. The required values of those parameters are to be defined by the pilot and passengers, so we're talking about "typical" values here.

You can fly cross-country with your low-weight friend, low and slow, making short hops between fuel stops, avoiding high density altitudes, and packing super-light, but that's not how most of us prefer to travel. I flew across the US in a 182RG, this is what the cabin looked like:

060503_36_SD450.jpg


I typically flew 500-600nm legs. I had about 50lbs of charts.

Could I have flown this trip in an LSA? Absolutely! Would it have been fun and challenging? Certainly! If somebody offered me free gas, $11 in cash, and some bits of string to make such a trip, would I do it? Yes.

But given the availability of other options, is that how I would choose to make such a trip? I don't think so.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Well, the parameters are range, speed, seats, load, and high DA performance. The required values of those parameters are to be defined by the pilot and passengers, so we're talking about "typical" values here.
Click to expand...

I would add night capable as a minimum, which LSA's do not need to be, for VFR cross country.
 
It's all about your mission. I plan 3-hour legs at most, just because I need to get out and stretch my legs that often. If I'm solo, I can carry enough stuff to hold me a week, easily. Me and my roommate can go for a weekend.

Low and slow? Well, if you consider 8500-9500 MSL at 115 KTAS low and slow, I guess it qualifies. Short hops? 350 nm isn't that short, and two hops will cover a significant chunk of the US. High density altitudes? A Texas cross-country at the height of summer ain't exactly low. Night capable? Most LSAs are equipped for night VFR, even though their pilots (if operating under the sport pilot rule) aren't. It's just too cheap not to offer the capability.

If your mission will fit into the LSA's load capabilities, you'll do just as well in one as you would in a 172 or Warrior, and burn 3-4 GPH less doing it.
 
Oh, and just to note: With two exceptions, California and Louisiana, I visited every state on the picture in my signature in my Zodiac.
 
jmaynard said:
If your mission will fit into the LSA's load capabilities, you'll do just as well in one as you would in a 172 or Warrior, and burn 3-4 GPH less doing it.
Click to expand...

And for less than you save in fuel you can ship your luggage via FedEx to your destination and ship home dirty clothes the same way.
 
mantakos said:
I flew across the US in a 182RG, this is what the cabin looked like:

060503_36_SD450.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow! Thank you for making me look like I pack light. :rofl:

I typically flew 500-600nm legs. I had about 50lbs of charts.
Click to expand...

I didn't weigh them, but I did have two plastic shopping bags worth of charts for my big trip last summer, and they cost over $200! (Sectionals, low enroutes, IAP's, A/FD's.)

But given the availability of other options, is that how I would choose to make such a trip? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Right, but that's very different from "can't." I think Jay is right that LSA's are much more capable than many pilots and media outlets give them credit for.

Ironically, if the weather was going to be VFR and I had the time to spare, I'd rather take some LSA's than something like a Bonanza - Because of the LSA speed restrictions, they don't care quite as much about drag, and so many of them have bigger, wider, more comfortable cabins than their "cross-country" cousins. :yes:
 
maddog52 said:
Define "suitable". That's a pretty subjective term unless the parameters are defined.
Click to expand...

I suspect that Jay's Zodiac is faster and will carry more than the Cessna 120 my brother and I took from Detroit to Fairbanks (and back).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ironically, if the weather was going to be VFR and I had the time to spare, I'd rather take some LSA's than something like a Bonanza - Because of the LSA speed restrictions, they don't care quite as much about drag, and so many of them have bigger, wider, more comfortable cabins than their "cross-country" cousins. :yes:
Click to expand...
The Zodiac's cabin has 44 inches of shoulder room. It definitely feels wider than a Cherokee or 172; I dunno about the Bonanza, but I'd be surprised if it was as much as 6 inches wider.
 
mantakos said:
Well, the parameters are range, speed, seats, load, and high DA performance. The required values of those parameters are to be defined by the pilot and passengers, so we're talking about "typical" values here.

You can fly cross-country with your low-weight friend, low and slow, making short hops between fuel stops, avoiding high density altitudes, and packing super-light, but that's not how most of us prefer to travel. I flew across the US in a 182RG, this is what the cabin looked like:

060503_36_SD450.jpg


I typically flew 500-600nm legs. I had about 50lbs of charts.

Could I have flown this trip in an LSA? Absolutely! Would it have been fun and challenging? Certainly! If somebody offered me free gas, $11 in cash, and some bits of string to make such a trip, would I do it? Yes.

But given the availability of other options, is that how I would choose to make such a trip? I don't think so.
-harry
Click to expand...

\\Curious as to how many other people were in the plane with you. If I went by my self like it appears you did, I could fly 600+ nm legs, up to 13,500 MSL, at night, at 115 ktas, carry 160 lbs of cargo, get in and out of 1000' foot runways, burn 5 gph, and be in a much more comfortable seat than any 172.

And once again, setting parameters that fall outside the LSA limits doesn't further the argument that LSAs can't be excellent cross country aircraft. And given "the availability of other options", somedays I would prefer to make the trip in a G-IV, but that doesn't mean that an LSA (or a 182RG)isn't a capable cross country machine.

While I understand that You would prefer to pack heavy and fly the 182, saying that MOST would PREFER to travel that way is pretty bold statement. You may be right, but I don't see it as being true among the population of pilots that have actually flown some of the nicer LSAs. And it's definitely impossible for the hundreds of pilots that choose to fly as Sport Pilots.
 
jmaynard said:
The Zodiac's cabin has 44 inches of shoulder room. It definitely feels wider than a Cherokee or 172; I dunno about the Bonanza, but I'd be surprised if it was as much as 6 inches wider.
Click to expand...

Then you won't be surprised.

Call me wack, I think the Zodiac looks like a fine traveling machine.
 
\\Curious as to how many other people were in the plane with you. If I went by my self like it appears you did, I could fly 600+ nm legs, up to 13,500 MSL, at night, at 115 ktas, carry 160 lbs of cargo...
Click to expand...
I had an LSA-sized passenger with me for half of the trip, so in your example, that would limit us to 30 lbs of cargo, which wouldn't be enough to carry my charts.
... saying that MOST would PREFER to travel that way is pretty bold statement...
Click to expand...
I think it's safe to say that most pilots travel cross-country with at least one passenger, and when doing so, would like their available load to exceed the weight of their charts.

I understand that you guys value these aircraft, and believe that they're commonly underestimated in their capabilities, and you'd probably be right about that, but it's not really controversial to say that when people travel, they like to bring stuff with them, and this stuff might need to include a spouse. And when pilots travel long distances, potentially over sparsely inhabited territory, they like to pack survival gear.

I know that when we're all driving the Alaska Highway together, the guys on small motorcycles scoff at the guys on big motorcycles who scoff at the car drivers who scoff at the SUV'ers who scoff at the RV drivers, each convinced that the other is packing "too heavy", and missing out on all the fun. But while there's clearly a certain appeal to stuffing a spare pair of boxer shorts in your pocket and hopping aboard your bike, that's not where the fat part of the bell curve is in terms of typical preferences.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
I think it's safe to say that most pilots travel cross-country with at least one passenger, and when doing so, would like their available load to exceed the weight of their charts.
Click to expand...
True. When my roommate and I do that, we have enough load left to carry a weekend's worth of stuff - and that's not just a pair of boxer shorts each. Just ask the folks who saw us load up at 6Y9 this year.
 
jmaynard said:
The Zodiac's cabin has 44 inches of shoulder room. It definitely feels wider than a Cherokee or 172; I dunno about the Bonanza, but I'd be surprised if it was as much as 6 inches wider.
Click to expand...

I found two sources: One said a V35 was 42" wide (location of measurement unspecified) while the other said that an unspecified Bonanza model was 45.5" at the elbows. So you're right in the same zone as the Bo. :yes:
 
mantakos said:
I had an LSA-sized passenger with me for half of the trip, so in your example, that would limit us to 30 lbs of cargo, which wouldn't be enough to carry my charts.
I think it's safe to say that most pilots travel cross-country with at least one passenger, and when doing so, would like their available load to exceed the weight of their charts.

I understand that you guys value these aircraft, and believe that they're commonly underestimated in their capabilities, and you'd probably be right about that, but it's not really controversial to say that when people travel, they like to bring stuff with them, and this stuff might need to include a spouse. And when pilots travel long distances, potentially over sparsely inhabited territory, they like to pack survival gear.

I know that when we're all driving the Alaska Highway together, the guys on small motorcycles scoff at the guys on big motorcycles who scoff at the car drivers who scoff at the SUV'ers who scoff at the RV drivers, each convinced that the other is packing "too heavy", and missing out on all the fun. But while there's clearly a certain appeal to stuffing a spare pair of boxer shorts in your pocket and hopping aboard your bike, that's not where the fat part of the bell curve is in terms of typical preferences.
-harry
Click to expand...

So, I take my wife, limit my legs to 400nm and only carry 60+ pounds of luggage. That's significantly more stuff than a "pair of boxer shorts"and pretty darn practical. It also moves me pretty far into to the "fat part of the Bell Curve".

Carrying 50 lbs of charts and needing a 4 place airplane with a 1200lb useful load to carry two people and all their "survival gear" probably puts you farther away from the center of the bell curve than you realize.

LSAs sure aren't the answer for everybody, but like you said, their capabiities are greatly underestimated by a large part of the population. Jay is doing the right thing by pointing out to the press this very fact.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I found two sources: One said a V35 was 42" wide (location of measurement unspecified) while the other said that an unspecified Bonanza model was 45.5" at the elbows. So you're right in the same zone as the Bo. :yes:
Click to expand...

I did not have numbers handy but, like I said, he would not be surprised. I know you're in the zone, here.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I found two sources: One said a V35 was 42" wide (location of measurement unspecified) while the other said that an unspecified Bonanza model was 45.5" at the elbows. So you're right in the same zone as the Bo. :yes:
Click to expand...
Bonanza (33/35/36) 45.5", C-206/210 44.0"; Mooney 43.5"; PA-28 (all) 42.0"; C-172 39.5".
 
Pilawt said:
Bonanza (33/35/36) 45.5", C-206/210 44.0"; Mooney 43.5"; PA-28 (all) 42.0"; C-172 39.5".
Click to expand...

The C205 is an inch narrower than an A36, but the C205 feels bigger because there's more open space overhead (it seems).

Yet the A36 feels much more substantial, and is a more comfortable Long XC bird.

But I like an airplane that wraps around me like a glove. I was never uncomfortable in a C152 (I'm 6'1", 200).
 
dmccormack said:
The C205 is an inch narrower than an A36, but the C205 feels bigger because there's more open space overhead (it seems).
Click to expand...
Like most low-wingers, the top half of the Bonanza fuselage has a modified semi-circular cross-section, so it tapers inward toward the cabin roof. On the other hand, most high-wing cabins have constant width from elbow level all the way up through the wing root to the cabin roof.
 
Pilawt said:
Like most low-wingers, the top half of the Bonanza fuselage has a modified semi-circular cross-section, so it tapers inward toward the cabin roof. On the other hand, most high-wing cabins have constant width from elbow level all the way up through the wing root to the cabin roof.
Click to expand...


Right...

High wingers are SOO much better...

:devil:
 
Pilawt said:
... You can see through the tapering cabin wall on a low-wing airplane ... :D
Click to expand...


What cabin wall? 43 inches wide with a great view. Or 27 inches wide with THE BEST view. High wing, low wing, it just doesn't matter!:D
 

Attachments

  • 100_0899.jpg
    100_0899.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 27
  • 100_0890.jpg
    100_0890.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 30
Everskyward said:
People take motorcycles on cross-country trips. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

People take bicycles on cross continental trips. (I've seen them in you-gotta-be-kidding-me nowhere plenty of times before)

If it's not physically attached to the ground, it's a cross country vehicle. Some are just faster than others.


IMO, a Cub is a far superior XC aircraft than a G-V. You actually get to travel, as in actually see the scenery and the things you miss at FL350. You don't really travel unless you see the real world between point A and point B.
 
Last edited:
fgcason said:
IMO, a Cub is a far superior XC aircraft than a G-V. You actually get to travel, as in actually see the scenery and the things you miss at FL350. You don't really travel unless you see the real world between point A and point B.
Click to expand...

You know, I'm coming around to that view....
 
fgcason said:
IMO, a Cub is a far superior XC aircraft than a G-V. You actually get to travel, as in actually see the scenery and the things you miss at FL350. You don't really travel unless you see the real world between point A and point B.
Click to expand...

I'll second that opinion. And it is even more fun when it isn't a straight line from point A to point B.

Barb
 

Attachments

  • Canyonlands.jpg
    Canyonlands.jpg
    477 KB · Views: 38
One Short said:
I'll second that opinion. And it is even more fun when it isn't a straight line from point A to point B.

Barb
Click to expand...

I flew back and forth to work yesterday (usually 47 mile, 1 hour commute one way). At 80% at 4500 it should take 18 minutes.

I stretched there and back to an hour and 20.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top