Most Reliable/Longlived/Proven LSA Airplane?

C

Catfish47

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 23, 2021
Messages
44
Display Name
Display name:
Catfish47
Hello all,
I'm new here, though I've lurked around for quite some time. I have my PPL, but for reasons I won't go into, I forsee the possibility that I will have to go to flying under Sport Pilot rules due to medical factors.

If it comes down to it, I'll have to trade for or purchase an LSA Airplane, and I'm looking around at options. Right now I'm looking for whatever is the "Cessna 172" of the LSA world, and I don't just mean regarding flight characteristics. When I think of the 172 I think of the most proven, reliable, longest-lasting single engine piston airplanes that exist with a golden track record. What is the analog in the LSA world? I've been researching this quite a while but there are so many options out there, way more than I thought. Scores of them are touted as being the best thing since sliced bread. The ones that have caught my eye are the Cubcrafters LSA Cub, an actual Piper Cub, Cessna 162 (though I'm hesitant on that one mostly because it's made in China and is well out of production), and Kitfox, but I'm a newb when it comes to LSA airplanes.

I'm not necessarily looking for the fastest or highest performance LSA, but the most "solid" one with the most proven track record. Any insights would be appreciated, and thanks for having me!
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
Catfish47 said:
Any insights would be appreciated,
Click to expand...
FWIW: I recently helped an individual with a similar quest but from the maintenance side of things. One way to cull your list is to decide whether you want to perform your own maintenance/condition inspections which will remove all the TC'd aircraft from your list of options.
 
Catfish47 said:
Hello all,
I'm new here, though I've lurked around for quite some time. I have my PPL, but for reasons I won't go into, I forsee the possibility that I will have to go to flying under Sport Pilot rules due to medical factors.

If it comes down to it, I'll have to trade for or purchase an LSA Airplane, and I'm looking around at options. Right now I'm looking for whatever is the "Cessna 172" of the LSA world, and I don't just mean regarding flight characteristics. When I think of the 172 I think of the most proven, reliable, longest-lasting single engine piston airplanes that exist with a golden track record. What is the analog in the LSA world? I've been researching this quite a while but there are so many options out there, way more than I thought. Scores of them are touted as being the best thing since sliced bread. The ones that have caught my eye are the Cubcrafters LSA Cub, an actual Piper Cub, Cessna 162 (though I'm hesitant on that one mostly because it's made in China and is well out of production), and Kitfox, but I'm a newb when it comes to LSA airplanes.

I'm not necessarily looking for the fastest or highest performance LSA, but the most "solid" one with the most proven track record. Any insights would be appreciated, and thanks for having me!
Click to expand...
Are you ruling out the proven classics like Cubs and Champs?
 
Bell206 said:
FWIW: I recently helped an individual with a similar quest but from the maintenance side of things. One way to cull your list is to decide whether you want to perform your own maintenance/condition inspections which will remove all the TC'd aircraft from your list of options.
Click to expand...
I'm used to having to get a certified A&P to do all of that in the PPL world I'm currently in, it does not at all rule out anything from the LSA side.

RyanShort1 said:
Are you ruling out the proven classics like Cubs and Champs?
Click to expand...

Albany Tom said:
Most proven track record for a light sport aircraft? Not a trick question? Pick between J3 cub, Champ or Taylorcraft.
Click to expand...

I'm not ruling those out. While those are on the table, I've had some bad experiences buying old aircraft, but if that's the route to the most reliable and proven LSAs available, I'm certainly interested.

I guess there are two categories of options I'm considering: New Production, and Used. It's possible I sell or trade to a new aircraft, but used isn't off the table either. I'm considering all options. Thanks for the help so far.
 
Albany Tom said:
Most proven track record for a light sport aircraft? Not a trick question? Pick between J3 cub, Champ or Taylorcraft.
Click to expand...
Or maybe a Luscombe. Cub knockoffs, Kitfox knockoffs, maybe some Rans would have pretty long track records. Of course, you can get an aircraft type with high reliability and still get a lemon.
 
An aircraft that was built 80 years ago and is still popular today - and that's all of those - is popular because the basic design is solid. They all have quirks, but they're well documented and understood. I can't speak for the other two, but the cub is mostly steel tubing, fabric, and an engine. Pretty simple for a qualified mechanic to check out one and make sure there isn't any hidden damage.

But there are a lot of newer light sports that have a good track record, too. I can't speak to any of them directly.

One caution I'd have is anything kit built that is composite. Fiberglass/kevlar/carbon fiber CAN all be done in a home shop safely, but if you can't qualify the procedures they used, I don't think there's any way to verify how well it was done. Composites, last I knew, were incredibly difficult to inspect for build quality. Something factory produced would seem like much lower risk.

If I added a second caution it would be experimental engines. Maybe fine, but you have to do your homework to make sure everything was done and maintained right.
 
For a two seater, the vashon ranger looks interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Albany Tom said:
An aircraft that was built 80 years ago and is still popular today - and that's all of those - is popular because the basic design is solid. They all have quirks, but they're well documented and understood. I can't speak for the other two, but the cub is mostly steel tubing, fabric, and an engine. Pretty simple for a qualified mechanic to check out one and make sure there isn't any hidden damage.

But there are a lot of newer light sports that have a good track record, too. I can't speak to any of them directly.

One caution I'd have is anything kit built that is composite. Fiberglass/kevlar/carbon fiber CAN all be done in a home shop safely, but if you can't qualify the procedures they used, I don't think there's any way to verify how well it was done. Composites, last I knew, were incredibly difficult to inspect for build quality. Something factory produced would seem like much lower risk.

If I added a second caution it would be experimental engines. Maybe fine, but you have to do your homework to make sure everything was done and maintained right.
Click to expand...
I definitely want to stay away from anything other than factory-built. I've gotten to look at a good bit of various kitbuilds (not talking about kits that were built by the factory) that have scared me away from ever buying someone else's project. I've also been screwed enough with used automobiles that I'm hesitant to buy anything used, but I know planes are a different story.
RyanShort1 said:
Or maybe a Luscombe. Cub knockoffs, Kitfox knockoffs, maybe some Rans would have pretty long track records. Of course, you can get an aircraft type with high reliability and still get a lemon.
Click to expand...
Seems like a lot of decent options.
-Cub/Cubcrafters/Cub knockoffs
-Kitfox
-Rans
-Luscombe
-Taylorcraft
-Champ

The Technam P92 is certainly younger than designs such as the Taylorcraft or Cub, but it's about the only LSA besides a single Kitfox that I've been able to look at up close and refuel. It's small, but anyone have any input on that? What I'm looking for doesn't necessarily have to be a design from no later than the Post-WWII era, simply ones that have been tried and tested and produced in large numbers.

When one walks up to a flight school for PPL, the majority of the time a 172 is sitting there. Is there an equivalent in the LSA world? And thanks for all the options so far, I'm looking into these planes. Certainly a lot of options!
 
No kidding, the equivalent to a 172 in light sport is an original J-3. There aren't as many flight schools that fly them as 172's, but they are around. But that said, it doesn't mean that all of those other options aren't equally valid and good choices. (From wiki, there have been about 40k 172's made, 30k pa-28's, 20k cubs, 10k champs. I don't think any of the newer lsa's come close to those numbers.)
 
There are certainly a lot of very nice Van's aircraft for sale. I understand your trepidation about experimentals but getting someone to do an inspection on one that knows about building aircraft is a key. Some builders can assemble an aircraft kit that rivals factory builds. Many of the Van's aircraft have Lycoming engines. The LSA version (RV-12 ) uses a Rotax 912 engine which has proven itself to be very reliable.

I've been flying an experimental aircraft that I built for nearly ten years. Before this plane I bought a kit that was mostly completed. The builder did a first rate job on it but I still spent months going over it and finishing it before the first flight.

What you get depends on your budget. You can buy a used certified plane and really get hosed in the deal. I've seen a lot of certified stuff that I wouldn't fly in. You might be surprised at some of the maintenance that gets pencil whipped on some of the more "reliable" aircraft.

I won't suggest that experimental aircraft are as safe as certified but I will say that in the experimental world you can get much more aircraft and performance per dollar than the certified world.

My direct answer to your question would be a Tecnam P92 Mk II as seen here:

https://www.tecnam.com/aircraft/p92-echo-mkii/

A local flight school has one and many pilots have fallen in love with the way it handles.

Dunno if this helps ...
 
Last edited:
Albany Tom said:
No kidding, the equivalent to a 172 in light sport is an original J-3. There aren't as many flight schools that fly them as 172's, but they are around. But that said, it doesn't mean that all of those other options aren't equally valid and good choices. (From wiki, there have been about 40k 172's made, 30k pa-28's, 20k cubs, 10k champs. I don't think any of the newer lsa's come close to those numbers.)
Click to expand...
Yeah, this. I suspect there are a LOT more Cubs flying in flight training circles than any of the other classics. That does NOT mean they are the safest, necessarily, reference the recent J-3 crash that killed the young woman CFI posted here recently, but given a set of shoulder harnesses and some of the newer upgrades, you'd be hard to go wrong with a Cub. That also means, like 172s, they tend to be viewed as worth more... so a Cub equivalent to an equally capable and equipped Luscombe or Taylorcraft (and they are faster - better for X/C) will likely cost at least 50% more.
 
How do the original cubs compare to something like a Cubcrafter Carbon Cub SS? I'm not too familiar with carbon planes.

The Technam P92 Super Echo seems like a practical choice although there's something alluring about the cub or cub-like taildraggers...
 
Catfish47 said:
How do the original cubs compare to something like a Cubcrafter Carbon Cub SS? I'm not too familiar with carbon planes.

The Technam P92 Super Echo seems like a practical choice although there's something alluring about the cub or cub-like taildraggers...
Click to expand...
There's a super wide variety in the Cub world. Old low-hp basic planes, souped-up STOLs, and almost anything in between. Call up Legend in Sulpher Springs would be my suggestion. I've been flying with a client in an older Super Cub they restored not that long ago and it's nice. They work on old 65hp originals, Super Cubs, and modern new builds, so they'd likely have a pretty good perspective.
The Carbon birds are nice, and they definitely perform well, but I know a few folks that had issues with parts that seemed excessively flimsy in the interest of saving weight. The Legend Cub builds seem to be a bit sturdier.
 
Catfish47 said:
Hello all,
I'm new here, though I've lurked around for quite some time. I have my PPL, but for reasons I won't go into, I forsee the possibility that I will have to go to flying under Sport Pilot rules due to medical factors.

If it comes down to it, I'll have to trade for or purchase an LSA Airplane, and I'm looking around at options. Right now I'm looking for whatever is the "Cessna 172" of the LSA world, and I don't just mean regarding flight characteristics. When I think of the 172 I think of the most proven, reliable, longest-lasting single engine piston airplanes that exist with a golden track record. What is the analog in the LSA world? I've been researching this quite a while but there are so many options out there, way more than I thought. Scores of them are touted as being the best thing since sliced bread. The ones that have caught my eye are the Cubcrafters LSA Cub, an actual Piper Cub, Cessna 162 (though I'm hesitant on that one mostly because it's made in China and is well out of production), and Kitfox, but I'm a newb when it comes to LSA airplanes.

I'm not necessarily looking for the fastest or highest performance LSA, but the most "solid" one with the most proven track record. Any insights would be appreciated, and thanks for having me!
Click to expand...
Depends on what you are looking for, mission wise. I break it down into two categories, some can fit in both. As far as “Play in the grass” airplanes go, there are plenty of them, and they tend to be inexpensive.

My mission was a “Travelling” Light Sport, something that could easily do two-hour missions for two people. In the Midwest, that two hours will put you just about anywhere inside a 250 mile circle of home. Mostly lunch/dinner runs, and big-city weekend trips under 250 miles.

My own rankings, from my own search. (Note: For me this was a huge purchase, and I tend to WAYYyyyy overthink big purchases.)

1) Bristell - Best all-around and by far the cream of the crop in everything from quality to support. But Pricey. Really pricey…

2) Sportcruiser/Pipersport - I ended up buying one, best all around airplane value for the money, IMHO, but not a play in the grass bird. Very wide cabin makes all of the difference. Canopy can be a sauna but they have recently come up with a couple of fixes for that (thank God). Czech-based Support can be dicey for a lot of reasons, but when it’s good, they really deliver. And she just oozes sexy on a ramp next to 172’s and clapped-out 159’s. Same aircraft designer as the Bristell, the SC is the earlier version.

3) RV-12 - Can run from bare bones to outta-this-world depending on who built it. So will the price… Build quality can vary wildly, though, be careful of it, and get any potential buy inspected THOUROUGHLY.

4) Paradise/Texas Colt - sturdy, built like a tank, can do almost all terrains, and cheap to keep. Basically a 152 clone. The Texas Colt is the US reincarnation of it. Popular south of the Border and in Africa, never really broke through in the U.S., but the are almost 500 of them flying. Cabin slightly wider than a 152. My choice came down to the Paradise or the cruiser, I went with the much better equipped Cruiser for slightly more money.

Cessna 162 - An airplane of compromises, for well published reasons. Weight became an issue due to the engine choice, which was all company politics. Still, it is a nice airplane to fly, and handles almost exactly like a 150, only 15 knots faster. Cessna doesn’t want to support it anymore, but will if you write big enough checks. Most parts are readily available. Inexpensive ( In Aeronautical Money Units) to buy, but more expensive to keep, IMO.

Jabiru J230 - I would have ranked this 2nd to the Bristell, if it weren’t for those pesky engine issues. Lots of room, and the fastest of the bunch, derated in the US to meet the LSA requirements. All composite airframe. The latest series Jabiru engines seem to have solved those issues, but newer Jab’s were out of my price range.

CTLS - I know people that have them and love them, but I didn’t. Cabin felt way too cramped for me, and the long wing version I flew seemed to pick up even the slightest thermal.

Edit: Forgot the Tecnam, I have some time in both the P92 and the P2008. P92 felt cramped to me, but flew just fine, though not very fast. 2008 was a dream, but pricey. Would love to have one of the used prices ever come down.

You know what they say about opinions, so these are mine. Decide what you need for the missions you intend to fly, and get what works for you.
 
Last edited:
The Pipistrels also should be added to the list. A guy I know over in Europe has been using his "Green Observer" for commercial aerial photography for years now and seems quite happy with it. They seem to be well built.

https://www.green-observer.com/
 
Daleandee said:
We agree on that! :D


.. although mine isn't really too Cub like ...
Click to expand...

Well, it has all the wheels in the right places, it looks cool, and it looks tricky to get in and out of. So in those ways it's cub like. :)
 
Catfish47 said:
I'm used to having to get a certified A&P to do all of that in the PPL world I'm currently in, it does not at all rule out anything from the LSA side.

The biggest issue for LSA maintenance seems to be IA’s not familiar with Rotax. That has changed a bit in many places, with them becoming more common. Most mechanics, if they don’t know a Rotax themselves, at least know someone to call that does, these days.



I'm not ruling those out. While those are on the table, I've had some bad experiences buying old aircraft, but if that's the route to the most reliable and proven LSAs available, I'm certainly interested.

I guess there are two categories of options I'm considering: New Production, and Used. It's possible I sell or trade to a new aircraft, but used isn't off the table either. I'm considering all options. Thanks for the help so far.
Click to expand...
 
Catfish47 said:
I definitely want to stay away from anything other than factory-built. I've gotten to look at a good bit of various kitbuilds (not talking about kits that were built by the factory) that have scared me away from ever buying someone else's project. I've also been screwed enough with used automobiles that I'm hesitant to buy anything used, but I know planes are a different story.

Seems like a lot of decent options.
-Cub/Cubcrafters/Cub knockoffs
-Kitfox
-Rans
-Luscombe
-Taylorcraft
-Champ

The Technam P92 is certainly younger than designs such as the Taylorcraft or Cub, but it's about the only LSA besides a single Kitfox that I've been able to look at up close and refuel. It's small, but anyone have any input on that? What I'm looking for doesn't necessarily have to be a design from no later than the Post-WWII era, simply ones that have been tried and tested and produced in large numbers.

When one walks up to a flight school for PPL, the majority of the time a 172 is sitting there. Is there an equivalent in the LSA world? And thanks for all the options so far, I'm looking into these planes. Certainly a lot of options!
Click to expand...
There are schools that teach in LSA’s all over the country, but maybe not in your back yard. Any CFI can teach LSA, but you need an LSA to solo and do the check ride in. My Cruiser handles very differently than a 172 or 150, and requires a much lighter touch. Dragging it around like a 150 will get you in quick trouble, but once you get used to that lighter touch, it is a non-issue.
 
RyanShort1 said:
The Pipistrels also should be added to the list. A guy I know over in Europe has been using his "Green Observer" for commercial aerial photography for years now and seems quite happy with it. They seem to be well built.

https://www.green-observer.com/
Click to expand...
Pipistrels, Harmonies, etc are all nice planes, but not really widely available in the US.
 
RyanShort1 said:
The Carbon birds are nice, and they definitely perform well, but I know a few folks that had issues with parts that seemed excessively flimsy in the interest of saving weight. The Legend Cub builds seem to be a bit sturdier.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the kind of information on these I'm looking for. I'll look more into the Legend Cub. It seems American Legend has been at this a little longer, too. I'm not necessarily committed to a taildragger cub-like airplane, but it certainly is alluring in a way to me. I've always loved flying in Super Cubs.
FlyingElvii said:
Depends on what you are looking for, mission wise. I break it down into two categories, some can fit in both. As far as “Play in the grass” airplanes go, there are plenty of them, and they tend to be inexpensive.

My mission was a “Travelling” Light Sport, something that could easily do two-hour missions for two people. In the Midwest, that two hours will put you just about anywhere inside a 250 mile circle of home. Mostly lunch/dinner runs, and big-city weekend trips under 250 miles.

My own rankings, from my own search. (Note: For me this was a huge purchase, and I tend to WAYYyyyy overthink big purchases.)

1) Bristell - Best all-around and by far the cream of the crop in everything from quality to support. But Pricey. Really pricey…

2) Sportcruiser/Pipersport - I ended up buying one, best all around airplane value for the money, IMHO, but not a play in the grass bird. Very wide cabin makes all of the difference. Canopy can be a sauna but they have recently come up with a couple of fixes for that (thank God). Czech-based Support can be dicey for a lot of reasons, but when it’s good, they really deliver. And she just oozes sexy on a ramp next to 172’s and clapped-out 159’s. Same aircraft designer as the Bristell, the SC is the earlier version.

3) RV-12 - Can run from bare bones to outta-this-world depending on who built it. So will the price… Build quality can vary wildly, though, be careful of it, and get any potential buy inspected THOUROUGHLY.

4) Paradise/Texas Colt - sturdy, built like a tank, can do almost all terrains, and cheap to keep. Basically a 152 clone. The Texas Colt is the US reincarnation of it. Popular south of the Border and in Africa, never really broke through in the U.S., but the are almost 500 of them flying. Cabin slightly wider than a 152. My choice came down to the Paradise or the cruiser, I went with the much better equipped Cruiser for slightly more money.

Cessna 162 - An airplane of compromises, for well published reasons. Weight became an issue due to the engine choice, which was all company politics. Still, it is a nice airplane to fly, and handles almost exactly like a 150, only 15 knots faster. Cessna doesn’t want to support it anymore, but will if you write big enough checks. Most parts are readily available. Inexpensive ( In Aeronautical Money Units) to buy, but more expensive to keep, IMO.

Jabiru J230 - I would have ranked this 2nd to the Bristell, if it weren’t for those pesky engine issues. Lots of room, and the fastest of the bunch, derated in the US to meet the LSA requirements. All composite airframe. The latest series Jabiru engines seem to have solved those issues, but newer Jab’s were out of my price range.

CTLS - I know people that have them and love them, but I didn’t. Cabin felt way too cramped for me, and the long wing version I flew seemed to pick up even the slightest thermal.

Edit: Forgot the Tecnam, I have some time in both the P92 and the P2008. P92 felt cramped to me, but flew just fine, though not very fast. 2008 was a dream, but pricey. Would love to have one of the used prices ever come down.

You know what they say about opinions, so these are mine. Decide what you need for the missions you intend to fly, and get what works for you.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the in depth analysis, it's good to hear from someone who's had to go through the process of this decision. I'm the same way about overthinking purchases like this, but I think it's completely warranted! You've already knocked a couple off the list for me with your input, that being the CTLS and J230. I think I'm going to pass on the 162; what you said here lines up with the horror stories I've heard from some 162 owners I've known regarding support from Cessna. Doesn't sound like a bad plane, though. Maybe I'll try to fly one just to see.

You've put your money on the Sportcruiser and it sounds like you're pleased with it. For my missions, it's mostly not "play in the grass" although I've toyed with the idea from time to time and would appreciate being able to do it, but it's not the overriding factor in deciding by any means. If money were no object, would you have gone with the Bristell over the Sportcruiser? From the short research I've done they both seem like good airplanes, but the Supercruiser has been around longer and is overall more mainstream, is that correct? A quick search did find some issues raised by the Aviation Authority in Australia over various deaths around the globe from spins in the Bristells.

I've always been impressed with Czech engineering, from their arms industry to aircraft.

As far as the Tecnam, I similarly felt like it was a bit cramped, although I've lost a lot of weight since then so I'll have to re-evaluate. No matter how you slice it though, no doubt it's a narrow cabin.
 
Catfish47 said:
This is exactly the kind of information on these I'm looking for. I'll look more into the Legend Cub. It seems American Legend has been at this a little longer, too. I'm not necessarily committed to a taildragger cub-like airplane, but it certainly is alluring in a way to me. I've always loved flying in Super Cubs.

Thank you for the in depth analysis, it's good to hear from someone who's had to go through the process of this decision. I'm the same way about overthinking purchases like this, but I think it's completely warranted! You've already knocked a couple off the list for me with your input, that being the CTLS and J230. I think I'm going to pass on the 162; what you said here lines up with the horror stories I've heard from some 162 owners I've known regarding support from Cessna. Doesn't sound like a bad plane, though. Maybe I'll try to fly one just to see.

You've put your money on the Sportcruiser and it sounds like you're pleased with it. For my missions, it's mostly not "play in the grass" although I've toyed with the idea from time to time and would appreciate being able to do it, but it's not the overriding factor in deciding by any means. If money were no object, would you have gone with the Bristell over the Sportcruiser? From the short research I've done they both seem like good airplanes, but the Supercruiser has been around longer and is overall more mainstream, is that correct? A quick search did find some issues raised by the Aviation Authority in Australia over various deaths around the globe from spins in the Bristells.

I've always been impressed with Czech engineering, from their arms industry to aircraft.

As far as the Tecnam, I similarly felt like it was a bit cramped, although I've lost a lot of weight since then so I'll have to re-evaluate. No matter how you slice it though, no doubt it's a narrow cabin.
Click to expand...

Money being no object, I would have gone with a Symphony (They are rare) or a Bristell. The shorter Bristell wing makes it less prone to the LSA issue of thermal turbulence (These are very light airplanes, after all), but does make it slightly more susceptible to stall spins. Especially when untrained idiots are doing aerobatics in them. If it doesn’t come with a chute, get one, it would have saved all of them, including the aerobatic idiots in Australia. At that price point, it is only a few more bucks.

Unfortunately, budget was/is an issue for me, as well as a wife whose company I enjoy, who doesn’t know anything about airplanes, or care to, to please.

She disliked the Sundowner I was a partner in “because it looked old”, inside and out. When she saw the Cruiser, compared to other airplanes, and found out it was a 2007, not a forty year old airplane, she was more interested. The final selling point for her was a single word.

“PARACHUTE”.

The older Cruisers are lighter than the newer ones, giving more useful load, almost 500lbs for mine, chute included. They get heavier as they got newer, and more things were added, like padded leather seating, digital panels, etc. beyond the lines, what I like most about it is the simplicity. No complex systems to worry about, or pay for. Just burp the engine, get in, turn the key, and fly. Hot start procedure is “Turn the key to start.” Gotta love a Rotax.

In my opinion, the Pipersport is the best “Version” of the cruiser, well equipped, sharp looks, and not over-priced.

Good luck in your search, it took me a year to finally decide which plane to buy. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
 
FlyingElvii said:
Money being no object, I would have gone with a Symphony (They are rare) or a Bristell. The shorter Bristell wing makes it less prone to the LSA issue of thermal turbulence (These are very light airplanes, after all), but does make it slightly more susceptible to stall spins. Especially when untrained idiots are doing aerobatics in them. If it doesn’t come with a chute, get one, it would have saved all of them, including the aerobatic idiots in Australia. At that price point, it is only a few more bucks.

Unfortunately, budget was/is an issue for me, as well as a wife whose company I enjoy, who doesn’t know anything about airplanes, or care to, to please.

She disliked the Sundowner I was a partner in “because it looked old”, inside and out. When she saw the Cruiser, compared to other airplanes, and found out it was a 2007, not a forty year old airplane, she was more interested. The final selling point for her was a single word.

“PARACHUTE”.

The older Cruisers are lighter than the newer ones, giving more useful load, almost 500lbs for mine, chute included. They get heavier as they got newer, and more things were added, like padded leather seating, digital panels, etc. beyond the lines, what I like most about it is the simplicity. No complex systems to worry about, or pay for. Just burp the engine, get in, turn the key, and fly. Hot start procedure is “Turn the key to start.” Gotta love a Rotax.

In my opinion, the Pipersport is the best “Version” of the cruiser, well equipped, sharp looks, and not over-priced.

Good luck in your search, it took me a year to finally decide which plane to buy. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I will certainly keep in touch. I'm still in the very early stages of this endeavor and feel overwhelmed with all the choices. With most things I buy in life, I like to go for the most proven, reliable, and safest. I work in the firearms industry and this is my approach to both that and everything else. With the dizzying array of choices in LSA from 75 year old J-3s to modernized Cubs, to sporty sleek LSAs like the SportCruiser and Tecnam P92, I have a lot of homework and soul searching to do. I need to see if I can fly in some of these.

A lot of it seems to come down to whether I want to go with something more classic like an original Cub or modernized version thereof, or with one of the newer designs. As nostalgic as I am for the Cub, I have to keep in mind that I'm trying to find the best tool for the job. There's definitely some soul in an original J-3, but then again, a new airplane is a new airplane and that's hard to beat ("new" as in produced within the last 15-20 years or so, as well as fresh from the factory).
 
Last edited:
Maybe to help the process a bit, don't forget to consider weight. The old designs are good, but they're most likely going to be heavier than newer planes. So your available payload is probably going to be higher, maybe significantly higher, in a more modern plane. I love cubs, but for that reason alone they are not ideal for cross country for a pair of normal weight people. On the other hand, I don't see composites lasting 70 years. Each has their advantages.
 
Good luck, and have fun doing it.

What I ended up with was more than my original paltry budget, but it worked out. Once I narrowed down to the Cruiser or Paradise. I could focus on finding the best one that I could afford. I lucked out finding a well equipped one with immaculate paperwork from a very reputable seller. For the pre buy, I just randomly lucked into one of the top LSA/Rotax guru’s in the country.
Let me know what you end up with.
 
I’m not sure I can really give much input on what is the 172 equivalent in the LSA world but do give a thumbs up for the Tecnam P92. I did a large part of my training in one (and a J3) and have to say I absolutely loved it. It handled well and I thought it cruised at a decent clip. That being said I’m only about 165# and my instructor was about the same so I didn’t get the cramped feeling as mentioned above. Also going to throw it out there; if you felt cramped in the P92 then don’t bother looking at a Remos GX. It doesn’t have the longevity you’re looking for but if you want something Cessna-like that isn’t a 162, maybe look at a Colt? I’ve heard positive things about them.
 
What ever you get make sure it has a Rotax in it. Superb little engines
 
Catfish47 said:
I'm not necessarily looking for the fastest or highest performance LSA, but the most "solid" one with the most proven track record. Any insights would be appreciated, and thanks for having me!
Click to expand...

What's your price range and mission most of the time?
 
Nobody’s mentioned the Sky Arrow. Probably for the reason there are so few of them out there - maybe a few dozen max all told in the U.S. But over 14 years and 620 hours, mine has been quite reliable and easy to maintain. As an S-LSA, one has the ability to convert to E-LSA, something not possible with the “certified” Light-Sports-By-Definition models.

The biggest plus in my book is the view from the canopy, unrestricted in virtually all important directions.

29035344085_5b1972e9bd_c.jpg


But there are other pro’s and con’s, which I’ll only go into if anyone asks.
 
Of the three 65HP rag and tube classics:
  • Cub; the classic original, slow (does everything at 65mph), solid.
  • Taylorcraft: designed as an improved Cub by the original designer (Taylor designed the original Cub), faster (95 mph), tight cockpit. I used to own one.
  • Champ: sort of between the two.
All three have later versions with more power, the Super Cubs and others of that family, the F- series T-Crafts, later offerings from American Champion. Just as solid as the originals, but not all are LSA. And of course all the modern production Cubs if you want to spend a lot more (a new Carbon Cub can go north of $250K!!)

All are proven designs.

Then there are the aluminum classics, C-120, Luscombe, Ercoupe.

But don't rule out experimentals... they usually are the best bang for the buck, and if you buy a good example of an established design that already has a few hundred hours on it it's pretty well "proven". Me, I'll never own another factory built plane.
 
FlyingElvii said:
Pipistrels, Harmonies, etc are all nice planes, but not really widely available in the US.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I brought Pipistrel up because from what I hear and see they are a pretty solid design and the photographer I mentioned has a LOT of hours to determine reliability compared to the low hours most LSA owners actually fly per year. We fly our Cardinals 500ish hours a year, and if the FAA would let us, I’d run a Pipistrel for about half of our flying: They are also fast and efficient if you like to go places.
 
i too own a Sportcruiser and really endorse it. Incredible plane to fly, but the factory is a PITA so going experimental allowed me to cut ties and modernize the avionics in my bird.

CTsw or CTLS are well established and proven reliable high wing LSA. i like them quite a bit too.

For landing in grass and STOL work, I like the Kitfox, but the Bushcat has really caught my attention due to the the price and ease of construction. Neither Bushcat nor Kitfox is "fast", but both seem pretty rugged and customizable.

Lastly, with the changes coming for LSA (and MOSAIC), maybe wait a couple of years and see what the FAA does with the category and aircraft that qualify?
 
Flocker said:
What's your price range and mission most of the time?
Click to expand...
Price range is TBD, but I'm willing and able to fork out the money for most new LSAs if I sell what I currently fly as a PPL. As far as the mission, it's usually limited to paved runways in my regional area, or within the size of Louisiana. Being able to land on grass strips is a plus because sometimes where I hunt has a grass strip. Being able to "play in the grass" is nice and I've always been interested in some light bush flying, but primarily this is for regional travel and fun. If I ever find a volunteer program that would allow a PPL flying under LSA rules (using valid DL as medical) to deliver medical supplies, I would be intensely interested in that, but I've had no luck finding anything like that so far.
 
Catfish47 said:
Being able to land on grass strips is a plus because sometimes where I hunt has a grass strip. Being able to "play in the grass" is nice and I've always been interested in some light bush flying, but primarily this is for regional travel and fun.
Click to expand...

Many LSA will land on grass strips without issue, especially if you remove the wheel pants. (A lot of LSA fly around Florida and land on grass strips all the time.) I think most LSAs would be able to accommodate your mission.
 
Catfish47 said:
Price range is TBD, but I'm willing and able to fork out the money for most new LSAs if I sell what I currently fly as a PPL. As far as the mission, it's usually limited to paved runways in my regional area, or within the size of Louisiana. Being able to land on grass strips is a plus because sometimes where I hunt has a grass strip. Being able to "play in the grass" is nice and I've always been interested in some light bush flying, but primarily this is for regional travel and fun. If I ever find a volunteer program that would allow a PPL flying under LSA rules (using valid DL as medical) to deliver medical supplies, I would be intensely interested in that, but I've had no luck finding anything like that so far.
Click to expand...
Call John Rathmell in Lancaster, Pa and fly a Bristell, see what you think of it. They always seem to have a couple of older ones around as well, trades for newer ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top