Your thinking here is not unreasonable. But there is one thing you might want to keep in mind. ELSA kits work a bit differently than other experimental amateur built kits in terms of how much leeway the builder has to modify the design or substitute parts during the build process. With experimentals, the builder has almost unlimited leeway to modify the design or use different parts. With ELSA kits, the builder has almost no leeway at all. LSA kits have to built 100% to factory plans using 100% factory supplied parts or they cannot be certified as ELSA.
My mistake, I thought the 120 was LSA while the 140 was not, but turns out both are too heavy. Some (not all) models of Luscombe and Ercoupe are, though.
I rented one of those for a while. Had fun with it.
If you like the P92, look in to the 2008. Slightly roomier, and a bit more capable.
What (roughly) is the yearly expense in owning/operating it?
What it is: Factory built AMD CH601XLi-B SLSA (basically a factory built Zenith CH601XL Zodiac with the "B Mod" structural upgrades and the operating limitations authorizing flight in IMC) converted to experimental.
Only dif between the 120 and 140 as built, was flaps and an electrical system ('tho that was an option on 120s). 140As had "big" C-90s instead of an 85.
Thank you! Yes, that's a big help.
This is true and I agree. I don't trust myself to make sure my aircraft is up to it's certificated standards besides basic ACS, I'm not an A&P. Sure, I can make sure nothing is wrong enough to where I should or shouldn't fly, but I wouldn't trust myself to maintain an airplane long term all by myself. I want a qualified separate party well-experienced in the mechanics and maintenance of the airplane I fly. Reliability is most important to me over anything.
Agreed. My first flight in a CTLS was yesterday and the view was amazing. The took advantage of every sqr inch of that aircraft. Loved it. The auto pilot was on point!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I reckon you're an A&P? I'm speaking as a tailwheel CFI. I've flown some examples and have yet to fly a bad Legend, but it would be interesting to hear what you've had to fix. The Super Cub they re-did that I've been flying in with a client is a pretty nice bird.
Wasn't airworthy??!! That's pretty bad. What was it?
FTFY. So how many of the current 150,000+ aircraft owners do you know to qualify your use of the term “most”? I'm sure you missed it, but the context of my post to the OP was simply to help in culling his list of options. But to respond to your comment MOST of the owners I KNOW that want to perform maintenance can hold their own when working on their aircraft which is about 30-40% of them.
Yes to all. Can you? Your track record on mx questions isn't the best on PoA... like the one below.
I prefer a cold beer, but don’t you think the 4 ANNUAL Inspections the FAA requires an APIA to complete EACH year will satisfy your “1 condition inspection every 5 years” requirement??
For context from the AP side, one of the main reasons I quit performing condition inspections was the build quality of some E/ABs I ran into. One reason you can see such a varying difference of this quality in the E/AB world is that the FAA grants full authorization to perform maintenance on an E/AB aircraft through the simply act of buying an E/AB aircraft. No training required at all. While a good number of E/AB owners are diligent in their mx even those can make mistakes just as APs can to include me. But as to the posts identifying "many" or "a lot" of APs making excessive errors on E/AB aircraft I would be interested to see those lists or references as that is not what I've seen. But then again I haven't been everywhere.
