Noob seeking advice on SLSAs

[JeffY]

I’m a couple decades late to the pilot party but I’m finally on track to earn my PPL and Instrument rating this year. Since planes are obviously heinously expensive I’m trying to plan out what might be feasible to own in a year or two (slim pickings for clubs and partnerships near me), and SLSAs appear to fit my price point and mission. I specify SLSA because I’m not so mechanically inclined that I’d want to attempt to build my own.

I’m looking for some testimonials on how well LSAs hold up compared to traditional GA aircraft, as well as how to estimate their maintenance costs. How does the upkeep of a mogas 100hp Rotax compare to a ~185hp Lycoming? Besides the engine, what other maintenance aspects should I be aware of in LSAs vs traditional GA?

I’m also curious about how people feel about newcomers to the SLSA market vs brands that have been around a bit longer. For example, I’m comparing a Vans RV12is against a Magnus Fusion 212 (links removed since I have less than 5 posts). The Magnus is a Hungarian company that’s new to the US market. I can’t find any coverage on them since 2018 but I’ve just started noticing advertisements for them and they’re local to me.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Rotax uses less fuel than a 185 hp Lycoming. Parts are at least as expensive. A&Ps may or may not know anything at all about Rotax engines. You could take training on Rotax maintenance and/or get a repairmans certificate yourself, but you said you are "not so mechanically inclined".

The biggest difference between an SLSA and "traditional GA" aircraft of similar performance and weight is paperwork. Factory support for an SLSA can be an issue if said factory goes belly up. But you can convert from SLSA to ELSA and simply carry on.

The big difference between any LSA (whatever kind of certificate) and more common GA (172, Cherokee...) is that the light wing loading causes the effects of wind to be much more significant. You can't sit on your thumbs during a landing.

Someone will point out that you can get a 30 to 60 year old POS something for a lot less money than a factory new SLSA.

 

[Witmo]

You can aso get a pristine and well equipped 30 to 60 year old aircraft for less money than a factory new SLSA. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[GeorgeC]

Airplanes are cheap, airplane maintenance is expensive. Even a used SLSA is relatively new compared to most of the GA spam can fleet. A used CT for ~$60k seems like a smokin' deal to me. It'll be a while before 912iS-equipped planes are under 100k...

 

[jnmeade]

I'm not sure I know of any SLSA that are certifiable for instrument flight. It is even dangerous to assume you can convert an SLSA to an ELSA and have it OK for instrument flight. It's all in the Operating Limitations and they have been revised so that it's likely the DAR who changes your certification from SLSA to ELSA will invoke a paragraph that says if the plane was ever restricted from instrument flight it still is. FAA Order 8130.2j. This discusses Operating Limitations for experimental airplanes. I'm no legal expert so interpret this and use it at your own risk.
"This aircraft may only be operated per the manufacturer’s aircraft operating instructions (AOI), including any requirement for necessary operating equipment specified in the aircraft’s equipment list. Night flight and instrument flight rules (IFR) operations are authorized if allowed by the AOI and if the instruments specified in § 91.205 are installed, operational, and maintained per the applicable requirements of part 91. (6)"
Some older ELSA are legal for instrument flight (mine is one) and I know of one SLSA that sneaked under the fence and is fully legal for instrument flight.
When you say SLSA's cover your price point, you're talking up to $200,000. If you have a lower number in mind it would be good to mention it. Good used SLSA can be had for $60,000, but like all other airplanes will likely have steam gauges.
It's pretty simple and not that expensive to get training in maintaining an SLSA or ELSA and the Rotax engine. You say you are not mechanically inclined. You'll have to decide how you fit that. I'd suggest Rainbow Aviation for the 16 hour or 120 hour course and Leading Edge Airfoils for the engine training, but that is based on my personal experience. You may have attractive alternatives for the engine training. That is by far the easiest way to avoid the problem of finding a competent A&P who is willing to work on your aircraft. Keep in mind that some A&Ps are not knowledgeable about the Rotax, but most are knowledgeable about the airframe side, and I've found plenty who are willing to help with airframe issues when they know I can legally sign off the condition inspection because of my training. I had an expert help me with some fiberglass work when I modified a cowling.
Many SLSAs have a long parts pipeline that goes back to Europe and takes time and money. SLSA required the manufacturer to give you a Letter of Authorization if you make significant changes to the airplane, such as swap a King radio for a Dynon or Garmin. Or change from tire sizes. Or install a new panel that is not on their approved list. ELSA avoids that unless you make a major change, in which case you have to get another Operating Limitation. People have varying experiences in this issue.
A Vans aircraft has the benefit of a tremendous owner user based and excellent support from what I hear. VansAirForce is the unofficial forum. Rans Sport Planes is good - I'm building a Rans S7 and friends have built Rans S20s. After market support of kit built comes from both the company and the model community.
I'd say the upkeep on a Rotax is much less than of a typical Lycoming. I've spent very little money on my Rotax. On the other hand, you will find some people less than enamored with Rotax after-sale support. In my opinion, it is a good engine so this only matters if it happens to you. I just bought a new Rotax bare for my second plane (building) for under $18,000 but you'll probably spend $20k to get the extras and because of the recent price rise.
There are a number of forums that speak to the Rotax topic. Like anything else, there are some people out there who don't know all of what they are talking about. They may be very good on some Rotax things and you can let that lead you astray when they talk about others. Take one or two Rotax engine courses from an official training source is your best start to avoid this problem.
You can buy an inexpensive standard certificated airplane like a Cub, Tri-Pacer, C172, etc., but you can also spend a lot of money bringing it up to good condition with good avionics. Nevertheless, my BIL sold his Tri-Pacer, which I flew and it was in perfect shape and flew, well, like a Champ )) for $25,000.

 

[GeorgeC]

Good used SLSA can be had for $60,000
...
You can buy an inexpensive standard certificated airplane like a Cub, Tri-Pacer, C172, etc., but you can also spend a lot of money bringing it up to good condition with good avionics.

Yep, it's easy to put 30k in to an old 30k plane and get awfully close to that 60k SLSA number.

 

[JeffY]

Thank you all very much for your input! The RV12is and the Magnus can both be equipped for IFR for ~160k, which is the price point I’m looking at. If I’m lucky maybe I can get a mid-2000s DA20 for the same price, but it still brings me back to compare maintenance costs. Yes I know I can get a solid 1960s Bond henchman plane for less but I don’t need a family station wagon Fuel burn costs are easy to calculate, estimating ongoing maintenance is what I’m currently trying to grok. Researching if there are any A&Ps who know Rotax and LSAs at my home airport would probably be a good next step for me.

 

[GeorgeC]

Check out the Sling as well.

 

[Lon33]

Thank you all very much for your input! The RV12is and the Magnus can both be equipped for IFR for ~160k, which is the price point I’m looking at. If I’m lucky maybe I can get a mid-2000s DA20 for the same price, but it still brings me back to compare maintenance costs. Yes I know I can get a solid 1960s Bond henchman plane for less but I don’t need a family station wagon Fuel burn costs are easy to calculate, estimating ongoing maintenance is what I’m currently trying to grok. Researching if there are any A&Ps who know Rotax and LSAs at my home airport would probably be a good next step for me.

The RV12iS can be equipped for IFR flight — meaning flight under instrument Rules. But it can’t legally be flown in IMC — not even through a thin layer of morning fog. In my experience, finding an A&P who is familiar with Rotax engines is essential. And finding one who is familiar with the particular kind of LSA you intend to buy is too. Rotax engines and RV12s have Maintenance Manuals, so an A&P with sufficient time can learn what to do. But if an A&P is busy with other customers, it could be a while before you get satisfactory results. Again, that’s been my experience. YMMV.

 

[schmookeeg]

Yes I know I can get a solid 1960s Bond henchman plane for less

Awesome. Thanks for the morning chuckle, I needed that.

You sound like you're in a sparse area for airport choice, which is a bummer since you're going out of the mainstream in your search. In my more dense airport area experiences, the SLSA/Experimental planes tended to gravitate to a certain airport and all of the expertise and social opportunities were concentrated there. I dunno if you have anything like that nearby, but it would be well worth seeking out.

Good luck on your search. It is my own opinion that most of the SLSA stuff I've seen seemed lightly built compared to Bond Henchman planes, with few exceptions. I liked the CT and the Remos planes, but I haven't flown any of the LSA set, so I'm not a good data point on which ones are holding up.

 

[JeffY]

Yeah I live 30 mins equidistant between HEF and JYO and there’s only 2-3 clubs that all fly the same Bond planes....except for one with an SR22 for about ten billion dollars a month. I feel really lucky my school offers very reasonable rates for their DA40s and 20s. Meanwhile, the Magnus dealer is based out of OMH (1.5 hours away) and there’s a school out of FDK (1+ hour away) that uses Czech Sport Cruisers. I figure I’ll visit both and chat with people while I’m building XC time.

Someone was doing pattern laps behind me in an RV over CJR last weekend; I’ll need to keep my eyes peeled for him again and track him down.

 

[GeorgeC]

Oh, you're local... go talk to the folks at W29, and one of the clubs at GAI has an RV12... @Pugs

 

[Andrew Morris]

This Bristell was converted to ELSA and flown in IMC. The owner has since upgraded to a Vision Jet and this one is now for sale on controller.

 

[Kent Wien]

Had a Flight Design CTsw for about 3 years and had a blast with it. Flew it from NY to Seattle with my daughter. Made it home in a day and a half. Loved that plane.

Sold it because I bought a (180hp Lycoming powered) Husky. Now I fly slower, burn more fuel and don’t have an autopilot or parachute. But I’m still having a ton of fun.

Don’t rule out a CT!

 

[Andrew Morris]

Had a Flight Design CTsw for about 3 years and had a blast with it. Flew it from NY to Seattle with my daughter. Made it home in a day and a half. Loved that plane.

Sold it because I bought a (180hp Lycoming powered) Husky. Now I fly slower, burn more fuel and don’t have an autopilot or parachute. But I’m still having a ton of fun.

Don’t rule out a CT!

The CT’s sure do have great visibility. Kent, if I ever get my hands on a Zlin Savage Norden I want to fly it to New York so you can take it for a spin! The first one for the US will be here soon!

I’ll put in a plug for Tecnam as well. I believe the P2008 and Astore models have some of the best fit and finish, looks, and handling characteristics out there. The P2008 is EASA certified and both have an oleo nose gear attached to a metal firewall.

 

[JeffY]

Had a Flight Design CTsw for about 3 years and had a blast with it. Flew it from NY to Seattle with my daughter. Made it home in a day and a half. Loved that plane.

Sold it because I bought a (180hp Lycoming powered) Husky. Now I fly slower, burn more fuel and don’t have an autopilot or parachute. But I’m still having a ton of fun.

Don’t rule out a CT!

Oh nifty! How did the annual costs of the CT compare with your Lycoming?

 

[Kent Wien]

Oh nifty! How did the annual costs of the CT compare with your Lycoming?

To be honest, so far they’ve been similar. It’s the fuel and oil cost that are higher. Fuel is 4x more since its 100LL with a higher fuel burn and slower airspeed compared to running auto fuel in the CT. I have recently switched to non-ethanol auto fuel in the Husky after buying the STC which allows it.

The nice thing about the CT is that the auto fuel can include up to 10% ethanol, whereas the Lycoming must not have any ethanol in the fuel. I change the oil twice as often in the Lycoming, 25 hours vs. 50 that running auto fuel in the CT allows for.

 

[Kent Wien]

The CT’s sure do have great visibility. Kent, if I ever get my hands on a Zlin Savage Norden I want to fly it to New York so you can take it for a spin! The first one for the US will be here soon!

I’ll put in a plug for Tecnam as well. I believe the P2008 and Astore models have some of the best fit and finish, looks, and handling characteristics out there. The P2008 is EASA certified and both have an oleo nose gear attached to a metal firewall.

I would LOVE to fly either a Savage Norden OR a Tecnam, Andrew! You NEED a Norden!

 

[NordicDave]

I’ll put in a plug for Tecnam as well. I believe the P2008 and Astore models have some of the best fit and finish, looks, and handling characteristics out there. The P2008 is EASA certified and both have an oleo nose gear attached to a metal firewall.

The Tecnam P2008 was one of the top 10 best selling piston aircraft in 2020.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Thank you all very much for your input! The RV12is and the Magnus can both be equipped for IFR for ~160k, which is the price point I’m looking at.

You will have lots of options with a $160k budget. If you plan on shopping out 100% of your maintenance, you will really want to make sure there is a local mechanic who is well versed in all things Rotax if you're going light sport. Better yet, find several mechanics. Anyone who has ever owned a Volvo or something similar will tell you that when you own a product which only one local shop can work on, that shop quickly becomes aware that they have zero competition for your business and the way they treat you often ends up reflecting that.

With a $160 budget, you could also find a really well equipped RV9 that will likely have a Lycoming that anyone can work on and you will likely find that MX costs won't be significantly different between that and a typical light sport.

 

[Cervieres]

The Tecnam P2008 was one of the top 10 best selling piston aircraft in 2020.

Yeah, Cessna and Piper should be worried about the P2008 and P2010. I don’t know why anyone would buy a new 172 over either one of those.

I saw a Jibaru J230 on the ramp the other day, and it looked awesome. Zero experience with LSAs, just remember thinking I would look long and hard at those if I was in the market.

Good luck with your search. There seems to be a lot of nice new models in the LSA world.

 

[Ken Whitson]

I have been flying a Tecnam P2004 Bravo 92006 model year) for the past 3+ years. Burning premium auto gas almost exclusively, averaging slightly less than 4 gph. Going to 100ll is not only more expensive for the gas costs, oil changes drop to every 25 hours instead of every 50 hours. >=30% usage of 100ll is the trigger for that. Mantenance is somewhat problematic for me as there are no Rotax mechanics in the area, the closest being 80 miles away. I haven't had any maintenance problems per se, but the costs for the 3 annuals that I have gone through have been higher than I anticipated, partly becuase of 5-year rubber replacement, the 2 electronic modules that failed in the maintenance shop, ADSB upgrade, and the re-working of the carburetors. As far as the handling/flying qualities, as someone previously indicated, the lighter wing loading does make LSA's much more responsive to wind burbles. I can't speak for the other LSA models, but the P2004 has a crosswind component of 15 kts. and I have tested it (successfully, so far) to its limits. The control forces are very light compared to most of the typical certified aircraft. As far as IFR certification, my airplane is certified for IFR, however operating under the auspices of Sport Pilot, I cannot file IFR in any circumstances. Rotax is also a limitation. The typical 912 engine is not certified for IMC operation (this may not be true of Rotax's other engine series). So, with the proper instrumentation and the approval of the manufacturer, a properly rated pilot could conceivably fly on an IFR flight plan as long as it's not IMC. Go forth and fly!

 

[Lon33]

“Rotax is also a limitation. The typical 912 engine is not certified for IMC operation”

I have seen this statement online many times, but no one has said what Rotax or FAA document makes it so. I have searched for such a document and have not found one. I can’t find a Statute or a Reg or a Rotax Manual or sales brochure that requires planes to be equipped with “certified” engines for flight IMC. Rotax does sell a “certified” 912 for use in Part 23 airplanes like the Tecnam twin engine. But if an typical Rotax 912 is installed in an otherwise IMC-equipped plane, I have seen nothing that makes it illegal for an Instrument Rated pilot to fly it in IMC. If I’ve missed finding something, and anyone knows where that something is published, I’d love to have the cite published here.

 

[Ken Whitson]

Maybe this provides some background.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/april/pilot/pe_savvy

 

[Bell206]

to be equipped with “certified” engines for flight IMC.

FYI: in the FAA TC world, engines are not certified to "kinds of operations" (VFR-IFR-DAY-NIGHT-ICING) as the airframes are certified to. There are certain environmental cert requirements but these do not relate to a kinds of ops certification. So if an aircraft is not able to legally fly in IFR/IMC conditions it is an airframe OEM limitation and not an engine limitation. In the case of Rotax, I believe it is more a warranty issue of how their engines are operated than a regulatory issue.

 

[JeffY]

You will have lots of options with a $160k budget. If you plan on shopping out 100% of your maintenance, you will really want to make sure there is a local mechanic who is well versed in all things Rotax if you're going light sport. Better yet, find several mechanics. Anyone who has ever owned a Volvo or something similar will tell you that when you own a product which only one local shop can work on, that shop quickly becomes aware that they have zero competition for your business and the way they treat you often ends up reflecting that.

With a $160 budget, you could also find a really well equipped RV9 that will likely have a Lycoming that anyone can work on and you will likely find that MX costs won't be significantly different between that and a typical light sport.

Good call on shopping around for a mechanic, thank you. It’s interesting to find that most everyone is saying maintenance costs are about the same, presuming I can find mechanic that knows Rotax. I figured a smaller mogas engine would be cheaper to maintain. Looks like I’ll need to talk to some mechanics and get some estimates from them, then factor fuel/oil costs differences on top of that.

 

[JeffY]

The Tecnam P2008 was one of the top 10 best selling piston aircraft in 2020.

Oh man, these Tecnams look spiffy! They’re definitely in line with what I’m looking for; I’ll need to monitor prices for later down the road.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

It’s interesting to find that most everyone is saying maintenance costs are about the same, presuming I can find mechanic that knows Rotax.

They're still airplanes. And the % of MX cost for an airplane that's directly related to the power plant or things associated with it (starters, alternators, exhaust systems etc) is not tremendous. Don't get me wrong its definitely there and definitely a part of it. But if you're not doing something that goes out of your way to really beat the snot out of the motor like the high power/low airspeed/high heat ops we did while flying banners, you're not likely to go through top ends or be replacing cylinders on an annual basis the way we did in the banner ops and therefore your engine related costs should be similar not matter what engine you have*.

I figured a smaller mogas engine would be cheaper to maintain. Looks like I’ll need to talk to some mechanics and get some estimates from them, then factor fuel/oil costs differences on top of that.

I think you're muddying the water here a bit because you're sort of mixing the cost to run and the cost to maintain and those are two very separate things. Cost to run is expendables (fuel/oil) multiplied by time. Cost to maintain it total cost to keep it airworthy divided by hours flown.

On the cost to run side, a rotax will almost always be cheaper due to the low fuel burn. I say 'almost' because the Rotax can burn 100ll but is really made to burn mogas or auto fuel. If you plan to haul gas from the gas station out to the airport every time you fly, you will most definitely lower your costs. If you plan to burn only 100ll from the airport, you may or may not lower your cost because the 100ll will likely cost more per gallon and you will have to add a fuel treatment at every fill up and you will have to change the oil more often. So you may still come out ahead burning low lead but you may not.

On the cost to maintain side an LSA may or may not end up cheaper than a similar normal category certified plane. The difference really depends on you and how much you intend to do. With an LSA you have the option of taking a coarse and getting certified to do all the maintenance yourself including the annual condition inspection.

That equates to significant cost savings, but only if you intend to do that work yourself. If you don't want to, or don't trust yourself to take on that level of responsibility and intend to hand off all maintenance to certified mechanics, your maintenance costs are going to be similar to any other certified airplane.

Its similar on the experimental side where you can do all the work yourself if you so choose (no course required) but you still need to hire an A&P (although not an IA as required by your typical certified airplane) to perform and sign off on the annual condition inspection.

Bottom line is LSA and experimental give you options for cost savings. But they are only options and the require you to be willing and able to do work (hauling fuel, doing maintenance etc) in order to take advantage of them. If you're not going to do the work involved in exploiting those options, there is no advantage in going LSA from a cost perspective.


*Assumes a typical relatively low horsepower aircraft engine.

 

[Doctor Bob]

You have a very healthy budget. Go fly some planes. I personally went from a 172, then 182, and now my little CTSW. I absolutely love it. Much more fun to fly, can still do very long XC, then turn around and fly low and slow. Love the chute, the technology, glass panels, the view, GPS auto pilot, and a fuel burn so low that gas costs no longer even factor into any flying equation.

You could find a great CT Series for well under $100k and bank the rest and spend a lot of time flying with that money.

 

[JeffY]

They're still airplanes. And the % of MX cost for an airplane that's directly related to the power plant or things associated with it (starters, alternators, exhaust systems etc) is not tremendous. Don't get me wrong its definitely there and definitely a part of it. But if you're not doing something that goes out of your way to really beat the snot out of the motor like the high power/low airspeed/high heat ops we did while flying banners, you're not likely to go through top ends or be replacing cylinders on an annual basis the way we did in the banner ops and therefore your engine related costs should be similar not matter what engine you have*.



I think you're muddying the water here a bit because you're sort of mixing the cost to run and the cost to maintain and those are two very separate things. Cost to run is expendables (fuel/oil) multiplied by time. Cost to maintain it total cost to keep it airworthy divided by hours flown.

On the cost to run side, a rotax will almost always be cheaper due to the low fuel burn. I say 'almost' because the Rotax can burn 100ll but is really made to burn mogas or auto fuel. If you plan to haul gas from the gas station out to the airport every time you fly, you will most definitely lower your costs. If you plan to burn only 100ll from the airport, you may or may not lower your cost because the 100ll will likely cost more per gallon and you will have to add a fuel treatment at every fill up and you will have to change the oil more often. So you may still come out ahead burning low lead but you may not.

On the cost to maintain side an LSA may or may not end up cheaper than a similar normal category certified plane. The difference really depends on you and how much you intend to do. With an LSA you have the option of taking a coarse and getting certified to do all the maintenance yourself including the annual condition inspection.

That equates to significant cost savings, but only if you intend to do that work yourself. If you don't want to, or don't trust yourself to take on that level of responsibility and intend to hand off all maintenance to certified mechanics, your maintenance costs are going to be similar to any other certified airplane.

Its similar on the experimental side where you can do all the work yourself if you so choose (no course required) but you still need to hire an A&P (although not an IA as required by your typical certified airplane) to perform and sign off on the annual condition inspection.

Bottom line is LSA and experimental give you options for cost savings. But they are only options and the require you to be willing and able to do work (hauling fuel, doing maintenance etc) in order to take advantage of them. If you're not going to do the work involved in exploiting those options, there is no advantage in going LSA from a cost perspective.


*Assumes a typical relatively low horsepower aircraft engine.

Understood, thank you very much for your detailed response. Assuming I owned my own SLSA that burned ~5gph and I flew my targeted 200 hours per year I’d save $2,110 on fuel alone if using premium mogas instead of 100LL. There’s a gas station just outside the entrance to my home field so I could load up some 5 gallon cans on the way in.

I’ve looked at a few Rotax videos; the oil/filter change looks like it can be finished in 10-15 mins by someone who knows what they’re doing, so I think I can handle that. Made me think I should probably practice this on my lawnmower first Anything beyond that I’d want a professional to handle. Taking a basic Rotax course does sound like a great idea though; if nothing else I’ll know more about how things are supposed to work.