Why do CFI's Discourage Sport Pilot

Shepherd said:
The course of study that I recommend to everyone (especially older guys just getting into it, and kids who don't have a rich daddy) is start with your Sport rating. But don't fly Sport requirements. Fly the PPL requirements, cross country, etc, etc. Anything that takes more miles or more time the Sport cert requires, do it. It counts if you go on to PPL.
Take your Sport checkride. Get your Sport Cert. You now have proof of return on investment.
Now take the Mrs, the Mr, the girlfriend, the boyfriend, the kids, whatever, whoever, flying. Have fun.
Rack up hours. Hone your mad skills.
Now look at what's left: A Medical, Night work, Hood time, and a checkride. If you can pass a medical, go for it. If not, fly the heck out of your Sport cert.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a really good plan. I think that's exactly what I'll do. Thanks Glenn
Shepherd said:
All the "my pecker is bigger than your pecker" posturing that goes on in the aviation world does more to turn people off, and away, from flying than just about anything else, even money.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear!
 
LandSickness said:
"The Club" seems sometimes to not want new members, especially if there's a new different, seemingly easier approach to certs. To Purists the SPL is a shortcut and not a "real" license.
Click to expand...
Ain't that the truth.
 
steingar said:
In which universe?
Click to expand...

In any universe.
I can rent a Tecnam for between $98.00 and $113.00 an hour wet.
A C-152 is $120.00 and up a C-172m is $139.00 and up and a C-172R or a Piper Warrior is $169.00 and up.
Do the math. Any number of hours.
The only "extra" cost going Sport to PPL is an extra written exam. Peanuts compared the cost of the airplane.
 
Shepherd said:
BTW it's about 20%++ cheaper to go the Sport to PPL because Light Sport rentals are significantly cheaper.
Click to expand...

This depends on location. At the school in Denver that specializes in SP (it has 10), rental rates range between $105 & $115 (wet). It also has the traditional GA (twins, citabria, C172, C182, single engine retracts, etc). The DA20 is $99/hr, which is cheaper than the LSAs. But the twin Diamond Star is $309/hr. The rest are in between.

There's a few other schools in the area that have LSA. One school has 2 Remos and that's it. Another has 1 or 2 Skycatchers.

The other $$$ issue is the CFI/CFIS. Are the hourly rates the same or not?

If I read the FAA specs correctly, with just the PP (ASEL), SP-specific training, the written FOI (not required if currently college/university faculty or K-12 state cert), the written CFIS (which is similar but not the same as the CFI), and an SP checkride, anyone can become a CFIS. No instrument. No Commercial.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. I can get the CFIS faster than finishing my Instrument.
 
Why a $100k airplane would rent for more than a $20K airplane is less than transparent to me.
 
steingar said:
Why a $100k airplane would rent for more than a $20K airplane is less than transparent to me.
Click to expand...
Of course I'm no expert, but I'll guess that the overhaul and annual costs are less on the smaller LSA engines, and they use quite a bit less fuel reducing their per hour costs. The older planes, with their larger engines and higher fuel rate, probably have to deal with aging instruments and avionics that need to be repaired or replaced which would presumably raise their per hour cost as well.
Some LSA planes will use MOGAS at a rate of 5GPH, which at the current average of about $4 per gallon of premuim works out to be $20 per hour for fuel. A 172 using 100LL at a rate of 9GPH, which at the current average of about $6 per gallon works out to be $54 per hour for fuel. A $34 difference just in fuel every hour.
But I may be over simplifying
 
steingar said:
Why a $100k airplane would rent for more than a $20K airplane is less than transparent to me.
Click to expand...

I fly in tomahawks that are ancient and ugly but get the job done for near 100/hr. A near brand new CTSW with glass, auto pilot, moving map GPS only costs $6.00 more an hour.. Looks like even though LSAs aren't cheap to buy, the operating costs are getting price parity simply because maintenance/fuel burn of older stuff is up there..
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yeah, but a brand-new airplane is gonna keep a lot more people around for their second flight than a ratted-out 40-year-old 152/172...
Click to expand...

Maybe. I'd wager a lot of people would feel safer in a 40 year old 172 than a sketchy toy that is the skycatcher.
 
Why does everyone only talk about the skycatcher when there are other sport planes? Maybe LSA is doomed to some people because the 162 set a crappy metric..
 
If you think Sport will suit you, go get it and fly awhile, then you can always easily upgrade later if you want more utility. The flight experience you will have gained as Sport Pilot will make the upgrade flight training go slightly faster as well.
 
jesse said:
Maybe. I'd wager a lot of people would feel safer in a 40 year old 172 than a sketchy toy that is the skycatcher.
Click to expand...

A 40-year-old 172 with decent paint, interior, and panel, yes. The 162 has a nice panel but the interior is practically nonexistant!

Of course, as others have hinted at, the Skycatcher is an absolutely terrible example of an LSA.
 
I've only sat in the Skycatcher, so can't pass judgment. But having spent a couple of months teaching regularly in a Jabiru LSA I have to say there's much to recommend a new airframe with the latest in wiz bang panel technologies. I find it a bit more challenging to fly than a C150 or PA28, but mastering it will make a better pilot.

From an economic standpoint, 4 GPH (actually less when training) is compelling and the engine maintenance keeps the cost low. It has a mandatory top at 1,000 hrs ($1,000 for cyl heads, plus labor), then full overhaul at 2,000 hrs (a few grand) --- all substantially cheaper than a Lyc or Cont overhaul.

Interestingly, both my Jabiru students are going for PPL...they just preferred the Jabiru to our Cherokee.
 
LDJones said:
I've only sat in the Skycatcher, so can't pass judgment. But having spent a couple of months teaching regularly in a Jabiru LSA I have to say there's much to recommend a new airframe with the latest in wiz bang panel technologies. I find it a bit more challenging to fly than a C150 or PA28, but mastering it will make a better pilot.

From an economic standpoint, 4 GPH (actually less when training) is compelling and the engine maintenance keeps the cost low. It has a mandatory top at 1,000 hrs ($1,000 for cyl heads, plus labor), then full overhaul at 2,000 hrs (a few grand) --- all substantially cheaper than a Lyc or Cont overhaul.

Interestingly, both my Jabiru students are going for PPL...they just preferred the Jabiru to our Cherokee.
Click to expand...

The Jabiru is a WAY better airplane than the Skycatcher!

The only thing I didn't like on the 250 is that there's part of the control system exposed at the back of the center console. I think that's fixed in the 230, though.

Roomy, too...
 
I agree with the 162 not being the best example in my mind of a good LSA. I learned in the Gobosh 700 (Aero AT-4). The one I learned in has the Garmin G3X glass. It is a very nicely equipped low wing aircraft. As some have mentioned previously they are flying constantly at Centennial in south Denver. The school there has three of them. One with the G3X, one with Dynon D180 glass and a 496 and one with a six pack and a 495. I liked learning in the Gobosh so much that I bought one. Mine has a Dynon D-180 and Garmin 796.

I get many positive comments about the plane as I fly it around the country. There are certainly other LSA's that fall on the good side and ones that fall on the bad side. For me, the Remos is not at all interesting for instance.

For those curious what the Gobosh looks like.. see the attachment. This is mine at KABQ right at sunset.
 

Attachments

  • Gobosh.jpg
    Gobosh.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 31
I just finished my PPL in the Skycatcher. In Corvallis, I can rent (club) a 162 for $75 and the 172M is $100. I spent the vast majority of my hours in the 162, for cost reasons mostly. The garmin system in the 162 is really, really nice. Also, I don't care what anyone says, the 162 is really fun to fly. I fly the wings off that thing. That said, it does have problems. It's loud, taxies poorly, has lots of sharp edges and the door scare me. Not to mention that I almost couldn't take my checkride because of my DPE's weight :/

Now that I'm working on instrument, I'm spending all my time in the 172. I don't mind it in general, but it's way less fun. My instructor taught me to fly one handed (on the yoke) so that my right hand is always available for the throttle. In the 172, the sideways force on the yoke causes it to bind when you're really cranking on it (like power-on stalls) and I hate that. Also, the 172 just requires a ton more force on the controls.

Basically, I just think the 162 gets a bad rap for some reason. All things considered, I love that little, stupid plane. ;p
 
hpux735 said:
Basically, I just think the 162 gets a bad rap for some reason.
Click to expand...

Mainly, its lack of useful load is a major problem. It may be a great airplane, but I'll never be able to be checked out in one as it simply can't carry me, another person, and fuel.

Also, its lack of an interior can be seen as a problem... It certainly doesn't make your pax feel any better.
 
If that yoke is binding, have maintenance make sure it's correct and lubed properly. I've never seen that in any aircraft.

hpux735 said:
I just finished my PPL in the Skycatcher. In Corvallis, I can rent (club) a 162 for $75 and the 172M is $100. I spent the vast majority of my hours in the 162, for cost reasons mostly. The garmin system in the 162 is really, really nice. Also, I don't care what anyone says, the 162 is really fun to fly. I fly the wings off that thing. That said, it does have problems. It's loud, taxies poorly, has lots of sharp edges and the door scare me. Not to mention that I almost couldn't take my checkride because of my DPE's weight :/

Now that I'm working on instrument, I'm spending all my time in the 172. I don't mind it in general, but it's way less fun. My instructor taught me to fly one handed (on the yoke) so that my right hand is always available for the throttle. In the 172, the sideways force on the yoke causes it to bind when you're really cranking on it (like power-on stalls) and I hate that. Also, the 172 just requires a ton more force on the controls.

Basically, I just think the 162 gets a bad rap for some reason. All things considered, I love that little, stupid plane. ;p
Click to expand...
 
bartmc said:
Because its a pointless license for almost anyone,
Click to expand...
Sadly, this seems to be the general feeling about the Sport and Rec, which are designed to get the new guy to start flying.
I think it comes from the way that General Aviation has changed since the 'old days'.
Used to be that small airplane flying was for fun, or recreation. The military fed the airlines, not GA.
Then GA became the airline feeder, and big block flight schools came into being with Airline Pilot Training programs, and 'professionalism' began to trump 'fun' with flight training.

When the FAA tried to re-institute 'primary' flying for those who were not interested (at the moment) in commercial flying, the establishment seemed to sneer at these 'incomplete' certificates, as if any one not wanting to be at least Private rated was cheating.

As I said, CFIs teach what they are taught. Period.
 
nosehair said:
Sadly, this seems to be the general feeling about the Sport and Rec, which are designed to get the new guy to start flying.
I think it comes from the way that General Aviation has changed since the 'old days'.
Used to be that small airplane flying was for fun, or recreation. The military fed the airlines, not GA.
Then GA became the airline feeder, and big block flight schools came into being with Airline Pilot Training programs, and 'professionalism' began to trump 'fun' with flight training.

When the FAA tried to re-institute 'primary' flying for those who were not interested (at the moment) in commercial flying, the establishment seemed to sneer at these 'incomplete' certificates, as if any one not wanting to be at least Private rated was cheating.

As I said, CFIs teach what they are taught. Period.
Click to expand...

Well, you pruned my post and the part you presented was in reference to the Rec pilot license. But looking at my brief logbook SPL would have been a pointless endeavor and taken a lot of work to accommodate over my PPL. I've never wished I had less training time.
 
bartmc said:
. But looking at my brief logbook SPL would have been a pointless endeavor
Click to expand...

You use an airplane for traveling long distances with a bunch of people. Flying is a means to an end for you.

We get that.

Other enjoy flying for the sake of flying even if you don't get anywhere. Flying is an end in itself.

You apparently don't get that.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You use an airplane for traveling long distances with a bunch of people. Flying is a means to an end for you.

We get that.

Other enjoy flying for the sake of flying even if you don't get anywhere. Flying is an end in itself.

You apparently don't get that.
Click to expand...

Also, there's no restriction on how far you can go with the Sport Pilot certificate like there is with the Rec. People have traveled across the country in LSA's.

A LOT of people don't seem to get that...
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You use an airplane for traveling long distances with a bunch of people. Flying is a means to an end for you.

We get that.

Other enjoy flying for the sake of flying even if you don't get anywhere. Flying is an end in itself.

You apparently don't get that.
Click to expand...

You apparently and obviously don't get me. I'm not on car forums every day because my car gets me to work everyday and is a means to an end (even though thats much more utility than a plane), I'm not on them at all (and I even own a car enthusiast car that isn't practical for anything). I learned to fly at 32S Stevensville, MT there wasn't an LSA within a 400 mile drive of there... It would have been a struggle to accomodate. MOST of my flights are mutli-day with my wife and her bike and a couple days worth of camping gear, up high to stay above the granite, to find the smooth air and some slid in after dark. An LSA would have been tough to accomodate that.

Be real here, any manufacturer could have built LSA planes prior to the regulation being passed, why do you suppose they didnt? Hint: It's not because PPL requirements are too onerous, It's because they're impractical and there was ZERO market for them for anyone holding a medical. Drop the 3rd class medical requirement for domestic PPl privileges, SPL goes bye bye instantly. ITS THE MEDICAL!!! Sure some people have bought into the hype dished out by flight schools that have spent the cost of 5 Cessna 150s on a top-of-the mark LSA with promises that it's "Just as good". For fun, for travel, for telling your buddies about, I don't see the point in an SPL cert if you can pass a medical. Its extremely restrictive and isn't even a drop in the bucket less difficult to obtain.

Those top of the mark LSA's are like Tofurky... Trying to be something they're not... Just eat the turkey if you can. If you want to fly true LSA planes built in the spirit of the regulation (a la fat ultralights) by all means, stick with SPL. That's not what most people are chasing, they're looking for a viable alternative to PPL WITHOUT PASSING A MEDICAL. Acting like LSAs are a viable alternative to "regular" planes is an insult to intelligence, no matter how much interior cessna rips out and avionics they put in (Which is laughable because SPL is day VFR only... you don't even need the ball for that)

Im hearing some pretty weak arguments on here such as "It is a check point where people can fly their buddies" or "You get to fly new planes". If you're too GD impatient to wait a couple more flight lessons or just have to have a new plane.... Flying aint for you, hang it up. It takes money, dicipline, time and dedication. Short cuts for padding egos don't go far. If PPL required 3000 hours, I was going to do it. The novelty of farting around the pattern did wear off for me fairly fast and I wanted more. Frankly, I think for a person starting out with the mentailty that "all i ever want to do is fart around the pattern in a LSA" is probably doomed from the start.

Everything in aviation is a trade off, most are between physics and money. If you don't have to compromise on the medical cert, why do it?
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
I learned to fly at 32S Stevensville, MT there wasn't an LSA within a 400 mile drive of there... It would have been a struggle to accomodate. MOST of my flights are mutli-day with my wife and her bike and a couple days worth of camping gear, up high to stay above the granite, to find the smooth air and some slid in after dark. An LSA would have been tough to accomodate that.
Click to expand...

So it's not the right strategy for you - That doesn't mean it's wrong for everyone else.

Be real here, any manufacturer could have built LSA planes prior to the regulation being passed, why do you suppose they didnt? Hint: It's not because PPL requirements are too onerous, It's because they're impractical and there was ZERO market for them for anyone holding a medical.
Click to expand...

No, it's that the FAA certification process was so costly that nobody could afford to build a 2-seater any more.

For fun, for travel, for telling your buddies about, I don't see the point in an SPL cert if you can pass a medical.
Click to expand...

Flying an LSA isn't fun? You can't go anywhere? You can't tell your buddies you're a pilot?

Its extremely restrictive
Click to expand...

Rec is restrictive. Sport really isn't. Day VFR below 10,000 is about it.

Acting like LSAs are a viable alternative to "regular" planes is an insult to intelligence, no matter how much interior cessna rips out and avionics they put in (Which is laughable because SPL is day VFR only... you don't even need the ball for that)
Click to expand...

As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the Skycatcher is a horrible example of an LSA - Nearly every other one is better, has an interior, etc.

I've seen the same sort of reaction to LSA's in our area, because the only newer LSA that's been around this area is the Allegro 2000, which is really a steaming pile of ****.

Before you bag on LSA's, fly a GOOD one like the Evektor SportStar - It's delightful to fly, attractive, good view, good performance. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if a 2-seater fit my mission.

Im hearing some pretty weak arguments on here such as "It is a check point where people can fly their buddies" or "You get to fly new planes". If you're too GD impatient to wait a couple more flight lessons or just have to have a new plane.... Flying aint for you, hang it up. It takes money, dicipline, time and dedication.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of attitude that is killing GA. These things are important to non-pilots. If you drive up in a nice new Lexus with a nice, modern leather interior, you get into an old airplane with cracking plastic and torn fabric and mechanically-tuned radios, it's going to have an effect on your impression of the experience.

These days, I'd LOVE to hop in a J-3 and go tooling around with the door and windows open and scare some horses in a field somewhere. Prior to my intro flight, that's not how I thought. You have to get people to fall in love with aviation, and that doesn't happen when they're uncomfortable. Yes, it takes money, discipline, time, and dedication - You need to give a prospective pilot the motivation to put that effort in, not have the attitude that they should have been born that way. :mad2:

I think for a person starting out with the mentailty that "all i ever want to do is fart around the pattern in a LSA" is probably doomed from the start.
Click to expand...

Why? While I love to go cross-country and that's my primary mission in flying, there are plenty of people out there who just like to get into the sky and play around. There's nothing wrong with either one, and we need more pilots, period. We need to not have the exclusionary attitude you're displaying.
 
bartmc said:
....Everything in aviation is a trade off, most are between physics and money. If you don't have to compromise on the medical cert, why do it?
Click to expand...
To quote Jay Leno, we don't need any more help getting our fat assess fatter..."

The real problem with LSAs is that if you are too big, and I mean BMI over 25 (be honest, now), you are SOL in an LSA.
 
Last edited:
hpux735 said:
Basically, I just think the 162 gets a bad rap for some reason. All things considered, I love that little, stupid plane. ;p
Click to expand...

I've got about 40 hours in the 162 and agree. I love that little plane. I can't deny useful load is bad. The stark interior doesn't bother me. It's peppy, even at full gross. Reliability has been an issue with the one I rent. Not all of it is the plane's fault, but the 150's take a lot more abuse and just keep ticking. Still, I love it. I'd like to get some time in other LSA to see how they compare.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
So it's not the right strategy for you - That doesn't mean it's wrong for everyone else.
Click to expand...

Nobody was screaming for 1300lb planes that they could fly below 10K in the daytime, they were screaming for dropping the medical. Sure the FAA threw a bone, but lets not pretend that a category of plane that had no demand is suddenly the answer for anyone but a few on the fringe.

flyingcheesehead said:
No, it's that the FAA certification process was so costly that nobody could afford to build a 2-seater any more.
Click to expand...

$149,000 for the Chinese built Cessna 150 successor really brought the cost down.


flyingcheesehead said:
Flying an LSA isn't fun? You can't go anywhere? You can't tell your buddies you're a pilot?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they're fun. Some of the most fun I've had was in a Cessna 150. Worth what it takes (money,time,discipline) for most to stay current.. I dunno. Certainly not for me.
You're not going anywhere fast, or at night or in any sort of weather and you're going to get beat to death in most of them. I met a guy riding a moped from Barrow Alaska to Miami... can be done? sure. You can tell your buddies you're a pilot, they're not going with you unless you eat only one biscuit for breakfast.


flyingcheesehead said:
Rec is restrictive. Sport really isn't. Day VFR below 10,000 is about it.
Click to expand...

I look in my log book, most of my flights wouldn't have been made or I would have had to make serious compromises to do so with an SPL... That is what I call restrictive.


flyingcheesehead said:
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the Skycatcher is a horrible example of an LSA - Nearly every other one is better, has an interior, etc.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but if I'm laying out $180 per pound for anything it's going to be backed by a respectable brand. .. it's not going to a flash in the pan company.



flyingcheesehead said:
I've seen the same sort of reaction to LSA's in our area, because the only newer LSA that's been around this area is the Allegro 2000, which is really a steaming pile of ****.

Before you bag on LSA's, fly a GOOD one like the Evektor SportStar - It's delightful to fly, attractive, good view, good performance. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if a 2-seater fit my mission.
Click to expand...

I don't need to fly one. Meet me at 32S one night after work and we'll take 'er up for one of my favorite farting around flights over the top of the Bitterroot... OOPS can't breaking 3 laws if we do. One of my favorite flights is to go up to 12,000+ and run the ridge of the bitterroots and watch the stars in the east and the sun in the west.




flyingcheesehead said:
This is the kind of attitude that is killing GA. These things are important to non-pilots. If you drive up in a nice new Lexus with a nice, modern leather interior, you get into an old airplane with cracking plastic and torn fabric and mechanically-tuned radios, it's going to have an effect on your impression of the experience.

These days, I'd LOVE to hop in a J-3 and go tooling around with the door and windows open and scare some horses in a field somewhere. Prior to my intro flight, that's not how I thought. You have to get people to fall in love with aviation, and that doesn't happen when they're uncomfortable. Yes, it takes money, discipline, time, and dedication - You need to give a prospective pilot the motivation to put that effort in, not have the attitude that they should have been born that way. :mad2:
Click to expand...

It's not an attitude, it's a reality and I'd argue that the coddling and petting the kids today have had makes them EXPECT to have it NICE and EASY. A prospective pilot is one who'll tear down the hangar door to get to a ratted out C-150 to fly it and will get that PPL if it takes 500hrs and all his lunch money. The rest fly Cirrus :D


flyingcheesehead said:
Why? While I love to go cross-country and that's my primary mission in flying, there are plenty of people out there who just like to get into the sky and play around. There's nothing wrong with either one, and we need more pilots, period. We need to not have the exclusionary attitude you're displaying.
Click to expand...

There are some, I see them in ultralights, PPC, weight shift and gliders, most are better pilots than myself. They're less numerous than the rest of us at the airport and they're not pretending that they're doing anything else. They don't want Lexus interior and a Garmin GWhatever.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
Be real here, any manufacturer could have built LSA planes prior to the regulation being passed, why do you suppose they didnt?
Click to expand...

Cubs, Champs, Luscombe, Taylorcraft, Ercoupe, Porterfield, Avid Flyer, Kitfox, Flybaby, Pietenpol Aircamper, and more E-AB than you can shake a stick at.

Would I trade my LSA homebuilt taildragger for a Bonanza? Sure, if I could sell the Bo for a bunch more than my LSA is worth so I could buy a nicer little two seat taildragger. Would I keep a Bonanza if a medical were not a pain in the ass? No. Too expensive to buy, fly and maintain.All I could afford to do with it is let it sit and rot in a hangar. And, it doesn't have the same "fun" factor. Not much return on my dollar.

Would it be nice to fly at night? Sure. I used to to that three or four times a year.

Would it be nice to step up to something like a Cessna 120? Well, if it weren't for the fact that it is a type certificated aircraft and all the maintenance nonsense that goes with that, sure. It would be fun to buy the airplane that I took to Alaska back in the '70s. Would it get me much more speed / payload? Nope.

Are the LSA limitations cramping my style? Hardly.
 
For $150K 2 I'd rather have a 160HP Citabria over a Skycatcher.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Cubs, Champs, Luscombe, Taylorcraft, Ercoupe, Porterfield, Avid Flyer, Kitfox, Flybaby, Pietenpol Aircamper, and more E-AB than you can shake a stick at.
Click to expand...

How many of those certifieds have been in production in the last 60 years?

Would I trade my LSA homebuilt taildragger for a Bonanza? Sure, if I could sell the Bo for a bunch more than my LSA is worth so I could buy a nicer little two seat taildragger. Would I keep a Bonanza if a medical were not a pain in the ass? No. Too expensive to buy, fly and maintain.All I could afford to do with it is let it sit and rot in a hangar. And, it doesn't have the same "fun" factor. Not much return on my dollar.
Click to expand...

Who said PPL holders have to buy Bonanzas? Go get a PItts, Extra or something else that'll make your leg tingle.

Would it be nice to fly at night? Sure. I used to to that three or four times a year.

Would it be nice to step up to something like a Cessna 120? Well, if it weren't for the fact that it is a type certificated aircraft and all the maintenance nonsense that goes with that, sure. It would be fun to buy the airplane that I took to Alaska back in the '70s. Would it get me much more speed / payload? Nope.

Are the LSA limitations cramping my style? Hardly.
Click to expand...

Go get a shed built plane if you're convinced certified plane MX is a scam. There are other non LSA planes than that one you flew 40 years ago from which to compare speed and payload numbers.

I'm happy LSA is working for you, I surmise that if a medical was a half an hour and done event, you'd have one.
 
Last edited:
madtrader said:
I've got about 40 hours in the 162 and agree. I love that little plane. I can't deny useful load is bad. The stark interior doesn't bother me. It's peppy, even at full gross. Reliability has been an issue with the one I rent. Not all of it is the plane's fault, but the 150's take a lot more abuse and just keep ticking. Still, I love it. I'd like to get some time in other LSA to see how they compare.
Click to expand...

The first time I flew it solo it lept off the runway so fast it almost scared me. It was also difficult to convince it to land :) What bothers me the most is that I KNOW the 1320 lb limit is for the damn LSA certification. It makes me question the wisdom of that "safety" choice when it effectively only limits the qty. of fuel I can carry...
 
For PAX and pilots that looked inside a SkyCatcher or SuperCub, and were concerned about the "interior" with any perception of a safety issue, I would point out the long history of such design types plus, the safety benefits of less weight.

Attention and emphasis should be given to the strength of the skeletal tube construction of the airframe protecting the aircraft's occupants.
 
Coming to this conversation late, but a reason at the FBO where I fly out of for CFI's to push PPL is that the 3-4 LSA's that the place has had over the last few years keep getting crunched and totaled while the normal category planes, Cessna's and Diamond's keep chugging away.

The current LSA, an Evektor, has been down for main landing gear parts for months whilst the other aircraft have been down very little.

For such a new aircraft, it has been down nearly a year.

I taught there a few years back but never flew the LSA's. I moved them around a few times and they seem to be delicate from being so light.

So, every Light Sport pilot student there has probably had to transition to PPL training without choice. Unfortunate.

David
 
Last edited:
flhrci said:
Coming to this conversation late, but a reason at the FBO where I fly out of for CFI's to push PPL is that the 3-4 LSA's that the place has had over the last few years keep getting crunched and totaled while the normal category planes, Cessna's and Diamond's keep chugging away.

The current LSA, an Evektor, has been down for main landing gear parts for months whilst the other aircraft have been down very little.

For such a new aircraft, it has been down nearly a year.

I taught there a few years back but never flew the LSA's. I moved them around a few times and they seem to be delicate from being so light.

So, every Light Sport pilot student there has probably had to transition to PPL training without choice. Unfortunate.

David
Click to expand...

I know in some cases LSA's are under built. With that said, I know of two at a club in Denver that have both gone through their respective TBO and still look in great shape. They both happen to be Gobosh 700's. One has over 2000 hours on it and the other over 1500 hours (all from flight training). I own one too and it is 4 years old with about 280 hours on it and it looks new. I think the greatest weakness in that particular LSA is the nose gear and its issues with collapse after a PIO.
 
hpux735 said:
The first time I flew it solo it lept off the runway so fast it almost scared me. It was also difficult to convince it to land :)
Click to expand...

I spent 1.5 in the pattern with the SkyCatcher yesterday to brush up (last flight was in November, definitely could feel the rust). DA was -315ft. It climbed like a homesick angel.
 
bartmc said:
Everything in aviation is a trade off, most are between physics and money. If you don't have to compromise on the medical cert, why do it?
Click to expand...

Medical isn't the problem for me, lsa is intriguing because of operating costs. Airplanes that sip 5gph, fly 120kn and come in all sorts of configurations are intriguing. Put an lsa into a club and your fixed costs are meager and your operating costs..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top