Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes Replace your 150 or 152 with a new LSA?

So, you want to replace your 150 or 152 with a brand new fixed wing LSA? I happened to pickup a copy of the 2008 Kitplanes Buyers guide today. Mostly out of curiosity. Here is what you can get and what it will cost:

Powered Parachute? $17,000-$33,000, ($33,000?? For a parachute?)
Trike? $38,000-$59,000 ($60,000? And not even a control stick?)
3 axis control? $50,000-$119,000

Well? You might be able to trade your 150 or 152 straight across for a parachute. Anybody?


Or, trade it straight across for something like this? [vortechonline.com]

I would consider a LSA but not one of the new ones. Too much $$$$ for my pocket book. Of course all of the others (Champs, Taylorcraft, etc) that are possible canidates have jumped up in price almost out of my range. The main advantage to me would be that I could still fly legally if (when) I could not pass a FCIII physical. The older one gets (on average) the harder it is to pass. I'm set for mine this month and I believe (hope) I have all the paperwork in order!

What are the chances that the 150 or 152 would be classified in the future as a LSA???

I just made a post in the MODS section about Jeff's restoration project...and it's applicable here.

I think I'll stick with my 150...restore mine either in parts or all together...or buy another one and restore it.

Unlike cars, that have vastly increased in technology, safety, efficiency, performance, aircraft really haven't. So, what would be the driving force to shell out that much coin?

None and none. Two reasons. First, the LSA weight limit chosen, 1,320lbs, is based on the European breakpoint (600kgs) for their version of Ultralight aircraft. It was done in the spirit of recent treaties with the European Union, and no one in Washington has any interest in bucking that precedent. Two, and most importantly, the LSA initiative was designed solely to spur the new production of aircraft. It just so happened that they couldn't find a way to exclude certain older aircraft that met the 600kg/1,320lb, GW limit.

The FAA does not have a single "study" in place to consider raising the weight limit. In fact, they specifically added the language "continuously certificated" into the authorizing language to knock out an already approved STC for Cessna 120 and 140's to reduce their gross weight to 1,300 lbs.

Unfortunately, the FAA doesn't have any interest in revisiting the GW limit. Mike.

My partner just bought a trike. It is a point of contention in our hangar. It was inconvenient enough until he damaged the front tire in a hard landing, and now the whole rig sits in front of the 150 sans the front wheel with the front fork sitting on my tool box. No way to get Juliet out, and I can't access my tools.

Just one of the reasons I am trying to stretch the finances to purchase an airplane, sans partners!

Reg

"None to none."

Yes, Michael. We C-150 people might think that the rule had to do with practical considerations--that--for example, the planes to be included in the LSA would be ones which are easy to fly, carry no more than two passengers and add relatively little to probability of danger to the public if flow by pilots w/o medicals. The C150-152 would clearly meet practical requirements like this. But, as Michael points out, it was not such practical considerations they had it mind. Even the most prominent avaiation group to lobby for the LSA rule, EAA, probably did not lobby for the C150. We were not at the table--ain't gonna happen.

Jack Cox (former editor of Sport Aviation, and current editor of Sportsman Pilot) had some very astute observations about this topic in the Spring 2007 edition of Sportsman Pilot.

Jack believes that the LSA weight standard should be logically based on wing loading, rather than gross weight. As Jack observes, much of the way an airplane performs is based on wing loading, not gross weight. An airplane with high wing loading will have a higher sink rate, as opposed to one with a lighter wing loading which will "float like a butterfly."

Jack noted that some of the approved LSA's have a much higher wing loading than C150-152, for example, one of the most popular LSA's is the Flight Design CTSW which has a wing loading of 12.3 lbs per sq ft, compared to the C150 which has 10.3 lbs per sq ft.

There is a lot of illogical stuff in the LSA standards, for example An Aeronca 11AC Chief is LSA approved, but the 11BC Chief is not, because it is 30 lbs heavier, but both airplanes perform nearly identically. If wing loading had been the criteria instead of gross weight this would not likely be an issue (llAC has 7.3 lb loading, 11BC 7.7lb loading.)

Jack identifies eight airplanes that meet all of the LSA criteria except the gross weight limitation, including the C150, if wing loading were used instead of gross weight, all of them would qualify.

It's an interesting observation, and a good one I think.

Here at Cessna Marketing in Wichita, we don't say "LSA" and "Skycatcher" in the same breath; the Model 162 is best described as an entry-level aircraft designed to teach a new generation of pilots ... read whatever you want in this.

As I've been heard to say many times, I love to fly! But you couldn't get me in one of those rinky-dink play planes at gunpoint!