Value In High-Performance LSAs

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

Part of my job description is to hang around people who sell airplanes, or try to. In Cessna’s salad days, the company clearly knew how to sell and it helped that the market was ready to absorb thousands of new airframes. Now, not so much. The definition of a circular argument is to ask whether airplane sellers simply don’t know what they’re doing anymore or if the market just barely exists. (I think the latter is more true than the former.)

Still, I see airplanes that ought to be selling better than they are and these are, almost inevitably, light sport aircraft. It’s fashionable to bash light sport as a failed idea but I’ve never subscribed to that claim. It’s just a modest or even lukewarm niche in a larger market that is itself flat. But it’s still a market. Consider this as a value comparison: Last year, Cirrus sold more than 300 airplanes whose average price was in the high six figures, closer to $1 million than not. It’s obvious that those 300-plus buyers saw value in spending that much money for an airplane to whisk them along at 180 knots for $75 an hour in gas. Cost per mile, absent every other consideration save gas: about 42 cents and 10 MPG. (Add the insurance, maintenance and so on and it’s a lot more, but I’m being a simpleton here for a reason.)

Now let’s dial back our expectations to a pair of light sport airplanes I’ve recently flown that I really like. The Bristell NG5 and the Tecnam Astore. Without going into detail, both of these airplanes are similar in that they’re sporty looking and performing and at the very top of the LSA speed performance envelope and, in fact, beyond the 120-knot CAS limit. I’m pretty sure either one of them could be tweaked up to reach 130 to 140 knots. You can argue among yourselves whether this tarnishes the original intent of the light sport rule. Personally, I don’t care. It was an arbitrary consideration anyway.

This means that these new airframes—with avionics nearly as sophisticated as those found in the Cirrus, at a fraction of the cost—are really modest traveling airplanes. The Bristell carries six hours of fuel and has generous baggage space. It cruises at about 118 to 120 knots TAS on 4.5 GPH. That’s 26 MPG and about $12.50 an hour in fuel, if you use autogas, which the Rotax engines are happy with. That works out to a dime a mile, less than a quarter what the Cirrus costs. The Bristell and Astore invoice in the $180,000 to $210,000 range, depending on options. Most buyers option them to the max because stripped-down airplanes were never popular except when flight schools bought a lot of them.

So, the bottom line is that these airplanes cruise at two-thirds the speed of a Cirrus, cost one-fifth (or a little more) as much and burn one-quarter of the fuel. By definition, a value judgment can’t be made in a vacuum; it has to be compared to something else. I submit that either of these two airplanes is an impressive value against a new Cirrus or even an Archer or a Skyhawk. They both do a lot for a lot less money and I’m not so sure the LSAs aren’t a little faster than the Cessna and Piper.

So where the hell are the buyers? Why isn’t there a subset of moneyed customers who either can’t afford a $900,000 Cirrus or choose not to, but who can afford to write a $180,000 check for a new, capable LSA? The answer isn’t obvious, but the fact is, that subset exists, it’s just spread out over dozens of manufacturers. Hard data is elusive, but in the U.S., about 200 light sport airplanes a year are sold, a little better than 20 percent of the total new piston market. Worldwide, the number is much higher. On its face, the comparison may seem preposterous; Cirrus buyers are just different strata.

Sure, but the strata are merging a little. According to Tecnam, some of their buyers are stepping down from more capable airplanes and not just for medical reasons. They recognize that their needs don’t justify high-performance singles or twins. A Bonanza or Twin Cessna is just too much airplane for not enough purpose.

So why not more buyers? The wealth is certainly out there. There is definitely disposable income and people willing to dispose it. What causes a would-be buyer to not see value? One reason is that you can get a capable, well-equipped legacy single like a Bonanza or a Mooney for $100,000. It will cost three to five times what the LSA will to operate and maintain and you’re ever exposed to the Big One—a $7000 annual or a $30,000 engine you didn’t expect. Not so with the LSA, or less so. Or buy used Skyhawks all day for $50,000 and just fly a rundown piece of crap and be happy.

Are two seats the deal breaker? Probably a factor, but it shouldn’t be, since not many people who own four-seat airplanes fly trips with more than two people in the airplane. Evidently, people want the back seats and they’re willing to pay a lot to have what they rarely use. It’s a just-in-case mentality.

Lack of IFR? This is both a real and artificial constraint. If you’re going to Sun ‘n Fun or AirVenture, take a few minutes to really look at Garmin’s G3X Touch or the Dynon Skyview. Compared to a full-up G1000, the value comparison is ridiculous. These systems now do nearly as much and have capable autopilots that include envelope protection. The fact that the airplanes they’re installed in aren’t approved for IFR is one of those regulatory absurdities that defy rational thought. In fact, the Astore is approved for IFR operation, just not in IMC. Bristell is about to approve that, too. So when presented with the moral quagmire of turning around or busting one of these airplanes through an overcast to get on top, what would you do? I know what I’d do.

The redundancy is there, too, and so is the ultimate backup: a ballistic parachute. In fact, more LSAs have this option than do new certified piston singles. The glass panels are equipped with battery backup and when I flew the Bristell with Lou Mancuso last week, he had it festooned with tablet-based nav and attitude backups out the wazoo. So the airplane would be perfectly suitable for cautious IFR. (No icing; no convection.)

So what keeps me from buying one? I’m actually thinking about it, to be honest. I could probably afford sole ownership of a $180,000 new airplane, but I’d prefer to have a couple of reliable partners. The airplane would fly more and that bodes well for maintenance and durability. Of all the machines I’ve owned in my life, I’ve tended not to buy new ones because the depreciation factor is unappetizing and I’m a cheap screw. But at least I no longer recoil at the thought of something new.

I wonder if one reason more of this type of aircraft isn’t flown is because they’re built by what is essentially a network of cottage industries that don’t have proper marketing and sales forces. They depend on word of mouth, exposure at shows and the odd press review, plus hit-and-miss social media efforts. (Maybe.) That's another way of saying Cirrus has a pedigree, Bristell doesn't. More than one reader who has seen detailed reviews or actually looked at these airplanes has remarked on their surprising capability and economy, as in, “really, I had no idea.”

Could a company willing to invest in a sales force sell enough to justify the investment? If Cirrus finds 300-plus million-dollar buyers, can’t someone find 150 under $200K buyers? Someone would have to invest to answer that question, but would-be buyers won’t buy if they don’t know what these airplanes can actually do.

Of course, if all you do is bore holes in the sky, you’re probably better off with a cheap legacy LSA or even a certified airplane. There’s no point in buying this much capability just to have pretty glass to fool around with. I actually do have need for an airplane capable of a reasonable 500-mile cross country. Makes me wonder if I’m talking myself into something here.

Comments (31)

Could not agree more with this article. I own a Jabiru J230. The 230 is a four seater in other parts of he world. The back seat is out in the US but the back door is still there and the back cabin space is extraordinary. The speed is at the top range and the glass with autopilot is a pleasure to fly behind.

Posted by: jay Manor | March 25, 2017 4:36 PM    Report this comment

It's simple.. only a person with money to burn will spend $180,000 on any airplane, and those same people do not purchase cheap, flimsy, cars, boats, or airplanes. A person with that much money wants luxury, not economy. In other words, there are plenty of people who would settle for an LSA, but those aren't the people can't afford one. The people who can afford one don't want one.

Posted by: Ken Keen | March 25, 2017 5:06 PM    Report this comment

The prohibition on flying into IMC is still a deal-killer for many people, I think. People want to be able to expand their capabilities. Even if you're a day VFR sport pilot now, you want the option of getting a private and instrument ticket down the line and be able to still keep your airplane.

If a new airplane cost similar to a luxury car ($60-$80k), it might be more palatable to buy a new airplane if you need new capabilities.

But since even these planes cost more like what a house costs, a buyer is going to want to have options that don't involve having to buy another house-equivalent later.

Not to mention the silly gross weight limitations. I don't even like flying Cessnas in anything more than light chop. I don't have any LSA time, so I can't say firsthand, but I can't imagine they're too pleasant.

Posted by: Joshua Levinson | March 25, 2017 5:24 PM    Report this comment

You're comparing apples and oranges using dollars and cents comparisons. And, with Basic Med likely to dilute the no medical advantage of an LSA ... why would anyone want one?

It's not JUST about acquisition costs. It's also about those silly light sport design standards. As Joshua says -- and I can attest to first hand -- if an airplane is designed to stall at the low light sport speeds, it isn't anything I want to spend hours in. And, even if the back seat rarely gets used, it is there to allow carrying things. Many of the LSA's don't have room for a lunch bucket much less a weekend's worth of camping gear or whatever.

Beyond that, most -- but not all -- of the Companies are marginally capitalized and it's a crap shoot as to whether or not they'll be viable in five years when you need a unique part. With SO many manufacturers building what they think is THE perfect LSA, they're diluting what is already a very small niche market. You are right ... some are nice airplanes but ... as soon as you buy it, you've lost a lot of your investment.

Light Sport does one thing going for it ... the build to ASTM standards and ability to use non-TSO'ed equipment. If the boys would come to their senses and increase the max weight of one to a nice round number like 2,000 or 2,500 pounds, THEN the niche would take off. Until then, it's too little airplane for too much money and not enough utility.

The new Maule M4-180V S2 would be a better airplane to compare things to. Although it isn't filled with G3X or Skyview, it's a helluva performer for about the same money. It has large rear doors opening into a 38 cu ft space and a 950 pound useful load. And, it's pre-designed to carry long range fuel if RANGE is your objective. And, the 180hp engine can be STC'ed for autofuel. If a medical isn't the reason someone buys an LSA, I'd go for the Maule all day long if I wanted new. And, oh by the way, for a few thousand more, you CAN have a back seat version.

I think you better go up to Moultrie, GA and test fly the M4-180V S2 while the intro price is still valid. Right after you get your BasicMed document signed.

Posted by: Larry Stencel | March 26, 2017 1:41 AM    Report this comment

I think the main reason LSAs' sales are lacking has been touched upon several times here. IMHO it's market longivity/supportability risk. Folks, I think, are looking for something that won't be orphaned at the first sign of trouble. They're also investing in the safety of long term support. Follow the herd. Recall Beta vs. VHS, etc.

Posted by: Robert Mahoney | March 26, 2017 11:37 AM    Report this comment

Joshua is correct. LSAs need to expand their market. Think Flight Schools. IFR equipped and VFR/IFR "certification" would agree with flight school needs as well as students and private owners. My guess is that it would double their market range.

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | March 26, 2017 1:25 PM    Report this comment

Most people who have 6 figures to spend on an airplane probably also have enough money to at least get an instrument rating. LSA's provide too little utility for the price.

Posted by: Chris Boyd | March 26, 2017 1:48 PM    Report this comment

That $180-210k range will buy you a fully loaded RV-10, or any of the other RV line (including a ready-to-fly RV-12) and several years' worth of gas. Or any one of a number of other homebuilts.

Come join the dark side :)

Posted by: Robert Gatlin-Martin | March 26, 2017 7:11 PM    Report this comment

"So where the hell are the buyers? "

Think Singapore.
The best selling cars are all high end (because license plates there are so expensive and limited). No one in there right mind there would pay $50K to secure a license plate and then go out an buy a $18K Toyota.

The same thing here where the cost of admission in aviation is so high that you might as well get a fast and capable plane instead of a little "Toyota" LSA. If you are willing to drop $250-300K for training, insurance, hanger, plane, then WHY NOT drop a little more and have something substantial?

Posted by: Mark Fraser | March 26, 2017 8:46 PM    Report this comment

I have tried four times to post a comment, using different verbiage and each time it is flagged as spam. What gives with your bot?

Posted by: BYRON WORK | March 27, 2017 6:25 AM    Report this comment

"Not to mention the silly gross weight limitations"

That. Plus the very real possibility the support for your very expensive new investment (that is what the majority of folks buy these things new as, btw) could very easily disappear overnight. Even the highest selling variant, the Flight Design CTLS, gave a huge scare last year and was lucky it was bought or all those aircraft would have been orphans. Just too big a risk.

I like the idea of what Maule is trying to achieve, and wish them luck. A Maule is the first aircraft I got a ride in, and it's what hooked me for life....now if they could just ease the SI requirements a bit in the near future maybe I could join you lucky folks in the sky someday....sigh....

Posted by: Michael Livote | March 27, 2017 6:49 AM    Report this comment

"I have tried four times to post a comment, using different verbiage and each time it is flagged as spam. What gives with your bot?"

Well, you got this one to work. Are you trying to post a pasted link? If so, strip off the http and use www instead and it will work, albeit not as a clickable link. This is the only way we've found to keep the comment field from being flooded with spam.

Posted by: Paul Bertorelli | March 27, 2017 7:09 AM    Report this comment

I do think people that are considering an LSA are seriously looking at building a plane and some are doing that instead. If you have the patience to wait a few years for a plane (..and the fortitude to build one..), then the value is amazing. I'm building a Sling 4 for under $160k and that will be a fully IFR capable 4-seater that cruises at 150 kt TAS and burning under 6gph of mogas. And it'll have the parachute.

Been working on it for 2.5 years and have about 1 year to go. It's flown by and I can't wait!

Posted by: Craig Maiman | March 27, 2017 8:34 AM    Report this comment

No, no links were in the posts. I think the bot thinks I am posting an ad.

Posted by: BYRON WORK | March 27, 2017 8:57 AM    Report this comment

"I've owned in my life, I've tended not to buy new ones because the depreciation factor is unappetizing and I'm a cheap screw. But at least I no longer recoil at the thought of something new."

Well, I still recoil. Presently, I can buy tres, three, 3, IFR WAAS, 4 seat, 2300 pound mtow aircraft, Cessnas or Pipers, for the price of one Astore. This cost thingy is disrupting the new aircraft market. The other factors are limited payload, limited utility and fragility. We've been over this time and again. Can't sweep it under the hangar. Where are the buyers? Hibernating waiting for something reasonable. In the mean time, I'm holding short.

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | March 27, 2017 10:15 AM    Report this comment

Paul, you make a good point about marketing. I have paid fairly close attention to a couple LSAs for the past few years and have seen little true marketing of them all. One in particular, the Sirius, appears to be well made, well outfitted and "reasonably" priced, with a decked out sticker around $165,000. I have seen it at Sun 'n Fun and AOPA shows and am impressed with the build quality. But, it relies strickly on word of mouth advertising and almost nonexistant print coverage. Its website is clunky and unchanged in over 2+ years. As you said, the small companies building these planes appear reluctant to invest in major ad campaigns. Perhaps that is due in part to their European origins that do not appreciate the need for standing out in the noisy American market.

But, as we have all discussed many times, the limitations weighing down LSA design are a huge impediment to expanding sales. I don't think two seats is a big problem, but the lack of adequate storage space behind the seats certainly is. If you can't fit anything larger than a gym bag in the baggage area, the utility of the plane suffers greatly. If an owner needs more seats on occasion, they can always rent one for that trip.

Perhaps the whole LSA industry needs to formally petition the FAA for a review of the current standards. Bump the gross weight to 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) from the current 600 kg and you have some serious baggage hauling capacity. Plus, the increase in wing loading might improve their handling in turbulence. Raise the cruise speed to 140 kt - several designs can already go faster than they are allowed to. Dump the nonsensical altitude limitation and drop the IFR prohibitions. It makes no sense that an RV-10 can do full IFR on the same Garmin or Dynon hardware that LSAs use but they must stick to VFR. Adapting current models to the more reasonable standards could be accomplised quickly and probably cost little or nothing. That would make the value equation much more attractive.

Posted by: John McNamee | March 27, 2017 10:45 AM    Report this comment

...always interesting to read the bashing on LSA's. I can afford the new plane (yea, I know, good for me) and I chose to buy one. I don't need nor want a 40 year old airframe or the instruments of the same vintage. I don't, fly IFR and never wanted to, I can't remember more than a couple of times where the third seat was called for, and I like to do my own maintenance. The back end of a Jab J230 used to have a third/fourth seat so there is more than enough room and weight to carry what you want.

Posted by: jay Manor | March 27, 2017 10:54 AM    Report this comment

My 125 hp Tomahawk trainer doubled as a personal transportation plane for me, for 28 years. IFR; night and day (avoiding most ice and convective close encounters); trips of 500 miles and under. Very confortable and inexpensive (6.7 gph of 100 LL). Not bad for a rugged and reliable sub-$30k vehicle. (Widebody pilots need widebody airplanes.)

If our software spinoff gets picked up by the VCs, I'll need a kerosene burner. Dallas-to-anywhere-in-the-lower-48 in 4 hours or less; home for dinner.

Posted by: Tom Yarsley | March 27, 2017 10:55 AM    Report this comment

"really, I had no idea." describes my situation. I have a use for a one, occasionally two, seat airplane capable of making a 320 nm VFR trip. Yes, I'm concerned about the staying power of the manufacturers, so I'll have to research that risk. I think I'll give Bristell and Tecnam a call.

Posted by: C HULL | March 27, 2017 11:26 AM    Report this comment

Jay Manor, the unsatisfactory calls on LSAs serve as wake up call to LSA manufacturers and offer a solution and support. The present design limits are stagnating their growth.

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | March 27, 2017 11:28 AM    Report this comment

It's complicated!

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | March 27, 2017 11:30 AM    Report this comment

Prof H. Paul Schuch puts on some really good EAA webinars. I recently took one about modifying one of his S-LSA for legal ADS-B out compliance. He described having to get an approval from the manufacturer for every minor change he wanted to make to it. That, too, is a major pain with factory LSA's. If the manufacturer is out of business, the situation gets much worse. In fact, EAA is addressing this problem with the FAA right now. An S-LSA can be converted to a E-LSA but that sorta defeats the reason to buy one AND brings the value of the airplane down, as well. If you pay ~$200K for one, that's not a smart move.

Many people don't realize the subtle differences between S-LSA and E-LSA and E-AB and their respective methods of maintenance. If my lifestyle allowed it, I'd be building an E-AB (RV) right now. Alas, it doesn't, so I soldier on with my two "rundown piece(s) of crap." If I get a John Hancock for BasicMed in May, I may even 'pop' for a new engine for my PA28. If I wasn't a member of the geezer crowd with too few years left aviating, I WOULD buy a brand new Maule M4. I lathered myself up thinking about it last night. Because I don't have an arm and leg invested in both airplanes, I can afford and intend on donating both to worthy causes when the time comes.

John M ... I agree. 1,000KG would be wonderful and would likely reinvigorate the light sport niche. I've never given any consideration that a E-AB using a Skyview or G3X CAN fly IFR but the LSA can't ... not to mention the TSO problem with certificated airplanes. Nutty! I could likely do without a back seat but not without room for things, good useful load AND range. For me, in fact, range IS an important consideration because I'm a snowbird.

Posted by: Larry Stencel | March 27, 2017 11:36 AM    Report this comment

"... geezer crowd with too few years left aviating." Hey, I resemble that! Seriously, the LSA gross weight needs to be the same as the C172s. At least to 2300 lbs for greater structural strength and utility.

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | March 27, 2017 11:46 AM    Report this comment

Thanks, Paul, for the best synopsis I've read on LSA today.

Many years ago I began an adventure with the purchase of a kit aircraft to be registered as an E-LSA. Seasons slowly changed seven times, my hair lost melanin, son went from the age of reason to unreasonable teen. New airframe, new engine for around 40k. One hole in an index finger. Many new skills learned. And, in all that time, not one single idea in a manila envelope, ready to discuss when the time came to replace the Affordable Care Act. I build a freaking airplane, they had - absolutely nothing.

Point being, hate blocked any creativity and thoughtfulness to eventually replace a despised policy for the time it took a mook to build an airplane. Same here with LSA talk. Where's the #GAHappiness that 20 percent of piston sales were LSA last year, and all of the value considerations that Paul laid out like cross-country and light IFR, among others? Who are these happy fools that number in the thousands, happily flying LSA?

Maybe, like me, they're also driving lightweight, two seat, frugal, sporty, fast when needed, slow to enjoy, fun sports cars, locally and 500 mile distances, despite being constantly pushed, squeezed and reminded on the road that bigger, heavier and unnecessary is better or safer. Ugh.

You're a poser in my book if you bash anything that intends to promote GA while claiming to want GA to grow and reach others, whether or not the idea succeeds in the long run.

Now, honey, stuff Pluto (our 356 Speedster, another dwarf body) with the chairs, tent, stove, food, cooking gear and the rest of our stuff, we're going camping!

Posted by: Dave Miller | March 27, 2017 3:21 PM    Report this comment

Larry, I hear you on the M4. I still remember 1994 when Maule had a sale on its low-end 160hp VFR bird; for a mere $44k you could have a brand spanking new certified airplane! What a deal even in those days!

Posted by: A Richie | March 27, 2017 4:17 PM    Report this comment

Richie ... I kinda remember that. In 1994, I couldn't afford it. Now I can afford it and want it but it's too late !! It's always sumpthin.
If you said pick one: the M4, a Carbon Cub, a Super Legend HP, a Bristell or an Astore ... guess which one I would pic. Why ... I could even bring the kitchen sink to the camp site and maybe my Great Dane could come, too? I better not go anywhere near Spence AFB on my way north this year !! :-)

Posted by: Larry Stencel | March 27, 2017 5:01 PM    Report this comment

Dave Miller.
I Identify with you. By the time I built a Zenith CH250, it was already out of vogue ('79-'83). I was still fortunate enough in the early days to own a used Piper Cherokee 140 which served our family of 2 adults and eventually 2 children well at 120mph cross country. Life was slower in those days ('60's into late '70's) and very enjoyable. I never entered the IMC (IFR) realm, neither did I care to do so. Yet, I obtained a Night Flying rating and flew x-country only during reasonably clear, moonlit conditions which was enjoyable. Maybe I was fortunate, but today at the ripe old age of 74, I feel sympathy and regret towards those who through no fault of their own, can only relate to aircraft costing far more than today's large house which can effectually perform not much better than my ancient Piper Cherokee 140.

Posted by: Chris Davis | March 27, 2017 6:41 PM    Report this comment

Larry, keep an eye out on VAF and Barnstormers. There are plenty of quality RVs (and other homebuilts) for sale, most for the same or less than it would cost you to build one. It won't be exactly the way you want and unless you're an A&P yourself you'll have to find one to do your condition inspections. But other than that you'll still have all the freedom the builder gets to do all of your own maintenance and make any changes you want to the aircraft.

Posted by: Robert Gatlin-Martin | March 27, 2017 7:35 PM    Report this comment

Larry, you nailed it in 2012.


"The bottom line here is that the people who are "crazy" enough to want to fly and buy airplanes are mostly older. They either have or will face minor medical issues which hold them back. The ridiculous cost of an LSA given it's limited usefulness is what's holding the LSA movement back. There is plenty of interest but not many can afford OR justify a $150K Cub when they see fine used C172s or similar for sale for 1/3 that much. The bottom line here is that we absolutely MUST foster an environment that draws in more pilots, particularly younger pilots. Keeping the older ones is a first step but inventing new ones is the only thing which will save aviation. Increase LSA limits AND make recreational flying without a medical an immediate action and "they" will come.

It's time that the AOPA, EAA and FAA plus LAMA and GAMA get off their fat you know what's and DO something ... stop talking, arguing and hiding behind "safety" and DO something.

I predict that if the recreational no-medical pilot idea becomes reality, general aviation will explode once again.

Posted by: Larry Stencel | January 23, 2012 8:25 AM "

Posted by: Rafael Sierra | March 27, 2017 11:37 PM    Report this comment

WOW !!! What a difference five years makes, RAF. How'd you do that?

Posted by: Larry Stencel | March 28, 2017 3:00 AM    Report this comment

The Bristell LSA meets many of the wants listed in these posts.
First, I have spent time at the factory in the Czech Republic with the Aeronautical engineer designer, Milan Bristela. He owns the company and runs it with his family and many loyal employees. He operates with little debt as he has grown the company by reinvesting profits since 2007. He can meet his nut with 28 plane sales a year. Last year he sold 80 Bristell aircraft in 10 countries. Bristell will be around for many years.
The factory issues LOA's, Letters of Authorization, with no hassle, but there has been little need for them as the plane is great just the way it is. Milan has entered into a 10 year contract with Louis Mancuso to import the planes into the USA, Canada, and central America. Lou's FBO, Mid Island Air Service, has been making customers ecstatically for 71 years.
The Bristell has a shorter wing with higher wing loading, making it good in turbulence, better in crosswinds, and very strong with a 157 knot Vne. It climbs great and cruises at 120 knots.
The 51 inch wide cabin not only makes it very comfortable, but allows a large choice of Garmin Avionics, that will make you gleeful. The autopilot is super and there is ESP, Electronic Stability Protection, that automatically trims the plane down if you get close to the stall speed. ESP is automatically disconnected when you get within 300 feet AGL near an airport.
The plane is unique in that it has wing lockers that hold 44 lbs each. There is storage behind the seats that hold two airline style carry on, and a hat shelf for another 7 lbs, 128 lbs total.
You can fly our factory built E-LSA's in IMC if you meet the FAA rules and convert them back to S-LSA if necessary. They sell for one third of a glass panel Skyhawk and out climb and out cruise the 172. If payload is a big concern, you can get one that weighs only 720 lbs and have a 600 useful load.
If you want fuel injected, you can have a Rotax 912iS Sport engine that only burns 4 GPH of $2.50 cent mogas. YES, that is only $10.00 per hour for gas. The spark plugs cost $3.00 and the annuals are about $850.
Come by for a complimentary demo flight. Lancaster, PA, Orlando, FL, Islip, NY and Punta Gorda,FL

Posted by: Louis Mancuso | April 2, 2017 1:05 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Forgot password?

Register

Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration