Can’t use high altitude for bedding in the cylinders 
Not enough power.
This is one of the hassles for an IFR pilot who has had his engine “done”. He can’t fly Eurocontrol IFR unless turbocharged, because even FL100 is too low a power setting to bed in the piston rings. In 2008, following the crank swap and cylinder rework etc, I flew to LKPM at ~FL120, and paid for it in a high oil burn for well over 100hrs afterwards. I did however do the main bit before that trip (85% for a few hours – the full procedure is documented by Lyco and you must follow it).
But OK, the Cub is the most popular of all LSA. That makes me happy somehow.
It looks like LeSving can remain happy 
Link. One plane a week is not exactly setting the world on fire as a business, but it is the best selling LSA.
Wasn’t sure whether to perpetuate the thread drift, or start a new one
LSA haven’t really “taken off” in remotely the same way microlights have done in Europe. One can only wonder what the reasons are. Anyway, a new sub class (of sorts) of microlights are stepping in now as well. EASA will give electric microlight higher weight limit to give room for more batteries, while still leaving them under the radar regarding regulations. This could create lots of cool stuff, and hopefully some nice kits.
LSA haven’t really “taken off” in remotely the same way microlights have done in Europe. One can only wonder what the reasons are.
I’d say because in Europe they need to be certified (costly) and there are 2 “LSA categories” CS-LSA and CS-VLA ?
I just read an article mentioning 600k to 800k EUR for CS-LSA certification (which includes destructive static testing of some prototypes..)
But i must admit I don’t know that part too much.
LSA and VLA have very little in common. The only hing that comes to mind is that both have been a miserable failure in Europe.
LSA and VLA have very little in common. The only hing that comes to mind is that both have been a miserable failure in Europe
Indeed. They both have to adhere to the “maintenance organisation syndrome”, so the running costs are insane compared to what you get. There are a couple of nice VLAs out there though.
I know we have done this before but the biggest saving in aircraft ownership comes from the avoidance of using a company to do the actual work. Using a freelance EASA 66 engineer is an instant 3x saving.
And that is possible even under the full Part M system (non AOC ops of course).
And on a new aircraft your parts cost (unscheduled maintenance) should be very low.
People who don’t take advantage of the options are mostly people who don’t want to.
I know we have done this before but the biggest saving in aircraft ownership comes from the avoidance of using a company to do the actual work. Using a freelance EASA 66 engineer is an instant 3x saving.
And that is possible even under the full Part M system (non AOC ops of course).
Now that is interesting…
especially because I’m contemplating ownership but am still quite scared by recurring costs (outside of fuel) including unscheduled maintenance on older a/c of which i am sure there is every year…
Do you have a pointer for this ?
Also, i should probably start a topic on those recurring costs ? I’m sure some owners have tips as to what to expect…
You could start here
And this post (among others)
The drawback is that all these methods involve considerable owner involvement.
I have been criticised for saying this before but there is a strong correlation between homebuilders (which is just one bit of the aircraft certification spectrum) and people who like to get their hands dirty. Some see this as criticism of homebuilders; I can’t see why!! It is saying no more than work which needs to be done needs to be done… somehow. You can do it yourself and save a bundle of money and get your hands dirty, or you can get somebody else to do it (and pay). In between the two there is a spectrum of what you can do (legally I mean) and an individual owner can choose where to position himself along that spectrum, after considering how much he/she wants to get hands dirty and/or pay other people.
There is also a spectrum of attitudes to risk and different owners will position themselves along that spectrum according to – you’ve guessed it The spectrum ranges from a near-zero tolerance (everything that packs up gets replaced ASAP) to a “death wish” attitude. And this is not much dependent on the certification regime! Plenty of certified death traps are flying.
But the bottom line is that avoiding a company for the Annual and using maximum pilot maintenance privileges for the 50hr checks is the biggest saver by far.
You could buy an old plane and end up with a dog, and then the above line is less significant. And most people who buy an old plane have bought a dog… sadly. On top of that, people who sell planes tend to adopt the same ethics as those selling used cars, houses, etc. If you got caught like that, you could pay 5 figures to sort it out, no matter who does it. Well, with a homebuilt you could throw 1000 hours of your time (valued at zero, of course) into it, but how many will?
But the bottom line is that avoiding a company for the Annual and using maximum pilot maintenance privileges for the 50hr checks is the biggest saver by far.
I agree, and also with there being a spectrum of potential involvement
You could buy an old plane and end up with a dog, and then the above line is less significant. And most people who buy an old plane have bought a dog… sadly. On top of that, people who sell planes tend to adopt the same ethics as those selling used cars, houses, etc. If you got caught like that, you could pay 5 figures to sort it out, no matter who does it. Well, with a homebuilt you could throw 1000 hours of your time (valued at zero, of course) into it, but how many will?
The big issue as always is hangar space to do the work, and the climate (i.e. HVAC) in that hangar Virtually everybody I know in the US is involved with their planes as you’ve described, from just assisting with annuals through a fair fraction of them (meaning a lot of people) who built the plane, or a couple of planes – which is typically several thousands of hours per plane, not 1000. None of them are going broke, including those like myself with certified production planes. Most things don’t have to be that big of a scary deal if there’s a hangar available and a network of people and parts, and if the plane is reasonably simple. Even total and partial rebuilds are possible – I’m surrounded by people who do them.
