I finally got to the U.S. Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Florida, this year. I had two distinct impressions of the event — known by most as the Sebring LSA Expo — and, by extension, the state of the LSA industry. Perhaps it was because I hung out with two very different friends over two days — one con, one a believer.
I arrived on Friday a few hours after the fatal accident of an Aventura amphibian from Aero Adventures, which cast a pall on a (finally) bright and sunny day. Talk was going around. Observers (including the tower) had reportedly seen flutter in the accident aircraft’s left elevator during a low-speed fly-by. People said it might have been damaged on the ground when the plane briefly tipped up on its nose, then slammed down hard on its tail. Another experienced show veteran, however, called it just a slow flight demonstration gone wrong.
In any case, crowds were light — and that’s putting it kindly. Overcast, cool temps and some rain had dampened the mid-week days. But I began to wonder if more than bad weather was at play. Had the economy or consumer confidence changed again? Is everyone waiting for the elimination of the third class medical?
My critical friend looked with disdain at some of Sebring’s offerings, including the one-offs of home-grown engineering. After all, he and I were products of the mass production era of certificated aircraft from established manufacturers.
Yes, some aircraft just looked rough. One or two looked simply comical. But there’s always a story – and an innovator who believes in his idea.
My friend showed me a case in point, what appeared to be three hot tubs on display without their bottoms. From the one completed vehicle, I immediately recognized a clone of the 1950s Hiller Flying Platform.
Looking to improve soldier mobility, the Army unfortunately found Hiller’s weight-shift platform too slow to survive the battlefield. Those behind this new flying platform take the argument from there, envisioning uses that need this intuitive mobility, but not the lateral speed.
Talking to Richard Simpson of Flying Platform of Placid Lakes, Florida, I learned that a very distinguished mathematician had determined the optimum curve of his “wing,” that is, the curve at the top of the circular skirt. Moreover, his single engine was driving two propellers through a new combining gearbox. The old Hiller had used two engines driving two propellers independently — a recipe, he said, for doom after a single engine failure. (The props are necessarily counter-rotating for torque.)
Backers sounded less than nutty when listing potential users for this unusual flyer. First out of their mouths was “car dealers” followed by others who would put the platform to work in promotion and advertising. (One partner is developing an electric sign that rings the outside of the skirt.) Hunting, cattle herding, wildlife surveys, fish and game patrol, and many other uses were envisioned.
There have been some taxi tests; flight trials await final tweaks. Flying Platform advises that optimum operating altitudes max out about telephone pole-high. Flight above 60 feet should require a ballistic parachute system, they say. Any takers?
Beyond the extreme, Sebring’s new “affordable aircraft” sales corral had only about 10 used airplanes on display. Indoor exhibits were mostly those familiar at every such show. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) did have its “152 Reimagined” at the entry gate, while the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) had its “One Week Wonder” from last year’s Oshkosh. The Brazilian composite Super Petrel biplane amphib was there and drew compliments.
So was the refurbished, diesel-powered Cessna 172 being marketed by Art Spengler of Premier Aircraft Sales in Ft. Lauderdale. It’s not a cheap airplane but that single power lever was appealing. Its hourly consumption of Jet-A will be attractive where avgas is prohibitive. This product line will probably serve overseas markets.
I had been ready for a little skepticism about Sebring and found it my first day. That Friday that should have been the first day of a big, bright weekend, but it wasn’t.
It’s still a young show. LSAs haven’t yet conquered the world. And Sebring is near the center of remote inland Florida at the south end of old-time tourist towns and attractions along U.S. 27. While Legoland (nee Cypress Gardens) has boomed at the north end of the 27 corridor, Sebring is a l-o-n-g 65 miles and many traffic lights south of Central Florida’s “main street,” Interstate 4. Good hotels and restaurants are a little thin when there’s a crowd in town.
Now that I’ve talked it down, read Part II of this discussion to see what was good at Sebring on Saturday… and what could get better.
© 2015 Drew Steketee All Rights Reserved
To ALL: The “problem” with the LSA’s (excluding Ultralights) or other “non-airplanes, is:
1. A TOTAL lack of a well developed “franchise style” marketing/sales plan/program offed by the manufacture and implemented by pro-active “sales personality types”, who are ALSO CFI qualified?
2. Trade shows, like Sebring, carter largely to the aviation (pilot/potential buyer?) consumer, that said, what PERCENTAGE are flight school owners/operators, who, IF utilized the LSA as the “answer” to MORE pilots , hence (ripple/domino effect?) MORE spending for flight lessons, aircraft sales, fuel, maintenance and storage , or a LTC
(Life Time Customer) value – potentially tens of thousands of dollars into the GA economy?
3. If frankly, the ‘lover” or those passion about flying were FIRST as passionate in being financially successful AND in the GA business, in the order, the outcome maybe…………………………………..?
Just a more pragmatic view of REALITY perhaps?
From what I know about LSA aircraft I would say that expecting Flight Schools to embrace their use to lower the cost for new pilots is not going to happen. All of such experiences I have heard about found the typical LSA aircraft to be unsuitable for use as a Flight School aircraft because they are just built too light to stand up to that kind of use. There is a reason that the well proven C-150 does not fall within the weight limits for LSA and that extra weight goes into a stronger airframe. The LSA aircraft as currently limited by regulations, will never be more than a personal use aircraft for pilots who can no longer qualify for a 3rd class medical. That is why the elimination of the 3rd class medical will be the death blow to LSA complient aircraft sales. All the fancy marketing programs in the world are not going to get more LSA’s into the pilot training fleet.
You’re right, Sarah. Once the price crosses $100K, flight schools and personal buyers start becoming hyper-discriminating and asking themselves what am I getting for all of that cost. The promise of “inexpensive” airplanes never really materialized.
As you say, there IS a durability issue and — I feel — a parallel safety issue, too. Recently, the RV-12 has had two minor Service Bulletins issued for lower inboard wing skin rivet wear and bearing bracket cracks. RV airplanes are among the best engineered machines around but they’re still up against those nutty weight limitations and had to save weight everywhere they could. Weight limits and durability needs are mutually exclusive issues. THAT is why so many LSA’s have BRS systems. C150/2’s didn’t need no stinkin’ BRS systems.
When I got back and told a large flight school owner about my impressions, I was told that they could not justify spending that kind of money. When I inquired about insurance costs, I found they would be three times what I pay for a C172. To be fair, the hull value was substantially higher so … perhaps corrected for that, it isn’t THAT bad?
The AOPA remanufactured C150 … and now the Sporty’s C172Lite are much better airplanes for similar dollars … except for the nutty and outdated 3rd class medical issue.
Hi Sarah;
While I totally AGREE with the ‘durability” issue of most LSA’s, I offer you a REAL world example of the acceptance of the LSA (students/customers) by a well established Florida west coast flight school a little over 2 years ago.
They operated (leaseback) a Cessna Skycatcher that was flying in the 100 hour per month range at an attractive $120/hr rate. They also offered a dated C-152 as their “price leader” for a mere $99/hr which flew on average only 25-30 hours/month.
Sorry, but RESULTS speaks volumes, wouldn’t you say?
And I feel my past experience has a CFI, flight school and FBO principal, and having flown 5 LSA’s, add a little credence here possibly?
Rod,
I fully accept that with reasonable pricing a brand new LSA with it’s glass cockpit will be far more appealing than a 30 year old C-152 with it’s round dials and old radios. It is the durability issue that keeps them from being accepted by Flight Schools. That translates to higher maintenance cost and more down time, neither of which are good for revenue.You almost have to look at the LSA as a disposable aircraft and include early retirement in it’s pricing. It is highly unlikely that many LSA aircraft will still be going strong in 30 years like that C-152. If the FAA would relax the LSA weight limit those airframes could be built more durable and the class would really stand a chance of taking off (figuratively speaking).
Since there are no LSA’s around to rent I have taken up building my own aircraft and in my chosen medium of composites it is near impossible to stay withing the weight limit for a two seat aircraft. In my case I decided on going with single seat which provides a generous weight allowance but that requirement on meeting stall speed with no flaps drives the wing area to 120 sq-ft where it would be a better fit down around 80 sq-ft (with flaps for lowered stall speed). The metal designs do better on weight/structure and the only composite designs require the use of expensive materials and manufacturing techniques to stay under 1320 lbs with those big wings. If you go with steel tube / wood / fabric the structure vs weight balance comes out much better. When you consider the weight exemptions that have been granted recently to various manufactures (and are under review) it would seem that providing relief all around for all builders and designers would be the sensible conclusion but then we are dealing with a department of the U.S. government.
Sarah; durability issues OR flight instructors WHO do not know (stick/rudder skills?) how to instruct in a some what challenging LSA?
My earlier comment IS/WAS reality; lack of aggressive sales and marketing on the part of 95% of your “average” and indifferent flight school IS the problem!
What about American Champion’s Champ?
AsI mentioned in the referenced comment, aircraft that utilize “Conventional” construction (Steel Tube, Wood and Fabric) are the exception to the rule that it is difficult, if not impossible, to create a durable aircraft structure while staying within the LSA restrictions. The Champ does utilize that type of construction and is a time tested example of a rugged and durable aircraft that falls within the restruictions. The problem is that such designs are not all that appealing to a prospective new pilot when compared with the glass cockpit and sleak styling of the typical composite LSA.
What about the Piper Cub? A lot of people think of a Yellow Piper Cub when they hear the words small airplane. You can get a brand new one from Cub Crafters with the option to outfit it with a full glass cockpit and still be almost half the cost of a new 172: http://www.cubcrafters.com/sportcubs2
Yes a Cub is also a good durable aircraft that fits within the LSA restrictions. But putting a modern glass panel into a 1930’s airframe is still not going to attract young people to consider taking up aviation. These “Kids” were brought up on Star Wars and video games and a modern Antique is just not going to inspire them. That is the problem that aviation is facing and the premise of this conversation. You stand a chance with one of the slick composite jobs but they do not have the durability that is needed in a good flight school aircraft. If LSA was rationalized to better weight and stall speed restrictions than the aircraft that apeal to the potential pool of new pilots could be made durable enough to stand up to decades like the venerable C-150/152 and C-172 have. The Cubs and Champs are nice nostalgic planes for the older generation that can no longer get a 3rd class medical but want to stay in aviation anyway. That is the honest and brutal thrth that those who want to keep aviation alive have to come to accept.
One other question. Do young people really have to have “new” airplanes if they are going to go flying? An interesting bit of research from AOPA
“Customers expect you to provide safe, working airplanes. Do they expect those airplanes to be new as well? Although AOPA’s commissioned research project into the ideal flight training experience found that students expect clean and safe airplanes, they did not necessarily expect those airplanes to be new. New or old, only 50 percent of participants said their school met their expectations in this area. The bottom line? Take pride in your fleet, whether the airplanes are two years old or 20.”
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/fsb/newsletter/2015/150224fsb.html
Sarah and Dennis are right on point regarding the Sebring show’s dismal attendance and the failure of LSA to do anything to help stimulate GA in any substantive way.
In 2004, LSA was touted as a low cost panacea which would reinvigorate aviation with reasonably priced machines and an easier path to a ‘novice’ pilot license. Those of us who have been around for a while remember the promise of the recreational pilot license, too. Light sport was supposed to lure the young into an avocation — if not ultimately, a vocation — by providing lower cost new modern flying machines which most folks could both afford and justify. Well, 11 years later, where are we?
Truly well designed and equipped airplanes are so expensive that only folks with more money than good sense — or who are absolutely smitten with aviation — are buying them. The FAA’s absolutely nutty weight and performance requirements for LSA ensure that their utility borders on very little more than toys in a 3 dimensional world. To be fair, a few are nice. In fact, I flew and want one. Not because the airplane was so great but because the ‘total delivered package’ of airframe and avionics and price was so alluring. That said, most are too expensive. The promise of LSA has not been delivered. Niche airplanes like the Carbon Cub sell because they are … well … niche airplanes.
If you read reports by LAMA, all is great and wonderful. Oh yeah … well how come all you see at Sebring are old men trying to find a way stay in the ‘game?’ Why, after more than a decade, are there so few pure sport pilots coming UP the chain as opposed to existing certificated pilots downsizing their mission so as to stay in the game. And over 100 LSA manufacturers … LAMA sees that as good? The ONLY draw to LSA is the no medical advantage. If a no medical rule for recreational flying of low end GA airplanes materializes, LSA is a goner. Unless …
If the FAA would only WAKE UP, it doesn’t have to be this way. There is a symbiotic solution, I feel. Raise the MGTOW of an LSA to 2,000 pounds (picked because it’s a nice round number). This would allow SAFE and USABLE airplanes which used ASTM standards as their design criteria to be built. Imagine, if you will, the nifty LSA that could be built if the performance and design numbers were increased to something more reasonable. Beyond the ASTM design advantage, LSA’s don’t have to have TSO’ed equipment. Now that the FAA has decreed that E-AB and LSA airplanes that can meet the performance requirements of ADS-B, for example, there is a second advantage. I can mount a Garmin G3X or Dynon Skyview Touch in one but I can’t (yet) do that with my Cessna 172. These advantages would be game changers. If I were LAMA, I’d be pushing for this at every juncture. Instead, all they do is make nice videos and pat themselves on the back.
That the show was poorly attended should come as no surprise, then. Everyone is “on” to the issues. Looking at nice airplane — and some not so nice bordering on nutty — is the only draw. And for that they want me to pay? This show should be FREE or — maybe cost $5 — and not much more.
It’s been said that the purveyors of LSA’s like the show because they can give the rides to prospects easily. I agree. But … they could fly the airplanes to regional areas where lots of interested parties are just as well. A few years ago, there was a show held at Spruce Creek. I see that as a better idea.
I see the noisy race cars as a serious distraction. Touting an “adult experience.” Well, why not have pole dancers then, Drew? Give us a break. We go there for airplanes, not race cars.
Lastly, to address Drew’s comment on “good hotels and restaurants are a bit thin” comment. You bet. I had to reserve a — too expensive — room at the hotel of choice in town months in advance. When I got there, there were SO many people using the Wifi that they crashed it. They had to bring their IT person in but he couldn’t do miracles with the equipment they had. When I went to the one decent Mexican restaurant in town, the lines were coming out the door. I went to a BBQ joint, got a sandwich and called it a night. When I left, I drove miles out of the way to avoid using US27, too. US27 IS a MAJOR bummer.
I’m considering not going next year … too much trouble for too little gain. Maybe that’s what others did this year?
That Flying Platform sounds like a good way to get killed. Just think, you can’t glide like a fixed wing, you can’t auto-rotate like a helicopter and the speed / alitiude envelope makes a ballistic parachute un workable (the rocket gets it out, not open and that requires altitude and/or airspeed). There were plenty of reasons that the Hiller design never went anywhere. Unless you have two or more engines feeding into that gear box a sudden loss of power equates to a sudden loss of altitude and a sudden stop when that runs out. I hate to be negative but some design ideas deserve to stay in the history books.
As for the dismal failure that Sebring was this year, the other comment on the FAA tease over the elimination of the 3rd class medical is right on. Who wants to buy an LSA when a short wait might allow you to fly a regular aircraft whose design was not driven to excess by a bunch of arbitrary design limitations (low gross weight, low stall speed acheived without flaps, etc…). If you took a survey I think you would find that just about all of the LSA buyers have a Private or higher license but no 3rd class medical.
I watched as the FAA destroyed the ultralight market from 1998 to 2004 by loose talk of Sport Pilot coming in and all the benefits. It put at least 10 manufacturers of ultralight craft out of business including us. And now they are at it again with the 3rd Class Medical legislation.
Either fish or cut bait. The fish is getting really tired.