RV12 FS @ Cecil County MD

[David]

A friend of mine is selling his RV12 to purchase another kit to build again.

His link on the Van forum below

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/s ... post884173

[Jack Tyler]

From the VAF comments, this particular RV-12 apparently shows some top-end craftsmanship. This may be a good representative of the used LSA marketplace - as nice a used RV-12 as one is likely to find and at a likely purchase price of ~$80K.

Not to hijack the thread, but it makes me think about the comments made to me last week by a couple who run a local flight school here in Jax. In business one year now, they have a great deal of previous flight and flight training experience, they are doing very well and wanting to expand by offering Sport Pilot training. For which they feel they need a S-LSA trainer (vs. an elderly, LS comparable certified a/c). They were offered the RANS factory's S-19 Venterra (very attractive plane) and, later, a S-7 (I believe) by Randy Schlitter, as they know Randy from previous years' flying jobs. Now there's a third LSA which they've been invited to purchase or perhaps lease (details still developing). They've wrestled with this for six months now, and continue to be wary about buying or leasing an LSA. Why? Because they see the likely loss in value of whichever LSA they pick should the 3rd class medical requirement be eliminated for personal/recreational flying. And even if they were to lease, the cost would be in part a function of the plane's current value in the marketplace.

I asked them why they felt so certain of this and they just pointed out the window to the C152 they recently purchased. IFR certified with a new'ish engine, it looks like a cream puff, can service both VFR and IFR training while being very cost effective to both the student and also the renter, and it cost them a bit less than $30K. On the training side, that just about puts PPL training at the same cost point as SPL training for the student. As business owners, it meant a much smaller initial investment than an less-versatile LSA, and it allows them another way to keep graduated students in the air after they are licensed.

Perhaps their circumstances don't mirror the marketplace completely, but it was interesting to hear them work thru this decision at an unemotional level.

[3Dreaming]

From the VAF comments, this particular RV-12 apparently shows some top-end craftsmanship. This may be a good representative of the used LSA marketplace - as nice a used RV-12 as one is likely to find and at a likely purchase price of ~$80K.

Not to hijack the thread, but it makes me think about the comments made to me last week by a couple who run a local flight school here in Jax. In business one year now, they have a great deal of previous flight and flight training experience, they are doing very well and wanting to expand by offering Sport Pilot training. For which they feel they need a S-LSA trainer (vs. an elderly, LS comparable certified a/c). They were offered the RANS factory's S-19 Venterra (very attractive plane) and, later, a S-7 (I believe) by Randy Schlitter, as they know Randy from previous years' flying jobs. Now there's a third LSA which they've been invited to purchase or perhaps lease (details still developing). They've wrestled with this for six months now, and continue to be wary about buying or leasing an LSA. Why? Because they see the likely loss in value of whichever LSA they pick should the 3rd class medical requirement be eliminated for personal/recreational flying. And even if they were to lease, the cost would be in part a function of the plane's current value in the marketplace.

I asked them why they felt so certain of this and they just pointed out the window to the C152 they recently purchased. IFR certified with a new'ish engine, it looks like a cream puff, can service both VFR and IFR training while being very cost effective to both the student and also the renter, and it cost them a bit less than $30K. On the training side, that just about puts PPL training at the same cost point as SPL training for the student. As business owners, it meant a much smaller initial investment than an less-versatile LSA, and it allows them another way to keep graduated students in the air after they are licensed.

Perhaps their circumstances don't mirror the marketplace completely, but it was interesting to hear them work thru this decision at an unemotional level.

It is this line of thinking that is causing problems within the industry. You can do private and instrument training in a LSA if it has the equipment, the only thing is you can not fly in IMC. There are even some older LSA that don't have the flight in IMC limitation. The thought that it is less versatile is just crazy, and in fact it can be more versatile because you can do sport, private, and instrument training.

[newamiga]

I would say it depends.. I learned at a school in Denver that initially started out as a LSA only school. They did a decent business and kept people coming in who were interested in the newness and sportiness of the aircraft they flew. They were newish planes.. less than 3-4 years old. Yes they cost more than a used 152 or 172 but they attracted a certain group of clients, myself included. They bought out the largest flying club in Denver with the largest selection of planes in CO. They have a whole fleet of 172's but they still have the LSA's and the LSA's still fly frequently. They are cheaper to rent per hour and have equal or in some cases better performance in the pattern than other aircraft in the inventory, they are also 20 or more years newer.

I like all planes. It is just my experience that flight schools can make money with LSA's. BTW, the S-19 is one awesome plane to fly. I loved flying that plane and it was a tough choice between building the RV-12 and S-19.

Carl

[designrs]

Ditto here. The flight school that I fly and trained at attracts students and pilots seeking new and stylish aircraft that are fun to fly. Some have medicals and some do not, holding and/or working for both Private and LSA certificates.

[Merlinspop]

[digress] in the "aviation is a small world" category, the couple running the school Jack is talking about used to teach at the school Richard used. Great people. [/digress]

[Jack Tyler]

Yup, Dana and Mer and great folks - the kind of enthusiastic GA supporters (also but not just "instructors" and business owners) that was quite common back in the day. And their dilemma, to my mind, illustrates clearly - from a business perspective - the potential impact of a change in the 3rd Class medical requirement. That's not a 'pro' or 'con' agenda comment, just meant to be illustrative.

Are LSA a/c versatile? Sure. The point of my post is that flight schools are, by definition and by necessity, businesses. And a $30K plane that can teach students PPL and beyond, at a cost point similar to SPL training for the student AND without the risk of losing value in the aircraft, makes buying or leasing a $100K+/- S-LSA a difficult business decision right now.

[designrs]

I concur Jack. Basically from what I have seen LSA is an "all-in" proposition for a flight school. The Flight Schools that succeed at LSA are fully committed and often their entire fleet is LSA. They usually have a dedicated maintence program (are usually owner repairman certified) and market exclusively to attract the type of niche customers that are attracted to LSA.

LSA's are modern… and modern aircraft are not cheep!
The business model has to be fully committed to LSA to justify the cost.

[designrs]

The concept of the "LSA niche" is particularly relevant in context of the possible third-class medical petition.

Assuming the Pilot Protection Act goes through:
Will LSA values be effected? Most likely.
Will the LSA customer base shift or change? Most likely.

Sure, the medical waiver would probably allow private pilots to own and fly 30-year-old aircraft, cheeper.

** Still though…modern aircraft are not cheep.
LSA will still be a niche market, just like ultralights, taildraggers, gliders, etc.
LSA prices may drop somewhat if the medical petition is approved… but modern planes will always cost more than similar duty older aircraft.

Thoughts?

[Jack Tyler]

I'm not sure 'modern' is the right term to describe LSA a/c or when comparing them with older Part 23 a/c. Several LSA a/c I know of in my area have little more than a radio and the crew flies in the breeze. Others are more 'complete' but still quite simple. And all these were also relatively inexpensive to build or buy. By contrast, Patricia and I will once again fly from Jax out to Bozeman, MT in two weeks and we'll do it with stormscope, on-board wx and even some in-flight entertainment if we wish. If presented with non-convective IMC, we can opt to fly in the system and maintain our progress while landing safely in ceilings of only a few hundred feet. All that seems pretty amazing - and modern - to me. And we're doing it in a 1979 a/c that cost a bit more than half as much as the RV-12 I was thinking of building.

I suppose it's natural to differentiate between classes of planes, types of licenses, niches in the marketplace, flight training programs and so forth. It's a natural part of the intellectual process of analyzing and understanding. But I think we tend to overdo it in aviation. There are older and newer LSAs, factory and amateur built LSAs, LSAs that do little but fly locally and LSAs that do serious cross-country flying, and this entire mix of LSAs has to contend with the widely diverse seasonal weather patterns and topographic differences that exist throughout our country. And all of that is also true of legacy Part 23 aircraft, as well...as it is for both SP and PP populations. Perhaps it's a fairer generalization, if one is necessary to make, to say that newer a/c - within their own category, equipment and capabilities - tend to be more expensive than older a/c. Still, it amazes me how much more we and our a/c have in common than not.

[drseti]

I'm with Tom. My SportStar was $85k (used), and is equipped as and has been serving as a Sport, Private, and Instrument trainer. If you put equivalent avionics in a 152, you're going to be up in the same price range, at higher operating costs. STCd dual glass panels for certified aircraft are $$$, so SLSA makes sense for a certain training niche, regardless of the 3rd Class Medical (which is why I support eliminating it).

[3Dreaming]

I'm not sure 'modern' is the right term to describe LSA a/c or when comparing them with older Part 23 a/c. Several LSA a/c I know of in my area have little more than a radio and the crew flies in the breeze. Others are more 'complete' but still quite simple. And all these were also relatively inexpensive to build or buy. By contrast, Patricia and I will once again fly from Jax out to Bozeman, MT in two weeks and we'll do it with stormscope, on-board wx and even some in-flight entertainment if we wish. If presented with non-convective IMC, we can opt to fly in the system and maintain our progress while landing safely in ceilings of only a few hundred feet. All that seems pretty amazing - and modern - to me. And we're doing it in a 1979 a/c that cost a bit more than half as much as the RV-12 I was thinking of building.

I suppose it's natural to differentiate between classes of planes, types of licenses, niches in the marketplace, flight training programs and so forth. It's a natural part of the intellectual process of analyzing and understanding. But I think we tend to overdo it in aviation. There are older and newer LSAs, factory and amateur built LSAs, LSAs that do little but fly locally and LSAs that do serious cross-country flying, and this entire mix of LSAs has to contend with the widely diverse seasonal weather patterns and topographic differences that exist throughout our country. And all of that is also true of legacy Part 23 aircraft, as well...as it is for both SP and PP populations. Perhaps it's a fairer generalization, if one is necessary to make, to say that newer a/c - within their own category, equipment and capabilities - tend to be more expensive than older a/c. Still, it amazes me how much more we and our a/c have in common than not.

Jack, since we are talking about training I was speaking to SLSA only, because that is the only one you can realistically use for training. Also something else to point out is that most of the standard category LSA aircraft are not certified under part 23. They were certified under CAR 4 and CAR 4A. My original point in this post was the fact that many SLSA can be equipped to do instrument training, and most all can do private training the way they are now. This puts them even with the Cessna 152 you mentioned, and to make them more versatile they can also do sport pilot training. Yes the purchase price is higher, but the operating cost are often lower.
BTW some early SLSA can be flown IFR if so equipped.

[Jack Tyler]

Hey, no objections from me re: S-LSA's being versatile! When I planned to build an RV-12 it was going to be E-LSA and IFR certified. But both you and Paul, for all your valid points, are dancing right by the price tag on that C-152, IFR certified, at $30K. For a business that has to deliver a wide array of training - and you already have PP and IR covered with a Warrior and a C-152 - and you are wanting to start SP training BUT you need a SP-qualified aircraft to do it, you'd find yourself in a bit of a quandary.

[drseti]

And that, Jack, is.precisely why established FBOs are not embracing SP or LSAs. But consider a different kind of business plan - the new flight school that doesn't already have sunk costs to amortize with those 30 year old Cherokees and Cessnas. If their customer base is the sort that will be attracted.to shiny, new, and glass panels, new certified will cost three times as much as a new LSA, and cost significantly more to operate and maintain. If you happen to be in an area where that niche isn't being served, it becomes very feasible to generate reasonable profits with a properly equipped LSA used for SP, PP, and Instrument ratings. And a certain class of student will gladly pay more for new than for that 30 year old legacy aircraft.
BTW, I do lots of pre-purchase inspections. Based upon what I've found, those $30k aircraft are worth what you paid for them - if you are lucky!

[3Dreaming]

Hey, no objections from me re: S-LSA's being versatile! When I planned to build an RV-12 it was going to be E-LSA and IFR certified. But both you and Paul, for all your valid points, are dancing right by the price tag on that C-152, IFR certified, at $30K. For a business that has to deliver a wide array of training - and you already have PP and IR covered with a Warrior and a C-152 - and you are wanting to start SP training BUT you need a SP-qualified aircraft to do it, you'd find yourself in a bit of a quandary.

Not trying to dance at all. Having a IFR 152 and adding a classic LSA for sport pilot training is not the best way to do things. While the initial investment will likely be lower you have 2 aircraft to insure and maintain. That is why I say an IFR equipped SLSA would better serve the mission. You can do sport, private, and instrument training, and you only have one aircraft to insure. Operating cost will be lower than the 152, and much lower than a Warrior. In this case one airplane will do what they are trying to do with two