Switch S-LSA to E-LSA?

[sportjen]

Okay. Hi all,

I have bought a SportCruiser, an S-LSA, and my thought was that I would switch it to an E-LSA so that I may get an LSRI and do own maintenance (as experimental) and annual CIs (as LSRI), etc.

Reason? Cost savings, and I like the "Experimental" on the side of the plane... I'm an old EAAer. I would still hire an A&P or LSRM now and then to check my work, etc.

But here's the question:

Is that wise? To switch the S-LSA to an E-LSA?

I'm told Value of plane will drop, but really that much? Over the next 10 years if I keep it? Or 20? If I keep it up like it is?

I'm interested in ideas, and I thank you for your info.

Jen

[FastEddieB]

Here's a thread about my conversion:

http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php ... rrow#p6871

I think there's some misinformation contained therein, but I believe by the end most of it has been corrected.

[drseti]

Jen,
This was well covered in the thread Eddie referenced. The only caveats are:
(1) an ELSA may not be used for instruction for hire, or as a rental aircraft. This might impact the resale value.
(2) once converted, you can only change it back to SLSA if the manufacturer so authorizes. Most don't want to accept the liability in doing so.
(3) some insurance carriers charge more to cover an experimental. Check with your broker or agent.

[jnmeade]

I think Eddie's thread is so outdated it should be redone.
There was absolutely zero none nil nix change in insurance premium when I went from FD CTSW SLSA to ELSA. I am, of course, only speaking for my own personal experience.

[drseti]

You lucked out there, Jim. My caveat still stands: check with your insurance agent or broker before making the change.

[Jack Tyler]

Jen, there was at least one extensive discussion on the E-LSA tradeoffs that took place here well before the link Eddie provided, perhaps a year or more ago. I'd encourage you to use the search function as it was quite expansive (in identifying issues, not necessarily reaching conclusions).

I don't know if this will prove helpful to you but an analogy I think applies to your Q is the decision an E-AB builder makes when completing his/her experimental. I'll use Wes, a good friend whom I've observed over the years as he's built his LSA Highlander, as an example. Highlanders can be completed in fairly 'rough and ready' fashion as some (probably, most) of them are used for backcountry flying and their high useful load and very low stall speed are two of the traits that appeal (rather than e.g. sleek lines, close to max LSA speed, and composite construction). But Wes - and Sandra, his wife and co-conspirator in many of their adventures - wanted theirs to be special to them. E.g. Wes wanted to have a return fuel line system (which some view as a partial preventer of vapor lock). Given the Highlander's folding wing design, this was no simple addition (but then, I should add that Wes is a retired NASA engineer). Sandra sewed beautiful canvas covers (prop, sunlight, windscreen, etc.), a beautiful interior, and even made a 'plane cover' (since it's tube & fabric construction) which won 1st prize in the Sailrite contest last year. Wes' Highlander might be the only one with redundant instrumentation and a whiskey compass, a gorgeous paint + swoopy graphics finish, and on the list goes. It is a very handsome bird with which he is currently flying off its post-certification 40 hrs.

What does this have to do with your S/E-LSA Q? It's probably pretty obvious. Wes & Sandra weren't building a Highlander. They were building THEIR Highlander. They added a lot of cost to what could have been a barebones project that would have been just as flyable, and they are unlikely to recover the same portion of their costs when they one day sell their bird, when compared to other builders of other, similar aircraft. But most of their decision-making centered around what THEY wanted to build and own, and it seems to me that same choice is what you are weighing. If owning an E-LSA (and what that means for you) is an important factor for you, then shouldn't that be more influential than trying to work out a ledger sheet on the (financial or other) pro's & con's?

And re: Paul's suggestion on shopping insurance premiums - which is indeed one of the factors to consider - be sure to ask the EAA about that. They know a thing or two about insuring experimentals. <g>

[FastEddieB]

There was absolutely zero none nil nix change in insurance premium when I went from FD CTSW SLSA to ELSA. I am, of course, only speaking for my own personal experience.

Mine actually went down a little, though I think most of that was they were only willing to insure the hull for $50k, down fom the stated $70k I had prior.

Currently $949/yr.

[jnmeade]

Eddie,
When I made the switch, my agent asked me if I'd like to increase hull coverage. I was a little suprised at that and asked him why he asked. His assumption was I went Experimental because I wanted to add appliances. I hadn't even thought of that. My costs will likely go up when I get my panel redone this summer for that reason.

[sportjen]

I have been thinking about this, and my thinking is that I may leave my SportCruiser as an S-LSA.

There are multiple reasons, but chief among them are implied value of airplane and more restrictive operating limitations of the Experimental, for the same aircraft.

So I'll see, but that's where I"m leaning.

Jen

[Jack Tyler]

"...more restrictive operating limitations of the Experimental..."

Could you be more specific, Jen? Perhaps with your specific a/c, you are thinking about the value of your a/c as a potential trainer?

[FastEddieB]

...more restrictive operating limitations of the Experimental, for the same aircraft.

Just make sure you understand that the only add'l restrictions would be the ability to instruct in it or rent it out.

Other than that, unless I make a major alteration, my operating limitations stayed exactly the same after conversion.

[sportjen]

Different op limitations...

A man at FSDO warned me ELSA op limitations would include restriction that i would be required if forced landing to be able to glide to landing without hazard to persons or proprrty on ground.

Of course we would always love to do that but accidents do happen

Thats one reason we buy insurance

Yet if engine out and thre was damage to persons or proprty on gtound insurance may not pay as damage proo es flight was in violationof operating limitations

And i dont have that restriction written in thrre as SLSA.

I CERTAINLY intend to fly or make any forced landing safely. Always. but in the event of a cideny i want insurance to be effective too.

Tgis is area im struggling to resolve

Jen
Phone

[FastEddieB]

The FAR's (CFR's) already mandate that a Minimum Safe Altitude is...

"Anywhere: an altitude allowing a safe emergency landing without undue hazard to person or property on the ground;"

So I don't see how that limitation does anything but restate an existing limitation.

And, if I'm not mistaken, my Sky Arrow POH has similar language, as does ROTAX.

Edited to add...

From the 912 Owner's Manual:

4.2) Safety information
▲ WARNING:
Never fly the aircraft equipped with this engine at locations, airspeeds, altitudes, or other circumstances from which a successful no-power landing cannot be made, after sudden engine stoppage.

[jnmeade]

I'd add to what Ed is saying that my understanding of why you advise ATC of your Experimental status is so that they know ahead of time when they route you that you have these limitations. Granted, it may be on you to be able to get to a safe place in an emergency, but I'd argue that once you've told ATC "Experimental" when you first check in, that if they don't want you over a certain area they should route you away.

In practical terms, I've never personally nor I haven't heard of anyone restricted because they were an ELSA or any other Experimental. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any knowledge of that happening. (I'm not talking about stand off distance while doing an air show - that is different.)

[artp]

Granted, it may be on you to be able to get to a safe place in an emergency, but I'd argue that once you've told ATC "Experimental" when you first check in, that if they don't want you over a certain area they should route you away.

From what I have read ATC is not required to route you where you should not go. It is your responsibility. In the SFRA if you fly toward to FRZ and ATC notices and has time they will warn you but if they were busy doing something else it is your problem if you go into the FRZ. I would expect the same rules would apply to experimental planes, especially since ATC won't know what you particular restrictions might be.