mtv wrote:The promise of LSA's revitalizing the aviation industry turns out to be in error. Unless, of course, you've got a spare $150 K laying around.
I think in order to be revitalized, pilots have to let their perception of "what is affordable flying" be revitalized.
It's not going to be a miniature 2-seat C180 that can haul all your gear but limited to 1 pax. It's not going to be just a scaled down version of what general aviation was before the ruling. The prices certainly aren't revitalizing. How much more work does it really take to build a new 182 vs a new 172 vs a new 162 vs a Legend Cub? Probably not significantly different in man hours and total cost for the airframe and engine construction.
In my opinion, the cheapest way to fly is to build a LSA kit from the "ultralight" realm of design. Small motors, light airframes, etc. The utility of these aircraft is pretty much limited to hauling your bag of bones from Point A to...not really Point B, but rather a roundabout follow the river and look at the fields fun flight. It is a different approach to flying, and I think someone migrating to LSA has to accept that.
I can understand the reluctance to build an aircraft yourself. Many people will never even consider it, even though some of these simpler kits are very simple to build once you eliminate semi-monocoque alum construction, or composite-- and the only fabric on the aircraft is the Dacron wing sails.
The medical issue is another thing. We have lots of threads on this.
https://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1505