Thread: Switching to an LSA: Any Regrets?

As I mentioned in some previous posts, I'm looking at LSAs as a way to keep flying without the ridiculous costs. I've started flying about 4 years ago, and now have about 900 hours. I fly a lot, mostly x-country - the most any given 12 month period was 300+ hours, but average around 200/year. I first bought a 172SP, got my IFR in it, and then joined an SR20 partnership, and rented an SR22. I then (about a year ago) sold the 172, and joined a club with a 182RG, and was ready to go into an SR22 or TwinStar parternship when the costs just dawned on me: I was paying exponentially more money (would have been close to $450/hour all-in at 150 hours/year in the TwinStar) for only a slight increase in capability (more speed, higher wing loading, known ice, two engines etc.) I got rid of the SR20 partnership and now just fly in a club. At my peak spending habit, I spent about $60k/year.

So i started looking at LSA. My requirements are: comfort, glass, AP, avionics with which to shoot instrument approaches at least in VFR conditions, and a chute, and as high of a wing loading as I can find. CTLS seems to be a fit (CTSW wasn't because of the lack of the SL30), we'll see about the SRS. I'd be giving up most cross-countries and IMC flying.

Is anybody else in the same or similar situation? Have you regretted the decision? At least one post I saw mentioned the sale of the CT due to instrument training and want of flying IFR. Any input?

Originally Posted by pilotjohn

So i started looking at LSA. My requirements are: comfort, glass, AP, avionics with which to shoot instrument approaches at least in VFR conditions, and a chute, and as high of a wing loading as I can find. CTLS seems to be a fit (CTSW wasn't because of the lack of the SL30), we'll see about the SRS. I'd be giving up most cross-countries and IMC flying.

High wing loading and LSA are kind of oxymorons, but the CT is indeed the highest of the LSAs.

Doug

Evening PilotJohn.

My partners and I sold our very sweet, full IFR C182 in December for just the reasons you mention. It was a great plane with leather interior, fully repaneled in 2001 and with an Apollo stack, MX20, etc. Great IFR platform. But we found we generally were either solo or with just one other person. And with avgas hitting over $5 and blowing through 13 or so gph it was hard to justify X-C flights for traveling anymore...the primary purpose we own a plane. The CTSW fit the bill for many of the reasons you mention. Great autopilot - probably one of the best I have ever flown behind. Enjoyable and comfortable to do X-Cs in. Great panel. The only time I sort of miss the Skylane is when the wind is really blowing - no question that the CT (or any S-LSA) is not as capable in windy conditions but then again, it can be done and I have flown it in winds up to 14 gusting a bit over; one of my partners found himself in 30 degrees of crosswind blowing 21 with higher gusts and while a challenge, it was doable. I also miss the visibility of the MX-20 but the Garmin 496 is adequate and certainly much more capable as set up in the CT. But other than that? It is the most fun flying I have had in years. I find that the CT is a plane requiring a sensitive touch and personally, I think prior taildragger time is a plus - not a requirement certainly but a plus - just because of the control sensitivity and rudder needed in the CT. It is is not difficult, just requires a technique of its own. Like a lot of planes. Rather like going from a big sedan to a sports car. I have flown more in the past 2 months than I normally flew the Skylane in 6 or 8 months...it is affordable to do so again. And I can fly a trip to any destination now for about the same gas cost as driving my Honda to the same location! At 115 - 120 knots TAS! So, no regrets. None at all. Do I miss my Skylane? Of course a little bit, for reasons noted, but I absolutely am glad we made the switch to the CT in particular. Gas is only going to get more expensive and the big bore Continental and Lycoming powered aircraft are increasingly going to be sitting rather than flying due to fuel cost. We are seeing that already at our home base and hearing from a lot of owners who see our CT and compare it to their Pipers and Cessnas and the like. And talk about maybe this is the way for them to go also!

Got long-winded. Outa' here. Regards and good luck with your decision.

PilotJohn,

The first thing you have to decide to do is forget about IFR flying if you are even thinking of a LSA, the two don't go together.

If you can live without IFR capabilities then you have to be happy with less weight capacity.

When you first start flying the CT it will feel small and light to you, but it will grow on you to the point that I am at, I don't want to fly anything else and I own a RV6A that I am selling this Spring.

The CT fits me like a glove, it's very comfortable and so much fun to fly. My confidence and skill has increased to the point that I don't worry about landing in winds less than 20 knts, (unless it's over 15 knts direct crosswind).

Perhaps you should find a CT and get some dual to make sure it will work for you, but if you are tired of spending tons of money on flying then the CTLS might just be your best choice.

Well said Alan,

Last night I took a trip with a friend of mine to Portland and back in a "old rental 172". Being on the bigger side of life, it was shoulder to shoulder! Had to hold a flashlight for him so we could read the gauges and being so use to the visibility of the CT I felt like I was inside a tank peering out!

We'll all admit the 172 and its brothers are great flying machines but I certainly wish I'd been in "my glove" instead!

Roger H

Originally Posted by awelectric

PilotJohn,

The first thing you have to decide to do is forget about IFR flying if you are even thinking of a LSA, the two don't go together.

If you can live without IFR capabilities then you have to be happy with less weight capacity.

Agreed. If you want a VFR-only 2 seater, the CT is hard to beat, unless you want the speed or acro of a RV-8. Hmmm...

Doug

The RV's are great airplanes, but I find the CT more comfortable on long flights.

I also like being able to burn mogas, 130 MPH on 5 GPH is hard to beat.

I demoed a CTSW before. I liked it and had no issues with it being light or landing it. The only issue I found is the lack of IFR capable (not certified) avionics (like an SL30) so I can at least practice approaches in VFR with a safety pilot. With the CTLS' SL30 option, I guess I should be able to do some VOR/LOC/ILS approaches for fun, although no GPS approaches.

I like flying N293CT for about $45 per hour, including EVERYTHING!

I've heard that some people were even putting Garmin 430W's so they can IFR train in flight schools. I'm in the same situation as you owning a Tiger, Diamond 40 with G1000 and now, a new Cessna 182T with Garmin glass. When you're talking about 350K+ airplanes, the cost of fuel becomes less of a concern in the overall percentage cost of ownership. My 182 can gobble up me and my whole family with tanks for up to 5 hrs flying! AND, I'm BIG as in 6'4" and 215 lbs. That's about the only thing that's been keeping me from pulling the trigger on a new LS. Every so often, I need 3-4 seats for a XC. Most of my flying, though, is done for fun to EAA breakfasts, etc. Also, I was concerned by the landing "incidents" that have occurred in the CT. The LS may have taken care of that, but won't know until the planes get out to us, the pilots for evaluation. Heck, every plane has some problems. The 182 is notorious for nose wheel landing and breaking the firewall off!

My son flies for a subsidiary of Continental Airlines and we're supposed to get some family flights for reduced $$. Haven't seen it yet, but if that's true, the need for a plane to do long XC's goes way down the list and the CT will win out. Hope this helps...

John

PS I know I'm not an CT owner, but I've been lurking for a long time on this forum. My CT day will be coming soon!!!