Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.
"I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.
My post was more of a metaphor of the LSA industry gravitating more toward highish-end, expensive aircraft, instead of keeping the focus on affordability. The goal of the LSA aircraft category was to be able to purchase a new, built flying machine for the cost of a high end automobile (not a supercar). Instead the selection of $100K+ aircraft, that are still limited by LSA rules, is endless. What a joke it has become.
Ryan Winslow
EAA 525529
Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction
At least that's what we have deluded ourselves into believing. I'm not sure if I believe that was the primary reason behind it.The goal of the LSA aircraft category was to be able to purchase a new, built flying machine for the cost of a high end automobile (not a supercar).
Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.
"I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.
Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.
"I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.
You know, this is PRECISELY where the "market", (that's us), can dictate how many of which type of aircraft are built. There is going to by a group of pilots who want the latest plastic whizz-bang, glass decked uber priced LSA's built somewhere in China, and then there are going to be a bunch of pilots that wouldn't want that type of aircraft, even if they COULD afford it, who for less than the price of an ECONOMY CAR, build a Kit, buy used from the family of a recently departed pilot, or, (probably the most inexpensive route), build from plans. I have a plans built "Old School" ultralight that cost me a tick less than three thousand dollars to build and put into the sky, and I dare say that there are a great many more of THAT type of plane flying the skies of this Country than LSA. or GA. You don't have to spend your money on some outrageously priced product that wasn't even built in this Country, when you can spend a hell of a lot less money, and give an American a job.
Where are they? I live in an area with a population of over 1 million and I haven't seen an ultralight actually flying for at least the last year. Several years ago, there was one that made occasional evening flights. In the same time, I've seen thousands of GA and LSA aircraft flying.
At Oshkosh, through I've never counted carefully, there are 100's of GA aircraft for every ultralight.
Bill
Comparing analog and glass on price alone isn't very meaningful, given their vastly different capabilities. Analog can provide the basics (altitude, airspeed, engine gauges, etc.) quite easily, but has no answer for digital flight planning, moving map, GPS RNAV, visual and aural alerts, electronic checklists, and so on.
I guess it comes down to an assessment of your mission requirements or simply your desires. If you're happy with stick, throttle and airspeed, then an analog panel makes sense. If you want the additional (and in my view, compelling) capabilities offered by glass, then you better get good at crimping D-SUB pins.
Eric Page
Building: Kitfox 5 Safari | Rotax 912iS | Dynon HDX
Member: EAA Lifetime, AOPA, ALPA
ATP: AMEL | Comm: ASEL, Glider | ATCS: CTO
Map of Landings