If the 51% rule gets scrapped, you could probably order an experimental right from the factory. What would prevent them from building the kit, shipping it across the road the a „build facility“ aka factory part two and completing the plane there?
If this becomes legal, then product liability is enforceable on the entire industry and it will extinct. The E/AB world revolves around the fact that the builder is an amateur and makes mistakes and cannot blame the designer or kit manufacturer. When the industry supplies a finished product to the general public who had no involvement in its construction, you have the burdon of product liability placed on E/AB category companies, and they will have to purchase product liability insurance. Which makes E/AB aircraft cost about what a certified aircraft costs. And there will be NO WAY to reverse this once it is passed.
The low cost factor for Light Sport Aircraft was the reason for Cessna came up with t SkyCatcher. But to keep costs down it was built in China. Build quality wasn't that good. Performance and the limitations made it barely usable. It performed like a 152. But was way more money Plus they are limited in speed and altitude. Their insurance costs will be lower because they have fewer seats. If involved in a fatality it is the owner and one other. The hull costs are also less.
I really want a sling 4 tsi. But with a business and young family I don’t have time and that’s why I’m looking at old 172. I don’t want a 172 I want to sling but I can’t take time off to build it
One requirement LSA aircraft have that experimental aircraft don't is that a certificated A&P mechanic has to sign off the annual condition inspection. If experimentals get recategorized as LSA will the builder still be able to perform that requirement? Could be a real moneymaker for your local A&P. Also, airworthiness directives can be issued on LSA aircraft.
@@nealm6962 Don't burn out - we need ya! Not sure if you know, but the 51% has become more an issue of Repairman Certificate issuance. "Builders" are still getting Airworthiness Certificates even if they don't accomplish 51% of the build. Seems to be a moving target with the Feds/DARs. Could be that those that PROVE they've completed 51% of the build will still be eligible for the Repairman Certificate, but just like now, "builders" without one have to utilize an A&P.
If I think about my mechanical expertise (I tried and failed at Lego!) the concept of building an aircraft defeats my mind yet alone my capability. I have always wondered if the current rules didn’t build in a situation where the unskilled tried, and maybe created a structure that down the road at some point became unstable as a result of competence?
Is it possible and legal to put a Cessna 172 airplane wing on a Cessna 401 and putting a airplane engine in the front of the Cessna 401 preferably a F-150 V6 engine from a truck
They need to chill out on the SSRI usage on private pilots. I can’t fly using my private but can using sport pilot because of the medical thing. I am not depressed but have anxiety. Per the current rules I have to jump through hoops just for them to say maybe or maybe not to a special issuance medical. It’s ridiculous. Until then, I’ll fly LSA and enjoy those planes.
@@paulygood6665 no, its not that easy. There is the 51% rule. Vans fast build kits leave you at least 600 hours of work remaining. They are not painted, wired, equipped, or assembled.
Would be great to unload a 40' container with an almost ready to fly TSI or HW assembled and painted at the factory. Just attach the wings and ready to go 😎
If they're that close to RTF, then the price is going to be almost the same. The issue with airplane pricing is insurance for the manufacturer, not necessarily production costs.
The notice of proposed rule change is due out by August. There will still be 18 months of reviewing all public comments before it will go into effect. Light Sport rules include 1. Increased weight 2. Higher speed 3. Four seat aircraft 4. Constant speed prop 5. Retractable gear( Light Sport amphibious planes already have them).
Most important to me.... Constant Speed Prop=Faster, and the weight increase. 1320lbs is just plain ridiculous. What were they thinking when they came up with that number? But we are talking about the Federal Government here (FAA), so I'm not holding my breath on these very logical changes.
@davidcollier3604 this is what has everyone in suspense. The weight is expected to be formula based. Could be 500 to 1000 lbs increase. Speed is estimated to be around 150 knots. No one knows for sure. The items I listed are expected to be addressed, but will not know until the NOPRM comes out sometime around oshkosh or August.
I completed my VansAircraft RV7A 10 years ago. Zero time on the airframe and a brand new engine. I can cruise at 165 knots, (190mph), with the Lycoming O-320 160 HP engine. Now think about a certified aircraft... to get a new engine and zero time airframe with close to the same performance would have been nearly $500,000.00. That's a half million bucks!!! I completed my plane for less that 20% of that. If you have the time to build, experimentals are the way to go IMO!
There is an even bigger impact: most kits do not get assembled and registered. Because the entire process is so time intensive and bureaucratic, most owners buy a kit, start to assemble and for whatever reason never finish. I don't have the numbers right now, but I've seen an article some time ago on this. If the build assist team is allowed to do the majority of the work, then there will be more aircraft in the sky and our hobby may finally get out of the endangered species list.
If what you say does come to fruition, I fear a very different possibility - If the 51% rule is eliminated or severely relaxed, I do agree that more build facilities will pop up AND build assist prices "could" actually go down due to increased competition. However, if more and more people have Experimental aircraft built by professional facilities, then these "professionally built" experimentals will command a much higher resale price than those aircraft built by "Johnny in his garage". The price of quality built experimentals will go UP, the resale value of true "Home builds" will go DOWN and the certified market prices will remain completely unaffected. Certified aircraft prices will continue to rise year after year as there are still a ton of people out there with more money than sense.
Why do you fear this outcome? This seems reasonable to me. Although I think certified will not rise as much, though the 172 and Cherokees of the world will still be sought out by flight schools.
If supply goes up (assuming unchanged demand) then price should go down. However, this doesn’t factor in the almost-certain litigation against builders as soon as one crashes (regardless of the reason).
@@EJWash57 Exactly. However, i wonder if airplane mfgs would now “do it differently” with their corporate structure - e.g., each plane is “created” inside a NewCo (newly formed corporation which exists solely to build/hold the plane). Then the purchaser buys the NewCo (incl. it’s asset, the newly completed plane [AND any of its potential future liability, should the worst happen]). If somehow the builder (NewCo) gets sued, the only assets in the NewCo are the plane and maybe a few $$. Just a thought…
@@baomao7243 Interesting. Would eliminate NewCo as a deep-pocket litigation target. Just make sure as the owner to register your airplane to an LLC so you're not next in line.
Agreed. I just wanna pay fair market value for a good used Mooney. But like houses, it's hard to tell when the market has peaked, how fast prices will fall, and how far. Frustrating.
If one is following Global trends, we are heading to a market crash which will be so severe that it will cause a reset of values... I am waiting and watching, but in my heart I see lower values in everything..
@@EJWash57 I've been loosely following the market for both C and J models for the past two years or so. Of course it depends on ttaf, tbo, avionics, exterior/interior condition, but the ranges of both models seem to have increased by about $50k on average. A nice J model with WAAS gps, mid-time engine and all other variables in relatively good condition could be had for around $100k a couple years ago, now the same airplane is closer to $150k. These are ballpark but again, like homes, the market average was artificially inflated by pandemic economic effect, and as we come out of all that it would stand to reason there will be some adjustment.
@@paulwright7239 Thanks. Ouch. I have no idea why such a jump unless there are those willing to pay it. Guess buyers will have to wait until a seller cries "uncle" and accepts a price that will move the plane.
Great information as always Mike. We like so many others have been tracking this closely. This will be a huge advantage for our two experimental aircraft the Stream and the Sparker as they are already factory finished aircraft.
I built my experimental in 1992-1993. A very enjoyable time but you are right. It requires patience. Now don’t forget that Light Sport was also created to free up flying to people with medical imitations.
I'm sorry some one with a heart condition or something like that, shouldn't be flying in the first place. there should be some screening at least. or someone on anti-depressants shouldn't be in a plane. they go off there meds and than take off and dive bomb there ex's house oh and than making it legal for them to have four seaters. take down there whole family or people they hate.
@@A1Automotivesales light sport wasn’t developedto free up people with medical limitations. If I am correct, an individual with a special medical issuance(condition) still has to get a Class 3 medical to fly light sport. This also enables them to fly normal certified aircraft making for no medical differences. What is does is lowers the costs of not normally getting an FAA medical if you regularly see(wisely) a general practitioner and don’t have documented issues. I do agree with the anti-depressants comment and EVERYONE I know of on SSRI’s has irregularly medicated at times causing significant issues. This counters @zachjones6944 comments. No one perfectly takes their meds much less those with psychiatric issues. As a result, SSRI are a multi-billion dollar blight on society propagated by drug companies
@@A1Automotivesales what about cars? People have medical emergencies on the road all the time and causes millions of dollars in damages and injury hundreds of people each year. Also, what's stopping them from throwing their family in the car and driving off a cliff? Do you think medicals should be required to drive a car?
I looked into building a lancair 4p about 20 years ago. Actually flew the factory prototype. At that time fast build kit, engine, prop and planned avionics was about $250k, and lancair claimed 1000 hours build time. I flew my turbo arrow to Oshkosh dreaming about how much quicker the trip would be in a 4p. There were 6 completed 4p and 4's. Spoke with the owner/builders and learned the build time was 4000 to 7000 hours and the total costs were $500k to $700k and average build time was 5 years. At that time you could buy a mid-time turboprop for $500k, fully certified, pressurized, 6 seats, and 75 knots faster than the 4p. But, the real kicker was the insurance. I was paying about $2500/yr for the turbo Arrow, and the quote for the 4p was $12,000/yr. In the end my time had value... couldn't really see spending 3 to 5 years of my time. We then considered a Lancair Columbia which would be fully certified, but there was a lot of schedule uncertainty. To be sure the lancair's are awesome planes. If you decide to build a kit talk to the other builders to get your expectations correct.
I would like to see the Grumman Tiger with fuel injection (True Flight Aerospace) back in production. Paying CLOSE attention to the weight and useful load when it's built. Hopefully under 200-250K. With it's bonded wing I don't know if it could be a good homebuilt candidate, but the lack of rivets is one reason the airframe is so efficient. Sure does look like a Van's Aircraft admittedly
You can buy a completely assembled experimental airplane as well. And as an owner of an experimental aircraft the biggest benefit for me is the ability to do all of my own maintenance and I just need an a&p not an IA for a conditional inspection.
The Steel is a certified S-LSA made by Rupert Aeronaves in Brazil . A brand new one (TSN 0) cost only U$ 95.000. Excellent for training (can be used to take a Private Pilot’s License and Sport Pilot’s License) and hobby. It is cheaper and quicker to own an LSA than to build an Experimental.
Mike. I follow a lot of your channel. Dan Johnson has covered this in detail as well. I'm 60, got my license at 17, and haven't been current in the last 15-20 years. The main benefit I have currently with light sport is I only need a driver license to get going. I have some health consideration that the FAA medical and I need to do battle on. In the meantime, I can get the "touch" back by first go with a CFI, and then get the skills back. Is our elected officials in D.C. the right place to push?
@@anoonymoose196 the FAA are angels compared to CASA here in Australia. CASA are CONSTANTLY changing rules, no one is keeping up and they are actually trying to get rid of GA altogether.
As someone who has participated in building an experimental aircraft, do you think it makes you a better pilot to take part in the build? I mean, I imagine that it would give you a more intimate knowledge of the aircraft and could help you, especially in an emergency, but even just in pre-flights, to figure out what is wrong, or where to look for problems. Do you agree?
I think it makes a person a better pilots. not in terms of stick and rudder skills/proficiency, but in terms of awareness and understanding, in terms of maintenance, preflight, preventative maintenance, etc. as you mention.
Hi Mike. I just subscribed to your channel. A lot of really great information. I'm actually about to get my pilot's license but want to purchase an LSA. I know an LSA license is much cheaper but getting my pilot's license will not have any limitations on me in the future. The sole reason for me wanting an LSA is getting a "newer" vs. "older" (with potential problems even though they are generally reliable). However, I am still shocked that the LSA cost is still high, i.e. LSA range (my range) for $100K - $150K vs. older for $50K - $75K. I really hope the LSA cost or Experiemental cost for that matter goes down. As much as I would LOVE to have an LSA or Experimental, the cost will dictate what I do when ready to purchase. Hoping to purchase in the next 6 months. Blows me away, however, that hanger availability in my area (Austin, TX) will also dictate when I purchase. Hangers, tie-downs, and overhangs are very hard to come by around here. There are waiting lists everywhere.
Hope so. Bc 40 year old clapped out and corroded airframes for six figures is ludicrous for the next buyer going forward. Wake up people this market is wayyyy overvalued. And was just quoted hangar space near nyc for $900 per month. If can get. Wtf. So more planes stored outside. Even though airport has tons more space to build. With high price of av gas and insurance and shortage of a and p and more airfields sold to housing developers it’s Game over for this hobby. You think ramps are filled with queens right now just wait another 10-15 years then go check your local Airpark. It’s gonna look like a salvage yard. Hi I’m from the government I’m here to help!!! Run away. You’ve killed GA!
@@kasm10 I am technically part of the next generation, only recently licensed. I am by no means wealthy but manage my helicopter hobby via stringent budgeting. There are still many opportunities, aviation was never for people with poor financial sense. The main problem is the modern generation refusing to sacrifice any aspect of their life to facilitate something else. To afford my licensing and regular flying, I had to stop eating out every day, cut back on my motorcycle addiction, realize my current phone still works fine and maybe I don't need an upgrade. Sure, it's not a good thing aviation is getting wildly more expensive, I sure wish it wasn't, but the modern generation is pricing themselves out of it with their bad habits more than aviation costs are pricing them out.
In the past 2 years I have watched the price of airplanes go up 50%+ and the cost of insurance do the same. With 10+ local airports you can still not rent an enclosed hanger anywhere, and only a couple had a few covered parking available. If people are running away from aviation because of the cost, it is not happening here. I am on the waiting list for an enclosed hangar at several airports for over a year, not a single call.
@@velocity2654 20+ on Hangar waiting lists are the norm. Few new ones being built. I found covered parking for my plane 2+ hours from my home. One morning, the Airport Manager put out an email announcing an enclosed condo T-hangar was for sale. I called the owner within 20-minutes of when that email was sent out. I was #2 buyer in line! Turned out that #1 buyer's plane was not going to fit, so I locked up the deal. PURE LUCK!
What happens in August this year ('23) is the FAA ***MAY*** release a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) on MOSAIC (Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certificates) - NOT implement any rule changes that are currently in effect. That's all. And, this particular NPRM has been delayed before, which means that it can be delayed again. The release of the NPRM opens a window in which Public Input is considered. Insurance companies, aircraft manufacturers, Aunt Hazel, etc., will be able to offer their input. What you're doing here is counting your chickens before the chickens that will lay the eggs of the chickens might hatch. I expect the aircraft manufacturers will vehemently oppose any changes - until they get a release date on what they can offer in the New LSA Category. Insurance rates going down? Laughable.
A little misleading, the MOSIAC is better mg world on. The FAA hopes to have the rules ready by Aug 23 for a NPRM where it’s given a period for comments. After all the comments are read and considered then the new rules will be in effect. You are looking at possibly two years or more.
As we are all aware, one of the great benefits of owning an experimental is the ability to work on your aircraft and the better understanding you have of your airplane when you are involved in building it. I am curious to know, will the more liberal rules on maintenance of self built experimentals stay the same under this new rule?
You should be the builder (not the build assist center) to get the repairman certificate. These “work arounds” will result in more people working on planes who shouldn’t and more accidents.
Owned an AA-1 Yankee about 20years ago. Being and A&P I thought it would be a easy and cheap to maintain, I was wrong. Still needed to pay an I.A. to do my annual every year, and even though I did my own maintenance, parts still cost an arm and a leg. It was a fun little plane to fly but I eventually sold it just because it wasn't as cheap as I thought it was going to be, you can only justify a $100 burger run to your wife for so long. Told myself I would never own another airplane unless I built a Kit. Retirement is coming quick, so I'm starting to look at some!
You can save money if you build it yourself....if you have the time and the skills to build it. And the work space. The fact is : Aviation ain't cheap.
Someone with a big brain care to explain the economics of why a light sport is cheaper than a regular certified plane if it is built in a factory and not at home like an experimental? I thought that experimental planes were cheap only because they are built at home and can use non-aircraft rated engines. How is paying someone to build them cheaper than paying someone to build a regular certified airplane? I thought light sport was literally just a weight category of certified aircraft. How is light sport economically different?
I will come by your facility soon I hope to build or get it built! This rule should hopefully increase supply, lower costs overall even for those who build in their garage, and maybe even safer if build facility quality is without shortcuts as some might take building at home. I personally wouldn’t have the time to spend 2000 hours building, as That time easily would be worth $500K for me and won’t be worth the experimental route. Hopefully it get more people into aviation.
I think it will affect pricing of experimentals in that - name brand builds will be priced at a premium to smaller lesser known home built brands. I doubt it affects the certificated market all that much. I think their will always be a gap - and the gap is measured by warranty, company, service etc. Because you just dont know what you are getting with an experimental - it could be poorly constructed or it could be well constructed. At least you generally know what you are getting with a certificated one. I think things will stratify - just like the MOH engine side - like a western airways, or penn Yann aero, RAM aircraft overhauled engine is worth more than some others.
The three major factors in determining insurance costs are: How many companies are in the market, How available are parts for the airplane you are insuring (example would be higher for airplanes where the parts have to be imported from another country) and pilot experience in that airplane.
I dont think prices will come down when it's an opportunity for built assist and insurance to make more money but the 51% rule would be cool to see it go
Well from a owner operator standpoint "time is money", even if the facility absorbs the points per hour to balance out "your contribution", the money you save on travel as well as your time away from business affairs will more than make up for it, in some cases well worth it, if you are a business owner.
This proposed rule change sounds like it could be a trap. It converts the system to a custom built airplane. That means no "repairman certificate". All maintenance and mods would have to be done under the supervision and responsibility of an A&P. So you technically can't maintain the airplane yourself. So the change could be perceived as a move toward more regulation and control. Potentially costing more on the long term.
Not going to happen. The prices of engines and avionics represent 2/3rds of the cost of the plane and nothing you have presented takes the drastic price increases of those two elements into account. If you want a safe, capable, “Certificated and used” GA airplane, get ready to spend $300-400K for a 30-50 year old aircraft and then be prepared for high maintenance costs due to lack of parts availability and A&P shortages. Then, good luck finding a hangar. GA is history except for the very wealthy. Maybe they can save $50K on an experimental with builder assist but that is chump change compared to the overall cost.
Mike, I have dreamed of being a pilot all of my life. I'm 60 years old and have a couple of health issues so my dream will never come true. I really like your channel because you are so full of information and almost make me believe my dreams can come true. Thank you for your effort and keep it coming, I will always be here watching!
The prices for certified aircraft are a direct result of Liability Lawsuits from Years ago. One in particular had a judgement so huge it literally caused Cessna to cease production of all Non-Commercial aircraft for a decade. When Cessna came back it was at around a 125% increase in price for a standard VFR 172. From around $85K to $185K, which has just progressed since them. Because of the huge increase, that caused less sales, driving pricing up even higher. People were Bemoaning Mooney finally closing their plant, but a Basic aircraft was running at around $850K. There was a time when the price of a GA aircraft was running in around about twice the cost of a new Car. Expensive, but reachable for the middle class. Over the last 30 years, New Airplanes (Certified) have been pretty much solely the purview of the Ultra-rich, Which is the reason EAB has really exploded. LS was supposed to take up a bit of the slack, but at $250K, you're back into the same issue of affordability. When I see a 172 that's almost as old as I am, going for well over $115K, there's a problem. On TOP of that, now you have insurance, and the premiums are through the roof, Annuals, Fuel Prices, even what are normally minor things like Oil Filters. Sometimes I really wonder if they aren't trying to Kill GA altogether. I did some looking around, Pre-Pandemic to start flying again...$225-250/Hr instructed $150/Hr solo for a 172. Thank Goodness for Flying clubs, because Honestly that's the sole really affordable route to getting a PPL anymore as far as I can see.
The idealism that everything that happens is always someone else's fault has destroyed a lot of things in this country. You cannot watch a show on TV without seeing lawyers wanting you to sue somebody. Lawyers are a major problem as to what is wrong with this country.
Part of the reason those used planes cost more now ( not the only of course) is legacy aircraft like my Archer 2 has had tens of thousands of upgrades over the original model,interior, avionics, paint, etc.. The used market gets smaller with crashes and planes destroyed by weather as new planes are just too expensive for the reasons you mention. In the twenty years I have owned my plane I have seen parts double and triple in cost . Unfortunately my hobby isn’t cheap and I’m not selling my plane anytime soon. Just some conversation issues,nothing more 😂
@@arthurbrumagem3844 True, I'm going to be in a worse boat than You soon, I'm looking at a Navion..Im still kicking myself for not buying one I looked at in the 90's.
Sounds great. The problems where I live is an actual place to build or store any plane you built. All the airfields around me have 2-10 year wait list on hangers and that is not even fully enclosed hangars. That leaves aircraft you can store at home and trailer to your airport, but there are very few aircraft you can do that with. Thanks again your well-produced and informative videos.
@@davewojtowicz2246 Seattle/Tacoma WA. One airport (Renton) has a 10 year waiting list. Makes building/storing your plan at an airport very unlikely. I have seen some hangars for sale and a few that appear to be sublets. The hangars for sale are near the price for a plane and the sublet was $800 a month. So... any hope for a kit plane in this area is likely a folding wing plane.
unless theyre changing the maintenance rule, id still want to do at least 51% of the work so that i could do all of my own maintenance, which would also save me a bundle in the long run. I also have an airport in my area that i could probably build it in.
there is no requirement that you do at least 51% of the work. Anyone can work on an amateur built airplane.. You want to obtain a repairman certificate so you can perform the condition inspection. No need to do 51% of the work for that either. You can buy a kit plane that is 99% compete, finish the last 1% and you are eligible to get a repairman certificate. This video has too much generalizing which causes more confusion.
Thanks for another great video. I do have a question for you, not sure it if it would be video material, but... I notice the Rotax and a few other engines for experimental aircraft list premium unleaded ( auto) fuel as suitable. Does that mix with 100LL, are there different power characteristics or labelling requirements? How would I know if I rented an airplane that another pilot had added a different fuel?
My friend has built 2 Rutans, he is working on his third. His builds were about 27 to 30 years ago. Im going to ask him about the costs of inspections and registration and regs. A Cozy And vari E.
Is light sport limit goes up, people could probably fly a Cessna 140 with a light sport lisence. Old plane, but cheep to buy into. 20k-40k to get one, depending on if you want a beater or a healthy plane.
Costs, you merely adopted the costs, I was born in it, molded by it, I did not see cash until I was already a man and by then it was nothing to me but blinding! - Marine veteran turned poor pilot trying to get an ATP while supporting a family.
The intent of the experimental and LSA categories makes sense: allow people to experiment with and build homebuilt airplanes, and allow casual pilots to fly under circumstances that limit risk to themselves and others...i.e. max speed and max pax allowed makes total sense. The FAA actual rules for these categories actually make the aircraft and pilots involved less safe. Current experimental rules just end up with a bunch of airplanes being constructed at least in part by amateurs, meaning it's almost impossible to judge build quality when buying a used aircraft. Current LSA criteria result in the least experienced pilots flying some of the most unstable, finicky and difficult airplanes in all general aviation. Max speed, day VFR and limited passengers makes total sense. A sport pilot has no business being in a Malibu or a Mooney. But a sport pilot or a pilot flying on basicmed would be much safer flying a172 or a Cherokee, subject to relevant operating limits then they are getting bounced around in some of the kites the qualify as LSA. Start from the goal (safety) and work backward with quantitative analysis (this is what I do in military aeropace by the way). Don't start with the rule and make concessions.
I think the best hope for affordable aircraft, lies with the designer. There are many things the designer can do to reduce the cost and time involved in construction. But this involves developing new processes that have not been used previously. By carefully selecting tasks from the 51% list the designer can greatly reduce the work required for the Builder. In 1951 Harold Emigh could build his Trojan in 110 man-hours. But he couldn't make a profit at $4,000 a piece. He used a Tool called the erco Riveter that could install two rivets a second. There are many ideas from the past that have not been developed. It is sad that the Experimental Aircraft Association has not focused more on the Lost ideas of successful designers.
This is one of the few examples where I can legitimately say "just do what Canada is doing". In Canada we've had the ability to have someone else build our planes. It results in much better build quality and lower costs. Canadians can do ALL their own maintenance regardless of who built the plane. You as the owner, are able to do the work. In fact, you can do all the work on your neighbor's plane too, simply because it's a home built. Speaking of maintenance, we also have the "owner maintenance" category of certified planes. You buy a certified plane and declare it "owner maintained" and you can treat it like a homebuilt plane. As far as I'm aware, you can NEVER return an "owner maintained" plane back to certified status. I could be wrong about that but even if it is possible, it would be cost prohibitive to do so and there would be very little incentive to actually go that route. And if the US would adopt that category, we'd be able to fly those planes into the US, something we can't do today.
I hope he’s right but I think that for the first several years after MOSAIC passes demand will increase far faster than factories can ramp up to meet it and prices will go up not down.
*> Passing savings on to the customer* Sure... just like games going fully digital for distribution instead of physical media _definitely_ passed the savings on to the customers... oh wait...
I don't think the price will go down, labor cost in the US is likely to remain on an increasing trend. I actually think this will increase cost since kit builders may be incentivized to just build themselves as another revenue stream, increase margin on the labor, and slowly bloat the cost of the aircraft while reducing kit sales. However, I think safety will increase which experimental aircraft have worse records when it comes to mechanical accidents and incidents than certified aircraft.
My take is "Awesome!" I've always wanted a kit plane for cost and performance reasons. Perhaps by the end of this year, I can place the order to have the factory build one out for me because I don't have the skills, space to build, or the time to invest in building. Fortunately, Vans Aircraft is in my area, so I could see it in progress (perhaps).
All I want to get out of MOSAIC is to be able to fly a simple Part 23 SEL like a C150/152, C172, Piper Warrior or Archer, etc. with a Sport Pilot License. This should be a no-brainer. In reality, I found the 172 easier to fly than the 150/152 with the 172's higher weight. Prices for factory S-LSAs are often topping $200k these days, and used S-LSAs have increased to over $100k - so much for "affordable" aviation when you can pick up a nicer and more capable Part 23 aircraft for the same price. Also, hangers in my area are unavailable, and winter weather really requires one.
Life long renter C-172s and PA-28s and I have never see aviation anything, when dealing with prices, go down. Plus, if a factory builds an airplane price goes up in 51% or 100%. Fuel prices will go up. Insurance will go up. Hangers will go up. Because inflation is going up. It will be decades before average Joe can catch up and rumors has a depression or at best recession. Either way, congress can’t and will not help us and most aviation companies will go bye-bye. That’s my take. 30 years in aviation single/multi-engine commercial instrument land-based fixed-wing airplane. And comm/instr helicopter pilot. Was army blackhawk pilot then corporate pilot. No longer professional pilot. Doing other things.
Since the subject is about experimental airplanes, would you be able to change your title and thumbnail to reflect that? You had me hoping the prices of regular airplanes was about to drop.
So, this will not really solve anything. Light sport was supposed to drop the cost of aircraft to a more “affordable” level, and it did drop the price of aircraft, but $200,000 is no more affordable that $400,000. The cost of aircraft has skyrocketed since COVID, decent mid-time Cessna 150’s used to be 25-30k, the same plane is 50k now. 172’s are astronomical, even the obscure models are inflated with no relief in sight. I’d love to see prices fall, but every older pilot with a worn out plane in the hanger is seeing dollar signs. I really hope your right, but I doubt this will make aviation more affordable….
As a private pilot certificate holder who has not flown in almost 20 years, chiefly because of these exact reasons: COST, OVER REGULATION AND INCONVENIENCE, I can say it's about damn time the FAA and the whole flying community got serious about dragging general aviation, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Over regulation, excessive costs and unnecessary inconvenience are some of the main causes of what I believe has been a long slow decline in general aviation over the last 30 years or more. It's a small step, this MOSAIC plan, but it sounds like a step in the right direction. However, there also needs to be a massive overhaul of the entire air traffic control system and a massive "re-think" of how to reduce the cost of flight training and the expense of owning and operating general aviation aircraft if the industry ever hopes to recapture those golden days of the late 40s through early 60s. Along with building better, more affordable aircraft, there is a sorely needed reconceptualization of how airports, airways and infrastructure are designed, constructed and operated. For example, why are we still building aircraft that need long expensive runways to take off and land? Why isn't more money and research being devoted to VTOL aircraft of all sizes, along with new types of airports ("vertiports"?) and terminals to handle them? Why is it only the military that seems to be interested in even a modest use of aircraft with capabilities like the V-22 Osprey, or Bell's new entry to replace the Army's Blackhawk helicopter, the "V-280 Valor"? it's now been nearly 120 years since the Wright brothers showed us that the sky is no longer the limit. But in many ways we really have a long, long way to go, still, before man can truly attain the freedom of the skies. On another note: I'm glad I stumble onto your video, though. You've succeeded in reviving my hopes that I might soon be able, once again, to slip the surly bonds of earth in an aircraft I can afford in a general aviation world that makes sense.
About to get cheaper, lmao. That's like telling a homeless person that houses are now available for 50% of the previous price ! ! Even if they can scrape up the down payment, ongoing expense of ownership is a deal killer. MOSAIC, or Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certificates will provide more options, that's all. The biggest threat to recreational aviation is not the price of the planes. Most folks can find something in their purchase price range (even if it doesn't meet the desired performance). It's the ongoing cost vs utilization that needs to be addressed. $10 for a gallon of fuel (it's on the horizon) $500 - $1500 a month for a tin box hangar, $20 - $100 for parking on a ramp . . . c'mon man. How much does Wal-Mart charge to park while you shop? Imagine buying a $200k house and only living in it for 3 calendar days over the course of a year. Still have to pay mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, etc. That's what the typical airplane owner does with his plane. Uses the plane 50 hrs and it sits on the ground the other 8,710 hrs over the course of a calendar year.
I doubt the cost would go down. They'll just keep the price the same and claim now it's built by 100% professionals. Also, I'm confused why the price of a plane would go down if it's reclassified as LSA. If a two seat LSA is going to $300k, why wouldn't a bigger one go for more?
Wishful thinking.. Your weekly shopping basket hasn't gone cheaper.. Look around you, gasoline, groceries, rent, nothing got cheaper.. The only logical conclusion is the value of $ today is not the same as value of $ from a couple of years ago.. On top of everything, they don't make Pipers, Cessnas in the numbers like they did in past century, thus making more demand, which raises prices up.. Even if you look at the prices of some new ultralights(sport/lsa/..), you won't find them cheap.. But yeah.. wishful thinking
Your 4-seat Sling TSI airplane would not become an LSA just because they change the weight limit. There's also a seating limit. LSAs are only allowed to have 2 seats, and you didn't say anything about the FAA changing that rule. Maybe if they raise the weight limit enough, a Cessna 152 or Diamond Katana might become an LSA.
7:00 you ain't kidding, about LSA not being affordable. When you adjust both for inflation the price of a new 1960 Cessna 150 and a new 2016 Cessna 162, the 150 was HALF the price.
One major issue you failed to address is whether the FAA will flex on Pilot Certifications. As I understand it currently, you cannot obtain instruction or get your pilots license via experimental aircraft. if they can lift this one restriction that's at least a $10,000 savings. Separately, have you heard anything about the costs of having some of the rudimentary sections of an aircraft assembled say, in Mexico? If it's shipped back in sections it's technically not a traditional vehicle subject to tariffs, but merely "parts." What's your knowledge on this?
From what it looks like this would only apply to newly built airplanes. Any existing Experimental airplanes that meet the current or future Light Sport regulations could not be converted to Light Sport, correct? I realize any kit built by an individual probably may not qualify but I am asking about factory-built airplanes that get the Experimental destination because they don't really fit in another category. i.e. Pipstrel Virus SW (factory-built, light, too fast for Light Sport but could be administratively limited to Light Sport speeds)
Look at Glasair. Glastar was an expensive kit at the time (1990's) as compared to say RVs. The advantage was it was significantly done i.e. fuselage just needed a couple bulkheads and glassed together and to the cage, spars were built etc. Shifting to the Sportsman and two weeks to taxi program...that plane is now over $200k. Love to see the costs go down, but building a quick build kit on your own will still be significantly cheaper
The light sport rules failed to reduce the price of small airplanes to an affordable level. Especially some of those made in Europe. The European did a great job killing aviation, and now aviation is basically for the elites. When you have a person whose net worth is just $1million, it is a stretch to pay for a plane costing $150,000. But for some elites worth say $25 million, you can double + the price and they do not feel it. If I see either Rotax or UL etc in front, I already know this airplane is unaffordable. Rotax is a big company, lots of overhead and share holders to be paid, so their engines are almost as expensive as the classical Lycosaurus, but they are lighter. One company in Florida are using ATV engines, while they are struggling to get the 2 seat price to near $100. The engine is a big factor in price and make attaining the low cost goals a lot easier. I am looking at the Suzuki and Yamaha engines.
There's a great documentary about a couple of brothers who lived amazing life and built a plane years ago, but sadly died in a crash while "barnstorming", INVERTED no less. It's very interesting and entertaining. I believe it's called Secondhand Lions or something :-)
Dude , this rule wont make a difference now or later, it actually going on right now..... I can go to any build facility, have them build XXX airplane, when its complete, I will BUY it from you for X amount of dollars. I didn't have to pickup 1 tool, pull any rivets, or install any band-aids on my fingers. I show up, paid them, and off into the blue yonder.
I don't see how eliminating the 51% rule will result in lower prices. The major costs for manufacturers are regulatory compliance and product liability insurance. If the sling factory offers kit "completion" service it's still on the hook for product liability. Does anyone think the insurance industry will allow manufacturers to take advantage of relaxed compliance rules to cut corners?
I don’t see it happening. Which industry’s lobby has more money and political leverage? It’s never been the manufacturer. The lawyers always win, always. The only way prices come down, is through Tort reform and law suit caps to the manufacturer. Think a lawyers wants to reduce his compensation in a lawsuit? No friggin way.
Very convoluted and somewhat misleading train of thought. Using a shop may cost you 80k above what it would cost you to build it yourself. Assuming there are cost savings from MOSAIC, it only saves money for the person who is hiring or doing building assist. Once your plane receives its experimental certificate, I know of nothing in place for recertification of it in another category, that is an assumption on your part, and is false. LSA is cheaper to insure because of limits on speed, weight, and limited to 2 occupants. Insurance savings will not automatically transfer to a plane like yours, that is faster, and is capable of carrying more people. Insurance will go up according to the specs of the airplane.
I don't see any article stating that the 51% rule is even up for debate. But plenty of articles discuss changing qualifications for LSA certification and training in experimental or LSA aircraft. I think the truth will come when the NPRM is available.
A large part of the cost increase in GA is not so much caused by regulation, but by liability exposure and insurance premiums imparted to the manufacturer and mechanic.
People used to be able to just order an airplane from a catalog and put them together like a cheap IKEA desk in your garage - regulations destroy the common person's dreams
The spirit of EAB is for YOU to build the plane for the education and the experience. It’s AMATURE BUILT after all. If you don’t want to do that, get a certified aircraft of buy one someone built under the spirit of EAB.
Talking about saving 30-40k yet it’s still 450k to have a kit built by cub crafters and can easily push 600k for an RV10 so this isn’t really a savings. Let me reclass broken airplanes to exp instead that’s what should happen
The 51% rule was implemented as a safety measure. Way back when, the idea was to allow a amateur builder to adopt a proven and tested design, and have the builder acquire the materials needed from one source rather spend month looking for parts. Thus the Kit was invented. That builder would then thoughtfully and carefully assemble the aircraft, and if he made bad choices the risk thus introduced would be his and his alone. Eliminating the 51% rule would in essence allow anybody to design, build and aircraft without the protection of a regulatory environment. See the paradox? The builders resent regulations yet want safety in the design and construction. 😮
What really needs to happen is economy planes. Single screen plane with a flight computer that just does a bunch of the flying stuff for you. Then a license class that only needs limited training to operate that plane.
If the 51% rule gets scrapped, you could probably order an experimental right from the factory. What would prevent them from building the kit, shipping it across the road the a „build facility“ aka factory part two and completing the plane there?
This would be ideal!
Cubcrafters already offers this.
I could see them do that, maybe for shipping sake, you get the plane and just need to bolt on the wings.
If this becomes legal, then product liability is enforceable on the entire industry and it will extinct.
The E/AB world revolves around the fact that the builder is an amateur and makes mistakes and cannot blame the designer or kit manufacturer. When the industry supplies a finished product to the general public who had no involvement in its construction, you have the burdon of product liability placed on E/AB category companies, and they will have to purchase product liability insurance. Which makes E/AB aircraft cost about what a certified aircraft costs. And there will be NO WAY to reverse this once it is passed.
I’m guessing someone else building the kit saves them lots of liability insurance.
1) Time
2) Tools
3) Talent
The 3 “T”s of any specialized project.
“Get it?” 🤔🙄
The low cost factor for Light Sport Aircraft was the reason for Cessna came up with t SkyCatcher.
But to keep costs down it was built in China. Build quality wasn't that good. Performance and the limitations made it barely usable. It performed like a 152. But was way more money
Plus they are limited in speed and altitude.
Their insurance costs will be lower because they have fewer seats. If involved in a fatality it is the owner and one other. The hull costs are also less.
I really want a sling 4 tsi. But with a business and young family I don’t have time and that’s why I’m looking at old 172. I don’t want a 172 I want to sling but I can’t take time off to build it
Hey Mojo, have you heard anything about this change from the FAA?
One requirement LSA aircraft have that experimental aircraft don't is that a certificated A&P mechanic has to sign off the annual condition inspection. If experimentals get recategorized as LSA will the builder still be able to perform that requirement? Could be a real moneymaker for your local A&P. Also, airworthiness directives can be issued on LSA aircraft.
We have a SEVERE A&P shortage...
@@EJWash57 I almost never have a day off.
@@nealm6962 Don't burn out - we need ya! Not sure if you know, but the 51% has become more an issue of Repairman Certificate issuance. "Builders" are still getting Airworthiness Certificates even if they don't accomplish 51% of the build. Seems to be a moving target with the Feds/DARs. Could be that those that PROVE they've completed 51% of the build will still be eligible for the Repairman Certificate, but just like now, "builders" without one have to utilize an A&P.
What is A&P
The time savings has to be the number 1 reason. Because although they my save money but I really doubt they will pay it back to the end customer
If I think about my mechanical expertise (I tried and failed at Lego!) the concept of building an aircraft defeats my mind yet alone my capability. I have always wondered if the current rules didn’t build in a situation where the unskilled tried, and maybe created a structure that down the road at some point became unstable as a result of competence?
Thank you very much.
Is it possible and legal to put a Cessna 172 airplane wing on a Cessna 401 and putting a airplane engine in the front of the Cessna 401 preferably a F-150 V6 engine from a truck
The $300,000 range for a light sport. The Icon A5 is totally the first thing that comes to mind. 😂
They need to chill out on the SSRI usage on private pilots. I can’t fly using my private but can using sport pilot because of the medical thing. I am not depressed but have anxiety. Per the current rules I have to jump through hoops just for them to say maybe or maybe not to a special issuance medical. It’s ridiculous.
Until then, I’ll fly LSA and enjoy those planes.
I would never do my face that close to a camera but im not that goodlookin i guess
3000lbs and 54 knt stall, Heck yeah
Insurance indemnification will be significantly impacted. Across the board…
Imagine a kit showing up just like an RC ARF - Almost Ready to Fly... open boxes, assemble wings, tail, install avionics and engine and fly...
Lol that would be so awesome
That'd be great. Sign me up for an arf velocity.
Vans Aircraft and many other brands have that
@@paulygood6665 no, its not that easy. There is the 51% rule. Vans fast build kits leave you at least 600 hours of work remaining. They are not painted, wired, equipped, or assembled.
@@TheJustinJ fuck I don’t know. I built a RV-3 in 1998. No quick build on that
Would be great to unload a 40' container with an almost ready to fly TSI or HW assembled and painted at the factory. Just attach the wings and ready to go 😎
Yes!
I'm new to the industry , but how would air worthiness work in this scenario?
@@MM-24 if I'm not incorrect the build assist shops will still need to take you thru the required paperwork, test flights, etc to get it certified
If they're that close to RTF, then the price is going to be almost the same. The issue with airplane pricing is insurance for the manufacturer, not necessarily production costs.
Hi M, I’m also new and watching all videos, I’m from New York and looking the flight building job, Wer you located. If any one there tell me please
The notice of proposed rule change is due out by August. There will still be 18 months of reviewing all public comments before it will go into effect.
Light Sport rules include
1. Increased weight
2. Higher speed
3. Four seat aircraft
4. Constant speed prop
5. Retractable gear( Light Sport amphibious planes already have them).
They need to just do what Brazil did here in the US.
Exactly what is being proposed in terms of gross weight, maximum speed, operating limitations,etc.
Most important to me.... Constant Speed Prop=Faster, and the weight increase. 1320lbs is just plain ridiculous. What were they thinking when they came up with that number? But we are talking about the Federal Government here (FAA), so I'm not holding my breath on these very logical changes.
@davidcollier3604 this is what has everyone in suspense. The weight is expected to be formula based. Could be 500 to 1000 lbs increase. Speed is estimated to be around 150 knots. No one knows for sure. The items I listed are expected to be addressed, but will not know until the NOPRM comes out sometime around oshkosh or August.
@@dh-flies all they had to do was increase the weight by 500 or 600 lbs and adopt the European rules that govern their sport aircraft
I completed my VansAircraft RV7A 10 years ago. Zero time on the airframe and a brand new engine. I can cruise at 165 knots, (190mph), with the Lycoming O-320 160 HP engine. Now think about a certified aircraft... to get a new engine and zero time airframe with close to the same performance would have been nearly $500,000.00. That's a half million bucks!!! I completed my plane for less that 20% of that. If you have the time to build, experimentals are the way to go IMO!
165 is pretty sweet !
I suspect this will wreck EAB just like these build assist programs. These work around aren’t in the spirit of EAB, IMO.
There is an even bigger impact: most kits do not get assembled and registered.
Because the entire process is so time intensive and bureaucratic, most owners buy a kit, start to assemble and for whatever reason never finish. I don't have the numbers right now, but I've seen an article some time ago on this.
If the build assist team is allowed to do the majority of the work, then there will be more aircraft in the sky and our hobby may finally get out of the endangered species list.
Uncompleted build projects have little to zero with bureaucracy. On the heavy side is the reality of what a builder got themselves into.
Close to 12,000 completed Van’s RV kit aircraft flying today.🤔
If what you say does come to fruition, I fear a very different possibility - If the 51% rule is eliminated or severely relaxed, I do agree that more build facilities will pop up AND build assist prices "could" actually go down due to increased competition. However, if more and more people have Experimental aircraft built by professional facilities, then these "professionally built" experimentals will command a much higher resale price than those aircraft built by "Johnny in his garage". The price of quality built experimentals will go UP, the resale value of true "Home builds" will go DOWN and the certified market prices will remain completely unaffected. Certified aircraft prices will continue to rise year after year as there are still a ton of people out there with more money than sense.
Why do you fear this outcome? This seems reasonable to me. Although I think certified will not rise as much, though the 172 and Cherokees of the world will still be sought out by flight schools.
If supply goes up (assuming unchanged demand) then price should go down.
However, this doesn’t factor in the almost-certain litigation against builders as soon as one crashes (regardless of the reason).
@@baomao7243 Which put the industry in the position it's in now.
@@EJWash57 Exactly. However, i wonder if airplane mfgs would now “do it differently” with their corporate structure - e.g., each plane is “created” inside a NewCo (newly formed corporation which exists solely to build/hold the plane).
Then the purchaser buys the NewCo (incl. it’s asset, the newly completed plane [AND any of its potential future liability, should the worst happen]).
If somehow the builder (NewCo) gets sued, the only assets in the NewCo are the plane and maybe a few $$.
Just a thought…
@@baomao7243 Interesting. Would eliminate NewCo as a deep-pocket litigation target. Just make sure as the owner to register your airplane to an LLC so you're not next in line.
I believe that prices will be dropping on used aircraft shortly, simply due to market conditions.
Agreed. I just wanna pay fair market value for a good used Mooney. But like houses, it's hard to tell when the market has peaked, how fast prices will fall, and how far. Frustrating.
If one is following Global trends, we are heading to a market crash which will be so severe that it will cause a reset of values...
I am waiting and watching, but in my heart I see lower values in everything..
@@paulwright7239 What is "fair market"? How much?
@@EJWash57 I've been loosely following the market for both C and J models for the past two years or so. Of course it depends on ttaf, tbo, avionics, exterior/interior condition, but the ranges of both models seem to have increased by about $50k on average. A nice J model with WAAS gps, mid-time engine and all other variables in relatively good condition could be had for around $100k a couple years ago, now the same airplane is closer to $150k. These are ballpark but again, like homes, the market average was artificially inflated by pandemic economic effect, and as we come out of all that it would stand to reason there will be some adjustment.
@@paulwright7239 Thanks. Ouch. I have no idea why such a jump unless there are those willing to pay it. Guess buyers will have to wait until a seller cries "uncle" and accepts a price that will move the plane.
Great information as always Mike. We like so many others have been tracking this closely. This will be a huge advantage for our two experimental aircraft the Stream and the Sparker as they are already factory finished aircraft.
I built my experimental in 1992-1993. A very enjoyable time but you are right. It requires patience. Now don’t forget that Light Sport was also created to free up flying to people with medical imitations.
I'm sorry some one with a heart condition or something like that, shouldn't be flying in the first place. there should be some screening at least. or someone on anti-depressants shouldn't be in a plane. they go off there meds and than take off and dive bomb there ex's house oh and than making it legal for them to have four seaters. take down there whole family or people they hate.
@@A1Automotivesales, The point of psychiatric medication is NOT to have homicidal or suicidal ideations. Basic medical screening should be required.
@@A1Automotivesales light sport wasn’t developedto free up people with medical limitations. If I am correct, an individual with a special medical issuance(condition) still has to get a Class 3 medical to fly light sport. This also enables them to fly normal certified aircraft making for no medical differences. What is does is lowers the costs of not normally getting an FAA medical if you regularly see(wisely) a general practitioner and don’t have documented issues.
I do agree with the anti-depressants comment and EVERYONE I know of on SSRI’s has irregularly medicated at times causing significant issues. This counters @zachjones6944 comments. No one perfectly takes their meds much less those with psychiatric issues. As a result, SSRI are a multi-billion dollar blight on society propagated by drug companies
@@A1Automotivesales what about cars? People have medical emergencies on the road all the time and causes millions of dollars in damages and injury hundreds of people each year. Also, what's stopping them from throwing their family in the car and driving off a cliff? Do you think medicals should be required to drive a car?
@@tristandawson6417 'But what about them' is hardly ever a good argument...
I looked into building a lancair 4p about 20 years ago. Actually flew the factory prototype. At that time fast build kit, engine, prop and planned avionics was about $250k, and lancair claimed 1000 hours build time. I flew my turbo arrow to Oshkosh dreaming about how much quicker the trip would be in a 4p. There were 6 completed 4p and 4's. Spoke with the owner/builders and learned the build time was 4000 to 7000 hours and the total costs were $500k to $700k and average build time was 5 years.
At that time you could buy a mid-time turboprop for $500k, fully certified, pressurized, 6 seats, and 75 knots faster than the 4p.
But, the real kicker was the insurance. I was paying about $2500/yr for the turbo Arrow, and the quote for the 4p was $12,000/yr.
In the end my time had value... couldn't really see spending 3 to 5 years of my time.
We then considered a Lancair Columbia which would be fully certified, but there was a lot of schedule uncertainty.
To be sure the lancair's are awesome planes. If you decide to build a kit talk to the other builders to get your expectations correct.
I would like to see the Grumman Tiger with fuel injection (True Flight Aerospace) back in production. Paying CLOSE attention to the weight and useful load when it's built. Hopefully under 200-250K. With it's bonded wing I don't know if it could be a good homebuilt candidate, but the lack of rivets is one reason the airframe is so efficient. Sure does look like a Van's Aircraft admittedly
You can buy a completely assembled experimental airplane as well. And as an owner of an experimental aircraft the biggest benefit for me is the ability to do all of my own maintenance and I just need an a&p not an IA for a conditional inspection.
The Steel is a certified S-LSA made by Rupert Aeronaves in Brazil . A brand new one (TSN 0) cost only U$ 95.000. Excellent for training (can be used to take a Private Pilot’s License and Sport Pilot’s License) and hobby. It is cheaper and quicker to own an LSA than to build an Experimental.
Mike. I follow a lot of your channel. Dan Johnson has covered this in detail as well. I'm 60, got my license at 17, and haven't been current in the last 15-20 years. The main benefit I have currently with light sport is I only need a driver license to get going. I have some health consideration that the FAA medical and I need to do battle on. In the meantime, I can get the "touch" back by first go with a CFI, and then get the skills back. Is our elected officials in D.C. the right place to push?
The faa is stuck in 1950s and doesn't care about GA. I'd give it a try but wouldn't expect much
@@anoonymoose196 the FAA are angels compared to CASA here in Australia. CASA are CONSTANTLY changing rules, no one is keeping up and they are actually trying to get rid of GA altogether.
@@mtadc1545 I'll consider myself lucky then
As someone who has participated in building an experimental aircraft, do you think it makes you a better pilot to take part in the build? I mean, I imagine that it would give you a more intimate knowledge of the aircraft and could help you, especially in an emergency, but even just in pre-flights, to figure out what is wrong, or where to look for problems. Do you agree?
very much agree. i just don't agree with no medical screening.
I think it makes a person a better pilots. not in terms of stick and rudder skills/proficiency, but in terms of awareness and understanding, in terms of maintenance, preflight, preventative maintenance, etc. as you mention.
@@A1Automotivesales there is no evidence the medical screening makes a difference.
yes. obviously.
Hi Mike. I just subscribed to your channel. A lot of really great information. I'm actually about to get my pilot's license but want to purchase an LSA. I know an LSA license is much cheaper but getting my pilot's license will not have any limitations on me in the future. The sole reason for me wanting an LSA is getting a "newer" vs. "older" (with potential problems even though they are generally reliable). However, I am still shocked that the LSA cost is still high, i.e. LSA range (my range) for $100K - $150K vs. older for $50K - $75K. I really hope the LSA cost or Experiemental cost for that matter goes down. As much as I would LOVE to have an LSA or Experimental, the cost will dictate what I do when ready to purchase. Hoping to purchase in the next 6 months. Blows me away, however, that hanger availability in my area (Austin, TX) will also dictate when I purchase. Hangers, tie-downs, and overhangs are very hard to come by around here. There are waiting lists everywhere.
Hope so. Bc 40 year old clapped out and corroded airframes for six figures is ludicrous for the next buyer going forward. Wake up people this market is wayyyy overvalued. And was just quoted hangar space near nyc for $900 per month. If can get. Wtf. So more planes stored outside. Even though airport has tons more space to build. With high price of av gas and insurance and shortage of a and p and more airfields sold to housing developers it’s Game over for this hobby. You think ramps are filled with queens right now just wait another 10-15 years then go check your local Airpark. It’s gonna look like a salvage yard. Hi I’m from the government I’m here to help!!! Run away. You’ve killed GA!
*laughs in helicopter* ain't no hike in prices gonna kill my hobby. you merely adopted the cost. Helo pilots were born in it.
@@Maverickib good luck raising the next generation of pilots
@@kasm10 I am technically part of the next generation, only recently licensed. I am by no means wealthy but manage my helicopter hobby via stringent budgeting. There are still many opportunities, aviation was never for people with poor financial sense. The main problem is the modern generation refusing to sacrifice any aspect of their life to facilitate something else. To afford my licensing and regular flying, I had to stop eating out every day, cut back on my motorcycle addiction, realize my current phone still works fine and maybe I don't need an upgrade. Sure, it's not a good thing aviation is getting wildly more expensive, I sure wish it wasn't, but the modern generation is pricing themselves out of it with their bad habits more than aviation costs are pricing them out.
In the past 2 years I have watched the price of airplanes go up 50%+ and the cost of insurance do the same. With 10+ local airports you can still not rent an enclosed hanger anywhere, and only a couple had a few covered parking available. If people are running away from aviation because of the cost, it is not happening here. I am on the waiting list for an enclosed hangar at several airports for over a year, not a single call.
@@velocity2654 20+ on Hangar waiting lists are the norm. Few new ones being built. I found covered parking for my plane 2+ hours from my home. One morning, the Airport Manager put out an email announcing an enclosed condo T-hangar was for sale. I called the owner within 20-minutes of when that email was sent out. I was #2 buyer in line! Turned out that #1 buyer's plane was not going to fit, so I locked up the deal. PURE LUCK!
What happens in August this year ('23) is the FAA ***MAY*** release a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) on MOSAIC (Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certificates) - NOT implement any rule changes that are currently in effect. That's all. And, this particular NPRM has been delayed before, which means that it can be delayed again. The release of the NPRM opens a window in which Public Input is considered. Insurance companies, aircraft manufacturers, Aunt Hazel, etc., will be able to offer their input. What you're doing here is counting your chickens before the chickens that will lay the eggs of the chickens might hatch.
I expect the aircraft manufacturers will vehemently oppose any changes - until they get a release date on what they can offer in the New LSA Category. Insurance rates going down? Laughable.
A little misleading, the MOSIAC is better mg world on. The FAA hopes to have the rules ready by Aug 23 for a NPRM where it’s given a period for comments. After all the comments are read and considered then the new rules will be in effect. You are looking at possibly two years or more.
Assuming this all passes... Jimmy's World fleet is about to grow...
As we are all aware, one of the great benefits of owning an experimental is the ability to work on your aircraft and the better understanding you have of your airplane when you are involved in building it. I am curious to know, will the more liberal rules on maintenance of self built experimentals stay the same under this new rule?
You should be the builder (not the build assist center) to get the repairman certificate. These “work arounds” will result in more people working on planes who shouldn’t and more accidents.
Owned an AA-1 Yankee about 20years ago. Being and A&P I thought it would be a easy and cheap to maintain, I was wrong. Still needed to pay an I.A. to do my annual every year, and even though I did my own maintenance, parts still cost an arm and a leg. It was a fun little plane to fly but I eventually sold it just because it wasn't as cheap as I thought it was going to be, you can only justify a $100 burger run to your wife for so long. Told myself I would never own another airplane unless I built a Kit. Retirement is coming quick, so I'm starting to look at some!
Retire to wide open flat farmland area and build a "Legal Eagle," or Double Eagle.
You can save money if you build it yourself....if you have the time and the skills to build it. And the work space.
The fact is : Aviation ain't cheap.
Someone with a big brain care to explain the economics of why a light sport is cheaper than a regular certified plane if it is built in a factory and not at home like an experimental?
I thought that experimental planes were cheap only because they are built at home and can use non-aircraft rated engines. How is paying someone to build them cheaper than paying someone to build a regular certified airplane?
I thought light sport was literally just a weight category of certified aircraft. How is light sport economically different?
Skeptical. I don’t see this changing the cost of the motor, electronics, paint, tiedown/hangar, or insurance.
I will come by your facility soon I hope to build or get it built! This rule should hopefully increase supply, lower costs overall even for those who build in their garage, and maybe even safer if build facility quality is without shortcuts as some might take building at home. I personally wouldn’t have the time to spend 2000 hours building, as That time easily would be worth $500K for me and won’t be worth the experimental route. Hopefully it get more people into aviation.
I think it will affect pricing of experimentals in that - name brand builds will be priced at a premium to smaller lesser known home built brands. I doubt it affects the certificated market all that much. I think their will always be a gap - and the gap is measured by warranty, company, service etc. Because you just dont know what you are getting with an experimental - it could be poorly constructed or it could be well constructed. At least you generally know what you are getting with a certificated one. I think things will stratify - just like the MOH engine side - like a western airways, or penn Yann aero, RAM aircraft overhauled engine is worth more than some others.
The three major factors in determining insurance costs are: How many companies are in the market, How available are parts for the airplane you are insuring (example would be higher for airplanes where the parts have to be imported from another country) and pilot experience in that airplane.
Parts.. specifically LANDING GEAR is a major consideration for insurance underwriters..Your right on Scott
Mike', thank you for the update....How do we get behind this wonderful change to push it through? Who do we contact? Can we sign a petition?
I dont think prices will come down when it's an opportunity for built assist and insurance to make more money but the 51% rule would be cool to see it go
Well from a owner operator standpoint "time is money", even if the facility absorbs the points per hour to balance out "your contribution", the money you save on travel as well as your time away from business affairs will more than make up for it, in some cases well worth it, if you are a business owner.
This proposed rule change sounds like it could be a trap. It converts the system to a custom built airplane. That means no "repairman certificate". All maintenance and mods would have to be done under the supervision and responsibility of an A&P. So you technically can't maintain the airplane yourself. So the change could be perceived as a move toward more regulation and control. Potentially costing more on the long term.
Well said. This is a not good.
Not going to happen. The prices of engines and avionics represent 2/3rds of the cost of the plane and nothing you have presented takes the drastic price increases of those two elements into account. If you want a safe, capable, “Certificated and used” GA airplane, get ready to spend $300-400K for a 30-50 year old aircraft and then be prepared for high maintenance costs due to lack of parts availability and A&P shortages. Then, good luck finding a hangar. GA is history except for the very wealthy. Maybe they can save $50K on an experimental with builder assist but that is chump change compared to the overall cost.
Raw, yet TRUE!
Mike, I have dreamed of being a pilot all of my life. I'm 60 years old and have a couple of health issues so my dream will never come true. I really like your channel because you are so full of information and almost make me believe my dreams can come true. Thank you for your effort and keep it coming, I will always be here watching!
The prices for certified aircraft are a direct result of Liability Lawsuits from Years ago. One in particular had a judgement so huge it literally caused Cessna to cease production of all Non-Commercial aircraft for a decade. When Cessna came back it was at around a 125% increase in price for a standard VFR 172. From around $85K to $185K, which has just progressed since them. Because of the huge increase, that caused less sales, driving pricing up even higher. People were Bemoaning Mooney finally closing their plant, but a Basic aircraft was running at around $850K. There was a time when the price of a GA aircraft was running in around about twice the cost of a new Car. Expensive, but reachable for the middle class. Over the last 30 years, New Airplanes (Certified) have been pretty much solely the purview of the Ultra-rich, Which is the reason EAB has really exploded. LS was supposed to take up a bit of the slack, but at $250K, you're back into the same issue of affordability. When I see a 172 that's almost as old as I am, going for well over $115K, there's a problem. On TOP of that, now you have insurance, and the premiums are through the roof, Annuals, Fuel Prices, even what are normally minor things like Oil Filters. Sometimes I really wonder if they aren't trying to Kill GA altogether. I did some looking around, Pre-Pandemic to start flying again...$225-250/Hr instructed $150/Hr solo for a 172. Thank Goodness for Flying clubs, because Honestly that's the sole really affordable route to getting a PPL anymore as far as I can see.
The idealism that everything that happens is always someone else's fault has destroyed a lot of things in this country. You cannot watch a show on TV without seeing lawyers wanting you to sue somebody. Lawyers are a major problem as to what is wrong with this country.
Part of the reason those used planes cost more now ( not the only of course) is legacy aircraft like my Archer 2 has had tens of thousands of upgrades over the original model,interior, avionics, paint, etc.. The used market gets smaller with crashes and planes destroyed by weather as new planes are just too expensive for the reasons you mention. In the twenty years I have owned my plane I have seen parts double and triple in cost . Unfortunately my hobby isn’t cheap and I’m not selling my plane anytime soon. Just some conversation issues,nothing more 😂
@@arthurbrumagem3844 True, I'm going to be in a worse boat than You soon, I'm looking at a Navion..Im still kicking myself for not buying one I looked at in the 90's.
Sounds great. The problems where I live is an actual place to build or store any plane you built. All the airfields around me have 2-10 year wait list on hangers and that is not even fully enclosed hangars. That leaves aircraft you can store at home and trailer to your airport, but there are very few aircraft you can do that with. Thanks again your well-produced and informative videos.
Where is this?
@@davewojtowicz2246 Seattle/Tacoma WA. One airport (Renton) has a 10 year waiting list. Makes building/storing your plan at an airport very unlikely. I have seen some hangars for sale and a few that appear to be sublets. The hangars for sale are near the price for a plane and the sublet was $800 a month. So... any hope for a kit plane in this area is likely a folding wing plane.
unless theyre changing the maintenance rule, id still want to do at least 51% of the work so that i could do all of my own maintenance, which would also save me a bundle in the long run. I also have an airport in my area that i could probably build it in.
there is no requirement that you do at least 51% of the work. Anyone can work on an amateur built airplane.. You want to obtain a repairman certificate so you can perform the condition inspection. No need to do 51% of the work for that either. You can buy a kit plane that is 99% compete, finish the last 1% and you are eligible to get a repairman certificate. This video has too much generalizing which causes more confusion.
And there still won't be hangar space available anywhere.
Hey Mike thanks so much for the info it's greatly appreciated.
sincerely Erin
Thanks for another great video. I do have a question for you, not sure it if it would be video material, but... I notice the Rotax and a few other engines for experimental aircraft list premium unleaded ( auto) fuel as suitable. Does that mix with 100LL, are there different power characteristics or labelling requirements? How would I know if I rented an airplane that another pilot had added a different fuel?
My friend has built 2 Rutans, he is working on his third. His builds were about 27 to 30 years ago.
Im going to ask him about the costs of inspections and registration and regs.
A Cozy And vari E.
Hi phineas, where he located and can I assist him. I’m in New York
@@premcyjohn well crap, he is all they west of you. In vanc Wa....
Is light sport limit goes up, people could probably fly a Cessna 140 with a light sport lisence. Old plane, but cheep to buy into. 20k-40k to get one, depending on if you want a beater or a healthy plane.
I thought one of the other big reasons of light sport is less Med. requirements. Is this still true? Thanks
One correction. There are factory built aircraft in the Experimental category. They are not all homebuilt.
Costs, you merely adopted the costs, I was born in it, molded by it, I did not see cash until I was already a man and by then it was nothing to me but blinding!
- Marine veteran turned poor pilot trying to get an ATP while supporting a family.
I dont believe the cost will go down. The costs will get passed on to the customer somehow, just like they always do.
Experimental to light sport conversion, who takes on the mfg liability there? Cuz that's where ~1/4 of the cost of a 172 comes from.
Will the MOSAIC program also increase the number of seats in a light sport from 2 to 4? If not, the sling tsi isn't going to qualify.
The intent of the experimental and LSA categories makes sense: allow people to experiment with and build homebuilt airplanes, and allow casual pilots to fly under circumstances that limit risk to themselves and others...i.e. max speed and max pax allowed makes total sense.
The FAA actual rules for these categories actually make the aircraft and pilots involved less safe. Current experimental rules just end up with a bunch of airplanes being constructed at least in part by amateurs, meaning it's almost impossible to judge build quality when buying a used aircraft.
Current LSA criteria result in the least experienced pilots flying some of the most unstable, finicky and difficult airplanes in all general aviation. Max speed, day VFR and limited passengers makes total sense. A sport pilot has no business being in a Malibu or a Mooney. But a sport pilot or a pilot flying on basicmed would be much safer flying a172 or a Cherokee, subject to relevant operating limits then they are getting bounced around in some of the kites the qualify as LSA.
Start from the goal (safety) and work backward with quantitative analysis (this is what I do in military aeropace by the way). Don't start with the rule and make concessions.
I think the best hope for affordable aircraft, lies with the designer. There are many things the designer can do to reduce the cost and time involved in construction. But this involves developing new processes that have not been used previously. By carefully selecting tasks from the 51% list the designer can greatly reduce the work required for the Builder. In 1951 Harold Emigh could build his Trojan in 110 man-hours. But he couldn't make a profit at $4,000 a piece. He used a Tool called the erco Riveter that could install two rivets a second. There are many ideas from the past that have not been developed. It is sad that the Experimental Aircraft Association has not focused more on the Lost ideas of successful designers.
This is one of the few examples where I can legitimately say "just do what Canada is doing". In Canada we've had the ability to have someone else build our planes. It results in much better build quality and lower costs. Canadians can do ALL their own maintenance regardless of who built the plane. You as the owner, are able to do the work. In fact, you can do all the work on your neighbor's plane too, simply because it's a home built. Speaking of maintenance, we also have the "owner maintenance" category of certified planes. You buy a certified plane and declare it "owner maintained" and you can treat it like a homebuilt plane. As far as I'm aware, you can NEVER return an "owner maintained" plane back to certified status. I could be wrong about that but even if it is possible, it would be cost prohibitive to do so and there would be very little incentive to actually go that route. And if the US would adopt that category, we'd be able to fly those planes into the US, something we can't do today.
I bet the companies pocket the savings.
Donizete Braganca pt SP Brasil ✈✈✈✈
I hope he’s right but I think that for the first several years after MOSAIC passes demand will increase far faster than factories can ramp up to meet it and prices will go up not down.
Imagine the bump in C150 prices if they become eligible for sport pilots.
*> Passing savings on to the customer*
Sure... just like games going fully digital for distribution instead of physical media _definitely_ passed the savings on to the customers... oh wait...
I don't think the price will go down, labor cost in the US is likely to remain on an increasing trend. I actually think this will increase cost since kit builders may be incentivized to just build themselves as another revenue stream, increase margin on the labor, and slowly bloat the cost of the aircraft while reducing kit sales.
However, I think safety will increase which experimental aircraft have worse records when it comes to mechanical accidents and incidents than certified aircraft.
My take is "Awesome!" I've always wanted a kit plane for cost and performance reasons. Perhaps by the end of this year, I can place the order to have the factory build one out for me because I don't have the skills, space to build, or the time to invest in building. Fortunately, Vans Aircraft is in my area, so I could see it in progress (perhaps).
All I want to get out of MOSAIC is to be able to fly a simple Part 23 SEL like a C150/152, C172, Piper Warrior or Archer, etc. with a Sport Pilot License. This should be a no-brainer. In reality, I found the 172 easier to fly than the 150/152 with the 172's higher weight. Prices for factory S-LSAs are often topping $200k these days, and used S-LSAs have increased to over $100k - so much for "affordable" aviation when you can pick up a nicer and more capable Part 23 aircraft for the same price. Also, hangers in my area are unavailable, and winter weather really requires one.
Life long renter C-172s and PA-28s and I have never see aviation anything, when dealing with prices, go down. Plus, if a factory builds an airplane price goes up in 51% or 100%. Fuel prices will go up. Insurance will go up. Hangers will go up. Because inflation is going up. It will be decades before average Joe can catch up and rumors has a depression or at best recession. Either way, congress can’t and will not help us and most aviation companies will go bye-bye.
That’s my take. 30 years in aviation single/multi-engine commercial instrument land-based fixed-wing airplane. And comm/instr helicopter pilot. Was army blackhawk pilot then corporate pilot. No longer professional pilot. Doing other things.
Since the subject is about experimental airplanes, would you be able to change your title and thumbnail to reflect that?
You had me hoping the prices of regular airplanes was about to drop.
So, this will not really solve anything. Light sport was supposed to drop the cost of aircraft to a more “affordable” level, and it did drop the price of aircraft, but $200,000 is no more affordable that $400,000. The cost of aircraft has skyrocketed since COVID, decent mid-time Cessna 150’s used to be 25-30k, the same plane is 50k now. 172’s are astronomical, even the obscure models are inflated with no relief in sight. I’d love to see prices fall, but every older pilot with a worn out plane in the hanger is seeing dollar signs. I really hope your right, but I doubt this will make aviation more affordable….
As a private pilot certificate holder who has not flown in almost 20 years, chiefly because of these exact reasons: COST, OVER REGULATION AND INCONVENIENCE, I can say it's about damn time the FAA and the whole flying community got serious about dragging general aviation, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Over regulation, excessive costs and unnecessary inconvenience are some of the main causes of what I believe has been a long slow decline in general aviation over the last 30 years or more. It's a small step, this MOSAIC plan, but it sounds like a step in the right direction. However, there also needs to be a massive overhaul of the entire air traffic control system and a massive "re-think" of how to reduce the cost of flight training and the expense of owning and operating general aviation aircraft if the industry ever hopes to recapture those golden days of the late 40s through early 60s. Along with building better, more affordable aircraft, there is a sorely needed reconceptualization of how airports, airways and infrastructure are designed, constructed and operated. For example, why are we still building aircraft that need long expensive runways to take off and land? Why isn't more money and research being devoted to VTOL aircraft of all sizes, along with new types of airports ("vertiports"?) and terminals to handle them? Why is it only the military that seems to be interested in even a modest use of aircraft with capabilities like the V-22 Osprey, or Bell's new entry to replace the Army's Blackhawk helicopter, the "V-280 Valor"? it's now been nearly 120 years since the Wright brothers showed us that the sky is no longer the limit. But in many ways we really have a long, long way to go, still, before man can truly attain the freedom of the skies. On another note: I'm glad I stumble onto your video, though. You've succeeded in reviving my hopes that I might soon be able, once again, to slip the surly bonds of earth in an aircraft I can afford in a general aviation world that makes sense.
About to get cheaper, lmao. That's like telling a homeless person that houses are now available for 50% of the previous price ! ! Even if they can scrape up the down payment, ongoing expense of ownership is a deal killer.
MOSAIC, or Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certificates will provide more options, that's all. The biggest threat to recreational aviation is not the price of the planes. Most folks can find something in their purchase price range (even if it doesn't meet the desired performance). It's the ongoing cost vs utilization that needs to be addressed. $10 for a gallon of fuel (it's on the horizon) $500 - $1500 a month for a tin box hangar, $20 - $100 for parking on a ramp . . . c'mon man. How much does Wal-Mart charge to park while you shop?
Imagine buying a $200k house and only living in it for 3 calendar days over the course of a year. Still have to pay mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, etc. That's what the typical airplane owner does with his plane. Uses the plane 50 hrs and it sits on the ground the other 8,710 hrs over the course of a calendar year.
I doubt the cost would go down. They'll just keep the price the same and claim now it's built by 100% professionals.
Also, I'm confused why the price of a plane would go down if it's reclassified as LSA. If a two seat LSA is going to $300k, why wouldn't a bigger one go for more?
Wishful thinking.. Your weekly shopping basket hasn't gone cheaper.. Look around you, gasoline, groceries, rent, nothing got cheaper.. The only logical conclusion is the value of $ today is not the same as value of $ from a couple of years ago.. On top of everything, they don't make Pipers, Cessnas in the numbers like they did in past century, thus making more demand, which raises prices up.. Even if you look at the prices of some new ultralights(sport/lsa/..), you won't find them cheap.. But yeah.. wishful thinking
Your 4-seat Sling TSI airplane would not become an LSA just because they change the weight limit. There's also a seating limit. LSAs are only allowed to have 2 seats, and you didn't say anything about the FAA changing that rule. Maybe if they raise the weight limit enough, a Cessna 152 or Diamond Katana might become an LSA.
7:00 you ain't kidding, about LSA not being affordable. When you adjust both for inflation the price of a new 1960 Cessna 150 and a new 2016 Cessna 162, the 150 was HALF the price.
One major issue you failed to address is whether the FAA will flex on Pilot Certifications. As I understand it currently, you cannot obtain instruction or get your pilots license via experimental aircraft. if they can lift this one restriction that's at least a $10,000 savings.
Separately, have you heard anything about the costs of having some of the rudimentary sections of an aircraft assembled say, in Mexico? If it's shipped back in sections it's technically not a traditional vehicle subject to tariffs, but merely "parts." What's your knowledge on this?
From what it looks like this would only apply to newly built airplanes. Any existing Experimental airplanes that meet the current or future Light Sport regulations could not be converted to Light Sport, correct? I realize any kit built by an individual probably may not qualify but I am asking about factory-built airplanes that get the Experimental destination because they don't really fit in another category. i.e. Pipstrel Virus SW (factory-built, light, too fast for Light Sport but could be administratively limited to Light Sport speeds)
Look at Glasair. Glastar was an expensive kit at the time (1990's) as compared to say RVs. The advantage was it was significantly done i.e. fuselage just needed a couple bulkheads and glassed together and to the cage, spars were built etc. Shifting to the Sportsman and two weeks to taxi program...that plane is now over $200k. Love to see the costs go down, but building a quick build kit on your own will still be significantly cheaper
The light sport rules failed to reduce the price of small airplanes to an affordable level. Especially some of those made in Europe. The European did a great job killing aviation, and now aviation is basically for the elites. When you have a person whose net worth is just $1million, it is a stretch to pay for a plane costing $150,000. But for some elites worth say $25 million, you can double + the price and they do not feel it. If I see either Rotax or UL etc in front, I already know this airplane is unaffordable. Rotax is a big company, lots of overhead and share holders to be paid, so their engines are almost as expensive as the classical Lycosaurus, but they are lighter. One company in Florida are using ATV engines, while they are struggling to get the 2 seat price to near $100. The engine is a big factor in price and make attaining the low cost goals a lot easier. I am looking at the Suzuki and Yamaha engines.
There's a great documentary about a couple of brothers who lived amazing life and built a plane years ago, but sadly died in a crash while "barnstorming", INVERTED no less. It's very interesting and entertaining. I believe it's called Secondhand Lions or something :-)
If this passes do you think the C150 and the Piper Colt will pass as Light Sports Aircraft?
It's hard to tell because there is still a lot for the FAA to go through still but it could even be the 172.
Dude , this rule wont make a difference now or later, it actually going on right now.....
I can go to any build facility, have them build XXX airplane, when its complete, I will BUY it from you for X amount of dollars.
I didn't have to pickup 1 tool, pull any rivets, or install any band-aids on my fingers.
I show up, paid them, and off into the blue yonder.
I don't see how eliminating the 51% rule will result in lower prices. The major costs for manufacturers are regulatory compliance and product liability insurance. If the sling factory offers kit "completion" service it's still on the hook for product liability. Does anyone think the insurance industry will allow manufacturers to take advantage of relaxed compliance rules to cut corners?
I don’t see it happening. Which industry’s lobby has more money and political leverage? It’s never been the manufacturer. The lawyers always win, always. The only way prices come down, is through Tort reform and law suit caps to the manufacturer. Think a lawyers wants to reduce his compensation in a lawsuit? No friggin way.
Very convoluted and somewhat misleading train of thought. Using a shop may cost you 80k above what it would cost you to build it yourself. Assuming there are cost savings from MOSAIC, it only saves money for the person who is hiring or doing building assist. Once your plane receives its experimental certificate, I know of nothing in place for recertification of it in another category, that is an assumption on your part, and is false. LSA is cheaper to insure because of limits on speed, weight, and limited to 2 occupants. Insurance savings will not automatically transfer to a plane like yours, that is faster, and is capable of carrying more people. Insurance will go up according to the specs of the airplane.
I don't see any article stating that the 51% rule is even up for debate. But plenty of articles discuss changing qualifications for LSA certification and training in experimental or LSA aircraft. I think the truth will come when the NPRM is available.
A large part of the cost increase in GA is not so much caused by regulation, but by liability exposure and insurance premiums imparted to the manufacturer and mechanic.
People used to be able to just order an airplane from a catalog and put them together like a cheap IKEA desk in your garage - regulations destroy the common person's dreams
The spirit of EAB is for YOU to build the plane for the education and the experience. It’s AMATURE BUILT after all. If you don’t want to do that, get a certified aircraft of buy one someone built under the spirit of EAB.
So... will that leave plane valuations the same as now: pilots paying too much for flying junk. Demand versus depreciation?
You be the judge!!!!
💰🛩️
Talking about saving 30-40k yet it’s still 450k to have a kit built by cub crafters and can easily push 600k for an RV10 so this isn’t really a savings. Let me reclass broken airplanes to exp instead that’s what should happen
The 51% rule was implemented as a safety measure. Way back when, the idea was to allow a amateur builder to adopt a proven and tested design, and have the builder acquire the materials needed from one source rather spend month looking for parts. Thus the Kit was invented. That builder would then thoughtfully and carefully assemble the aircraft, and if he made bad choices the risk thus introduced would be his and his alone. Eliminating the 51% rule would in essence allow anybody to design, build and aircraft without the protection of a regulatory environment. See the paradox? The builders resent regulations yet want safety in the design and construction. 😮
What really needs to happen is economy planes. Single screen plane with a flight computer that just does a bunch of the flying stuff for you. Then a license class that only needs limited training to operate that plane.
Mike, enjoy the updates. My brother works at North Perry in Florida and will be static to know if this passes. Please continue to keep us informed.
I am static