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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I did my ppl training in a Remos GX LSA. The aircraft is really well put together and actually seems more legit than the 1980 C172 I was checked out in last month. The Remos has a glass cockpit, great handling and performance. The 172 has an old 6-pack and some add ons, but flying it was like driving a good old dependable pickup truck. One of these days I’d like to look at purchasing a plane of my own, but under the current rules, I can’t afford it. Until that time comes, I’ll keep renting the pickup when I need to haul stuff, and the Remos when I want to save a little rental fees. Thanks for the content!
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!
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.
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.
My insurance was cancelled and to get renewed with another company is 9400 per year. When I tried to get insurance years ago on an experimental it was 5500 annually without any accidents in history. That is the cost of another airplane in 5 years. For those of us who cannot afford to drop 75,000 down on an airplane and need to finance, insurance is gonna drive the lower middle class right out of the airplane market. This is a serious issue that threatens a large part of the market and premiums are gonna get worse. Any experimental will cost generally 5000 annually to insure. The resolution is to 1. determine the profit margins of existing carriers and if they are sticking it to us. 2. If they are not then determine how to rid the reckless from the insurance market and drive down the costs. OR 3. get finance companies to allow higher deductibles, lower insurance exposures etc.
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.
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.
I know a few people who build and flip experimental planes. They make pretty good money doing it. Once you have the tools and know how you can build them pretty quickly
This is why I love your channel. Entertaining flights with much needed info. Keep up the good work! I’m going back to school soon for electrical engineering at 44 years old. Yikes! My goal is after 2 years of school is to then get my pilot’s vfr license and eventually get a Piper PA22 160. When that happens, I would love to meet you as you are inspiring me to do this.
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.
One other thing that make s sense in my head. Increased weight of the light sport would allow for less complicated/expensive/exotic/engineering intensive parts in existing light sports.
Reminds me of a trick I heard of ..starting a personal company. (Your to only owner etc) .. contract a mechanic as a employee to build the plane, for the company. .. mechanic leaves, but plane is company property built by a company employee.
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.
Hi Mike. What benefits of the experimental and light sport aircraft designation are not transferred to the buyer when purchasing an aircraft used from the original builder.
Just started watching your channel - I really appreciate the links within the video. Don't stress if you can't break up every video like that, but its a cool feature YT has, and I wish others would make use of it as well.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am hoping someone can help me. If this rule doesn’t pass and I get a kit and build it what is the timeframe to get the inspection for certification to fly?
I'm a bit confused. As it stands now, a pro shop can build the entire homebuilt airplane. As long as they put themselves down at the builder. When the problem arises is when the owner pays a shop to build his plane, then applies the for repairman certificate, so he can do all his maintenance and inspections. And in many cases knows very little about the plane someone else built. You didn't mention the repairman certificate, and how does this Mosaic affect that?
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.
A friend of mine looked into building a high-wing sling. What ended up stopping him was the insurance costs. Insuring a new Sling was going to cost him 3 to 5 times what he was already spending. Could you speak to that cost?
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.
Great job Mike maybe you can do a monthly videos of your detailed experience in building your plane. What where some of the nuances and the perks and whittle it down to two categories.Those who would benefit from a build vs those who would get trapped into a project they end up not finishing and have to sell , because they under estimated the cost financially , physically , professionally and most important time that you can’t get back. The reason I bring this up is because I’ve been building cars for a while now and one of the biggest things I’ve learned about cars is that somebody is always selling a project that they can’t finish and they end up losing out. If this happens there’s gonna be a lot of cheap projects that are not finished that’ll be a steal . It happens all the time I the car game.
big benefit of building your experimental yourself. if you build it, you can work on it, instead of paying an A&P to do everything. Still have to have an annual, but not by and A&P.
You missed the perspective from a shops POV, that saved money could be tacked on by a shop becuz it’s essentially a 3rd party shop putting your plane together which means it’s their shop, their tools, their techs their space, time, etc. so that saved money could become tacked on prices
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.
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.
I live in an area of the USA that has MANY small (and large) airports within close driving distance. For ME, it really doesn't matter how inexpensive the plane may get, there is NO ROOM ANYWHERE in ANY of the close airports to house it at. ALL hangars have a 3 year waiting period, or more in other locations, and even the outdoor tiedowns have a LONG waiting period. Saying that, for ME, it doesn't matter if the price gets to a dollar per plane, I have NO PLACE to keep one.
A solution to the high cost of runways is to use aircraft like the Peterson katana or Robinson Wren that use less Runway. When the aircraft can make a Steep controlled approach, it can land and take off on grass.
Having built an airplane (Lockwood Aircam) and owned another experimental one built by someone else (RV), and currently own a production aircraft (V35A) there is a big difference between experimental and production aircraft. Just my opinion, but experimental aircraft are great for the guy who wants to build something fun with great performance, but when it comes to flying something every day that is designed to operate for long periods of time between maintenance (50 hours) there is no substitute outside of a few experimental aircraft for a production built plane. There are heavier and more overly built to handle the stress of everyday operations versus an experimental airplane, and I think most people who have been in the same position as me would agree. I am not saying that I don't love experimental airplanes, they just aren't built for everyday ops. Just look at the Patey brothers, they build some amazing airplanes but when it comes to everyday travel for work they fly production aircraft. I can tell you that you will see 100 year old GA airplanes flying all over the place in the future the way they are built.
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.
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.
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.
Another great informational video Mike.. I hope this rule passes. Aviation should not cost as much as it does.. It's keeping a lot of potential great pilots grounded.
the cost is a great aspect of this, but the light sport pilots don't have to undergo a physical and i don't agree with that. flying in an airplane is a privilege of being healthy. I'm sorry if I'm 2500 feet in the sky I don' t want some unhealthy person having a heart attack flying into me or dive bombing the neighborhood. go get a physical and get a regular license. otherwise don't fly!!! in my opinion buying a built plane and getting a pilots license is cheaper in the long run anyways..
Eliminating the LSA speed limit is tops for me. At this time the rules are way behind the power plants available. It is like driving with a restrictor plate. Efficiency at getting from one place to another can increases a lot for the modern slippery designs can go way up and still keep stall and landing speeds low. Constant speed props and retracting gear are obviously "green" and efficient. Modern electronics can make use of some automotive tech like back-up collision avoidance applied to detect gear-up while landing, etc. and do it very cheaply when it doesn't have to be some sort of mil-spec certified sensor and flashing lights. It can just be bluetooth to your headset or a buzzer. AOA sensors and displays and audible warnings can also be very low cost. Stall/spin while distracted is probably the most common high casualty error in general aviation. Preventing this at a zero cost should be a high priority and new rules can make this possible.
Remember though if demand for constructors increases but the capacity to produce does not then the demand/supply imbalance will drive prices up, not down. Until new build capacity emerges to satisfy the demand.
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?
Factory’s already build light sport experimental airplanes ie kitfox the 51 % rule as it stands says if you don’t do it you can’t do condition inspection , so if your thinking this part will change it would be extremely helpful to owners to preform their own condition inspection 😊
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 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?
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)
With the 51% rule, can’t you perform the annual inspection and do you own repairs? If you’re not doing 51%, do you have to pay someone to do repairs etc?
first if all there is no 51% rule. For an amateur built airplane, the "major portion" (often the source of the 51%) has to be fabricated and assembled by amateurs. Anybody can work on it and do their own repairs but only one that holds a repairman certificate or A&P can do the condition inspection which is required every year.
Not sure how much this will decrease costs if we have to pay for a build shop. But the biggest increase in experimental builds these days are the engines. Lycoming, Continental and even Rotax are increasing prices way beyond the already crazy inflation rate. Not just annual increases, they are increasing on what seems like a quarterly basis.
The thing I wonder is with scale what sort of labor saving machines for metal work that may be too pricey for a homebuilder to use would start to come into play.
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.
Beyond cost, the scariest thing for me about the 51% rule is that I'd have to fly a plane that I built. And I know for a fact, that I'm no expert builder. I rather a pro did it.
I could be wrong, but I believe the new FAA rule on light sport would have an increased clean stall speed of 54 kias, compared to the TSI's 58 KIAS. So, would that disqualify the Sling Tsi?
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
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.
@@Triple_J.1 fuck I don’t know. I built a RV-3 in 1998. No quick build on that
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
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 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 $500,000.00. That's a half million bucks!!! I completed my plane for less that 20% of that. If you have the time to build, experimentals are the way to go IMO!
165 is pretty sweet !
I suspect this will wreck EAB just like these build assist programs. These work around aren’t in the spirit of EAB, IMO.
There is an even bigger impact: most kits do not get assembled and registered.
Because the entire process is so time intensive and bureaucratic, most owners buy a kit, start to assemble and for whatever reason never finish. I don't have the numbers right now, but I've seen an article some time ago on this.
If the build assist team is allowed to do the majority of the work, then there will be more aircraft in the sky and our hobby may finally get out of the endangered species list.
Uncompleted build projects have little to zero with bureaucracy. On the heavy side is the reality of what a builder got themselves into.
Close to 12,000 completed Van’s RV kit aircraft flying today.🤔
The Steel is a certified S-LSA made by Rupert Aeronaves in Brazil . A brand new one (TSN 0) cost only U$ 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.
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.
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 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...
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
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!
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.
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.
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. 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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Skeptical. I don’t see this changing the cost of the motor, electronics, paint, tiedown/hangar, or insurance.
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.
I thought one of the other big reasons of light sport is less Med. requirements. Is this still true? Thanks
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.
One correction. There are factory built aircraft in the Experimental category. They are not all homebuilt.
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?
I did my ppl training in a Remos GX LSA. The aircraft is really well put together and actually seems more legit than the 1980 C172 I was checked out in last month. The Remos has a glass cockpit, great handling and performance. The 172 has an old 6-pack and some add ons, but flying it was like driving a good old dependable pickup truck.
One of these days I’d like to look at purchasing a plane of my own, but under the current rules, I can’t afford it. Until that time comes, I’ll keep renting the pickup when I need to haul stuff, and the Remos when I want to save a little rental fees.
Thanks for the content!
Hi Andrew, from where you took the ppl license, can you please share with me. Thank you
And how much you spend total amount for the ppl
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.
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
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.
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.
My insurance was cancelled and to get renewed with another company is 9400 per year. When I tried to get insurance years ago on an experimental it was 5500 annually without any accidents in history. That is the cost of another airplane in 5 years. For those of us who cannot afford to drop 75,000 down on an airplane and need to finance, insurance is gonna drive the lower middle class right out of the airplane market. This is a serious issue that threatens a large part of the market and premiums are gonna get worse. Any experimental will cost generally 5000 annually to insure. The resolution is to 1. determine the profit margins of existing carriers and if they are sticking it to us. 2. If they are not then determine how to rid the reckless from the insurance market and drive down the costs. OR 3. get finance companies to allow higher deductibles, lower insurance exposures etc.
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.
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....
I know a few people who build and flip experimental planes. They make pretty good money doing it.
Once you have the tools and know how you can build them pretty quickly
This is why I love your channel. Entertaining flights with much needed info. Keep up the good work! I’m going back to school soon for electrical engineering at 44 years old. Yikes! My goal is after 2 years of school is to then get my pilot’s vfr license and eventually get a Piper PA22 160. When that happens, I would love to meet you as you are inspiring me to do this.
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.
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?
Dude you do an amazing job explaining these topics for the masses of aviation!
what is that display panel in center , bottom
One other thing that make s sense in my head. Increased weight of the light sport would allow for less complicated/expensive/exotic/engineering intensive parts in existing light sports.
1) Time
2) Tools
3) Talent
The 3 “T”s of any specialized project.
“Get it?” 🤔🙄
Reminds me of a trick I heard of
..starting a personal company. (Your to only owner etc)
.. contract a mechanic as a employee to build the plane, for the company.
.. mechanic leaves, but plane is company property built by a company employee.
It's now looking like the ruling will come down in early to mid 2025. Oh, by-the-way I'm a new subscriber.
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.
Hi Mike. What benefits of the experimental and light sport aircraft designation are not transferred to the buyer when purchasing an aircraft used from the original builder.
Just started watching your channel - I really appreciate the links within the video. Don't stress if you can't break up every video like that, but its a cool feature YT has, and I wish others would make use of it as well.
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
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.
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
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.
Is there a light twin in this category?
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.
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.
Hey Mojo, have you heard anything about this change from the FAA?
I am hoping someone can help me. If this rule doesn’t pass and I get a kit and build it what is the timeframe to get the inspection for certification to fly?
Hello Mike; what is the white and red aircraft on the cover photo of this youtube post?
That's the Kestrel turboprop prototype. Didn't make it to production.
I'm a bit confused. As it stands now, a pro shop can build the entire homebuilt airplane. As long as they put themselves down at the builder. When the problem arises is when the owner pays a shop to build his plane, then applies the for repairman certificate, so he can do all his maintenance and inspections. And in many cases knows very little about the plane someone else built. You didn't mention the repairman certificate, and how does this Mosaic affect that?
Do you think the SW 51 would then become a LSA with the new rules?
And there still won't be hangar space available anywhere.
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.
A friend of mine looked into building a high-wing sling. What ended up stopping him was the insurance costs. Insuring a new Sling was going to cost him 3 to 5 times what he was already spending. Could you speak to that cost?
Assuming this all passes... Jimmy's World fleet is about to grow...
Overall how long did it take to get your airplane built?
Is there a way someone can take advantage of their A&P in building experimental aircraft?
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.
Great job Mike maybe you can do a monthly videos of your detailed experience in building your plane. What where some of the nuances and the perks and whittle it down to two categories.Those who would benefit from a build vs those who would get trapped into a project they end up not finishing and have to sell , because they under estimated the cost financially , physically , professionally and most important time that you can’t get back. The reason I bring this up is because I’ve been building cars for a while now and one of the biggest things I’ve learned about cars is that somebody is always selling a project that they can’t finish and they end up losing out. If this happens there’s gonna be a lot of cheap projects that are not finished that’ll be a steal . It happens all the time I the car game.
big benefit of building your experimental yourself. if you build it, you can work on it, instead of paying an A&P to do everything. Still have to have an annual, but not by and A&P.
You missed the perspective from a shops POV, that saved money could be tacked on by a shop becuz it’s essentially a 3rd party shop putting your plane together which means it’s their shop, their tools, their techs their space, time, etc. so that saved money could become tacked on prices
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.
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 sling becomes a LS then you can no longer fly it under IFR correct?
I live in an area of the USA that has MANY small (and large) airports within close driving distance. For ME, it really doesn't matter how inexpensive the plane may get, there is NO ROOM ANYWHERE in ANY of the close airports to house it at. ALL hangars have a 3 year waiting period, or more in other locations, and even the outdoor tiedowns have a LONG waiting period. Saying that, for ME, it doesn't matter if the price gets to a dollar per plane, I have NO PLACE to keep one.
A solution to the high cost of runways is to use aircraft like the Peterson katana or Robinson Wren that use less Runway. When the aircraft can make a Steep controlled approach, it can land and take off on grass.
Hey Mike thanks so much for the info it's greatly appreciated.
sincerely Erin
Having built an airplane (Lockwood Aircam) and owned another experimental one built by someone else (RV), and currently own a production aircraft (V35A) there is a big difference between experimental and production aircraft. Just my opinion, but experimental aircraft are great for the guy who wants to build something fun with great performance, but when it comes to flying something every day that is designed to operate for long periods of time between maintenance (50 hours) there is no substitute outside of a few experimental aircraft for a production built plane. There are heavier and more overly built to handle the stress of everyday operations versus an experimental airplane, and I think most people who have been in the same position as me would agree. I am not saying that I don't love experimental airplanes, they just aren't built for everyday ops. Just look at the Patey brothers, they build some amazing airplanes but when it comes to everyday travel for work they fly production aircraft. I can tell you that you will see 100 year old GA airplanes flying all over the place in the future the way they are built.
Hmm …. got a buddy who has over 5,000 hours in his home built , 22 year old RV-6A…..still putting 200-300 hours yearly on her😀
Van’s Aircraft CFI who does transition training for builders uses his 2004 RV-7 ….. which has over 5500 hours and still going strong….. 😮
I dont believe the cost will go down. The costs will get passed on to the customer somehow, just like they always do.
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.
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.
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.
Never heard of it, tanks for the info Mojo.
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.
Another great informational video Mike..
I hope this rule passes. Aviation should not cost as much as it does.. It's keeping a lot of potential great pilots grounded.
the cost is a great aspect of this, but the light sport pilots don't have to undergo a physical and i don't agree with that. flying in an airplane is a privilege of being healthy. I'm sorry if I'm 2500 feet in the sky I don' t want some unhealthy person having a heart attack flying into me or dive bombing the neighborhood. go get a physical and get a regular license. otherwise don't fly!!! in my opinion buying a built plane and getting a pilots license is cheaper in the long run anyways..
Eliminating the LSA speed limit is tops for me. At this time the rules are way behind the power plants available. It is like driving with a restrictor plate. Efficiency at getting from one place to another can increases a lot for the modern slippery designs can go way up and still keep stall and landing speeds low. Constant speed props and retracting gear are obviously "green" and efficient.
Modern electronics can make use of some automotive tech like back-up collision avoidance applied to detect gear-up while landing, etc. and do it very cheaply when it doesn't have to be some sort of mil-spec certified sensor and flashing lights. It can just be bluetooth to your headset or a buzzer. AOA sensors and displays and audible warnings can also be very low cost. Stall/spin while distracted is probably the most common high casualty error in general aviation. Preventing this at a zero cost should be a high priority and new rules can make this possible.
Remember though if demand for constructors increases but the capacity to produce does not then the demand/supply imbalance will drive prices up, not down. Until new build capacity emerges to satisfy the demand.
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?
Factory’s already build light sport experimental airplanes ie kitfox the 51 % rule as it stands says if you don’t do it you can’t do condition inspection , so if your thinking this part will change it would be extremely helpful to owners to preform their own condition inspection 😊
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.
Thanks for keeping us updated on possible new regulations. Is there a list of build facilities around the USA?
Hi mike , anybody in New York area is building a flight let me know, I can assist
I am new to the private air scene and this is the most informative video I have seen, great job and keep up the good work.
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?
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)
With the 51% rule, can’t you perform the annual inspection and do you own repairs? If you’re not doing 51%, do you have to pay someone to do repairs etc?
first if all there is no 51% rule. For an amateur built airplane, the "major portion" (often the source of the 51%) has to be fabricated and assembled by amateurs. Anybody can work on it and do their own repairs but only one that holds a repairman certificate or A&P can do the condition inspection which is required every year.
Not sure how much this will decrease costs if we have to pay for a build shop. But the biggest increase in experimental builds these days are the engines. Lycoming, Continental and even Rotax are increasing prices way beyond the already crazy inflation rate. Not just annual increases, they are increasing on what seems like a quarterly basis.
The thing I wonder is with scale what sort of labor saving machines for metal work that may be too pricey for a homebuilder to use would start to come into play.
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.
Less expensive, not “cheaper”.
Beyond cost, the scariest thing for me about the 51% rule is that I'd have to fly a plane that I built.
And I know for a fact, that I'm no expert builder. I rather a pro did it.
You answer your own question.
@@EJWash57 what question?
@@acasualviewer5861 As to if you should build an airplane, or buy one that is operational.
I could be wrong, but I believe the new FAA rule on light sport would have an increased clean stall speed of 54 kias, compared to the TSI's 58 KIAS. So, would that disqualify the Sling Tsi?