When Piper announced its partnership with Czech Sport Aircraft to market and support the PiperSport LSA last week at the Sebring Sport Aviation Expo, it cemented the concept that the new category of light, basic airplanes is a key to a revival in pilot training.
Cessna was first to adapt to the cost savings of the LSA rules when it began development of its 162 SkyCatcher about three years ago. Cessna took the long route designing the 162 from scratch and optimizing the airplane for the training mission. It's tough to build an all-new airplane in a new category and Cessna is still working on ramping up production now that the first 162 has been delivered. But the 162 looks like it will meet every objective.
Piper, with solid support from its new owners in Brunei, didn't have the time to create an all-new LSA to build a training program around so it made a deal with Czech to build a specifically tailored version of the Sport Cruiser. The airplane is a pretty natural fit into the Piper product line with its low wing and swept vertical fin. If Piper had designed an LSA from scratch it probably would have looked very much like the PiperSport, and several years of work would have been required.
I'm glad that Piper didn't want to wait the years it would have taken to create a brand new LSA and is instead working hard to enter that market segment now. Like Cessna, Piper has succeeded over the decades by having a full line of airplanes that people could learn to fly in, and then move up to more capable transportation machines. It's a business strategy that has worked, and I'm happy that Piper's new owners understand that and are supporting the PiperSport. Making flying more accessible to people here, and around the world, is what we need to keep general aviation from shrinking more and the Cessna SkyCatcher and PiperSport are important steps toward that goal.
Comments (22)
Post a comment
All Comments
Submitted by pmccook on January 28, 2010.
Very true, Mac. The Piper Sport and others in the LSA catagory are both good trainers and lots of fun to fly. Besides low operating costs and great performance, flying these LSAs will put a big smile on your face.
I hope you can fly one, soon.
Yesterday, I met a Boeing 777 captain at my hangar who just ordered a Piper Sport and was very excited.
Peter McCook
CFI-Sport Pilot
Miami, FL
Submitted by highmoor on January 28, 2010.
If you want to save GA, you simply need to look at this. The average wage for a U.S. adult in 1956 was around $4000, the price of a 1956 Cessna 172 was $8500. The average wage in the U.S. today is $45,000, while the price of the lowest end new Cessna 172 is $265,000. Same airplane, jigs all paid for, new technology that should actually make it cheaper to produce, instrumentation that, once again, should be cheaper (which is more expensive to make, all the old steam gauges or a couple of LCD screens with a few ICs and accelerometers in a box)...why such a huge disparity? GA is no longer the realm of the "every-man", it has become an elitist signature and investment opportunity and has been made so the same people that cry about it's disappearance.
I, for one, will continue to fly. But unlike my father, who owns a plane and flies it rarely, I will likely rent a plane and fly it only when I need to. I'm still paying for the license.
Submitted by kkrumm on January 28, 2010.
Cessna Skycatcher = Made in China
Piper Sport = Made in Czech Republic
I certainly hope both companies can find people in those countries to buy their planes. Because no one in the USA will be able to afford them. But I guess you can't expect patriotism from a company run from Brunei. Bill Piper is turning over in his grave.
Pretty soon China and other third world countries will be exporting their own aircraft to the US at bargain basement prices. I'll laugh when Cessna and Piper scream foul at that! It happened with cars, and it will happen with airplanes, and we won't have a soul to blame, but ourselves.
The above poster was right. Even Light Sport Aviation has become an elitest pastime. Light Sport won't save GA. When the wealthy people who bought them get tired of flitting around the pea patch, they'll unload them like a used ipod. What General aviation needs is a new $99,000 Skyhawk with all the bells and whistles. Something you can travel in at a reasonable speed. Maybe Haiti should get into the aircraft business!
Submitted by ahwells on January 28, 2010.
I've flown the Sport Cruiser in high cross winds and loved it's handling, including steep turns and stalls. My partner in Light Sport Atlanta and I did a 25-hour inspection on a new Sport Cruiser last summer and it is well-built and easy to maintain. A problem with nose gear shimmy was traced to the tire - use the best tire you can on the nose gear. Spin balancing at a friendly local motorcycle dealer has helped. The engine installation is straightforward, and oil changes are easy, including taking the oil tank out for cleaning and inspection. Carburetor balancing was also easy, and this is important to the smooth running of the engine. The airplane caused quite a stir at the local field when it first arrived as it is one of the prettiest of the low-wing LSAs. It's also one of the easiest LSAs to get in and out of when you have arthritic knees. I had been hoping that Piper would adopt the Sport Cruiser and am very pleased that they did!
Submitted by Chuck Morrow on January 28, 2010.
As noted above. "But unlike my father, who owns a plane and flies it rarely, I will likely rent a plane and fly it only when I need to." Hello Cessna and Piper, how do you hear, over? RENTAL is consumption, and FBOs buy more airplanes to match consumption. And when a guy knows an airplane is available to rent when he needs it, he becomes a regular renter. You profit selling aiplanes. LSA got started as a final airplane for some nice guys, so that's great. Now, let's just think about Trainers and Rentals for a few years, and the opportunity to learn on Glass Panels, in fresh airframes, new engineering, new technology materials, added safety, and "yet to be overhauled twice" new engines. New clear through. What an opportunity! Every activity on earth starts some where, we are so very lucky to welcome these two new trainers, backed by the experience and reliability of Cessna and Piper. A good day for General Aviation.
Submitted by C Fred Crawmer on January 28, 2010.
I love it, particularly when you consider its produced in Europe where the Euro is @ $1.50 while the Skycatcher is produced in China where the labor costs are much lower. One wonders if Cessna would have been better off having its LSA made in Europe & reduce its cost to the customer accordingly?!
Submitted by anelon on January 28, 2010.
I fell for the Sport Cruiser at Sebring last year. It was easy. First, the airplane 'looks right'. That is to say, it is beautifully proportional and if what Charles Lindbergh said about the Falcon 20 follows with this airplane, its functionality will follow suit.
The Piper Sport is surprisingly easy to enter and exit and the cabin easily accommodates my 6'1", 240 pound frame. A similar sized fellow climbed into the right seat with me last year and we were both comfortable. Controls seem nicely rigged on the ground and there's room for refreshments and the puppy on the baggage shelf. The demo guy was a CZAW dealer from up north somewhere and was very generous with his time and information.
Piper will do well with this airplane, the price point notwithstanding. If we as a community are to sustain ourselves (and the industry had better take note of this), we are going to have to put flight training and, for some, airplane ownership within the reach of people who aspire to fly. No pilots = no mechanics = no GA and no airlines - it's as simple as that.
Submitted by R J on January 28, 2010.
Isn't it sad that Cessna and Piper have both laid off lots of workers, but they are paying people in other countries to build airplanes for them. Wichita is hurting, but Beech is building at least one assembly line in Mexico, while laying off workers here. A friend here in Michigan with a machine shop is buying half of his production in China, while keeping half here so that he can keep some of his employees working. I wish I knew the answer to this dilemma.
Submitted by Recordo on January 29, 2010.
Cessna just announced a "delay" of six to twelve months for delivery of the Flycatcher. Seems there's an issue with spins. Looks like a barn door just opened for Piper. I hope they drive something through it.
Submitted by Recordo on January 29, 2010.
Ditto to Chuck Morrow's comment above on the reality of LSAs. If they don't exactly fit the market that was proposed at the board meeting that budgeted for manufacturing, SO WHAT! Sell 'em to them as wants 'em.
I would rent one of these in a heartbeat. I was looking seriously at renting a DA-20 or 40 and this Piper Sport is almost exactly what I'm looking for. I'd still use the 172SP for longer trips or (ugh) the 737. But new? Shiny? Economical? How can you beat that?
Submitted by rbf on January 29, 2010.
I am new to aviation via the LSA. In my case $10,000 licensing and $300,000 "entry level" planes where way beyond my means. LSA changed that, literally cutting cost in half across the board from training to acquisition to operational cost to maintenance.
I still for the life in me cannot understand the cost of aircraft. I agree with highmoor on all his points. Pricing is absurd! Ricardo pointed out a few weeks ago, along with many others I have spoke to, that its due to regulation and legal/liability stuff. And I believe them, I just don't understand it. New G650 @ over $60 million? Overhaul cost on some piston engines of $100,000? If someone could shed some light on it, I would appreciate it.
For comparison, I often think of the auto industry and the 500 HP cars available today to anyone with money. In my opinion, a $135,000 Porsche Twin Turbo has 50 times the intricacy, parts, technology, etc., as a $300,000 40 yr old "new 172" Cessna. I am assuming they have the same issues, but spread it across more sales??
BTW, I've learned a tremendous amount from this website and the guys and gals that come here. Thanks I really enjoy it!
Submitted by rbf on January 29, 2010.
"I am assuming they have the same issues, but spread it across more sales??" Sorry, I mean "they" as in the auto manufacturers
Submitted by Recordo on January 31, 2010.
Cars are built by an Industry. Airplanes by a Ministry. The main difference is the numbers. If there were fewer than 600,000 licensed drivers and Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, et. al., sold less than 30,000 cars each, you wouldn't be able to touch a Ford Focus for less than $120,000. You wouldn't be able to insure one for less than $5000 and unleaded fuel would be sold by the liter. Interstate highways would be dirt roads, etc.
The LSA phenomenon isn't so much a major revenue builder for leading AC makers as it is an imaginative marketing program that incidentally pays for itself. If it was the aircraft form factor that this is all about, Experimentals would have surged years ago, but conspicuously, they didn't.
If it brings new pilots in, they'll migrate upwards. If it manages to carve a niche among retired older pilots, no damage there. But don't expect a Piper Model-T to roll off the assembly lines every 90 seconds. You wouldn't want to fly in those skies anyway.
Submitted by highmoor on February 01, 2010.
New pilots today making $45,000 to start as FO on a 737 after they have already been working for 5-10 years to get their ATPL, etc. cannot even afford an airplane. If you were a pilot today with one or two kids and a wife you would never be able to afford anything but a 30 year old 172 or PA28 (and not likely even that).
Don't kid yourself, it's not due to rarity. I doubt it's even due to insurance as some claim. The real spike in GA aircraft costs didn't occur till 10 years ago, long after the General Aviation Revitalization Act. Look at a graph of average annual income vs. Cessna 172 cost for every 5 years from 1956 to now, you'll see the trend.
In any industry, as a market shrinks, the forward looking companies that sell the right kind of product will simply move upscale to attract a market segment with more disposable income. There is a deeper truth at work here, but I'll let you try to work it out.
Submitted by skypix on February 01, 2010.
So many people complain that you can't afford an airplane any more.
You can't afford a house any more either.
There are solutions for both challenges.
For LSA, look into LetsFly.org and Airplane Partnership Assoc. Both have intriguing, affordable plans for co-ownership. After all, where does it say you can't do what you love if you can't own what you love outright? Baloney. And think of the new flying friends you could meet, not that you ever have to meet your partners, as LetsFly in particular sets up their program like a real estate fourplex deal: you put in a reasonable down payment ($2900 or so), pay $400 or so per month, pay your fuel costs when you fly, and everything else: hangar, maintenance, inspections, overhauls, insurance, the whole enchilada, is taken care of for you.
In five years you own outright a share in an airplane. You can sell it, or just enjoy it from then on.
Meanwhile, all those folks who have airplanes that nobody else touches can enjoy their airplanes that sit for 98% or more of their life, which leads to engine corrosion and other maladies.
I'd rather fly an airplane that's flown regularly, preflighted and inspected and maintained regularly, and enjoyed by more than just me.
To whit, I'm renting a SportCruiser at my local airport for $80/hr wet. The owner has had it in service for a couple years and has 1100 hours on it. Since the engine has a 2000-hour TBO, we've still got a ways to go.
Meanwhile, for my 80 clams, I've got a beautiful, very comfortable, good-range (600 nm), good speed (120Kts), baggage-roomy (120 lbs in wing lockers and behind seats) airplane that is a breeze to fly and a snap to land (under 30 kts. stall speed).
And well done, Piper! I was at Sebring, the excitement was palpable. They picked a great airplane that's been out there for years and is proven and reliable. They'll only make it better, IMHO.
Onward and upward, LSA! This is only the beginning.
Submitted by bruce bradley on February 05, 2010.
I agree with the shared aircraft idea, but check your math. A fourth of a $130,000 aircraft is $32,500. At 8% for 5 years the payments are over $650/mo. The agreement may be for 5 years but the amortization is more likely for 20 years. That $400 payment has to include the maintenance fee also. But don't worry if you fly your own partnership or cooperative airplane at least someday you will own it. If you fly 70 hours a year you will spend about the same to rent an old 172 or buy and fly your 1/4 share of a brand new aircraft. Anybody living on the Big Island of Hawaii that is interested let me know. I am considering sharing out a PiperSport.
Submitted by ljackso on February 08, 2010.
I would NEVER buy any aircraft made in China! I love flying but I also love life!
Submitted by baileych on February 08, 2010.
ljackso said he would never buy and aircraft made in China. A lot of people said they would never drive a car made in Japan.........or Korea. The plane was designed in America by Cessna. Cars and planes can be assembled anywhere based on the level of QA at the plant. Let's face it, labor is just a lot cheaper at most places overseas whether its China or eastern Europe. Labor costs will soon be what the world market will stand. You can thank the unions for driving the cost of manufacturing in America through the roof. Hence the Cessna from China and the Piper from the Czech Republic. The times, they are a changing.
Submitted by rbf on February 10, 2010.
Thanks Recordo for your comment. It does make economic sense with regards to volumes produced and sold. I am still unclear though on the cost in other parts of GA. In Mr. Karl's article last month; Gear Up: Time to Pay for the Piper, he discusses the utterly shocking TBO on his 1980 Piper Cheyenne. More specifically the idea of spending $300,000, or even twice that, on a plane worth that amount, or less. I would like someone to explain what happens to your $120,000, gulp, for an engine rebuild. In other words; the money trail. Who gets what? I'm willing to guess the mechanics don't get it. So does the service center? The manufacturer? Lawyers?
Submitted by Recordo on February 12, 2010.
Exclusivity--it's not for everyone. Don't subject aviation to populist economic radiation. There are no "fat cat FBOs" or "greedy engine shops" or "slimy prop rebuilders" even if they all have lawyers. There's no "money trail" to follow to a nefarious plot to rob pilots of their wages.
BTW, an engine rebuild costs around $15K to $20K depending on the engine so take a tip from the Mexican bank, lop off them zeros.
We do, however, need a new approach to financing airplanes. Everyone agrees that they hold their value so why not mortgage them for 30 years instead of financing them for 4? I regularly fly 30+ year-old airplanes that are sound and maintained. And if they aren't very pretty next to that shiny Cirrus or Columbia (er--Corvalis), they will be on the flight line for another ten years or so.
If they hold their value, they should be financed on that basis, not in the same category as a washing machine or a Toyota. Am I missing an asteroid here?
Submitted by rbf on February 12, 2010.
I must have totally misread the article that I referred to. I went back and sure seems to say what I remembered in the article, on this website, on Jan. 4, 2010:
"Should we pay to overhaul the engines? Why put that much money into an ancient airframe? Could we ever get our investment back at time of sale? What does an overhaul cost, anyway?
As to the latter, the bluebook says $120,000 to $160,000 per side, and that's a lot, but I've heard horror stories — some apocryphal — suggesting that once the engine is opened, it is not uncommon to hear that the price has escalated. "
An additional excerpt:
"The starter-generators are 1,000-hour scheduled maintenance events. Same for the props. No surprises there. We did a hot section on schedule on the right engine almost four years ago. It was costly — close to $40,000."
So what am I not understanding or missing? I was not implying there are "fat cat FBOs" or anything else like that. I simply wanted to understand how the outrageous cost broke down. No conspiracy theories. Just wanted an explanation. So, once again, If anyone can explain this to me, I would be extremely grateful.
Submitted by Recordo on February 23, 2010.
One particular alternator belt on a popular Cessna 172 model costs about $30 from an aircraft supplier, yet the exact same belt, molecule by molecule, sells for about $12 at Discount Auto Parts where it's intended for use in an automobile. It's common knowledge that the word "aviation" increases the price of things.
I'd still rather pay $60 for an aviation spark plug when it's me flying behind that "overpriced" component.
Top Rated
Your Comment
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
