ByDanJohnson.com

This week GAMI, which developed the STC-approved G100UL high-octane avgas replacement, announced that a shipment of the fuel has been delivered to the Reid-Hillview airport in California. A load of 7500 gallons will be sold by the county-owned fueling service via truck. Currently, the only fuel available at KRHV is mogas, Jet A and Swift’s UL94 unleaded. Cost of a gallon of G100UL is expected to be close to what the County of Santa Clara is selling UL94 now, $7.59. Note that fuel prices in this part of California vary greatly, from $5.37/gallon at Tracy to $10.87/gallon at San Jose. 

G100UL received supplemental type certificate approval for all gas engines in fixed-wing aircraft so certified airplanes will need this STC to legally use the fuel. Experimentals do not require the STC. To encourage aircraft owners to try G100UL, GAMI is offering the STC for free at a rollout event this Saturday, November 2, from 9am to 6pm, and will “provide the services of an I.A. at KRHV during the day on Saturday, November 2nd, to ‘sign-off’ the required Form 337 at no charge.” Also, according to GAMI, “Residents of KRHV who purchase a G100UL STC between now and midnight on November 1st, 2024, will receive a full refund of the purchase of that set of STCs. 

Moreover, by having G100UL “commercially available,” GAMI believes it will have tripped a requirement established by a consent decree that will force some California FBOs to sell any fuel that has lower lead content than 100LL.

As reported by AVweb, the load of G100UL had to come from its origin in Louisiana to California entirely by truck. GAMI previously announced that Vitol Aviation has refined some 1 million gallons of G100UL currently being stored in Louisiana.

Finally, a note on comments. Previous coverage of the transition from leaded to unleaded fuel has prompted notably heated debate. Whether or not you believe that lead in aviation fuels constitutes a verifiable health hazard, the truth is that industry and legislative action will push general aviation toward an unleaded future. It is inevitable. Please refrain from making this political.

Compress Post ...

Lined up on the runway, I open the throttle to the stop. The Dynamic surges forward, my right thumb presses a small button at the base of the throttle quadrant and I push the lever further forward. In an instant there’s 15% more thrust and the speed tape really starts to roll. Ease back on the stick and we’re airborne after a very short ground roll and climbing away at well over 1200 fpm.

Flaps up, and 20 seconds later we’re passing through 400 feet, I pull the power back past the detent and the turbocharger control unit (TCU) reduces boost to 35 inches of manifold pressure. I then lower the nose, dial the prop rpm down to 5500 engine rpm and note the VSI is still showing around 1000 fpm before swinging the shapely spinner onto a south-easterly heading. Already I can see that the field of view is phenomenal and feel that the handling is crisp and taut.

That’s just a tease of the WT9’s performance. Let’s back up a step and look at the airplane itself. Access to the cockpit is via the trailing edge of the wing, which features sensibly sized non-slip wingroot walkways. It’s easier if the flaps are down, and I note with considerable interest the sportscar-type mirrors on both sides. The enormous canopy hinges forward, opens wide and is well supported by black gas struts. However, these are a bit too “grabbable” for people climbing in and out, and I’d recommend painting red stripes on them. The cockpit has a maximum width of 42 inches but seems wider. It incorporates several stowage options, including being able to carry 88 pounds behind the seats and 44 pounds under the seats.

(Keith Wilson photo)

Settling onto the very comfortable semi-reclined seat I study the controls and instruments with considerable interest. When I tested the 100-hp version in 2018 I felt that although the cockpit was extremely well designed there was still room for improvement and made a few suggestions. Gratifyingly, practically the first thing I noticed was that the rather flimsy toggle switches had been replaced by a row of rugged-looking rockers. The seats are fixed but the rudder pedals adjust. Fixed seats can be light and still crashworthy, which is why most Light Sport manufacturers choose this option. Less satisfactorily, the adjustable rudder pedals can be set asymmetrically, and if the pedals are adjusted while the rudder is deflected it is possible for the pedals to be set neutral when the rudder is not. Worth knowing.

Once strapped down with the neat four-point harness I re-familiarize myself with the layout of the instruments and controls. The big panel is dominated by a pair of multifunction Kanardia Nesis III displays. Made in Slovenia, they are highly sophisticated electronic devices which present an astonishing amount of flight and engine information. It could be almost too much information on a single page, but is backed up by a block of annunciator lights at the top of the panel, with a standby ASI and miniature standby EFIS, with the transceiver, transponder and intercom underneath.

Thus far it wasn’t that different to the 100 hp version, but I noted two significant additions—the two Flybox electronic controllers, one for the Woodcomp constant speed prop and the other for the flaps, which were purely mechanical on the 100-hp variant. The prop can be controlled either manually or left in constant-speed mode, while the electric flaps can be either set anywhere between 0 and 35°, or in Auto travel to the next of the four preset positions (0, 15, 25 and 35°) when the wafer switch is clicked up or down.

I like things simple and for the takeoff I elected to leave the prop set to 5700 rpm and in the CS mode and the flaps in Auto with 15° set. Why make work for yourself?

(Keith Wilson photo)

The throttle and its operation require expansion. It consists of a big T-handle with a spring-loaded button that must be pressed to push the throttle up to maximum power. There is a detent at the 100% throttle lever position that gives 100  hp, but 100% engine power (115  hp) is only achieved at the 115% throttle position. The TCU uses the throttle position in conjunction with ambient pressure, airbox pressure, temperature and engine rpm to actuate an electronically controlled wastegate.

Thus far I’d found nothing really unsatisfactory ergonomically but annoyingly Aerospool dropped the ball at the final hurdle (and how’s that for mixing your metaphors!) The plungers are all a little bit too “samey” to be so closely grouped together, as the choke and cabin heat knobs are identical in shape, color and movement—they really should be different shapes and colors. Of course, I am being very picky. This is a cockpit that has been thoughtfully designed around its occupants and while you may think “surely all cockpits are?” I can assure you this is far from the case!

(Keith Wilson photo)

Should you need it, access to the Rotax 914 engine is good as the top cowling is secured by Dzus fasteners and can be readily removed. It is fed from a pair of wing tanks with a combined capacity of 33.2 gallons, of which 32.7 are usable. The Rotax turns a Woodcomp SR-30 three-blade constant-speed prop fitted with a sharp-pointed spinner. Powerful taxi and landing lights are located either side of the radiator air inlet in the lower cowl, while the frangible panel for the EPS rocket to fire through is aft of the cowling. The nosewheel strut and main undercarriage legs look robust and carry Beringer wheels and brakes covered by snug-fitting spats.

Back to the Flying

Taxiing is straightforward as the nosewheel steering through the rudder pedals is precise and the field of view good, except for directly in front as the nose is pitched slightly up. The hand-operated brakes are powerful and progressive. Approaching the runway threshold, I noted the instruments are suggesting a slightly warmer-than-standard day, but at our sea-level airport I don’t even bother to calculate density altitude. We’re well below the 1320-pound max weight, so our power-to-weight ratio is just fine, especially if we use the turbo.

However, a previous takeoff had already shown me just how good it can be, so for this takeoff I elected to use only 100 hp and 5500 rpm, not the full 5700, and we were still airborne having used less than half of the 2000 feet of available runway. There’s a slight pitch-up moment as the flaps retract and although the Vy is 69 KIAS, this gives a steep deck angle and a compromised forward field of view, so I trim for 80.

Cruising at a representative altitude for UK general aviation (2500 feet) we set 5400rpm and 27 inches of manifold pressure. This gave an IAS of 108 knots for 113 KTAS, on a fuel flow of 4.5 gph. Of course, it will go faster—a lot faster. Open up everything but the toolbox (5500 rpm, which is max continuous, and 33 inches MAP) and the POH claims it’ll do 132 KIAS, although the fuel flow will have increased by almost a third and you’ll be 13 knots past the 119 KIAS top of the white arc.

Feelings

(Keith Wilson photo)

Control harmony is excellent; the ailerons are light, the elevator powerful and the rudder nicely weighted. All the primary controls have low break-out forces and minimal “stiction,” with the ailerons and elevator actuated by push rods. These provide a taut feel and powerful precise control in both pitch and roll. Cables control the rudder.

Moving onto an investigation of the stick-free stability proves interesting. Directionally it’s unsatisfactory but not for aerodynamic reasons. It’s simply because when you introduce an extreme sideslip, the nosewheel’s fairing is holding the rudder on. Longitudinally it’s weakly positive. From a 10-knot displacement it took several long wavelength, high amplitude phugoids before it eventually returned to the trimmed speed. Spiral stability is neutral.

(Keith Wilson photo)

The slow-speed handling either flaps up or down is faultless, and although the pre-stall buffet is quite subtle, the optional stick shaker isn’t! Post-stall there’s a gentle wing-rock but the ailerons remain effective, while if the airspeed is slowly reduced the aircraft never really drops its nose at the stall. Instead, the sink rate steadily increases and the Dynamic simply mushes with the nose gently hunting in pitch and the sink rate increasing. It remained controllable laterally and directionally.

We were about 110 pounds below max-gross weight, but nevertheless with a combination of full flap, a bit of power and very gradual deceleration the speed fluctuated around 30 KIAS, which really is quite impressive. Clean and with the throttle at idle the wing quit at about 40, and recovered the instant I released the backpressure. In fact, the stall is so benign that I can’t help but think that the stick-shaker is a little OTT. Pitch trim changes are noticeable when the flaps are extended or retracted, but changes in power produce only small changes in trim.

The new breed of Light Sports just keep getting better and better— and this just might be the best one yet! From the crisp handling and comfy cockpit to the sparkling performance and exceptional field of view, I loved every facet of this outstanding aircraft. Only one thing could make it better: More power. In fact, Aerospool has fitted the WT9 with the Rotax 915 and 916 examples. Can’t wait to fly one of those!

(Keith Wilson photo)

Compress Post ...

(Tecnam photo)

Most of the factory-built Light Sport aircraft that rolled after the FAA defined the category in 2004 were rather utilitarian—with rudimentary avionics and spartan interiors. Some of today’s Light Sport planes, however, are better equipped and more luxurious inside than GA planes that cost significantly more. Tecnam Aircraft was among the first manufacturers to recognize there was a market for upscale LSAs, and it responded with the P2008. The plane has become one of the company’s most popular aircraft.

“I don’t think there’s a better value out there when you look at ownership costs and resale price,” contends Mark Gregor, a former Tecnam dealer and long-time P2008 owner. “I don’t consider it an LSA…just a top choice for a two-seat aircraft.”

If buying a used P2008 is something you’re contemplating, then this article is for you. It will introduce you to the aircraft, model variations and flight characteristics, as well as provide advice for a pre-buy inspection and long-term ownership.

Development, Features & Flight Characteristics

(Tecnam photo)

Tecnam had been making aircraft for the general aviation market for several decades before it began deliveries of the P2008 late in 2009. While the strut-braced high-wing is similar in appearance to Tecnam’s earlier all-metal P92 and P2004 aircraft, the P2008 features a sleek carbon-fiber fuselage and integrated fin to go with its aluminum skinned wings and tailplane. Tecnam has offered three, VFR-only P2008 variants over the years, including a base model powered by a Rotax 912 (both the carbureted ULS engine and fuel injected iS), the TC model with Rotax’s turbo 914, and the JC for the European market.

About 75% of the P2008s flying in the United States are likely to be base model planes, with the remaining 25% being turbocharged. Round gauges are standard, but even early buyers seemed to prefer optional glass avionics. Almost all later model P2008s can be found with top-of-the-line Dynon and Garmin panels with autopilots. Featuring Frise ailerons and inner slotted flaps, the plane has cantilever main legs and a castering nosewheel with a compressed rubber suspension system. Unlike most LSA, the seats in the P2008 are adjustable and a vast majority of pilots should find there’s plenty of room inside.

The specifications for various models of the P2008 vary due to the powerplant choices, avionics and whether or not a whole-aircraft parachute is installed. It was difficult to find consistent numbers for this article, but a P2008 is likely to have a top cruising speed around 120 knots, stall around 44 knots, climb between 500 & 800 fpm, weigh between 780 and 925 pounds and have a useful fuel load of 30 gallons.

Those who’ve flown the plane say engine choice does make a noticeable difference in performance. P2008s are typically heavier than comparable LSAs. Pilots who’ve tried the 912 and 914 versions say the extra horsepower of the turbocharged Rotax greatly improves the plane’s rate of climb, especially on hot days.

Regardless of engine, however, the P2008 reportedly handles exceptionally well. “This is the plane I’d want my wife or kids to fly,” Gregor says. “It doesn’t have any bad qualities, and it provides just the right feedback for easy control… not overbearing, but not overly light either. It’s just a whole lot more stable and predictable compared to other LSAs, and I’ve flown most of them.” Reviews of the aircraft also note its gentle stall characteristics, good sight picture over the nose and easy ground handling. If most of your flying is in a Cub or something similar, you’ll have to adapt to the P2008 “sleekness.” The plane’s flowing composite body means less drag, so it doesn’t slow down quite as quickly in the pattern as other light aircraft with boxy metal or cloth fuselages.

Pre-Buy Inspection

Gregor suggests looking for a P2008 with a Rotax 914. Although it will be considerably more expensive than one with a 912, he thinks the performance gain is worth the cost and that you’ll recoup the difference upon resale. That’s not to say you should rule out one with a 912.  If you live in a cooler climate and near sea level, the significantly cheaper price may well be worth the difference in performance.

(Tecnam photo)

But before you buy a used P2008, or any used airplane, you should have a pre-buy inspection done by an A&P who’s familiar with the model. “A pre-buy with somebody who hasn’t worked on that type of plane is probably a waste of money,” contends Gregor. The powerplant should also be gone over by someone familiar with Rotax engines. They are different from conventional GA engines, especially the fuel-injected 912 iS, and even veteran A&Ps can miss things if they’re unfamiliar with how a Rotax works.

The P2008, like all new planes, experienced some growing pains, but it seems to have a good reputation overall. Experts do suggest paying a little extra attention to the tail and the fuel system during the pre-buy inspection. They say it’s not uncommon for the bushings in the stabilator to loosen during the plane’s first 200 hours. It’s a simple fix, just tighten a few bolts and the issue is resolved. If the bushings did loosen and bolts were not tightened, they warn some parts may need to be replaced. Fortunately, this shouldn’t be a difficult or expensive repair. As for the fuel lines, check the fittings where they attach at the fuselage. There are some complaints about leakage, possibly due to improper Assembly or owner inattention over time.

Maintenance & Ownership

(Tecnam photo)

Owners seem to be very happy with their P2008s. There isn’t a P2008 community like those around the Ercoupe or Champ, but the Tecnam Talk forum has quite a number of active P2008 pilots willing to offer advice. Reported maintenance issues are typical, and the plane isn’t any more difficult to work on than any other high wing. Parts are available since the aircraft is still in production, but some owners report there have been delivery delays in the past.

The stabilator should be checked during every pre-flight because of the previously mentioned potential for the bushings to loosen up. Gergor suggests gently trying to move the stabilator side to side and front to back. If it budges, have the plane looked at before taking it in the air. While some in aviation aren’t keen on composite-bodied aircraft, the P2008s carbon-fiber fuselage has proven to be durable. Gregor reports no areas are prone to cracking, and more and more A&Ps can easily repair composite aircraft.

You’re likely to pay more for a used P2008 than other LSAs, but the plane’s fans say you’re getting a lot of aircraft for the money. They say it’s a great flier and has all the avionics, safety and luxury features you could possibly want. And, says Gregor, it’s a great traveling machine. “I have access to a lot of planes, but if I have to fly cross-country I’ll always pick the P2008. I regularly flew mine from Sebring to Minnesota and back and was always very comfortable,” he said.

Compress Post ...

AOPA’s Beech Baron ran 200 hours with 100LL fueling one engine and GAMI’s G100UL the other (Photo: AOPA)

Industry wide progress on a so-called drop-in replacement for high-octane avgas always seems to go in fits and starts. Lots of noise then a period of silence. Is anyone actually doing something on this, you may ask? The answer is most definitely yes, but the recent news has come more in dribs and drabs than the full-firehose effect we expect around the major airshows.

But let’s start here. The other shoe dropped on the sale of leaded avgas in California. There had been a legal agreement (a consent decree) that depended on the availability of an alternative to 100LL but now the transition is being forced by new legislation signed into law this month that “would prohibit an airport operator or aviation retail establishment, as defined, from selling, distributing, or otherwise making available leaded aviation gasoline to consumers on or after January 1, 2031.” Coincidentally, the End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) program has as its goal a replacement in place by the end of 2030. Reportedly, the California effort was originally slated to take effect earlier but was pushed back with the help of aviation special interest groups.

According to reports, there are still three candidates in the unleaded-avgas derby, so to speak. General Aviation Modifications, Inc. (GAMI) has had its G100UL fuel in development for decades and received a fleetwise STC in 2022 for virtually all fixed-wing aircraft. GAMI has chosen not to participate in either the current EAGLE or its predecessor PAFI programs that are pushing for an ASTM spec for the replacement fuel. GAMI’s path has got it well and truly cross-threaded with the industry groups.

One could argue that GAMI is trying to “go it alone,” but recently Swift Fuels, which, in addition to VP/LyondellBasell, makes up the remaining contestants on the scene, has received an STC for its 100R to be used in Cessna 172R and 172S models. Swift CEO Chris d’Acosta said, “Our 100R unleaded avgas product will be the preferred fuel to eliminate toxic lead from avgas. We are actively working with industry and OEMs on FAA-certifications and ASTM International specifications. Yes, the FAA recently approved a critical part of our engine and airframe (STC) certification program. This follows a similar FAA / ASTM approval pattern we architected for UL94 avgas over 9 years ago.”

Getting the Swift 100R into public use would help the company gain real-world experience with the fuel. Similarly, the demonstration program undertaken by AOPA last year has concluded, according to reporting by the association. AOPA had run a Beech Baron for 200 hours with one engine consuming just 100LL and one consuming only GAMI’s G100UL. “The pilots who have flown the AOPA fuel demo Baron have been unanimous that the unleaded fuel used—GAMI G100UL—acts just like avgas in flight. No special techniques are required for engine starts, full-power takeoffs and climbs, cruises, or descents. If the airplane didn’t have decals and placards proclaiming the presence of unleaded fuel in the left engine, pilots would be hard pressed to notice,” the association said.

Testing did reveal some peculiarities. Apparently an overly rich mixture will leave a dark, ashy deposit on exhaust pipes and spark plugs. In addition, the fuel will apparently stain paint if not carefully cleaned up. In the AOPA report, GAMI founder and developer of the G100UL fuel, George Braly, said “If the fuel is left on the surface and exposed to the UV from sunlight, then that will cause some brown discoloration.”

Finally, there was a very public display of a leaking fuel bladder in the Baron on the side that was using G100UL. According to AOPA, the culprit was more likely old fuel bladders, which were originally made in the 1970s (but later “refurbished”), than a corrosive effect of the fuel.

So where does that leave us? GAMI has approval for fixed-wing aircraft now but has yet to make G100UL widely available. Swift will be seeing 100R flying in certain Cessnas. And VP/LyondellBasell is still in the development phase, which is working toward getting an ASTM spec. With California backing down from making leaded avgas illegal until 2031, some of the pressure might seem to have come off, but the clock is still very much ticking.

Compress Post ...

I probably shouldn’t admit this, but some features that come with the latest electronic flight instruments have left me a little, um, disinterested. Until I try them, that is. A good example is the concept of “safe glide” or even autoland. Garmin introduced both concepts a few years ago, though the full-autoland idea is more recent and limited to high-end aircraft where the system can control the engine directly. That’s not at my pay grade.

The more common version is what Garmin calls Smart Glide and, more recently, Dynon rolled out what it calls Emergency Glide. They work similarly: When commanded, they set up a controlled descent to the nearest viable airport and let the pilot concentrate on other things. To be honest, I was a bit meh about them as safety features. After all, you’re trained to set the airplane up for best-glide speed as soon as you recognize a power failure and all good pilots fly along considering which airports beneath them are reachable. Things like terrain-aware glide rings on MFDs and EFBs take much of the guessing out of that.

So I was skeptical until I flew with the Dynon version in my own airplane. To get this new functionality in the Dynon universe, you need to be running at least a Dynon HDX system—it is not offered for the Classic or Touch models—or one of the later AFS systems. You need a two-axis Dynon or AFS autopilot. There are a few other requirements, including an up-to-date database and the airplane’s best-glide speed entered into the setup menu. Moreover, you have to have the autopilot’s “expert” mode enabled; but this is what most do and there’s no cost involved, just a setting.

Let’s Try It

Updating the software took but a few minutes and it didn’t break a thing—early success! In fact, there’s no outward indication you have the extra features. Until, that is, you press and hold the NRST key. Doing so brings up a notification on the primary flight display: HOLD TO ENABLE EMERGENCY GLIDE. Continue holding and the mode engages. The first thing it does is engage the autopilot in pitch and roll regardless of the previous autopilot mode. Then it syncs the indicated airspeed (IAS) bug with the preprogrammed best-glide speed and sets the AP to hold that value. Depending on how much power you still have available and your current speed, the autopilot might well pitch up to capture IAS hold but in my experience it does so gradually. Once captured, the AP will hold this IAS value plus or minus about 3 knots. (This could be an artifact of how my system is configured and/or the airplane’s responses.)

Once activated, Dynon’s Emergency Glide system tells the pilot it’s active right in the PFD section of the screen. You can’t miss it.

So that’s pitch, and it’s the right way to go—quickly getting the airplane to its best-glide speed and holding it there while you troubleshoot. If that’s all the system did, it would be valuable as a way to manage energy and relieve the pilot of some workload.

Of course, this was the easy part of the programming. Much harder is calculating where the airplane might end up. Dynon’s approach is reasonably conservative. It needs to see an airport within the predicted glide circle that’s reachable given the existing winds and not blocked by terrain. This last feature depends on a 1000-foot buffer and worked well in my tests. Emergency Glide will not point you at a nearer airport if there’s terrain in the way.  Two outcomes are possible once you engage Emergency Glide. Either the system sees a viable airport or it doesn’t. In the second case, you get a NO VALID AIRPORT annunciation and the autopilot defaults to a track lateral mode that syncs with the current heading when Emergency Glide is enabled.

If there are no airports in range, the Emergency Glide system warns the pilot and engages a track-hold feature on the last heading.

Head This Way

For airports within range, the system sets the candidate as a direct-to waypoint, the autopilot to GPS NAV, calculates a desired vertical profile to the target and sets the altitude bug for field elevation. Moreover, if you have a Dynon or AFS com radio, the feature will pre-program the needed frequencies. In my case, with the Dynon HDX talking to a Garmin GTR 200, it loads the target airport’s UNICOM or tower frequency into the standby slot. All of this takes but a few seconds, giving the pilot a chance to begin troubleshooting while the airplane is headed in a good general direction at a speed that prolongs the descent.

When you’re close to the airport, Emergency Glide prompts you to take control.

Let’s say you have not discovered a tank run dry or some other fixable reason the engine went quiet. The Emergency Glide feature keeps doing its thing. If you have altitude to spare, about a minute before reaching the airport, the system will annunciate NEARING AIRPORT TAKE CONTROL. It doesn’t kick the autopilot off at this point but is warning you that you’re close—time for the pilot to set up for the landing. If you arrive with altitude to spare and have crossed the midpoint of the airport, Emergency Glide will change to CIRCLING APT mode, which is simply a 20° left turn. Dynon notes that because this is a roll-only mode it’s no longer taking wind into account so you could drift away from the airport.

If you get to the target airport with altitude to spare, Emergency Glide will set up a 20-degree left turn around the runway for you. It does not account for wind, though.

Should the airport originally designated become untenable—perhaps the winds have changed or atmospheric conditions have created more sink—Emergency Glide will return to track-only mode with IAS hold. It’s clearly annunciated on the PFD but it’s worth understanding that it could change modes on you.

These are all worthy goals but what the Dynon system can’t do—and the company is explicit that it doesn’t—are advanced functions like lining up for a particular runway or even committing the landing. The pilot remains on the hook for configuration control and the hopefully successful touchdown. But there’s little doubt that Emergency Glide is a valuable tool to give the pilot some breathing room to troubleshoot in the air and have the controlled descent handled by the EFIS. The altitude saved or energy preserved by quick actions of the Emergency Glide feature could make the difference between getting back to a runway or putting it down somewhere a lot less hospitable.

Compress Post ...

Purchasing a used airplane can be risky because it’s sometimes difficult to determine whether the aircraft has been taken care of properly. Buying a used kit aircraft? Even riskier. Not only do you have to worry about wear and tear, but also whether the builder knew what they were doing. But that doesn’t mean buying one is foolish. It might allow you to find an aircraft that truly fits your needs, and possibly save you money because its home-built origin will likely reduce the price.

If you feel comfortable going this direction, then a used Zenith is worth looking at—and if you don’t, remember that Zenith has also made the CH 750 as a factory-built SLSA, of which there are currently 42 registered in the U.S. Anyway, the company has been making kits for three decades and it has a great reputation in the Light Sport world. Its STOL CH 750 model is especially popular among builders, and you can find used ones up for sale fairly often. This article is an introduction to the aircraft and will address some important considerations if you’re thinking of buying one that’s already been in the air.

Development, Features, Flight Characteristics

The Zenith family. CH 750 Cruzer in front, CH 750 and CH 750 SD behind. (Photo: Paul Andrews.)

The Zenith Aircraft Company was born in the early 90s in Mexico, Missouri. Its kit planes are based on the work of designer Chris Heintz of Zenair Ltd. His son, Sebastien, is the owner of Zenith. Both have been inducted into the EAA Hall of Fame for their contributions to aviation. The senior Heintz has designed a number of aircraft, but at present Zenith offers three of them in kit form: the STOL CH 701 high wing; the CH 750 high wing, with STOL, Cruzer and Super Duty (SD) variations; and the CH  650 low wing. All models are set up with tri-gear and, with the exception of the SD, all are Light Sport eligible. The SD variant can’t make Light Sport limits as it has a third seat and a 1900-pound gross weight.

While Zenith did produce some pre-built aircraft early on, the company is now entirely focused on making kits—and, as mentioned, there are fewer than 50 out there in the world. Zenith reports it’s sold more than 2000 kits all over the world, and Heintz estimates that at least 1000 of them are flying. Our own data, taken from FAA registrations, shows 1301 of them registered.

The CH 750 STOL has proven to be the most popular model for builders. “It’s often called the ‘Sky Jeep’ because of its off-airport capabilities, and people love it because it offers a relatively inexpensive way to get into backcountry flying,” Heintz says.

The CH 750, like all Zenith aircraft, is an all-metal aircraft featuring matched hole construction. The kits come with pre-drilled holes so that components easily line up with their corresponding parts. This means builders don’t have to worry as much about measuring and alignment during construction, saving them time and allowing them to put together a straighter plane. This accuracy potential, especially for the airframe and wing, means it should be easier to find a used 750 that flies as well as it should because part misalignment during construction is less likely.

Since the STOL CH 750 is a kit aircraft, there’s no such thing as a standard configuration. “You’re not buying a Zenith as much as you are buying a Zenith kit put together by someone else,” explains Heintz. “Every one of them will be a reflection of the person who built it. And since people are different, you’ll have different airplanes.” Builders have tried a wide variety of engines and avionics packages, and while interiors tend to be spartan some go beyond utilitarian. The basic specifications for the model can be found on Zenith’s website (zenithair.net), but generally speaking a STOL CH 750 is likely to have a maximum speed of around 100 mph at sea level, TAS cruse at 8000 feet of 100 mph, a stall around 35 mph and takeoff and landing distances of 100 and 125 feet, respectively.

Short takeoffs and landings are the CH 750’s forte. (Photo: Paul Andrews.)

The builder’s choice of engine should be a big part of your purchase consideration, according to Randy Shannon, a Zenith SD owner in Drexel, Missouri. The engine’s weight and horsepower can make a significant difference in a Zenith’s performance. “A lot of kit planes are focused toward a particular brand of powerplant, but here you can use an automobile-adapted engine… a non-certified engine like one from Rotax or a number of certified engines,” he explains. “Consider your budget, mechanical ability and knowledge, service possibilities and what you want to be able to do in the plane.”

CH 750s are known for their excellent low-speed handling, gentle stalls, good visibility over the nose, and their short takeoff and landing capability. Some pilots may not like the Y-shaped center stick, but it shouldn’t be hard to adapt to and it does make it easier to get in and out of the plane compared to one with yokes or control sticks. The 750 is fairly roomy for a side-by-side Light Sport, and larger pilots should fit fine unless they’re the size of an NFL or NBA player. As for having a nose wheel on a backcountry airplane? Owners argue you shouldn’t be put off by that. While taildraggers may be the norm, a STOL 750 can handle the rugged terrain that most pilots are qualified to fly into.

Pre-buy Inspection

As with any used aircraft, having an experienced A&P perform a pre-buy inspection is highly recommended. This is especially true for a kit-built aircraft as it was probably put together by someone who wasn’t an A&P. “You’re going to have some beautifully built aircraft… where someone took a lot of time and care…but you’ll also find some that have been slopped together,” warns Heintz. Judge the quality of workmanship and level of finish carefully, he says. A pretty aircraft isn’t necessarily one that’s well built, and an ugly duckling might be perfectly fine. Fit and finish can also impact the price of the aircraft. Heintz encourages potential buyers to do a bit of fact finding. “Learn why the builder made the choices they did, what their mission was and whether that matches up with your needs,” he says.

Used CH 750s may have any kind of avionics on board. That and the type of engine up front will help dictate value and desirability.

Being a backcountry type aircraft, Heintz says the landing gear is where the plane is most likely to have damage. “Some owners take the ‘Jeep’ part of ‘Sky Jeep’ a little too far,” he says, but he believes most backcountry pilots maintain their planes at a higher level because they are going into places where they really don’t want to have problems. The 750’s all-metal construction should make it difficult for someone to hide any serious damage, Heintz adds. He also suggests that since many backcountry aircraft are not hangered, you’ll want to look for signs of corrosion and UV damage.

Maintenance & Ownership

You shouldn’t have additional maintenance concerns for a kit plane in comparison to a factory-built one—IF it was put together properly in the first place. A good pre-buy inspection should reduce the size of that ‘if.’ Hank Morgan, a Zenith owner in Strawn, Texas, jokingly warns that you might end up doing extra work on the plane regardless of how well it was built. “Every aircraft needs to be kept up,” he says, “but with a kit plane you sometimes work on it and think ‘I can make this better.’ And then you find yourself saying ‘if I do this, then I have to do that…and that will affect this so I… etc.”  Morgan should know, as he and his pilot wife are in the middle of rebuilding a 750 and a Zenith 701. He says one of the great joys of owning a Zenith is making it your own.

Morgan adds that another thing that makes ownership of a Zenith great is the company’s builder forum. “There’s a lot of good information there about troubleshooting and making improvements,” he says. And, the forum can help you become part of a welcoming community of Zenith pilots. The company recently held a Zenith Homecoming at its Missouri factory, which was very well attended.

Looking for a used CH 750? Check out this filtered page on Aircraft for Sale.

Compress Post ...

The FAA has published a glut of rule changes affecting CFR Part 1, 11, 61 and 91 regulations that affect, among other things, pilot privileges across a wide range of activities. But for owners of Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft, the best news is the rescinding of the so-called LODA rule. Recall that in 2021, the FAA changed its stance on owners getting flight instruction in their own homebuilts, which resulted in the need for a “letter of deviation authority.” The FAA, to its credit, quickly came up with a system to issue LODAs to owners and flight instructors, but the underlying requirement flew in the face of precedent.

The FAA takes this explanation further in today’s ruling published in the Federal Register and to become effective December 2, 2024. “Previously, §§ 91.315, 91.319, and 91.325 generally prohibited flight training, checking, and testing when compensation is provided. In 2020, the FAA issued Warbird Adventures, Inc. an emergency cease and desist order restricting the operation of aircraft that held special airworthiness certificates carrying people for compensation or hire.  The operator brought a petition for review of the emergency order before the court. On April 2, 2021, the court dismissed the petition for review of the cease and desist order.  Following the court’s dismissal, several aviation industry groups sought clarification from the FAA on how the decision affected flight training in experimental aircraft since the prohibitory language of § 91.315 for limited category aircraft is the same as that in § 91.319 for experimental aircraft (notably, the same prohibitory language exists in § 91.325 for primary category aircraft). As a result of this court case, in the NPRM, the FAA proposed to clarify prohibitory language and to explicitly enable flight training, checking, and testing under certain conditions in aircraft holding special airworthiness certificates.”

That clarification is here. The new rules include a “self-implementing provision that amended the operating rules to permit certain flight training, testing, and checking in experimental aircraft without a letter of deviation authority (LODA). Likewise, section 814 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63) directed that, under certain conditions, flight training, testing, and checking in limited, experimental, and primary category aircraft do not require a LODA from the FAA. The NPRM proposed to modify §§ 91.315, 91.319, and 91.325 to clarify prohibited operations, as well as direct stakeholders to a newly proposed regulation, § 91.326, that provided instruction on conducting certain operations for compensation or hire.” Incidentally, since the rules are not yet in force, you will not find a copy of FAR 91.325 online.

Finally, there is some cleanup work around ELSAs. “Lastly, on October 24, 2018, the FAA published an NPRM titled ‘Removal of the Date Restriction for Flight Training in Experimental Light Sport Aircraft.’  For the reasons provided in the document withdrawing the ‘Removal of the Date Restriction for Flight Training in Experimental Light Sport Aircraft’ NPRM, the FAA withdrew the NPRM and, instead, developed this rule to resolve the discrepancy more broadly for all experimental aircraft.” Meaning ELSAs are to be lumped in with other Experimentals in this category.

Compress Post ...

Sometimes the simpler the better. At least that’s the philosophy James Weibe has always seemed to follow. He’s definitely embraced that approach with the new visual angle of attack (AoA) indicator. No electronics. No special pitot tube.

The Radiant AoA is a simple vane-style pointer you mount to the wing nearest you—well, because you want to see it. According to Radiant, “Our new Visual AOA provides direct visual feedback of the aircraft’s Angle Of Attack.  Any pitch change or power change is immediately reflected in the indication. It is designed to mount on the leading edge of an experimental aircraft. It is available with a generic mount for the leading edge of aircraft. A top side mount for Sonex (low wing) aircraft is also available.” The instrument is easily removable to prevent skewering your next Young Eagles ride. (Mom says thanks.)

Weibe includes a demo video for your consideration. “When viewed in flight, the responsiveness to pitch change is immediate, and the vane position precisely shows the changes in airflow and AOA. The best example of this is a 30 second demo clip. In the video, James manipulates the pitch of the aircraft, thus causing the AOA vane to show the effect immediately and precisely.”

Prices start at $59.95.

Compress Post ...

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has announced a successor to current president Mark Baker, who is set to retire at year’s end. In his place comes Darren Pleasance. The association notes that this is only the sixth president in its history, dating back to 1939. Baker has been on the job for more than 11 years. Somebody buy that man a beer!

AOPA notes that Pleasance has more than 8000 hours in 50 different types and currently owns three airplanes: A Piper Meridian, a Van’s RV-6 and a Progressive Aerodyne SeaRey.

“I’m honored with the opportunity I’m being given to help steward AOPA forward into the future, and I’m inspired by the role AOPA will continue to play in protecting our freedom to fly,” says Pleasance. “I’m grateful for the privilege I’m being given to lead this incredible organization that has had such a positive impact on my life and the lives of all of us who love aviation.”

Pleasance joins AOPA at a time when there are pressures across the spectrum, from finding a leaded-fuel replacement to rapidly rising aircraft-ownership costs. But there are opportunities, too, such as with the MOSAIC program expected to become a reality sometime in 2025.

For his part, outgoing president Baker says, “I’m confident that Darren is the right person to lead AOPA into its next chapter. He is a pilot’s pilot with a genuine passion for flying. He combines that excitement about aviation with leadership experience at some of this country’s top consulting and tech firms, giving him the right balance of business skills and kinship with our members.”

Compress Post ...

(Photo: AOPA)

In the previous article, I explained how high levels of flight activity can make access more affordable and, for most people, how that would likely be achieved only through some form of shared ownership/use. The use of the term “shared ownership/use” is deliberate because not everybody really wants or feels the need to “own” something they use but, perhaps, believes that there is no other realistic or safe alternative.

This article is based on a close examination of the reasons people give for not being open to any form of sharing and looking at how those barriers might be removed. It will also try to address the second, less discussed, part of affordability, which is “accessibility” to shared use aircraft. There is little benefit to being able to afford what does not, essentially, exist. A good, but somewhat parallel, example of this has been the original iteration of Light Sport Aircraft and Sport Pilot Licenses. Both had huge potential to improve affordability of learning to fly and then being able to continue afterwards, but, widespread accessibility and, dare I say it, acceptability, was never achieved. My article on MOSAIC, referenced this so I am not going to repeat that here, other than to say that if, as hoped, we see a substantial growth in the makes and models of models designed under the new standards allowed by MOSAIC, they could be the perfect conduit for the type of expansion of accessibility, safety, technology and affordability people are seeking.

When it comes to shared ownership/use, both AOPA (Flying Clubs – You Can Fly) and EAA (Flying Club Resource Center) offer great resources on how to find, set-up and manage flight clubs, partnerships etc. Indeed, using their guides and explanations should be very high on everybody’s list of first steps when it comes to exploring these options.

Looking at the different clubs out there, it becomes clear that there is a wide variety of purposes and motivations behind each of them. Sometimes it springs from an individual who has a plane and simply wants to spread out the costs of operation with a few new friends and other times it involves clubs that have professional management, decades of experience and tens of planes available to hundreds of members. The point being, that while the mechanisms to create and manage clubs is very well covered by AOPA and EAA there is really no coordination at state, regional or national levels so the net result is a somewhat random.

Cade Halle, the Manager of AOPA’s Flying Clubs Initiative, kindly shared some information on their progress. “Currently AOPA recognizes 1112 registered clubs of which 254 were formed directly with AOPA’s assistance and are recognized as ‘AOPA Network Clubs’ (clubs that adhere to FAA regulations on the proper way of operating a flying club).  At any given time, we are working roughly 50 leads of newly forming clubs in various stages of formation.  In terms of rate of growth, it’s really quite cyclical as with anything in aviation, but there is no shortage of people interested in joining or forming a club.  In 2023, 178 clubs responded to our annual survey.  Of those that responded, the average club size was 32 members with an average of 2 aircraft per club.  Those numbers are pretty on par with the last 4 years. Single engine piston, fixed gear makes up 92% of all club aircraft.  The oldest flying club in the US is the Clemson Flying Club formed in 1927.  Lots of clubs started in the 50’s and 60’s that are still going today.  I don’t have any specific data for each state, but Texas, California, and Florida are the top 3 states with the most clubs based on numbers I could go through.”

The EAA, via Timm Bogenhagen, Member Programs Specialist, reports about 100 clubs with many of them near to EAA Chapters. They do not have hard statistics for members and numbers of aircraft but estimate one to two aircraft per club and 20-30 members per club.

Without solid statistics, we have to resort to making assumptions. It is probable, if not provable, that between AOPA and EAA they have captured at least 50% of all the shared ownership/use groups in the USA. Their combined total comes to about 1200 groups, so, if we double that based on the percentage of clubs linked to one or both organizations, we get to approximately 2400 groups with an average of two planes per group so, perhaps 4800 aircraft in some form of shared use excluding flight schools. Based on the 2022 FAA GA survey data, that would suggest that less than 4% of the aircraft designated as “Personal” (141,600) in the survey are in any form of shared use. Consequently, given the average hours per aircraft flown of 58 quoted in the first part of this article, it would not be a stretch to conclude that the overwhelming majority of personal planes are not providing their owners with cost efficient flying.

What emerges from AOPA, EAA and personal experience, is that there is an unquantified, and unsatisfied demand at some level, for access to affordable aircraft. How much of that pent-up demand comes from frustration at the lack of any, or decent, rental aircraft in their local area, is also unclear. With the very large increase in demand for flight training, the availability of aircraft for other purposes is potentially more constrained than it has ever been as the same aircraft are in demand for shared ownership/use as those being used in flight schools.

Well established, and geographically limited clubs confirm emphatically both the favorable economics of sharing through volume but, with such limited penetration, clearly have not established a universally winning model of success. AOPA and EAA have contributed valuable insights and assistance to already motivated people on how to create and run such clubs, but widespread adoption has possibly been held back by the lack of a “for profit” business model. Owning and operating high volume aircraft requires investment, infrastructure, management, experience and continuity that often goes beyond the realm of voluntary organizations. The profit motive may well be what is needed to take shared ownership to the next level but, entrepreneurs and their money like to see clearly defined markets with standards that can be met. At the present time there is neither a clearly defined market nor a clearly defined path to reach customers.

What role does standardization play?

In the first article, the emphasis was on making the case for how effective high volume of activity is in bringing down costs. However, there are clearly other factors that should also be considered when trying to create a sustainable business model. Possibly, the most important of those factors is the choice of aircraft. Current shared ownership/use aircraft likely encompass a very wide range of makes and models, ages, condition, capabilities and installed equipment. The beauty of this is that pilots can, at least in theory, align their desires and budgets with specific local options. A key practical downside is that the “dating process” between pilots and available options means that few “marriages” actually result for a variety of reasons. This takes us to the thorny question of whether trying to create a standardized offering (i.e., combination of aircraft and access to those aircraft) could open up opportunities, or simply lead to more disagreements over personal preferences. The balance of the discussion here will be that, in addition to volume and a profit motive, creating a standardized offering is essential if progress is to be made. The combination of all these three factors would go a very long way toward removing the barriers of acceptability that can be cited as reasons not to share, and that were explored in the first article.

By not having a defined standard for aircraft or how the planes are managed, prospective users/owners are faced with having to make a wide range of decisions without necessarily having the skills or experience to sort through them meaningfully. This complexity and the high risk of making a “bad” choice undoubtedly has some effect on whether people even start on the process, let alone, complete it. This is where MOSAIC comes into the equation because it is an entirely standards-based process when it comes to the proposed new Light Sport definitions covering both aircraft and Sport Pilot privileges. Additionally, it opens up the option for four-seat planes to everyone including Sport Pilots and allows manufacturers to use the ATSM’s standards to bring down their costs and adopt new technology.

Taking this to its next logical step would be to have a standard for shared ownership/use aircraft that clubs, or entrepreneurs, could operate to. For example, one such offering might be presented as follows with a goal of covering as many prospective needs as possible.

The challenge with all of the above is that it does not really provide a clear path forward or even a vision as to what might be. A possible description of how the future could look is presented below as a catalyst to generate ideas and not as an exact prescription for success.

So, lets dream and look five to 10 years into the future:

• The final version of MOSAIC has been implemented and this has generated a wide variety of new models being offered into the market at significantly lower price points than the legacy and semi legacy companies of today. They take maximum advantage of the standards based processes and benefit from avionics and engines that meet those standards.
• Local, regional and national entities have signed up to a franchise model offering only one make and model of shared use plane enabling a chosen manufacturer to produce large volumes efficiently and cost effectively. This has flow through effects on all the suppliers who can also benefit from longer product runs and improved component reliability.\
• There are four parts to the distribution chain:
  • The provider who rents/manages the shared use fleets. They access the aircraft via leases rather than direct purchases. They follow a standard model for management of the aircraft, insurance protocols, currency of users, scheduling, maintenance etc using a franchise type process.
  • Leasing companies buy the aircraft from the manufacturer and lease them to the providers. Their key role is to try and balance the supply of aircraft with demand and work directly with the chosen manufacturer on support, spare parts etc.
  • Individual or corporate investors lend to and/or invest in the leasing companies but do not take any active management role. The only difference between these investors and others is that they have explicitly bought into and support the concept on a macro level rather than seeing each aircraft purchase as a new investment. This creates a far more fluid and cost-effective process by cutting down on duplicative bureaucracy.
  • The aircraft manufacturer has committed to a standard product and very competitive pricing knowing that they can expect certain volumes of aircraft on an ongoing basis.
• Flights schools have also bought into the concept of an affordable standard product for their training operations making the transition for graduating students into the shared use fleet seamless.
• Pilots can sign up at the local level and be approved to use the standard aircraft model with varying levels of commitment while benefiting from lower prices than traditional rental options and no administrative or ownership burdens. In many cases their provider would also be the local flight school or FBO. Being well equipped, professionally managed and full of technology has gone a long way towards the removal of many barriers to people’s willingness to share.
• Average flight hours per active aircraft are up twenty-fold contributing both to more affordable flying while offering everyone in the chain a good profit potential.
• More pilots are active and current which, when combined with access to modern aircraft, has created a far safer operating environment for all.
• The planes remaining in personal ownership tend to be more specialist and higher end.

In summary, bringing costs down to “affordable” levels depends on finding ways to scale up hours flown per aircraft, accepting the concept of a standard product and being open to using planes that are professionally managed, maintained and owned by others. Some, but not all, of the elements needed to make this a reality already exist. The biggest challenge will be to convince people that it is possible to reshape the way access to planes is managed. Trying to reverse the trend of increasingly expensive planes that leave the majority of pilots scrabbling for 50 year old hand-me-downs is not going to happen without disturbing a lot of established industry customs and practices, so will likely face stiff opposition.

Compress Post ...

In the normal order of things, a successful product will probably remain in production until demand slackens, technology changes or it can’t be built effectively. But there are other reasons, some not so obvious. Case in point? Kitfox Aircraft. Since 2009, when the company began selling the Series 7 Sport, it’s cranked out roughly 40 of the factory-built LSAs, with sales always outpacing the company’s ability to produce for the first few years. Eventually, Kitfox began selling the S7 Sport with various engine options, up to the Rotax 914. Sales over the last few years have slowed to a relative trickle, but not really for reasons you’d think.

First of all, the company’s bread-and-butter is the kitbuilt side of the market, so when the factory buildings are busy and full to overflowing and the order book is growing, company owner John McBean elected to prioritize the kit side of the business over the ready-made side. He describes it as a balancing act but understandably so; you want to keep your core customer happy. And so this partly explains why Kitfox is quietly putting the SLSA business on hold.

But it’s not the only excuse. According to McBean, the simple fact is that today’s customers demand better equipped airplanes. They want really nice paint. They want two-screen EFISes and the most powerful engine available, which, today, is the 160-hp Rotax 916. They want nice interiors and all the options.

Such niceties add not just cost but weight. And in the SLSA rules, there’s a minimum useful load of 430 pounds, which means an empty weight of 890 pounds or less. In the robust Kitfox, you can get there with a lightweight avionics package and the lighter-weight Rotax 912 ULS or iS, but once you start ticking off the options boxes and pop for the 916, it’s much more difficult to do. And the simple fact is that a fully equipped, highly optioned airplane is what customers want.

So what’s McBean’s solution? Shift those resources from the SLSA whole-build to a program of factory builder assistance, much like some of the other types where the builder comes to the factory to participate in the build. The resulting Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft has a lot more flexibility in content and maintenance.

What of MOSAIC, you ask? The current Kitfox Series 7 models all are engineered for a 1550-pound maximum gross weight, which would fall well into the current MOSAIC proposal, and so would the stall speed. There are no reasons the highest-spec Series 7 won’t be a good MOSAIC airplane to be flown by Sport Pilots under the new rules. Whether Kitfox resumes building SLSA models is more a matter of what the market demands than what can be produced out of the Homedale, Idaho, factory.

Compress Post ...

Like X (formerly Twitter), my favorite fall airshow has altered its name. Actually, it changed subtly over 16 years of operation but is now called the Midwest Aviation Expo, or MAX.

The major airshows have changed, too. EAA AirVenture Oshkosh was formally just “Oshkosh,” unless you live in Oshkosh, in which case it’s merely “EAA.” In Lakeland, Florida, Sun ‘n Fun Aerospace Expo is widely known simply as “Sun ‘n Fun.” Few pilots will use the longer title.

MAX is Midwest Aviation Expo. Maybe it took 16 years, but that is one snazzy, snappy marketing handle for the main event of the light aviation crowd. The big shows apparently like long, descriptive, all-inclusive names, but “MAX” handily outshines them, IMHO.

MAX 2024

A few aircraft vendors who committed to exhibit space have challenges arriving each year. That happens at the big shows, too. MAX follows AirVenture by a month and the huge Wisconsin event strains both staff energy and company finances. In some cases, a supplier may have sold all their aircraft and have nothing to display.

Nonetheless, “I counted 32 exhibitors that arrived for the show,” said airport manager Chris Collins. He also noted a few other statistics. “Just over 600 aircraft operations were conducted (see FlightAware graph) — a new record!”

In other comparisons, Chris noted, “We sold 733 gallons of mo-gas — up 67% from 440 gallons in 2023, another new record!” He also identified that 118 transient visitors arrived in their own aircraft. That number does not include airplanes in exhibits.

Bathawk seen on the flight line of MAX ’24. —many photos here by Vickie Betts

Of course, the number of pilots attending MAX 2024 is far different than the enormous throngs that attend the two major events. Yet that isn’t a useful measurement because visitors get a different experience in Mt. Vernon. At MAX, an interested pilot can likely ask the seller all the questions he or she has. Even better, you can probably get a demo flight in one or more aircraft that truly interest you.

Right Time of Year

From its first year in 2009, Chris and team have subtly shifted the dates, seeking the right combo that is not on a major holiday yet provides accommodating weather. Clearly, the Mt. Vernonites found the magic.

MAX partner, Jana Filip excitedly noted, “We had great weather, all three days! Zero rain. Aircraft were flying all day long, every day!” That is indeed the magic for attendees looking to check out an aircraft they hope to purchase.

“It was a most exciting year for Midwest Aviation Expo,” continue Jana. “With a name change, formerly Midwest LSA Expo, now Midwest Aviation Expo — hence ‘MAX’ — the operation functioned seamlessly.”

Since I’ve long stressed the value of demo flying, let’s make a comparison. At Sun ‘n Fun, LSA and Sport Pilot kit aircraft suppliers can fly from the Paradise City turf runway with great ease. They do exactly that, with many demo flights taken. One downside is that so many are operating from that runway that it can become congested and pilots must watch a wide variety of traffic very closely.

At AirVenture, the Fun Fly Zone airstrip is also busy but even less accommodating of demo flights partly due to an awkward approach to landing. EAA has longer-term plans to completely alter this. While that will be most welcome, it will take time and then every vendor starts again to pick the right location for their display.

Conversely, MAX offers the #1 easiest place to demo fly that I have ever seen. During the event, the airport “belongs” to the light aircraft crowd. The runways are wide and long. Congestion is never a problem. If you plan well, you could take several demo flights — most vendors have a schedule and you should get on them if you want to get the most out of your visit.

MAX “concentrates, encourages, and rewards for demonstrations flights during the three-day sport aviation event,” observed Jana. “Our new motto is, ‘Fly it! Buy it!’. And they did…”

“To encourage the promotion of demonstration flights,” Jana continued, “the Midwest Aviation Expo hosts daily Dance Cards for the Daily Demo Derby.” Event organizers started encouraging exhibitors to book their demo flights during AirVenture as MAX follows only five weeks later. Clearly, they followed the advice and filled their slots for 2024.

Does the Daily Demo Derby work? With that kind of airport encouragement, you bet it does. Vendors compete vigorously. It’s a triple win: customers get aloft in aircraft of interest; vendors qualify more potential customers and get to show off their flying machines; the airport gets lots of activity (graph).

Already lined up for MAX 2025 is sponsor RT Aviation, representing Aeropilot and Atec. Airport manager Chris Collins (L) poses with the RT team.

And, yes, winners emerge. “On Thursday RT Aviation won with Rans close behind,” noted Jana. “On Friday Piston Aviation won the Derby with their fleet of four Bristell LSA. Piston repeated on Saturday; their Chief Demo Pilot gets big kudos,” Jana exclaimed!

What do these winners accomplish? On Saturday, Piston Aviation and their Bristell fleet delivered 18 demo flights, the most ever by one exhibitor on a single day. Total demo flights recorded at KMVN over three days was 98. “This was way up over years prior,” Jana said.

That leads to the final magic. Organizers reported 16 sales were made over three days and my regular surveying of aircraft sales at events suggests at least an equal number could follow in a few months afterward.

By any measure MAX has become a solid success. The aircraft sales put wide smiles on the faces of pilots and that’s a value that’s hard to beat.

Still to Come
from MAX ’24

In addition to this overview, I am planning a report on Future Vehicles Dingo and the Atec 212 Solo sold by RT Aviation. Thanks to Vickie Betts, I also secured enough video footage to complete a video interview with Rans’ Michele Schlitter shot at last year’s event. I hope you’ll return to read or watch these upcoming stories.

Finally, in a way to show the maturity of MAX, they already have a lead sponsor for the 2025 event. The team from RT Aviation will take that honor. It was provided for this year’s event by Daniela and Jeremy Knoll (nearby image) in their new enterprise of Rotax Service Center, Advanced Powerplant Solutions.

The 2024 event was dedicated to my longtime partner, “Videoman Dave” Loveman. One of the most vocal supporters of the Mt. Vernon show, Dave never missed until he succumbed to health challenges in fall of 2023.

Airshows Can’t Happen
Without Volunteers
(or Sponsors)

Volunteers and vendors alike help make MAX one of the friendliest and most helpful of airshow events.

Keeping safe operations flowing freely is this group of airside volunteers. Thanks, fellows!

Aircraft broker Eric Evans is a regular volunteer at MAX; he operates from KMVN airport. The annual fish fry was supported by Banterra and served by volunteers.

Financial services provider, Banterra, was a sponsor of MAX ’24 as well as the LAMA dinner sponsor at Sun ‘n Fun ’24. Thanks for great support!

Compress Post ...

(Graphic: FLYING magazine)

For most pilots, the FAA Airmen’s Medical Certificate is a fundamental requirement for flight. This certification guarantees that the pilot meets the medical standards necessary for safe operation of an aircraft. But there are exceptions, and understanding them is crucial, particularly for pilots facing challenges with their medical certification.

Medical Qualifications: Contention and Controversy

Discussions about medical qualifications often lead to disagreements and controversy. Even though I am not a member of the FAA FAASTeam, I regularly attend WINGS seminars. These discussions consistently arise at the end of many presentations, regardless of whether the presentation is related to medical issues.

The typical statement is usually something this: “A Sport Pilot does NOT need an FAA Medical NOR BasicMed.” They are usually referring to the to the use of a U.S. Issued Driver’s License to exercise Sport Pilot privileges. While this is true at a surface level, the answer is more nuanced and not for the reasons many pilots mistakenly believe.

On the general topic of Medicals and Medical Qualifications, the FAA is very clear and states the following:

FAA AIM 8-1-1-1.a.1:  “All pilots except those flying gliders and free air balloons must possess valid medical certificates in order to exercise the privileges of their airman certificates.”

FAA AIP ENR 1.15.1.1.1:  “All pilots except those flying gliders and free air balloons must possess valid medical certificates in order to exercise the privileges of their airman certificates.”

Sport Pilots and Medical Disqualifications

Many people mistakenly believe that Sport Pilots are not required to have sufficient proof of medical fitness. However, this is not true, except for gliders and free air balloons, which are the only exceptions to this rule. There is no mention of Sport Pilots or Light Sport Aircraft exceptions in the regulations. However, there is a difference for those exercising Sport Pilot privileges in terms of what constitutes a “sufficient proof of medical fitness” under the regulations, due to a special exception by the FAA for Sport Pilots.

A person exercising Sport Pilot privileges can satisfy the “sufficient proof of medical fitness” requirement for Sport Pilot privileges in one of three ways, ranging from most senior to most junior. For illustrative purposes only, let’s categorize these as Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. A failure or revocation at a higher (senior) level prohibits the use of an item from a lower (junior) level.

• Standard FAA Airman Medical (Level 1): 1st, 2nd or 3rd Class Medical Certificate issued by an AME or other FAA authorized authority.
  • If a pilot’s most recent FAA Medical Certificate was denied, suspended or revoked or if any Special Issuance was withdrawn, the pilot is NOT eligible to operate any type of aircraft until the issue(s) have been resolved and a current and valid Airman Medical Certificate is issued.
• BasicMed (Level 2):  Certification by a U.S. State Licensed Physician using the official FAA BasicMed Exam form, plus an online self-certification course.
  • If a pilot’s most recent FAA Medical Certificate was denied, suspended or revoked, or if any Special Issuance was withdrawn, the pilot is NOT eligible to operate any type of aircraft until the issue(s) have been resolved and a current and valid Airman Medical Certificate is issued.
• U.S. Issued Driver’s License (Level 3):  For the purposes of Sport Pilot privileges only, a valid U.S. Issued Driver’s License may be used to fulfill the “sufficient proof of medical fitness” requirements.
  • If an adverse action has occurred with either a Standard FAA Medical or BasicMed issuance listed above, those conditions must be cleared, and recertification must occur, before using a U.S. Issued Driver’s License to satisfy the “sufficient proof of medical fitness” requirement.
  • Sport Pilots must comply with all restrictions and limitations on their U.S. Issued Driver’s License, as well as any judicial or administrative orders pertaining to the operation of a motor vehicle.
  • The pilot must “self-certify” that they have no medical conditions nor ingesting any medications that prevent the safe operation of an aircraft.

The FAA allows U.S. Issued Driver’s Licenses to be used for Sport Pilot privileges without the pilot holding an FAA Medical or BasicMed for a specific reason. This is because each U.S. state, territory, or district’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) mandates a basic level of medical fitness for operating a motor vehicle. In this case, the DMV essentially serves as the medical certifying authority in place of an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) or a U.S. licensed physician. Therefore, even though the pilot does not have an FAA Medical or BasicMed, they are still being medically qualified by a certifying authority (DMV).

If a pilot’s physicians have informed the pilot that they are medically unfit to operate an aircraft due to medical conditions and/or medications, or if the pilot becomes aware of any medical conditions and/or medications that make them medically unfit to operate an aircraft, the pilot is no longer able to “self-certify” and may not continue to operate an aircraft. This applies to any type of medical certificate or driver’s license.

Denials May Not Be Permanent

There is still a chance that you may be eligible for an FAA Airman Medical under Special Issuance. Just because your application was initially denied, it doesn’t mean that you’ve reached the end. You may still qualify for a Special Issuance Medical Certificate.

This is a quote from the FAA: “The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (ultimately) denies only 0.1% of medical certificate applications. The FAA processes over 400,000 applications each year.” The FAA will require a substantial amount of testing and documentation, but as long as you provide what they ask for, in many cases your chances of a Special Issuance are 99.9%!

The FAA has a “one percent rule” for Airman Physicals that goes something like this: The “1 percent rule” would result in a pilot being denied a medical certificate if their risk of a (acute/sudden) medical incapacitation (e.g. heart attack, convulsion, stroke, faint etc) is determined as being greater than 1% during the year (annual period). If you and your Aviation Medical Examiner can prove that you fit inside this box, you stand a reasonable chance of being one of the approved 99.9%!

Aviation Medical Examiner as a Consultant

It’s not widely known, but many Aviation Medical Examiners (AMEs) will provide consultation services before conducting your official medical examination. In this capacity, they are working for you and not the FAA. If your AME doesn’t offer this service, they can likely refer you to another AME who does. They can advise you on your medical status before you submit your FAA MedXpress application and physical and help you with any necessary pre-exam testing and documentation required for a Special Issuance application.

Have your Aviation Medical Examiner arrange the necessary pre-exam testing and secondary exams with your Primary Care physician to obtain a “medical clearance”. Inform your Primary Care physician that you need a “medical clearance” and they can coordinate the process. You will require at least an EKG, which can be costly if done at the AME’s office. However, many of your medical pre-exam testing and secondary exams may be covered by insurance or Medicare if ordered by your Primary Care physician for a “medical clearance”. I have gone through this process and found it to be more cost-effective.

Glider Operations: A Potential Pathway

If all else fails, there’s a ray of hope to fly once more for pilots facing medical disqualifications. Under certain circumstances, it’s possible to continue flying as a Sport Pilot or Private Pilot, even if your FAA Airman Medical has been denied, suspended, revoked or a Special Issuance has been withdrawn.

The key lies in adding the Glider Category rating to your existing Sport Pilot or Private Pilot certificate. Adding this category to an existing certificate can be accomplished in as little as three flight hours. Of course, you have to fly an aircraft in the Glider Category. If you prefer powered flight, you can train in and fly a Motor Glider (self-launch), like the Pipistrel Sinus. This particular model is equipped with a Rotax engine and a front propeller, essentially making it an airplane with 50-foot wings.

The Glider Category add-on will involve additional training and possibly both practical and written testing. If you meet the necessary requirements and demonstrate your fitness to fly gliders, you may regain the joy of flight. Of course, you’ll always want to consult with an Aviation Medical Examiner to ensure that you are flying safe and legal.

Medications and Flight: A Critical Consideration

Regardless of your medical certification status, pilots must be vigilant about the medications they take. The FAA prohibits operating an aircraft while taking certain medications, and there are no exceptions, even for Sport Pilots or Glider Pilots. While the FAA doesn’t maintain an official list of prohibited medications, the Aviation Medicine Advisory Service provides a helpful resource.

It’s always best to err on the side of caution and consult a certified Aviation Medical Examiner before taking any new medications, especially if you plan to fly. Your AME can offer personalized guidance and help you understand any potential impact on your flight eligibility.

Conclusion

Flying without an FAA medical is a complex subject with few straightforward answers. If you face challenges with your medical certification, it’s crucial to understand your options and make informed decisions. Remember, safety is paramount, and seeking advice from an Aviation Medical Examiner is always the best course of action.

Additional Resources:

Fitness For Flight (FAA AIM)

Medical Facts for Pilots (FAA AIP)

(14 CFR Part 61) Subpart J – Sport Pilots (FAA)

Facts About BasicMed (FAA)

Aviation Medicine Advisory Service (database)

Compress Post ...

I was inspired to write this article by a comment made on a previous article I wrote on MOSAIC. I had indicated that MOSAIC had the potential to bring new aircraft to market at half the price of current legacy offerings. The commenter made the point that even at half the price, this would still not make it inherently “affordable” to most people.

This topic will be covered in two articles. The first will discuss how shared ownership is able to bring down the costs of accessing an airplane and thus, making it potentially more affordable to a wider pilot demographic. The second article will detail two proposals on how some form of shared ownership could be expanded into a regional or national model.

How the Numbers Add Up

Affordability is really not a single quantifiable number that can be used to judge a product. There are simply too many other factors such as income, lifestyle and geographical location that have to be taken into account while, of course, no two people see their life priorities the same way. How that product is accessed will also have a significant effect on its affordability. The simplest examples being the purchase of a house or a new car. If they all had to be paid for in cash, there would be very limited home or car ownership. In these examples, the ability to spread the purchase cost over an extended period of time makes an unaffordable/inaccessible item affordable. To some extent this would be true for a plane but, for most people, a house or car are considered essential while a plane is typically seen as a luxury so access to loans to buy them are somewhat restricted and expensive due to the relatively small market.

Trying to determine what it costs for an average person to own a plane is challenging for a number of reasons including the value of the plane, where it is located, the financial situation of the owner and how many hours it will actually be flown in a year.

The FAA produces an annual general aviation survey, the most recent one being for 2022. Using the total number of hours flown and categorized as “personal” (8.2 million hours) divided by the number of planes categorized as “personal” (141,600) we get a figure of just under 58 hours per year per plane. Personal planes and hours include rotorcraft and fixed wing single and multi-engine. Another part of the survey indicates single engine piston planes fly less hours per year on average than both multi engine planes and rotorcraft, so the 58 hours average is probably an overstatement, but we will use it here for convenience.

What About Costs?

Table 1

Here, we really have to make some assumptions, so these are mine based on 34 years of ownership, operation, aircraft management, from multiple FBOs and flight schools in Virginia and Florida.

Two types of cost are used when creating a forecast, fixed and variable. A fixed cost is one that is not usually going to change irrespective of the hours flown, a good example being insurance. A variable cost is one that is going to apply to every hour flown, a good example being fuel. Some variable costs cover future expenses such as an engine overhaul and are not cash being spent every year but is money you have to put to one side to save up for the eventual expense. These are called reserves. Aircraft ownership comes with a very heavy dose of fixed costs. Total annual cost of ownership is the addition of fixed plus variable costs. The cost per hour of flight is the total annual cost divided by the hours flown.

Table 2

In our example we are going to look at a plane that cost $80,000, was purchased with a 20 year loan at 7% annual interest. The detailed numbers are in three tables at the end of the article. I will just provide a simple summary here, so as to maintain simplicity.

In our example:

Fixed costs per year (Table 1): $19,056 (hangared) or $15,456 (tied down)

Variable cost per hour (Table 2): $98.10 ($65.00 Cash and $33.10 reserves)

At the “average” flight hours of 58 per year, this comes to $427 per hour (hangared) and $365 Per hour (tied down). Both being significantly higher than if a similar plane was being rented from the local airport.

Table 3

However, where the magic starts is as the total numbers of hours per year start to increase (Table 3):

This table highlights some key information:

• Five people owning the plane with each one using it for about 58 hours (292 hours) reduces the cost per hour by $264 (hangared) and $214 (tied down).
• Fly 900 hours per year and the cost per hour falls to $119 (hangared) and $115 (tied down).
• At 58 hours per year the recovery of fixed costs comes to $329 per hour (Hangared) and $266 (tied down).
• At 292 hours the fixed costs make up $65 (hangared) $53 (tied down).
• At 900 hours the fixed costs make up $21 (hangared) and $17 (tied down).
• As the number of hours increases the differential between keeping the plane hangared and tied down reduces dramatically.
• The rate of decrease in cost per hour slows down considerably as the total hours increase suggesting an optimum number of hours per year.
• The clear lesson here is that higher volumes have the potential to turn an unaffordable luxury into something significantly more accessible and affordable. Consequently, when you look at these figures it is difficult to see why people would actually want to own any aircraft rather than rent, as all but the most frugal would save money. This also explains why the main cost saving model people have adopted is that of shared ownership through partnerships, flying clubs and managed ownership.

Typical responses given to this question might include:

• The rental aircraft are just not available when I want to fly
• I can’t go off on a long trip in a rental plane
• They are not kept in good enough condition
• Always down for some reason or another’
• Too expensive
• Does not have the type I like to fly
• I like the freedom of making a spur of the moment decision
• Planes get too much use, don’t trust the maintenance
• Not enough of the model I like to fly
• I never share anything
• There are surely many more.

Some Typical Forms of Shared Ownership

Each of these solutions brings with it a different set of constraints. The biggest issues with partnerships come down to personality and attitude conflicts. It is very difficult to ensure that you get the right blend of people together who have shared values – anything broken will be fixed, aircraft will be kept clean with fuel after every trip etc. That is without even touching on the challenges of everybody wanting to fly at the same time and what happens when the plane is down for an extended annual, upgrades or repair.

Flying clubs can bring more discipline to the whole concept of shared ownership/Shared use and even add the attraction of multiple aircraft but, with a multiplication of shared owners/users the potential for conflicts also multiply. There are some great examples of flying clubs that have been around for many decades. These tend to have more formal rules than partnerships but are usually set up as not for profit and are run by volunteers with a common interest so the ongoing quality of the experience can be highly variable over time.

Professionally managed ownership got a significant boost about 18 years ago spurred on by the excitement generated by Cirrus which led to a number of fractional ownership programs being created and sold. However, these were being created as a way to sell more Cirrus aircraft and promoted by people looking to make very substantial profits from the programs. They ultimately failed because they did not really aim to bring costs down for the owners through volume and there were too few customers looking for such a high-end experience. Nevertheless, the concept did take off it many different forms for turbine aircraft where the costs of professional management are not a major obstacle to the high net worth individuals and companies who are customers as their alternatives could be even higher cost charter or sole ownership.

Ultimately, the key takeaway from all of this is that volume is what brings down costs and makes aviation more affordable but, it does not necessarily address the challenges of accessibility. Accessibility only comes from there being a plentiful supply of aircraft, and organization to put the aircraft where the demand is.

MOSAIC, the subject of a prior article that I wrote, has the potential to offer aircraft with much lower variable operating costs than legacy aircraft but, with potentially higher fixed costs as they would be newer and likely much better equipped. With high volumes bringing down the fixed costs per hour plus lower variable costs, the overall economics could well place new aircraft within the reach of many more people.

The second article in this series will cover some of the potential solutions to accessibility to shared ownership/usage aircraft.

Compress Post ...