In those dozen years — the newest aircraft segment is not even a teenager yet — quite a bit has changed. If you are a parent, you may not notice your child getting older as you see them daily. However, the distant uncle or grandparent who only gets to visit infrequently may be astounded how much the little guy or gal has grown. I suspect those close to LSA may have a similar perspective deficit, so let me make some contrasts.

The nearby images are from a talk I gave at the recently concluded Mid-West LSA Expo. I went into more detail than this article permits but I'll bet you get the points.

Just looking at the fixed wing sector, you have so many choices, I often have people ask for help sorting through the many choices for an aircraft that will work for them. Because I cannot answer all the questions, I created PlaneFinder 2.0, which helps to narrow your choices thereby making a purchase decision a little easier. Try it; it's kind of fun.

What folks may not remember is the kind of aircraft we had at the outset. One case in point. I've often heard folks say (for example), "Why does the maker of the sleek Sting or Sirius airplanes call itself 'TL Ultralights'? Their airplanes don't look anything like most pilots' idea of an ultralight." That sounds correct and today, TL does make state-of-the-art airplanes but they once made something that would look familiar to anyone engaged in the ultralight sector in the 1990s.

As the field rapidly evolved and as companies saw their business coming from pilots selling Bonanzas and Cessnas, they began offering more sophisticated airplanes. Prices rose to cover the fancier equipment, but I hasten to add that we still have many affordable choices from manufacturers that use more traditional construction techniques.

Rotax was also dominant in the 1990s, although in those days, their two-strokes (such as 447, 503, & 582) were the main powerplants on the ultralights of those days. Rotax debuted their 912, the start of what is now called the 9-series, in 1992 and some airframe builders adopted it quickly but most continued with the two-stroke engines as they cost less, had lighter weight, and were better matched to the aircraft of those years. Today, the 582 continues while the others have been discontinued, however, the 912s are everywhere.

Continental was on the scene quite earlier thanks to their ubiquitous O-200, later reconfigured and lightened specifically for LSA (O-200D). Lycoming followed later, following with their O-233. Yet it was the Titan series of very powerful engines that has begun to make impressive inroads. As of 2015, Continental owns the Titan line previously developed by ECi.

We also have solid entries from UL Power, Viking, AeroVee, D-Motor, and others although having to prove compliance to ASTM standards keeps these only in the homebuilt community. That may change as LSA continue to grow worldwide, as we'll see.

Surprise question: Do you recognize the engine in the upper left? If so, you're probably a veteran of the light aircraft industry before anyone used the phrase "Light-Sport Aircraft."

Today, modern cockpits more likely resemble the image on the upper right; that's the interior of a Flight Design CT, an early adopter of units like those from Dynon that revolutionized light aviation and helped show GA pilots that LSA offered something truly fresh. To see how far we've come, you can look beyond the open cockpit ultralight as shown and simply look inside any GA airplane where you almost always see a panel full of round analog "steam gauges."

In the lower right image you see a version of Icon's A5 LSA seaplane interior, purposely designed to resemble what a new occupant would see in a modern automobile. The idea is to look less daunting than an immense panel of unfamiliar instruments and time will tell if they made a right decision. Most students I've trained were indeed flustered looking at a panel of round dials much as older pilots are when trying to quickly pick up info from a modern EFIS... hence, makers glass cockpit developers offered a "six-pack"panel of digitally-represented analog gauges.

In this earlier article, I delved into the worldwide fleet of LSA-like aircraft so I won't repeat it here. Yet I consider the count of more than 66,000 such aircraft to be on the conservative side. The article also referenced the count of U.S-based Type Certified single engine piston aircraft. For those seeking more detail, check this article and this one plus many more LSA market articles found here.

If you don't care to read the above links, I can summarize by stating that LSA has done very well in its dozen (or so) years. Here's my closing statement from the Midwest LSA Expo talk: "Light-Sport has already forever altered aviation, offering a vision for the future of flying ...and we're just getting started."

Just shy of five years ago, EAA and AOPA caught the LSA industry off guard by announcing plans to push FAA to drop the Third Class medical. Most LSA professionals likely agree with the basic idea that FAA ought to keep their noses out of the recreational end of aviation. Many feel that the medical requirement has prevented almost no accidents. Nonetheless, this new initiative took aim at the primary reason LSA builders were then selling airplanes like crazy. If you wanted to fly without a medical you had ultralights (Part 103... and still do), or sailplane motorgliders, or Light-Sport Aircraft. I don't believe for a minute that not needing a medical is the only reason to consider a new LSA but it was a biggie, no doubt.

So, what's the answer? Will this reform harm LSA or not? How is it affecting the industry? Worthy questions, all. To read more detail about the medical proposal, see this article.

Jabiru's J-230 is based on a four seater from Australia, explaining its cavernous aft cabin complete with a third entry door. photo from Eric Evans Aviation

I compare the medical question to the way the stock markets work. At the first hint of bad news (a war, recession, terrorist attack, or the Fed raising interest rates), investors quickly price-in the results they expect. Stocks plummet overnight, even though the bad news has not yet occurred and may never come to pass. The situation with LSA was similar. As soon as those reluctant LSA buyers heard they had another choice — even one that might never come and certainly not soon — they took back their dollars and held onto them. This is human nature at work.

Therefore, at Oshkosh, news that the third class medical reform was coming didn't change things much. It had already been "priced-in" to pilots' purchase decisions.

However, those who want a new airplane with all the features they desire remain interested in Light-Sport Aircraft. Purchase prices range from below $50,000 to over $200,000 but that is still far less — one eighth to one half the cost — of almost any new Type Certified GA plane. (And, YES, you can buy a fun, well assembled, ready-to-fly LSA for $40-85,000!)

Icon was awarded a weight increase for their A5 seaplane; they will fly at 1,510 pounds. photo courtesy Icon Aircraft

In my previous article, I spoke about the new Murphy Radical. I also wrote about the Titan-powered Kitfox, and we have several other entries that are similar. These aircraft, like many LSA, have been designed to carry higher gross weights. They are limited to 1,320 pounds or 1,430 pounds (for seaplanes) because of FAA constraints. Some, for example, Jabiru J-230 — which started as a four seater in Australia — or Paradise P1NG from Brazil among several others, have been designed to significantly higher gross weights than FAA allows for LSA. These aircraft have always been able to lift more weight; they were placarded at 1,320 or 1,430 because of LSA rule limits.

At Oshkosh, Rans introduced their Outbound model with a gross weight listed at 1,800 pounds that calculates to a payload of 625 pounds... "the highest payload design ever offered by Rans," said the company. This model also offers a higher speed of 150 mph cruise (LSA are speed limited at 138 mph or 120 knots). In the world of a Private Pilot no longer needing an FAA Airman's Medical, such larger aircraft may have good appeal.

One More Thing — A familiar rumor began circulating at Oshkosh, encouraged by a member organization senior leader comment heard at AirVenture. A push is supposedly afloat to increase the weight limit of Light-Sport Aircraft. We've heard this before and it has been steadfastly denied by FAA but now that Icon and Terrafugia received weight increase exemptions, who knows? If I hear more, I'll keep you informed.

Maybe you haven't heard enough about electric-powered aircraft, flying cars, and automobiles on autopilot (presuming you're aware of Tesla's fatal accident in May). How about a shape-shifting aerocar? Huh?! I know it sounds rather crazy but Toyota, being the world's largest car manufacturer, is not a name to be dismissed when they may choose to delve into the flying car business... twice, in a few months!

Nope, I'm not kidding. The Japanese car company was awarded a patent for a "Shape Morphing Fuselage for an Aerocar." The illustrations — typical patent artwork — might fool you. This is not some 1930s silliness. The U.S. Patent office published this very recently, on June 23rd, 2016.

Perhaps it's no more than a publicity generator, much like Amazon's drone delivery aircraft — about which, by the way, Amazon claims to be sincere. Or, maybe Toyota is afraid Terrafugia might beat them to an interesting market, something like Tesla did to the big boys of auto manufacturing. Maybe they're just trying to lock up some intellectual property. I wouldn't know the answer to those questions. I simply found a shape-shifting flying car to be intriguing.

Toyota's concept allows the wings to be stored within the interior while the car is on land unlike Terrafugia's Transition.

Here's the general description appearing on their patent: "A shape morphing fuselage and method of transitioning an aerocar from a land mode to a flight mode. The fuselage includes... flexible frame member and tensile skin... as well as an actuation system configured to bend the frame members between a contracted configuration associated with flight mode and an expanded configuration association with land mode." All this is to allow collapsing the folding wings inside the vehicle for road travel. That makes sense but the Aerocar has to store this in space that cannot otherwise be used, rather like a hardtop convertible.

Terrafugia has demonstrated — and publicly flown, at Oshkosh and other locations — their Transition that folds its wings alongside the car body. This method can leave the wings exposed to road rash. Their TF-X design goes far beyond this and does not leave major flight components exposed but that's another story.

Another online outlet, England's Daily Mail, wrote, "Toyota believes flying has always been a dream central to the history of humanity and the car manufacturer may be getting closer to making it a reality." From my read of the patent, I cannot imagine this is particularly serious, but it might be a way to claim patent exclusivity on changeable car body shapes. For an outfit used to making millions of automobiles through several brands, an Aerocar could hardly seem particularly profitable.

When the operator is ready to fly, the wings can be extended generally from the sides of the shape morphing fuselage through a hatch.

So when the operator is ready to fly, the wings can be unfolded and extended — this part is much like Terrafugia's Transition — from the sides of the fuselage (Mssrs. Gandhi and Nam regularly referred to the Aerocar body as a "fuselage"). However, I see one big difference.

Transition's wings remain alongside the car where road debris could strike the wings. That always looked vulnerable to many observers. Toyota's shape-shifting Aerocar brings the wings inside. They can fit because the car body or fuselage can change shapes using actuators inside to twist and tug a tensile, or stretchy, skin. On the road with wings hidden, Aerocar looks something like a minivan. Aloft it becomes more streamlined.

The vehicle "would be driven using a power system that includes a battery pack, internal combustion engine, turbine, fuel cell, or other energy conversion device" driving a propeller or ducted fan. Motive power does not seem to be Toyota's main concern, partly as illustrated by the kludgy prop at the rear that would also have to be pulled inside... and the patent has no language about that.

The fuselage could employ a tensile body that stretches between flexible frame members that optimizes shape for flight versus ground operation.

So, is Toyota likely to enter the flying car business? Do they have a couple (or more) engineers working on things like Google's "Moonshot" group does, where the pay-off, if any, is years in the future? Maybe they are merely exploring ideas and filing patents as a way to show they're actually working on stuff and not wasting their days updating their Facebook pages. Again, I don't know. Yet when a multinational company with billions of dollars at their ready disposal cracks open the checkbook, it could lead to something interesting.

Toyota's shape-shifting design isn't the company's first flying car proposal. In September 2015, Toyota was awarded another patent for a vehicle that placed the wings under a compartment in the roof that would deploy at the touch of a button.

Maybe this is just an ongoing fascination with a George Jetson flying car that has tantalized humans for years. Then, again, who knows? Could a shape shifting Aerocar be in your future?

Related Articles: Multiple Flying Cars; Itec's Maverick; China's CarCopter; Terrafugia's Weight Increase; AeroMobile 3.0; and, ScaleWings SW91 Aeros