The Midwest LSA Expo is over but we’ll have more articles and video coming from this show that enjoyed wonderful weather. Next up is the DeLand Showcase 2019 where we will search for the very latest news and gather material for new short videos on the ByDanJohnson YouTube channel. Find a large and ever-growing library of LSA and Sport Pilot kit videos featuring Dan on Videoman Dave’s popular YouTube channel + view hundreds of our best videos archived here in a searchable format. Thanks for your visit. We genuinely appreciate those of you who have become members!
Welcome!
The Midwest LSA Expo is over but we'll have more articles and video coming from this show that enjoyed wonderful weather. Next up is the DeLand Showcase 2019 where we will search for the very latest news and gather material for new short videos on the ByDanJohnson YouTube channel.
Find a large and ever-growing library of LSA and Sport Pilot kit videos featuring Dan on Videoman Dave's popular YouTube channel + view hundreds of our best videos archived here in a searchable format.
Thanks for your visit. We genuinely appreciate those of you who have become members!
Unlike most LSA, Colt uses a yoke rather than conventional or side stick. I'm a joystick lover but I acknowledge most pilots trained in the last few decades may be more comfortable with a yoke. Some prefer it so much they will tell you an airplane is easer to handle with a yoke. I think it's a personal preference but if you prefer a yoke, Texas Aircraft's Colt is one that may please you.
Colt is an all-aluminum construction, meaning any repair work needed after a purchase can be done by a great many mechanics anywhere in the world. It is powered by the 
Colt's aluminum skin — fuselage, wings, tail, and control surfaces — is supported by a welded chromoly steel safety cell. The construction techniques have been proven by designer Caio Jordão's model from a different company called Conquest 180. Jordão's work has resulted in more than 300 planes that have amassed 150,000 flight hours. His son Diego assists him.
In final form, Colt will offer cruise at about 110 knots though we saw less at lower altitudes and without final optimization of prop and engine, plus the added prototype weight.
Stalls occurred at very slow speeds — high 30 knots to low 40 knots indicated air speeds — and were all very well behaved. In all maneuvering that I did, Colt felt very solid and secure. It should be a great aircraft choice for those who want that classic Cessna experience in a Light-Sport Aircraft.
If SuperSport looks familiar to you, it should. It's based on the CTSW but joins several elements of the newer CTLS. In Europe, Flight Design has continued to deliver a lighter model from the CT series to conform to the microlight or European ultralight parameters.
SuperSport is something fresh as it takes a CTSW fuselage and grafts on the CTLS wing; adapts construction from the CTLS gear while still doing it with a single piece, like CTSW; employs tail structure from the newer model; and drafts the 
CT SuperSport can be delivered with a 710 pound empty weight that puts it well below many Light-Sport Aircraft and more than 100 pounds lighter than the longer CTLS. "This weight reduction was accomplished by using simplified avionics and equipment plus some lighter parts from the European version of the CT," said Flight Design.
CT SuperSport has the same spacious and wide interior of the CT series but it returns to the "mushroom" instrument panel that does not extend all the way to the cockpit exterior. Seeming to rise out of the floor, you know, like a mushroom, the panel produces a feeling of much greater visibility, especially forward.
Re-entering the CTSW cabin reminded me of the helicopter-like vision afforded by the cockpit design. This came in handy while I flew with the 
CT SuperSport is some 13 inches shorter than CTLS, Tom Jr. noted and it does not have the hat rack or aft cabin windows of CTLS. CT SuperSport also uses an electric trim for pitch only while CTLS has pitch, aileron, and rudder trim by wheels.
The new, lighter CT model is what I'd agree to call a performance model. It runs close to the top end of the permitted speed range, can fly around 1,000 statute miles, climbs 1,000 feet per minute, yet sips fuel at rates of four gallons per hour, even less if you retard the throttle slightly. It is a lively handling aircraft that still exhibits mild stall characteristics proven by our performing a full regimen of approach and departure stalls plus accelerated stalls in each direction.
Base price of CT SuperSport is: $135,000, some $40,000 less than the flagship CTLS. "Options include night flight equipment and autopilot with Level button," said Flight Design.
Father and son Gutmanns run 
You have two more days of 
Larry Mednick is a happily married man now but he remains a restless designer, always striving for a new variation on the exquisite theme he started with Revo ten years ago.
Since the 
Finally comes RevX. Larry said about Rev that it is a delightful trike that he has thoroughly enjoyed since it was released four years ago. However, it is a calm weather flyer. I see nothing wrong with that but the lightweight airframe of Rev means it is somewhat more vulnerable should conditions pick up strength.
Enter RevX. Larry said three attributes distinguish the newest in his "Rev" line. RevX still folds in six minutes flat and, yes, Evolution has video to prove it (plus see our video below). That system was developed with Rev but when Larry says it folds up he also means it can be transported this way. Rev and RevX both fold quickly while still supporting the structure completely. Most trikes fold up (although few do so as fast) but once folded the wings are not perfectly supported by structure that was purpose-designed to do so.
RevX also brings full suspension to the Rev-type design. This was not reasonable on Rev as it tried to stay within the tight constraints of Part 103's 254-pound empty weight (before emergency parachutes or floats, for which extra pounds are allowed).
Third, RevX shares with Rev the wide-open visibility of having no structural forward strut. Many trike observers think that forward strut is no visual impediment, but they may not have flown a fully-open trike like Rev or RevX. Evolution designed their structure so that the forward strut was not necessary and double value is achieved when the forward strut need not be removed to facilitate fold-down.
However, in exchange for some building effort RevX buyers will get a quite capable trike with impressive performance.
"Another big change is that the wing on RevX is 25% smaller than on Rev. The RevX wing is 12.0 square meters (129 square feet) with a 28 foot span, where Rev's Part 103 wing is 15 square meters (161 square feet) with a 31.5 foot span," clarified Larry. The higher wing loading makes for crisp handling but more windspeed capability than the more lightly loaded Rev.
A smaller but still single-surface wing is paired with the much more potent 
"The single surface RevX wing has a limited speed range," Larry explained. "Pilots will see stall at 28 mph, normal cruise at 45 mph and the wing maxes out at 58 mph," he noted but the handling of a single surface wing is superior.
As you'll see in the video, not only is Larry a gifted trike pilot but the machine seems willing to allow handling to delight most trike pilots.
As I turn onto final James Milnes’ voice suddenly crackles in my headset, “Golf Oscar Kilo Uniform Bravo, don’t forget it’s a tailwheel today!” The reason for James’ timely reminder was that when I’d flown the same aircraft a few weeks previously it had been configured as a trike, but today it’s a taildragger! Like most things in life, sport flying isn’t getting any cheaper. Hangarage, insurance, maintenance and fuel are all getting more expensive. But what if you had an aeroplane that lived on a road-legal trailer and fitted in your garage? One you could fly from practically any friendly farmer’s field while burning only eight liters (about 2 gallons) of mogas an hour and that you could do all the maintenance on?
I give you the Sherwood Kub. Built by 
Before going flying, a look around the TLAC facility reveals quite a few Kubs in various stages of construction, and the large lift (which wouldn’t look entirely out of place on an aircraft carrier) that conveys completed aircraft from the production line on the first floor down to the ground. Unlike some of the SSDRs that I’ve tested over the years, the Kub looks very well made, and also quite robust. TLAC boss Paul Hendry-Smith explained that although SSDR aircraft don’t need specific approvals from a national aviation authority or administration, as the Kub is descended from the Reality Aircraft Kid, it is built to British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, uses aircraft-quality materials and is “a proper aeroplane.”
Currently offered by TLAC as either a basic kit, "Fast-Build" kit or as a RTF factory-built SSDR microlight, the Kub is of classic rag ‘n’ tube design. Construction is primarily of TIG-welded 4130-gauge aircraft grade steel tube that is then powder-coated. The fuselage has a triangular cross-section aft of the cockpit, while the wings use Avid Flyer/Kitfox-style tubular aluminium spars and plywood ribs. Oratex UL600 covers the fuselage, wings and tail, with composites used for the cowling, which half-covers the Hirth F23 engine.
The Hirth F23 is an air-cooled horizontally-opposed two-stroke twin, which produces 50 horsepower at 6150 rpm and turns the three-blade, fixed-pitch prop via a wide Polyflex V-belt drive with a reduction ratio of 2.2:1. James explains that initially G-OKUB (British "N-numbers" start with a "G") had been fitted with a Hirth F33 single-cylinder two-stroke of only 33 horsepower, but this was soon replaced with the F23, which, he grinned, “has transformed it!”
Now, I’m not a huge fan of two-stroke aero-engines. In fact, even my lawnmower’s engine is a four-stroke, so I regard the F23 with a slightly jaundiced air. It’s quite an interesting, almost contradictory little engine, as despite Hirth having replaced the old-school magnetos with dual Capacitive Digital Ignition (CDI) units you still must mix the two-stroke oil into the petrol by hand. I believe automatic oil injection is an option, but even my Yamaha RD400 motorcycle had the oil automatically injected as standard in 1978. The Hirth does have an excellent power to weight ratio though – 50 horsepower from an aero-engine that only weighs 35 kilograms (77 pounds, including the electric starter and twin expansion-chamber exhaust) is not to be sniffed at. It's fed from a pair of wing tanks with a combined capacity of 47 litres (12 gallons) via a fuselage-mounted four-litre (1 gallon) header tank.
The main undercarriage is of the split-vee type fitted with chubby low-pressure tires and heavily slotted Shimano cable-actuated disc brakes. Bungees are used for shock absorption. As both ‘third wheels’ were fitted, it made this particular preflight unique, at least in my experience. The large pneumatic nosewheel is carried by a welded steel-tube frame and free-castors, while the small solid tailwheel is suspended from a single leaf spring and steers via springs through the rudder pedals, up to about thirty degrees each way. A mixture of struts and wires brace the tailplane, which carries separate elevators with a large trim tab set into the trailing edge of the starboard one. The big fin is pleasingly rounded and carries an equally large rudder.
The constant-chord wings are braced by vee-struts and fold aft using a similar system to the Scout’s, but what really catches my eye are the large, single-slotted mechanically-actuated flaps. These have four positions, 0°, 10°, 25°, and 40° but are they really necessary? This thing has a MAUW of only 300 kilograms (661 pounds) and with a wing area of 10.5 square meters (113 square feet) the wing loading is very low, so why would it need flaps? It’s obvious that without some sort of hinged trailing edge it wouldn’t be possible to fold the wings, as they’d foul the fuselage. But does it really need lift-and-drag producing aerodynamic flaps? Only one way to find out: fly it!
There are only four circuit breakers and four toggle switches (for the master, avionics master and CDI units), plus a large button for the starter — and that’s pretty well it for the electrical services, as the handheld-type Icom transceiver doesn’t count as installed equipment.
Now it’s time for my mea culpa moment. James had turned on the master and avionics to brief me on the EFIS, and then said, “off you go,” so I set throttle and choke, shouted “clear prop” and pressed the starter. The propeller whirled most convincingly, but the motor didn’t even cough. Further attempts were equally unsatisfactory, then realisation dawned on James and I simultaneously – maybe turning on the dual ignition systems might help? This was the first time I’d ever made this fundamental mistake on a test flight! Lesson learned: if someone else has turned on some of the systems it’s always best to turn off everything and then start from the start, before trying to start! Incidentally, the choke isn’t great (but they’re working on it). It's spring-loaded to the off position and as there’s no parking brake, you run out of hands as you also need to press the starter and guard the throttle. Taxiing out using the hand-operated differential brakes is quite easy, once I’d remembered that — as with all aircraft fitted with a castoring nosewheel — its easier if you keep the speed up a bit.
As you may readily appreciate, the pre-take checks continue the simple theme because the F23 is a two-stroke so it doesn’t need warming up and you can’t even check the oil temperature or pressure. Consequently, my generic SEP "flow check" is quickly completed but — as it always does when flying a two-stroke — the small "Master Caution" light in my brain flickers once or twice. “Have I missed something," I wonder? To be certain, I waited until the CHTs rise slightly then run through the pre-takeoff checks again. Finally convinced I really haven’t forgotten anything, it’s time to fly.
I saw no need to taxi round to runway 25; I simply set the flaps to 10°, opened the throttle and took off from the taxiway. Ambient conditions are above ISA, with an airfield elevation of 196 feet and an OAT of 20°C (68°F). With both tanks full G-OKUB is about 44 kilograms (97 pounds) below the 300 kilogram MAUW. I had a slight crosswind from port but the acceleration is so brisk that the Kub is up and away after about fifty meters (165 feet). The climb rate is equally impressive, the Vy of 45 knots producing over 1,000 fpm. The weather was not good for air-to-air picture taking, so photographer Keith stayed on the ground while I headed off to the west to explore the general handling, control, and stability. Initial impressions were all good. Kub handling is fine around all three axes, with low break-out forces and little "stiction." Unsurprisingly, slow flight is slow. The strut-braced wing uses a relatively high-lift aerofoil and the loading is quite light, barely half that of a Cessna 150.
Stalls — power on or off — are very benign. There is no artificial stall warner, but adequate natural pre-stall buffet. Furthermore, as you approach the stall a reasonable amount of backpressure on the stick is required. Recovery is quick and easy – just release the backpressure. Flaps up Kub stalls at around 28 knots, and although with full flap and some power you can get it down to around 22 knots it's almost academic, as a sensible approach speed is well above stall. Trim is quite precise, although it did seem to run out of aft trim at my weight.
Regarding stick-free stability, the Kub is stable around all three axes, being quite positive longitudinally, softly positive directionally and just barely positive laterally. The roll rate is, as you’d imagine, quite nippy while the visibility in the turn (and most phases of flight) is quite good for a high-wing aircraft.
Cruise performance is also pretty well what you’d expect. A comfortable cruise speed is 50-55 knots, and although you can bump it up to 60 knots, the engine is buzzing quite frenetically and you’ll be burning (relatively) a lot more fuel. For example, at 50 knots you’re only burning around 10 liters an hour (2.6 gph), so the full 51 liters (13.5 gallons) provide a still-air range (including 30 minutes’ reserve fuel) of around 250 nautical miles. If you pull the power right back you can certainly improve the endurance; it’s just that if there’s any appreciable headwind at all then you won’t actually be going anywhere! However, when flying an aircraft like a Kub the journey is at least as important as the destination.
For my first landing I opt for runway 25, which is wider, longer, and directly into wind. This goes well, and as I can see Keith has positioned himself by the mown grass strip (Runway 28) next to the taxiway to shoot some take-off and landing shots I fly several for the camera. This is great fun. The simple pleasure of a well-flown approach never grows old, while the subtle and seamless transference of weight from wing to wheel and back again has never paled, especially if you’ve got an open cockpit (or large window open) and the runway is grass. (This sentence alone is enough to appreciate Dave, don't you think?) As mentioned earlier the test aircraft had a third wheel at both ends and just for laughs (and with a bit of application) I even managed a three-pointer.
I typically use about 45 knots on final, and although if it’s flat calm you could probably safely shave off another five knots, I’d advise against it. A Kub has plenty of drag and not much inertia; the speed soon washes off. Plus, it sideslips superbly. Furthermore, when landing into just a stiff breeze the speed at touchdown is very slow, possibly less than 10 knots. Brakes are only for taxiing.
I also examine the take-off and landing performance with various flap settings and eventually tried the ultimate test by inverting all normal procedures by taking off with full flap and then landing with no flap. Conclusion: you don’t need any flap at any time, except when folding the wings! My experiments had convinced me that the weight and complexity of the flap system’s lever, cables, pulleys and bell cranks is unnecessary and that — and particularly for the 50 horsepower version — simple pip-pins could be used to hold the flaps in place when rigged for flight.
A few weeks later Keith and I are back, and the weather is great. This time G-OKUB lost the the "training [tail]wheel" and is configured as a taildragger. It looks a lot better, I think. In fact, it looks a little bit like a single seat miniature Aeronca Champ. Slightly chubby and cheeky-looking, it exudes fun. Taxiing out was if anything (and unusually) easier in the taildragger then the trike. S-turning is unnecessary, as visibility over and each side of the nose is good and the tailwheel steers through the rudder pedals whereas the castering nosewheel requires differential braking. While best rate of climb is 45 knots, once I rose above 500 feet I sped up to 55, as this not only improves the view over the nose but also gets me clear of the airfield and chasing the camera Cessna 152 a bit quicker.
The air-to-airs with the C-152 carrying Keith and James were not easy as the Kub has practically no overtake, so I have to use a lot of geometric cut-off for the re-joins. With all the pictures recorded I briefly re-flew some of the items off the flight test card to see what — if any, changes in performance and handling had been produced by removing the nosewheel. Unsurprisingly, directional stability is stronger (less keel area in front of the center of pressure) but longitudinal stability weaker (more weight aft of the centre of gravity, exacerbating the limited aft trim). It also seems slightly faster (less drag). It’s also definitely better looking!
During my two test flights I had a lot of fun with the Kub — it’s an absolute hoot! Even the two-stroke engine impressed me; it really does pull well and the rate of climb is spectacular. It really was great fun to bumble about the sky with my elbow out the open window. The handling is crisp, the roll rate nippy and its just… well, fun, for there's something very special about flying rag ‘n’ tube taildraggers from grass; something that is difficult to explain and hard to resist.
So, would a Kub work for you? Ultimately, the only question you need to ask yourself is, “Do I go flying for sixty miles, or for sixty minutes?
(At this time, TLAC's Kub is not offered for sale in the USA.)
Sky Arrow producer 
Thanks to his work with more good folks at 
No wonder Sky Arrow was able to win Part 23 approval for Sky Arrow. This achievement is unusual because — at least until the rewritten Part 23 becomes law — the process that put tens of thousands of GA airplanes in the air has been breathtakingly expensive. Cirrus claimed the effort took tens of millions of dollars after the design work was completed. That's too expensive for LSA builders. If you think some LSA are too costly now, let me try assure you that they would have far higher prices if they had to meet Part 23.
Yet, here we have Sky Arrow, with full Part 23 approval accepted by FAA.
As most of the industry waits for FAA to complete their work, Sky Arrow USA has some luxury of time to plant their seeds.
Helping seeds grow is something Sky Arrow USA is presently focused on like a laser beam. Agricultural use of Sky Arrow is a present goal for U.S-built models.
"We have completed paperwork for a production certificate," said Marco Cavazzoni, Chairman of Sky Arrow USA. "Next we'll build a conforming aircraft and validate our build process and our facility." He is serious about manufacturing in America, but this is not the stretch it has been for other would-be U.S. builders.
Magnaghi Aeronautica is a "minority partner" of Sky Arrow USA, Marco clarified. Since the Italian manufacturer is a shareholder, the U.S. operation is in control of the design, a key requirement for FAA to consider a U.S. operation to be the official manufacturer of a design. This is essential as it allows them to make changes as needed to quickly address market desires.
"For the LSA market, we are nearly ready. We are creating a sales team and seeking distributors for all the Americas from the north of Canada to the tip of South America."
At the same time, their Part 23 aircraft focus is on "precision agriculture," Marco noted. This employs a system where sophisticated sensors, cameras, and technology aids the pilot to spray crops with great exactness. "Our technology can direct the spray system where to spread, where not to spray, and it can log places where the farmer needs to inspect more carefully."
The big difference here is that Sky Arrow may get in the business years ahead of other LSA players because Magnaghi already has Part 23 approval so they can perform commercial operations years before a manufacturer wanting to do so with a Light-Sport Aircraft model. "Also, because our airframe is tested to a 2x factor of safety, where most aircraft meet a 1.5x factor, we can carry the loads and do the work with greater assurance," Marco explained.
"We basically have a Part 23 aircraft operating at LSA weights and speeds. We offer a sturdy aircraft that can deliver the goods while also providing a stable, secure platform to do the imaging that is a big part of precision agricultural work."
While the working capability of Sky Arrow should help the company grow their business, it is the sheer joy of flight that will attract buyers to Sky Arrow. Watch for U.S. rep Marco Cavazzoni at airshows in 2020 and take a flight when you can. You may not smile as broadly as Able Flight's scholarship winners, but I'm betting you will love the experience.
Examine the aircraft more fully and come along for a flight in the subject aircraft in this short video…
https://youtu.be/UQ_PklduEvw
If you are an ultralight enthusiast (as I certainly am!), then you are probably celebrating with me as FX1 joins the Special LSA fleet — which it does as Number 150 on our popular 
The older JetFox models were more clearly ultralights. These were European ultralights, which are somewhere between a Part 103 ultralight vehicle and LSA of today.
The design always caught my eye and I very much enjoyed flying the late '90s model. However, I did not enjoy worming my way into the cockpit around tubing structure and throwing a leg over the stick. You needed to be something of a contortionist to enter and I did not do so very gracefully.
Times change. Along came modern LSA in all manner of aircraft and along came carbon fiber, digital instrumentation, crashworthy designs, and modern engines like Rotax's 912iS. Longtime JetFox/FX1 designer Alfredo di Cesare made incremental changes to the JetFox series but he kept aware of the changing design of light aircraft and moved forward with an entirely fresh creation. Virtually every part of 
Chris created the 
"At the controls were southern California-based reps for the aircraft, Pete Schutte and Deon Lombard. In the post-flight photograph are (from left to right) Deon Lombard, 
I've already bought my ticket and will be on hand all three days of the Midwest LSA Expo. I hope you can make it, as well.
MWLSA is located about an hour's drive east of St. Louis. The airport is all LSA, Sport Pilot kits, and ultralights for the show days. You can visit with about 40 aircraft vendors (weather permitting and it usually is good) and you can take a demo flight in mere minutes.
The airport has forums, air conditioned inside displays, food, regular bathrooms, and a ramp full of fun airplanes. The town has plenty of restaurants and hotels, all reasonably priced.
What's not to love?
Here's a short video image about FX1 at Oshkosh and Mt. Vernon. Enjoy!
EAA announced attendance numbers identifying solid growth over last year, to 642,000 attendees
True to form as you might expect, 
What's interesting here is that both companies have exclusively made low wing models in various configuration. Neither has made a high wing. One of these is also planning the new, powerful Rotax 915iS engine (though both producers are using that power plant in one of the low wing models.
For more on the entry from South Africa's 
I hope I didn’t drool on it as I looked it over.
Built for recreation, this highly-customized trailer is towed behind the owner’s motorhome. It can hold his Aerotrek A240, requiring the tricycle gear model so as to fit the owners Corvette underneath. A clever system of ramps and winches allows him to load the aircraft and the car with no assistance. Both sides also open up to make it easier to stow the airplane ramps once the aircraft is secured and to allow proper tie-down of the Corvette.
As a former Corvette owner, a former motorhome owner, and a lover of the Aerotrek aircraft, this setup looked to be about as close to aviation heaven as mere mortals can get. So, this apparatus gets my award for the Coolest Rig seen at the show.
How well is the category doing in other parts of the world? The answer draws on reports from dominant engine producer, Rotax Aircraft Engines, which has reported for years that the class of aircraft buying the most engines has been gyroplanes. Considering the many fixed wing designs also use that engine brand, Rotax's statement carries tremendous weight.
The story about why gyroplanes were denied the full privileges of Special LSA — and therefore have to be built as Experimental Amateur Built (EAB) kits in America — is a long, sad story …but it is one that appears to be ending, thank goodness!
As described in this 
Orion's instrument panel is equipped with rotor revolution counter, altimeter, air-speed indicator, vertical compass, a digital engine monitoring system, and fuel level gauge. Additional, optional instrumentation can be added as desired.
For controls, Orion offers full dual joystick and pedals for each occupant. Standard equipment includes electric trim.
M24 Orion is attractive and roomy inside. For carriage, Orion is equipped with three easily-accessed baggage compartments. Its cabin heating system combined with full enclosure allows M24 to remain comfortable even on cold winter days.
From either seat the view is enormous, a key benefit of gyroplanes without nearby wing structure to block your view. Orion would definitely be more comfortable for long flights or in chilly weather but the open cockpit M16 Trainer or M22 Voyager models deliver an even more expansive view.
Combined with a gyroplane's unique handling and performance, these machines make wonderful viewing platforms.
"An innovative and avant-garde choice," Magni said, "[915iS] brings to the whole range a considerable increase in cruising and climbing performance, with fuel consumption comparable to the Rotax 914."
One of Magni's American customers, identified only as M.B., wrote the company to say, “As the proud owner of the first Magni M16 Plus in the USA, I can tell you the performance is like none other. Takeoff, climb and speed performance exceeded my expectations. This gyroplane has incredible power reserve, more than enough for every aspect of flight. Takeoffs are breathtaking, cruise is smooth and landings are gentle. The Magni M16 Plus is an incredible flying machine!”
One final comment of worthy note: In late 2016, the Magni Gyro factory in Besnate, Italy produced the company’s 1,000th gyroplane.
See lots of video experiences in Magni gyros at 
The design appears connected to the Fly Synthesis Texan from Italy and the designer reportedly assisted Sunward as they worked on this project. Yet a glance at the Texan (at bottom) shows numerous differences
All these differences suggest that if Aurora is a Texan, it is an improvement on the original. The company said Aurora is the first Chinese brand Light-Sport Aircraft to receive Chinese (CAAC) airworthiness certification.
Aurora is "designed and manufactured under the full supervision and instruction of foreign experts," clarified Sunward. They believe their performance and quality is comparable to other advanced international brands in this market.
Aurora is nose to tail carbon fiber, uses the Rotax 912, and will offer U.S. instrumentation. Pricing is competitive with a higher end LSA in the range of $160,000.
The company and their U.S. associates at Sunward USA in Plano, Texas will gain a great deal of feedback at Oshkosh 2019 and many people got their first glimpse of an attractive aircraft from China.
A good marketer Denney's Kitfox once employed a whole staff of sales people following up on loads of leads that the then-new design was generating. Even now, decades later, Kitfox, doing business as 
"I've been involved with autos and motorcycles my whole life," Chris detailed, "but I had a passion for aviation. When the chance came to acquire the Kitfox Lite, I jumped." With other family members, Chris established his company and set to building Kitfox Lite as a series of differently configured models… F1 UL base kit, F2 Flyer, F3 Speed, F4 Monster, and F5 Fujita. Each model step comes with addition features or equipment." Yet, as Badland advises, "Every model is 100% Part 103 capable." In fact, the aircraft at Oshkosh 2019 (nearby photos) weighed a mere 235 pounds, generously under the Part 103 limits of 254 pounds empty.
Chris seems determined and proud to protect this ultralight vehicle. "It is our honor to carry the tradition of this Dan Denney design into the future," said Chris.
"Expect to spend anywhere between $11,700-$28,500 for a brand spanking new Badland kit," said Chris, the owner of Badland Aircraft. "You can expect to spend another $2,000-$4,500 for the firewall forward parts unless you have an engine laying around."
However, as Chris puts it, "$35,000 will get you one of the baddest bush-style ultralights in existence." Referring to the F5 Fujita he asked, "Who wouldn’t love a full titanium airframe, 21-inch bush tires, 8-inches of suspension travel, a 60 horsepower ultralight that can take you anywhere you want to go? The deluxe model is not ready at this time, but Chris said they were moving with the project.
"A ready to fly base model F-1 starts at $18,900 and runs to the top of the line F-5 built with full titanium welded cage, 58 horsepower yet still 100% Part 103 Ultralight legal," said Badland. "[This is] our dream machine, with every option to make you feel on top of the world; for $37,000 we’ve got you covered."
"With the folding wings and the ability to park it in a 20 foot by 8.5 foot enclosed car trailer or a single car garage, you’ll appreciate the versatility."
What I examined at Oshkosh 2019 looked good with many quality machined parts and an attention to detail you could see in several places. Badland may be new but Kitfox Lite is known and accepted. I think we'll be seeing more of Badland Aircraft.
After impressing European pilots at the big German show called Aero Friedrichshafen, producer InnovAviation brought their sleek and sexy FX1 for Americans to see at Oshkosh 2019. For American representation, the Italian producer will be teaming up with Deon Lombard, who also represents the 
I can't imagine how anyone can look at Alfredo Di Cesare's creation and not react with admiration. Italian companies are known for dashing and innovative lines (think: Ferrari or any number of auto companies or LSA giant, Tecnam). Design talent is definitely not lacking from Italian products; FX1 should be an object of national pride.
The FX1 is an evolved fourth-generation aircraft following the JetFox 97 from the 1990s. Designed by Alfredo Di Cesare, a noted aircraft designer with over 35 years of experience in the sport-plane industry, FX1 is clearly related to the earlier model but it is so different in many ways that it is unfair to compare them directly.
Sitting in FX1 at Oshkosh, it is immediately clear this is not the JetFox97. The older model was much more challenging to enter as you had to contort your body to wriggle around structure. Once in it was comfortable but the all-new FX1 is far easier partly thanks to those shapely curved doors.
FX1 is a welded steel structure with a carbon fiber skin. During an Oshkosh video interview we learned the carbon fiber skin can be completely removed in about one and half hours when, for example, you may need to do a very thorough inspection.
Some aircraft that evolved from similar design can have rather awkward engine mounts, commonly with exposed engines. While I see nothing wrong with that — and they are certainly easy to inspect and maintain — Alfredo's has smoothly encased the fuel injected 
A luggage compartment aft of the cockpit has access doors on each side and the space is open side to side giving ample area for items you wish to transport to your destination. For things you might want in flight, a space behind the occupant's heads is available. Seats are comfortable and the cockpit measures a broad 49 inches wide (almost 10 inches more than a Cessna 172).
In the side-by-side seats, FX1 features handsome side sticks on the outside of each seat. A single throttle is center mounted. All controls are within an easy reach.
Visibility is enormous, with occupants surrounded by perhaps 300 degrees of clear acrylic. The Rotax engine above and in front of the cockpit is almost out of sight and only very marginally impedes your vision, less so than most engines on the nose of an aircraft.
"FX1 delivers ease of flying, comfort, safety, ruggedness, durability, attractive styling and exceptional performance across the board," boasted the company. For more, 
Cruising the grounds at Oshkosh, looking for aircraft to report, I looked around the all-new Homebuilt Area. This group has long occupied a fairly spacious grassy area in a good location south of the Warbirds Area, said to be Oshkosh's biggest draw. However, for 2019 EAA relocated the area bringing vendors closer to the densest customer traffic, which may encourage more attendees to examine their aircraft. Several exhibitors I spoke to seemed content with the new location.
The new area had the usual collection of vendors, many of which qualify as Sport Pilot kits that can be flown with the certificate that needs no aviation medical. Quarters looked rather tight compared to past years, with airplanes somewhat shoehorned into the allocated space. Like all changes — and EAA has made a huge number of them in the fifty years the event has been held in Oshkosh — visitors and vendors will adapt quickly enough and soon we'll forget the old "North 40" where homebuilt kits once displayed.
As I strolled through the new area, I passed by 
Truthfully, Van's Aircraft Vice President and Chief Engineer Rian Johnson is only displaying a personal project. RV-5 was never offered for sale and won't be now. Yet the light aircraft enthusiast in me noticed it right away. Probably like most other attendees I wondered, "What is that?
"Of course, we want people to focus on our current popular kits such as RV-8, -10, and -12," quickly added, "but I thought Oshkosh visitors might enjoy seeing a bit of Van's history." RV-5 dates way back to 1975 when it was built by Dick VanGrunsven and EAA 105 chapter members to evaluate several design concepts. Among the goals of the group, Rian explained, were light weight and fuel efficiency. RV-5 was never intended for production.
RV-5's wings swing back over the flat aft fuselage for easier transport or more space-efficient storage. No control linkages need be disconnected thanks to a clever center-mounted mixer that stays in place when folding the wings.
"Some years back, I was up in a loft storage area looking for something and uncovered a dusty airframe. When I asked Dick about it, he asked, 'Do you want it?' Be careful what you ask for," Rian noted although he did eventually tackle the restoration project marrying the airframe of RV-5 to the canopy of RV-2.
The single seat design is small. A very lean Rian said he weighs 138 pounds and RV-5 is even somewhat snug for him so this is not an aircraft for pilots who tip the scales beyond FAA's 170-pound reference weight. That hardly matters, however, as this is not an active project for anyone but Rian.
Needing only 40 horsepower to perform enthusiastically RV-5 is powered by a 
While organized as completely separate companies, Vashon shares common ownership through the name John Torode, the founder of Dynon Avionics. The two businesses work hard to stay separate but it's clear one success might help the other just as John's earlier success in the tech industry lead to Dynon being formed.
When you 
Estimated production numbers in 2019, if this is something you wish to divulge.
Is the R7 only for those interested in Sport Pilot/LSA?
Anecdotes from customers/operators and how you have addressed requests/problems (the true indicator of excellence).
Where is your exhibit located and who will a person meet there?
The update to industry covered a lot of ground but here we've tried to make it a quicker read.
Two key points: First, FAA is in the early stages of this rulemaking; at least minor changes are certain. FAA itself does not know all the specific details of the proposed rule at this time.
Secondly, the steps reported here come from actual rule writers but their effort has support from top FAA leadership. Driven by a Congressional mandate we know this will go forward.
Regarding the much-anticipated max weight increase, FAA refers to a "Power Index." This term means a formula-based method to replace maximum takeoff weight in the definition of a LSA, involving wing area, horsepower, and takeoff weight.
FAA is also looking at up to four seats, “for personal use and for flight training.” Airspeeds — referring to maximum horizontal and never-to-exceed speeds (Vh and Vne) — may be higher than in the current rule, but will still be limited.
Neither will FAA be prescriptive about (that is, tightly defining) powerplants. The 2004 version of the LSA rule prohibited electric motors because rule writers wanted to discourage turbine power and therefore specified reciprocating engines, which knocked out electric. FAA will now consider both electric and hybrid.
Yet FAA was clear, “Movement of people for hire (such as the multicopter air taxis proposed by numerous companies) is not part of this.”
FAA is also reviewing what type of mechanics (LSR-M or A&P) can do what kind of work on specific systems of aircraft (examples: in-flight adjustable prop or electric propulsion systems).
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 includes a deadline of 2023 for implementing a key mandate that suggests the longest it should take. Once an NPRM is published, a comment period follows to hear from the public after which FAA needs time to address the concerns raised during that comment period. After closure of that comment period, the FAA has 16 months to publish the Final Rule.
Throughout the LAMA/FAA teleconference some ideas were repeated by FAA personnel…
“All of these requests are on the table,” FAA acknowledged in the June teleconference. Of course, this does not mean all are certain to be included, but they represent a “huge opportunity [for industry and for pilots].”
Under this more performance-based approach, LSA manufacturers would have more flexibility in making trade-offs among these parameters to meet a new power index limit. That new limit is intended to allow for up to a safe, robust, four-seat airplane.
“All this is seen [within the agency] as relieving on industry; enabling, not tightening the screws,” said FAA.
“The Flight Standards people are considering [aerial work],” said FAA.
This important topic has been a priority for LAMA because it could become a vital activity to keep manufacturers healthy by expanding their capabilities and the markets they can serve. Pilots could also gain as this would provide more compensated flying jobs and business opportunities.
Single Lever Control
At Henry's age 13, the Scotts ordered an Aerolite. This followed many flights in a Cessna 150 with his father, where he learned all the basics of flight while someone was ready to assist when (and if) needed. However, at his youthful age and unable to obtain a Private Pilot certificate, Henry could not solo the C-150.
"We chose the Aerolite 103 because it looked like an airplane," explained William. "It was confidence inspiring. It had airplane features I was familiar with, such as flaps." Yet, he humorously added, "It's an anodized aluminum chair."
For readers that may not know, Part 103 is a very special regulation dating to 1982. The entire rule can be printed on the front and back of a single piece of paper making it aviation's most charming rule, in my opinion. No pilot certificate is required. No aircraft registration is required. No medical of any kind is needed. Plus, a Part 103 aircraft can be delivered fully ready to fly.
"Jabiru Aircraft will be offering an increased warranty at Oshkosh 2019, lasting the duration of the show," Scott explained, revealing great confidence in this roomiest of Light-Sport Aircraft. "The warranty offered will be five years or 1,000 hours, whichever occurs first, for the airframe and the engine."
Having followed light aircraft for many years, I have never heard a warranty for an aircraft that extends this long. Also, almost no other aircraft companies can offer a warranty on both airframe and engine, both manufactured by Jabiru in Australia. 
In case the J230-D price tag sounds beyond your budget, remember Jabiru has other choices.
"The 4-cylinder J170 is priced at $129,900," observed Scott. The smaller J170 pares down on some of the options but still comes set up for night VFR. It's equipped with the 7-inch Garmin G3X Touch Display with synthetic vision, flight director, ADS-B in and out offering weather and traffic on screen. The lower cost model does not have auto pilot, comes with a wood prop and no wheel pants plus the interior uses cloth rather than leather.
However, despite the lower price, "the Unbeatable Warranty applies to J170 as well," noted Scott.
At 2018's DeLand Showcase, Scott and I went up for a flight to make a Video Pilot Report. Look for that at Dave Loveman's 
The cantilevered all-metal design has excellent ramp appeal, good specifications, and approval as a Special Light-Sport Aircraft is underway at this time, the developer said. He also added, is coming to the USA, to Florida, to be manufactured. The Brazilian invasion continues…
Evidence of Brazil's prowess in creating aircraft that fit the LSA category include the excellent 
"All parts are manufactured with a high-speed CNC machine and precision tooling jigs," André clarified. The well-equipped deluxe Hero with "complete options, is priced at $180,000 (U.S. dollars).
For those who find that too much, he has another choice, called Pop Hero. "With standard options, the price is estimated $96,500, also in U.S. currency," André said. That is a large difference in price but André explained how the two models differ.
Pop Hero has similar construction using an all-aluminum 2024-T3 main spar and landing gear with 7075-T6511 alloy (same as the deluxe Hero). Pop Hero's wings keep the cantilever construction but all fasteners are pop rivets as on many Light-Sport Aircraft. That alone accounts for many hours in production savings.
Other differences to lower the price of Pop Hero include fairings made of fiberglass rather than carbon fiber; the Rotax 912 ULS carbureted engine; wheels and brake from Grove; an analog (round dial) instrument panel flanked with the very capable, if smaller format, Aera 660 GPS from 
However, Pop Hero will still be delivered with Bose A20 headset, the Sensenich three blade prop, and sidestick. The lower-cost model is not pictured with this article "because we are working in its assembly, yet it is basically the same without winglets," André said.
The developer further signaled his U.S. plans. "My intention is to build this LSA at the DeLand, Florida airport (where the fall 
It's not just pilots either. Although it's a story worthy of another article, mechanics are predicted to have even higher job opportunities with pay scales increasing to entice trained workers. This is a great time to be a young person pursing aviation, better than I've seen in many decades of following aviation closely.
It's wonderful to see Sling Pilot Academy and Sebring Flight Academy rewriting the old rules of how a flight school should be operated. I'm exceptionally proud of both enterprises.
Current pilots can contact 