Is it possible to change the operating limitations of your homebuilt
after it has been certified?
Let me take the more extreme case...
I was wondering, if one owned (or bought) an RV3, is it possible to
change the operating limitiations to have a red line of 120 knots, and a
maximum continous RPM that arrives at a speed or 120 knots?
This would potentially make it fit as a sport pilot airplane (when flown
within the operating limitations)


Mike

On a somewhat similar vein. As we know one of the limitations of the LSA is
that it must have a fixed or ground adjustable prop. I called the FSDO and
asked this...

The LSA rules states "(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a
powered aircraft other than a powered glider."

Assuming the experimental-homebuilt aircraft fits the LSA rules in all other
ways can it have an adjustable prop that is, in normal operation, in flight
adjustable (variable pitch NOT constant speed) if the in-flight
adjustability is either...

A. Marked "Not for in flight use by sport pilot" or similar words

or

B. Made not inflight adjustable on the ground that cannot be made inflight
adjustable in the air?


Their answer was NO to both A (which didn't surprise me) and B (which is
what I really wanted them to say yes to.)


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "pittss1c" > wrote
>
>> if one owned (or bought) an RV3, is it possible to
>> change the operating limitiations to have a red line of 120 knots, and a
>> maximum continous RPM that arrives at a speed or 120 knots?
>> This would potentially make it fit as a sport pilot airplane (when flown
>> within the operating limitations)
>
> I have heard it discussed that this would not be allowed, from the point
> of
> just stating a maximum RPM. It has to be a limitation that can not be
> overcome by the pilot, without major physical changes to the airframe or
> powerplant.
>
> My take is that you could put a fine pitch prop on it, and perhaps a
> restrictor plate or throttle linkage that would not allow the engine to
> make
> full HP, so the maximum throttle setting would not allow you to go faster
> than the 120 knots.
>
> I believe (IMHO) that a major change in the prop would allow you to change
> the operations limitations, but I'm certainly no expert on all of this.
> Someone will give their opinion soon, I'm sure.
>
> Will the RV 3 fit in on weight and stall limitations? You can not change
> the weight, I believe.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Morgans wrote:
> "pittss1c" > wrote
> <snip>
> Will the RV 3 fit in on weight and stall limitations? You can not change
> the weight, I believe.

stall is 51 MPH, so it just fits the 45 knot rule (VGs might get it lower)

It is about 700-750# empty and 1100 gross as stock.
I was just thinking, the designer sets the operating limitations of a
homebuilt's engine.
therefore one could define an engine based on lycoming parts (up to 100%
lycoming) to have a max continous RPM of...say 2000. (as part of "your"
design to get a higher TBO)

If I was to build up an engine with parts out of my garage, I would set
the operating limitations, and would set the Vne of my own design/airplane.

Mike

"pittss1c" > wrote

> if one owned (or bought) an RV3, is it possible to
> change the operating limitiations to have a red line of 120 knots, and a
> maximum continous RPM that arrives at a speed or 120 knots?
> This would potentially make it fit as a sport pilot airplane (when flown
> within the operating limitations)

I have heard it discussed that this would not be allowed, from the point of
just stating a maximum RPM. It has to be a limitation that can not be
overcome by the pilot, without major physical changes to the airframe or
powerplant.

My take is that you could put a fine pitch prop on it, and perhaps a
restrictor plate or throttle linkage that would not allow the engine to make
full HP, so the maximum throttle setting would not allow you to go faster
than the 120 knots.

I believe (IMHO) that a major change in the prop would allow you to change
the operations limitations, but I'm certainly no expert on all of this.
Someone will give their opinion soon, I'm sure.

Will the RV 3 fit in on weight and stall limitations? You can not change
the weight, I believe.
--
Jim in NC

There are some designs that were made LSA-legal by reproping. The thing
is, they were just a few knots off... the RV3 is like 50Kts over, isn't
it?

Personally, I suspect that such a plane would be a troublemaker. By
putting a grossly wrong prop on it or swapping out the engine you may
create a legally LSA-compliant plane... but people know what an RV3 is.
When you say "LSA-legal" they are going to say "prove it".

Other than that... is the listed stall speed clean? LSA says 45Kt Vs1
(no flaps).

"pittss1c" > wrote

>to have a max continous RPM of...say 2000. (as part of "your"
> design to get a higher TBO)
>
It will not be allowed. The rule plainly states that it is not to exceed
120 knots at wide open throttle.

You have to make it so that if you push any harder on the throttle, it will
break off! <g>

Sorry. If it were only so.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "pittss1c" > wrote
>
>>to have a max continous RPM of...say 2000. (as part of "your"
>> design to get a higher TBO)
>>
> It will not be allowed. The rule plainly states that it is not to exceed
> 120 knots at wide open throttle.
>
> You have to make it so that if you push any harder on the throttle, it
> will
> break off! <g>
>
> Sorry. If it were only so.
> --
> Jim in NC

In the spirit of discussion, how about a throttle stop that prevents more
than a certain amount of throttle movement?

KB

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:19:54 -0500, pittss1c >
wrote:

>Is it possible to change the operating limitations of your homebuilt
>after it has been certified?
>Let me take the more extreme case...
>I was wondering, if one owned (or bought) an RV3, is it possible to
>change the operating limitiations to have a red line of 120 knots, and a
>maximum continous RPM that arrives at a speed or 120 knots?

Yes, you can go through the process and change the operating
limitations of a home built.

>This would potentially make it fit as a sport pilot airplane (when flown
>within the operating limitations)

NO, Any airplane once outside the sport pilot limitations can *never*
be brought in, or back in if it had been there before.

Technically you could initially build the plane with an engine and
propeller combination that would put it in the sport pilot category,
but you can not modify the very same make and model to fit the sport
category if at any time it's operating limitations would have put it
beyond the sport plane limitations.

I don't know how many other ways to phrase it, but once outside the
category, it will remain so forever.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>Mike

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote

> In the spirit of discussion, how about a throttle stop that prevents more
> than a certain amount of throttle movement?

From what I have read, as long as the stop is not defeatable (especially
while in flight) it should pass.

For the real answers to your queries, contact your local FSDO.
--
Jim in NC

In order for an aircraft to qualify as a LSA the aircraft must have met
the limitations of LSA continuously since its original certification.
You can not take a non qualifying aircraft and re-certify it as
qualifying. I am pretty sure that statements to this effect are written
in the LSA regulations.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:21:57 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>"pittss1c" > wrote
>
>>to have a max continous RPM of...say 2000. (as part of "your"
>> design to get a higher TBO)
>>
>It will not be allowed. The rule plainly states that it is not to exceed
>120 knots at wide open throttle.

I'd certainly like for a citation on that one. While neither a pilot
or a builder, I follow the Sonex site; their plane with the Jab 3300,
at WOT, greatly exceeds limits. As they understand it, the rule is
"Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh) of
not more than 120 kts (138 mph) CAS under standard atmospheric
conditions at sea level." The word "continuous" is in there ... the
3300 Jabiru is specified at 2750 RPM max continuous which keeps things
legal. Many of the owners report significantly higher capability ...
and maximum RPM is specified, IIRC, at 3300.

In a word NO! The key word is continuously operated with operating limits
at or less than the prescribed limits for LSA. Must be correctly done at the
end of the test period.

--
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot


"pittss1c" > wrote in message
...
> Is it possible to change the operating limitations of your homebuilt after
> it has been certified?
> Let me take the more extreme case...
> I was wondering, if one owned (or bought) an RV3, is it possible to change
> the operating limitiations to have a red line of 120 knots, and a maximum
> continous RPM that arrives at a speed or 120 knots?
> This would potentially make it fit as a sport pilot airplane (when flown
> within the operating limitations)
>
>
> Mike

"pittss1c" > wrote in message
...
> Is it possible to change the operating limitations of your homebuilt after
> it has been certified?
> Let me take the more extreme case...
> I was wondering, if one owned (or bought) an RV3, is it possible to change
> the operating limitiations to have a red line of 120 knots, and a maximum
> continous RPM that arrives at a speed or 120 knots?
> This would potentially make it fit as a sport pilot airplane (when flown
> within the operating limitations)

Mike..........

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, neither RPM nor airspeed limits are contained
in the Operating Limitations of an Experimental, Amateur-built aircraft.

Rich S.

X-No-Archive

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you took a Lycoming, and said you were going to limit it for continuous
> operation at 2,000 RPM, that would not fly for the sport plane
> restrictions.
> They (the FAA) all know that this engine can run much faster than that,
> with
> no harm. So you are told to try again; no dice.

Jim...........

There are many factors besides engine operating parameters which limit
cruising speed. In some aircraft it may be control surface flutter, others
may be subject to overstress by outside aerodynamic forces (hence
maneuvering speed). While an engine may be capable of driving an airframe at
speeds in excess of 120 knots, the airframe itself may be beyond it's
limits.

The fellow who is holding the stick has the legal responsibility for setting
the limits of safe operation on every flight. Just because a designer says
it can do more, doesn't mean it will. That's what test periods are for.

Let's not become our own worst enemy here by espousing a rule that few
people think makes any sense at all -outside the group of new LSA
manufacturers who stand to make a buck selling their airplanes. I'm not
talking about the speed limit, BTW. I'm talking about the "You crossed the
line and can't go back" clause.

Rich S.

"GeorgeB" > wrote

> I'd certainly like for a citation on that one. While neither a pilot
> or a builder, I follow the Sonex site; their plane with the Jab 3300,
> at WOT, greatly exceeds limits.

You are right on that, I believe. At one time it was stated as WOT.

> As they understand it, the rule is
> "Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh) of
> not more than 120 kts (138 mph) CAS under standard atmospheric
> conditions at sea level." The word "continuous" is in there ... the
> 3300 Jabiru is specified at 2750 RPM max continuous which keeps things
> legal. Many of the owners report significantly higher capability ...
> and maximum RPM is specified, IIRC, at 3300.

I think you have the key here, when you say the Jab engine is rated for 2700
continuous. (by the manufacturer) That is in line with other direct drive
RPMs. The higher RPM's can be done with that engine, but just like the
other major direct drive makers, you can not run them for long at those
speeds, without some consequences.

If you took a Lycoming, and said you were going to limit it for continuous
operation at 2,000 RPM, that would not fly for the sport plane restrictions.
They (the FAA) all know that this engine can run much faster than that, with
no harm. So you are told to try again; no dice.

It seems if you have a homebrew engine, you have an advantage, because you
are the one that will set the continuous operating RPM's. That is my take,
anyway.

Sorry about the WOT bit. Best be having the WOT close to the continuous
RPM, if you want to have a chance of passing, IMHO.

A lot of these things are unknown, since the envelope has not yet been
pushed, and case precedents have not been established, yet. We will have to
wait and see how much they will let us get away with. <g>
--
Jim in NC

pittss1c wrote:
> Is it possible to change the operating limitations of your homebuilt
> after it has been certified?
> Let me take the more extreme case...
> I was wondering, if one owned (or bought) an RV3, is it possible to
> change the operating limitiations to have a red line of 120 knots, and a
> maximum continous RPM that arrives at a speed or 120 knots?
> This would potentially make it fit as a sport pilot airplane (when flown
> within the operating limitations)
>
>
> Mike

Or just wait till Van comes out with a new LSA compliant RV:-)

Jerry

I think that all you have to do to make your "Lycoming" into a "pittss1c
Super Advanced Powerplant" is to remove the dataplate from the engine
and attach one made by you. It is now uncertified and you would be free
to do what you want with it.

pittss1c wrote:


>> "pittss1c" > wrote
>> <snip>

> I was just thinking, the designer sets the operating limitations of a
> homebuilt's engine.
> therefore one could define an engine based on lycoming parts (up to 100%
> lycoming) to have a max continous RPM of...say 2000. (as part of "your"
> design to get a higher TBO)
>
> If I was to build up an engine with parts out of my garage, I would set
> the operating limitations, and would set the Vne of my own design/airplane.
>
> Mike

Jim,
I have spoken to a few Sonex builders /owners and they pretty much all
agree the best way to stay in the sport pilot class with a Sonex is to use a
VW powerplant and a climb prop, a cruise prop on the VW still puts you over
the cruise speed. It's a sharp little plane!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "GeorgeB" > wrote
>
>> I'd certainly like for a citation on that one. While neither a pilot
>> or a builder, I follow the Sonex site; their plane with the Jab 3300,
>> at WOT, greatly exceeds limits.
>
> You are right on that, I believe. At one time it was stated as WOT.
>
>> As they understand it, the rule is
>> "Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh) of
>> not more than 120 kts (138 mph) CAS under standard atmospheric
>> conditions at sea level." The word "continuous" is in there ... the
>> 3300 Jabiru is specified at 2750 RPM max continuous which keeps things
>> legal. Many of the owners report significantly higher capability ...
>> and maximum RPM is specified, IIRC, at 3300.
>
> I think you have the key here, when you say the Jab engine is rated for
> 2700
> continuous. (by the manufacturer) That is in line with other direct drive
> RPMs. The higher RPM's can be done with that engine, but just like the
> other major direct drive makers, you can not run them for long at those
> speeds, without some consequences.
>
> If you took a Lycoming, and said you were going to limit it for continuous
> operation at 2,000 RPM, that would not fly for the sport plane
> restrictions.
> They (the FAA) all know that this engine can run much faster than that,
> with
> no harm. So you are told to try again; no dice.
>
> It seems if you have a homebrew engine, you have an advantage, because you
> are the one that will set the continuous operating RPM's. That is my
> take,
> anyway.
>
> Sorry about the WOT bit. Best be having the WOT close to the continuous
> RPM, if you want to have a chance of passing, IMHO.
>
> A lot of these things are unknown, since the envelope has not yet been
> pushed, and case precedents have not been established, yet. We will have
> to
> wait and see how much they will let us get away with. <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Scott wrote:
> I think that all you have to do to make your "Lycoming" into a "pittss1c
> Super Advanced Powerplant" is to remove the dataplate from the engine
> and attach one made by you. It is now uncertified and you would be free
> to do what you want with it.

That was my take on it... If they ask too many questions tell them you
have modified chevy rods in it :)

Rich S. wrote:
> "pittss1c" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Is it possible to change the operating limitations of your homebuilt after
>>it has been certified?
>>Let me take the more extreme case...
>>I was wondering, if one owned (or bought) an RV3, is it possible to change
>>the operating limitiations to have a red line of 120 knots, and a maximum
>>continous RPM that arrives at a speed or 120 knots?
>>This would potentially make it fit as a sport pilot airplane (when flown
>>within the operating limitations)
>
>
> Mike..........
>
> Unless I'm greatly mistaken, neither RPM nor airspeed limits are contained
> in the Operating Limitations of an Experimental, Amateur-built aircraft.
>
> Rich S.
>
>
Not sure if it is true, but my understanding was that the instrument
markings were required as the operating limitations.

I'm not sure of what to do with your post. I can't argue with anything in
it, but it is not very relevant to what the OP was asking about.

If I am remembering correctly, he asked about getting an RV-3 in under the
SP rule. It would not have any problem with flutter, or structure, I think
it is safe to say.

Sure, you could fly past the rule limits, but at some point in time,
(probably when the pilot screws up, and the FAA is investigating) it has to
make the muckety-mucks happy, that it is SP legal. That is the only
question at issue, I think.
--
Jim in NC

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> X-No-Archive
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If you took a Lycoming, and said you were going to limit it for
continuous
> > operation at 2,000 RPM, that would not fly for the sport plane
> > restrictions.
> > They (the FAA) all know that this engine can run much faster than that,
> > with
> > no harm. So you are told to try again; no dice.
>
> Jim...........
>
> There are many factors besides engine operating parameters which limit
> cruising speed. In some aircraft it may be control surface flutter, others
> may be subject to overstress by outside aerodynamic forces (hence
> maneuvering speed). While an engine may be capable of driving an airframe
at
> speeds in excess of 120 knots, the airframe itself may be beyond it's
> limits.
>
> The fellow who is holding the stick has the legal responsibility for
setting
> the limits of safe operation on every flight. Just because a designer says
> it can do more, doesn't mean it will. That's what test periods are for.
>
> Let's not become our own worst enemy here by espousing a rule that few
> people think makes any sense at all -outside the group of new LSA
> manufacturers who stand to make a buck selling their airplanes. I'm not
> talking about the speed limit, BTW. I'm talking about the "You crossed the
> line and can't go back" clause.
>
> Rich S.
>
>

"Rich S." > wrote

> Unless I'm greatly mistaken, neither RPM nor airspeed limits are contained
> in the Operating Limitations of an Experimental, Amateur-built aircraft.

True, but if it is being flown by a sport pilot, it has to meet the
limitations.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not sure of what to do with your post. I can't argue with anything in
> it, but it is not very relevant to what the OP was asking about.
>
> If I am remembering correctly, he asked about getting an RV-3 in under the
> SP rule. It would not have any problem with flutter, or structure, I
> think
> it is safe to say.
>
> Sure, you could fly past the rule limits, but at some point in time,
> (probably when the pilot screws up, and the FAA is investigating) it has
> to
> make the muckety-mucks happy, that it is SP legal. That is the only
> question at issue, I think.

I guess all I mean is - as long as we don't squeak, another wheel will get
greased. :))

Perhaps an RV-3 with a 10" pitch prop could qualify, and hover.

Thanks for not quoting me.

Rich S.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich S." > wrote
>
>> Unless I'm greatly mistaken, neither RPM nor airspeed limits are
>> contained
>> in the Operating Limitations of an Experimental, Amateur-built aircraft.
>
> True, but if it is being flown by a sport pilot, it has to meet the
> limitations.

This time I was trying a direct answer to his question. The Operating
Limitations (Big "O" Big "P") do not cover speed or rpm. Gauge markings are
covered elsewhere as well. The one thing I (we?) do not want to appear as,
is a beanery lawyer. I have no training in Federal Law other than Fire and
building Codes. The one thing I did learn is when it ends up in court, it's
a whole new ball game. We don't want to go there.

Rich "It's a whole lot easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission." S.

> Once outside the Light Sport Airplane limits,
> it's always outside and can't be brought back inside the LSA
> limits.


Several people mentioned this, but I don't recall ever reading this anywhere
else. Can someone provide a reference to a published rule that states this?

My understanding is that it would be possible to take an experimental
aircraft, and modify it so that it would meet the limitations of the sport
pilot. I even asked AOPA this exact question about this a week or so ago,
and their opinion was that the plane would have to be truly incapable of
exceeding the speed limit, rather than just an RPM limitation. I think
there's some room for debate on that, particularly if it's not a "normal"
well defined aircraft engine.

Cheers,
Rusty

If this was the case ("truly incapable") they would not allow the use of a
ground adjustable prop. At least with some planes, while you would be
incapable to exceed the speed limitation with a certain prop pitch setting,
resetting the prop may allow you to exceed it. This may not be different
than a "ground adjustable" RPM limiting device.

Frank

"Russell Duffy" > wrote in message
.. .
...
...
> I even asked AOPA this exact question about this a week or so ago,
> and their opinion was that the plane would have to be truly incapable of
> exceeding the speed limit, rather than just an RPM limitation. I think
> there's some room for debate on that, particularly if it's not a "normal"
> well defined aircraft engine.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty
>
>
>
>
>

X-No-Archive

"Russell Duffy" > wrote in message
.. .
> I even asked AOPA this exact question about this a week or so ago,
> and their opinion was that the plane would have to be truly incapable of
> exceeding the speed limit, rather than just an RPM limitation.

Rusty........

The way the rule is worded, "Maximum speed in level flight with maximum
continuous power (Vh)-138 mph (120 knots)" doesn't seem to indicate that
"the plane would have to be truly incapable of exceeding the speed limit".

I think the question is, who determines "maximum continuous power",
especially if the engine has no data plate?

Rich S.

"frank" > wrote in message
...
> If this was the case ("truly incapable") they would not allow the use of a
> ground adjustable prop. At least with some planes, while you would be
> incapable to exceed the speed limitation with a certain prop pitch
> setting,
> resetting the prop may allow you to exceed it. This may not be different
> than a "ground adjustable" RPM limiting device.
>
> Frank

You and the AOPA guy seem to agree. He made the same point about the ground
adjustable prop.

Rusty

> It's in 14 CFR 1.1:
> "Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a
> helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original
> certification, has continued to meet the following:
> (1) A maximum takeoff weight ...
> (ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft...
> (2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
> continuous power(VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS...."

This certainly uncovers some of the confusion. We need to make sure and
distinquish between "light sport aircraft", "experimental light sport
aircraft", and aircraft that can be flown by sport pilots. The original
question asked about a homebuilt, and specifically an RV-3, so I assumed it
would have an experimental certification.

>
>>My understanding is that it would be possible to take an experimental
>>aircraft, and modify it so that it would meet the limitations of the sport
>>pilot.
>
> Not if it had an "original certification" outside the
> limits. I suppose there's an opening for taking it apart,
> and building something new from some/all of the parts, but
> that's more than just modifying it.

I don't agree with this. I've certified 3 experimental aircraft, and not
one single time has the "maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
continuous power(VH)" ever been listed anywhere. The Vne is listed, but
many aircraft have Vne's that can't be achieved in level flight, so it
doesn't mean the plane will do it.

The operating limitations received from the FAA with the airworthiness
certificate don't list ANY speeds, as these must be determined during the
phase one test period, and noted in the aircraft log. The log can be
modified over time to reflect changes in the aircraft as well, so if
modification is made that would reduce the weight, airspeed, etc, it appears
to be perfectly legal to change the log to reflect that mod.


> That does not look like the "exact question" asked above.

Let's see... The question I asked AOPA was- "I currently have an RV-3 with a
two rotor Mazda engine. If I put a single rotor engine, with far less
power, and use a prop that will reduce the top speed to 138 mph, could it be
flown by a sport pilot?" Seems pretty close to the exact question to me
:-)

Cheers,
Rusty

> If it's your opinion that an experimental aircraft capable
> of exceeding Vh of 120 knots when originally certified can
> later be modified to comply with the LSA definition, then we
> completely disagree.

Yep, that's my opinion. At this point, the best thing we can do is agree to
disagree.

Rusty

This whole thing seems to be, once again, an issue of terminology...

We are dealing with four separate types of aircraft:

1. Certified - Built under a type certificate, with the type certificate
being approved by the FAA. Some of these aircraft may also meet the Light
Sport Aircraft requirements, and may be flown by holders of a Sport Pilot
Certificate; others require at minimum a PPL (or Rec Pilot) license.

2. Experimental - Given an airworthiness certificate on a case-by-case
basis. Requires at minimum a PPL (or Rec Pilot) license.

3. Special Light Sport Aircraft - Built to consensus standards adopted by
the FAA. May be flown by a Sport Pilot or above.

4. Experimental Light Sport Aircraft - Given an airworthiness certificate on
a case-by-case basis. May be flown by a Sport Pilot or above.

That portion of the FAA regs requiring that the aircraft must have met the
Light Sport Requirements since it was built has to do with Certified
aircraft that, under their original type certificate, met the LSA
requirements, and have never been modified to an extent that would take them
outside of the LSA requirements.

In other words, if a Certified aircraft met the LSA requirements under it's
original type certificate but was later modified in such a manner that it no
longer met the LSA requirements, it cannot be "rolled back" by removing the
modifications and still be an LSA, even though it would then be at it's
original type certified state.

Again, this applies to Certified Aircraft.

As far as converting an Experimental aircraft into an Experimental Light
Sport Aircraft, allow me to SPECULATE...

I would GUESS, that you would first need to de-register the aircraft and
"turn in" the airworthiness certificate. At that point, you could then
modify the aircraft to meet the eLSA specs and then go through the eLSA
certification process.

Again, that part is just a guess...









"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Russell Duffy" > wrote:
>
> >> "Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft...
> >
> >This certainly uncovers some of the confusion. We need to make sure and
> >distinquish between "light sport aircraft", "experimental light sport
> >aircraft", and aircraft that can be flown by sport pilots.
>
> I'm not sure what confusion you think this clears up. I
> agree there are differences between the aircraft definitions
> above, but if you want to fly an airplane with a Subpart J
> "Sport Pilot" certificate, the airplane must meet the
> definition of an LSA I quoted. The whole purpose of
> "modifying" the RV, I presumed, was to get it inside the LSA
> definition.
>
> >The original
> >question asked about a homebuilt, and specifically an RV-3, so I assumed
it
> >would have an experimental certification.
>
> I presume that too, but he wanted it to meet the definition
> of a "Light-sport aircraft" so he could fly with a DL, and
> no medical. If it did not meet the requirements I quoted,
> he'd have to have a medical.
>
> >>>My understanding is that it would be possible to take an experimental
> >>>aircraft, and modify it so that it would meet the limitations of the
sport
> >>>pilot.
> >>
> >> Not if it had an "original certification" outside the
> >> limits. I suppose there's an opening for taking it apart,
> >> and building something new from some/all of the parts, but
> >> that's more than just modifying it.
> >
> >I don't agree with this. I've certified 3 experimental aircraft, and not
> >one single time has the "maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
> >continuous power(VH)" ever been listed anywhere.
>
> What don't you agree with? I didn't say it did have such a
> speed listed - did I? Nonetheless, according to the FAA
> there *is* such a speed. I've got no idea how it's
> determined for an experimental. I presume that the builder
> has some control over it, since he's got control over the
> entire aircraft.
>
> > The Vne is listed, but
> >many aircraft have Vne's that can't be achieved in level flight, so it
> >doesn't mean the plane will do it.
>
> Agreed. Anyway, Vne is only important for gliders as LSAs.
>
> >The operating limitations received from the FAA with the airworthiness
> >certificate don't list ANY speeds, as these must be determined during the
> >phase one test period, and noted in the aircraft log. The log can be
> >modified over time to reflect changes in the aircraft as well, so if
> >modification is made that would reduce the weight, airspeed, etc, it
appears
> >to be perfectly legal to change the log to reflect that mod.
>
> If it's your opinion that an experimental aircraft capable
> of exceeding Vh of 120 knots when originally certified can
> later be modified to comply with the LSA definition, then we
> completely disagree. If you are saying the builder can
> build an LSA compliant aircraft within the specs and *then*
> get it certified, we agree. If you are expressing some
> opinion as to *how* to determine the Vh of an aircraft like
> an RV-3, I'm neutral at this point, as I don't know what the
> FAA would find to be acceptable. It's possible that no one
> knows for sure right now.
>
> Getting the paperwork right may be enough, as long as it's
> done before certification. It's possible a minor mod, such
> as restricting throttle might be enough. I'm interested in
> the answer, not trying to give one.
>
> >> That does not look like the "exact question" asked above.
> >
> >Let's see... The question I asked AOPA was- "I currently have an RV-3
with a
> >two rotor Mazda engine. If I put a single rotor engine, with far less
> >power, and use a prop that will reduce the top speed to 138 mph, could it
be
> >flown by a sport pilot?" Seems pretty close to the exact question to me
> >:-)
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood. First you said:
>
> "My understanding is that it would be possible to take an
> experimental aircraft, and modify it so that it would meet
> the limitations of the sport pilot. "
>
> I took that to be a question about modifying an aircraft
> that was already certified.
>
> Then you said:
>
> "I even asked AOPA this exact question about this a week or
> so ago, and their opinion was that the plane would have to
> be truly incapable of exceeding the speed limit, rather than
> just an RPM limitation. "
>
> That looked like an answer to the question of how to
> determine Vh on an RV-3. I assumed the AOPA would know you
> can't bring an aircraft that was outside LSA limits into LSA
> limits. If they gave you the second answer to the first
> question, they didn't give you enough information.
>
> I know someone who has an aircraft with two different
> certified max gross weights (one below LSA max, one above)
> depending on the type of gear installed.
>
> It was upgraded to the higher max gross at one point in its
> life. He has the old gear. He's been told, and finally
> concluded himself, that under the regs he cannot go
> backwards to meet the LSA requirements by reinstalling the
> old gear.
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

"Russell Duffy" > wrote in message
...
>> If it's your opinion that an experimental aircraft capable
>> of exceeding Vh of 120 knots when originally certified can
>> later be modified to comply with the LSA definition, then we
>> completely disagree.
>
> Yep, that's my opinion. At this point, the best thing we can do is agree
> to disagree.
>
> Rusty

Especially if Vh has never been determined.

Rich S.

Please see my previous response...

The important thing to note is that an Experimental aircraft is never
"certified"; it is simply granted an airworthiness certificate.

A "certified" aircraft is one built under a Type Certificate.

So, it appears that there is no reason why an Experimental could not be
converted to an eLSA...


"Russell Duffy" > wrote in message
...
> > If it's your opinion that an experimental aircraft capable
> > of exceeding Vh of 120 knots when originally certified can
> > later be modified to comply with the LSA definition, then we
> > completely disagree.
>
> Yep, that's my opinion. At this point, the best thing we can do is agree
to
> disagree.
>
> Rusty
>
>

> 2. Experimental - Given an airworthiness certificate on a case-by-case
> basis. Requires at minimum a PPL (or Rec Pilot) license.


Excellent post. This is the only statement I question. Are you sure about
this? I could swear I've read that Sport Pilots could fly Experimental
aircraft, assuming the aircraft met the SP allowed weight, speed, etc.

Thanks,
Rusty

I don't see why an experimental aircraft would require a PPL or rec pilot
license. My understanding is that IF the experimental meets the LSA
performance limitations, a sport pilot may fly it - just like he may fly a
certified aircraft that meets the limitations. If that is not so, please
steer me to the right regulation.

Frank

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
m...
> This whole thing seems to be, once again, an issue of terminology...
>
> We are dealing with four separate types of aircraft:
>
> 1. Certified - Built under a type certificate, with the type certificate
> being approved by the FAA. Some of these aircraft may also meet the Light
> Sport Aircraft requirements, and may be flown by holders of a Sport Pilot
> Certificate; others require at minimum a PPL (or Rec Pilot) license.
>
> 2. Experimental - Given an airworthiness certificate on a case-by-case
> basis. Requires at minimum a PPL (or Rec Pilot) license.
>
> 3. Special Light Sport Aircraft - Built to consensus standards adopted by
> the FAA. May be flown by a Sport Pilot or above.
>
> 4. Experimental Light Sport Aircraft - Given an airworthiness certificate
on
> a case-by-case basis. May be flown by a Sport Pilot or above.
>
> That portion of the FAA regs requiring that the aircraft must have met the
> Light Sport Requirements since it was built has to do with Certified
> aircraft that, under their original type certificate, met the LSA
> requirements, and have never been modified to an extent that would take
them
> outside of the LSA requirements.
>
> In other words, if a Certified aircraft met the LSA requirements under
it's
> original type certificate but was later modified in such a manner that it
no
> longer met the LSA requirements, it cannot be "rolled back" by removing
the
> modifications and still be an LSA, even though it would then be at it's
> original type certified state.
>
> Again, this applies to Certified Aircraft.
>
> As far as converting an Experimental aircraft into an Experimental Light
> Sport Aircraft, allow me to SPECULATE...
>
> I would GUESS, that you would first need to de-register the aircraft and
> "turn in" the airworthiness certificate. At that point, you could then
> modify the aircraft to meet the eLSA specs and then go through the eLSA
> certification process.
>
> Again, that part is just a guess...
>

"frank" > wrote in message
...
>I don't see why an experimental aircraft would require a PPL or rec pilot
> license. My understanding is that IF the experimental meets the LSA
> performance limitations, a sport pilot may fly it - just like he may fly a
> certified aircraft that meets the limitations. If that is not so, please
> steer me to the right regulation.
>
> Frank
>
You are correct Frank,
Go to the EAA's website and it lists a ton of now experimental aircraft
that a sport pilot CAN fly because it meets the sport standards. Of course
when you build your Volksplane you can register it as experimental-light
sport. Or buy one that has the experimental from 15 years ago . Either way
you can fly it. just as a certified classic airplane will not have to have a
new certification, neither will an old experimental. Can you just imagine
the confusion and paperwork involved in getting all the old Ercoupes, Cubs,
Champs etc etc new Certified light sport certificates. If a sport pilot can
not fly an experimental , then there is a crapload of sport pilots flying
illegal..because they have been buying them and flying them.
Could you de-register an old VP and change it from experimental to
experimental-light sport. Sure you could, but I have not seen anything that
says it is necessary. The only difference would pertain to maint. issues. If
you held the light sport repairman cert you could work on your experimental
light sport plane..but you could not work on a plane with just an
experimental , it would require an A&P. That issue deals with a plane you
bought , not one you built. If you built it I am sure the repairman cert for
that plane would allow maint.
Is anyone confused yet!?! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

No, the aircraft would have to be "certified" (vernacular use; not a
certified aircraft) as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft.

The Experimental "certification" process does not ensure that the aircraft
meets the criteria for an LSA.



"Russell Duffy" > wrote in message
. ..
> > 2. Experimental - Given an airworthiness certificate on a case-by-case
> > basis. Requires at minimum a PPL (or Rec Pilot) license.
>
>
> Excellent post. This is the only statement I question. Are you sure
about
> this? I could swear I've read that Sport Pilots could fly Experimental
> aircraft, assuming the aircraft met the SP allowed weight, speed, etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty
>
>

Sorry to diagree with you on this - I have clarified this very point with
the FAA, and was told that a sport pilot CAN fly an experimental if it meets
the limitations.

Frank

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
m...
> No, the aircraft would have to be "certified" (vernacular use; not a
> certified aircraft) as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft.
>
> The Experimental "certification" process does not ensure that the aircraft
> meets the criteria for an LSA.
>

> Sorry to diagree with you on this - I have clarified this very point with
> the FAA, and was told that a sport pilot CAN fly an experimental if it
> meets
> the limitations.
>
> Frank



The following is on sportpilot.org as well:


If I become a sport pilot, what can I fly?

An aircraft that meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft may hold an
airworthiness certificate in any one of the following categories of FAA
certification:
a.. an experimental aircraft, including amateur-built aircraft, for which
the owner must construct more than 51-percent of the aircraft.
b.. a Standard category aircraft; that is, a ready-to-fly aircraft that is
type-certificated in accordance with FAR Part 43.
c.. a Primary category aircraft; that is, a ready-to-fly aircraft that is
type-certificated in accordance with Primary category regulations.
d.. a special light-sport aircraft
e.. an experimental light-sport aircraft.
Cheers,
Rusty

I stand corrected...

Thanks for posting that!

If you don't learn something everyday, what's the point...


"Russell Duffy" > wrote in message
.. .
> > Sorry to diagree with you on this - I have clarified this very point
with
> > the FAA, and was told that a sport pilot CAN fly an experimental if it
> > meets
> > the limitations.
> >
> > Frank
>
>
>
> The following is on sportpilot.org as well:
>
>
> If I become a sport pilot, what can I fly?
>
> An aircraft that meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft may hold
an
> airworthiness certificate in any one of the following categories of FAA
> certification:
> a.. an experimental aircraft, including amateur-built aircraft, for
which
> the owner must construct more than 51-percent of the aircraft.
> b.. a Standard category aircraft; that is, a ready-to-fly aircraft that
is
> type-certificated in accordance with FAR Part 43.
> c.. a Primary category aircraft; that is, a ready-to-fly aircraft that
is
> type-certificated in accordance with Primary category regulations.
> d.. a special light-sport aircraft
> e.. an experimental light-sport aircraft.
> Cheers,
> Rusty
>
>

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:23:19 GMT, "Lakeview Bill" >
wrote:

>As far as converting an Experimental aircraft into an Experimental Light
>Sport Aircraft, allow me to SPECULATE...
>
>I would GUESS, that you would first need to de-register the aircraft and
>"turn in" the airworthiness certificate. At that point, you could then
>modify the aircraft to meet the eLSA specs and then go through the eLSA
>certification process.

I'd expect that's pretty close. You can't just try to re-register an existing,
licensed airplane as an Experimental Light Sport, due to 21.191(i)(1). Like you
illustrate, you have to present a "new" plane.

But if it works on a currently-flying Experimental Amateur-Built...geeze, it
should work on a Standard category plane, too.

Buy a flying Aeronca Champ. Cancel its registration, then go through and
replace its data plate with your own. Then show up at the FAA and request
Experimental LSA licensing.

It should be no less (or, for that matter, no *more*) legal than trying the same
process with an existing Experimental. The FAA is more likely to be suspicious,
though, so you'd have to lay down a lot better cover story.

Ron Wanttaja

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
m...

> 2. Experimental - Given an airworthiness certificate on a case-by-case
> basis. Requires at minimum a PPL (or Rec Pilot) license.

WRONG. If the experimental meets the restrictions of a LSA it may be flown
by an sport pilot.

You stated:

"The LSA definition stands alone. Any aircraft that meets that deviation
can be flown by a SP who has the right signoffs."

That is not correct.

As I previously noted, a type-certified aircraft that would have met the LSA
specs in its original configuration, but has been modified to a point where
it would not meet those specs, would not be flyable as an LSA even if the
modifications were removed and the aircraft was rolled-back to it's original
specs.

And JFTR: the only point I was wrong on was the SP's ability to fly
Experimentals that met the LSA requirements but were not eLSA's, a mistake I
readily admitted when the error was pointed out to me.





"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote:
>
> >No, the aircraft would have to be "certified" (vernacular use; not a
> >certified aircraft) as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft.
>
> Not true.
>
> >The Experimental "certification" process does not ensure that the
aircraft
> >meets the criteria for an LSA.
>
> True, but neither does the standard airworthiness process
> (ensure LSA status), and I can fly my standard airworthiness
> aircraft with an SP. You really shouldn't post this
> misinformation. The LSA definition stands alone. Any
> aircraft that meets that deviation can be flown by a SP who
> has the right signoffs.
>
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

Try reading the whole thread. I acknowledged that mistake yesterday, when I
was POLITELY pointed to the correct information...



"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:Hs0Ne.2081$7f5.1725@okepread01...
>
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > 2. Experimental - Given an airworthiness certificate on a case-by-case
> > basis. Requires at minimum a PPL (or Rec Pilot) license.
>
> WRONG. If the experimental meets the restrictions of a LSA it may be flown
> by an sport pilot.
>
>
>

I did read the entire definition...

You are simply restating what I said.

But let's just let it drop, shall we?


"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote:
>
> >You stated:
> >
> >"The LSA definition stands alone. Any aircraft that meets that deviation
> >can be flown by a SP who has the right signoffs."
> >
> >That is not correct.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> >As I previously noted, a type-certified aircraft that would have met the
LSA
> >specs in its original configuration, but has been modified to a point
where
> >it would not meet those specs, would not be flyable as an LSA even if the
> >modifications were removed and the aircraft was rolled-back to it's
original
> >specs.
>
> That's true, but you are ignoring the first part of the
> definition that says it's an LSA only if it has continuously
> met the weight/speed limits since it's "original
> certification." If the plane did not meet those limits
> continuously, then it does not meet the definition that
> requires that. You have to read the entire definition.
>
>
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>> 2. Experimental - Given an airworthiness certificate on a case-by-case
>> basis. Requires at minimum a PPL (or Rec Pilot) license.
>
> WRONG. If the experimental meets the restrictions of a LSA it may be flown
> by an sport pilot.
Also it is possible for a CFI to sign off a student to fly an experimental.
He cannot charge for instruction in one. IE if a CFI has a favorite son who
he instructs for freebee he can sign him off in it.
John

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:29:29 GMT, UltraJohn >
wrote:

>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>
>>> 2. Experimental - Given an airworthiness certificate on a case-by-case
>>> basis. Requires at minimum a PPL (or Rec Pilot) license.
>>
>> WRONG. If the experimental meets the restrictions of a LSA it may be flown
>> by an sport pilot.
>Also it is possible for a CFI to sign off a student to fly an experimental.
>He cannot charge for instruction in one. IE if a CFI has a favorite son who
>he instructs for freebee he can sign him off in it.

With the exception: He can charge for teaching you how to fly in your
own.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>John