Populat Mechanics Octobrer issue

[Wally Samuelson]

I just received the October issue of Popular Mechanics. The cover story is
about factory built sport planes. You don't need a license.

As usual the article is long on hype and short on specifics. I would love
to have a scale down of a P-51 Wow wouldn't that be a kick

Wally (I've quit posting my age, Lets just say my seniority number is
getting low.)

[Morgans]

"Wally Samuelson" > wrote in message
et...
> I just received the October issue of Popular Mechanics. The cover story
is
> about factory built sport planes. You don't need a license.
>
> As usual the article is long on hype and short on specifics. I would love
> to have a scale down of a P-51 Wow wouldn't that be a kick
>
> Wally (I've quit posting my age, Lets just say my seniority number is
> getting low.)
>

I have not read the article, but let me correct a few things in your post.

You do need a license. It has less training hours, and a few more
restrictions. Day visual flight rules only, and to go to another towered
airport, you must have a briefing from an instructor.

You do not, however have to have a medical certificate. I if you have a
driver' license, that is enough.

The planes are limited in weight, stall speed, and top speed, and to two
people.

The real kick is that this is so far, just a proposal for a new rule. It
could be five more months until anyone can tell you anything for sure.
--
Jim in NC

[Cub Driver]

>You do need a license. It has less training hours, and a few more
>restrictions. Day visual flight rules only, and to go to another towered
>airport, you must have a briefing from an instructor.

If this is correct, the sport pilot license is less restrictive than
my recreational pilot cert. For each towered airport, I need an
endorsement from my instructor.

That restriction is the only thing I've ever regretted about not
getting a PPL. I'd assumed in training that like the XC restriction it
could be lifted by additional training and a one-time endorsement, but
not so.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Steve Foley]

But the restriction can be lifted by a checkride.

I don't know if you would need the entire private PTS, or if they would only
cover what's missing from the recreational certificate.

You'll probably find you have all the requirements of a private if you've
been flying a while.

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >You do need a license. It has less training hours, and a few more
> >restrictions. Day visual flight rules only, and to go to another towered
> >airport, you must have a briefing from an instructor.
>
> If this is correct, the sport pilot license is less restrictive than
> my recreational pilot cert. For each towered airport, I need an
> endorsement from my instructor.
>
> That restriction is the only thing I've ever regretted about not
> getting a PPL. I'd assumed in training that like the XC restriction it
> could be lifted by additional training and a one-time endorsement, but
> not so.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Eric Pinnell]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:15:26 GMT, "Wally Samuelson"
> wrote:

>I just received the October issue of Popular Mechanics. The cover story is
>about factory built sport planes. You don't need a license.
>
>As usual the article is long on hype and short on specifics. I would love
>to have a scale down of a P-51 Wow wouldn't that be a kick
>
>Wally (I've quit posting my age, Lets just say my seniority number is
>getting low.)

Incorrect. The Sport Plane category still requires a driver's
license, but not a pilot's license.


Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"

[Robert Moore]

Eric Pinnell wrote
>
> Incorrect. The Sport Plane category still requires a driver's
> license, but not a pilot's license.

Of course it doesn't require a pilot's license since the US FAA
doesn't issue any pilot "licenses", only airman certificates.

But your premise is still incorrect in any case. From an FAA web
site:

Pilots and Flight Instructors
These are the new pilot and flight instructor certificates that would
be established:

New airmen certificates would include a student pilot certificate for
operating light-sport aircraft, a sport pilot certificate, a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating.
Two new aircraft category and class ratings -- weight-shift-control
(with land and sea class ratings) and powered parachute.
New training and certification requirements for these new ratings.
A current and valid U.S. driver’s license or an FAA airman medical
certificate would be required to operate a light sport aircraft.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

[[email protected]]

I never have understood the recreational pilot's license. It
takes pretty much the same amount of time, and still requires the PTS,
checkride, and medical. It has glaring shortcomings in utility, however,
with only one passenger, and 50 miles from base. The proposed sport
license makes more sense, since there's no medical required. If you go
through the trouble of a rec license, though, might as well do a few
cross-countries with a VOR and get the PPL.

FWIW
-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[G.R. Patterson III]

Eric Pinnell wrote:
>
> Incorrect. The Sport Plane category still requires a driver's
> license, but not a pilot's license.

I think you're confusing license with medical certificate. The Sport Plane
pilot will still need some type of pilot certificate, but will not need a
medical certificate if he has a driver's license.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning G.R. Patterson III > wrote:
: Sport Pilot will be similar if the DOT does it again.

Except it'll be even less useful since the plane must be
lower-performance.


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[G.R. Patterson III]

wrote:
>
> I never have understood the recreational pilot's license. It
> takes pretty much the same amount of time, and still requires the PTS,
> checkride, and medical.

The original proposal was another attempt to eliminate the requirement for a
medical certificate. It would have been popular if it had been implemented that
way. The proposal got all the way to the DOT and the DOT added a requirement
for a medical certificate. After that, the rec pilot was attractive to only a
few people.

Sport Pilot will be similar if the DOT does it again.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

[Cub Driver]

> I never have understood the recreational pilot's license. It
>takes pretty much the same amount of time, and still requires the PTS,

I got a recreational cert so I didn't have to transition to the 172.

>checkride, and medical. It has glaring shortcomings in utility, however,
>with only one passenger, and 50 miles from base. The proposed sport

Well, the Cub only carries one passenger. I seldom carry passengers in
any event; I am 71 and don't like to carry anyone who can't land the
plane in a pinch.

The 50 miles from base is a non-issue (I thought it was 25 miles). All
you need do is fly to an airport more than 50 miles and there make
three landings and takeoffs -- an easier XC requirement than for the
PPL. Thereafter the restriction is lifted forever. I fly all
over--well, as far as the Cub will take me in one day.

>license makes more sense, since there's no medical required. If you go
>through the trouble of a rec license, though, might as well do a few
>cross-countries with a VOR and get the PPL.

Probably, but I would have had to fly the 172. That was a price I
wasn't willing to pay. It is in my opinion a perfectly awful vehicle,
on the lines of jet-skis and Nash Ramblers.

As for the sports pilot cert, it's not the FAA that will determine its
success or failure, but the insurance companies. I can't rent without
hull insurance, and even if I could I wouldn't fly without liability
insurance. If AIG will write insurance on the sports cert, I will
probably move over to one and save the hassle of the bienniel medical.

No--make that "might". The sport cert would prevent me from flying a
Super Cub, Husky, or Great Lakes, to name three planes I've flown with
great happiness.




all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Cub Driver > wrote:
: Probably, but I would have had to fly the 172. That was a price I
: wasn't willing to pay. It is in my opinion a perfectly awful vehicle,
: on the lines of jet-skis and Nash Ramblers.

Just out of curiosity, what's so bad about the 172? I realize
it's got about as much sex appeal as an '87 Subaru station wagon with the
handling of a '67 pickup, but it's a forgiving trainer.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

> Just out of curiosity, what's so bad about the 172? I realize
> it's got about as much sex appeal as an '87 Subaru station wagon with the
> handling of a '67 pickup, but it's a forgiving trainer.
>
> -Cory

That just it. It's a trainer and maybe not the best one because it is too
forgiving. I didn't really learn to fly an airplane until I learned to fly
my husband's Luscombe, then there was no turning back. We owned a C-172 for
over 5 years and put 900 hours on it ( I put 600 hours on it myself,
including my training), but flying it doesn't compare to the experience I
have flying my 8E. I fly with a stick in my hand and the wind in my hair.

Flying the Cessna is like having sex. Flying the Luscombe is like making
love. Nailing a good wheel landing or three-pointer is like seeing the
satisfied smile on your partner's face. There's no other feeling like it.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

[Jay Honeck]

> Flying the Cessna is like having sex. Flying the Luscombe is like making
> love. Nailing a good wheel landing or three-pointer is like seeing the
> satisfied smile on your partner's face. There's no other feeling like it.

Wow.... Ahem.

Just curious: Do you give rides? :-0
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Just curious: Do you give rides? :-0

I'm sure Henry could tell you. :-)

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens

[Montblack]

("Henry and Debbie McFarland" wrote)
<snip>
> Flying the Cessna is like having sex. Flying the Luscombe is like making
> love. Nailing a good wheel landing or three-pointer is like seeing the
> satisfied smile on your partner's face. There's no other feeling like it.


I know, I know. Don't rush the preflight - it's important too ...I guess.

Are we there yet? <g>

(Ducking, and running ...like a duck. Only Darwin ducks are in the air on
these wonderful September, Fall days. Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam)

--
Montblack

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

Actually, he whines that I love my airplane more than him ;-).

It would be hard to chose between the two of them. However, Henry is my A&P
so there are times when he has the upper hand.

I'm rather pleased you guys understood my analogy. I have been asked more
times than I can remember why I sold the C-172 and kept the Luscombe. It's
hard to explain to someone who has never flown with the wind in their hair.

Of course, I don't need to get somewhere fast like lots of folks do. I just
fly for the pure pleasure of it.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Just curious: Do you give rides? :-0
>
> I'm sure Henry could tell you. :-)
>
> George Patterson
> A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
> be learned any other way. Samuel
Clemens

[Cub Driver]

> Just out of curiosity, what's so bad about the 172? I realize
>it's got about as much sex appeal as an '87 Subaru station wagon with the
>handling of a '67 pickup, but it's a forgiving trainer.

I don't know about the handling, but yes, it's hugely lacking in sex
appeal. But perhaps it's a local thing, having to do with the
condition of the two 172s owned by the airport. They are very weary.
Cracked green plastic seats; a shoulder belt (not a harness!) that
must be wrapped around the seat belt in order to keep it from jumping
out--that sort of thing. Whereas most of the Cubs have been pristine.
Hampton does all its primary training in Cubs; Dunn Aviation on the
field seems to specialize in restoring Cubs; there are several Cubs
based there. So Cub fever is in the air, and I caught it early and
hard. I fell in love with the plane the first time I flew it.

http://www.pipercubforum.com/roger.htm

The plane mentioned in that story, Four One Victor, was a 1940s L-4
owned by the Massachusetts Air Guard. It was later wrecked by a
student who applied the brakes during a high-speed taxi. It has since
been rebuilt and will soon come back on line.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com