Question about the Sport Pilot designation

[AJ]

I just read a description of the limitations imposed on light sport
pilots, including the following: no flights into Class A airspace,
which is at or over 18,000' MSL; no flights into Class B, C, or D
airspace unless you receive training and a logbook endorsement; and no
flights above 10,000' MSL. It looks like taxiing is the only safe
bet.

If someone was to ask, "Well, what can the sport pilot do," what
would be the answer?

AJ

[Jim Macklin]

Almost anything in day/VFR with one passenger. The Class
BCD airspace endorsement is not too hard to do, a student
pilot may also do those areas solo. Most light aircraft do
not fly above 10,000 feet.

You can learn and do aerobatics, fly cross-country,fly land
and seaplanes or skis, airplanes, helicopters.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"AJ" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|I just read a description of the limitations imposed on
light sport
| pilots, including the following: no flights into Class A
airspace,
| which is at or over 18,000' MSL; no flights into Class B,
C, or D
| airspace unless you receive training and a logbook
endorsement; and no
| flights above 10,000' MSL. It looks like taxiing is the
only safe
| bet.
|
| If someone was to ask, "Well, what can the sport pilot
do," what
| would be the answer?
|
| AJ
|

[AJ]

Thanks to Jim and Morgans for the replies. I'm not a troll (physical
appearances aside), and the question was an honest one. Thanks for the
honest answers -- they helped a great deal.

AJ

[Morgans]

"AJ" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I just read a description of the limitations imposed on light sport
> pilots, including the following: no flights into Class A airspace,
> which is at or over 18,000' MSL; no flights into Class B, C, or D
> airspace unless you receive training and a logbook endorsement; and no
> flights above 10,000' MSL. It looks like taxiing is the only safe
> bet.
>
> If someone was to ask, "Well, what can the sport pilot do," what
> would be the answer?

This sounds all too much like a troll, but I'll play.

Fly anywhere you want to, with relatively simple signoffs, as long as you
don't go really high, like most single engine piston pilots don't do,
anyway.

Fly in VFR conditions, like most single engine piston pilots prefer, anyway.

Fly smaller sized aircraft, with speeds limited to what many single engine
piston planes will never go faster than, anyway.

Fly around with a buddy, which around 50% or more pilots of single engine
piston airplanes don't exceed, anyway.

Fly in a new single engine piston aircraft, with many models costing from 50
to 85 thousand dollars. Try buying a new non-sport airplane for anywhere
near that cost.

Fly in the daytime only, which 75% or more single engine piston flights are,
anyway.

So, in a paraphrase of a very old Wendy's add, "Where's the beef?" You can
do most of what the majority of pilots of single engine piston airplanes do.
Less cost, newer equipment possible, less training.

If you don't like the limitations and can pass a medical, go for the full
ticket. Sport pilot is still a great thing for a great many people , who
due to a technicality, can not pass a medical, or don't want to spend the
money to pass a medical.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"AJ" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If someone was to ask, "Well, what can the sport pilot do," what
> would be the answer?

The "no flights into Class B, C, or D" restriction is not much of a
restriction at all since, as you already noted, it can be removed with some
training.

Basically, a Sport Pilot can do practically all of the kinds of flying that
many people who never stray far from home and just enjoy local sightseeing
and $100 hamburger flights. I used to use airplanes for lots of
long-distance traveling, but frankly in the last few years very little of my
flights could not have been done under a Sport Pilot certificate. I know
lots of pilots who are similar.

Beyond that, it provides a much more effective stepping stone to the Private
Pilot certificate than the Recreational certificate did. Dan Ford
notwithstanding, few pilots found the Recreational certificate to be a
useful route to take, given how little they trimmed from the Private in
terms of training requirements for it.

Pete

[Sylvain]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> You can learn and do aerobatics, fly cross-country,fly land
> and seaplanes or skis, airplanes, helicopters.
>

if I am not mistaken you can fly rotorcraft, but not helicopters,
i.e., you are limited to the gyroplane class in this category. But
then may be I misunderstood the new FARs (quite a different style
from the rest of the regulations); anyone?

--Sylvain

[Morgans]

"AJ" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Thanks to Jim and Morgans for the replies. I'm not a troll (physical
> appearances aside), and the question was an honest one. Thanks for the
> honest answers -- they helped a great deal.

Great. Honestly, there are some compromises that you give up, with SP. To
me, wanting to go cross country, not being able to fly at night is a
problem. Other than that, the limitation is with the plane.

One of the biggest limitations with the plane, as I see it, is the
limitation of the powerplant. There are not a lot of choices out there, to
keep the airframe at a reasonable weight, and give it a reasonable useful
load. If only they had given us a couple hundred pounds more!

Of course, you could play the "if only" game, about many of the
limitations, but "it is what it is."

What it really comes down to is, it give a lot of people a chance to get
their feet off of the ground, that might have not been able to, any other
way. All of the trade-offs seem very reasonable, at that point!
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

You may be correct, I said helicopter but
rotorcraft/gyroplane sounds right.

Thanks for the correction.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > You can learn and do aerobatics, fly cross-country,fly
land
| > and seaplanes or skis, airplanes, helicopters.
| >
|
| if I am not mistaken you can fly rotorcraft, but not
helicopters,
| i.e., you are limited to the gyroplane class in this
category. But
| then may be I misunderstood the new FARs (quite a
different style
| from the rest of the regulations); anyone?
|
| --Sylvain

[Cub Driver]

On 19 Mar 2006 16:02:16 -0800, "AJ" > wrote:

>If someone was to ask, "Well, what can the sport pilot do," what
>would be the answer?

Just about anything he wanted to, tailoring the training to his needs,
and a whole lot more than I as a recreational pilot used to be able to
do.

When the Sport Pilot ticket was approved, I got together with my
flight instructor (former instructor, now friend) and we talked about
airspace for a while. He grabbed my logbook, wrote some words, and now
I can fly in B/C/D airspace at will (my will and that of the
controller :)






-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:24:29 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>Dan Ford
>notwithstanding, few pilots found the Recreational certificate to be a
>useful route to take, given how little they trimmed from the Private in
>terms of training requirements for it.

I would be the first to say that I am a special case. Call me the
exception that proves (tests) the rule. I had no intention of flying
at night, I didn't like the Cessnas that I would have had to
transition into (nothing against the airplane, only the iterations
available at that particular airport), and I only wanted to fly the
Cub, which became an obsession with me almost from the first day I
flew one. Plus I was 66 at the time, and the fewer things I had to
master, the better.

I don't know which I would do today, recreational cert or Sport Pilot.
I'm happy with the former now that it has been expanded to include
controlled airspace.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[AJ]

66 at the time? You give me hope, Dan!

AJ

[tom]

I'm 57 and have been flying for only two years. The sport pilot
definition was just about a perfect fit for my intended use: flying
for fun and just lookin' around. An occasional cross country. I've
got very little interest in big airports. A little plane is fine with
me.

Well, at the time I started my training, the sport pilot stuff was
under discussion, but not implemented. I didn't want to wait for the
beurocrats to work things out, so I went ahead and got my private pilot
certificate.

Now, 240 hours later, and an owner/builder of a Savannah (similar to
Zenith CH701) I'm glad I didn't wait. It's too much fun flying. But
if I were starting today, I would probably go sport pilot if training
was available in my area. (it still isn't)

tom

[Montblack]

("tom" wrote)
> I'm 57 and have been flying for only two years. The sport pilot
> definition was just about a perfect fit for my intended use: flying for
> fun and just lookin' around. An occasional cross country. I've got very
> little interest in big airports. A little plane is fine with me.


It would have been nice to get the C-150/152's and all of the Ercoupes into
the L-Sport category. 1,600 lbs? Oh well.

The other is the high end speed limit (138 mph). It would have been nice if
that could have been waived for single place planes ...RV-3(B). Again, oh
well.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-3int.htm


Montblack

[Lakeview Bill]

Well, if you really wanted to fly an RV-3, you could probably hang a 100 hp
engine and a less than optimal prop and stay under the speed limit...



"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("tom" wrote)
> > I'm 57 and have been flying for only two years. The sport pilot
> > definition was just about a perfect fit for my intended use: flying for
> > fun and just lookin' around. An occasional cross country. I've got
very
> > little interest in big airports. A little plane is fine with me.
>
>
> It would have been nice to get the C-150/152's and all of the Ercoupes
into
> the L-Sport category. 1,600 lbs? Oh well.
>
> The other is the high end speed limit (138 mph). It would have been nice
if
> that could have been waived for single place planes ...RV-3(B). Again, oh
> well.
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-3int.htm
>
>
> Montblack
>

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

> The other is the high end speed limit (138 mph). It would have been nice
if
> that could have been waived for single place planes ...RV-3(B). Again, oh
> well.

That's a no brainer! Put a **very**flat pitch prop on it, and it will not
go too fast, without over revving the engine.

Think of the deck angle you could get, on climbout! About 60 degrees? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Lakeview Bill" wrote)
>> The other is the high end speed limit (138 mph). It would have been nice
>> if that could have been waived for single place planes ...RV-3(B). Again,
>> oh well.
>>
>> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-3int.htm

> Well, if you really wanted to fly an RV-3, you could probably hang a 100
> hp engine and a less than optimal prop and stay under the speed limit...


Would they let [me] build an RV-3(B) and register/fly it as an LSA or E-LSA?
Or would they be wise to my attempts? Ok, ok ...smaller engine it is.

If it must be toned down, the assumption is that "Total Performance" of the
RV-3(B) will get (at least)138 mph ... so, instead, let's aim for super-low
fuel burn. Any small diesels out there? :-)

Wonder how Van's feels about this option - hanging a 100 hp engine on an
RV-3? How would they feel about an 85 hp engine + an optimal prop?

Wonder if the FAA has come up against this yet?

What I'd want is 138 mph (145 ...Oops.<wink>) at the very best gph possible
AND be FAA approved as an E-LSA. (Single seat preferable)

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-3per.htm
RV-3 Performance

Solo Weight .....1,050 lbs
Empty Weight .....750 lbs.
Empty weight and performance measured with fixed pitch wood propeller

Speed .................................125 hp ..............150 hp

Top Speed ........................195 mph ...........207 mph
Cruise [75% @ 8000'] ......185 mph ..........196 mph
Cruise [55% @ 8000'] ......166 mph ..........176 mph
Stall Speed ..........................51 mph .............51 mph
Ground Performance
Takeoff Distance .................350 ft ..................300 ft
Landing Distance ................350 ft ...................350 ft
Climb/Ceiling
Rate of Climb ...................1,700 fpm ............2,050 fpm
Ceiling ..............................20,500 ft ...............23,500 ft
Range
Range [75% @ 8000'] ...........640 sm.............595 sm
Range [55% @ 8000'] ...........770 sm ............715 sm


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> That's a no brainer!

Well, now you're in MY wheelhouse! <g>


Whatever would get approved ...AND get, say, 3 gph fuel burn? Is that close
to possible with an RV-3(B) ...at 138+ mph cruise speeds?

750 lbs empty weight.
Engine .................................125 hp ..............150 hp

Top Speed ........................195 mph ...........207 mph
Cruise [75% @ 8000'] ......185 mph ..........196 mph
Cruise [55% @ 8000'] ......166 mph ..........176 mph

The thing stalls at 51 mph, so that's within LSA limits.


Montblack

[ET]

You will not get it approved as an "e-LSA"

an e-LSA will either be a kit built by a manufacturer who has built at
least one sLSA... or a "grandfathered" "ultralight-like" aircraft...

the RV-3 is niether.

you could very likely build an am-built experimental RV-3 with a 100 HP
engine and the proper pitch prop that you test fly and enter in your POH
the proper documentation that says it does not fly more than 138mph at
sea level on a standard day at your chosen "maximum continuous power"
setting and you may fly it as a sport pilot.

You are the builder, you test fly the aircraft, YOU put those little
color bar on the RPM indicator, yes you could do it, and do it legally.

OR just build a Sonex or Zodiac 601 that's sport pilot legal to begin
with, or wait a bit for the RV-12.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams


-


"Montblack" > wrote in
:

> ("Lakeview Bill" wrote)
>>> The other is the high end speed limit (138 mph). It would have been
>>> nice if that could have been waived for single place planes
>>> ...RV-3(B). Again, oh well.
>>>
>>> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-3int.htm
>
>> Well, if you really wanted to fly an RV-3, you could probably hang a
>> 100 hp engine and a less than optimal prop and stay under the speed
>> limit...
>
>
> Would they let [me] build an RV-3(B) and register/fly it as an LSA or
> E-LSA? Or would they be wise to my attempts? Ok, ok ...smaller engine
> it is.
>
> If it must be toned down, the assumption is that "Total Performance"
> of the RV-3(B) will get (at least)138 mph ... so, instead, let's aim
> for super-low fuel burn. Any small diesels out there? :-)
>
> Wonder how Van's feels about this option - hanging a 100 hp engine on
> an RV-3? How would they feel about an 85 hp engine + an optimal prop?
>
> Wonder if the FAA has come up against this yet?
>
> What I'd want is 138 mph (145 ...Oops.<wink>) at the very best gph
> possible AND be FAA approved as an E-LSA. (Single seat preferable)
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-3per.htm
> RV-3 Performance
>
> Solo Weight .....1,050 lbs
> Empty Weight .....750 lbs.
> Empty weight and performance measured with fixed pitch wood propeller
>
> Speed .................................125 hp ..............150 hp
>
> Top Speed ........................195 mph ...........207 mph
> Cruise [75% @ 8000'] ......185 mph ..........196 mph
> Cruise [55% @ 8000'] ......166 mph ..........176 mph
> Stall Speed ..........................51 mph .............51 mph
> Ground Performance
> Takeoff Distance .................350 ft ..................300 ft
> Landing Distance ................350 ft ...................350 ft
> Climb/Ceiling
> Rate of Climb ...................1,700 fpm ............2,050 fpm
> Ceiling ..............................20,500 ft ...............23,500
> ft Range
> Range [75% @ 8000'] ...........640 sm.............595 sm
> Range [55% @ 8000'] ...........770 sm ............715 sm
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

[Montblack]

("ET" wrote)
> OR just build a Sonex or Zodiac 601 that's sport pilot legal to begin
> with, or wait a bit for the RV-12.


For some reason my sights are set on a single seater.

Thanks.


Mont

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("ET" wrote)
>> OR just build a Sonex or Zodiac 601 that's sport pilot legal to begin
>> with, or wait a bit for the RV-12.
>
>
> For some reason my sights are set on a single seater.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Mont

Build a 601 and call the other seat a baggage area.

[ET]

"Montblack" > wrote in
:

> ("ET" wrote)
>> OR just build a Sonex or Zodiac 601 that's sport pilot legal to begin
>> with, or wait a bit for the RV-12.
>
>
> For some reason my sights are set on a single seater.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Mont
>

Here's another one (single seat): You'd have to scratch build most of
it, but it will still go together quicker than an RV-3 kit:
http://www.thatchercx4.com/. There is only the one flying, but a very
dedicated group of builders (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CX4/) .. I
expect by this time next year at least 10-15 flying. You can build the
CX4 WITH engine for less than 2/3 the price of the RV-3 KIT ONLY! I
almost choose the CX-4 before deciding on ths Sonex cause I just might
want to take someone else flying with me... or some camping gear etc.
(maybe one of those folding moutain bikes will fit in the right seat of
the Sonex....)

The Sonex has a bench seat (as wide as a 150) and can be configured with
a center stick. Many pilots sit in the middle when flying solo and use
the outside rudder pedels. There is nothing stopping you from
eliminating the "inside" rudder pedals and then you have a REALLY wide
cabin single seater <grin>

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Leonard Milcin Jr.]

Gig 601XL Builder skrev:
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ("ET" wrote)
>>> OR just build a Sonex or Zodiac 601 that's sport pilot legal to begin
>>> with, or wait a bit for the RV-12.
>>
>> For some reason my sights are set on a single seater.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Mont
>
> Build a 601 and call the other seat a baggage area.
>
>

And you could say you have backup yoke in your baggage area ;-)


L.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Leonard Milcin Jr." > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder skrev:
>> "Montblack" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ("ET" wrote)
>>>> OR just build a Sonex or Zodiac 601 that's sport pilot legal to begin
>>>> with, or wait a bit for the RV-12.
>>>
>>> For some reason my sights are set on a single seater.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mont
>>
>> Build a 601 and call the other seat a baggage area.
>
> And you could say you have backup yoke in your baggage area ;-)
>
>
> L.

Well you could but it would cost $400 extra. The 601 is designed with a
single center stick.