Do they know something we don't

[Rick Pellicciotti]

regarding the new Sport Pilot and Sport Plane rule? Here's why I ask:

The news from Airventure is that the rule has left the FAA and is on the way
to DOT. Quoting from the Airventure website:
"Major Step Forward for Sport Pilot Rule Announced at EAA AirVenture
July 31, 2003 - The new sport pilot and light-sport aircraft (SP/LSA)
categories passed a major milestone today when FAA Administrator Marion
Blakey announced at the Experimental Aircraft Association's (EAA) annual EAA
AirVenture fly-in that the FAA had completed work on the final rule. The
rulemaking package has now been forwarded to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) for review."

Also in the news from Airventure, two well-known manufacturers have
announced they will enter into the Sport Plane market, namely, Mooney and
Maule.

Mooney will be importing the TOXO from Spain and assembling it here.

Maule showed a new airplane targeted for the Light Sport Aircraft market.

Here's the deal though. Neither one of these airplanes meets the rule as we
know it. The TOXO has too high a landing speed and too high of a cruise
speed. The Maule, weighs 1000 pounds empty which means the useful load will
only be 232 pounds. Not very useful.

I'm just wondering if these manufacturers know something we don't about the
final rule or on the other hand, are they building airplanes to a rule that
they don't understand?

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.belleairetours.com

[BD5ER]

>I'm just wondering if these manufacturers know something we don't about the
>final rule or on the other hand, are they building airplanes to a rule that
>they don't understand?

Maybe after watching all the "fat" ultralights fly around vertually unmolested
they think they can bend the new rules as well?

I'd almost bet that Rotax will introduce a derated 912, somewhere around 75-80
Hp, and call it something like a 912LS just for the new LSA's. And one wonders
how long before the owners discover that it's probably pretty easy and
inexpensive to convert them back to "normal" 912's.

"course that wouldn't be legal, at least not any more than 350lb 103's.........

[Kevin McCue]

The 912 is 80 hp. The 912S is 100 hp.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Morgans]

"BD5ER" > wrote in message
...
> >I'm just wondering if these manufacturers know something we don't about
the
> >final rule or on the other hand, are they building airplanes to a rule
that
> >they don't understand?
>
> Maybe after watching all the "fat" ultralights fly around vertually
unmolested
> they think they can bend the new rules as well?
>
> I'd almost bet that Rotax will introduce a derated 912, somewhere around
75-80
> Hp, and call it something like a 912LS just for the new LSA's. And one
wonders
> how long before the owners discover that it's probably pretty easy and
> inexpensive to convert them back to "normal" 912's.
>
> "course that wouldn't be legal, at least not any more than 350lb
103's.........
>
It doesn't matter what the HP is rated at. In the last version we saw, the
new rule only cared how fast it would go, level at WOT.
--

---Jim in NC---

[Rich S.]

"Morgans" <post/the/group.here.net> wrote in message
...
>
> It doesn't matter what the HP is rated at. In the last version we saw,
the
> new rule only cared how fast it would go, level at WOT.

How would the rule apply to Zeppelins?

Rich "Gross weight or mass?" S.

[BD5ER]

>It doesn't matter what the HP is rated at. In the last version we saw, the
>new rule only cared how fast it would go, level at WOT.

Last one I saw said continuos rated power not maximum? Maximum power is the
determining factor for a Part 103 UL.

From my copy of the NPRM:
============
A light-sport aircraft would have a maximum speed in level flight with maximum
continuous power (VH) of 115 knots. This limits the commanded kinetic energy of
an aircraft
============
Has this been revised?
I also mis quoted the Rotax Hp, but the idea is the same.

[Morgans]

"BD5ER" > wrote in message
...
> >It doesn't matter what the HP is rated at. In the last version we saw,
the
> >new rule only cared how fast it would go, level at WOT.
>
> Last one I saw said continuos rated power not maximum? Maximum power is
the
> determining factor for a Part 103 UL.
>
> From my copy of the NPRM:
> ============
> A light-sport aircraft would have a maximum speed in level flight with
maximum
> continuous power (VH) of 115 knots. This limits the commanded kinetic
energy of
> an aircraft
> ============
> Has this been revised?
> I also mis quoted the Rotax Hp, but the idea is the same.

I saw something that said you could not place something likie a RPM
restriction, or anything else that could be easily overcome by a pilot.
Therefore, it sounds to me like WOT = Max Cont Power.
--
---Jim in NC---

[BD5ER]

>I saw something that said you could not place something likie a RPM
>restriction, or anything else that could be easily overcome by a pilot.
>Therefore, it sounds to me like WOT = Max Cont Power.

I would have expected the FAA to follow the precedent established with 103 and
do it this way, but I hope they don't. A little extra power available for
takeoff and other "emergencies" would be nice.

We'll just all have to wait until the rule is final to see what it says, and
then a few months to see how the words are going to be interoperated in various
parts of the country.......

[patriot]

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/spinney_testimony_060402.htm

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxes/IncomeTaxChart.html

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/saferamerica11703.pdf

[Morgans]

>
> that is an interesting number they picked.
> my W8 Tailwind cruises at 114knots at 2500rpm on the O-200.
> sounds like useful little aeroplanes will come out of the LSA.
> Stealth Pilot

How about the empty weight, and useful load at 1232 lbs. gross? Does it
work in all of the other figures like stall dirty and clean?
--
---Jim in NC---

[John Thompson]

What bugs me is that they said any further public comment on the
proposal will have no effect, but they can't tell use what the final
rule (as it left FAA) says? What a crock!

IMHO, the keystone to the whole proposal is the "drivers license
medical". Without that, the whole thing will be worse than the
"recreational pilot" rating.

C'mon, what's the final say?? huh? huh?

John

[BD5ER]

>What bugs me is that they said any further public comment on the
>proposal will have no effect, but they can't tell use what the final
>rule (as it left FAA) says? What a crock!


Maybe they are actually doing us a favor, slim chance I know, but keeping the
details unpublished. After all there are some with influence, like Her
Magistri Dianne Feinstein , that are no friends of the "hobby pilots". It's a
lot harder to get an existing rule changed than it is to stop it before it's a
done deal.

Remember, it's always easier to get forgiveness than permission.

That said, I'd like to know..........