Sport Pilot Airplanes - Homebuilt?

[Rich S.]

Anybody else notice the complete absence of the words "Homebuilt" in the
latest article about Sport Pilot on the EAA website
http://www.airventure.org/2003/friaug1/sport_pilot.html.

I have to wonder if the only "approved" airplanes will be commercially
manufactured ones.

Rich S.

[Edwin Johnson]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:47:07 -0700, Rich S. > wrote:
>Anybody else notice the complete absence of the words "Homebuilt" in the
>latest article about Sport Pilot on the EAA website
>http://www.airventure.org/2003/friaug1/sport_pilot.html.
>
>I have to wonder if the only "approved" airplanes will be commercially
>manufactured ones.

No, there are two distinct categories, one being Experimental Light and the
other, which I can't remember the name from the seminar at OSH, are the
manufactured ones. The Experimental Light , ala homebuilt, do _not_ have to
abide by the now 51% rule as for the present category, Experimental, which
will also remain in effect and receive a standard Airworthiness Certificate.

The Experimental Light nor the manufactured ones receive an Airworthiness
Cert, but rather a statement of compliance. To further complicate matters,
there are two new categories of maintenance requirements and authorizations
for these light airplanes.

I'm trying to remember these points from the seminar at OSH, so terms aren't
coming to mind but it is all published now. I'm sure there are others on the
group who can readily give you all of the details.

Their thinking, quite altruistic, was to try and make general aviation
afordable for more people and entice them into the field. With the costs of
new planes, the pilot pool will soon dimish. This driver's license medical
is just an adjunct to the whole concept and program. At least this was my
take from hearing the FAA presentation at OSH, and now I realize just how
complicated this whole step is for the FAA.

We don't really know from her statements, but it appears Blakely approved
all that was previously published. Who knows what will actually become law
when the DOT and others finish with it.

....Edwin


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Edwin Johnson ....... ~
~ http://www.shreve.net/~elj ~
~ ~
~ "Once you have flown, you will walk the ~
~ earth with your eyes turned skyward, ~
~ for there you have been, there you long ~
~ to return." -- da Vinci ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Rich S.]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> (snip)
> How will the FAA determine if a particular homebuilt fits the
requirements?
> If I build an RV-3 and license it as a "Fly Baby" (perfectly legal...I can
> name it whatever I want) with a "Wanttaja C-85 engine" (looking
> suspiciously like an O-320 with a new data plate...again, perfectly
legal),
> and put in the logbook that it stalls at 39 knots (it's a single-seat
> airplane....who can contradict me?) will I be able to fly it without a
> medical?

We can probably assume they will not have the budget to inspect each and
every homebuilt, both existing and yet to be built for compliance. They
could easily write a provision requiring "certification of compliance" by a
DAR, I suppose. Or they could simply write you up after the crash for flying
a non-complying aircraft. I'll guess door #2.

Rich S.

[Gilan]

The approved planes will be the SLSA and ELSA
http://www.flyinggators.com/seminar/presentation.htm

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

Private Pilot in 10 days
http://www.perfectplanes.com

"Rich S." .
> I have to wonder if the only "approved" airplanes will be commercially
> manufactured ones.

[James M. Knox]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:

> How will the FAA determine if a particular homebuilt fits the
> requirements? If I build an RV-3 and license it as a "Fly Baby"
> (perfectly legal...I can name it whatever I want) with a "Wanttaja
> C-85 engine" (looking suspiciously like an O-320 with a new data
> plate...again, perfectly legal), and put in the logbook that it stalls
> at 39 knots (it's a single-seat airplane....who can contradict me?)
> will I be able to fly it without a medical?

Good scenario, and one *I* would be happy to approve. However, part of
the two things I believe you left out are weight and max cruise speed, both
of which I believe you would exceed by a wide margin.

Personally, I think they should have specified the stall speed at whatever
they wanted, and left the cruise speed out. That would have left plenty of
room for innovation. But, for shame, they didn't ask me! [And apparently
ignored my comments when I offered them anyway. <G>]

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Roger Halstead]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:47:07 -0700, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>Anybody else notice the complete absence of the words "Homebuilt" in the
>latest article about Sport Pilot on the EAA website
>http://www.airventure.org/2003/friaug1/sport_pilot.html.
>
>I have to wonder if the only "approved" airplanes will be commercially
>manufactured ones.

As I recall I recently read in one of the aviation mags that *only*
factory built airplanes would qualify. Even if you had a kit version
of a manufactured airplane it wouldn't qualify.

The problem is I don't remember which mag other than it wasn't Sport
Aviation. "I think" it may have been either the AOPA Journal, or
Flying and "I think" it was within the last three months.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>Rich S.
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:03:00 -0500, "James M. Knox" >
wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:
>> How will the FAA determine if a particular homebuilt fits the
>> requirements? If I build an RV-3 and license it as a "Fly Baby"
>> (perfectly legal...I can name it whatever I want) with a "Wanttaja
>> C-85 engine" (looking suspiciously like an O-320 with a new data
>> plate...again, perfectly legal), and put in the logbook that it stalls
>> at 39 knots (it's a single-seat airplane....who can contradict me?)
>> will I be able to fly it without a medical?
>
>Good scenario, and one *I* would be happy to approve. However, part of
>the two things I believe you left out are weight and max cruise speed, both
>of which I believe you would exceed by a wide margin.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:03:00 -0500, "James M. Knox" >
wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:
>
>> How will the FAA determine if a particular homebuilt fits the
>> requirements? If I build an RV-3 and license it as a "Fly Baby"
>> (perfectly legal...I can name it whatever I want) with a "Wanttaja
>> C-85 engine" (looking suspiciously like an O-320 with a new data
>> plate...again, perfectly legal), and put in the logbook that it stalls
>> at 39 knots (it's a single-seat airplane....who can contradict me?)
>> will I be able to fly it without a medical?
>
>Good scenario, and one *I* would be happy to approve. However, part of
>the two things I believe you left out are weight and max cruise speed, both
>of which I believe you would exceed by a wide margin.

Empty weight for an RV-3 is about 800 pounds...quite reasonable to assume
the gross weight is less than 1232 lbs.

As far as max cruise...heck, it's a single-seat airplane. How are they
going to *prove* it exceeds the limit? Who ever heard of a "Fly Baby" that
can exceed 100 MPH? :-)

Ron "Man, we got 50 MPH tailwinds from all direction up there!" Wanttaja

[Jimmy Galvin]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 16:47:07 -0700, "Rich S."
> > wrote:
>
> >Anybody else notice the complete absence of the words "Homebuilt" in the
> >latest article about Sport Pilot on the EAA website
> >http://www.airventure.org/2003/friaug1/sport_pilot.html.
> >
> >I have to wonder if the only "approved" airplanes will be commercially
> >manufactured ones.
>
> As I recall I recently read in one of the aviation mags that *only*
> factory built airplanes would qualify. Even if you had a kit version
> of a manufactured airplane it wouldn't qualify.
>
> The problem is I don't remember which mag other than it wasn't Sport
> Aviation. "I think" it may have been either the AOPA Journal, or
> Flying and "I think" it was within the last three months.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
> >
> >Rich S.
> >
>
Subcommittee Chairman Tom Peghiny added, "All of us on the ASTM F-37.20
airplane subcommittee are pleased with the completion of the Standard
Practice for Quality Assurance in the Manufacture of Light-Sport Airplanes.
This is an important first step. The industry working with the FAA has shown
that the ASTM process works for us and produces appropriate standards
quickly." Peghiny is president of Flightstar Aircraft.
This was cut and pasted off the EAA web site. I know Tom and believe me he
is not going to set a standard that will rule out his own kit planes.