Awesome sportplane

[WingFlaps]

I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero MCR01. It looked tiny but I
was able to fit in (I'm over 6' 2") OK. It climbed out at 1500'/min
and had an airspeed ~140k in level flight. It felt so strange compared
to the C's I've flown. The stiffness of the wings/air frame was very
apparent as was the light weight (it's all CF). The stick forces were
light and I had only to think about a turn and it
would do it. It seemed very neutral in roll (up to 40 degrees) with
almost no rudder needed. Over 40 a slight overbank tendency appeared
but that may have been related to my coordination being a bit off. A
hard climb near Vx needed a lot of rudder compared to level flight. If
you get the chance I'd urge you to check it out -I'm amazed at what
100HP can achieve in a modern airframe!
I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:d4dde7ab-0042-46fd-85fb-
:

> I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero MCR01. It looked tiny but I
> was able to fit in (I'm over 6' 2") OK. It climbed out at 1500'/min
> and had an airspeed ~140k in level flight. It felt so strange compared
> to the C's I've flown. The stiffness of the wings/air frame was very
> apparent as was the light weight (it's all CF). The stick forces were
> light and I had only to think about a turn and it
> would do it. It seemed very neutral in roll (up to 40 degrees) with
> almost no rudder needed. Over 40 a slight overbank tendency appeared
> but that may have been related to my coordination being a bit off. A
> hard climb near Vx needed a lot of rudder compared to level flight. If
> you get the chance I'd urge you to check it out -I'm amazed at what
> 100HP can achieve in a modern airframe!
> I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>

That's Michael Columban's airplane, isn't it? Yes, the figures are
unbeleivable, but he does do the unbeleivable!


bertie

[Mike Isaksen]

"WingFlaps" wrote in message ...
>I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero MCR01. (snip...)
>
> I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.

What country are you flying in?

Also, nice numbers, but are wings filled with helium?

Min speed: 47 kt
Cruise speed: 159 kt
Vne: 173 kt

Climb ratio: 1750 ft/min

Max. takeoff weight: 1080 lbs
Empty weight: 573 lbs

Engine: ROTAX 912, 912 S or 914, Jabiru

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 17, 2:44*pm, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> "WingFlaps" *wrote in message ...
> >I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero *MCR01. (snip...)
>
> > I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>
>
, nice numbers, but are wings filled with helium?
>

I could not detect any balloonettes nor gas cylinder. Just some mogas
being consumed at a rather lower rate than the car I was driving that
day. It appeared to have about a 1000 nm range too which is much
better than any car I own. The numbers are so impressive you should
have a go in one to see what I mean!

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 17, 12:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:d4dde7ab-0042-46fd-85fb-
> :
>
> > I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero *MCR01. It looked tiny but I
> > was able to fit in (I'm over 6' 2") *OK. It climbed out at 1500'/min
> > and had an airspeed ~140k in level flight. It felt so strange compared
> > to the C's I've flown. The stiffness of the wings/air frame was very
> > apparent as was the light weight (it's all CF). The stick forces were
> > light and I had only to think about a turn and it
> > would do it. It seemed very neutral in roll (up to 40 degrees) with
> > almost no rudder needed. Over 40 a slight overbank tendency appeared
> > but that may have been related to my coordination being a bit off. A
> > hard climb near Vx needed a lot of rudder compared to level flight. If
> > you get the chance I'd urge you to check it out -I'm amazed at what
> > 100HP can achieve in a modern airframe!
> > I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>
> That's Michael Columban's airplane, isn't it? Yes, the figures are
> unbeleivable, but he does do the unbeleivable!
>

I saw a cri-cri on the ground and doing some aerobatics last year. It
was really hard to believe it could fly at all, let alone so well!
Mind, you I would not have been able to get in it (and even if I could
I don't know that I would want to).

Cheers

[Mike Isaksen]

....
"WingFlaps" wrote in message ...
> I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero MCR01. (snip...)
>
> The numbers are so impressive you should have a go in one
> to see what I mean!

I would love to but you did not say which airport you flew it out of.

[AJ]

Here's a vid of the MCR01 in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If-uWAGkeYI

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 17, 7:44*pm, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> ...
>
> "WingFlaps" *wrote in message ...
> > *I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero MCR01. (snip...)
>
> > *The numbers are so impressive you should have a go in one
> > *to see what I mean!
>
> I would love to but you did not say which airport you flew it out of.

I don't know where you can fly it in the USA.
There are world wide distributors, but maybe none in the USA... There
it would have to be built as a kit/experimental I think. Check out:

http://www.DynAero.com.au/
http://www.dynaero.com/lien/indexuk.htm

Cheers

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 17, 7:48*pm, AJ > wrote:
> Here's a vid of the MCR01 in action:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If-uWAGkeYI

Here it is in english:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SehPSnpfZ8&feature=related

Cheers

[Phil J]

On Feb 16, 7:44*pm, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> "WingFlaps" *wrote in message ...
> >I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero *MCR01. (snip...)
>
> > I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>
> What country are you flying in?
>
> Also, nice numbers, but are wings filled with helium?
>
> Min speed: * * *47 kt
> Cruise speed: *159 kt
> Vne: * * * * * * 173 kt
>
> Climb ratio: 1750 ft/min
>
> Max. takeoff weight: *1080 lbs
> Empty weight: * * * * *573 lbs
>
> Engine: ROTAX 912, 912 S or 914, Jabiru

Besides the _very_ light weight and very slippery design, the airplane
uses a variable-pitch prop and double-slotted flaps to achieve those
numbers. That is one sexy little airplane.

Phil

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 18, 6:31*am, Phil J > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:44*pm, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "WingFlaps" *wrote in message ...
> > >I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero *MCR01. (snip...)
>
> > > I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>
> > What country are you flying in?
>
> > Also, nice numbers, but are wings filled with helium?
>
> > Min speed: * * *47 kt
> > Cruise speed: *159 kt
> > Vne: * * * * * * 173 kt
>
> > Climb ratio: 1750 ft/min
>
> > Max. takeoff weight: *1080 lbs
> > Empty weight: * * * * *573 lbs
>
> > Engine: ROTAX 912, 912 S or 914, Jabiru
>
> Besides the _very_ light weight and very slippery design, the airplane
> uses a variable-pitch prop and double-slotted flaps to achieve those
> numbers. *That is one sexy little airplane.
>
Yes, it makes a mockery of the US sport plane limitations.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:89ce5c71-3a34-4764-a433-
:

> On Feb 17, 12:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote in news:d4dde7ab-0042-46fd-85fb-
>> :
>>
>> > I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero *MCR01. It looked tiny but I
>> > was able to fit in (I'm over 6' 2") *OK. It climbed out at 1500'/min
>> > and had an airspeed ~140k in level flight. It felt so strange compared
>> > to the C's I've flown. The stiffness of the wings/air frame was very
>> > apparent as was the light weight (it's all CF). The stick forces were
>> > light and I had only to think about a turn and it
>> > would do it. It seemed very neutral in roll (up to 40 degrees) with
>> > almost no rudder needed. Over 40 a slight overbank tendency appeared
>> > but that may have been related to my coordination being a bit off. A
>> > hard climb near Vx needed a lot of rudder compared to level flight. If
>> > you get the chance I'd urge you to check it out -I'm amazed at what
>> > 100HP can achieve in a modern airframe!
>> > I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>>
>> That's Michael Columban's airplane, isn't it? Yes, the figures are
>> unbeleivable, but he does do the unbeleivable!
>>
>
> I saw a cri-cri on the ground and doing some aerobatics last year. It
> was really hard to believe it could fly at all, let alone so well!
> Mind, you I would not have been able to get in it (and even if I could
> I don't know that I would want to).
>

I'd love to fly one. A set of drawings just changed hands on ebay last week
for 1600 bucks!

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 18, 9:52*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote in news:89ce5c71-3a34-4764-a433-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 12:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote in news:d4dde7ab-0042-46fd-85fb-
> >> :
>
> >> > I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero *MCR01. It looked tiny but I
> >> > was able to fit in (I'm over 6' 2") *OK. It climbed out at 1500'/min
> >> > and had an airspeed ~140k in level flight. It felt so strange compared
> >> > to the C's I've flown. The stiffness of the wings/air frame was very
> >> > apparent as was the light weight (it's all CF). The stick forces were
> >> > light and I had only to think about a turn and it
> >> > would do it. It seemed very neutral in roll (up to 40 degrees) with
> >> > almost no rudder needed. Over 40 a slight overbank tendency appeared
> >> > but that may have been related to my coordination being a bit off. A
> >> > hard climb near Vx needed a lot of rudder compared to level flight. If
> >> > you get the chance I'd urge you to check it out -I'm amazed at what
> >> > 100HP can achieve in a modern airframe!
> >> > I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>
> >> That's Michael Columban's airplane, isn't it? Yes, the figures are
> >> unbeleivable, but he does do the unbeleivable!
>
> > I saw a cri-cri on the ground and doing some aerobatics last year. It
> > was really hard to believe it could fly at all, let alone so well!
> > Mind, you I would not have been able to get in it (and even if I could
> > I don't know that I would want to).
>
> I'd love to fly one. A set of drawings just changed hands on ebay last week
> for 1600 bucks!
>
I don't think you should start drooling over a new plane 'til you
finish the old one. Mrs. Bunyip won't tolerate it. But if you want to
fly one come visit me.

Cheers

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 17, 5:07*pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 9:52*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > WingFlaps > wrote in news:89ce5c71-3a34-4764-a433-
> > :
>
> > > On Feb 17, 12:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> WingFlaps > wrote in news:d4dde7ab-0042-46fd-85fb-
> > >> :
>
> > >> > I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero *MCR01. It looked tiny but I
> > >> > was able to fit in (I'm over 6' 2") *OK. It climbed out at 1500'/min
> > >> > and had an airspeed ~140k in level flight. It felt so strange compared
> > >> > to the C's I've flown. The stiffness of the wings/air frame was very
> > >> > apparent as was the light weight (it's all CF). The stick forces were
> > >> > light and I had only to think about a turn and it
> > >> > would do it. It seemed very neutral in roll (up to 40 degrees) with
> > >> > almost no rudder needed. Over 40 a slight overbank tendency appeared
> > >> > but that may have been related to my coordination being a bit off. A
> > >> > hard climb near Vx needed a lot of rudder compared to level flight. If
> > >> > you get the chance I'd urge you to check it out -I'm amazed at what
> > >> > 100HP can achieve in a modern airframe!
> > >> > I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>
> > >> That's Michael Columban's airplane, isn't it? Yes, the figures are
> > >> unbeleivable, but he does do the unbeleivable!
>
> > > I saw a cri-cri on the ground and doing some aerobatics last year. It
> > > was really hard to believe it could fly at all, let alone so well!
> > > Mind, you I would not have been able to get in it (and even if I could
> > > I don't know that I would want to).
>
> > I'd love to fly one. A set of drawings just changed hands on ebay last week
> > for 1600 bucks!
>
> I don't think you should start drooling over a new plane 'til you
> finish the old one. Mrs. Bunyip won't tolerate it. But if you want to
> fly one come visit me.
>
> Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Shweeeeeeet! Where are you WingFlaps? Is the plane yours, or is it
one that you have access to?

Wil

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 18, 11:58*am, William Hung > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:07*pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 9:52*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > WingFlaps > wrote in news:89ce5c71-3a34-4764-a433-
> > > :
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 12:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > > >> WingFlaps > wrote in news:d4dde7ab-0042-46fd-85fb-
> > > >> :
>
> > > >> > I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero *MCR01. It looked tiny but I
> > > >> > was able to fit in (I'm over 6' 2") *OK. It climbed out at 1500'/min
> > > >> > and had an airspeed ~140k in level flight. It felt so strange compared
> > > >> > to the C's I've flown. The stiffness of the wings/air frame was very
> > > >> > apparent as was the light weight (it's all CF). The stick forces were
> > > >> > light and I had only to think about a turn and it
> > > >> > would do it. It seemed very neutral in roll (up to 40 degrees) with
> > > >> > almost no rudder needed. Over 40 a slight overbank tendency appeared
> > > >> > but that may have been related to my coordination being a bit off.. A
> > > >> > hard climb near Vx needed a lot of rudder compared to level flight. If
> > > >> > you get the chance I'd urge you to check it out -I'm amazed at what
> > > >> > 100HP can achieve in a modern airframe!
> > > >> > I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>
> > > >> That's Michael Columban's airplane, isn't it? Yes, the figures are
> > > >> unbeleivable, but he does do the unbeleivable!
>
> > > > I saw a cri-cri on the ground and doing some aerobatics last year. It
> > > > was really hard to believe it could fly at all, let alone so well!
> > > > Mind, you I would not have been able to get in it (and even if I could
> > > > I don't know that I would want to).
>
> > > I'd love to fly one. A set of drawings just changed hands on ebay last week
> > > for 1600 bucks!
>
> > I don't think you should start drooling over a new plane 'til you
> > finish the old one. Mrs. Bunyip won't tolerate it. But if you want to
> > fly one come visit me.
>
> > Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Shweeeeeeet! *Where are you WingFlaps? *Is the plane yours, or is it
> one that you have access to?
>
I have access to it. You will need to contact me off group for other
details.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 18, 9:52*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> news:89ce5c71-3a34-4764-a433-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 17, 12:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> >> news:d4dde7ab-0042-46fd-85fb-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero *MCR01. It looked tiny
>> >> > but
> I
>> >> > was able to fit in (I'm over 6' 2") *OK. It climbed out at
>> >> > 1500'/mi
> n
>> >> > and had an airspeed ~140k in level flight. It felt so strange
>> >> > compare
> d
>> >> > to the C's I've flown. The stiffness of the wings/air frame was
>> >> > very apparent as was the light weight (it's all CF). The stick
>> >> > forces were
>
>> >> > light and I had only to think about a turn and it
>> >> > would do it. It seemed very neutral in roll (up to 40 degrees)
>> >> > with almost no rudder needed. Over 40 a slight overbank tendency
>> >> > appeared but that may have been related to my coordination being
>> >> > a bit off. A hard climb near Vx needed a lot of rudder compared
>> >> > to level flight. I
> f
>> >> > you get the chance I'd urge you to check it out -I'm amazed at
>> >> > what 100HP can achieve in a modern airframe!
>> >> > I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>>
>> >> That's Michael Columban's airplane, isn't it? Yes, the figures are
>> >> unbeleivable, but he does do the unbeleivable!
>>
>> > I saw a cri-cri on the ground and doing some aerobatics last year.
>> > It was really hard to believe it could fly at all, let alone so
>> > well! Mind, you I would not have been able to get in it (and even
>> > if I could I don't know that I would want to).
>>
>> I'd love to fly one. A set of drawings just changed hands on ebay
>> last wee
> k
>> for 1600 bucks!
>>
> I don't think you should start drooling over a new plane 'til you
> finish the old one. Mrs. Bunyip won't tolerate it. But if you want to
> fly one come visit me.


You have a Cri Cri? I'm there.

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 18, 3:23*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 9:52*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote in
> >> news:89ce5c71-3a34-4764-a433-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Feb 17, 12:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> WingFlaps > wrote in
> >> >> news:d4dde7ab-0042-46fd-85fb-
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero *MCR01. It looked tiny
> >> >> > but
> > *I
> >> >> > was able to fit in (I'm over 6' 2") *OK. It climbed out at
> >> >> > 1500'/mi
> > n
> >> >> > and had an airspeed ~140k in level flight. It felt so strange
> >> >> > compare
> > d
> >> >> > to the C's I've flown. The stiffness of the wings/air frame was
> >> >> > very apparent as was the light weight (it's all CF). The stick
> >> >> > forces were
>
> >> >> > light and I had only to think about a turn and it
> >> >> > would do it. It seemed very neutral in roll (up to 40 degrees)
> >> >> > with almost no rudder needed. Over 40 a slight overbank tendency
> >> >> > appeared but that may have been related to my coordination being
> >> >> > a bit off. A hard climb near Vx needed a lot of rudder compared
> >> >> > to level flight. I
> > f
> >> >> > you get the chance I'd urge you to check it out -I'm amazed at
> >> >> > what 100HP can achieve in a modern airframe!
> >> >> > I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>
> >> >> That's Michael Columban's airplane, isn't it? Yes, the figures are
> >> >> unbeleivable, but he does do the unbeleivable!
>
> >> > I saw a cri-cri on the ground and doing some aerobatics last year.
> >> > It was really hard to believe it could fly at all, let alone so
> >> > well! Mind, you I would not have been able to get in it (and even
> >> > if I could I don't know that I would want to).
>
> >> I'd love to fly one. A set of drawings just changed hands on ebay
> >> last wee
> > k
> >> for 1600 bucks!
>
> > I don't think you should start drooling over a new plane 'til you
> > finish the old one. Mrs. Bunyip won't tolerate it. But if you want to
> > fly one come visit me.
>
> You have a Cri Cri? I'm there.
>
No, I don't have one. I know where one is tho. Single seat plane,
Doubt the owner would let you loose but you never know.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 18, 3:23*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:47265d36-7bc4-4657-b552-7e2e5
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 18, 9:52*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> >> news:89ce5c71-3a34-4764-a433-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Feb 17, 12:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> >> >> news:d4dde7ab-0042-46fd-85fb-
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > I recently had a chance to try a Dynaero *MCR01. It looked
>> >> >> > tiny but
>> > *I
>> >> >> > was able to fit in (I'm over 6' 2") *OK. It climbed out at
>> >> >> > 1500'/mi
>> > n
>> >> >> > and had an airspeed ~140k in level flight. It felt so strange
>> >> >> > compare
>> > d
>> >> >> > to the C's I've flown. The stiffness of the wings/air frame
>> >> >> > was very apparent as was the light weight (it's all CF). The
>> >> >> > stick forces were
>>
>> >> >> > light and I had only to think about a turn and it
>> >> >> > would do it. It seemed very neutral in roll (up to 40
>> >> >> > degrees) with almost no rudder needed. Over 40 a slight
>> >> >> > overbank tendency appeared but that may have been related to
>> >> >> > my coordination being a bit off. A hard climb near Vx needed
>> >> >> > a lot of rudder compared to level flight. I
>> > f
>> >> >> > you get the chance I'd urge you to check it out -I'm amazed
>> >> >> > at what 100HP can achieve in a modern airframe!
>> >> >> > I'd like to see what the 4 seat version can do too.
>>
>> >> >> That's Michael Columban's airplane, isn't it? Yes, the figures
>> >> >> are unbeleivable, but he does do the unbeleivable!
>>
>> >> > I saw a cri-cri on the ground and doing some aerobatics last
>> >> > year. It was really hard to believe it could fly at all, let
>> >> > alone so well! Mind, you I would not have been able to get in it
>> >> > (and even if I could I don't know that I would want to).
>>
>> >> I'd love to fly one. A set of drawings just changed hands on ebay
>> >> last wee
>> > k
>> >> for 1600 bucks!
>>
>> > I don't think you should start drooling over a new plane 'til you
>> > finish the old one. Mrs. Bunyip won't tolerate it. But if you want
>> > to fly one come visit me.
>>
>> You have a Cri Cri? I'm there.
>>
> No, I don't have one. I know where one is tho. Single seat plane,
> Doubt the owner would let you loose but you never know.
>

Well, I wouldn't if it were mine!

Nifty machine.. Someone put a pair of model airplane jets on one..///

Bertie
>

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 18, 6:31 am, Phil J > wrote:

>> Besides the _very_ light weight and very slippery design, the airplane
>> uses a variable-pitch prop and double-slotted flaps to achieve those
>> numbers. That is one sexy little airplane.
>>
> Yes, it makes a mockery of the US sport plane limitations.
>
> Cheers

Not a mockery it just doesn't qualify under the LSA rules.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 19, 3:36*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 6:31 am, Phil J > wrote:
> >> Besides the _very_ light weight and very slippery design, the airplane
> >> uses a variable-pitch prop and double-slotted flaps to achieve those
> >> numbers. *That is one sexy little airplane.
>
> > Yes, it makes a mockery of the US sport plane limitations.
>
>
> Not a mockery it just doesn't qualify under the LSA rules.

Then may I suggest those rules are too restrictive? Why have an upper
speed limit when you are already limited on power? The power, Vso and
MAUW alone should be enough. IMHO if better design can give both the
desired low stall speed and high speed perf. it should be encouraged,
not prevented by restrictive legislation. I can't help wonder if one
purpose of that legislation is to protect established, but inferior,
designs.

Cheers

[Morgans[_2_]]

"WingFlaps" > wrote

Then may I suggest those rules are too restrictive? Why have an upper
speed limit when you are already limited on power? The power, Vso and
MAUW alone should be enough. IMHO if better design can give both the
desired low stall speed and high speed perf. it should be encouraged,
not prevented by restrictive legislation. I can't help wonder if one
purpose of that legislation is to protect established, but inferior,
designs.

Response:
I agree that the speed limit is overly restrictive, but it was put there for
a purpose.

It puts a limit on the amount of kinetic energy available. That was the
intent, when they made the rule.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:


> I agree that the speed limit is overly restrictive, but it was put
> there for a purpose.
>
> It puts a limit on the amount of kinetic energy available. That was
> the intent, when they made the rule.



Well, I agree wth the reason, but not neccesarily that it's not a good
reason. Remember, these guys get to pick up the mess after accidents and
they know full well why they happen. A relatively inexperienced pilot in a
clean, relatively high performance airplane is not a good thing. The
airplane isavailable and training and certification are available to fly
it, so I don't see a problem
Lines have to be drawn somewhere!


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 19, 10:33*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote
>
> Then may I suggest those rules are too restrictive? Why have an upper
> speed limit when you are already limited on power? The power, Vso and
> MAUW alone should be enough. IMHO if better design can give both the
> desired low stall speed and high speed perf. it should be encouraged,
> not prevented by restrictive legislation. I can't help wonder if one
> purpose of that legislation is to protect established, but inferior,
> designs.
>
> Response:
> I agree that the speed limit is overly restrictive, but it was put there for
> a purpose.
>
> It puts a limit on the amount of kinetic energy available. *That was the
> intent, when they made the rule.
> --

I'm sure you are right, but I'd like to suggest the energy that kills
in light aircraft mostly comes from gravity. In other words even 70k
microlights kill if drilled in. In NZ, the new sport plane cat. will
not be limted in complexity, just power and MAUW (I think). You have
to be type certified so it's not like you can just jump into any old
sport plane so a higher speed sport plane is not really going to be an
automatic killer is it? Does the US sport plane pilot not require type
certification?

Cheers

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-02-19, WingFlaps > wrote:
> Does the US sport plane pilot not require type certification?

In the US, no aircraft with a max takeoff weight under 12,500 pounds
requires a type rating for any pilot unless it has a turbojet (or maybe a
turbofan) engine. Insurance companies usually insist on owner pilots having
between 5 and 10 hours in type before they'll insure the aircraft for solo
operation, but that's not a regulatory requirement.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:36 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 6:31 am, Phil J > wrote:
>>>> Besides the _very_ light weight and very slippery design, the airplane
>>>> uses a variable-pitch prop and double-slotted flaps to achieve those
>>>> numbers. That is one sexy little airplane.
>>> Yes, it makes a mockery of the US sport plane limitations.
>>
>> Not a mockery it just doesn't qualify under the LSA rules.
>
> Then may I suggest those rules are too restrictive? Why have an upper
> speed limit when you are already limited on power? The power, Vso and
> MAUW alone should be enough. IMHO if better design can give both the
> desired low stall speed and high speed perf. it should be encouraged,
> not prevented by restrictive legislation. I can't help wonder if one
> purpose of that legislation is to protect established, but inferior,
> designs.
>
> Cheers
>
>
>

I didn't even look at the cruise speed. Assuming the variable-pitch prop
is variable in flight that is what disqualifies it.

[Ron Wanttaja]

> >> Not a mockery it just doesn't qualify under the LSA rules.
> >
> > Then may I suggest those rules are too restrictive? Why have an upper
> > speed limit when you are already limited on power?

There's no limit on power; merely a limit on maximum cruise speed. The FAA
views LSA as simple, low performance aircraft intended for recreation. "The
FAA believes that a maximum speed limit is appropriate for aircraft designed for
operation by persons with the minimum training and experience of a sport pilot."

> > I can't help wonder if one purpose of that legislation is to protect
> > established, but inferior, designs.

Name one "established" ready-to-fly aircraft, built in the USA, that met the
current LSA standards prior to their implementation. Or are you claiming that
Cessna lobbied to protect the resale value of the Cessna 120?

Ron Wanttaja

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 20, 3:13*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:

>
> I didn't even look at the cruise speed. Assuming the variable-pitch prop
> is variable in flight that is what disqualifies it.

Maybe you can revisit this restriction in the interests of reducing
carbon emissions?

:-)

Cheers

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:13 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>
>> I didn't even look at the cruise speed. Assuming the variable-pitch prop
>> is variable in flight that is what disqualifies it.
>
> Maybe you can revisit this restriction in the interests of reducing
> carbon emissions?
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers
>

Won't happen in LSA. The entire point is light aircraft that fly and
more importantly land with minimum passengers and the simplest possible
system to fly.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 3:13 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't even look at the cruise speed. Assuming the variable-pitch prop
>>> is variable in flight that is what disqualifies it.
>>
>> Maybe you can revisit this restriction in the interests of reducing
>> carbon emissions?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
> Won't happen in LSA. The entire point is light aircraft that fly and
> more importantly land with minimum passengers and the simplest possible
> system to fly.

Insert the word "slow" between land and with.

[Phil J]

On Feb 19, 1:37*pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 3:13 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > wrote:
>
> >> I didn't even look at the cruise speed. Assuming the variable-pitch prop
> >> is variable in flight that is what disqualifies it.
>
> > Maybe you can revisit this restriction in the interests of reducing
> > carbon emissions?
>
> > :-)
>
> > Cheers
>
> Won't happen in LSA. The entire point is light aircraft that fly and
> more importantly land with minimum passengers and the simplest possible
> system to fly.

I agree with most of the restrictions of the LSA rule. I just wish
they had upped the weight limit a little so the Cessna 150 and similar
airplanes had been included. Ironically, from what I've heard those
airplanes are easier to fly and land at least partly because they are
heavier. I've read a number of accounts of pilots transitioning to
Light Sport aircraft who are surprised that the LSAs are actually more
demanding than the non-LSAs to which they are accustomed, especially
in landing.

Phil

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-02-20, Phil J > wrote:
> I agree with most of the restrictions of the LSA rule. I just wish
> they had upped the weight limit a little so the Cessna 150 and similar
> airplanes had been included. Ironically, from what I've heard those
> airplanes are easier to fly and land at least partly because they are
> heavier. I've read a number of accounts of pilots transitioning to
> Light Sport aircraft who are surprised that the LSAs are actually more
> demanding than the non-LSAs to which they are accustomed, especially
> in landing.

I'll find this out firsthand next week: I've got 5 hours scheduled in a
Zodiac at Dragonfly Aviation at STS.

I do agree that it would have been nice if they'd set the weight limit to
include the 150/152 and such; I'd have already bought my roommate's dad's
150 if it had.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Phil J]

On Feb 19, 8:12*pm, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> On 2008-02-20, Phil J > wrote:
>
> > I agree with most of the restrictions of the LSA rule. *I just wish
> > they had upped the weight limit a little so the Cessna 150 and similar
> > airplanes had been included. *Ironically, from what I've heard those
> > airplanes are easier to fly and land at least partly because they are
> > heavier. *I've read a number of accounts of pilots transitioning to
> > Light Sport aircraft who are surprised that the LSAs are actually more
> > demanding than the non-LSAs to which they are accustomed, especially
> > in landing.
>
> I'll find this out firsthand next week: I've got 5 hours scheduled in a
> Zodiac at Dragonfly Aviation at STS.
>
> I do agree that it would have been nice if they'd set the weight limit to
> include the 150/152 and such; I'd have already bought my roommate's dad's
> 150 if it had.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)
> Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

I'll be curious to hear what you think of it. I haven't flown
anything other than a Flight Design CT so far.

Phil