Lycoming 320 and EAA Light Sport Aircraft ?

[Dave Jackson]

The use of the Lycoming 320 engine is at or above the top end of the
proposed EAA Light Sport Aircraft category (1,232 lbs max. GW). I assume
that the EAA SportPilot/Light Sport Aircraft will be successful, and that it
will cause a decrease in the production of slightly heavier aircraft.

The question is; Will the production of EAA Light Sport Aircraft decrease or
increase the production of Lycoming 320 engines?

The question relates to 'should I design a craft based on using the Lycoming
O-320-B3C

Thanks.

Dave J. http://www.UniCopter.com

[Morgans]

"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:_GWjb.115417$6C4.87182@pd7tw1no...
> The use of the Lycoming 320 engine is at or above the top end of the
> proposed EAA Light Sport Aircraft category (1,232 lbs max. GW). I assume
> that the EAA SportPilot/Light Sport Aircraft will be successful, and that
it
> will cause a decrease in the production of slightly heavier aircraft.
>
> The question is; Will the production of EAA Light Sport Aircraft decrease
or
> increase the production of Lycoming 320 engines?
>
> The question relates to 'should I design a craft based on using the
Lycoming
> O-320-B3C
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dave J. http://www.UniCopter.com
>
>
Can you list any planes that are currently using a Lyc 320 that can meet
the weight of LSA, and keep a useful load of say, 650 lbs.?

I think your "over" is more accurate.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Natalie]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...

> >
> Can you list any planes that are currently using a Lyc 320 that can meet
> the weight of LSA, and keep a useful load of say, 650 lbs.?
>
Why do you want a useful load of 650? It's a two seater...two two hundred pounders
and over 40 gallons of fuel? The question is how draggy you gotta make the plane
to keep it under 115 with 160HP.

[Morgans]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > >
> > Can you list any planes that are currently using a Lyc 320 that can
meet
> > the weight of LSA, and keep a useful load of say, 650 lbs.?
> >
> Why do you want a useful load of 650? It's a two seater...two two hundred
pounders
> and over 40 gallons of fuel? The question is how draggy you gotta make
the plane
> to keep it under 115 with 160HP.

I would like to carry 2 200 ponders, 100 lbs luggage, and 50 gallons of
fuel, for long legs, and plenty of range. Also, it should contain no
unobtainium.

OK, I could get more realistic, and say 550 lbs useful load. I still think
that would be tough to do with a 320.

And the top speed issue? I'm hoping that disappears. If not, one hell of a
flat pitch climb prop ought to do the job. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Rich S.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I would like to carry 2 200 ponders, 100 lbs luggage, and 50 gallons of
> fuel, for long legs, and plenty of range. Also, it should contain no
> unobtainium.
>
> OK, I could get more realistic, and say 550 lbs useful load. I still
think
> that would be tough to do with a 320.
>
> And the top speed issue? I'm hoping that disappears. If not, one hell of
a
> flat pitch climb prop ought to do the job. <g>

I still haven't seen anything in the proposed rule that will allow any plane
but an "approved" factory built plane.

Rich "Trust me, I'm from the government" S.

[Morgans]

"Rich S." > wrote
>
> I still haven't seen anything in the proposed rule that will allow any
plane
> but an "approved" factory built plane.
>
> Rich "Trust me, I'm from the government" S.
???????????????????????????????????????????????

Hmmmm. I didn't read it that way. Anyone else care to weigh in?
--
Jim in NC

[Rich S.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmmmm. I didn't read it that way. Anyone else care to weigh in?
> --
> Jim in NC

Here's the text. . . .

"These are the two new airworthiness certificates that would be established:
a.. A new experimental light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate for
existing light-sport aircraft that do not meet the requirements of Part 103
(ultralight vehicles) of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
b.. New special, light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificates for
light-sport aircraft that meet an airworthiness standard developed by
industry.
These are the two new airworthiness certificates that would be
established:

a.. A new experimental light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate
for existing light-sport aircraft that do not meet the requirements of Part
103 (ultralight vehicles) of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
b.. New special, light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificates for
light-sport aircraft that meet an airworthiness standard developed by
industry. "
Nuthin' in here about homebuilts that I kin see. As far as I can tell, this
is just creating a new class of "Certified" "Factory built and approved"
airplanes - with the exception of reining in the illegal, overweight
ultralights.

Rich "Call me skeptical" S.

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> Nuthin' in here about homebuilts that I kin see. As far as I can tell, this
> is just creating a new class of "Certified" "Factory built and approved"
> airplanes - with the exception of reining in the illegal, overweight
> ultralights.

After tracking this closely for a few years, here's a few points of
"clarification", if I've got my facts straight:
* The proposal allows "sport pilots" to fly any aircraft which meets the
"light sport aircraft" limitations, regardless of whether said aircraft
is certificated LSA, experimental / amateur built, or standard category,
but possibly subject to some limitations.
* "Light sport aircraft" can avoid all of the certification hassles of
standard category, and the 51% rule of experimental amateur built, by
meeting the consensus standards for LSA.
* There is no "light sport aircraft experimental amateur built" -- those
are two separate categories.
* "Light sport aircraft" can be flown by "real" pilots, also, but this
will not necessarily exempt the "real" pilots from the same limitations
as "sport" pilots.

Haven't taken the time to read the final rule that's going through the
works. I'm waiting for the Cliff notes...

Ed Wischmeyer

[Rich S.]

Do not archive

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...

Oops......... Please excuse the repeated quote on my previous post - I hit
<cntrl><V> twice when nothing happened the first time, then failed to proof
read the text.

Rich S.

[Morgans]

"Ed Wischmeyer" > wrote in message
...
> > Nuthin' in here about homebuilts that I kin see. As far as I can tell,
this
> > is just creating a new class of "Certified" "Factory built and approved"
> > airplanes - with the exception of reining in the illegal, overweight
> > ultralights.
>
> After tracking this closely for a few years, here's a few points of
> "clarification", if I've got my facts straight:
> * The proposal allows "sport pilots" to fly any aircraft which meets the
> "light sport aircraft" limitations, regardless of whether said aircraft
> is certificated LSA, experimental / amateur built, or standard category,
> but possibly subject to some limitations.
> * "Light sport aircraft" can avoid all of the certification hassles of
> standard category, and the 51% rule of experimental amateur built, by
> meeting the consensus standards for LSA.
> * There is no "light sport aircraft experimental amateur built" -- those
> are two separate categories.
> * "Light sport aircraft" can be flown by "real" pilots, also, but this
> will not necessarily exempt the "real" pilots from the same limitations
> as "sport" pilots.
>
> Haven't taken the time to read the final rule that's going through the
> works. I'm waiting for the Cliff notes...
>
> Ed Wischmeyer

Looks to me, that there needs to be a way for the factory builts to be flown
for testing. That would be meeting consensus standards. If I want to build
one, and meet consensus standards, I say I am going into production, and
this is my prototype. Work for you?
--
Jim in NC

[Rich S.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Looks to me, that there needs to be a way for the factory builts to be
flown
> for testing. That would be meeting consensus standards. If I want to
build
> one, and meet consensus standards, I say I am going into production, and
> this is my prototype. Work for you?

Jim........

It sounds to me that the foxes are in charge of the henhouse. If the
"Industry" sets the standards, you ain't a'gonna meet them unless you are a
bona fide paid-up member of the Industry. They will specify which models
meet their standards.

I say again - there is NO provision in the proposed rule which allows home
built aircraft.

To Quote BOb, "If I'm wrong, never mind".

Rich "Follow the money trail" S.

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> Looks to me, that there needs to be a way for the factory builts to be
>flown
>> for testing. That would be meeting consensus standards. If I want to
>build
>> one, and meet consensus standards, I say I am going into production, and
>> this is my prototype. Work for you?
>
>Jim........
>
>It sounds to me that the foxes are in charge of the henhouse. If the
>"Industry" sets the standards, you ain't a'gonna meet them unless you are a
>bona fide paid-up member of the Industry. They will specify which models
>meet their standards.
>
>I say again - there is NO provision in the proposed rule which allows home
>built aircraft.
>
>To Quote BOb, "If I'm wrong, never mind".
>
>Rich "Follow the money trail" S.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey...
I'm softening/broadening my perspective.

Hence...

I'm almost with you on this one.

If I'm almost wrong,
almost never mind.


Barnyard BOb -- Following the money almost every time.

[Rich S.]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hey...
> I'm softening/broadening my perspective.
>
> Hence...
>
> I'm almost with you on this one.
>
> If I'm almost wrong,
> almost never mind.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- Following the money almost every time.

Kits. Okay, I can see kits. Sonex has gotta be there. But no scratch-built.
No profit in it.

Rich "Please prove me wrong!" S.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:29:45 -0700, "Rich S." >
wrote:

>It sounds to me that the foxes are in charge of the henhouse. If the
>"Industry" sets the standards, you ain't a'gonna meet them unless you are a
>bona fide paid-up member of the Industry. They will specify which models
>meet their standards.
>
>I say again - there is NO provision in the proposed rule which allows home
>built aircraft.

There doesn't need to be. If you build an airplane that CAN qualify as a
Light Sport Aircraft, you can fly it on a Sport Pilot certificate.

Your homebuilt requires an airworthiness certificate, receives an N-Number,
and must be flown by a certified pilot. A Light Sport Aircraft requires an
airworthiness certificate, receives an N-Number, and must be flown by a
certified pilot. If you have a Private Pilot certificate, you can fly the
homebuilt or the Light Sport Aircraft. If you have only a Sport Pilot
certificate, you can fly the homebuilt AND the Light Sport
Aircraft...assuming the homebuilt can meet the basic requirements for a
Light Sport Aircraft.

Where things are loose is how the determination is made whether a given
homebuilt DOES qualify as an aircraft a person with a Sport Pilot license
can fly. I've never heard any explanation as to how this will be
determined. EAA publishes a list of homebuilt aircraft which SHOULD meet
the requirements, but we do not know what proof the FAA will require. As
I've mentioned in the past, a Harmon Rocket builder can legitimately call
his airplane a "Kitfox." Once DOES wonder what the FAA will do, in these
kinds of cases.

Light Sport Aircraft is nothing more than a new certification category,
like "Normal," "Utility," "Aerobatic," etc. There is no point of
intersection with the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The only issues
are with the new pilot license, not the aircraft category...i.e., whether a
person with a Sport Pilot license can fly a particular homebuilt.

Ron Wanttaja

[Rich S.]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> (Snip)
> The only issues are with the new pilot license, not the aircraft
category...i.e., whether a
> person with a Sport Pilot license can fly a particular homebuilt.

This may indeed be an issue, Ron - but it is a separate issue. The question
I have is the application of the following statement to the certification of
a unique aircraft:

"b.. New special, light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificates for
light-sport aircraft that meet an airworthiness standard developed by
industry."

If (and here's the rub) the Industry says that in order for a light-sport
aircraft to meet their rules, it must be constructed by the Industry or from
a kit manufactured by the Industry. There goes home designed, home built
aircraft.

So, who is the Industry? Is it a coalition of manufacturers? Is it a council
of manufacturers and the EAA? I honestly don't feel the EAA is interested in
representing amateur designers and scratch builders.

There are many questions and dilemmas ahead in the birthing of this new
sport aircraft genre. I hope no one forgets the little guy in their quest
for a dollar.

Rich S.

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> If (and here's the rub) the Industry says that in order for a light-sport
> aircraft to meet their rules, it must be constructed by the Industry or from
> a kit manufactured by the Industry. There goes home designed, home built
> aircraft.

Sorry, how do you get that? LSA does not touch experimental / amateur
built in any way, it's unchanged.

Part of the deal for LSA not having to meet the 51% rule is that LSA
have to conform to a specification. You want to get rid of the 51% rule,
then you have to conform to a tested LSA design, including maintenance.
You comply with the 51% rule, you can do whatever you want with a
design. Take your pick!

If your aircraft complies with the performance and weight limitations of
LSA, regardless of what category your aircraft is certificated in, you
can fly it as a Sport Pilot.

Sorry, I really don't see that anybody is getting shorted in the least.
All of the present options are still there, and SP and LSA open up more.

Ed Wischmeyer

PS. I'll be in Oshkosh next week and will get the latest. If there's
anything new, I'll post it. Don't forget
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/sportpilot/index.cfm for the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making.

[Rich S.]

"Ed Wischmeyer" > wrote in message
...
> > If (and here's the rub) the Industry says that in order for a
light-sport
> > aircraft to meet their rules, it must be constructed by the Industry or
from
> > a kit manufactured by the Industry. There goes home designed, home built
> > aircraft.
>
> Sorry, how do you get that? LSA does not touch experimental / amateur
> built in any way, it's unchanged.

Ed.........

I'm sorry if I was not clear to you. I was referring ONLY to home designed,
home built Sport Aircraft. I said nothing referring to experimental/amateur
built category aircraft. I don't know how you derived that from my
statement.

> Part of the deal for LSA not having to meet the 51% rule is that LSA
> have to conform to a specification. You want to get rid of the 51% rule,
> then you have to conform to a tested LSA design, including maintenance.
> You comply with the 51% rule, you can do whatever you want with a
> design. Take your pick!

What 51% rule are you talking about? The rule that Kit Manufacturers have to
follow? There is no rule that requires one person to perform 51% of the
operations necessary to construct an aircraft. You can have a whole troop of
Boy Scouts build it if you want to. In any case, I am talking about scratch
building - not KITS. I am not talking about repairman certificates.

> If your aircraft complies with the performance and weight limitations of
> LSA, regardless of what category your aircraft is certificated in, you
> can fly it as a Sport Pilot.

The proposed rule does not say that. Read it again. The "Industry" can come
up with whatever rules it wants. It can require that only completed planes
from XYZ corporation meet its standards.

> Sorry, I really don't see that anybody is getting shorted in the least.
> All of the present options are still there, and SP and LSA open up more.

They may - and then again they may not. I hope they do, but I see enormous
potential for abuse of the concept.

> PS. I'll be in Oshkosh next week and will get the latest. If there's
> anything new, I'll post it.

Please do.

Rich S.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:10:09 -0700, "Rich S." >
wrote:

> "b.. New special, light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificates for
> light-sport aircraft that meet an airworthiness standard developed by
> industry."

>If (and here's the rub) the Industry says that in order for a light-sport
>aircraft to meet their rules, it must be constructed by the Industry or
>from a kit manufactured by the Industry. There goes home designed, home
>built aircraft.

Rich, we somehow have a major disconnect here. Either I'm not
understanding your point, are you aren't understanding mine.

Just like there are no such things as home designed, home built Normal
Category aircraft, there are no such things as home designed, home built
Light Sport Aircraft category aircraft. It's a new certification category
to cover *production* aircraft, it has nothing to do with homebuilt
aircraft.

The Light Sport Aircraft manufacturers can come up with as many devious,
new-product-limiting, "consensus standard" rules as they like. It has
absolutely *no* effect on the licensing of Experimental Amateur-Built
aircraft.

As an analogy, think of FARs Part 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules)
and Part 135 (Operating Requirements for Commuter and On-Demand
Operations). If the FAA changes Part 135, it doesn't effect the way we
have to fly our aircraft. Similarly, when the FAA develops new
certification standards for production aircraft (e.g., the Light Sport
Aircraft category) that has no effect on the certification of Experimental
aircraft.

If I'm still not clear, can you give me an example of how you think the new
rules would effect someone, say, an RV-10?

Ron Wanttaja

[Rich S.]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...

> If I'm still not clear, can you give me an example of how you think the
new
> rules would effect someone, say, an RV-10?

Ron..........

This medium does have its limitations, doesn't it?

I didn't mean to say that I thought LSA would affect
Experimental/Amateur-Built in any way. I don't think that.

What I am saying is, as I read the proposed LSA rules, I don't see any
provision to allow an individual to design and build an aircraft which fits
within the parameters of LSA. If you are saying that is correct and that LSA
only allows production aircraft from a commercial manufacturer, then I have
been under the wrong belief since I first heard of the proposal.

Are you indeed saying that a Fly Baby, for example, will not qualify as a
LSA? And a holder of a PPL with a lapsed medical will not be able to fly
that Fly Baby under day VFR as a LSA pilot?

Rich S.

[Del Rawlins]

On 18 Oct 2003 07:32 PM, Rich S. posted the following:
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> If I'm still not clear, can you give me an example of how you think
>> the
> new
>> rules would effect someone, say, an RV-10?
>
> Ron..........
>
> This medium does have its limitations, doesn't it?
>
> I didn't mean to say that I thought LSA would affect
> Experimental/Amateur-Built in any way. I don't think that.
>
> What I am saying is, as I read the proposed LSA rules, I don't see any
> provision to allow an individual to design and build an aircraft which
> fits within the parameters of LSA. If you are saying that is correct
> and that LSA only allows production aircraft from a commercial
> manufacturer, then I have been under the wrong belief since I first
> heard of the proposal.
>
> Are you indeed saying that a Fly Baby, for example, will not qualify
> as a LSA? And a holder of a PPL with a lapsed medical will not be able
> to fly that Fly Baby under day VFR as a LSA pilot?

Rich, it seems as if the point you are missing is that there are two
different sorts of light sport aircraft under the proposal. There is
the blanket definition where anything that meets the requirements such
as number of seats, stall speed, etc. are considered light sport
aircraft for the purpose of defining who can FLY them, and then there is
the additional set of rules that allow manufacturers to sell completed
aircraft without certifying them under FAR 23. The plans built fly baby
would still be registered as experimental amateur built, unless you
decided to put it into production, in which case you would have to meet
the consensus standards. And even as an experimental amateur built,
since it meets the LSA performance requirements, it can be flown by a
sport (or higher rated) pilot. At least that is my understanding of the
proposal.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Paul Lee]

Interesting. You mean we have been paying all those EAA dues who is spending
tons to promote the new sport category? How does it benefit homebuilders
- who are the major portion of EAA membership?

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
>....
> .......no such things as home designed, home built
> Light Sport Aircraft category aircraft. It's a new certification category
> to cover *production* aircraft, it has nothing to do with homebuilt
> aircraft.
> .......
> Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:32:39 -0700, "Rich S." >
wrote:

>This medium does have its limitations, doesn't it?

And its advantages...neither of us have whacked the other upside the head,
yet. :-)

>What I am saying is, as I read the proposed LSA rules, I don't see any
>provision to allow an individual to design and build an aircraft which fits
>within the parameters of LSA. If you are saying that is correct and that LSA
>only allows production aircraft from a commercial manufacturer, then I have
>been under the wrong belief since I first heard of the proposal.

The problem, like I said in an earlier posting, is that there are two
*related* programs that will be starting: Light Sport Aircraft category
and the Sport Pilot certificate. Hopefully, I'll make the difference clear
by the end of this posting.

>Are you indeed saying that a Fly Baby, for example, will not qualify as a
>LSA?

"A" Fly Baby cannot be certified as an LSA. The Fly Baby *design* can. No
one will be able to present a Fly Baby to the FAA and receive a Light Sport
Airplane certificate for it. What they *could* do is present the design to
the FAA, prove the airplane meets the performance requirements (the
airspeed, stall, gross weight limitations), prove it meets whatever
structural standards the FAA (or an industry consensus) set, mounts an
engine approved under the LSA regs, etc. For that trouble, they would
receive a Type Certificate under the Light Sport Aircraft category that
would permit them to manufacture and sell Fly Babies ready-to-fly.

These production Fly Babies would be type-certificated aircraft. They
wouldn't be treated like homebuilts. They could be rented, fly over
congested areas, etc. (though I expect LSA won't be able to carry
passengers or cargo for hire). Homebuilts can be maintained by anybody,
but that is NOT the case with LSA category aircraft. It'll take an A&P.

However, part of the LSA proposal allows a LSA manufacturer to offer
courses that would give owners training sufficient to maintain and inspect
their LSA-category aircraft. It would be like the current Repairman
Certificate for homebuilts...but graduates of the factory training course
would be allowed to maintain *any* of that type of aircraft (but not for
hire). If someone took the Fly Baby maintenance course, they'd be able to
inspect and repair ANY LSA-certified Fly Baby (but not the homebuilt ones,
since they weren't made by the same "factory" that built the LSA-certified
ones).

>And a holder of a PPL with a lapsed medical will not be able to fly
>that Fly Baby under day VFR as a LSA pilot?

There's no such thing as a "LSA pilot." LSA is an aircraft certification
standard. Again, LSA has absolutely nothing to say about pilot
qualifications.

But this is where understanding the proposed Sport Pilot license comes into
play. Ignore, for a moment, the existence (or anticipated existence) of
Light Sport Aircraft. The Sport Pilot license is intended to allow
individuals to fly small, simple aircraft with relaxed medical and
experience requirements. The Sport Pilot license will allow holders to
operate planes with <=N seats, weighing less than X lbs, and with certain
stall speed and maximum speed limitations.

If ANY aircraft (certified or homebuilt) meets those requirements, a holder
of a Sport Pilot license can fly it (subject to checkout requirements that
I understand are part of the proposal). A person would be able to operate
a 1940 J-3 Cub, a 1946 Aeronca Champ, a 1947 Taylorcraft, a 1995 Kitfox,
1967 Fly Baby etc. with only a Sport Pilot license.

Here's where it gets fun: The performance limitations of the Sport Pilot
license were used as *requirements* for the Light Sport Aircraft category.
In addition to the structural, engine, testing, etc, requirements, designs
applying for certification in the LSA category will also have to prove they
meet the Sport Pilot license limitations.

There are issues regarding some of the classic airplanes that it's hoped
Sport Pilots will be able to fly. I understand there are some cases where
early models of a given design qualify for being flown by Sport Pilots, and
later models do not (typically because of a gross weight increase).

But that question NEVER arises if the plane in question is certified in the
LSA category. An plane certified as an LSA can *always* be flown by a
properly-trained Sport Pilot.

So: Back to our Fly Baby example again. Let's say I jump through all the
hoops and get the "Wanttaja Fly Baby" design certified as a Light Sport
Aircraft. I can sell them ready-to-fly, I can lease them out, I can put
them on the flight line of the local FBO for rental. I have to use an A&P
to maintain those rental birds, but the ordinary owner will be able to take
the factory course and do all the maintenance and inspection themselves.

But...the homebuilt Fly Babies, such as the "Bowers Fly Baby", "Russell Fly
Baby," "Langford-Bowers Fly Baby," even the brand-new, ultra-delux,
"Shankland Fly Baby", etc. can ALSO be flown by someone with just a Sport
Pilot license. But they can't be leased or rented out. The guy who built
the "Russell Fly Baby" can get a Repairman Certificate, but he can't do the
inspections on the "Langford-Bowers Fly Baby."

To summarize:

1. Owners of a Sport Pilot license can fly ANY aircraft that meets the
number of seats, gross weight, and the cruise and stall speed limitations.
The aircraft themselves can be certified in ANY category...normal, utility,
aerobatic, experimental, limited, LSA, etc.

2. Builders of homebuilt aircraft will be able to fly their creations with
just a Sport Pilot license, IF the airplane meets the # of seats, gross
weight, and cruise and stall speed limitations specified by the Sport Pilot
license.

3. The new Light Sport Aircraft category is a simplified certification
system for the manufacture and production of airplanes of moderate
performance. Part of the certification requirements include the need to
meet all the limitations necessary to be able to be flown by someone with a
Sport Pilot license. If a plane is certified under LSA, there's no
question whether a person holding a Sport Pilot license can fly it.

Anyway, that's my understanding of the upcoming rules. Ed, Cy, anybody,
please correct me if I went astray.

(Whew....)

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 18 Oct 2003 22:21:27 -0700, (Paul Lee) wrote:
>Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
>>....
>> .......no such things as home designed, home built
>> Light Sport Aircraft category aircraft. It's a new certification category
>> to cover *production* aircraft, it has nothing to do with homebuilt
>> aircraft.
>
>Interesting. You mean we have been paying all those EAA dues who is spending
>tons to promote the new sport category? How does it benefit homebuilders
>- who are the major portion of EAA membership?

Few people start out flying homebuilts. Just about everyone starts with a
production-like airplane. The goals of the Sport Pilot/Light Sport
Aircraft proposals are to produce more pilots. More pilots, the more of
them get interested in homebuilts.

Without affordable flying, GA is doomed...and as GA goes, so does
homebuilding.

EAA, I think, got into Sport Pilot because so many members wanted a license
that didn't require a medical. LSA and Sport Pilot are pretty much
intertwined.

My PERSONAL hopes for LSA: Creating a source of used, recently
manufactured, 65-100 HP engines.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ed Wischmeyer]

> I susect the major porpotion of EAA members are wannabes who wandered
> into Oshkosh and were forced into buying a 3 month membership

Yup, I saw the stooges at Oshkosh, grabbing people and pummeling them
about the head and shoulders until they forked up the dough. An awful
sight, really...


Ed Wischmeyer

[Rich S.]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>
> The problem, like I said in an earlier posting, is that there are two
> *related* programs that will be starting: Light Sport Aircraft category
> and the Sport Pilot certificate. Hopefully, I'll make the difference
clear
> by the end of this posting.

I think. . . Yes! those *are* the approach lights . . . Okay! I've got the
runway in sight, now to get this thing slowed down.

Thanks Ron & Del. Between the two of youse guys, I think I'm finally
starting to get the picture and, while it ain't Angelina Jolié headed for
the shower, it's not Ma Kettle, either.

Now all I have to do is placard the Emeraude's gross weight and Vne for
operation by a Sport Pilot?

Rich S.

[Drew Dalgleish]

On 18 Oct 2003 22:21:27 -0700, (Paul Lee)
wrote:

>Interesting. You mean we have been paying all those EAA dues who is spending
>tons to promote the new sport category? How does it benefit homebuilders
>- who are the major portion of EAA membership?
>
I susect the major porpotion of EAA members are wannabes who wandered
into Oshkosh and were forced into buying a 3 month membership

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:49:42 -0700, "Rich S." >
wrote:

>Thanks Ron & Del. Between the two of youse guys, I think I'm finally
>starting to get the picture and, while it ain't Angelina Jolié headed for
>the shower, it's not Ma Kettle, either.

You shouldn't talk about Ampmeter's relatives like that... :-)

>Now all I have to do is placard the Emeraude's gross weight and Vne for
>operation by a Sport Pilot?

By George, he's got it! I think he's got it! That's *exactly* where the
uncertainty lies, for the homebuilder. How will the FAA determine if a
given homebuilt (which, by definition, is a one-of-a-kind aircraft)
complies with the limitations required to be flown under the Sport Pilot
regs? Like the example I gave a few postings back...The box the kit came
in said, "Harmon Rocket," but if the name on the application for
airworthiness says "Fly Baby", what now?

The EAA has a list of Sport Pilot-compatible homebuilts, but all they did
was take the published numbers from the Aerocrafter book and compare them
to the SP limitations. There's no verification of the numbers, and some of
them are incorrect. For instance, the Fly Baby monoplane is listed on the
SP-compatible list, but not the biplane...which has only 25 lbs more
weight, lots more drag, and has 25% more wing area. Somehow, the
Aerocrafter book has the wrong stall speed for the biplane.

Will the FAA be allowed to use a list generated by a non-government
organization? If they question Rich's Emeraude numbers, they can at least
demand a ride and watch a GPS to verify the various speeds (find a
headwind, Rich!). But what about single-seat airplanes?

At best, this will end up similar to the "fat ultralight" problem...lots of
aircraft violating the regs, but the FAA not really caring unless a
particular case is too blatant. We may end up with a formula-based system
to determine if a given homebuilt meets the requirements (wing loading
limit, power loading limit, etc.). At worst, we may find the SP regs leave
homebuilts off entirely (which would make a lot of EAA staffers' faces
really red).

Keep in mind, folks, that these standards STILL are not in place, and that
there's no real indication as to how they've changed since they were
released for public comment a year or so ago. We still don't know what the
final answer is going to be...it may be issues like the above that has
delayed them so long.

Ron Wanttaja

[Rich S.]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> Will the FAA be allowed to use a list generated by a non-government
> organization? If they question Rich's Emeraude numbers, they can at least
> demand a ride and watch a GPS to verify the various speeds (find a
> headwind, Rich!). But what about single-seat airplanes?

Catch 22 applies. With a passenger, I'd be violating the "Solo Only"
placard. The Emeraude would be a single-seater unless I ripped out a bunch
of radios, instruments, the wheel pants and my Teddy bear.

Rich "No, you can't take it for a demo ride!" S.

[Wayne R]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>
> To summarize:
>
> 1. Owners of a Sport Pilot license can fly ANY aircraft that meets the
> number of seats, gross weight, and the cruise and stall speed limitations.
> The aircraft themselves can be certified in ANY category...normal, utility,
> aerobatic, experimental, limited, LSA, etc.
>
> 2. Builders of homebuilt aircraft will be able to fly their creations with
> just a Sport Pilot license, IF the airplane meets the # of seats, gross
> weight, and cruise and stall speed limitations specified by the Sport Pilot
> license.
>
> 3. The new Light Sport Aircraft category is a simplified certification
> system for the manufacture and production of airplanes of moderate
> performance. Part of the certification requirements include the need to
> meet all the limitations necessary to be able to be flown by someone with a
> Sport Pilot license. If a plane is certified under LSA, there's no
> question whether a person holding a Sport Pilot license can fly it.
>
> Anyway, that's my understanding of the upcoming rules. Ed, Cy, anybody,
> please correct me if I went astray.
>
> (Whew....)
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>


Ron,


If I may add to your analysis of the Light Sport Aircraft/Sport Pilot
proposal...

As I understand it, the FAA is actually proposing TWO different LSA
airworthyness certificates. One is the "special" LSA certificate for
factory built aircraft, and the other is the "experimental" LSA certificate.

From an the aircraft owners standpoint, the difference would be that
that an Exp. LSA could not be used for rental purposes, while the
special (factory built) LSA could. The exp. LSA would require a flight
test period and have specified operating limitations analogous to exp.
homebuilts.

As I see it, one would pursue the exp. LSA cert. only if:
1. You have an existing "fat" or two-seat ultralight, and the Exp. LSA
would be the only legal way to fly it.

2. You want to hire someone to build most or all of your qualifying kit
plane (and consequently not meet the 51% rule) and didn't want to (or
couldn't) buy the completed plane from the factory. You'd need a
Statement of Compliance from the kit manufacturer, which they could give
only if they had built at least on plane and demonstrated that it met
the consensus standards. If you can met the 51% rule, you'd rather have
the exp. home built cert.

3. You want to modify an existing LSA so that its original cert. is
invalid, but you maintain performance within the definition of LSA.

I'm a newbe, so pardon me if I've missed something previously posted.:-)

Wayne

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:43:11 GMT, Wayne R > wrote:

>
>If I may add to your analysis of the Light Sport Aircraft/Sport Pilot
>proposal...

[Good stuff snipped]

Thanks, Wayne! I haven't really been paying attention to a lot of the
finer detail. Sounds like this is similar to the current rules that allow
home construction of some airplanes. Piper had such a deal on the Super
Cub about fifteen years ago, but I heard that they had few takers. But the
LSA rules may be relaxed enough to get more interest.

Ron Wanttaja