On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:30:13 GMT, Jimbob wrote:

...In the future, I would expect consensus
standard powerplants (Honda, perhaps?) and instruments. Some of the
nice homebuilt glass panels and FADEC systems may meet ASTM standards
in the near future and they cost a fraction of a G1000.

The consensus standard for the engines is out as well...it's all of three pages
long. The part I got the biggest kick out of? To meet the consensus standard,
an LSA must have an engine with the number of ignition systems equal to the
number of seats.

Anyway, the majority of the engine standard addresses establishing a TBO. A
company can either base the TBO on bench testing or on an engine installed in a
flying aircraft ("Fleet Leader").

Speculation: If this really takes off and the industry starts making
some money, could the FAA be pressured to expand speeds, weight limits
and # of seats. Include retracts? Maybe incorporate all
non-commercial A/C operations under the LSA rule? It may be far
fetched, but not outside the realm of possibility.

I don't think we're likely to see this, but who knows? The program limits were
set based on the desire to minimize the forces involved in a crash. The FAA
published a pretty big press release at the time the program was instituted, and
they discuss the reasons for limiting the speed and carrying capacity.

The only downside I can see is that the bottom may drop out of the
Cessna 152/172 - Piper 140 market.

*If* the FAA bumps the limits of the rule high enough to cover the 150/152
range, these airplanes will be much more valuable. The trouble is, the LSA
definition covers few production type airplanes built since ~1955 or so.

And of course if Dateline runs a story about those new "dangerous
uncertified" airplanes.

....or one of the new manufacturers DOESN'T do the required substantiation and
lies about it on their certification application....

Ron Wanttaja