Wondering What Light Sport Can Do For You?

CB wrote:
IIRC (Ron, back me up on this?) dual-position gear are permitted for
amphibian LSAs. You don't need a case-by-case exemption.

wrote:
Da Monk wrote:
...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

Is that guy landing that thing "wheels up" on the grass or did he
retract them that early in the takeoff?


Retractable landing gear are not permitted on Light Sport Aircraft.

Supposedly the FAA has approved at least one exemption for
an amphiban and may extend that to all amphibians.

Otherwise, someone needs to work on designs for retractable
floats...

Another point of contention was the distinction between
retractible and in-flight repositionable gear.

--

FF

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:Rozxg.84176$ZW3.80192@dukeread04...
But in the wisdom of a government career employee, they
can't be changed in flight, makes it rather hard to take-off
on the water with the wheels down so you can land on terra
firma.

Given the risk of landing gear down on the water, I think this is an example
of where the FAA got it right. You decide before the flight whether you are
doing a seaplane flight or a land flight.

The whole point of LSA is to allow greatly reduced training costs and
airplane certification costs without reducing safety. Effectively creating
a limited seaplane rating does this.

Pete

But once you're on land, you can't retract the wheels to
land on water. And if you're on water you can take-off and
land on terra firma. Unless a belly landing is expected and
then put the wheels down.

Of course, I plan to win the lottery and buy a dozen or so
LSA, for different uses. I'll have a Cub type on wheels,
another on straight floats, one with steam gauges and
another with a glass cockpit. Then I'll have one that
cruises at the top speed limit for day trips of 500 miles
one-way.

And I'll hire some young pilot and get him a type rating in
a Beechjet, he'll be my medical.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:Rozxg.84176$ZW3.80192@dukeread04...
| But in the wisdom of a government career employee, they
| can't be changed in flight, makes it rather hard to
take-off
| on the water with the wheels down so you can land on
terra
| firma.
|
| Given the risk of landing gear down on the water, I think
this is an example
| of where the FAA got it right. You decide before the
flight whether you are
| doing a seaplane flight or a land flight.
|
| The whole point of LSA is to allow greatly reduced
training costs and
| airplane certification costs without reducing safety.
Effectively creating
| a limited seaplane rating does this.
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:ALzxg.84177$ZW3.19576@dukeread04...
But once you're on land, you can't retract the wheels to
land on water. And if you're on water you can take-off and
land on terra firma.

Yes, I know. What's your point? The LSA area has many restrictions. This
is one of them. As with the other restrictions, it simplifies a certain
area of aviation, removing one of the most significant risks from seaplane
operations.

Would you have preferred they simply didn't allow water flying under LSA at
all? Because that's the only other option that would have been consistent
with the "low training, cheap certification, acceptable safety" goals of
LSA.

Pete

Then why did they approve of amphibians?




"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:ALzxg.84177$ZW3.19576@dukeread04...
| But once you're on land, you can't retract the wheels to
| land on water. And if you're on water you can take-off
and
| land on terra firma.
|
| Yes, I know. What's your point? The LSA area has many
restrictions. This
| is one of them. As with the other restrictions, it
simplifies a certain
| area of aviation, removing one of the most significant
risks from seaplane
| operations.
|
| Would you have preferred they simply didn't allow water
flying under LSA at
| all? Because that's the only other option that would have
been consistent
| with the "low training, cheap certification, acceptable
safety" goals of
| LSA.
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:b9Jxg.84217$ZW3.53266@dukeread04...
Then why did they approve of amphibians?

They didn't.

They did.



"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:b9Jxg.84217$ZW3.53266@dukeread04...
| Then why did they approve of amphibians?
|
| They didn't.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:z3Oxg.84242$ZW3.36485@dukeread04...
They did.

No, they didn't. They approved airplanes that can be configured as *either*
a seaplane, or a landplane, but not both at the same time. A frog doesn't
have to decide ahead of time whether it's going to swim or walk.

A true amphibian has particular operating characteristics unique to
amphibians, not shared with an ordinary seaplane or an ordinary landplane.
The LSA requirements specifically exclude airplanes with these particular
operating characteristics, by excluding true amphibians.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
A frog doesn't have to decide ahead of time whether it's going to swim or walk.

Lucky for him, otherwise he might fall under the auspices of some
obscure government regulation...

yep
"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote
in message
...
| "Peter Duniho" wrote:
|
| A true amphibian has particular operating characteristics
unique to
| amphibians, not shared with an ordinary seaplane or an
ordinary landplane.
| The LSA requirements specifically exclude airplanes with
these particular
| operating characteristics, by excluding true amphibians.
|
| It is worth noting, however, that the FAA has granted at
| least one waiver to that exclusion, permitting a true
| amphibian with the ability to take off on either land or
| water and land on the other.
|
| --
| Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a
spin it will return to earth without further attention on
the part of the aeronaut.
|
| (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)