Awesome sportplane

"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

"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

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

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

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.

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

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

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 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.

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