Wondering What Light Sport Can Do For You?

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.



"CB" wrote in message
oups.com...
| 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...
|
| --
|
| FF
|

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

On 25 Jul 2006 13:33:46 -0700, "CB" wrote:

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...

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

As a couple of other folks have mentioned, the FAA approved *repositionable*
gear, not retractable gear. If you took off in the float mode, you had to land
in the float mode.

This has ticked off a number of people, especially those selling the little
amphibs. As another poster mentioned, the FAA recently approved the Czech
Aircraft Works' "Mermaid" as an LSA even though it has the retractable gear.

http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/exempition.html

It's likely that the FAA is going to make this a general policy...if not, the
other manufacturers are likely to quickly apply for the same kind of exemption.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On 25 Jul 2006 13:33:46 -0700, "CB" wrote:

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...

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

As a couple of other folks have mentioned, the FAA approved *repositionable*
gear, not retractable gear. If you took off in the float mode, you had to land
in the float mode.

I heard a couple of times at my local EAA chapter (maybe
both times from the same person) that the FAA would allow
gear that could be repositioned *once* in flight. I suppose
that could be accomplished by designing gear that would
automatically lock in either the up or down position but
could only be unlocked from outside of th ecockpit.

But one would be hard pressed to find a designer stupid
enough to design such a thng, at least on purpose.


This has ticked off a number of people, especially those selling the little
amphibs.

As well as anyone comtemplating taking off from water and then
having to make an emergency landing on land, or vice versa.

IIUC this came about as a result of trying to avoid 'complex' systems
in LSA. Retractable landing gear were considered to be 'complex'.
And so more pavement was added to the road to hell.

--

FF

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
wrote:
....
I suppose
that could be accomplished by designing gear that would
automatically lock in either the up or down position but
could only be unlocked from outside of the cockpit.

But one would be hard pressed to find a designer stupid
enough to design such a thing, at least on purpose.

I don't think it would qualify as "repositionable."


Even if it did, it would still also qualify as a bad idea.

I only brought the subject up as it was an amusing rumor
that had been circulating.

--

FF

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article et,
cavelamb wrote:


Morgans 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?


Low pass? With a seaplane, he could have landed, and done nothing more than
scratched the paint.

A neighbor at Zuehl (grass runway) landed his 210 gear up a couple years back.

The ONLY dammage (other than the curly prop) was an antenna on the belly.
Heck, the pain wasn't even scratched!

Richard


Oh, I'm SURE that the pain WAS scratched! In fact, I'm sure that the
pain was in a bleeding wallet!

I saw that after I posted it...

No dammage to the PainT...

You are right about the bleeding wallet though.

That prop still hasn't been replaced.
Sad...


Ricahrd

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
The ONLY dammage (other than the curly prop) was an antenna on the belly.
Heck, the pain wasn't even scratched!

If I landed a 210 on its belly, I can guarantee you my pain will be more
than scratched. But if it has a curly prop, chances are good it will need
an engine teardown.

Jose


Actually chances are not "good" it will need an engine teardown. The FAA
has issued a circular to all IA's stating
that "any prop strike, even one where the engine is not stopped but only
suffers a loss of RPM" is likely to cause unseen internal damage and will
require an inspection teardown to be returned to service. Using a dial
indicator on the prop flange to check for runout is no longer considered
sufficient inspection.

I recently saw a Lycoming where the prop flange was as close to perfect as
they get. No runout at all. However the crank was in two pieces. It had
broken between the two rows of cylinders. The break was diagonal and the
engine still ran and developed power. However, it did stop pretty quickly
when you pulled the mixture out!

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

why wouldn't you discuss LSA in rec.aviation.piloting?

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/





"Larry Dighera" wrote
We discuss LSA in rec.aviation.piloting.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:31:57 -0700, "Gilan" wrote in
y2zzg.5652$Mz3.3896@fed1read07::

why wouldn't you discuss LSA in rec.aviation.piloting?

As I recall, it was this sentence of yours (apparently lacking a verb)
that provoked that follow up:

"Discussions on the new (LSA) Light-Sport Aircraft and Sport Pilot
license."

As a multi-decade participant in Usenet, I also understood, that
YahooGroups, although flashier, lacked the ability to attract a
readership anywhere near as large as that of Usenet. This newsgroup
generates about 6,000 messages per month.

While GoogleGroups archives Usenet and provides a public portal, it
too, like YahooGroups, provides an alternate communications forum
separate from Usenet, thus fractionalizing the content over multiple
forums. That makes the information more difficult to search.

To be fair, I congratulate your LSA discussion group for its continued
activity since November 2002. And I wish you oodles of success in
attracting participants.