If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lycoming 320 and EAA Light Sport Aircraft ?
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Do not archive
"Rich S." wrote in message ... Oops......... Please excuse the repeated quote on my previous post - I hit cntrlV twice when nothing happened the first time, then failed to proof read the text. Rich S. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|