Lycoming 320 and EAA Light Sport Aircraft ?

Interesting. You mean we have been paying all those EAA dues who is spending
tons to promote the new sport category? How does it benefit homebuilders
- who are the major portion of EAA membership?

Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..
....
.......no such things as home designed, home built
Light Sport Aircraft category aircraft. It's a new certification category
to cover *production* aircraft, it has nothing to do with homebuilt
aircraft.
.......
Ron Wanttaja

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:32:39 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:

This medium does have its limitations, doesn't it?

And its advantages...neither of us have whacked the other upside the head,
yet. :-)

What I am saying is, as I read the proposed LSA rules, I don't see any
provision to allow an individual to design and build an aircraft which fits
within the parameters of LSA. If you are saying that is correct and that LSA
only allows production aircraft from a commercial manufacturer, then I have
been under the wrong belief since I first heard of the proposal.

The problem, like I said in an earlier posting, is that there are two
*related* programs that will be starting: Light Sport Aircraft category
and the Sport Pilot certificate. Hopefully, I'll make the difference clear
by the end of this posting.

Are you indeed saying that a Fly Baby, for example, will not qualify as a
LSA?

"A" Fly Baby cannot be certified as an LSA. The Fly Baby *design* can. No
one will be able to present a Fly Baby to the FAA and receive a Light Sport
Airplane certificate for it. What they *could* do is present the design to
the FAA, prove the airplane meets the performance requirements (the
airspeed, stall, gross weight limitations), prove it meets whatever
structural standards the FAA (or an industry consensus) set, mounts an
engine approved under the LSA regs, etc. For that trouble, they would
receive a Type Certificate under the Light Sport Aircraft category that
would permit them to manufacture and sell Fly Babies ready-to-fly.

These production Fly Babies would be type-certificated aircraft. They
wouldn't be treated like homebuilts. They could be rented, fly over
congested areas, etc. (though I expect LSA won't be able to carry
passengers or cargo for hire). Homebuilts can be maintained by anybody,
but that is NOT the case with LSA category aircraft. It'll take an A&P.

However, part of the LSA proposal allows a LSA manufacturer to offer
courses that would give owners training sufficient to maintain and inspect
their LSA-category aircraft. It would be like the current Repairman
Certificate for homebuilts...but graduates of the factory training course
would be allowed to maintain *any* of that type of aircraft (but not for
hire). If someone took the Fly Baby maintenance course, they'd be able to
inspect and repair ANY LSA-certified Fly Baby (but not the homebuilt ones,
since they weren't made by the same "factory" that built the LSA-certified
ones).

And a holder of a PPL with a lapsed medical will not be able to fly
that Fly Baby under day VFR as a LSA pilot?

There's no such thing as a "LSA pilot." LSA is an aircraft certification
standard. Again, LSA has absolutely nothing to say about pilot
qualifications.

But this is where understanding the proposed Sport Pilot license comes into
play. Ignore, for a moment, the existence (or anticipated existence) of
Light Sport Aircraft. The Sport Pilot license is intended to allow
individuals to fly small, simple aircraft with relaxed medical and
experience requirements. The Sport Pilot license will allow holders to
operate planes with =N seats, weighing less than X lbs, and with certain
stall speed and maximum speed limitations.

If ANY aircraft (certified or homebuilt) meets those requirements, a holder
of a Sport Pilot license can fly it (subject to checkout requirements that
I understand are part of the proposal). A person would be able to operate
a 1940 J-3 Cub, a 1946 Aeronca Champ, a 1947 Taylorcraft, a 1995 Kitfox,
1967 Fly Baby etc. with only a Sport Pilot license.

Here's where it gets fun: The performance limitations of the Sport Pilot
license were used as *requirements* for the Light Sport Aircraft category.
In addition to the structural, engine, testing, etc, requirements, designs
applying for certification in the LSA category will also have to prove they
meet the Sport Pilot license limitations.

There are issues regarding some of the classic airplanes that it's hoped
Sport Pilots will be able to fly. I understand there are some cases where
early models of a given design qualify for being flown by Sport Pilots, and
later models do not (typically because of a gross weight increase).

But that question NEVER arises if the plane in question is certified in the
LSA category. An plane certified as an LSA can *always* be flown by a
properly-trained Sport Pilot.

So: Back to our Fly Baby example again. Let's say I jump through all the
hoops and get the "Wanttaja Fly Baby" design certified as a Light Sport
Aircraft. I can sell them ready-to-fly, I can lease them out, I can put
them on the flight line of the local FBO for rental. I have to use an A&P
to maintain those rental birds, but the ordinary owner will be able to take
the factory course and do all the maintenance and inspection themselves.

But...the homebuilt Fly Babies, such as the "Bowers Fly Baby", "Russell Fly
Baby," "Langford-Bowers Fly Baby," even the brand-new, ultra-delux,
"Shankland Fly Baby", etc. can ALSO be flown by someone with just a Sport
Pilot license. But they can't be leased or rented out. The guy who built
the "Russell Fly Baby" can get a Repairman Certificate, but he can't do the
inspections on the "Langford-Bowers Fly Baby."

To summarize:

1. Owners of a Sport Pilot license can fly ANY aircraft that meets the
number of seats, gross weight, and the cruise and stall speed limitations.
The aircraft themselves can be certified in ANY category...normal, utility,
aerobatic, experimental, limited, LSA, etc.

2. Builders of homebuilt aircraft will be able to fly their creations with
just a Sport Pilot license, IF the airplane meets the # of seats, gross
weight, and cruise and stall speed limitations specified by the Sport Pilot
license.

3. The new Light Sport Aircraft category is a simplified certification
system for the manufacture and production of airplanes of moderate
performance. Part of the certification requirements include the need to
meet all the limitations necessary to be able to be flown by someone with a
Sport Pilot license. If a plane is certified under LSA, there's no
question whether a person holding a Sport Pilot license can fly it.

Anyway, that's my understanding of the upcoming rules. Ed, Cy, anybody,
please correct me if I went astray.

(Whew....)

Ron Wanttaja

On 18 Oct 2003 22:21:27 -0700, (Paul Lee) wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..
....
.......no such things as home designed, home built
Light Sport Aircraft category aircraft. It's a new certification category
to cover *production* aircraft, it has nothing to do with homebuilt
aircraft.

Interesting. You mean we have been paying all those EAA dues who is spending
tons to promote the new sport category? How does it benefit homebuilders
- who are the major portion of EAA membership?

Few people start out flying homebuilts. Just about everyone starts with a
production-like airplane. The goals of the Sport Pilot/Light Sport
Aircraft proposals are to produce more pilots. More pilots, the more of
them get interested in homebuilts.

Without affordable flying, GA is doomed...and as GA goes, so does
homebuilding.

EAA, I think, got into Sport Pilot because so many members wanted a license
that didn't require a medical. LSA and Sport Pilot are pretty much
intertwined.

My PERSONAL hopes for LSA: Creating a source of used, recently
manufactured, 65-100 HP engines.

Ron Wanttaja

I susect the major porpotion of EAA members are wannabes who wandered
into Oshkosh and were forced into buying a 3 month membership

Yup, I saw the stooges at Oshkosh, grabbing people and pummeling them
about the head and shoulders until they forked up the dough. An awful
sight, really...


Ed Wischmeyer

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...

The problem, like I said in an earlier posting, is that there are two
*related* programs that will be starting: Light Sport Aircraft category
and the Sport Pilot certificate. Hopefully, I'll make the difference
clear
by the end of this posting.

I think. . . Yes! those *are* the approach lights . . . Okay! I've got the
runway in sight, now to get this thing slowed down.

Thanks Ron & Del. Between the two of youse guys, I think I'm finally
starting to get the picture and, while it ain't Angelina Jolié headed for
the shower, it's not Ma Kettle, either.

Now all I have to do is placard the Emeraude's gross weight and Vne for
operation by a Sport Pilot?

Rich S.

On 18 Oct 2003 22:21:27 -0700, (Paul Lee)
wrote:

Interesting. You mean we have been paying all those EAA dues who is spending
tons to promote the new sport category? How does it benefit homebuilders
- who are the major portion of EAA membership?

I susect the major porpotion of EAA members are wannabes who wandered
into Oshkosh and were forced into buying a 3 month membership

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:49:42 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:

Thanks Ron & Del. Between the two of youse guys, I think I'm finally
starting to get the picture and, while it ain't Angelina Jolié headed for
the shower, it's not Ma Kettle, either.

You shouldn't talk about Ampmeter's relatives like that... :-)

Now all I have to do is placard the Emeraude's gross weight and Vne for
operation by a Sport Pilot?

By George, he's got it! I think he's got it! That's *exactly* where the
uncertainty lies, for the homebuilder. How will the FAA determine if a
given homebuilt (which, by definition, is a one-of-a-kind aircraft)
complies with the limitations required to be flown under the Sport Pilot
regs? Like the example I gave a few postings back...The box the kit came
in said, "Harmon Rocket," but if the name on the application for
airworthiness says "Fly Baby", what now?

The EAA has a list of Sport Pilot-compatible homebuilts, but all they did
was take the published numbers from the Aerocrafter book and compare them
to the SP limitations. There's no verification of the numbers, and some of
them are incorrect. For instance, the Fly Baby monoplane is listed on the
SP-compatible list, but not the biplane...which has only 25 lbs more
weight, lots more drag, and has 25% more wing area. Somehow, the
Aerocrafter book has the wrong stall speed for the biplane.

Will the FAA be allowed to use a list generated by a non-government
organization? If they question Rich's Emeraude numbers, they can at least
demand a ride and watch a GPS to verify the various speeds (find a
headwind, Rich!). But what about single-seat airplanes?

At best, this will end up similar to the "fat ultralight" problem...lots of
aircraft violating the regs, but the FAA not really caring unless a
particular case is too blatant. We may end up with a formula-based system
to determine if a given homebuilt meets the requirements (wing loading
limit, power loading limit, etc.). At worst, we may find the SP regs leave
homebuilts off entirely (which would make a lot of EAA staffers' faces
really red).

Keep in mind, folks, that these standards STILL are not in place, and that
there's no real indication as to how they've changed since they were
released for public comment a year or so ago. We still don't know what the
final answer is going to be...it may be issues like the above that has
delayed them so long.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
Will the FAA be allowed to use a list generated by a non-government
organization? If they question Rich's Emeraude numbers, they can at least
demand a ride and watch a GPS to verify the various speeds (find a
headwind, Rich!). But what about single-seat airplanes?

Catch 22 applies. With a passenger, I'd be violating the "Solo Only"
placard. The Emeraude would be a single-seater unless I ripped out a bunch
of radios, instruments, the wheel pants and my Teddy bear.

Rich "No, you can't take it for a demo ride!" S.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


To summarize:

1. Owners of a Sport Pilot license can fly ANY aircraft that meets the
number of seats, gross weight, and the cruise and stall speed limitations.
The aircraft themselves can be certified in ANY category...normal, utility,
aerobatic, experimental, limited, LSA, etc.

2. Builders of homebuilt aircraft will be able to fly their creations with
just a Sport Pilot license, IF the airplane meets the # of seats, gross
weight, and cruise and stall speed limitations specified by the Sport Pilot
license.

3. The new Light Sport Aircraft category is a simplified certification
system for the manufacture and production of airplanes of moderate
performance. Part of the certification requirements include the need to
meet all the limitations necessary to be able to be flown by someone with a
Sport Pilot license. If a plane is certified under LSA, there's no
question whether a person holding a Sport Pilot license can fly it.

Anyway, that's my understanding of the upcoming rules. Ed, Cy, anybody,
please correct me if I went astray.

(Whew....)

Ron Wanttaja



Ron,


If I may add to your analysis of the Light Sport Aircraft/Sport Pilot
proposal...

As I understand it, the FAA is actually proposing TWO different LSA
airworthyness certificates. One is the "special" LSA certificate for
factory built aircraft, and the other is the "experimental" LSA certificate.

From an the aircraft owners standpoint, the difference would be that
that an Exp. LSA could not be used for rental purposes, while the
special (factory built) LSA could. The exp. LSA would require a flight
test period and have specified operating limitations analogous to exp.
homebuilts.

As I see it, one would pursue the exp. LSA cert. only if:
1. You have an existing "fat" or two-seat ultralight, and the Exp. LSA
would be the only legal way to fly it.

2. You want to hire someone to build most or all of your qualifying kit
plane (and consequently not meet the 51% rule) and didn't want to (or
couldn't) buy the completed plane from the factory. You'd need a
Statement of Compliance from the kit manufacturer, which they could give
only if they had built at least on plane and demonstrated that it met
the consensus standards. If you can met the 51% rule, you'd rather have
the exp. home built cert.

3. You want to modify an existing LSA so that its original cert. is
invalid, but you maintain performance within the definition of LSA.

I'm a newbe, so pardon me if I've missed something previously posted.:-)

Wayne

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:43:11 GMT, Wayne R wrote:


If I may add to your analysis of the Light Sport Aircraft/Sport Pilot
proposal...

[Good stuff snipped]

Thanks, Wayne! I haven't really been paying attention to a lot of the
finer detail. Sounds like this is similar to the current rules that allow
home construction of some airplanes. Piper had such a deal on the Super
Cub about fifteen years ago, but I heard that they had few takers. But the
LSA rules may be relaxed enough to get more interest.

Ron Wanttaja