Sport Pilot Talk

Doss79 · Joined: 30 Jun 2008 Posts: 108 Location: San Antonio, Tx

Hi all,
I currently own a 1946 J3 Cub. I think it's time for something a little faster as I'd like to do a little XC once in a while....at least getting some place at 100mph cruise:) I really do not have any more money to spend on aviation right now as I'm in the process of buying my first house. I've had offers on my Cub (not on the market) for 30k .

I'm looking at a Luscombe...seems to be the best bang for the buck. It sips gas at 4.5gph and cruises around 100-110mph. Probably will look for a 85hp version as I'd like to do a little mountain flying in the future. I'm not a big guy...5'9, 165lbs...but how tight will it be with 2 people?

Of course, if money were no object, I'd go with a Carbon Cub or Highlander...but I'd like to keep it in the 20k range.

Thoughts? It seems the Luscombe is often paired with the C140/C120 as some of the best bang for your buck, but only the Luscombe is under SP rules.

3Dreaming · Joined: 10 Jan 2010 Posts: 301 Location: noble, IL USA

Make sure it meets the requirements of a LSA, the 8A does, but I think the 8E doesn't. Most of the 8A's had a 65hp engine. A taylorcraft might also be one to look at 95-100mph with a metal prop when rigged right on 65hp. Some 85 HP are OK for sport pilot too. A clip wing T-Craft with a 0-200 if it hasn't had a weight increase makes a realy nice airplane as well. Tom

RyanShort1 · Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Posts: 101 Location: San Antonio, TX

Doss79 wrote: Hi all,
I currently own a 1946 J3 Cub. I think it's time for something a little faster as I'd like to do a little XC once in a while....at least getting some place at 100mph cruise:) I really do not have any more money to spend on aviation right now as I'm in the process of buying my first house. I've had offers on my Cub (not on the market) for 30k .

I'm looking at a Luscombe...seems to be the best bang for the buck. It sips gas at 4.5gph and cruises around 100-110mph. Probably will look for a 85hp version as I'd like to do a little mountain flying in the future. I'm not a big guy...5'9, 165lbs...but how tight will it be with 2 people?

Of course, if money were no object, I'd go with a Carbon Cub or Highlander...but I'd like to keep it in the 20k range.

Thoughts? It seems the Luscombe is often paired with the C140/C120 as some of the best bang for your buck, but only the Luscombe is under SP rules.
You're in San Antonio and have a Cub? Mind telling me where?
I might be able to help you look around some, maybe even arrange a flight in a Luscombe nearby.

Ryan

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

Doss79 wrote: Hi all,
I currently own a 1946 J3 Cub. I think it's time for something a little faster

Hmmmm, something a little faster than a Cub. Have you considered a bicycle? :wink:

Jack Tyler · Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:28 am Post subject: Thread drift alert...!

I apologize for sending this thread sideways for just a moment...but I couldn't resist.

For those of you who have read one or more of Steve Coonts many novels (e.g. Flight of the Intruder), you might enjoy this video - of Steve introducing the viewer to and taking them on a flight in his cub:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcZmuqVil98

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

Jack Tyler wrote: I apologize for sending this thread sideways

Don't apologize, Jack -- that was a wonderful video!

I've flown over Coonts' farm dozens of times over the years, while going to and from the private strip at NRAO Green Bank -- and have even seen him flying one or the other of his planes, but had never met him. Now, I feel I have. Thanks for the post.

Doss79 · Joined: 30 Jun 2008 Posts: 108 Location: San Antonio, Tx

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I am now also looking at a Taylorcraft BCD12. Does anyone know if adding a C85 to it will disqualify it as a LSA?

Ryan, you know me.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

Doss79 wrote: Does anyone know if adding a C85 to it will disqualify it as a LSA?

The T-craft never was, and never will be, an LSA. What it is is a Sport Pilot eligible certified aircraft. If there's an STC to upgrade the engine, read the STC conditions very carefully. As long as they doesn't modify the specs (max gross weight, stall speed, cruise speed) outside of the LSA limits, then it will still be a Sport Pilot eligible certified aircraft.

ka7eej · Joined: 28 Jan 2007 Posts: 177 Location: Taylor, Az

Doss 79,

I think what drseti is trying to do here is to get everyone speaking in the correct terms. There has been so much confusion and misinformation about Sport Pilots and Light Sport Aircraft.. The correct information and terminology is available from many locations including links found in this forum, the FAA, AOPA, and the EAA websites... We will all do well to learn the proper names and classes to help stop the misinformation.
Drseti is helping that cause everyday...

3Dreaming · Joined: 10 Jan 2010 Posts: 301 Location: noble, IL USA

Doss79 wrote: Thanks for the feedback, guys. I am now also looking at a Taylorcraft BCD12. Does anyone know if adding a C85 to it will disqualify it as a LSA?

Ryan, you know me.

Check out Certified Aeronautical Products there in Texas. He holds an STC to upgrade to 85hp. I think you can do the upgrade and go to a 1280 pound gross weight. Also the taylorcraft foundation has a nice forum for info. Tom

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

ka7eej wrote: I think what drseti is trying to do here is to get everyone speaking in the correct terms.

Yes, that's the curse of the teaching class. 38 years in the classroom can make one very particular about terminology. I even once introduced an ESL course (Engineering as a Second Language).

Quote: Drseti is helping that cause everyday...

Thanks for your kind words of support, Brian. :D

comperini · Joined: 24 Feb 2008 Posts: 152 Location: California

Personally, I think calling it an "LSA" is the correct terminology. Light sport aircraft is defined in 14 CFR 1.1. The definition has nothing to do with how an aircraft is certificated. It only describes charactaristics of an aircraft.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

comperini wrote: Personally, I think calling it an "LSA" is the correct terminology. Light sport aircraft is defined in 14 CFR 1.1.

Bob, you're correct that FAR 1.1 defines LSA in terms of performance specs only. The reason I think the distinction between E-LSA, S-LSA, and SP eligible acft is important is that there are significantly different maintenance requirements for the three. There's a common misconception that, for example, all LSAs can receive their annual inspection from an LSRM or A&P (no IA required). Similarly, a SP can do certain preventive maintenance tasks on an S-LSA, but to do those same tasks on a SP-eligible certified aircraft, one must have a PP or above. Thus, treating a certified aircraft an LSA has gotten folks into trouble.

comperini · Joined: 24 Feb 2008 Posts: 152 Location: California

Well bottom line is that it doesn't matter what you want to call it. I was just pointing out that the term "light sport aircraft" is defined by the FAA, where as "sport pilot eligible aircraft" is not. The terms "E-LSA", "S-LSA", and the generic term "LSA" are three different things. Of course, there's differences in maintenance requirements. There's also differences in equipment requirements, and a bunch of other things. Those are all addressed in other regulations. I'm just for using the set of "already defined" terms, instead of adding new terms (which is where I think confusion begins). Heck, I've seen some people coin terms for the 3 variations of E-LSAs in an attempt to identify their origin, which I also think just added to the confusion I am glad to see you now agree about the preventive maintenance thing on SLSAs though.

Again.. bottom line... call them whatever you want. It was just my little opinion on what I like to call them.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

comperini wrote: I am glad to see you now agree about the preventive maintenance thing on SLSAs though.

And that's a prime example of the very confusion we've been talking about! I sometimes think the FARs were written as complexly as possible, in order to comply with some federal Attorney's Full-Employment Act.

Quote: call them whatever you want. It was just my little opinion on what I like to call them.

Bob, I've always respected your opinion, even when it's wrong. :wink: (And I thank you for respecting mine, even when I'm wrong!)

Safe skies,
Paul