Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).
Anyone can search my posts and readily find where I stand on this.
Just two things:
1)
...we push the rudder over to skid the plane around and voile, the world ends.
My poor, deceased mom would have pointed out that you certainly meant "Viola!"
2)
What was the power setting in the last 60° bank you performed? WOT, I bet, because you aren't going to hold level without it and a huge amount of up rudder.
I would call that "top" rudder. In any case, I think any of our little planes should be able to do coordinated, level 60º banked turns. It may take a lot of power (maybe even full), but I think it can be done. Am I wrong?
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
CFI, CFII, CFIME [email protected]
Wow that is ton of information and I appreciate all of it because it really explains a lot in the relation at least to a little as to how the 1,320 lb MTOW came to be. One thing for sure is there are some of the aircraft that are certified elsewhere for higher MTOW but as SP only 1,320 unless they are amphibious. Then there is that allowance.
The big thing that seems to get a lot of folks and I am currently one of them, is you do a ton of reading and ultimately have come across three planes that for one reason or another have really caught my eye. The jabiru J230 the flight design ct, and the lately the bristell.
The j230 almost a no brainier three doors ability for some serious luggage, it has some great endurance/range and it just looks like a very comfortable plane. Plus a lot of research says that if was to go ppl and use builder assist as an EAB I could gain another 100 kg in MTOW.
The CT looks so sleek and nimble and says come on you know you want to fly me. The bristell just looks fast and race car like plus 51 inch cabin just screams comfort.
Ultimately I had been reading for a long time and was really looking for why 1,320 was chosen it seems awfully arbitrary (until there was some explanation). Especially when there are aircraft clearly designed capable and certified for higher weight.
I read the thread on the 162 seeking weight allowance I know that's not for LSA but if they are asking for allowance of 1,800 it clearly shows that this design was meant for more. Again I appreciate all the answers.
The intent of the rule was to bring the "fat" ultra-lights under a rule set. The part 103 254lb empty weight was violated in order to fly 2 seat trainers. The 2 seat trainers were restricted to instruction only but then all flights became for the purpose of instruction and the fat ultralights remained undefined and unregulated.
To arrive at a weight that made sense for training there was a switch from empty weight to MTOW and by the time you allowed for 2 big guys you were pushing 1,000lbs. The weight got argued up to accommodate what existed at the time and the rule was created at 1,320.
What is interesting to me is that going into this sport pilot rule making process you had aircraft that mostly resembled Quicksilvers and of course various trikes. And now the free market has demonstrated that we want real airplanes at least to the extent that we can get them within 1,320 lbs and the old ultra lights and fat ultra lights are becoming a thing of the past.
FastEddieB wrote:My poor, deceased mom would have pointed out that you certainly meant "Viola!"
Eddy,
Your sainted mother would have been even more aghast to know that I meant voila. However, a viola is indeed a lovely instrument and I will take your point.
CharlieTango wrote:The intent of the rule was to bring the "fat" ultra-lights under a rule set. The part 103 254lb empty weight was violated in order to fly 2 seat trainers. The 2 seat trainers were restricted to instruction only but then all flights became for the purpose of instruction and the fat ultralights remained undefined and unregulated.
To arrive at a weight that made sense for training there was a switch from empty weight to MTOW and by the time you allowed for 2 big guys you were pushing 1,000lbs. The weight got argued up to accommodate what existed at the time and the rule was created at 1,320.
What is interesting to me is that going into this sport pilot rule making process you had aircraft that mostly resembled Quicksilvers and of course various trikes. And now the free market has demonstrated that we want real airplanes at least to the extent that we can get them within 1,320 lbs and the old ultra lights and fat ultra lights are becoming a thing of the past.
This is another great explanation as well. This with minimums on stall speed maximum on top speed definitely makes sense. Sebring and the Midwest LSA show are definitely saying people are wanting these pieces of equipment.
Remember also that, although 1320 pounds sounds like a completely random and arbitrary number, it isn't. ASTM International tends to think metric, and that figure equates to (hence probably came from), the nice, round figure of 600 kg.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV [email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
FAA wanted to limite it way below 1320 initially. Figures of 1000 and 1100 were bandied about until the commonality with Euro limit of 1320 carried the day, thanks god. The resulting airplane is very limited still, but at least some XC capability is present now.
As for ultralights becoming a thing of the past, I don't think so. There's a clear market for airplanes that can be flown with denied medicals (other than sailplanes). And they are far cheaper. You can get a new BYF, Belite, or Aerolite for $20k. Heck BYF is marginally XC capable now, and Jim Beale is tinkering with a 1/2 WV, although it pushes his price out of $20k bracket. Now that it became clear that ultralight market exists, people started getting back to requesting LODAs for real and instructing in E-LSAs. Of course it's not the massive movement we had back in the 80s, but don't write ultralights off just yet.
The FAA doesn't always craft the rules looking out for the pilot, but instead, the non-flying public. Look at part 103... 254#, 5 gallons of gas and away from populated areas doesn't keep the pilot safe, it prevents a larger disaster when it crashes (and they knew "when" not "if"). Likewise, sport pilot had some of the same impetus. Slow landing in a light aircraft... low energy if it hits something.
I have to agree with Paul's stance. Pilot error accidents are based on poor decision-making. It is realistic to assume poor decision-making occurs (It has to occur, we see pilot error accidents, QED). Flying over-gross and not accounting for the performance change is poor decision-making. The scenario IS realistic and not alarmist. Look at all the 180-degree-turns-on-takeoff-engine-failure-leading-to-stall accidents (I really need to reign in these hyphens). It may be he is just preaching to the choir as the "poor-decision-makers" maybe don't haunt flying safety forums. Good for us for being here!
