Sport Pilot Talk

A LSRM-A can only return to service an S-LSA or E-LSA. As you said there are several other types of pink certificates. In the case of an EA that meets the requirements of an LSA you have to have an A&P, Repairman certificate (original builder), or repair station.

I don't know if he really meant what he said, but a Lycoming rep at my IA re-fresher said about some of their new engines coming out that they could only be serviced at a Lycoming service center. He did mention the IO-233 in the group of new engines. Tom

That is entirely correct, Tom, with respect to the annual condition inspection. Thanks for the clarification. I do believe, however, that anyone (even a trained monkey) can do maintenance, alterations, and repairs on an E-AB. Do you concur with this interpretation?

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

I wasn't there, of course, so can only speculate. But remember, in the case of an S-LSA or E-LSA, it is the manufacturer that determines who can do what. So, if Lycoming puts this restriction into the maintenance manual for engines that go into an LSA, we're stuck with it.

As for their reasoning, perhaps those new engines require specialized tools not readily available (I have absolutely no trouble maintaining my 1950 MG-TD, for example, but can't possibly work on my own Pontiac Solstice for this reason). Or, maybe they're going to require that mechanics have specialized training (remember, the rules say "properly trained"), and Lycoming isn't yet ready to set up a school.

My personal guess is that the FEDEC (fully electronic digital engine control) system in particular is something all of us are going to have to be trained on, before we can touch it. It's completely different from carburetors, or even conventional fuel injection.

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

That is true for EA aircraft, but you may wind up with a different can of worms on an exprimental exhibition, or experimental R&D. Part 43 applies if the aircraft ever had anything different than an experimental certificate. the exception being S-LSA converted to E-LSA. Tom

As a tecnam P2008 owner I am sure you could get more information on the lyc P92 eaglet from Phil at tecnam NA. I know he looked the plane over at the friedrichafen(sp?) show. He would be happy to tell you about the plane, pricing and approx delivery of production models.

In my opinion the eaglet only needed a larger cabin to be a great airplane and it sounds like they did just that when they added the lyc. Definitely worth checking out in my opinion.

I wish my P2008 had the lycoming.

Jake

I'm curious what makes you say that, Jake. Have you had any difficulties with your Rotax? Trouble finding a qualified Rotax mechanic? Or is it that you prefer fuel injection and FEDEC?

Other than your engine preference, and the narrower cabin, has the Tecnam been a good plane for you?

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

The reason I would prefer the lycoming is for the fuel injection and extra 15 horsepower. Have you driven a carberated car lately? A good fuel injection has so many advantages over a carberator.

As far as the extra 15 horsepower who wouldnt want that? I also miss the precise throttle control of the lycoming.
I cannot really fault the rotax as it has been very good for me also other than the three fuel pumps and alot of time to figuring out the pump does not work when the temp is less than 15f. Seems the latest fuel pumps have a heavier diaphram that will not flex in cold temps. I understand there will be a new design soon.

As far as the P2008 I love it. Yes it was more money than the CTLS but not alot more.

Jake

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.



You might try an engine preheater. I installed the Reiff system last year, and it greatly improved cold-weather starting. (I did, however, have to replace a fuel pump, in accordance with the Rotax mandatory service bulletin.)


What, another one? You'd think they'd get it right by now.



Glad to hear that, Jake. Keep enjoying, and fly safely!

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

The P2008 has a 48 inch cabin. The eaglet is significantly narrower. It was too small for me and I am only 5-10 and 180.
The CTLS may be slightly wider than the P2008 but the P2008 has alot more room behind the reclining seats. The seats also are on an automotive type sliding rail for forward and back adjustment and they slide along way back.

The p2008 is a slippery plane as it cruises very well. I doubt the eaglet is as fast with the rotax.

Mark

this sounds very cool.



219 km/h is 136mph @ 5.3GPH.

does this burn auto gas ?

Stupid question but how do you stop it from going > 138mph if its doing 136mph @ 75%? I know there are other planes with very powerful motors but I don't know how it works with those either (e.g. STOL cubcrafter that can climb @ 2000 ft per minute).. obviously you would not want to artificially limit that power for sake of being able to use it in the event you needed it....

slightly Off topic... is the P92 eaglet and P92 classic the same body or different? what makes them different exactly?

Which equates to roughly 118 kts, which is pretty much par for all LSAs, if you pitch the prop for maximum cruise. (I don't know why LSA manufacturers brag about cruise speeds. By ASTM rules, they're all going to be about the same!)



My understanding is that Lycoming was going for 100LL. Probably due to ethanol concerns. I'm sure there'll be a mogas STC available from Peterson or EAA, but it will probably specify ethanol-free (at least the current ones do).

BTW, when a manufacturer publishes a rate of climb spec, a fuel economy spec, and a cruise speed spec, you should realize that you can't have all three at once, with the same prop pitch setting. It's like the old business adage: "price, performance, delivery -- you specify any two; the third is mine!"

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

Firstly, they do not "brag", but include them into the specifications. Secondly, the 75% cruise speeds are far from the same for S-LSAs. My research shows a significant spread:

C-162 :........ 118 kts
Tec. P92 :.... 118 kts
CTLS: ......... 115 kts
Remos :....... 107 kts, was doing that with 3.7 gph @ 4800 - maybe flow meter broken
Allegro: ...... 104 kts
Luscombe .... 104 kts, 5 gph w/ O-200
Jabiru ........ 100 kts
Alto: ............ 100 kts
Kolb ............ 100 kts
Sky Arrow: ..... 95 kts, 4.9 gph
A240 :........... 95 kts
Hornet ...... 90-95 kts
AL Cub: ........ 84 kts 5.6 gph
X-Air:............. 73 kts (slower than Cub!)

In most or all of them, you can only hit the maximum speed if you firewall it, so the cruise speed may be anything below the 118.

Now I don't know just how the expensive guys actually limit the airspeed if 75% cruise is so close or even equal to 118. Maybe placard it. You can see the group of "honest" airplanes: Alto, Jabiru, etc. They probably will top out at 118 at full power. But the C-162 numbers probably means cheating and flying faster than official limit. But one way or the other the airframes clearly differ in drag.

Thanks for the data table, Pete. Now, aren't those IAS at a particular altitude? I ask because the ASTM rule (120 kts max) is TAS at sea level on an ISA standard day, at max continuous power. (And that figure is approached pretty closely by most of the cruiser-style S-LSAs, if the prop pitch is set to coarse).

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

On second thought, I saw the wisdom of your words. Clearly those listing 118 (like Cessna) are bragging (because it cannot be the right number), and those listing about 100 do not (like Alto). Among each group numbers are very similar. And then there's a trail of draggier airframes like Cub. Intrestingly, Luscombe gets the right numbers while being aluminum and flying on 85 hp engine. The magic of miniscule useful loads and coarse propeller pitch perhaps.