Sport Pilot Talk

I have all sorts of dream planes... a low wing tandem capable of efficient cruise and mild aerobatics (think rv-4-light), a two person camper type plane (CH750 really covers this, but rig it to appeal to the sort people that currently tour dual-sport motorcycles e.g. me) ...

None of it matters until someone figures out the dealership/money problem.

Go shopping for a motorcycle/quad/etc. If you are near anything close to a population center you can find several dealers that have dozens of motorcycles/etc ranging from maybe $5000 to $35000+ (and sometimes + + +) including road-only, off-road only, 4-wheelers, etc. You can walk in, sit on a few, sign some forms and (if you have ok credit) drive away with a trailer, quad/bikes/whatever, helmets, insurance, names of trainers, etc.

Maybe boats are a better example - many dealers selling boats from $5000 - $80000. Walk in, drive away with a boat.

Unless people - at least those living in major metro areas -can do the same (perhaps at those same dealers) it doesn't seem that any of these dream planes is likely to make a 1st world factory money to build our dream lsa planes.

When did that rule take affect? Previously, there were no restrictions on PPL for Ercoupe trained pilots.

Don't know, but I checked with the SP DPE I use, and he confirmed it.

_________________
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

One of the problem I have with the RV-12 is that the gas tank takes up half of the baggage area, and TBH, doesn't really allow many options in terms of engines and avionics, which I was surprised by. Vans other aircrafts have always gave the builders engines and avionics options.

Remember, the RV-12 is an E-LSA. That means Van's built a couple, got them registered as S-LSAs, and produced kits. Under the LSA regs, they can't allow options unless they build and certify identical S-LSAs, one or two for each possible combination of options that the customer might desire. That's just too expensive.

_________________
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've been going round with what I'd like in a SP airplane. It comes down to how you look at it. My list for a personal airplane is quite different than my list for an airplane I'd use in the flight school.

I've kind of come to a list of 6 airplanes I'd like to see that are not available

1. Tandem seat low tapered wing. Think of a smaller fixed gear Navion or Tucano with tandem seating and the aft seat much higher than the front for good forward visibility. The canopy would have a turnover keel along the top edge. The side panel forward left would slide aft. Side panel right aft would slide forward for entry or exit even when upside down. It would be mildly positive G aerobatic similar to the capability of a Citabria. All metal with solid rivets and built up spar. No struts, Inline 4 cylinder Walter LOM or similar. Stick controls with all controls in bearings and rudder balance cable forward of the pedals.

2. Short field side by side airplane with high wing and modular construction. Look at a Safari helicopter frame for an idea. Forward fuselage would be a sheet metal and tubing pod. open truss to tail feathers. Aluminum tail. Aluminum and fabric wings. Gear with long stroke oleos and short legs. I want to be able to approach slightly behind the power curve and drop it in for very short landings no flaps. Simple wing and controls with Cub airfoil. Jackscrew trim on tail. Very good visibility with low mounted engine and high prop. 2 cylinder with belt drive or VW clone with reduction similar to the Valley Engineering setup.
simple field replace components to the airframe with bare minimum of fairings or inspection panels.

3. Training airplane with very conventional layout, panel, no handling vices or quirks. Kind of a generic airplane with generous room, decent payload, starts in any condition, no maintenance between oil changes or 100 hour inspections, sealed bearings with known replacement interval, steel tube frame around cockpit, no fuel pumps, 12V system. 12,000 hour life, tested to 2000 hours before the first one is sold,

4. Single seat Flybaby size and layout but with the fuselage box fleshed out with stringers. Steel tube fuselage frame, Rotec radial and setup to look like any of several 30's racers and a Boeing P-26. Pete, Mike, Ike, Miss LosAngeles, Folkerts Racers, Miles Atwood etc. It would be great to build a fleet of these. The wood parts could be CNC cut and tubing cut by VR3 Engineering. Basic structure the same on all so simple engineering. Tig welded frame, Single seat and plenty of power. Good wing loading, Aerobatic, Sport Pilot Legal and FUN!!! 1320 gross leaves room for a lot of structure to make a unbreakable single seater. LSA cruise speed but no VNE. The Monocoupes were certifed to terminal velocity. Why can't we now. They were not too heavy for their 90 or 145 hp.

5. Rotax turbo or Jabiru 120hp powered aerobatic single seat with thick short span wings and Extra airfoil. Shaped like a current 2 Meter RC Pattern Airplane with as close to 1:1 power to weight as possible. Could be similar fuselage to a formula 1 racer but wing for slower speed aerobatics. The Twister would also be fun to try.

6. Pitts S-1C with Rotec, Same span on top and bottom wings. Our S-1C with 180 hp was not much over 700 lbs and a real rocket. Pull the power back to 150 hp and take a lot of weight out. add one bay to lower wings and it might make the LSA stall speed. Prop for top end.

The Skipper has given me a lot of ideas and also showed me a lot of things compared to the older construction methods I am used to. It's a tough little Part 23 airplane but they won't work with LSA. It appears Beech had a basic design which they really reworked to save weight. Did Pug Piper do this? Hard to tell. The outer wing panels are .016 skin already and they pared down other areas. Wing tips are Lexan. But the basic construction with bonded honeycomb, bonded wings, spring gear, lead acid battery, avionics, torque tube controls, full mass balance controls, gyro panel is just too heavy for LSA. It could be reworked to get in line with LSA but you would want to change the airfoil to reproduce and it's just too specialized construction. Beech had the honeycomb and bonding technology in house at the time so it made sense. The Musketeer, Sundowner line are built similar. Totally different than the Tomahawk.

I've been thinking of taking a Skipper and throwing out everything except what is needed for legal day VFR. Sort of a modern vagabond but with a starter and 296 GPS. That and add the Sparrowhawk conversion pistons and it would be a little rocket.
If I wanted it for Private checkrides I would use a TRIO glass panel, PS intercom, Garmin 430 and 330 transponder. Very functional at that point. Mechanical tach would stay and the beech engine/fuel gauge cluster is ok so far. Not much else can be changed. you could maybe throw out the carpet. 30 gallons fuel capacity is fixed. Composite prop, lighter battery possibly. Then CG comes into question. There simply is not anything not needed to remove if used in a flight school. The LSA weight limit is just too low.

It's not a perfect airplane but I keep looking and trying them to see what works.

It's possible with a new design but to adapt exisiting is too hard.

_________________
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery

I wonder why Vans didn't go the same route Zenith did with their 601/650, build an aircraft that meets LSA requirements, but isn't certified as an S/E-LSA.

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I like the idea of having a unique aircraft, an aircraft that anyone can see on the ramp and say "That's NCPilot's aircraft." Having engines and avionics options helps me achieve that uniqueness.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Chris Heinz' Zenith design was purely an E-AB, two decades before there was an LSA rule. (I remember seeing them at Oshkost 1987; I think they first came out around 1984). Initially, Chris did not manufacture airplanes, just sold plans. Zenair produced kits and completed aircraft in Canada. Zenith Aircraft Company later introduced kits in the US. I understand there were also commercial producers in Europe and South America. As soon as there was an opportunity to produce LSA versions, AMD did just that with the Zodiac, which was ASTM approved as an S-LSA.

_________________
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

Ahh, I did not know that, my bad.

No bad at all. We're all here to learn.

_________________
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 thought the 601/650 was like the 701/750... CH designed the x01 (x being 6 or 7 obviously) well before LSA was imagined, but once the LSA rules were in place he (or someone) tweaked the design (upped the gross from 12xxlbs to 1320ish, etc) to take advantage of the new rules, and named the new model the x50, but the old models are still there.

As far as I know you can buy kits/plans for any/all of them (601, 650, 701, 750) today, and as long as you follow the 51% rule you can mod them however you like and paper any of them as straight amateur homebuilts. If you pick a x50 and follow the kit exactly you don't have to follow the 51% rule.

Am I confused?

As for who makes/sells what...I lost track a long time ago. Between AMD, Alarus, Zenair, Zenith, etc... Chris must have a lot of sons 'cause as far as I know most of those are family ventures.

What I'd like to see - a CHEAP LSA! Or at least with a somewhat sane price. yes, I know, I know; the public votes with their wallet, but right now most of us can't even get on the register to vote....

_________________
"Someone already thought of that."

How cheap do you want? A stripper A240 goes for $70k, which is considerably cheaper than a part 23 airplane (the cheapest of those hover about $310k), and cheaper than your common $125k CT or Remos.

That's a bit misleading. Yeah, some cost $300k+, but you can buy a new IFR-certified Alarus for $150k, and they used to/probably still sell a VFR only model for about $105k. Fully part 23 certified GA plane.

$70K + operating costs is still too steep for too many for what is a hobby for most.

Just look at how much car, or boat, you can buy for $70K. And often with far more technology and higher quality than you'll find in a $100K+ LSA.