delete

April Fools has come and past.

I got this info last AUG from Federal Register -Notice of proposed rule making. The Australians and New Zea land are already operating at 750 Kilos or
1648 lbs. US FAA is in favor of this Europeans who make those 600 kilogram LSA don't want the change. I think it will pass to at least 650 kilos .

Yes, Unfortunately an April 1st edition!!! Only wish it were true. It MIGHT bring prices down a bit as there would be more planes eligible for LSA. But then again there might be a LOT more people thinking about flying as the access to eligble planes would be more prevelent.

Other than the "funny" tag at the top of the article, it was kinda hard to tell it was a gag as the idea of bumping the LSA weight limit up to 1800 or so makes perfect sense. Of course, that in itself it a tip-off!!

Eric

I noticed that Cub Crafters has a new carbon Super Sport Cub. They've managed to put a 180hp lyc into an LSA and do so while still keeping an almost reasonable amount of useful load. Kudos to them. Still, $167,000 for an LSA is waaaayyy beyond my puny budget.

On one hand, I see this as making the airplane safer for folks dealing with density altitude. On the other hand they claim it has the HP to weight ratio of the P-51. Might not torque be a big issue?

More and more I'm seeing claims and hints from LSA companies that they test their LSA's to standards much higher than the 1320 gross limit, as if to say, wink, wink, nudge, nudge "Go ahead and fly it over gross. It can handle it," recognizing the severe limitation that the weight limit has on creating a usable aircraft for actual recreation beyond flying around the patch. I'm all for the speed limit and stall limitation but the FAA made a big mistake with the gross limit.

Just my half cent.

Personally, I'm opposed to changing the weight limit for LSA's. In fact I wish they'd left it at 1230 as originally proposed. The intend was to provide low cost, simple, slow, easy to fly class for pilots getting started. And to bring some regulation to the 2 seat ultralights which are getting increasingly popular and were causing problems from lack of pilot training. Face it, A 180hp, light weight Cub I think qualifies as a high performace aircraft in anybodies book. And will be a much more demanding aircraft than a J-3. If they up the weight limits, they'll eventually have to up the training requirements and aircraft certification standards and we'll end up right back where we started.

Personally, I think the real issue is not that the weight limit for LSA's is too low, but the medical requirements for a Private liscense are too high. The only people I've personally talked with that want a higher LSA weight are the current pilots who are worried about keeping their medical and want to keep flying their current aircraft. Can't say I blame them, I'll be facing the same thing eventually. But let's focus on the real issue. Wouldn't it be simpler to just ammend the Private pilot rule to only require a class 3 medical for complex and high performance aircraft? Let those of us with a Private that fly simple, non-high performance planes just use a drivers license like the light sport pilots.

Just my 2 cents.
Phil

Bear_Builder wrote:Personally, I'm opposed to changing the weight limit for LSA's. In fact I wish they'd left it at 1230 as originally proposed. The intend was to provide low cost, simple, slow, easy to fly class for pilots getting started. And to bring some regulation to the 2 seat ultralights which are getting increasingly popular and were causing problems from lack of pilot training. Face it, A 180hp, light weight Cub I think qualifies as a high performace aircraft in anybodies book. And will be a much more demanding aircraft than a J-3. If they up the weight limits, they'll eventually have to up the training requirements and aircraft certification standards and we'll end up right back where we started.

Personally, I think the real issue is not that the weight limit for LSA's is too low, but the medical requirements for a Private liscense are too high. The only people I've personally talked with that want a higher LSA weight are the current pilots who are worried about keeping their medical and want to keep flying their current aircraft. Can't say I blame them, I'll be facing the same thing eventually. But let's focus on the real issue. Wouldn't it be simpler to just ammend the Private pilot rule to only require a class 3 medical for complex and high performance aircraft? Let those of us with a Private that fly simple, non-high performance planes just use a drivers license like the light sport pilots.

Just my 2 cents.
Phil

The real answer is to abolish the medical requirement for private pilots altogether. Private pilot=not for hire. I'm all for reasonable medical requirements for commercial pilots, but the requirement is unwarranted for private pilots. I'm likely to cause a lot more carnage if I keel over at the wheel of my SUV on a busy interstate than if I do so at the controls of a light airplane. However, the FAA uses the medical to get those pesky private pilots out of the skies (and out of the ATC system so they don't impede the "big iron"). They recently made the blood pressure criteria more stringent. Private pilots should be able to "self certify" just like LSA or glider pilots. Abolishing the requirement altogether would go a long way to getting more people interested in flying and help ensure the long term viability of general aviation in this country.

Phil has some good points. Considering the training requirements for LSA, I'm not sure the 180hp engine is a good idea for most sport pilots. For that I was tossing about an idea like what we used to do in Washington with motorcycles. Have a tiered system with more training/endorsements for each tier. For example, current LSA w/engines up to 100hp (or so.), another endorsement for up to 150hp, and yet another for up to 200hp. Allow weight increases for each level as well.

I fully agree that the medical issue is a good part of the problem, but where should the cutoff be if standards are relaxed? Simply commercial vs private? What about private pilots flying personal jets?

I also think the requirements for certification of an aircraft make it onerous to introduce new airplanes which is one of the reasons so many new startup LSA companies are able to make a buck even with low production numbers. I think there are a lot of private pilots who would like to have the option of newer and more varied types of aircraft that LSA could fulfill if it didn't have the weight limitations.

Craig

delete

My Legend Cub is way overbuilt for a 1320# gross.It is really a Supercub copy.Same airplane as an experimental kit is 1600lb.I don't understand why the gross is 1430 for the floatplane in light-sport yet only 1320 on wheels.Makes no sense to me.
Bill

james wrote:.......With the current lower weight limit, the FAA is pushing people into was is commonly referred to as "powered lawn furniture/ultralights". .......

We had a Remos LSA crash trying to land at our airport last week. It was really wiped out, the composite fuselage kinda cracked like an egg and "all the king's horses".... well, you know how that one goes. I don't know if a Cessna 150 or a Cub would have fared any better-- it was a pretty wild ride, with a 360 degree change in direction (I wouldn't call it a turn) and a couple severe collisions with terra firma. But the extremely light construction of the Remos makes me think a heavier, sturdier airplane would have handled the gusty crosswing better as well as held up better in the crash.
As I recall, there were some posts here a while back that made it sound as though some of the Legend Cubs and CC Sport Cubs had a little trouble in real life making the 890# empty weight cut-off for a 100-horse LSA.

Eric

Jame, Willyb
You guys just confirmed my point. You don't want to fly light sport planes, you want to have fewer restrictions on your standard catagory planes. My fear is that if we expand the LSP rules to include heavier more powerful planes, we'll get additional regulations to go with it and lose the benifits of Light Sport.

Phil

Bear_Builder wrote:Jame, Willyb
You guys just confirmed my point. You don't want to fly light sport planes, you want to have fewer restrictions on your standard catagory planes. My fear is that if we expand the LSP rules to include heavier more powerful planes, we'll get additional regulations to go with it and lose the benifits of Light Sport.

Phil

Your Right we want REAL AIRPLANES with SAFETY - The Light sport airplanes came out what they called "heavy Ultralights" from the Europe>JAR (
Joint Airworthness Resolutions) patterend after the FAR's. The Ultralight class (256 lbs class PAR 103) was severeally limited to hang gliders with
snow mobile engines. The Light sport Class now includes Cub's ,Areronca, Champs< some scary coupe's . Presently there is a do not' fly order on my desk from the NTSB /FAA for the Zenair 601xl . I have one in my hanger that is due a "conditional inspection" -but may be awhile before it returns to flight status. Beautful little airplane that should be flying. Biggest problem with this 600 kilos that we got from the Europe folks is they wanted Hang gliders to make longer trips. Design funky little airplanes that would fit there bill. In the states and other parts of the world we have folks wanting to go to grandmas with all there stuff over the continental divide . For airplane to be legal light sport it should have a designed gross weight of 1320 lbs, (600 kilos),Empty weights go from 600-900 lbs empty depending on how much super paint jobs,electronic marvels,el cid interior packages etc. I have a set of certified Weight and Balance scales and weigh lots of airplanes . The engines and props' for these little bug smashers run 200-300 lbs . The Airframe for typical 701 runs another 400 or more. The wing area is approx. 100 sq. ft. resulting in a (if airplane runs 1100 lbs. )gross wing loading of 11 lbs. per square foot. Most gliders have wing loading 6-8 lbs per sq. ft. So what you have is a light ly loaded airplane -not at all safe in high winds . They claim (LSA manufactures) high speed (up to 123 Knots TAS) cruise -just under the 148 mph LSA redline. This Keeping weight down to accomplish a higher useful load (1320 LBS) is DANGEROUS ! I say let the Gross weight be higher -Let light sport drivers operate anything the Recreational Pilot can do right now -except remove the medical exam and use your drivers licenses . I have a 7KCAB Citiibra that I'd love to keep (It's for sale) for a Light Sport and fly for fun. It has a basic Gross of 1648lbs. I've heard the FAA /MIDO(Van Nuys-Carl Gerker) this will happen probably 1600-1700 lbs. This year.The Australians have been doing it for years -no problems .My .10 cents worth.

BIll,

The reason the Zenaire 600 is in question is that they've had six (count em) IN-FLIGHT structural failures of that model to date.

In-flight structural failures suggest either piss poor pilot performance or a less than robust structure. Maybe both. In these cases, they suspect aerodynamic flutter as a contributor.

I don't want to fly in ANYthing that's had ONE inflight structural failure.

And, I too think there's merit to keeping the Light Sport rules the same, but bumping the GW to something around 1600 to 1700 pounds.

MTV

I think we're actually on the same page here guys. Light Sport was originally intended primarily for the 2 seat ultralights, and expanded so it included several classic trainers and popular light kit planes. Believe it or not, there is a large group in this country that prefer to fly ultralights, they don't care about carrying lots of gear cross country. They just cruise around low and slow, site seeing in their local areas. I used to myself, and hope to again. These little light weight aircraft will never be as roubust or capable as a Cessna 150 or Super Cub. But they are a kick to fly! Think of them like a bicycle compared to a car. It'll never be as safe or practical, but still has a place and can be fun.

The problems I'm seeing is where manufacturers and owners are trying to use Light sport planes as utility planes. That's why I think the LSP weight limit should be LOWER not higher. Force the manufacturers and Light Sport Pilots to face the facts of what they've got. On the flip side, I'm also in favor of dramatically reducing some of the Private pilot limits for lighter, simpler GA aircraft. I threw out the Complex and High performace terms earlier because these are already well defined by the FAR's. Like I said, you guys don't want to fly light sport planes, you want to keep flying your Cubs and Citabrias without a medical certificate. And I agree you should be allowed to! So far I haven't heard of any accidents due to LSP's not having a medical, but we just had a high profile one in the news were a commercial pilot passed out. So the FAA medicals don't work. I think we're establishing a record that will allow us to pressure the FAA to re-examine, and hopefully drop the medical requirements for Private pilots. Which face it, is what we all really want.

Phil

mtv wrote:BIll,
I don't want to fly in ANYthing that's had ONE inflight structural failure.
MTV

That's limiting yourself to an awefully small group of planes there MTV. I've talked with a pilot that survived a PA-12 crash when the wing folded on take-off (strut attach bracket failure). A 727 failed in flight when the trim jammed. A 747 exploded in flight due to an electrical short.

But I agree, the 601XL incidents do need looking into, there's obviously something wrong there.

Phil

Bear Builder
I am not sure if you understood me.All I was stating was that the Legend was plenty strong and COULD handle an increase in gross. It would not be a problem for it.I personally have a current medical so that part of LSA is not a factor.I really don't care if they up the gross in LSA.There are lot's of LSA aircraft that I would not fly at even 1320#.As a matter of fact there are many I would not want to fly at all.
As an aside I think because of CC latest creation the rules may change again.

Bill

You guys are all a lot more optimistic of the speed with which the FAA tends to move than I am....

The FAA tends to move in what I would characterize as "glacial" speeds.

When they changed the age 60 rule to age 65, like overnight, I about fell out of my chair. But, that just aligned with international standards.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the LSA GW issue. I have been told by a friend in the EAA that he doesn't see the FAA even considering a weight change in that category.

MTV

Bill,
I understood you perfectly. I just don't think the legend is a LSP except on paper. And I'm afraid the wink wink nod nod LSP's like that threaten to ruin the rule for the true LSP's. Honestly, the only changes I forsee for LSP is a more restrictive definition, not the other way around.

Mike
I agree, it's not going to happen soon. But one step at a time. The first step was getting a pilot certificate that doesn't require a medical. The next step, once that's shown to be safe is getting the medical requirement eased up for existing pilot certificates. After all, they did just extend the length between medical exams recently so the FAA is on board to some degree with this.

Phil