Interesting article that my Google News alert turned up:

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=1d571bc0-ae8f-4ac2-b364-8058ab37141e

Sample:

Aero-News.net wrote:So now comes the case of David Lowe, private pilot, A&P/IA and multiple STC holder. David decided to build from scratch a Cessna 120A model, full metal aircraft with standard gear, but at a reduced weight in anticipation of the sport pilot rule. Normally, a Cessna 120 weighs 1450 pounds gross... but David used thinner skins on parts of the aircraft that were not structural, added stringers where necessary for surface conformity, and eliminated the electrical system....

Come on Zane, admit it. You are a closet sadist, and you enjoy seeing us old farts pissed off and madder than hell.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:Come on Zane, admit it. You are a closet sadist, and you enjoy seeing us old farts pissed off and madder than hell.

Gump

This coming from the guy who just ticked "666" on his post count... But you may be onto something... Then again, I'm not the one who posted the damn thing about the tower controllers sky police. Talk about feeling pissed off...

Gump, I'll keep combing the intertubes until I find that perfect combination of story that piques your interest without boiling your blood. I'm predicting some Golden Eagles feel good piece

You need to post the rest of the story where the Australian aircraft that is certified to a higher gross weight is sold in the US as an LSA with no changes except for the gross weight. What's fair for them apparently isn't fair for us.

I think the rules are totally BS also. Recently I got into a pretty heated conversation with one of the "information" people while at Oshkosh. He basically told me that the reason the weight limit was put at 1320 was to specifically omit the use of the current 2-seat aircraft. He stated it was the manufactures that petitioned for this due to them wanting to sell new aircraft. His view was that with all the old planes out there that would fall into a higher gross weight limit, the manufacturers wouldn't sell any new aircraft. It seems it was more of a money thing than to actually try and get more people flying. My .02

WW

I've heard that vision expressed before also. And it makes sense, in a certain way. The feds were trying to "revitalize aviation", to encourage new aircraft develoment & production, and not just to get more pilots flying- although that was part of the vision also. Therefore the new,lower weight limit for LSA's & sport pilot op's.
But I think they shot themselves in the foot. That 1320 weight limit is low enough that most of the not-quite-so-old trainers (150,Traumahawk,etc) don't qualify-- but it's also so low that some mfr's are also having a hard time building their aircraft to qualify too. There's a formula based on fuel capacity requirements, and some of the mfr's (CC and Legend Cub for example?) just barely make it with regards to empty weight.
I for one would like to see that LSA weight limit bumped to at least 1600 or maybe as high as 1800 pounds. I feel this would not only allow the older existing trainers to be legal for sport pilots, it would make for safer, sturdier new LSA designs.

Eric

hotrod150 wrote: That 1320 weight limit is low enough that most of the not-quite-so-old trainers (150,Traumahawk,etc) qualify--

No they don't...

Gump

WWhunter wrote: it was the manufactures that petitioned for this due to them wanting to sell new aircraft. His view was that with all the old planes out there that would fall into a higher gross weight limit, the manufacturers wouldn't sell any new aircraft. It seems it was more of a money thing than to actually try and get more people flying. My .02

That's it exactly, and unless you can afford a new 130K Jabiru (made in Australia) or Cessna Turdcatcher (made in China) or any of the other 100K contenders, you're not gonna fly LSA in a store bought airplane. Whole thing is nothing but about money. But just think how much safer the people in this country will be with old guys with no medicals out there in 1320 pound LSAs, as opposed to endangering helpless women and children with 1500 pound Cessna 150s (made in the US). I know I'll sleep better at night.

Gump

I posted this because I thought it just an odd twist of fate for this STC holder who basically had the 140 "LSA kit" ready to go, and he put it to market too soon, the FAA got wind of it, and wrote rules specifically prohibiting that before putting the LSA cert FAR's out.

I know that if I was ever to let my medical lapse, and go the LSA route, I wouldn't be opting for a certified LSA. There are some really nice, simple kits to be had with fairly low build times out there.

But yeah, it's kind of lame that a little 140 can't be flown under the same rules that a similarly constructed new certfied LSA can.

Hmmm...... maybe I read the article wrong, but first they talk about him building a "120A replica" FROM SCRATCH, with lighter skins, etc..... then they talk about an STC to modify an existing plane....two VERY different things here!! If that's the case, his STC shouldn't be valid... from the start, with the NPRM's, they said no planes should just get the gross dropped down to meet the rule...so in that case, I'd say his STC was pretty ill informed, on his and the Fed's part.
There are actually quite a few planes that were manufactured back then that DO meet the LSA requirements.... Tcraft, Cub, Champ, etc.... that are more "bang for the buck" than the 120 in my opinion (but that's only MY opinion...so let's not start that argument), but I'd definately love to see the weight limit raised to 1500#, so that the others mentioned would be eligible.
Right now I have 2 Tcrafts here that were modified via STC to 85hp that still meet the LSA requirements.....that same STC could take them all the way to 1500# gross, and options written right in the STC to only take them to 1320.... this was done back in the '50's....and both of these planes show weight and balances as well as log entries to the effect of 1320#..... so they're fitting in to the LSA catagory...but I have friends that have the same STC on the same aircraft, yet they were taken to 1500# when the STC was applied, so they don't fit..... talk about a can of worms!!
John

I keep repeating this, but it became obvious that LSA was not to get young people flying cheaper and easier when the 150 / 152 was excluded.
John, I'm a member of the 120 / 140 assn., and trust me the STC came first, was to be applied to 120 / 140 airframes, paperwork drill, no airframe mod. STC was issued by ATL ACO, and later rescinded by higher. The article is confusing. I know rules are rules, but this one is stupid.
The new Maule M4 was built for LSA, it was Rotax powered. Nobody believed they would set the weight so low as to exclude the little Cessna's, but I guess the overseas manufacturers won. 1320 lbs. is exactly 600kg.

a64pilot wrote:I know rules are rules, but this one is stupid.

You got that right!!!
John

GumpAir wrote:

hotrod150 wrote: That 1320 weight limit is low enough that most of the not-quite-so-old trainers (150,Traumahawk,etc) qualify--

No they don't...

Gump

Oops, I was thinking faster than I culd type. I meant to say that they DON'T qualify.
I'm correcting my earlier post.

Eric