Please point us to the documentation.Originally Posted by Markmn
Also, a landing gear failure doesn't necessarily indicate a structural problem. LSAs are light, and winds and pilot inexperience can result in damage during landings.
Ron Wanttaja
Please point us to the documentation.
Also, a landing gear failure doesn't necessarily indicate a structural problem. LSAs are light, and winds and pilot inexperience can result in damage during landings.
Ron Wanttaja
Of course it doesn't, especially when you phrase the argument like that. But that's not the argument at all. The current system allows for exemption application based on improved safety issues and substantiating them. It doesn't mean it will be granted in all cases or any case, it only means that a level playing field exists--any manufacturer can apply for an exemption if they so desire. That's FAIR competition in my book.
Last edited by Floatsflyer; 01-25-2013 at 09:15 AM.
That's a big, easy target to shoot!The pilot who can afford a new LSA will still buy one and is not going to buy an old 150 instead. The pilot who cant afford a new LSA is not flying at all. Why not let them fly a 150?
I'm a Sport Pilot and I fly a Champ while building my own LSA compliant aircraft. I want no part of a C-150. It lacks sex appeal and has the third wheel on the wrong end of the aircraft.
I learned to fly in a FlightDesign CTLS, which IMHO has some weakness in the landing gear. This particular plane has been through two sets of mains; never a failure, but the composite design leads to delamination if subjected to repeated hard/squirrely landings (and since it's used as a trainer, it gets those a bit more often than if flown by an experienced pilot.). That's not a design flaw as much as it is an aircraft used in the wrong role.
The folks at Cessna caught on to this, which is why they made such a big deal about how robust the SkyCatcher's landing gear is designed and why it would make such a great Light Sport trainer.
The safety issue with LSA's has everything to do with the lack of transition training for PPL's moving from their C172's or heavier into light aircraft. There is tons of data and several studies to back this up.
(btw, this is also the key to understanding why Experimental aircraft have a safety record worst than spam-cans. If one is the third owner of an Experimental, bad things happen.)
More to the point, the Light Sport criteria was approached from the permissive, not restrictive, viewpoint. They were worked out based on the problem of fat ultralights and the potential of moving ultralight pilots into a more formal training and regulatory sphere. How fat can an ultralight get before it's a "regular" aircraft? 1,320 pounds gross, 120 kts crusing speed.
The numbers were arbitrary based on a clean sheet of paper, without any one model of aircraft in mind. They didn't work in a vaccum, of course, and were aware of what's out there but tried to ignore it. But if I were on the panel and trying to spur on a new class of aircraft I'd probably use the C-150 as the threshold NOT to cross. It's arguably the start of the certified production aluminum skinned aircraft in weight and performance.
The gripes come from PPL holders that for whatever reason have decided to forgo the medical and fly under Sport Pilot rules. I hold no judgement over such pilots either way - heck, if I owned a Champ or Cub and only flew daytime VFR I'd skip the doc just to have one less thing to fool with - but I do have issue with the complaints. If one is going to fly under the rules it's a decision to fly under the rules, and they are what they are. Take it or leave it.
If they're too onerous for one's flying goals go see the doc and keep flying your 172 for jimney's sake.
[edit]
Floats, there already exist exemptions for safety. The weight of stall recovery parachutes doesn't count, for example, IIRC. Of course there is a common sense factor to consider; if the plane comes in at 1,360 pounds gross and there's just no way to shave off the 40 pounds and keep it the same aircraft it probably wouldn't be reasonable to deny it. If they were asking for 500 pounds in exemption it would be a different matter.
Last edited by Frank Giger; 01-25-2013 at 09:30 AM.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Kind of makes an easy excuse for the manufacturer to pour all their weight into "cool" gadgets (power folding wings anyone?), then go to the FAA and say "oh poor me, I need more weight to have this structural stuff".
Ryan Winslow
EAA 525529
Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction
I still say the FAA is going to say "no" on this one.
Also the Terrafugia originally requested a higher weight, but the FAA only approved up to the seaplane max rating. More info here. From the link:
"The company had petitioned the FAA to allow a maximum takeoff weight of 1,474 pounds, but the FAA chose to stick with precedent."
Great discussion. The European equivalent to our S-LSA is not an ultralight. Under EASA it is called a CS-LSA. The maximum weights for the CS-LSA are the same as here, e.g. 1320 and 1430 pounds (600kg/650kg).
There are some slight differences between S-LSA and CS-LSA. EASA allows a flight adjustable propellor, maximum stall Vso is 45 knots, and day VFR only.
CS-LSA EASA specifications
The elephant in the LSA room is almost 60 years old. While some manufacturers have experienced satisfactory sales figures, they just aren't as robust as they had all envisioned 7 years ago.
The LSA manufacturers' greatest fear is that if the 150 became included as a legacy aircraft, it would decimate their sales activity. I have no idea if that would be a realistic outcome but there could be logical reasoning behind it: The 150 is perhaps the best non-fabric light sport aircraft ever designed. And the acquisition price today is enormously attractive and availability is big. The LSA guys would have to discount their price tags by 50% to compete or fold the tent. Hey, that's a good thing isn't it?
Last edited by Floatsflyer; 01-25-2013 at 12:34 PM.
[QUOTE=Frank Giger;26618
The numbers were arbitrary based on a clean sheet of paper, without any one model of aircraft in mind. They didn't work in a vaccum, of course, and were aware of what's out there but tried to ignore it. [/QUOTE]
Not really a true representation of the genesis of the weight limitations. Take a look at this(from EAA):
www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=2815
Last edited by Floatsflyer; 01-25-2013 at 12:29 PM.
From the very excellent link provided;
So we'll agree pretty quickly on some common ground! You're correct that it's not quite a blank sheet of paper, but the numbers they arrived at are different from every other standard out there, both domestically and internationally. Lots of fudging around with the numbers.One commenter’s opinion was that the FAA strategically established the weight limit to favor the sale of new, more expensive light-sport aircraft. The FAA did not have such a purpose in mind when it established its proposed light-sport aircraft weight limit. Also, in establishing the light-sport aircraft, FAA did not intend to promote existing certificated aircraft. When the FAA initially set the proposed limits for the light-sport aircraft definition, the FAA did not look at currently built aircraft, either with type certificate approval or in the amateur-built aircraft marketplace. The FAA’s proposed definition was to address aircraft to be designed and built for the sport pilot, rather than addressing existing aircraft for currently certificated pilots.
A commenter stated that the proposed weight limit eliminates the eligibility of many production aircraft, and seems to cater to homebuilt aircraft. The FAA disagrees with this opinion. The reasons for the weight limit were discussed in the proposal and were intended to accommodate a wide variety of simple, low performance aircraft that have no more than two occupants. The FAA has explained elsewhere in this section the reasons for its changes to the proposed weight limit in the light-sport aircraft definition.
A few commenters noted that the FAA’s originally proposed weight limit would result in some models in a particular classic aircraft line being eligible for the light-sport aircraft category, while other models in the same line would not be eligible. The FAA believes that this is evidence that the weight limit for light-sport aircraft was not drawn with the intent of including or excluding specific aircraft.
[edit]
Floats, if the C150 were looped into LSA the only thing that would happen to sales is that the excuse for NOT selling them would change by their owners. It would go from "One of these days I'll sell it," to "Nobody will pay my (now doubled) asking price for it." And so yet another aircraft will sit for another year in a hanger without ever once being cranked, let alone taken up in the air.
But that's a rant for another day.
Look at the prices being asked for Champs and Cubs....and not just the award winners. If they weren't LSA eligible does anyone think they'd be that high?
Last edited by Frank Giger; 01-25-2013 at 02:01 PM.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
An in-cockpit electric folding wing for a flying boat is not a "cool gadget". It's an ingeniously practical godsend, incredibly safer for airplane and occupants alike, and dramatically eliminates the piss-off factor flying boat drivers experience. It should have been in use decades ago.
Ever try to dock(when beaching is not an option) a low or shoulder wing flying boat with or without sponsons. Like a Lake, Seamax, Avid Catalina, Aventura, Searey, Volmer, Osprey, Seawind, Seastar, Mermaid, etc, etc. It's a freekin' nightmare! At best it's horribly awkward and hazardous to plane, pilot and passengers. At worst, it's categorically impossible.
You either have to approach the dock at 90 degrees or at 45 degrees to a dock corner if space available. Then you have to hope that someone is on the dock to hold the bow steady while you all precariously climb out onto the bow deck(without breaking the windshield, that is if you can climb over it)with the balancing talents of a ballet dancer and jump to the dock without damaging the airplane, injuring yourself or falling into the water. Oh joy!
If you do all that with success, you're not finished yet. Now you have to tie it off in a manner that prevents windmilling. Once again, the piss-off factor raises it's ugly head. Damn near impossible if you're not in the most perfect environment.
And wait, you're not finished the ordeal quite yet. Now you're ready to leave, get back in the same awkward and hazardous way again. And I still have to turn the airplane around to taxi out(no, there is no reversing prop) without tearing the wings up or having to take an unwanted swim. Once again, the piss-off factor....oh joy!
Who the hell needs this nonsense. Now you know why Lake went out of business(btw, I love the airplane, just such an s.o.b to use on water as described) and some of the others named above just aren't popular for the same reason. So give me those ingenious electric folding wings so I can dock it effortlessly just like a floatplane. I've earned them! If I could afford an Icon, I wouldn't buy it without them.
Last edited by Floatsflyer; 01-25-2013 at 03:39 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote