Phil J wrote:

I suppose this airplane would require a high-performance endorsement
even for a PPL. OK, I can see the restriction on engine horsepower.
But I've never understood why they added such a restrictive weight
limit, which eliminated airplanes like the Cessna 150/152. That just
seems like it should be an LSA-allowed airplane. I think the goal of
getting more people into aviation would be better served if they
broadened the scope a little to allow those thousands of slightly
heavier certified airplanes as LSAs. As it is, there aren't very many
places you can take lessons for a Sport Pilot license right now, and
LSA rentals are equally scarce. But if the field were opened up to
planes like the 150/152, there would be a lot more possibilities, and
probably more people signing up for lessons. And that was supposed to
be the whole point of the LSA category.

One would think a realistic definition would be for a two place aircraft
capable of carrying two of today's average people (which sure as hell
isn't 170 to 190 lbs) with at least a couple of hours fuel, fixed gear,
fixed prop, and a reasonable HP limit like 160 HP.

I don't see why there would need to be a gross weight limit at all as
the other restrictions would pretty much take care of things.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.