Awesome sportplane

WingFlaps wrote:
On Feb 19, 3:36 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
On Feb 18, 6:31 am, Phil J wrote:
Besides the _very_ light weight and very slippery design, the airplane
uses a variable-pitch prop and double-slotted flaps to achieve those
numbers. That is one sexy little airplane.
Yes, it makes a mockery of the US sport plane limitations.

Not a mockery it just doesn't qualify under the LSA rules.

Then may I suggest those rules are too restrictive? Why have an upper
speed limit when you are already limited on power? The power, Vso and
MAUW alone should be enough. IMHO if better design can give both the
desired low stall speed and high speed perf. it should be encouraged,
not prevented by restrictive legislation. I can't help wonder if one
purpose of that legislation is to protect established, but inferior,
designs.

Cheers




I didn't even look at the cruise speed. Assuming the variable-pitch prop
is variable in flight that is what disqualifies it.

Not a mockery it just doesn't qualify under the LSA rules.

Then may I suggest those rules are too restrictive? Why have an upper
speed limit when you are already limited on power?

There's no limit on power; merely a limit on maximum cruise speed. The FAA
views LSA as simple, low performance aircraft intended for recreation. "The
FAA believes that a maximum speed limit is appropriate for aircraft designed for
operation by persons with the minimum training and experience of a sport pilot."

I can't help wonder if one purpose of that legislation is to protect
established, but inferior, designs.

Name one "established" ready-to-fly aircraft, built in the USA, that met the
current LSA standards prior to their implementation. Or are you claiming that
Cessna lobbied to protect the resale value of the Cessna 120?

Ron Wanttaja

On Feb 20, 3:13*am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:


I didn't even look at the cruise speed. Assuming the variable-pitch prop
is variable in flight that is what disqualifies it.

Maybe you can revisit this restriction in the interests of reducing
carbon emissions?

:-)

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:13 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

I didn't even look at the cruise speed. Assuming the variable-pitch prop
is variable in flight that is what disqualifies it.

Maybe you can revisit this restriction in the interests of reducing
carbon emissions?

:-)

Cheers


Won't happen in LSA. The entire point is light aircraft that fly and
more importantly land with minimum passengers and the simplest possible
system to fly.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:13 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

I didn't even look at the cruise speed. Assuming the variable-pitch prop
is variable in flight that is what disqualifies it.

Maybe you can revisit this restriction in the interests of reducing
carbon emissions?

:-)

Cheers


Won't happen in LSA. The entire point is light aircraft that fly and
more importantly land with minimum passengers and the simplest possible
system to fly.

Insert the word "slow" between land and with.

On Feb 19, 1:37*pm, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:13 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

I didn't even look at the cruise speed. Assuming the variable-pitch prop
is variable in flight that is what disqualifies it.

Maybe you can revisit this restriction in the interests of reducing
carbon emissions?

:-)

Cheers

Won't happen in LSA. The entire point is light aircraft that fly and
more importantly land with minimum passengers and the simplest possible
system to fly.

I agree with most of the restrictions of the LSA rule. I just wish
they had upped the weight limit a little so the Cessna 150 and similar
airplanes had been included. Ironically, from what I've heard those
airplanes are easier to fly and land at least partly because they are
heavier. I've read a number of accounts of pilots transitioning to
Light Sport aircraft who are surprised that the LSAs are actually more
demanding than the non-LSAs to which they are accustomed, especially
in landing.

Phil

On 2008-02-20, Phil J wrote:
I agree with most of the restrictions of the LSA rule. I just wish
they had upped the weight limit a little so the Cessna 150 and similar
airplanes had been included. Ironically, from what I've heard those
airplanes are easier to fly and land at least partly because they are
heavier. I've read a number of accounts of pilots transitioning to
Light Sport aircraft who are surprised that the LSAs are actually more
demanding than the non-LSAs to which they are accustomed, especially
in landing.

I'll find this out firsthand next week: I've got 5 hours scheduled in a
Zodiac at Dragonfly Aviation at STS.

I do agree that it would have been nice if they'd set the weight limit to
include the 150/152 and such; I'd have already bought my roommate's dad's
150 if it had.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

On Feb 19, 8:12*pm, Jay Maynard
wrote:
On 2008-02-20, Phil J wrote:

I agree with most of the restrictions of the LSA rule. *I just wish
they had upped the weight limit a little so the Cessna 150 and similar
airplanes had been included. *Ironically, from what I've heard those
airplanes are easier to fly and land at least partly because they are
heavier. *I've read a number of accounts of pilots transitioning to
Light Sport aircraft who are surprised that the LSAs are actually more
demanding than the non-LSAs to which they are accustomed, especially
in landing.

I'll find this out firsthand next week: I've got 5 hours scheduled in a
Zodiac at Dragonfly Aviation at STS.

I do agree that it would have been nice if they'd set the weight limit to
include the 150/152 and such; I'd have already bought my roommate's dad's
150 if it had.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff athttp://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

I'll be curious to hear what you think of it. I haven't flown
anything other than a Flight Design CT so far.

Phil