Kinda sad

wrote:

Perhaps it could be that EAA was founded to focus on the HOMEBUILDER
not the "order a kit and have a professional shop build your $500,000
pressurized monster for you"

The EAA seems to have forgotten what the E stands for.

I don't think they forgot - just changed a bit.

Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.

cavelamb himself wrote:
Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.

Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?

Jim Logajan wrote:
cavelamb himself wrote:

Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already made.


Richard

cavelamb himself wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
cavelamb himself wrote:

Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already made.

That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.

I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being taken to
task for a situation not of its making?

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:


Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already made.


That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.

I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being taken to
task for a situation not of its making?


I don't remember the ELSA rules being that way.

Any project can qualify as ELSA if it meets the
weight and performance criteria.

Maybe I got that wrong?

Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

cavelamb himself wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:


Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already
made.


That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.

I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being
taken to task for a situation not of its making?


I don't remember the ELSA rules being that way.

Any project can qualify as ELSA if it meets the
weight and performance criteria.

Maybe I got that wrong?

I suspect that we are both wrong. As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.

Anyway, maybe I don't have the history right, but didn't the whole xLSA
concept originate with the EAA? I mean they basically managed to find a
way to get the FAA to adopt something less than the normal full
certification process for a class of RTF aircraft. And for a new class of
pilots - lowering the barrier there - or trying. Not perfect but I'm not
sure it is fair to fault them for any aspect of a decline of experimental
aviation.

"Jim Logajan" wrote:
.. . . As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.

You keep repeating "kit" as if it is something magical. The EAA started out
with guys building airplanes - not assembling kits.

The revolution in homebuilding came in the guise of a Vari-EZ. New
construction techniques allowed homebuilders to build their dreams in a more
reasonable time frame, albeit at a slightly higher cost for materials.
Instead of 4000 hours, the time was halved.

Now there is a new "sport" in the spotlight. Assembling an $80K quick build
is a long, long way from the roots. Yet, it is still easy to build a 140 mph
closed cockpit two-place monoplane with IFR capability and autopilot for
under $35K. Apparently the EAA thinks that such an animal is a rarity. How
quickly they forget.

That's what's "Kinda sad".

By the way, a buddy of mine is selling his almost-new Super Emeraude. In his
words:

***********************************************
If anyone is interested the aircraft has a gyro panel, 760D Terra radio and
transponder (AD complied) strobes, with nav lights, Nav Aid auto pilot, in
panel GPS, all leather interior, lyc 0-290G with less than 300 hours and 56
hours on the airframe. Covered with Ceconite, polyurethane paint, all new in
2003. Prop is a 3 blade Warp Drive. Aircraft cruises at 115MPH at 2400. It
also has a sliding canopy. I'm asking $21,500 Please mail inquiries to
. The aircraft is located at Midwest National Air center
(GPH) near Liberty Mo.
************************************************

I've seen his work and it's nice.

Rich S.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
cavelamb himself wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:


Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already
made.


That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.

I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being
taken to task for a situation not of its making?


I don't remember the ELSA rules being that way.

Any project can qualify as ELSA if it meets the
weight and performance criteria.

Maybe I got that wrong?

I suspect that we are both wrong. As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.

Anyway, maybe I don't have the history right, but didn't the whole xLSA
concept originate with the EAA? I mean they basically managed to find a
way to get the FAA to adopt something less than the normal full
certification process for a class of RTF aircraft. And for a new class of
pilots - lowering the barrier there - or trying. Not perfect but I'm not
sure it is fair to fault them for any aspect of a decline of experimental
aviation.

Part of this has been discussed here a couple of times.

As I understand it, ELSA is a kit; but it is a special category of kit and
not in any way intended to fall into the 51% concept. Instead, an ELSA kit
is a kit version of an SLSA and must be built such as to be identical to the
original and factory assembled SLSA version. Basically, it is "assemble it
yourself" but it is not intended to be "build it yourself" and the SLSA
itself is certified to a lower standard than we are otherwise accustomed to
seeing--although, AFAIK, there is probably not much practical difference in
day VFR service.

However, any simple single piston engined aircraft which conforms to the
operating envelope and weight limits of LSA may be treated as an LSA by an
LSP--regardless of whether it is type certified, custom built, plans built,
or kit built (whether materials, quick build, prepunched, or whatever).

Therefore, LSA is simply a subset of single engined fixed gear aircraft,
based upon weight and operating envelope, and SLSA and ELSA are subsets of
LSA. I also had to read Ron W's explanations several times before I
fianally got it through my head that most of it reallys is pretty
simple--presuming that I now undertand it correctly.

Actually, the obvious remaining question (and it may be trivial in the
current scheme of things) is whether the builder of an Amateur Built
Experimental, which is expected to fall within the LSA specifications, can
make the initial flights as an LSP; or whether he would be required to have
a PPL or better in order to first demonstrate that the performance is within
the LSA performance envelope.

I hope this helps.

Peter