changing operating limitations

I'm not sure of what to do with your post. I can't argue with anything in
it, but it is not very relevant to what the OP was asking about.

If I am remembering correctly, he asked about getting an RV-3 in under the
SP rule. It would not have any problem with flutter, or structure, I think
it is safe to say.

Sure, you could fly past the rule limits, but at some point in time,
(probably when the pilot screws up, and the FAA is investigating) it has to
make the muckety-mucks happy, that it is SP legal. That is the only
question at issue, I think.
--
Jim in NC

"Rich S." wrote in message
...
X-No-Archive

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

If you took a Lycoming, and said you were going to limit it for
continuous
operation at 2,000 RPM, that would not fly for the sport plane
restrictions.
They (the FAA) all know that this engine can run much faster than that,
with
no harm. So you are told to try again; no dice.

Jim...........

There are many factors besides engine operating parameters which limit
cruising speed. In some aircraft it may be control surface flutter, others
may be subject to overstress by outside aerodynamic forces (hence
maneuvering speed). While an engine may be capable of driving an airframe
at
speeds in excess of 120 knots, the airframe itself may be beyond it's
limits.

The fellow who is holding the stick has the legal responsibility for
setting
the limits of safe operation on every flight. Just because a designer says
it can do more, doesn't mean it will. That's what test periods are for.

Let's not become our own worst enemy here by espousing a rule that few
people think makes any sense at all -outside the group of new LSA
manufacturers who stand to make a buck selling their airplanes. I'm not
talking about the speed limit, BTW. I'm talking about the "You crossed the
line and can't go back" clause.

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, neither RPM nor airspeed limits are contained
in the Operating Limitations of an Experimental, Amateur-built aircraft.

True, but if it is being flown by a sport pilot, it has to meet the
limitations.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure of what to do with your post. I can't argue with anything in
it, but it is not very relevant to what the OP was asking about.

If I am remembering correctly, he asked about getting an RV-3 in under the
SP rule. It would not have any problem with flutter, or structure, I
think
it is safe to say.

Sure, you could fly past the rule limits, but at some point in time,
(probably when the pilot screws up, and the FAA is investigating) it has
to
make the muckety-mucks happy, that it is SP legal. That is the only
question at issue, I think.

I guess all I mean is - as long as we don't squeak, another wheel will get
greased. )

Perhaps an RV-3 with a 10" pitch prop could qualify, and hover.

Thanks for not quoting me.

Rich S.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Rich S." wrote

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, neither RPM nor airspeed limits are
contained
in the Operating Limitations of an Experimental, Amateur-built aircraft.

True, but if it is being flown by a sport pilot, it has to meet the
limitations.

This time I was trying a direct answer to his question. The Operating
Limitations (Big "O" Big "P") do not cover speed or rpm. Gauge markings are
covered elsewhere as well. The one thing I (we?) do not want to appear as,
is a beanery lawyer. I have no training in Federal Law other than Fire and
building Codes. The one thing I did learn is when it ends up in court, it's
a whole new ball game. We don't want to go there.

Rich "It's a whole lot easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission." S.

Once outside the Light Sport Airplane limits,
it's always outside and can't be brought back inside the LSA
limits.


Several people mentioned this, but I don't recall ever reading this anywhere
else. Can someone provide a reference to a published rule that states this?

My understanding is that it would be possible to take an experimental
aircraft, and modify it so that it would meet the limitations of the sport
pilot. I even asked AOPA this exact question about this a week or so ago,
and their opinion was that the plane would have to be truly incapable of
exceeding the speed limit, rather than just an RPM limitation. I think
there's some room for debate on that, particularly if it's not a "normal"
well defined aircraft engine.

Cheers,
Rusty

If this was the case ("truly incapable") they would not allow the use of a
ground adjustable prop. At least with some planes, while you would be
incapable to exceed the speed limitation with a certain prop pitch setting,
resetting the prop may allow you to exceed it. This may not be different
than a "ground adjustable" RPM limiting device.

Frank

"Russell Duffy" wrote in message
.. .
...
...
I even asked AOPA this exact question about this a week or so ago,
and their opinion was that the plane would have to be truly incapable of
exceeding the speed limit, rather than just an RPM limitation. I think
there's some room for debate on that, particularly if it's not a "normal"
well defined aircraft engine.

Cheers,
Rusty

X-No-Archive

"Russell Duffy" wrote in message
.. .
I even asked AOPA this exact question about this a week or so ago,
and their opinion was that the plane would have to be truly incapable of
exceeding the speed limit, rather than just an RPM limitation.

Rusty........

The way the rule is worded, "Maximum speed in level flight with maximum
continuous power (Vh)-138 mph (120 knots)" doesn't seem to indicate that
"the plane would have to be truly incapable of exceeding the speed limit".

I think the question is, who determines "maximum continuous power",
especially if the engine has no data plate?

Rich S.

"frank" wrote in message
...
If this was the case ("truly incapable") they would not allow the use of a
ground adjustable prop. At least with some planes, while you would be
incapable to exceed the speed limitation with a certain prop pitch
setting,
resetting the prop may allow you to exceed it. This may not be different
than a "ground adjustable" RPM limiting device.

Frank

You and the AOPA guy seem to agree. He made the same point about the ground
adjustable prop.

Rusty

It's in 14 CFR 1.1:
"Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a
helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original
certification, has continued to meet the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight ...
(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft...
(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
continuous power(VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS...."

This certainly uncovers some of the confusion. We need to make sure and
distinquish between "light sport aircraft", "experimental light sport
aircraft", and aircraft that can be flown by sport pilots. The original
question asked about a homebuilt, and specifically an RV-3, so I assumed it
would have an experimental certification.


My understanding is that it would be possible to take an experimental
aircraft, and modify it so that it would meet the limitations of the sport
pilot.

Not if it had an "original certification" outside the
limits. I suppose there's an opening for taking it apart,
and building something new from some/all of the parts, but
that's more than just modifying it.

I don't agree with this. I've certified 3 experimental aircraft, and not
one single time has the "maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
continuous power(VH)" ever been listed anywhere. The Vne is listed, but
many aircraft have Vne's that can't be achieved in level flight, so it
doesn't mean the plane will do it.

The operating limitations received from the FAA with the airworthiness
certificate don't list ANY speeds, as these must be determined during the
phase one test period, and noted in the aircraft log. The log can be
modified over time to reflect changes in the aircraft as well, so if
modification is made that would reduce the weight, airspeed, etc, it appears
to be perfectly legal to change the log to reflect that mod.


That does not look like the "exact question" asked above.

Let's see... The question I asked AOPA was- "I currently have an RV-3 with a
two rotor Mazda engine. If I put a single rotor engine, with far less
power, and use a prop that will reduce the top speed to 138 mph, could it be
flown by a sport pilot?" Seems pretty close to the exact question to me
:-)

Cheers,
Rusty

If it's your opinion that an experimental aircraft capable
of exceeding Vh of 120 knots when originally certified can
later be modified to comply with the LSA definition, then we
completely disagree.

Yep, that's my opinion. At this point, the best thing we can do is agree to
disagree.

Rusty