A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kinda sad



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 29th 08, 02:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Kinda sad (Thread drifting as usual)

In article ,
"Rich S." wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rich S." wrote:


Wasn't even thinking of the "build it for me" market, frankly.

The whole (original) concept of the EAA was to provide support for the
amateur-built, experimental builders and flyers.


Which they still seem to be doing. If not strictly to everyone's liking.


Which is, of course, a bit off of the OP's point about the EAA's seeming
ignorance of aircraft costing less than a King's ransom. My fault, as I
drifted along.


I thought we was supposed to drift. Nice warm afternoon, in the kayak,
in the shade...

I'll go back and read the original post to refresh my ancient mind as to the
subject of the discussion.


Somehow, what sticks in my mind was someone's statement that the costs
of homebuilt aircraft kits (and S-LSA aircraft) had gotten so expensive
that pre-retired persons were going to be able to afford them, and we'd
never see any of the more recent generation(s) entering GA.

And I'm wondering why all the old, but still flyable/refurbishable,
Champs, T-Craft, and similar used experimentals had suddenly disappeared.

At least, they *used* to fill the gap between ultralights and commercial
ready-to-fly offerings.
  #22  
Old April 29th 08, 11:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Blueskies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 979
Default Kinda sad


wrote in message ...
On Apr 26, 7:13 pm, " wrote:
http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/...ffordable.html


Yeah real sad....but the tail has been waggin' the dog for a long time
now.


The C-172A cost us ~25,000, plus all the annual costs, etc...
  #23  
Old April 30th 08, 01:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Morgans[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,924
Default Kinda sad


"Rich S." wrote

Jim - How do you like his Em?

You can find the home page (and Max's Emeraude picture) at:
http://asia.groups.yahoo.com/group/Emerauders/


Dang nice. If I could get a full medical, I would FIND a way to buy it.
--
Jim in NC
  #24  
Old April 30th 08, 03:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Kinda sad

In article ,
"Blueskies" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 7:13 pm, " wrote:
http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/...ffordable.html


Yeah real sad....but the tail has been waggin' the dog for a long time
now.


The C-172A cost us ~25,000, plus all the annual costs, etc...


I recall that the FBO that I worked for in the early '70s paid $20K for
a new Cherokee 140 to use for instruction. They bought a new Warrior,
slightly better equipped, four years later for about $104K.

It certainly wasn't *that* much nicer, either.
  #25  
Old May 2nd 08, 01:53 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Peter Dohm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,754
Default Kinda sad

"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




  #26  
Old May 2nd 08, 02:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jay Maynard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default Kinda sad

On 2008-05-02, Peter Dohm wrote:
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.


I was told recently that the flight testing standards for an SLSA are 4
pages long, while the flight testing standards for a normal category part 23
certificated aircraft are 38 pages long.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)
  #27  
Old May 2nd 08, 02:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 756
Default Kinda sad

On Fri, 02 May 2008 01:03:38 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote:

On 2008-05-02, Peter Dohm wrote:
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.


I was told recently that the flight testing standards for an SLSA are 4
pages long, while the flight testing standards for a normal category part 23
certificated aircraft are 38 pages long.


Not really a fair comparison, since the ASTM Airplane standard only covers one
narrowly-defined type of aircraft, while Part 23 covers four broad categories
(Normal, Utility, Aerobatic, and Commuter) and covers aircraft with
constant-speed props, more than one engine, turbines, jets, etc.

My paper copy of 14CFR Part 23 has ~14 pages for the requirements for flight
characteristics; ASTM F2245-04 runs about two for the same topic.

Ron Wanttaja
  #28  
Old May 2nd 08, 04:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default Kinda sad

"Peter Dohm" wrote:
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.


That is something of a chicken-and-egg situation. Would like to know the
answer - in the mean time some speculation:

I believe FAR 61.31(k) (specifically 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B)) does not disallow
such flights by any certificated pilot per se. But obviously it isn't the
only operative FAR (such as the limitations of LSP).

Still, ss I understand it, 61.31(k) allows a private pilot, SEL, to fly
(for example) an experimental airship without having an airship rating.
Perhaps by the same line of reasoning a sport pilot may fly an experimental
aircraft that is not within the performance envelope of an LSA??

Hmmm.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kinda OT... but has some aviation content ;) Bertie the Bunyip[_22_] Piloting 1 January 20th 08 03:28 PM
Kinda sad... Jay Honeck Piloting 25 February 27th 06 10:27 PM
Kinda funny... Ditch Military Aviation 4 July 12th 03 07:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.