C-162 Skycatcher

[Chairboy]

Eagl, the main appeal for LSAs isn't the extra 20 hours of training, it's the different medical requirements.  Buying a 'real airplane' does nothing for those folks.

[SD67]

What did you build LePaul?
How long did it take you?
I'm technically just starting mine, it spend 3 years in CAD sorting out the finer points of the modifications. It's good to know ahead of time just where the issues are going to be.

[eagl]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Eagl, the main appeal for LSAs isn't the extra 20 hours of training, it's the different medical requirements.  Buying a 'real airplane' does nothing for those folks.

It seems like they'd be just as satisfied in the experimental category...  I've seen ultralights that climb better than some LSA aircraft

You definately have a point though.  The LSA licensing is a great idea.  But the LSA aircraft limitations are dumb because they compromise safety.  You cannot show that going from 80 or 100 hp to 150 hp results in a statistical increase in mishap rates or damage liability resulting from mishaps.  But they've capped LSA aircraft at an unreasonably low hp rating even though there are a number of new design, lightweight engines that would be perfect for LSA aircraft except that they produce 20 or so hp over the LSA spec.  WTF over?

[SD67]

It's not the engine horsepower that's capped, it's the maximum speed.
Weight being the all important concern therefore dictates that the engine need only have sufficient power to met the speed requirements.
Granted, more HP gives more safety margin but that means a higher top speed.

[LePaul]

Originally posted by SD67
What did you build LePaul?
How long did it take you?
I'm technically just starting mine, it spend 3 years in CAD sorting out the finer points of the modifications. It's good to know ahead of time just where the issues are going to be.

A BD-5

I bought a project a A&P mechanic took over from his Uncle.  He did a superb job replacing all the pop-rivets with solid ones.  But he had no time for it.  The wife told him it goes or she goes.  (And she's beautiful!)  So I got it for an excellent price.

Once I got it home and in a hangar, the process of modernizing a 25 year old kit plane began.  Long story short, it was an impressive money pit.  Had some excellent support from the local EAA, FAA and BD-Micro (who still produce the kit, albeit in a much more modern form).  After 9/11 and seeing as insurance would be a huge obstacle, I opted to sell it.  It would've taken a good 3-4 years to get the thing flight worthy and even then, you're dealing with an aircraft with a grim safety record.  I just didn't have the resources to pour into it.  

Its since moved on to two more owners and currently has a jet engine installed (300 pounds of thrust) and undergoing taxi-tests.  I haven't heard if its flown yet.  The last email I got was a year ago and it was progressing smoothly.

I used to stay in close contact with a guy in Canada who had one equipped with a jet engine (Scott Manning ).  About the time I sold mine he had completed his and had it flying.  Super nice guy.  He died a year ago (maybe more now?) practicing for a big airshow up there.  

That was 3 years of my life.  Somedays I miss sitting in that plane making airplane noises    But I know for me, Id be much happier doing similar to what Chairboy did.  Go fly.  Now!  

[SD67]

I remember when Scott died
I have a friend in Sydney with a BD-5. They are a nice plane indeed.
I'm fully expecting to invest at least 5 more years before I'm doing taxi testing, but it will be well worth it I'll have one sweet looking plane with a Vno and ROC that'll make these certified stuffshirts green with envy.
Pity I can't fit a couple of Hispano's into the wings.

[SD67]

Originally posted by LePaul
I bought a project a A&P mechanic took over from his Uncle.  He did a superb job replacing all the pop-rivets with solid ones.  But he had no time for it.  The wife told him it goes or she goes. (And she's beautiful!)  So I got it for an excellent price.

Man, I cannot believe an A&P went for that!
Then again, if you spend all day every day working on aircraft you probably won't be inclined to do so after hours either.

[LePaul]

Originally posted by SD67
I remember when Scott died
I have a friend in Sydney with a BD-5. They are a nice plane indeed.
 

The site I linked has the investigation of the crash.  In short, since the wings are removable, the owner is frequently bolting and unbolting them.  On Scott's BD-5, he bolted them back on but the bolt didnt thread far enough in.  (There's no way to visually check this)  As he was making his slow speed pass, with flaps down, the right flap retracted (due to the bolt not making full contact with the flap system, etc).  This resulted in him falling off into a right hand bank into the ground.  

[eagl]

Originally posted by SD67
It's not the engine horsepower that's capped, it's the maximum speed.
Weight being the all important concern therefore dictates that the engine need only have sufficient power to met the speed requirements.
Granted, more HP gives more safety margin but that means a higher top speed.

More power does NOT mean more speed.  If you up the horsepower and increase the wing area, your top speed will remain the same but you'll gain climb rate.  The problem is that the bigger wing will weigh more so you also need a bit of an increase in overall allowable weight.

[SD67]

Yes, what you say is true.
See how it all comes back to weight?
[RANT]
The way I see it, the LSA regulations are an attempt to try and prevent the death of General Aviation in this ever increasingly hostile environment.
We enthusiasts are facing hostile, greedy local, state and federal governments who would love nothing better than  to sell off our airfields to developers and make the practice of our beloved pastime so laden down with fees that very few will be able to afford to fly at all. One local council in my area was thwarted in selling the airfield, so the built a fence down the middle of it for "zoning reasons" to make the field unusable until the local aviation lobbyists caved.
LSA was brought in to try and arrest the decline in pilot numbers. It allowed those who could not get an aviation medical to fly a specifically limited class of aircraft. It's interesting to note that although it has it's roots in ultralights, many ultralight aircraft readily outperform LSAs. Personally I feel it's a backwards step, and that too many compromises made been made to the legislators and pilot safety has been compromised on many levels.[/RANT]

[Chairboy]

With respect, I think you're full of plump purple crazy berries and disagree most vehemently.

[SD67]

[Chairboy]

Time will tell, let's circle back in 10 years and see how the grand experiment worked out.  

[SD67]

I agree. It will be interesting.
Hopefully my fears of pilots flying hamstrung aircraft with precluding medical conditions after a fraction of the usual training won't be borne out.