What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Eggenfellner LSA Engine

rv6ejguy

Well Known Member
Jan mentioned on his Forum that Their new LSA engine would start testing in Jan. '07 with probable release in Aug. '07 for sale. I think this is based on a Honda inline engine. Reported to be 100hp and about 200 lbs. A little heavy for an RV12 probably but might suit some of the other designs out there. It looks like a vast market.
 
Ram Performance

The EA81 motor still makes a great 100HP+ package but I would only go to Ram performance for it.

Read the August article of Kitplanes mag which has my tale of dissaster written up and How Ram fixed it.

Frank
 
frankh said:
The EA81 motor still makes a great 100HP+ package but I would only go to Ram performance for it.

Read the August article of Kitplanes mag which has my tale of dissaster written up and How Ram fixed it.

Frank
Didn't know that was you, Frank! :eek:
 
Aww shucks

Yep I'm famous!

I got a lot of feedback (including hate mail) from that article, and I hope Ram got a lot of business..:)

Frank
 
NOT RV12 compatible

rv6ejguy said:
A little heavy for an RV12 probably but might suit some of the other designs out there. It looks like a vast market.

Wouldn't matter if was a direct bolt on for the RV12. Van is ONLY selling the plane WITH the Rotax. Done Deal!!!!

Eggy should get all the bugs worked out of existing designs before venturing into something new.
 
Yea that might be a market

In the alternate engine world with less than 100 hp, there are a lot of candidates. Used with good success. The ones that come to mind are:

VW (keep it at or less than 80 hp for greater reliability)
Corvair (nice sites to build and install)
Suzuki (small light a cheap, availability? not sure)
Honda (originally the BD5 guys used or tried to use them years ago)

The first two have a good following with experience and support. Being air cooled they are light and simple. The Suzuki has some support and flight history and drives.

EAA sport aviation magazine really is pushing the LSA market of late. They claim their are almost 40 LSA's ready to fly. I was kind of excited at first, but when I saw a few ,that looked real nice, I noticed they went from $85,000 to $111,000. Ha ha ha, gee I love RV's.
 
Last edited:
RV7Guy said:
Wouldn't matter if was a direct bolt on for the RV12. Van is ONLY selling the plane WITH the Rotax. Done Deal!!!!

Eggy should get all the bugs worked out of existing designs before venturing into something new.

I'm not sure Jan specifically envisioned this engine for the RV12 as he has been working on the concept since before the -12 was announced. Plenty of other LSA designs to choose from. I think you will eventually see other powerplants installed in the -12 even if the Rotax comes with it.
 
Good on Ya Mate

the_other_dougreeves said:
Jabiru 2200? 80Hp, 135 lb.
I keep hearing about the Jabiru? How much $$? How many flying? Hey it may be great. Are they giving them away? :D

Here is my problem. LSA is suppose to be cheap, but all I see are planes NEAR $100,000. The engines they call for like the Rotax cost as much as a Continental O200. Plus the Rotax has a gear box and water cooling, both minuses, as the Subaru has.

Jabiru? An exotic rare engine from down under is fine, but a Continental O200 (brand spanking new) from Mattituck is $17,000!!!!! Why not. You can even get a IO-240 for a little more. I like the looks of the Jabiru more than the Rotax. The Rotax, with gear box and water cooling radiator (where to put it), is a turn off.

Continental O-200 or IO-240 is a great engine, direct drive aircooled. However the higher "real" power and weight does not fit the technologically limiting LSA speed/weight Regs. I think the LSA has been illconcieved, neither cheaper or safer. Also it's too restrictive with altitude limits of 10,000 ft msl! Forget LSA's in the Denver areas and many Western mountainous regions.

To make LSA work we need cheap engines and see that a VW is really better suited. However the LSA needs certified engines of some kind I believe (correct me if I am wrong), thus the Rotax. This is why LSA's are expensive. They are not using $6,000 engines; they are using engines that cost almost as much as a Lycoming. People complain about a $19,000 180hp Lyc but seem to not mind a 80hp or 115 hp Rotax, even though it cost almost as much.

That's the fallacy of this LSA class of LOW cost, low weight and slow speed entry level planes. I do NOT think it saves anyone much money or is safer..

The no medical thing is a red herring. You really need one or you are "self certified, grounded with any medical condition you are aware of. I don't think the $80 bucks every two years for a Third class medical is killing GA. If you can't get a 3rd class the faa really does not want you flying even as a LSA pilot.

People are jumping on the LSA band waggon with dollar signs in their eyes. Almost 40 turn key LSA planes are claimed by EAA. That is crazy. I think their expectations of the market is over blown.

We have had kit planes and that have met the LSA's spec planes for years, but they where never real popular: Kitfox, Sonex, Sonerai II. The KR2 and VariEZ make a nice LSA, but they are too fast (may be too high stall?). Existing factory planes that meet the LSA spec: Luscombe, Aeronca, Cessna (140) and Taylorcraft are great planes but somewhat long in the tooth. Still I would look for one to buy or fix up before I bought a new plastic LSA for $95,000. A nice old C140 cost a fraction of a fraction of a new LSA. Add new paint, inteiror, panel and engine OH you still are 1/2 of a new LSA. LSA's cost are crazy money for a tiny two seat plane with a go slow, low, light mission.

If I where to build a LSA it may be something like a Wag Aero Trainer (piper cub clone) with a new Continental and basic day VFR, may be no electical system? It would still cost $60 grand to build. Ironiclly I'll have less than $50,000 in my RV-7. The turn key www.legend.aero (cub clone) cost about $95,000. At least they use a Continental.
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
Still I would look for one to buy or fix up before I bought a new plastic LSA for $95,000. A nice old C140 cost a fraction of that. LSA's cost are crazy money for a tiny two seat plane with a go slow mission.

I was told that you can't 'convert' a GA or experimental a/c to LSA. It has to be built and designated as one [the Lightning can be built to qualify for LSA or for 'regular' experimental status [for $50-60k bare bones in a few months]] and I inquired if I could built it as an experimental and if later need to make it LSA do so. I was told it was not allowable.

My info could be totally wrong tho, I didn't research it.

John
 
gmcjetpilot said:
I keep hearing about the Jabiru? How much $$? How many flying?
I'm not sure how many are flying, but there a lot. If the Sonex guys are not using the Aero Vee, they are using the Jabiru. Here's a link to the data page for the 2200. Cost is $10,900

Jabiru 2200

There's a list on that page of airplanes they provide installation kits for as well.
 
The Jabiru 330, 120 HP is used in the Lightening

Empty Weight 800 lbs
Gross Weight 1425 lbs
Fuel cap. 23 gal
Endurance 4 hours
Range 700 sm
Max Speed 190 mph
Cruise Speed 175 mph
Vne 208

175 mph at a little over 5 gal/hr ...

can burn mogas or 100ll
aircooled
auto spark plugs...

what is not to like with an engine that can do that. I believe it would be a good mate for a -9/-9A.

ymmv,

John
 
The Indus Thorpedo S-LSA (modernized version of the old Thorp T-211) uses the Jabiru. And several of the Legend Cubs (also S-LSA) use the Jabiru.
 
Engine cost is certainly a big deal in the LSA would but so is weight. The cost of a clean sheet design will likely be in the Rotax 912/914 range due to the limited production numbers and development costs.

Conti is supplying several LSA makers with new O-200s. These engines are in the 190-220 lb. range so also a bit heavy for an RV12. The Rotax engines are light (around 50 lbs. lighter) because they are geared. Rpms don't weigh anything. Their combo of air and liquid cooling plus being geared produces a higher power to weight ratio than anything else out there in this class, hence their popularity and the reason Van's chose it for the RV12. The price is high but that is the price.

In order to get costs down, some sort of high volume basic engine must be used. Unfortunately, weight will almost certainly be higher than the Rotax so there is a tradeoff here. Cost to weight.

The Eggenfellner engine should be competitive in the markets where the O-200's weight is acceptable. We don't know what the cost is.

Many people interested in LSAs do not seem to be interested in manual mixture control, carb heat and magnetos. We have been approached by several companies to supply FADECs for various engines including the O-200. One should start ground running soon.

The Jabiru 2200, well early models did not have a good rep at all and their bigger models are still having issues. Are the problems solved? Will these things make it to 1500 hours without being opened up? Too soon to tell in my view. Any higher time Jab owners out there, please comment.
 
rv6ejguy said:
Many people interested in LSAs do not seem to be interested in manual mixture control, carb heat and magnetos. We have been approached by several companies to supply FADECs for various engines including the O-200. One should start ground running soon.

The Jabiru 2200, well early models did not have a good rep at all and their bigger models are still having issues. Are the problems solved? Will these things make it to 1500 hours without being opened up? Too soon to tell in my view. Any higher time Jab owners out there, please comment.
Interesting you mention mixture control and the J2200. Every LSA I've flown has no mixture control. Both the Rotax and Jabiru use Bing altitude- compensating carbs.

As for the reliability and livibility of the Jabiru, I have ~30 hours in the Thorpedo and found the 3300 to be a good engine - no operational problems related to the engine. We did have temp issues in the summer here in Big D, but those were related to the installation, and most piston airplanes are going to have problems in 100+ heat.

The early Jabirus did not have hydraulic automatic lifter adjustment - it had to be done every 25 hours. Needless to say, that got old, and the new engines have hydraulic adjusters.

As far as I know, there aren't any high-time Jabirus in the US. N211LS is the high-time Thorpedo out there, and it's only about 400 hours. OTOH, the Rotax 912 series is well known and there are many high-time units out there, although more in other countries than the US. Remember that the original DA20 Katana used the 80 Hp 912.

Doug
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Interesting you mention mixture control and the J2200. Every LSA I've flown has no mixture control. Both the Rotax and Jabiru use Bing altitude- compensating carbs.

Doug

Thanks for your reply. Sounds like the small Jabs are getting better as you'd expect with experience. Competition and choices in the market are usually good things.

While many people don't want carbs at all these days, the Bings seem to do the job reliably and with less fuss than traditional aircraft carbs like most O-200s are fitted with. We have had many people contact us over the years about fitting EFI to Rotax and Jabiru engines. One company did test EFI on the Jab and it ran well but the engine never lasted more than a few hours before more valve and head problems came up. This was about 3 years ago. They gave up on it finally because they were not getting good support from Jabiru. We have supplied a few units for Rotax 912/914 engines as well.

The O-200s have seen as much as a 25% reduction in fuel flow at the same TAS with EFI over the carb which shows how poor the original carb/ intake is on these engines.
 
gmcjetpilot said:
The no medical thing is a red herring. You really need one or you are grounded with "any known medical condition" you are aware of. I don't think the $80 bucks every two years for a Third class medical is killing GA.
I have to disagree on the medical issue. If you have one, great, good for you. If you can't get one, then suddenly it's a very large and personal issue.

I think that the key question for me is "Can you safely fly LSA even if you don't quality for a third-class (or higher) medical?" For me, that answer is yes. This is, in fact, a key part of the SP / LSA rule. I don't think anyone has said that the cost of the medical is the problem.

If you hold a valid DL, the question for SP then becomes "Well, PIC, are you fit to fly?" In a regulatory sense, this takes the form of FAR 61.53:

Federal Aviation Regulation 61.53
Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency.

(a) Operations that require a medical certificate.

Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, a person who holds a current medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person:
(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation; or
(2) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation.

(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate.

For operations provided for in Sec. 61.23(b) of this part, a person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner.


Ok, there it is. The standard for "known conditions" is different for PP / CFI / ATP than it is for SP. For SP, the question posed by the rule isn't "do you have any conditions that would exclude you from getting a medical", rather it's "can you safely act as PIC from a medical point of view?" There is a big difference between the two.

We should all be seriously asking the medical part of IMSAFE before every flight. The difference is that SP don't need a medical to go along with your decision and aren't bound to the same limits of self assessment - it is only related to one's ability to perform as PIC, not whether one meets certain medical criteria.

Will others disagree of our self-assessments? Sometimes. However, the self-certification medical issue is, IMHO, no different than any other decision as PIC. Ultimately, we are responsible for the safety of the flight, whether that involves medical conditions or medication, fatigue, weather, route, fuel planning, etc.
 
rv6ejguy said:
We have had many people contact us over the years about fitting EFI to Rotax and Jabiru engines. One company did test EFI on the Jab and it ran well but the engine never lasted more than a few hours before more valve and head problems came up. This was about 3 years ago. They gave up on it finally because they were not getting good support from Jabiru. We have supplied a few units for Rotax 912/914 engines as well.

The O-200s have seen as much as a 25% reduction in fuel flow at the same TAS with EFI over the carb which shows how poor the original carb/ intake is on these engines.
I'd love to see a O-200 with FADEC and EFI. If I remember right, this is in the works. Wasn't one displayed at OSH?
 
gmcjetpilot said:
<snip>

We have had kit planes and that have met the LSA's spec planes for years, but they where never real popular: Kitfox, Sonex, Sonerai II. The KR2 and VariEZ make a nice LSA, but they are too fast. Existing factory planes that meet the LSA spec: Luscombe, Aeronca, Cessna (140) and Taylorcraft are great planes but somewhat long in the tooth. Still I would look for one to buy or fix up before I bought a new plastic LSA for $95,000. A nice old C140 cost a fraction of that. LSA's cost are crazy money for a tiny two seat plane with a go slow mission. ... <snip>

from the Matronic's Lightning forum:

quote="pete(at)flylightning.net"]Hello John,

The Lightning can be equipped with IFR instruments and an autopilot.
Cockpit is 44 inches wide.
There are 4 flying and 26 sold to date.

It is not within the rules to "convert" a non LSA compliant plane to a LSA compliant one as the rule states the aircraft must have been "originally certificated and continuously operated" within the parameters of light sport to be flown by a pilot with light sport privileges.

Let me know if you have more questions.

Pete Krotje
Arion Aircraft, LLC

--[/quote]

Arion Aircraft is the company that builds the Lightning.

I'm not certain the buy and fix up is an option.

the bolded is my emphasis to Pete's post

John
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
I'd love to see a O-200 with FADEC and EFI. If I remember right, this is in the works. Wasn't one displayed at OSH?

We are working with one company who uses the new build O-200 in their LSA to supply a FADEC. They are currently fitting the EFI hardware to the engine and should be ordering the electronics soon to start ground and flight testing in 2007.

Others may be involved in similar projects that I'm not aware of.

We generally don't comment on specifics until the product hits the market unless our partners ok that.
There has been a big rush in the last 12 months from many different engine suppliers and airframers to get EFI/ FADECs under development. This would seem to be a coming thing for all classes of light aircraft engines, something like the demand for glass panel stuff.

We have had a number of people asking about systems for their Sport Class racers and even one Red Bull team recently.
 
LSA regs DRIVE ME CRAZY

To the previous 5 post, good info thanks!!!

I think may be LSA may have a chance if you guys where running it. Smart comments. :D Of course you are RV'ers.

Now the bad news is the arbitrary top speed and weight limits and their effect on the engine of choice.


I see BIG EYES and greedy hearts of business or marketing guys who think they'll get rich selling Lite Sport Planes. Good to hear Jabiru and "Lightning" have their act together and price in line. $60k for a new flying plane is good but a kit? Ho-humm. Why not just build a RV. Oh yes you only have a Sport pilot license? As a CFI, I predict that SP v. PPL completion times will be different by ZERO to may be $1,500 at most. There is no reason why people can not get a PPL close to the min 40 hours. I think most PL students will take their check ride with over 40 hours. Again a medical is really a moot point. You can't fly "sick", period, nor should you want to or be able to, sport pilot or not.


Is this the "Lightning"?
http://www.arionaircraft.com/index.html

Reminds me of the Pulsar that came out 1990


Is the lightning LSA qualified? They make notes: w/ VG's, no wheel pants, smaller engine w/ the wrong prop, ha ha, to make a 190 mph airplane go slow. Oh yes limit gross to 1320 lbs. "Yes sir Mr FAA, it only goes 138 mph."

This is what I mean! This is what the LSA class should be, without the artificial top speed limits. The other limits:

Max Weight limit (yes but more than 1320 lbs),
Min stall speed limit (check),
Number of Seats limit (check),
I'd even add engine HP, retract gear and prop limit (check),
BUT top speed makes no sense at all.​

The Pulsar and Lightning (or even a 118hp RV-9) should be what the LSA spec should have been. What we have is a LSA spec that makes little underpowered, slow planes.

Its bizarreness having an arbitrary top speed limit? Dumb and repressive of innovation with no real gain in safety. Yes inexperienced pilots in a fast plane can get behind more easily. However I have a great idea! It is called the throttle. Pull it back and go slower. Think of it as "The rate of event control". :D Will Sport Pilots be so inept that they can't handle 140 mph? Will their hair catch on fire? As I read it some Sport Pilots will be limited to 100 mph!

That's why LSA is kind of an odd deal. Technically limiting specs that don't add safety or increase ease of flying. Every fly a light vs. heavy plane in gusty winds? You can bust your back side in a LSA just as easy as any plane! Flying has risks. Light and going slow does not matter. If you hit the ground going 138 mph, it will hurt but not for long. I'm all for slow stall, that makes complete sense. Sure limit seats and weight, but 1320 lbs is just odd. Is that 600 kilograms, from Europe rules. Are we following the Europeans now?


The engine is not specified in the LSA requirements but the weight and speed does box it in. You can have an efficient airframe and low hp, or you can have a less efficient airframe and higher hp. In the first case you will have a DOG in climb. In the second case you have an inefficent airframe and greater gas burn.

It makes me wounder what RV'ers would do if the FAA limited RV weights to Van's specs! :eek: THEY WOULD DIE! That would eliminate the Subaru and other alternative engines and overkill panels, two batteries and alternators, fancy paint jobs and interiors. I agree the Rotax is light, but the 1350# airplane weight limit is too low. It should be at least 1,500 or even 1,600 lbs. A light airframe can be strong, but where do you think they will save weight, the airframe may be? I would rather have 50 lbs more in the airframe for margin of safety and crash worthiness.

Oh well it does not really matter really. I don't find any of the LSA's class of planes particular attractive. They look odd, fly odd, have low performance and really cost as much to maintain, tax, hanger, insurance and fuel. I can throttle my 180 hp RV back and fly at 138 mph and get better gas milage than most if not all LSA's. :eek: I suggest a RV-9 with a O235 flying at 138 mph is a safer, more comfortable and efficient than any LSA. May be the 118 hp RV-9 should have been the boiler plate for a sport plane. That would be 1600 lbs gross, 167 mph cruise and 118 hp. Than I would say YES, this could be a nice class of planes.

LSA> boring, Yawn. Who really really cares about LSA's? Once you have flown a RV, why would you want a LSA? If you have PPL get a real Cub or C140 to go slow.


Trying to make new technology go slow is crazy, 138 mph!!!! Look Kitfox went out of business (two or three times and down for the count I believe for now). I suspect many of the current almost 40 LSA want-to-bees EAA is talking about will be gone in a few years. THERE IS SAID IT. :eek: May be the "Lightning" will be around but it will not be the 138 mph LSA version. People don't want to go slow.

Did the LSA movement come from Europe? First we adopted terms like "aerodrome", METAR's (Mee-Tarrr)" and abbreviations like "FU", for fum?e (Foo-may), French for SMOKE. The French! Than we had ICAO airspace class A, B, C, D and E shoved at us. I was just getting use to pos-contl, TCA, ARSA, Control Zone and uncontrolled. At least we didnt have "meters" for visability. Now Light Sport Airplanes! What next? It's like socialism for aviation, no one can be too fast. It's un-American to make "classes" where every one must go slow! May be this is an effort to spread mediocrity in airplane design across the globe. Some folks just can't design fast planes I guess. :rolleyes: Where do the fastest and best experimental kit planes come from? Just asking? :rolleyes:

I would like to know where the LSA category really came from. I could see an expansion of the ultralight class, higher weight, two seats. I could see less restrictions on "Recreational Pilots" (which failed miserably BTW) so they could fly cross country. Whose idea was LSA? Who is paying for this new class? Taxes? Where there manufacturing lobbyist (USA/Europe/Rotax) that pushed the LSA class? LSA is business. Cheaper or less certification requirements to sell turn/key planes to the public.

LSA does not help any homebuilders, who have made planes cheaper and better. As I said LSA companies are greedy and want way too much money. The Cessna LSA may never come to pass, much less at "well south of $100,000" as the ceo claimed. He also said it has to make sense for the share holders. Cessna makes more selling one replacement part for a Citation than a whole LSA. The only thing is market and bringing in potential future customers. When Cessna was selling new C152's, they where under cost for that reason, building customer loyalty. This LSA class is more about manufactures and marketing than aeronautical excellence. I personally think the speed limit is to keep one brand from getting market advantage, more than safety. Clearly you can go faster than 135 mph on 100hp, at least in an American kit plane. Did anyone have problems as a student pilot handling a 120 mph C152 or Tomahawk? Its not about aviation joy or safety, its business and money.

I hope Sport Pilots and LSA's are a big success and I'm colossally wrong about it. I do predict there will be major cheating and non compliance with the 138 mph cruise and 1320 lb gross. Pilots will fly over gross Often! Two big people 400 lbs, leaves 920 lb empty. Add 120 lbs fuel, you have 800 lbs. That's with no bags. It not like a RV where we can say, the max gross is higher (which I am against btw). Empty weights also tend to get heavier as the years go by. Last, I also hope they eliminate the "catch 22" for pilots who where ever denied a medicals and are in limbo. So what is a LSA? ugh
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot,

Couldn't agree with you more- going lightweight can only affect safety negatively. It is going to be difficult to get a reasonably strong aircraft, people, a full load of fuel, and reasonable instrumentation under the 1350 lb limit. What will be sacrificed first- expensive instrumentation, then fuel ...:(

Ive always thought this Sport Pilot nonsense was more an effort by the FAA to find a way to licence the hang glider, motorized kite, and gyro rogues around. Throwing in the new LSA fixed-wing planes, that did NOT exist at the time, seem more like an afterthought gone bad. The vague and confusing rules concerning medicals only make the situation worse.

My big concern is that it all might catch on when kits come down in price- the LSA's, etc will be like a bunch of flies hovering around GA airports, flown by inexperienced, minimally licensed/trained thrill seekers unaffected by things as troublesome as regulations and protocols. I hope I'm wrong, but it sure seems that the EAA is pushing the whole Sport Pilot thing harder than I'd like.
 
Last edited:
To answer some of Geo's questions:

The Lightning is based upon the Esqual.

you have the mfg's link right...

The lightning can be built as a full experimental or as a LSA qualified plane.

The main reasons I can think of building it over a -9A is same price is still an experimental [repairman's certificate] build in a few months and more frugal fuel consumption and engine maintenance without giving up much if any performance.

There have been several guys that have flown both RVs and the Lightnings give reviews and all have given the Lightning good reports [I put only one thread down below along with Esqual/Lightning threads to better identify its linage]. I started 2 threads in Matronics 1] comparing the Lightning to the RV-9A and the other asking if the Lightning is a good IFR platform if anyone has questions regarding those two subjects.

here are some Matronics threads:

Lightning different than Esqual

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=15961

Lightning & Esqual pics

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=15968

Lightning & Esqual pics 2

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=15970

RV-6 v. a Lightening

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=16148

John
 
Good discussion here.
gmcjetpilot said:
...
As a CFI, I predict that SP v. PPL completion times will be different by ZERO to may be $1,500 at most. There is no reason why people can not get a PPL close to the min 40 hours. I think most PL students will take their check ride with over 40 hours. Again a medical is really a moot point. You can't fly "sick", period, nor should you want to or be able to, sport pilot or not.
I agree that most SP will need over 20 hours. As for the medical, well, again, if you have one, you probably can't understand what the problem is - there is no problem. If you don't or can't, SP is the difference between flying and not. Let's face it - plenty of people lie to the AME about their conditions and medications. I'd rather they come clean and fly as SP. Also, you can be very healthy and, IMHO 100% safe as PIC and yet not be eligible for a medical.

gmcjetpilot said:
The Pulsar and Lightning (or even a 118hp RV-9) should be what the LSA spec should have been. What we have is a LSA spec that makes little underpowered, slow planes.
LSA are slow, but not all are underpowered. The Thorpedo has a power/weight ratio of 10.6 lb/Hp, around that of a O-320 RV-7/8/9. Yes, they're not going to perform as well as a 200Hp RV.

gmcjetpilot said:
That's why LSA is kind of an odd deal. Technically limiting specs that don't add safety or increase ease of flying. Every fly a light vs. heavy plane in gusty winds? You can bust your back side in a LSA just as easy as any plane! Flying has risks. Light and going slow does not matter.
Agreed. IMHO, what LSA really adds in terms of safety is it helps prevent the pilot from getting behind the airplane (slow speed), limits you to day good VFR (e.g., no Special VFR) and limits the number of people who are at risk in the airplane. I think this is a good idea for most low time pilots.

gmcjetpilot said:
LSA> boring, Yawn. Who really really cares about LSA's? Once you have flown a RV, why would you want a LSA? If you have PPL get a real Cub or C140 to go slow.
Well, why not fly a Cub with a SP? Many of the old Cubs can be flown with SP, and most brand new Cubs being built (Cubs, not Super Cubs) are LSA. There was a petition to make the C140 eligible for LSA status, but the FAA said no. As for slow, many LSA are only 5-10 kt slower than the 172, and those seem to be fairly popular (Ok, popular outside of the RV community).

gmcjetpilot said:
Its not about aviation joy or safety, its business and money.
Who isn't in business to make money? Even Van's Aircraft is in business to make money. Now Van himself might still design airplanes for free, but good luck getting such a good kit made by a non-profit.

gmcjetpilot said:
I hope Sport Pilots and LSA's are a big success and I'm colossally wrong about it. I do predict there will be major cheating and non compliance with the 138 mph cruise and 1320 lb gross. Pilots will fly over gross Often! Two big people 400 lbs, leaves 920 lb empty. Add 120 lbs fuel, you have 800 lbs. That's with no bags. It not like a RV where we can say, the max gross is higher (which I am against btw).
I also predict cheating on speed. It would be really easy to adjust to the prop (ground adjust only) to be LSA compliant for the DAR and then, well, darn if the prop didn't just change pitch and, well, look at that! 145kt!

As for weight, I suspect there will be less cheating here. Yes, some of the LSA have poor useful loads, but some are very good. Thorpedo, Tecnams, CTs, RANS and yes, RV-12 are all in the 550 to 600 lb useful load category. Nobody will confuse a LSA with a 182.

gmcjetpilot said:
Last, I also hope they eliminate the "catch 22" for pilots who where ever denied a medicals and are in limbo. So what is a LSA? ugh
I'll give the same two answers I've given before:

If you can't get / don't have a medical, SP / LSA are a way to fly legally without resorting to Part 103 or fibbing to the AME (apologies to ULers).

If you can get a medical, LSA are a good way to start out flying (first 200 hours?) by sticking to simple, fairly slow airplanes in VFR day conditions. The shortage of LSA will be a difficult hurdle at first. However, Cessna needs a replacement to the 152 for training SP and PP, and it appears that they are considering a LSA to do just that.

SP / LSA will not solve the problems facing aviation. What it does is make flying simpler, which will help being new people into GA. We need that.
 
Thanks, cool info

Doug thanks for taking the time to educate me. I would only say I think many a LSA will be flown over 1320 lbs. "Big" Americans will eat the payload up fast with two up. With two seats and 20 gal of gas, the planes empty wt has to be under 800 lbs. That is not the fault of LSA, its the rule. 1320 lbs is a very tough number (low) gross for a two seat cross country plane. I just think people will stretch it, just like RV'ers do. With any bags, two big people and fuel, these planes will be over gross. Heck most RV'er can't get their plane under Van's gross. First it was 1500, than 1600 now vans went to 1800 lbs and that is still not good enough for some folks. :rolleyes: :eek: (no names you know who you are)
 
Back
Top