| rmartingt |
04-18-2017 05:01 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel
(Post 1166274)
One other thing to remember is that an amateur-built aircraft powered by a turbine engine must have an FAA-approved inspection program.
This program is normally supplied by either the engine manufacturer or the certified aircraft manufacturer that the engine came from.
This inspection program must be approved by the local FSDO.
Ref; FAA Order 8130.2H, Appendix C, No.14.
|
I really want to know... is there still a good continuing basis for this rule, or is it a holdover from the days where all turbines were new and scary and complicated and only found in very large, very high performance aircraft? A lot of the FAA's "jets are special" and "turbines are special" language stems from decades ago when it was assumed that even the smallest jets would be several thousand pounds, carry several people (or be surplus military aircraft performing in front of crowds), and operate in the flight levels at high speeds. And in those days, when turbines were temperamental and easy to overtemp, when the smallest jets were things like Citations, and only the very rich owned turbine-powered aircraft, things like requiring a type rating (or LOA equivalent) to fly a turbojet maybe made sense.
Today, these blanket assumptions no longer hold. FADECs and single lever power controls make these engines easier to operate than even a traditional carbureted piston engine with a fixed-pitch prop, let alone a turbocharged constant-speed fuel-injected engine with cowl flaps. There are single-seat jets smaller than a C150 on the kit market. There are true jet-powered remote control models, and I've seen Part 103-eligible ultralights with jet engines. Heck, I've seen a bicycle with a pair of little jets on the back. There's a turboprop in development suitable for light-sport aircraft, and at least one guy with a wearable four-engine jet.
This sticks in my craw because I dream of one day building a little self-launching sailplane that uses a pair of those R/C jets for launch, as it would be lighter and simpler than a traditional folding engine/prop assembly. Such an aircraft would be light-sport eligible except for the powerplant, and my RV-7 would be heavier, faster, carry more gas and more people, and be more complex... but by the FAA's rules, the glider would be a super-complex high-performance ship that warranted the equivalent of a type rating. Go figure :rolleyes:
|