What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Sport Pilot Legal RV-9A...?

P

PatrickW

Member
Friends,

At our EAA meeting the other night, during a discussion of medical exams, the topic of Sport Pilot came up.

Question: Can an RV-9A be built Sport Pilot Legal?

Supporting the idea that the answer is "yes", I present the following comparison between the RV-9A and another homebuilt aircraft that is Sport Pilot legal (the Zodiac 601 XL). This is straight off their respective websites Vans RV-9A and Zenith.

RV-9A Engine...................O-235
Zodiac XL Engine..............O-235

RV-9A Vne......................170 mph
Zodiac XL Vne.................180 mph

RV-9A Stall....................48 mph
Zodiac XL Stall...............44 mph

RV-9A T/O Distance.............525 ft
Zodiac XL T/O Distance........500 ft

RV-9A Landing Distance.........375 ft
Zodiac XL Landing Distance....500 ft

RV-9A Climb Rate...............950 fpm
Zodiac XL Climb Rate..........930 fpm

RV-9A Span.....................28 ft
Zodiac XL Span................27 ft

RV-9A Length...................20 ft 5 in
Zodiac XL Length..............20 ft

RV-9A Fuel Capacity............36 US gal
Zodiac XL Fuel Capacity.......24 US gal

RV-9A Empty Wt.................1028 lbs
Zodiac XL Empty Wt............800 lbs

RV-9A Gross Wt.................1600 lbs
Zodiac XL Gross Wt............1320 lbs

So, given that these two aircraft are very similar, how is it that one of them is Sport Pilot legal, and one is not?

Granted that the RV-9A is heavier at gross, but when accounting for the difference in fuel weight plus that the RV is a tad bit bigger - there doesn't appear to be whole lot of difference.

I figure a lot of us will only be able to build one plane in this lifetime, and we'd like to fly it for as long as we can (as opposed to as long as some AME thinks we should).

So, can the RV-9A be made Sport Pilot legal...?

Given the data presented above, I believe that it can be done if attention is paid to gross weight.

Thoughts...?

- Patrick
 
Some limitations would make it very difficult to go the sport pilot route with the -9:

Max Gross: 1320lbs
Max level flight continuous max power speed: 120 kts
Max Stall speed: 45kts

I know my nine with me in it would be at max gross right there without any fuel. You would also have to put on some drag inducing objects to keep the plane from reaching 120 knots while in level flight with max power.


Nathan Larson
N217JT RV9E 460 hours flying.
 
Just a quick reply--the following bulleted points are required for LSA (according to EAA website):

● Maximum gross takeoff weight?1,320 lbs (599 kg.), 1,430 lbs. for water operation

-- getting into the air under 1320 lbs in a RV9A would be tough in the every day real world. Even if you could build an empty one for 1000 lbs, that wouldn't leave much for pilot weight and enough fuel to get you around the patch, let alone carry a passenger if you ever wanted to do that.

● Maximum stall speed?51 mph (45 knots)
--RV 9 max stall speed is = or > than 51 mph, even though its Vso is 44mph.

● Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)?138 mph (120 knots)
-- You couldn't get in under this number with any of Van's recommended engines I don't think, even if you tried (fortunately! :D ). I suppose if you put a rotax on it might be possible???. I'm not sure anyone has ever tried to go this slow with some other engine.

The first and third points MIGHT not be LSA deal-killers, but it appears the stall speed would be.

Good luck.
 
Patrick,
These guys are right. There's no way an RV-9 could pass the required parameters for light sport. I've been certifying LSAs since the beginning.
Sorry,
Mel...DAR
 
PatrickW said:
RV-9A Vne......................170 mph
Zodiac XL Vne.................180 mph
Click to expand...
I'm confused. I thought the top speed for the RV-9/9A with O-235 was 170 mph and the Vne was somewhere close to 240 mph.

Thought I had read that somewhere.
 
RV-9 Speeds

Robert M said:
I'm confused. I thought the top speed for the RV-9/9A with O-235 was 170 mph and the Vne was somewhere close to 240 mph.
Click to expand...
You're right, 170 is approximately the top speed with the O-235, not Vne. The RV-9 Vne=210mph. Van's performance numbers for the RV-9/9A are here. If you click on the "Why can't I use a larger engine?" link, they even give the V-N Diagram.
 
VNE does not enter into the light-sport picture. Top speed does.
Mel...DAR
 
An idea whose time will never come?

I am lost with the attraction of "Sport" Pilot licence
and Light sport aircraft category of aircraft is.

To be honest I don't know what you are saving, just the medical? Is that right.

First I do know a little about Recreational pilot rating and as a CFI. Still need a III rd class. Its very limited and you might as well get a Pvt Pilot ticket, but that is my opinion.

Sport pilot is another even "less" level of training and only requires a drivers license for a medial, with the caveat you have not been denied a medical before? OF course 61.56 says you need to "self" ground yourself if you know of a medical deficiency. So the point is NO medical has some strings.

If you are a Sport Pilot you can only fly LSA. If recreational you can fly regular planes but with similar limits, like only one passenger.

The key is ease up on the III rd class and add individual wavers and limits like, day VFR, single engine and and only 1 passenger (because pilot may drop dead at any moment). :eek: I mean that tongue in cheek but you know what I mean. Does it matter if the pilot has a heart attack in a 100 mph/1200 lb plane or a 180 mph/1600 lb plane?


The aviation industry thinks it will be easier to get people involved in aviaition, if initial training is cheaper? Well I don't get saving money in training. You can still go out and kill yourself in a light sport plane as easy as any. You will still have similar expense of any airplane, except less gas may be. I just don't see any shortcuts in aviation usually being good, needed or value added. Sport pilot is 20 hours (15 dual/5 solo) and a private is 40 hours (20 dual+10 solo+10 dual or solo).

So 1/2 the training. OK. Now LSA can go in class B, with an endorsement. (Never class "A" FL180, you in fact never can go over 10,000 msl or 2,000 agl what ever is greater). The average to get a private I recall was 60-70 hours (guess). What will a LSA rating take? I got my private in 41 hours long ago, and many of my students, later when I was CFI'ing, got there Pvt. in 40-50 hours. So it can be done. I suspect many LSA pilots will take up to 30-35 hours on the same ratio.


It is cool for the pilot who lost their medical, "dropping down" to this level if you have a valid drivers license, but the regs don't garentee or even allow these "driver license medicals". I can't see new pilots who can hold a medical opting for this route out the box. I don't think the training should be less either.


Light sport plane = low performance two place plane. They look fun, but flying around the patch will get old. I just don't get it. Limited top speed? Limited gross? I don't think it will be significantly cheaper, safer. You still have all the airport, maintenance insurance and tax cost. I do see it definitely having less utility. I guess its a gateway to get people into the flock, who may upgrade later? That is a long shot in IMHO.


Are they promoting this as a cheap alternative to the masses? I don't think it will take off (pun alert). I would be very happy if I was wrong, the more people fly the better. However do we want these little planes taking our hangers, since most areas are hanger deficient. :rolleyes:

Hey what do I know, the FAA is involved, so it must be a great idea. :p I just don't see this meeting a significant "market".



George ATP/CFI
 
Last edited:
George,
The biggest attraction to Light-Sport is when people think they can no longer pass the medical. To clear up a couple of your points, The 2K' AGL does not apply to sport pilots. 10K' MSL is it. And the sport pilot is not restricted to a light sport airplane. The airplane just has to meet light-sport parameters. It can be normal category, amateur-built, or anything else. The restrictions for light-sport aren't quite as restrictive as for recreational pilots. One of the biggest points for LSA is to cover the "2-place ultralights" that have been flying under an exemption. That exemption is going away in January, 2008 and will be replaced by LSA.
Hope this helps.
Mel...DAR
 
Last edited:
George, I agree with everything you have said plus I'm concerned with the light sport pilots flying around in congested air space. I fly on Long Island just outside JFKs space. Its high volume with a mix of everything from heavy iron to C-152s. The limited amount of training required to get that ticket scares me. A little more seasoning before they get turned loose would be nice. A mid air with a light sport plane is as deadly as any other.
 
Clarification

Mel said:
George,
The biggest attraction to Light-Sport is when people think they can no longer pass the medical. To clear up a couple of your points, The 2K' AGL does not apply to sport pilots. 10K' MSL is it. And the sport pilot is not restricted to a light sport airplane. The airplane just has to meet light-sport parameters. It can be normal category, amateur-built, or anything else. The restrictions for light-sport aren't quite as restrictive as for recreational pilots. One of the biggest points for LSA is to cover the "2-place ultralights" that have been flying under an exemption. That exemption is going away in January, 2008 and will be replaced by LSA.
Hope this helps. Mel...DAR
Click to expand...

Thanks Mel, good catch I wrote

"never can go over 10,000 msl or 2,000 agl what ever is less", less should have been greater.

It is 10,000 msl or 2,000 agl what ever is higher. So you can fly over 14,500' Mt Rainer at 16,500' is my understanding, in theory. So if you are Denver area, you can clear the hills over say 8,000' msl by 2,000 agl, and exceed 10k msl.

As far as medical it is not like an ultra light to my understanding. You have to meet the Fars as far as "medical deficiency". So if you are afflicted by some medical condition that means you know you could pass out, for example, LSA is a no go. It is NOT a Cart Blanche from what I read. If you fail a class III you are kinda screwed or at least it complicates it, since they now have a record. If you never had a class III or failed one you are good to go. However if you know you will fail or are ill and it affects you ability to pilot an aircraft, you MUST ground yourself because of: common sense, morally (especially with a passenger) and legally (FAR 61.56). An ultra light only common sense applies, since you are only going to hurt yourself.

I see the LSA as big ultra lights, with 2 seats. The LSA specs are not super restrictive and do allow a substantial or real plane, but barely. The advantage is a safer plane, especially in the 2-seat size ultra lights.

Thanks Mel I see the big picture of LSA. It is like letting ultra lights grow up both in training and airframes. Of course the single seat thing was a challenge in getting proper training. There where people that just "went for it" with no training. Of course that has bad idea written all over it.

I'm not a snob, I like some later ultra lights, they are cool, and they have come a long way (but many early ones where a dangerous abomination). So the LSA will get pilots hooked up with real (CFI) training and put them in a real plane with out the ultra light restriction, which tends to make them a little spindly. All this is a good thing. So I see the LSA as serving the Ultra Light group more moving up, than the Pvt pilot group moving down. I can see an ultra light pilot getting the training and LSA rating and going back to their single/dual seat ultra light, but better trained than in the past.

LSA is a stop gap between ultra light and normal category.

However as a safe haven for Pvt Pilots who can't get a medical it is not really what I think people think. Medical requirements for LSA pilot is class III or valid state driver license. You are not Scott free with a driver license only. If you have a class III for example and know you would be denied a future medical and its serious, LSA pilot must adhere to FAR 61.56, Know Thy self. Ultra light guys don't have this burden. So the obvious is the FAA did not make the LSA class for sick pilots to fly a passenger in a plane heaver and faster than an ultralight.


Thanks Mel I have a better understanding. Who knows I may be involved in training a Sport Pilot some day. I still wounder if it will be a popular class or just be utilized by two seat ultralights and ultralight instructors, who need to do training in two seat (fat) ultra lights.

G
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
It is 10,000 msl or 2,000 agl what ever is higher. So you can fly over 14,500' Mt Rainer at 16,500' is my understanding, in theory. So if you are Denver area, you can clear the hills over say 8,000' msl by 2,000 agl, and exceed 10k msl.



G
Click to expand...


Actually it is 10000msl regardless of height AGL. Kind of leaves out the folks at Leadville, CO from doing too much LSA.

From 14CFR Part 61.315 (c)(11) "No Light Sport Pilot may act as pilot in command of a light sport aircraft......(11) at an altitude of more that 10,000 feet msl."

Nathan Larson
 
Nathan is right. The "AGL" portion was pulled at the last minute. Never made it into the regs.
Mel...DAR
 
How High?

Thanks Guys.

I found the part about the medical and this is off a aviaition law site ( http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Archives/2004_07_01_index.shtml ) explaining the regs on Sport Pilot medical.


"If you have received a denial or revocation and would like to operate under the Sport Aircraft Rule, you have two options: 1) you can pursue a third-class special issuance from the FAA through traditional channels, or 2) you can seek a sport-pilot medical evaluation via a separate procedure that the FAA continues to design and develop. Unfortunately, we don't know what this procedure will be because it has not been developed or implemented yet. As a result, the special issuance route is realistically the only option currently available."

Bottom line you need a medical or should be eligible for a medical. I suppose if you never apply for a 3rd class medical or let it lapse with out being denied or revoked AND you are not aware (wink wink) of a condition than the drivers license is good enough. I assumed that the advertised claim but EAA/AOPA that you do not need a medical really is tempered with the fact that you need to get approval or special issuance if you have been denied or have a medical condition.

George
 
Just to continue to beat this dead horse:
What if, you built a -9 super light(no steam gauges,etc.) and left off all the gear fairings. Then used a Jabiru 3300 with a composite prop. Then add VGs and require them when the aircraft gets certified. Just spec the max cruise RPM low enough so as not to exceed 120kts-(as I understand the certification process, you can do this). Then, if need be, spec the fuel at 8gals per tank. I not sure of the numbers here but wouldn't this meet the requirements??
 
You might also be hard pressed to meet the stall limits. Remember, flaps don't count in the LSA regs. Maximum stall speed must be in the "clean" configuration.
 
Mel, what is the "clean vs. dirty" stall speeds for the -9? Vans website says 48mph but doesn't say anything about flaps. Adding VGs will lower the stall 3-8mph, that combined with the lower weight due to the engine and other mods mentioned above should put it within the rules. Next question is what will I have to do to get this done?(I'm very serious)
Bruce
 
Not sure what the "clean" stall speed is. Need to find out from some of the -9 guys.
 
Cost!?

My opinion is that ultimately the issue with LSA and sport pilot comes down to cost. For those I have talked with cost is the true motivator for acquiring the sport pilot license. Even if "old hat" aviators such as George fail to see the benefit in these new rules. Truth be told, those people not exposed to aviation are definitely going to look at the bottom dollar in determining if they want to get involved with flying. I am not saying this a good or a bad thing. I am just saying this is the reality of the situation. When looking at flying from every angle, the expense of it all is what really is the first thing to hit home with everyone.

There is a perception that flying is limited to those "wealthy" people who can afford it. I believe the sport pilot and LSA rules were an attempt to try to change this perception. Oh I know that you are not wealthy (or maybe you really are). I know I am not. But our ideas of wealth do not hold water with the non-flying community that looks at our expenditures. Their view is that if we can afford these "flying toys" then we must be wealthy.

Getting the costs associated with flying down should be the real reason for these rules. Now whether they really do decrease the costs for flying is yet to be seen as it appears that every entity trying to make money in the LSA market is definitely pricing their goods at a fairly inflated level. It is not proving to be the case that it will cost much less to get into flying through the LSA/Sport Pilot route as it would to go the PPL route and fly a 30-40 yo certificated airplane. At least not if you go the route of purchasing one of the new LSA aircraft.

I do believe the real motivation for the FAA to implement this rule is to create a mechanism to control the "fat ultralights". These aircraft (oops! My bad, the FAA does not recognize ultralights as aircraft) were not being registered and were carrying passengers in their second seats. Since the FAA did not have regulatory control over this sector and that they take it upon themselves to be the responsible government agency for the industry, they had to do something to gain control of these ultralights.
 
I don't think that it will work...

elfiero said:
Mel, what is the "clean vs. dirty" stall speeds for the -9? Vans website says 48mph but doesn't say anything about flaps. Adding VGs will lower the stall 3-8mph, that combined with the lower weight due to the engine and other mods mentioned above should put it within the rules. Next question is what will I have to do to get this done?(I'm very serious)
Bruce
Click to expand...

Clean stall speed 54 mph.

I don't know the difference between the weight of Lycoming and Rotax engine, but lets say that it would be 100lbs. If you built very light you might, if lucky get it in at 900lbs empty. You will not be able to put anything in the baggage compartment or you will be out of CG (remember that you already lost 100lbs off the nose). I don't think that will would be allow to pass inspection by just saying that your fuel tanks only hold 9 (or whatever) gal each, so you would need to modify your tanks to hold less. This could be a good thing because it will save a little weight.

Right idea about leaving the fairings off. Putting them on made my plane go from 165 mph to 189 mph with the same settings.
You could get more drag by putting bigger tires on, but you need to be careful about weight gain here. Maybe by choosing the correct climb prop for the rotax you could limit the normal cruse speed below the 120kts limit for the class.

I think that the biggest problem you will face is have enough fuel and pilot with the 1320lb gross limit.

This plane was not designed for your intended mission. I would think that there is a better choice. I would think that Vans would be close to releasing the RV12 for sale soon. I am guessing at OSH.

Kent
 
kentb said:
I don't know the difference between the weight of Lycoming and Rotax engine, but lets say that it would be 100lbs. If you built very light you might, if lucky get it in at 900lbs empty. You will not be able to put anything in the baggage compartment or you will be out of CG (remember that you already lost 100lbs off the nose). I
Click to expand...
This is easy to solve by building a longer engine mount. Then you are back to using that baggage compartment.

Another way to slow it down is to put a climb prop on the thing. There is no restriction about a 3,000 ft/min climb for LSA's. :D
 
You're added to the weight now...

N941WR said:
This is easy to solve by building a longer engine mount. Then you are back to using that baggage compartment.

Another way to slow it down is to put a climb prop on the thing. There is no restriction about a 3,000 ft/min climb for LSA's. :D
Click to expand...

Longer motor mounts = longer cowl = more weight.

RV9LSA does not have room (weight) to spare.
Now if you get the pilot and passanger on a strict diet, you might make it. :rolleyes:

Kent
 
Mel said:
Not sure what the "clean" stall speed is. Need to find out from some of the -9 guys.
Click to expand...
The CAFE Foundation put a flight test airspeed boom on Van's RV-9A and measured the clean stall speed at 1759 lb weight as 50.5 kt CAS (58.2 mph CAS). Stall speed numbers from Van's, other builders etc. would be in IAS, and thus are meaningless as far as compliance with the LSA requirements go.

The stall speed should be 45.0 kt at 1397 lb, and 43.7 kt at 1320 lb, assuming the CAFE Foundation data is credible. So, if you actually could build an RV-9A light enough to use a 1320 lb gross weight, the stall speed might not be a problem. But, just putting on a lighter engine and prop would probably put the CG too far aft. You'd need to put the engine on a longer engine mount to move it forward. That means extra weight for the engine mount, cowling, hoses, etc.

One wildcard - the CAFE Foundation seems to measure their stall speeds with some power on, but I suspect the LSA stall speeds are required to be measured at idle power. This would increase the stall speed a bit. Those VGs might be required.
 
The prototype RV-12 is registered as an Experimental, Research & Development. And at this point it does NOT meet LSA parameters because of stall speed. Stall speed for LSA must be no more than 45 kts. clean.
 
Mel said:
The prototype RV-12 is registered as an Experimental, Research & Development. And at this point it does NOT meet LSA parameters because of stall speed. Stall speed for LSA must be no more than 45 kts. clean.
Click to expand...

Understand for the -12 its still in development and test, but this is a -9 certified as an LSA ????
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I miss-read your post. I would be interested in talking with the person who signed off this aircraft. I don't see any way it can meet LSA parameters. If Van is having troubles getting the stall speed down on the -12, I can't imagine anyone getting the stall speed that low on a -9. Maybe Van can learn from this guy.
 
Last edited:
Prop pitch....

N941WR said:
.....
Another way to slow it down is to put a climb prop on the thing. There is no restriction about a 3,000 ft/min climb for LSA's. :D
Click to expand...

Some of our local LSAs are "tuning up" their airspeed by fixing the ground adjustable pitch prop to a setting outside the handbook.... :)

So I guess this particular LSA manufacturer "detuned" with prop pitch to meet the max. airspeed requirement...

gil in Tucson
 
Why, yes an RV-9 can be made LSA and Van is working on doing just that. He is calling it an RV-12. :)
 
Mel said:
I can't imagine anyone getting the stall speed that low on a -9.
Click to expand...

Could it be that when operated at light-sport weights (1,320 lbs.), the 9 just squeaks under the legal stall speed limit?

Van's website says the stall speed for a 9 at solo weight (1,350 lbs.) is 44 mph. Assuming that speed is with full flaps, perhaps without flaps it stalls at about 50 mph, which would be around 43 knots. I guess as long as there is only 1 person in the plane, or two small people and about 16 gallons of fuel, it would work.

What do you think, Mel? Would this be legal?
 
It seems to me that "artificial paper" limits would have to be set to make this work as an LSA. The 9 is certainly capable of more than the LSA max performance and weight specs.

Mel, out of curiosity, do the feds review and/or change a DARs paperwork and decisions when it comes to the certification process ?
 
It would be unlikely

You would have a battle. Add VG's to get the stall down, leave all the gear and wheel fairings off, reduce fuel tank size and placard the max weight is all well and good........................... but probably will not get past the FED.

On the other hand I laugh at the idea of LSA's operating legally. Many will be way over weight when flown with two people, and thus probably have higher stalls. With the marginal limits LSA give you to work with, its hard to make a plane light enough to fly two.

What do RV'ers do.........they just raise the limit. I know LSA's will be flown over gross. Not to mention folks are bigger, how many of you weight 150 lbs?
 
RV9 as ELSA

beattiema said:
Vans has posted a first flight of an RV9 reportedly registered as an ELSA. It will be interesting to see the report on it and how it stays within the LSA specs.

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/flights.htm
Click to expand...

The RV9 as a single passenger with some luggage does seem to make to grade
as a ELSA. If the prop is flat enough it would not exceed the level flight criteria and
just makes the stall speed. But with only ~420 lbs useful load - 2 passengers would be out with fuel. The tail dragger would seen like the logical choice.

Actually as a single passenger LSA with the Lycoming it looks like a good choice.
The O-235 is a nice engine with 2400 TBO. The new Continental LSA engine is about 50lbs lighter - that might be a better way to go.

I wish the FAA had taken the Cessna 152 gross and just subtracted 50 lbs at 1550 for gross weight and gone with it.
 
What if I am my own DAR?

Mel said:
I would be interested in talking with the person who signed off this aircraft.
Click to expand...

O.K.

If I AM the DAR............can I sign off my own airplane?
 
Nope. Regulations say that a DAR may not sign off on any aircraft that he has worked on.
 
Smokey Yunick.........

kentb said:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=235ls

Don't know how they could register as LSA.

Kent
Click to expand...

Really reminds me of Smokey Yunick and his rule-bending. Inspectors said he couldn't have the engine of his NASCAR race car so far to the left. He said, "Show me." So they looked at the rule book and....sho 'nuff, he could do it. It only had to have the #1 spark plug aligned with the front axles... :D Only fore and aft rules applied...THEN. Our rule book is obviously a lot thinner. ;)

Amazing,
 
Seth,
You are right...to a point. Yes we take the word of the applicant, BUT if the aircraft obviously doesn't meet the requirements, then we cannot sign it off.
My logbook entry states; "I find that this aircraft meets the requirements for the certificate requested and have issued a special airworthiness............."
According to this statement, we must do our best to confirm that the aircraft does indeed meet these requirements. What happens the follow day is between you, the FAA and your insurance company. Will you be ramped checked? If you have, for example, an RV-9, you get ramp checked, and your Airworthiness Certificate is for E-LSA, you may be asked to show proof that the aircraft complies. It is the responsibility of the pilot to prove this.
 
It's been a long time...

Hey Friends - it's been a long time since I've checked in. Was suprised to see that this old thread I originally started was still active.

After a lot of thought, I ended up going with the Zodiac 601XL with a Corvair engine instead of trying to shoehorn an RV-9 into Light Sport. The RV-12 didn't yet exist at the time I made my decision, although in retrospect I don't think it would have swayed me.

Hope I'm still welcome here! I don't spend as much time on the internet any more - more time in the shop... :D

- PatrickW
 
Heart and soul

RV-9 is not a LSA bottom line.

LSA is a different class of plane in its heart and soul.

Remember a LSA is not a blank check to fly with illness or medical maladies like diabetes, heart problems or anything else. Get a real license and a real plane. If you can't hole a class III you can't really fly a LSA (legally). The LSA just lets you fly with out going to the doctor, you are in essence self certified but the health issues are the same.

I hate being a "Danny Downer", but I'm just being real. Do we as a pilot group or society want any one flying a plane over our heads or with our wife or kid, even if its just one passenger in a lighter, slower plane, that can pass-out or have "The Big One" mid flight? Nope. There are cheaper ways to kill yourself.
 
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot said:
RV-9 is not a LSA bottom line.

LSA is a different class of plane in its heart and soul.
Click to expand...
True.

Remember a LSA is not a blank check to fly with illness or medical maladies like diabetes, heart problems or anything else.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Maybe a class IV medical should have been invented instead...

Get a real license and a real plane.
Click to expand...
What isn't real about an LSA? Is it that it doesn't go 200 MPH?

While I share your concerns about people flying who shouldn't be, I truly hope that the real results of the LSA movement will be getting more pilots interested, and ultimately into the game due to the lowered cost of entry. While I still think that $75,000 to $100,000 is ridiculous for an entry level aircraft - prior to the LSA's coming on the scene... there was nothing even close to that.

I have a PPL and no medical concerns. However, I don't want to fly worn out old Cessnas. I want to build something for myself. But I don't want to build for 5 years before getting the fruits of my labor. So, I see the RV-12 as roomier than a 152, faster than a 172... that I can build myself in much less time than an RV-9. I hope that a lot of the market for the RV-12 are folks like me.

IMHO - These recent ideas of LSA -4's and -9's are just folks way of looking for a prettier or sportier aircraft than the RV-12.
 
Phyrcooler said:
*snip*
I have a PPL and no medical concerns. However, I don't want to fly worn out old Cessnas. I want to build something for myself. But I don't want to build for 5 years before getting the fruits of my labor. So, I see the RV-12 as roomier than a 152, faster than a 172... that I can build myself in much less time than an RV-9. I hope that a lot of the market for the RV-12 are folks like me.

BINGO!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. I first went through the mental battle of the 601XL vs. the RV9A, once that was over I started beating myself over the -9A vs -9, and once that was settled, it was the QB vs SB. I even went so far as to purchase the preview plans and some tools. Fourtunately, by that time, the initial murmurings of a pulled rivet RV began to surface. That settled it for me, I was looking for something that had the ease of construction of the 601XL yet could beat the 172s I fly. So now I'm making use of the time Vans is spending on the prototype to get all my ducks in a row so I can possibly be the first customer built/flown RV-12 :D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
IMHO - These recent ideas of LSA -4's and -9's are just folks way of looking for a prettier or sportier aircraft than the RV-12.
Click to expand...

Or a faster, heavier plane that they can sneak into LSA....... :eek:
 
Isn't all this talk really about slipping a 9A in under the Sport Pilot program using some artificial performance restrictions, then flying it more like it was designed to once registered (not that anyone would stretch the FAA rules) without a physical? Under that scenario, how would the FAA ever know?

I think a very real problem is that once registered, that initial classification cannot change in the future. How would one sell such an underperforming plane?
 
rtry9a said:
Isn't all this talk really about slipping a 9A in under the Sport Pilot program using some artificial performance restrictions, then flying it more like it was designed to once registered (not that anyone would stretch the FAA rules) without a physical? Under that scenario, how would the FAA ever know?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's all about that, although some folks may be considering it that way. As it has been discussed elsewhere, it's a Bad Idea to knowingly violate the operating limitations of your airplane, LSA or not. Now, interestingly, you could build and register a -9 as a Ex/AB that meets the LSA restrictions and then later legally expand the weight and performance envelope, yes? Alternatively, you could impose additional operating limitations to a "conventional" -9 and make it LSA legal. Mel, have we got this right?

The -9 might be a good LSA if you could make it light enough. That's what the discussion is about for me.
 
Yes & No

the_other_dougreeves said:
I don't think it's all about that, although some folks may be considering it that way. As it has been discussed elsewhere, it's a Bad Idea to knowingly violate the operating limitations of your airplane, LSA or not. Now, interestingly, you could build and register a -9 as a Ex/AB that meets the LSA restrictions and then later legally expand the weight and performance envelope, yes? Alternatively, you could impose additional operating limitations to a "conventional" -9 and make it LSA legal. Mel, have we got this right?

The -9 might be a good LSA if you could make it light enough. That's what the discussion is about for me.
Click to expand...
You could expand an amateur-built upwardly making it unsuitable to a sport-pilot, but you could not go the other way. The LSA limitations state that the aircraft must have been LSA compliant throughout it's life. No backing into LSA!
 
PatrickW said:
Hey Friends - it's been a long time since I've checked in. Was suprised to see that this old thread I originally started was still active.

After a lot of thought, I ended up going with the Zodiac 601XL with a Corvair engine instead of trying to shoehorn an RV-9 into Light Sport. The RV-12 didn't yet exist at the time I made my decision, although in retrospect I don't think it would have swayed me.

Hope I'm still welcome here! I don't spend as much time on the internet any more - more time in the shop... :D

- PatrickW
Click to expand...

I follow your logic w/ a/c choice but would like to better understand your thought process re: using a corvair engine?

Thanks

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top