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...?

gmcjetpilot said:
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
Click to expand...

Hey George, Alert the media! I agree with you on every point! In fact I raised this in a discussion session at my EAA chapter meeting. Everyone was looking at me like I had two heads. (For the sake of discussion I don't) The consensus was that anything likely to bring in new blood don't say anything against it. The sad part is that if you have EVER BEEN DENIED a 3rd class medical you ARE NOT ELIGIBLE for LSA! Also something to note is the current pricing of for-sale-complete LSA aircraft. Most if not all of the nice LSA purpose built aircraft are $80K and UP! $80K for a "fun plane" with all sorts of limitations makes a quick build RV-7 or RV-8 look awfully good!
Rotary10-RV
Bill Jepson
 
SweetJellyDonut said:
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...

Hamp,
You can do any RV as a pulled rivet aircraft. Van doesn't go that way because the driven rivets are lots cheaper. Cherry and Avdel and probably more make rivets that can be used for structure. In Fact any RV-builder can tell you Vans uses them in many of the harder to reach places. The onus would be on you to use the correct grip range and diameter. That said, a RV-9 still isn't a logical LSA.
Bill Jepson
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Fine Print on the Medical Issue

The issue of "why would someone pursue a LSA or Sport Pilot license" has been thrashed pretty well on the VAF forums over the last year or so. Basically the discussion in the past has boiled down to:

* If you can get a medical, you have no idea why someone would ever go LSA / SP. Everything is fine for you, so what's the problem? Why would you fly those little, slow 2-place airplanes?

* If you can't get a medical but are eligible to self-certify under FAR 61.23, you can't legally fly anything but LSA (or gliders or balloons). So, if you want to fly, you're interested in LSA. You have no choice but to fly 2-place 120kt airplanes.

There has been discussion about how if you have any condition that would prevent you from getting a 3rd class medical it would prevent you from flying LSA using a DL for a medical. Not so. The key is 61.23(c)(2)(iv), citing eligibility to use a DL in place of a medical for SP: "Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner." Thus, if you have a DL and are fit to fly LSA, you are fit to fly LSA - end of discussion.

The problem, of course, is what happens after an accident when the FAA (or your insurance company!) looks at your medical history and decides that you are / were not fit to fly. In that case, it's all up to the judge.

Fly what you can, safely.
 
I'm lazy and will leave that to the experts...

Rotary10-RV said:
Hamp,
You can do any RV as a pulled rivet aircraft. Van doesn't go that way because the driven rivets are lots cheaper. Cherry and Avdel and probably more make rivets that can be used for structure. In Fact any RV-builder can tell you Vans uses them in many of the harder to reach places. The onus would be on you to use the correct grip range and diameter. That said, a RV-9 still isn't a logical LSA.
Bill Jepson
Click to expand...

Thanks for that tidbit of info. (You really can learn something off the Internet) I didn't know you could build the other RV's completely with pulled rivets (really, thanks. I'm not being sarcastic). Seems to me all of the engineering on the other RV was around driven rivets and sparing use of pulled rivets. You made a very salient point in that the onus would be on me to perform the necessary engineering to subsitute pulled rivets where driven ones are specified. Even though I consider myself a pretty smart guy, I'm waaaayyyy too lazy to do all the necessary math to make the switch. Additionally, I don't want to be the test pilot on that mission (could you imagine all flak that would be stirred up on this board if I forget the carry the "1" in a calculation and a wing came off :eek: )!

If VANS had designed, built, flown and sold the -9 with all pulled rivets, we wouldn't be having this discussion (there would be one in my hangar right now!). There are some of us who have full-up PPL and intact medicals who just aren't interested in dimpling and driving rivets. We just want a plane we can put together with a minimum of fuss and have it perform slightly better than a drunk bumblebee. We are going to fly it X-C, at night, IFR and in Class B airspace, we just dont want spend 1000+ hours putting the dang thing together.

I know, waah waah waah, we want our cake and to eat it too. But hey, that's what captialism is for.

p.s. - If anyone DOES build a -9 with pulled rivets, give me a call, I would love to see it.
 
There are some of us who have full-up PPL and intact medicals who just aren't interested in dimpling and driving rivets. We just want a plane we can put together with a minimum of fuss
Click to expand...

Pulled rivets would shave very little time from the total build of any RV. If a quickbuild kit is purchased, there isn't very much riveting required, so total time between pulled vs driven would be minimal. If a standard kit is built, the total project time would still be affected to a small degree since assembling the airframe is only about 50% of the total build time, and time spent dimpling is a very small portion of the 50%.

The complexity of a custom-built plane is in the systems and finish, not the basic airframe. I haven't seen a plane that can be put together with a minimum of fuss. :D
 
Two things you guys are overlooking. Pulled rivets are considerably heavier and more expensive when compared to solid rivets.
 
Universal vs Flush

I wonder how slow an RV-9 would go if all the skin rivets were universal head instead of flush. No question the build time would be reduced (no dimpling). Weight would be about the same.

Man... I can't believe I just posed a question about slowing an RV down :rolleyes:

Actually... from a curiosity standpoint, I am kinda interested in how much of a difference universal vs flush heads make... someone want to build an RV with one so we can get an idea? ;)
 
Even more so because..

Mel said:
Two things you guys are overlooking. Pulled rivets are considerably heavier and more expensive when compared to solid rivets.
Click to expand...
And for the same panel strength you have to use more of them. You also have to use greater edge distance for the 1/8 pulled rivet compared to the 3/32 driven one.
 
Smooth skin or lumpy skin...

FlyerJumper said:
I wonder how slow an RV-9 would go if all the skin rivets were universal head instead of flush...<SNIP>
Click to expand...

I think I remember Van answering a question along these lines a long time ago at either Oshkosh or Sun'n Fun and his answer was "...probably not more than four or five mile an hour" in his typical Oregon drawl. At that time the model in discussion was the RV-6, IIRC.

Don
 
Depends

Mel said:
Two things you guys are overlooking. Pulled rivets are considerably heavier and more expensive when compared to solid rivets.
Click to expand...


The Zenairs use Avex rivets which are suposedly non structural.....Not expenive at all and the airframe was rated to 6g (really 4.5G +1.5 safety factor).

Incidently this whole thing about shoehorning an airplane into light sport has one MAJOR drawback that I came across when I was trying to do the same when selling my 601HDS Zodiac (listed on paper as having too high a stall speed)...Well it was so close I thought I could get away with selling it to a sport pilot.

Right up until a Sport Pilot actually got an insurance quote on it....Try $6500 for $30 hull...Gulp!

So I sold it to a guy in Canada instead...:)

Frank 7a
 
In Australia, our regulators traditionally take a contrarian view of what's acceptable in the USA, but it seems we are about to see them take a practical view at last. Hope this doesn't jinx it all !

Currently we have 'recreational' aircraft approved at 544 kgs, (1197 lbs), and LSA at 600 kgs, (1320 lbs). These are without speed limits, thank goodness - or we'd never make it between fuel stops. Kit builts not for training, while factory builts are.

There is now a proposal before CASA, (the regulator), for the upper weight limits to be shifted to either 720 or 750 kgs, (1584 or 1650 lbs). It has a lot of support, and I think might be passed at the higher end.

That would allow the smaller engined RV-9A to be built without any scrimping. Remember that without the 120 kts upper cruise limit, the -9A can have it's fairings and spats fitted.

We've been planning to fit a Jabiru 3300 engine to a light built -9A - the 120HP should give much the same performance as the Lycoming 0-235, but is around 80 lbs lighter. With a ground adjustable propellor, it might do better. There is already a locally built 3-blader composite being tested on the same engine fitted to the Jabiru J-230 airframe - looks very cool, and performs!

The Jabiru factory already have worked out a lengthened engine frame, and new cowls to suit this new installation. Having seen a longer cowl on a -9A fitted with the 170HP - 8 cylinder Jabiru, I have to say it looks very attractive.

If our weights come to be legal - mooted as in early 2008, then such an aircraft will be in LSA/RAA, but as a homebuilt - it won't be usable for training. Pity about that, because the -9A would make a really great trainer.

For us down under, the Jabiru engines offer better fuel consumption - around 18-20 LPH, (4.76 to 5.3 USG/HR). With AVGAS prices well over A$ 1.50/L, (A$5.67/USG, or US$4.64/USG ), we believe that using the -9A in LSA might be attractive.

Of course, when it's 45 degrees C, as happens all thru summer inland - we might be yearning for 180HP upfront !

cheers,
 
Training

Hi Poteroo,
How do most of you guys down there get transition training if it's not allowed? Here, the FAA allows charging for training only if the trainer has an RV and is either an EAA or NAFI (Nat'l assoc of Flight instructors) member. They issue a waiver for the rule that prohibits charges and is only allowed for builders nearing completion of their homebuilt or those buying one.

Regards,
Pierre
 
No special rules here for training in RV's. Instructor must be GA rated, and 90 days current, but can give instruction to all the owners of the aircraft - from student thru' to even CPL. Instructors don't have to be current on RV's in order to instruct in one. Bit the same as tailwheels - an instructor can actually instruct in one as soon as he's endorsed - which accounts for a fair proportion of the t/w training accidents here!

Aircraft must pass muster with a LAME,(A&P), and have a Maintenance Release current, ie, not just owner maintained. It must also be insured so as to cover the fact of training and public liability cover for the instructor.

Other than that, an RV builder doesn't actually need 'transition' training if they are 90 days current in similar GA aircraft types. However, the prudent ones appear to get an hour or two with an experienced instructor with RV time, before heading off cross country. This applies more to tailwheel RV's, which seem to have a higher accident rate.

The Recreational & LSA industry is growing really fast, and I guess there will be a few changes in the future as we see where the training needs are.

cheers,
 
elfiero

If you save all this weight in your -9 you probably wont bring the CG within legal limits. The -9 with an O-235 and a wood prop is already tail heavy, so your config would probably be worse. Beware of flat spins. They kill!
Jakob, CFI
 
It Will Work

If an RV-9 with an O-235 installed is tail heavy, it is because someone didn?t do his homework. A longer engine mount can put the CG right where you need it, even with a Jabiru installation. Besides, done well, long nosed, low wing airplanes are quite attractive, particularly if they are tail draggers and the cowlings are done well.

I can?t wait to here more from Poteroo and his success with this particularly exciting idea!!

I want one!

Tom
 
Sam Buchanan said:
Pulled rivets would shave very little time from the total build of any RV. If a quickbuild kit is purchased, there isn't very much riveting required, so total time between pulled vs driven would be minimal. If a standard kit is built, the total project time would still be affected to a small degree since assembling the airframe is only about 50% of the total build time, and time spent dimpling is a very small portion of the 50%.

The complexity of a custom-built plane is in the systems and finish, not the basic airframe. I haven't seen a plane that can be put together with a minimum of fuss. :D
Click to expand...

I bought an RV-6A with the airframe mostly done, think I was over half done! I am learning that the nonstructural elements of the plane are much more time consuming.

Hans
 
More Progress

Jay, from Lakeland Florida, is now building another RV-9 and is making additional advancements in building it light, without sacrificing the integrity of the structural strength. Unfortunately, he will not have it finished before the January 08 deadline for E-LSA. It will be certified as an Experimental Amateur built airplane instead, but it will meet the LSA parameters. He is considering using the Jabiru 3300 on an extended engine mount to keep the CG in check. I am anxiously monitoring his progress.

Tom
 
I think the -9 could be viable, but some things would need to be changed. Tiny minimalistic panel, no primer or paint (polish). Leave the fairings off (no real point in speeding up, and they weigh something) and put an O-235 on it with the heavy starter and Alternator. Also... tailwheel instead of nosewheel would save weight... Thinner canopy would save weight. If you want to press it farther, titainium gear legs and other weight saving tricks
 
visit to florida/lsa 9

On vacation last week in florida- went to see Jay Kurtz. Jay seems to be a super nice guy, full of information,willing to share. His 9 was inspected by the FAA. Jay says it is stock and it looks it. Very well thought out by another super neat RV builder. I can't wait to see what he builds in the future!! His engine has stock mags/stock everything. Interestingly enough Jay says the prop is "over pitched" to control power/speed. Climb is 1000 fpm. stall 49 mph clean. Kool stopover on a beech vacation (kids and wife at beech, snuck off one afternoon). :) notice that I can only spell beech the correct way :D ED
 
RV-9 LSA?

Mel said:
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.
Click to expand...

So would FAA. I attended the FAA DAR A/B LSA training class in OKC this week when this very subject about the specific RV-9 in question came up. FAA's Small Aircraft Directorate and Aircraft Certification Service both made it very clear that the DAR involved in that certification and the aircraft owner would be hearing from them in the next few days. Considerable time was spent ensuring that DAR's fully understood all of the issues concerning certification of LSA's.

Another hot topic was the use of commercial assistance with respect to amateur built aircraft.
 
whirlpool said:
Interestingly enough Jay says the prop is "over pitched" to control power/speed. Climb is 1000 fpm. stall 49 mph clean.
Click to expand...
This is pretty common. Our CT has the prop set so where the Rotax doesn't make full RPM in level flight, helping to control max level speed. We departed RVS (Tulsa Jones) last week at MGTW (1,320 lb, full fuel, two people and baggage) and 2,500DA, got 800fpm in a 90kt cruise climb. LSA doesn't have to mean poor performance. Nobody is going to confuse it with a -8, but it's certainly no worse than a 172.
 
OOPS they did it again! now TWO! RV-9/9A LSAs

RV-9/9A 7-28-2007

A couple of months ago there was lively discussion about building a light RV-9 and flying it as an LSA. Actually one fellow had done it, in Florida I believe. But it was said that the FAA didn't like this -9 LSA and it was being tossed around that "this probably would not stand!! - FAA will investigate, bring in this DAR and set him/her right, etc.!"

Well it seems that last month an RV-9A was certified as an LSA --- the two aircraft in question N492JB RV-9A and N235LS RV-9 have evidentally convinced the FAA that a -9 can be an LSA after all!!

I sure would like to know more about these two machines --- anyone have an update about them? Few people would disagree that the RV-9 is a good looking airplane and that an O-235 is cheaper to obtain than a rotax 912ULS!

Let's get busy and put those -9 wings on an RV-4 and call that and LSA too!!

by gosh!
Jim
 
ceuh1v said:
RV-9/9A 7-28-2007

A couple of months ago there was lively discussion about building a light RV-9 and flying it as an LSA. Actually one fellow had done it, in Florida I believe. But it was said that the FAA didn't like this -9 LSA and it was being tossed around that "this probably would not stand!! - FAA will investigate, bring in this DAR and set him/her right, etc.!"

Well it seems that last month an RV-9A was certified as an LSA --- the two aircraft in question N492JB RV-9A and N235LS RV-9 have evidentally convinced the FAA that a -9 can be an LSA after all!!

I sure would like to know more about these two machines --- anyone have an update about them? Few people would disagree that the RV-9 is a good looking airplane and that an O-235 is cheaper to obtain than a rotax 912ULS!

Let's get busy and put those -9 wings on an RV-4 and call that and LSA too!!

by gosh!
Jim
Click to expand...

N492JB is listed as having an 0-320 for an engine.
 
It was at Sebring

Hey guys!! It was at Sebring. 903# empty weight and a real Lycoming Engine. This RV-9 LSA is even sporting full paint.

The performance figures look good and the only negative is that you need to limit the fuel when you are flying with a passenger. Otherwise, fill?er up and let?er go!

We have what we asked for: Sliding canopy, tail dragger, Lycoming power, driven rivets, fuel in the wings, and a proven design.

There is a lot to be said for the RV-9 with a real Lycoming engine, over an over priced and under powered, foreign built, complicated, high revving, troublesome gear box driven Rotax, with more hoses than a Laundromat.

Then again, I may just be prejudice

Tom
 
todehnal said:
troublesome gear box driven Rotax, with more hoses than a Laundromat.

Then again, I may just be prejudice

Tom
Click to expand...

I'm glad the 9A is a contender for light sport, but come on now, the Rotax 912 / 912S is a fine aircraft engine. There are more Rotax engines flying than any other engine. The gear box had some bad gears get into the pipeline, what engine manufacturer hasn't had supplier problems? Water cooled means better cabin heat. How many Lycoming have you seen or heard of getting 4,000+ (still flying)TBO? I have about 750 hours behind Rotax engines. Smooth as silk, powerful, cheap to run and maintain. AND they love mogas.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
The gear box had some bad gears get into the pipeline, what engine manufacturer hasn't had supplier problems? Water cooled means better cabin heat. How many Lycoming have you seen or heard of getting 4,000+ (still flying)TBO? I have about 750 hours behind Rotax engines. Smooth as silk, powerful, cheap to run and maintain. AND they love mogas.
Click to expand...
The 912 is pretty easy to live with. One downside is that with no mixture, you're always running ROP, so a Lycosarus will get better economy when leaned. However, no mixture = less mixture related engine damage, so perhaps it's a wash.

Also:

* Rotax is covering the cost of gearbox rebuilds for those under recall
* Coolant-derived cabin heat is possible but not the norm (at least in LSA). You can also use coolant for carb heat, although the 912 doesn't normally need much carb heat.
* MOGAS is the way to go with the 912 series - cleaner plugs and gearboxes.

TODR
 
rv9builder said:
Tom,

Sounds Interesting! Did the owner explain how he built it so light? Van's lists 1015 lbs. as the low-end empty weight for the RV-9.
Click to expand...

todehnal said:
...The performance figures look good and the only negative is that you need to limit the fuel when you are flying with a passenger. Otherwise, fill?er up and let?er go!...
Click to expand...
I ran some numbers on my 990 Lb -9 and with full tanks it would take a 114 lb pilot to hit the GW.

The unfortunate part is that you have to set the limits w/in the LSA guidelines to legally fly it as an LSA, even if it is licensed in the experimental category and not as an E-LSA. Thus I would have had to set my GW at 1320 lbs and it would be illegal to fly at any weight over that.

As for my 990 lb empty weight, it could have been built lighter had I not primed everything. Other weight savings could be made by making lighter seats and not using Van's cushions or leather upholstry, using auto fuses, installing a Dynon D180 w/o and no steam gauges. Leaving out the landing and position lights, and strobes. Don't install an intercom but use the internal push to intercom function built into the iCom A200. Don't install any type of navigation equipment AKA GPS. Replace my O-290 with an O-235.

Even with those changes I would expect that would only cut out 20, maybe 30 lbs at the outside. Most of the weight savings would be in using the smaller engine, ~250 lbs vs 264 for the O-290.

Still not enough for useful two place airplane.
 
scales

I was wondering who is being affected
by this guy getting in the light sport category
who are we protecting ? If someone crashes into
my house at 1320 lBS verses 1420 lbs is it
really going to matter to me or him or anyone
else around the country or Washington , Oklahoma ?
I can see people following the rules but the story
I read was the FAA did the inspection if that is
true who's business is it anyway.
If the wright brothers were trying to fly
now days someone would find a rule to prevent
them.
where would the purist be without them?
 
godspeed said:
I was wondering who is being affected
by this guy getting in the light sport category
who are we protecting ? If someone crashes into
my house at 1320 lBS verses 1420 lbs is it
really going to matter to me or him or anyone
else around the country or Washington , Oklahoma ?
Click to expand...
If he breaks an FAR, such as flying over gross, his insurance is probably going to be null and void. So, in this case you would be hurt because you would be the one replacing your house.

And...

We would all be hurt as it would highlight a problem with LSA and pilot's general disregard for "the rules" or at least that is the way the media would make it look.
 
breaking FAR

Yes I know the rules, not my point, do you think every pilot has insurance ?
I don't think so, take a poll, the other is if the FAA signed off on it and its listed in his op limits, and if he was 100 lbs overwight with fuel, do you think they are going to weigh the airplane sticking out of my roof ? if its not burned up.
Its home built, how many raise the gross weight from vans recomendations,
so they make it past the ramp check, vans recommends bathroom scales if you don't have some really good ones.. does anyone really have a perfect
scales for empty weight ? I did the best I could, came in around 1067 lbs
do I qualify for sport pilot with my airplane nope. would it be easier for me
if it did, sure, I am insulin dependant diabetic,(35 years now) I am 44 now,
I go through **** every year to keep a class III special Isuance medical,
light sport was not even approved when I started building my airplane
I am within 100-150 lbs of saving 3000.00 a year getting all the test and paperwork not to mention the FAA back logs ,trips to the specialist ect
ect.. its exhausting. I would love to fly my airplane under Sport pilot rules.
granted I don't care much for everyone telling me how to live my life.. and I enjoy the freedoms of living in the U.S.A, but our Sp Rule requires moslty non US parts, have we not outsourced everything enough already ?,
these are not rights of freedom , we must comply with the rules, what if he did it correctly and everything we are doing is speculation.
I couldn't build my that way, more power to him.. Its his business
if he can pull it off good for him.. How is this going to affect you , me
or anyone else on this list ? Its ok, whats going on here, but I disagree
with it..

Danny..
 
[email protected] said:
Has anyone actually talked to the owners of N492JB RV-9A and N235LS RV-9.
Click to expand...

N235LS was built by Jay Kurtz in souther Florida. A couple of weeks ago he hosted a fly-in and offered a free "show and tell" seminar on his airplane. He shared his "build it light" tips with about 40 of us in attendance. He built it with light weight being the primary objective, without effecting the integrity of the airframe. I must admit that it is a bit sparse on interior appointments, but it is all there, very functional and weighs in at 903 lbs. What missing? Well, there is no wheel pants or speed farings, minimal panel items and no interior, with the exception of seat cushions with very little padding. It does have paint; two coats instead of the usual 4 to 6, but it looks pretty good. Glue was used in a few, non structural areas, and it has all of the super light engine accessories on the O235-C1 engine, wood prop of course. It really works, and it can be done again, maybe even better! Don't knock it until you have actually been there, personally. I have, and I like it. I just wish that I had thought of it first. What about you? By the way, he is now in the process of building an RV-9A and it will be even lighter! Can't wait!!

Tom
 
Geico266 said:
What is the word on the FAA "reinspection" of the DAR issuing a airworthiness cert?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it never happened and never will. In other words, the airworthiness certificate stands as issued and there will be another one as soon as Jay finishes his, in progress, RV-9A.

One of the things that Jay is counting on with this second RV-9, is the new Lyc. O235 that is touted as being some 30 plus pounds lighter. I think that
Lyc may be going after some of the market that Cont. got with there, repackaged, O200. Maybe even the Cessna Skycatcher!!

These are exciting times for aviation!

Tom
 
Nope!

There won't be another one with an E-LSA airworthiness certificate. That option expired on January 31st. Any E-LSA built from a kit now must come from a kit that exactly complies with an S-LSA.
 
9 LSA

Mel said:
There won't be another one with an E-LSA airworthiness certificate. That option expired on January 31st. Any E-LSA built from a kit now must come from a kit that exactly complies with an S-LSA.
Click to expand...

But it can still be built as experimential that meets the LSA rules.
 
You bet!

If an amateur-built, or any other aircraft for that matter, meets the light-sport parameters, it can be flown by a sport pilot. It's up to the pilot to show that it complies.
 
Mel said:
There won't be another one with an E-LSA airworthiness certificate. That option expired on January 31st. Any E-LSA built from a kit now must come from a kit that exactly complies with an S-LSA.
Click to expand...

Mel, you may be correct, but I wouldn't put any money on it just yet. I know that Jay has an RV-9A in progress and that he has already applied for E-LSA certification, and received his "N" number. I know that the 1/31/08 deadline has been extended for those who have applications in process. So, I guess it's a race to see if he can get his ducks in a row or not. Time will tell!!

Tom
 
One question...

What advantage is it to register your plane as an E-LSA and not just an Experimental that meets the LSA requirements?

I would think all you have to do for a -9/A is to limit the GW to 1320 and put a major climb prop on the thing and you would be good to go.

I guess, what I'm getting at is, I see no advantage to the E-LSA certification because LSA pilots can fly any plane, regardless of category as long as it meets the LSA criteria when originally certified.

Ok, here's a second question...
If I had limited my -9's GW to fit within the LSA category but licensed it as an Experimental, can I go back and increase the GW at some time in the future?
 
N941WR said:
What advantage is it to register your plane as an E-LSA and not just an Experimental that meets the LSA requirements?

ANSWER: There are basically two advantages, as well as several disadvantages. If it is ELSA, you can hire it out. Also, if you sell it to someone, they can take the 16 hr course and service it.

As I know it, the biggest disadvantage is that you can't change anything; prop, gear, etc.
--------------------------

I would think all you have to do for a -9/A is to limit the GW to 1320 and put a major climb prop on the thing and you would be good to go.

ANSWER: You are correct!
---------------------------

I guess, what I'm getting at is, I see no advantage to the E-LSA certification because LSA pilots can fly any plane, regardless of category as long as it meets the LSA criteria when originally certified.

ANSWER: I'm with you, unless you would like to offer training and rent it out.
--------------------------

Ok, here's a second question...
If I had limited my -9's GW to fit within the LSA category but licensed it as an Experimental, can I go back and increase the GW at some time in the future?
Click to expand...

ANSWER: I don't think that it is a problem to go up. You just can never go back down to LSA compliance. So, it can never be flown by a sport pilot again.

Hope that helps

Tom
 
Are you sure?

hydroguy2 said:
E-LSA can be used as a trainer for hire. An RV-9A as a sportpilot trainer would be huge.
Click to expand...

I hope you're correct on this, Brian, because I went through a bunch of **** to get my LODA (Letter of deviation authority) to give transition training in my Experimental -6A. I think that an E-LSA could not be used for Sport Pilot training for the same reasons that an Experimental like mine still cannot be used for basic pilot training, just licensed pilots for transitioning.

I'm gonna also check with EAA,

Regards,
 
Flight Instruction 2 years.

If your E-LSA is registered before 1/31/08, and certified under 21.191(i)(1), you can ask for operating limitations allowing flight training until 1/31/2010. At that point the airworthiness certificate will expire unless it has been amended to non-commercial use. If you follow this route, it is very important that you get the A/W certificate amended before it expires. An expired certificate cannot be amended and you would the proud owner of a "lawn ornament."
 
RV in Sport Pilot Magazine, 4/08

Page 24 has a picture with the caption "RV-7 E-LSA - www.LitePlane.com".

It's N235LS.

Could it be that somebody is planning on selling an LSA knock-off of the RV, as the article states, "stand by for news about its availability"? The webside www.LitePlane.com was "locked" when I checked.

Given that I just got this in my mailbox today, the first of April, I gotta ask if this is legit, of an AFJ?

- Patrick
 
Geez, it's a crying shame the FAA could not give us a couple of hundred pounds more on the LSA gross -would be news bested only by the Second Coming!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top