[PeteP]

I am told that there may be one or more 9A flying with LSA parameters. Any truth to that rumor. Just had a chat with my old, now retired, AME today about a medical episode I had last month and he suggest that it might be "imprudent" for me to seek another class 3 physical at this time. Of course this comes after years of building and being about 95% complete on my 9A.

 

[bruceh]

Search is your friend. Here's another thread on the topic.

 

[airguy]

Might be a better plan to finish the 9A, and sell/trade for a 12.

 

[cubdriver]

RV9 LSA

You might want to give Jay Kurtz a call - Lakeland, FL.

See article on Jay

http://www.bydanjohnson.com/showsplog.cfm?id=832

 

[N941WR]

I have spoken to Jay a few times and if you didn't start with making your -9A an LSA, it is probably a bit late in the game.

The best advice has already been given, sell your -9A and buy something else.

 

[flyboy1963]

we all fear that day!

Pete, I think every 2 years my brain starts to do the 'what if' process.

all I can hope, is that when it happens to me, that one of my flying buddies will become PIC, and we can still go all the same places, and pretty much all the same things that I do now.
Of course, now, I fly alone 95% of the time, so it will change the normal ops a LOT!...but only for the better I think!

and what's up with the threads for LightSport, slightly aerobatic, 3-seat RV-9's lately???? I guess that's just human nature. to want or need soemthing just a little different that what we have.

good luck!

 

[scottmillhouse]

I inspected the plane and talked to the owner of one of the RV-9A LSAs. Before the owner purchased it I saw it for sale at Sun-N-Fun Lakeland probably in 2007 or 2008. From what I saw it is LSA in name only and just looks like but does not perform like an RV. With his solo weight we figured legal gross was about 1/2 hour of fuel. Like any prudent pilot, he flys with plenty of fuel. Also it was more complete than when first registered with additional instrumentation, lights and wheel pants added that was not included in the data plate weight. He said the prop was pitched so not to exceed max speed but he was only seeing 400-600 fpm climb with the 0-235 and needed a lot of runway. I took him up in my 9A with the 0-320 and constant speed prop under the same near standard conditions and we were seeing about 1700 fpm with a heavy passenger at close to the 1750# gross weight. When we landed he said; "now I see how a RV-9A was designed to perform". If you want a LSA RV, I'd go for a 12 and not try to build a slow underpowered and at times probably illegal LSA 9. With that said I suppose there are legal LSA 9s flying but they must be solo bare bones planes with 120# and not 250# plus pilots to have much usable fuel.

 

[Mel]

The rules are very clear!

If you want a LSA RV, I'd go for a 12 and not try to build a slow underpowered and at times probably illegal LSA 9. With that said I suppose there are legal LSA 9s flying but they must be solo bare bones planes with 120# and not 250# plus pilots to have much usable fuel.

There's no such thing as an LSA being "at times legal LSA".
The rules say that the aircraft must have met all LSA parameters continuously from original certification.
If the aircraft has EVER flown outside LSA parameters, it cannot be flown by a sport-pilot, and if it is certificated as LSA, the airworthiness certificate is invalid.

 

[Snowflake]

The more people try to play fast and loose with the regs, the more the feds will want to regulate us out of existence. If you want an airplane that fits the LSA category, design it and build it to the LSA category from the first place, like the -12. Hobbling a good aircraft to make it fit (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) the LSA mold gives you a crappy aircraft that exposes you to risk of hassle from the feds.

 

[dlomheim]

Not "really" an LSA

...Hobbling a good aircraft to make it fit (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) the LSA mold gives you a crappy aircraft that exposes you to risk of hassle from the feds.

Not only that but should the owner have an accident, the insurance company will easily be able to determine that the a/c did not comply with the LSA requirements, and therefore they will walk away without paying a cent...so again, let the buyer (or builder) beware...

dl

 

[RetiredRacer]

This is not true!!!!!!!!!!!!

For most people who build over weight RV's with all the bells and whistles, for them it is hard to believe it is possible to build light!!

Please guys, get your heads out of the sand!!!

There are guys out there that are well into their build and find out they may not ever be able to fly their pride and joy. They have spent many a time dreaming of flying their RV (that's what keeps us motivated) and have spent what seems like forever building the bl**dy thing and now their dream is over. Depression has set in and they are probably shedding some frustrated tears. I wouldn't laugh at this statement, because this could be YOU one day.

It is possible to build a genuine legally light RV9/9a!!!!....... Because I have!!!!

893 lb, 35 kt stall (solo with flaps) 38 kts (solo clean) and 41 kts (with flaps, fully loaded @ MTOW of 1320 lbs). To get it registered we had to get another independent weigh in to prove it's weight.

Our 9a was a quick build. The airframe was untouched (standard), with the bulk of the weight saving under the engine cowls and in the cabin. Sure we are limited a bit with luggage and fuel, but I've seen weights of some over weight RV's in "first flights" that would have as much limitations as us .
Don't forget guys, a 9/9a registered LSA has got some limitations but so has a LSA designed aircraft, compared to (what some people like to call) a real RV.

If I had known what the future held when I ordered the 9a I would have ordered a RV12, but I didn't so I compromised and we (the wife and I) are happy with our RV.

We have been ramp checked at a fly-in since we have had it in the air and because we are very careful to keep the weight legal, we passed without a problem.

All the best Pete in whatever you choose to do.

Bob

 

[mrobert569]

Light-Sport RV-9

Let me wage in here a little as an FAA type guy. What one person stated about an aircraft not being an LSA aircraft if it ever in its life met parameters outside the definition of light sport is true. But that is for certification and usage. If, as I suspect, you have not finished your airplane yet you may still be able to certificate it under the amateur-built rules and fly it under the light-sport rules. If at the time of certification the aircraft meets all the criteria for light-sport under FAR 1.1 you may operate it as a light-sport aircraft. Operate is the key word here.
And to answer your question if an RV-9A was ever certificated under light-sport the answer is yes. There was at least one certificated right after the light-sport rules came out. Today that could not happen.
I hope this helps you. If I have confused you more drop me a line.

Mike Robertson
Das Fed

 

[airguy]

Mike - you've got me curious (and no, not for my sake - my 9A is definitely going to be heavy).

First you say this...

If, as I suspect, you have not finished your airplane yet you may still be able to certificate it under the amateur-built rules and fly it under the light-sport rules. If at the time of certification the aircraft meets all the criteria for light-sport under FAR 1.1 you may operate it as a light-sport aircraft.

and then you say this....

There was at least one certificated right after the light-sport rules came out. Today that could not happen.

Care to clarify the apparent discrepancy there please? I think what you're saying is that it can be operated as an LSA even if it's not certificated as an LSA? At least, that's how it appears to me - but I'm still working on my first cup of coffee this morning.

 

[Mel]

I'm not Mike, but...........

Any aircraft that has met LSA parameters continuously from original certification, regardless of the type of certification, may be flown by a sport pilot. This includes "Standard", "Experimental Amateur-Built", or any other category.

This does NOT change the way the aircraft is maintained. It must still be maintained the same as it always has.

 

[airguy]

Any aircraft that has met LSA parameters continuously from original certification, regardless of the type of certification, may be flown by a sport pilot. This includes "Standard", "Experimental Amateur-Built", or any other category.

This does NOT change the way the aircraft is maintained. It must still be maintained the same as it always has.

Ok, I can see the distinction there - but if the aircraft, at any point in it's post-certification life, exceeds the LSA parameters it can no longer be flown as an LSA by a sport pilot, is that correct?

Scenario - your airplane is placarded for a max engine RPM as one of the ways to get into the LSA rules. You have an A&P change oil (or whatever) and he takes it up for a test flight but busts that RPM limit because he's not familiar with it, exceeding the LSA parameters. Now the airplane can't be flown LSA again?

 

[sailvi767]

I think making the 9 a useful LSA would be very difficult. Even at the one posters weight of 893lbs the aircraft would have limited utility for most people flown as a two place. If you are really honest with your fully dressed ready for flight weights most couples will exceed 350 lbs. If its two guys 380lbs or more. This leaves only 78 lbs for fuel or about 8 gallons. That is when I want to be on the ground not taking off. If you had a very light couple coming in at only 300 lbs fully dressed your still looking at only about 20 gallons of fuel with zero baggage. If you comply with required reserves your range is going to be very limited. Please note the aircraft has no idea what weight you have listed on your drivers license. It only knows your actually weight fully dressed after a big lunch!

George

 

[rvbuilder2002]

893 lb, 35 kt stall (solo with flaps) 38 kts (solo clean) and 41 kts (with flaps, fully loaded @ MTOW of 1320 lbs).

To meet the LSA requirements here in the U.S., none of teh speeds you listed matter, but the gross weight stall speed with no lift enhancing devices (flaps) must be 45 kts CAS or less.

 

[Mel]

Ok, I can see the distinction there - but if the aircraft, at any point in it's post-certification life, exceeds the LSA parameters it can no longer be flown as an LSA by a sport pilot, is that correct?

That is correct!

Scenario - your airplane is placarded for a max engine RPM as one of the ways to get into the LSA rules. You have an A&P change oil (or whatever) and he takes it up for a test flight but busts that RPM limit because he's not familiar with it, exceeding the LSA parameters. Now the airplane can't be flown LSA again?

Technically that correct!

See above.

 

[GWZ]

Sorry but I beg to differ. For LSA speed is defined as speed at "max continuous power". They don't actually limit the top speed of the aircraft. As an example look at the Sonex with Jab 3300. Jab never increased their max continuous power rpm from their early "lets be really cautious days" of engine development so throttle back to Max Continuous Power and you are right at the top of the LSA speed but most people don't loaf their engines like that. A Sonex with a 3300 will cruise at 150 and can easily hit 170.

 

[Mel]

I stand corrected!

You are correct in this scenario.

Usually when people talk about exceeding the "speed limit", they are referring to adjusting the prop to allow the airplane to exceed the upper limit.
This scenario IS a disqualifier.

 

[GWZ]

Oh yea agreed, I'm guessing most people can't take advantage of this "gift" from the LSA rule makers because on most engines Max continuous power is probably pretty close to Max power so the only way to increase speed is to (illegally) increase prop pitch.

Hmmm here's a question. If you have an "experimental" engine, say that you build up yourself from a kit of parts - as the "manufacturer" can you set max continuous power where you want? To bring it more on topic say I have a very light 9A and put an O-235 "kit" engine in it and set max continuous power at 1700rpm. Even using the Vans recommended prop for that engine,that would probably put you near 138mph. Now you're E-LSA compliant. But if you want to risk death and run your engine at say 2350rpm you are free to do so and still be legal. Yes?

 

[craigvince]

Now you're E-LSA compliant.

You're not E-LSA compliant. An E-LSA can ONLY be an airplane built EXACTLY like the manufacturer's prototype S-LSA aircraft. For example, an RV-12 can be an E-LSA if it is exactly like Vans' RV-12.

An RV-9/9A can never be an E-LSA because Vans did not build one as an S-LSA for you to model after. Your only option is to build as E-AB. As mentioned before, your E-AB may or may not be LSA compliant.

The bottom line is although a couple RV builders claim to have built RV-9/9As to meet the LSA requirements, the reality is they "bend" so many rules to justify in their mind that they have an LSA, you may as well be flying a Cessna 172 without a medical and hope you get away with it. Of course, if there's ever an incident or accident, you're toast with the FAA and probably your insurance company also.

 

[SteinAir]

To be blunt, this subject should just be put to bed. The early LSA '9's were a result of a early loophole that some would lead you to believe can still be exploited. As Craig said, not so in reality and more important practicality. The 9 is a really crummy choice for a true LSA to begin with due to factors previously identified. Vans does offer an honest to God plane that matches in all areas the LSA spirit as well as real world functionality, either as an SLSA, ELSA, or EAB-LSA. I happen to love the -9 and have nothing against it, but it's just not a good platform to go LSA with and be functional, legal, or most importantly practical.

Sorry to be the contrarian, just my 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein

 

[GWZ]

Oops, should have left off the "E". I agree with Stein, a 9 will never make a practical LSA. I have a 9A and love it just as it is (heck, I even burn less fuel than the LSA's I fly with when I throttle back to stay with them). I am not advocating a 9 LSA, I just jumped in to this discussion when it started down a path where flying your LSA over 138mph took you out of LSA compliance (forever).

 

[Mel]

To be blunt, this subject should just be put to bed. The early LSA '9's were a result of a early loophole that some would lead you to believe can still be exploited. As Craig said, not so in reality and more important practicality. The 9 is a really crummy choice for a true LSA to begin with due to factors previously identified. Vans does offer an honest to God plane that matches in all areas the LSA spirit as well as real world functionality, either as an SLSA, ELSA, or EAB-LSA. I happen to love the -9 and have nothing against it, but it's just not a good platform to go LSA with and be functional, legal, or most importantly practical.
Sorry to be the contrarian, just my 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein

AMEN!
(added words to comply with posting rules)