Hi Jim.
I agree with you. Here's what I said:
As to FAA interpretation, if they want to keep the number of existing
airframes that qualify as LSA small, then they will interpret this rule
in such manner as to restrict or reduce the number of qualifying
airframes.
That seems consistent with most people's understanding of why the
415-D (and up), Forney, ALons, etc. do not qualify. Their numbers
are not wanted "in there" by the "powers that be".
I hope someday in this Harry and I are proven wrong.
The words you attribute to me below were written by Harry Francis. ;<)
Regards,
WRB
--
On Sep 12, 2009, at 14:55, Jim wrote:
> According to statements posted elsewhere on the Web, this is unlikely
> unless the international standard is changed. The FAA made clear in
> statements about the light sport rules that they intended the category
> to be the result of work with the international community. I would
> guess
> that the number agreed upon was somewhat arbitrary at 600 kg. But it's
> hard to see why it would get raised to 636.36364 kg., i.e. 1400 lb.
>
> Jim Hart
>
>
> On 9/11/09 William R. Bayne wrote:
>> I think we will eventually see the D model @ 1400 GW (maybe even 1450
>> GW, which would include the later Ercoupe models, Forney, Alon,
>> ertc., all approved as LSA; ,,, tho the LSA industry will fight it to
>> the end. Of course this would also lead to the Cessna 150, and other
>> light aircraft to be approved as LSA.
>>
>> As you probably know, the creation of the LSA aircraft designation
>> was simply to encourage the development of light, low cost, new
>> airplanes.....and were develped with specifications set by the
>> manufactures with the use of ASTM consensus type development.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
