I agree A change now would kill the new LSA market. I have flown a new Jabaru and it is incredible its performance and speed. the engine is a work of art. no moving parts for the alernator and uses electronice ingition no drop in rpm mag check. The advancements made for aviation techology is needed for sure . Cruise at 120 knots at 4 gph amazing.
James ________________________________ From: Jerry Eichenberger <[email protected]> To: Ed Burkhead <[email protected]>; james ayers <[email protected]>; ety <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 7:54:00 AM Subject: RE: SPAM-LOW: [ercoupe-tech] down-shift aircraft back to LSA eligibility Ed - I'm a participant in the Aeronca email list and forum, because we have a 7AC, highly modified with full electric, radio, transponder, that we use as a sport pilot trainer at my FBO. Its gross weight is 1300. I for one, am opposed to any change in the max gross weight for LSA, and am also opposed to allowing heavier airplanes to "come back down" to LSA maximums. Particularly, there are those who want to see the LSA weight limit go up to allow Cessna 150s, 7EC Champs, 415D Coupes, 8F Luscombes, even Cessna 120/140s to come in under the LSA privileges. I, for one, don't want to see the LSA movement condemned to become a "graveyard" of old airplanes. I love the new stuff coming out like the Tecnam, Skycatcher, CT Design, etc. There is no way those modern airplanes could compete in a market full to the gills of 10,000 ratty old 150s, or even nicely restored Aeroncas, Coupes, Luscombs, or Cessna 120/140 examples. I can't wait to get a new Tecnam for our flight school, and retire the Champ. Frankly, it just is a maintenance hog, as it has a very hard time standing up, now that it's 64 years old, to daily rental and student use. Sure, there was a time that it could, but there was a time I could play football, baseball and run track competitively. Both of those times have long since passed. Jerry E. -----Original Message----- >From: ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:ercoupe- t...@yahoogroups .com]On >Behalf Of Ed Burkhead >Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 8:14 AM >To: 'james ayers'; ety >Subject: SPAM-LOW: [ercoupe-tech] down-shift aircraft back to LSA eligibility > > >In regard to LSA eligibility of an aircraft and whether a plane can be >converted back to LSA eligibility, James asked: >> I haven’t been able to locate that exact section of the >> regs though – anyone know where it is? > >That’s easy to answer: >http://sportpilot. org/learn/ sp_rule.pdf >The critical part is in definitions of LSA, right at the beginning, and the >clearly stated phrase, “Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a >helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has >continued to meet the following:” >As the regulators said when the rule came out, this was to prevent 10,000 >Experimental Amateur Built aircraft from just putting in paperwork to have >their gross weight changed down to become eligible – and then flying just as >they always had. >The fact that this phrase also picked up Ercoupes which had a special >certificated ability to shift downward was accidental and a shame but they >weren’t going to mess with qualifications in the regulations for a hundred >aircraft or so. >It’ll be worth watching. Please DO let us know if the Aeronca people have >continued success with this. >Ed >Ed Burkhead >http://edburkhead. com/Ercoupe/ index.htm >ed -at- edbur???khead. yyy change -at- to @, remove the ??? and change >yyy to com > ________________________________ >From:ercoupe-tech@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:ercoupe- t...@yahoogroups .com] On >Behalf Of james ayers >Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:53 AM >To: Hartmut Beil; Techlist Ercoupe >Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] TSO or Not ? > > > > >This topic is from the Luscombe forum. Rumor that the LSA could be >increased. Also interesting about the Aeronca story. > thought I’d provide a link to this DOCUMENT >It’s 112 pages, triple column and contains just about anything you’d care to >know about the Sport Pilot rules, how they were made and what concerns were >brought up, how they were addressed and why certain decisions were made. The >whole thing went through a lengthy period of public comment and scrutiny and >you’ll be amazed to find that just about any question or concern you could >possibly think of has already been brought up and discussed. I can’t say I >agree with the decisions made on all counts and especially how the gross >weight issues were dealt with (FWIW the original proposal was for 1232 lbs) >but I can say that everything we’ve been discussing here over the past week or >two is in there, it’s covered. >The reason I started digging into this is because I was reading on the >National Aeronca Association forum about a guy who has gotten an okay from the >FAA to convert an Aeronca 7CCM back to a 7AC and ending up with it being SP >legal. According to the logic the idea that the aircraft can never have been >certificated for a GW over 1320 lbs is referring to aircraft produced as LSA’s >– i.e. it doesn’t pertain to aircraft that have a type certificate data sheet, >such as Aeroncas and Luscombes. >So, this will be interesting to watch. >I haven’t been able to locate that exact section of the regs though – anyone >know where it is? > > > > >
