And yet in the guise of safety we can't incorporated the advancements in our older aircraft.
Kevin1 --- In [email protected], james ayers <jimmyj...@...> wrote: > > 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 <jeichenber...@...> > To: Ed Burkhead <e...@...>; james ayers <jimmyj...@...>; 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 havenât been able to locate that exact section of the > >> regs though â" anyone know where it is? > > > >Thatâs 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, âLight-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than > >a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has > >continued to meet the following:â > >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 â" 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 > >werenât going to mess with qualifications in the regulations for a hundred > >aircraft or so. > >Itâll 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 Iâd provide a link to this DOCUMENT > >Itâs 112 pages, triple column and contains just about anything youâd > >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 youâll be amazed to find that just about any question or > >concern you could possibly think of has already been brought up and > >discussed. I canât 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 weâve been > >discussing here over the past week or two is in there, itâs 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 LSAâs â" i.e. it doesnât pertain to aircraft that have a type > >certificate data sheet, such as Aeroncas and Luscombes. > >So, this will be interesting to watch. > >I havenât been able to locate that exact section of the regs though â" > >anyone know where it is? > > > > > > > > > > >
