if only it were slower

[Daidalos]

Anyone see this new plane? Unfortunately too fast to be a US LSA but it is advertised as an Italian Ultralight. They even compare it to a Tecnam 2002 on one of their webpages.

This demonstrates how the LSA rules contrain designers. Maybe they will come out with a model tat is slower. The Lighting is a good example of a faster plane slowed down to meet LSA requirements.

I have no idea what it costs. The information is a little thin on this bird. But I was so taken but it's looks.

http://www.blackshapeprime.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshape_Prime

EDIT:A bit pricey --- http://www.bydanjohnson.com/showsplog.cfm?id=1862

[Jack Tyler]

Speed aside you would need for the retractable gear and constant speed prop to be replaced for LSA certification.

I'm not sure designers are as constrained as we might think. As I mentioned elsewhere, look what Dan Weseman has done with his design of the Panther. LSA compliant on the one hand and powered by a mix of typical LSA and E-AB engines but also designed to accept the Lycoming 160 hp O-320 with clipped wings and comparable to an RV-3. And if that isn't enough, there's the quite similar Cougar (2-seat) design waiting in the wings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVSXRu9tDO8&sns=em for a video interview about the details.

[FastEddieB]

EDIT:A bit pricey --- http://www.bydanjohnson.com/showsplog.cfm?id=1862

$242,000...

...a bit pricey???

How far we've come!

[rgstubbsjr]

Anyone here who doesn't think the LSA rules in America that relate to aircraft and performance are totally ridiculous?
Except for the hood maneuvers, my Light Sport check ride was identical to my Private Pilot check ride. Why did someone assume that because I'm flying an LSA I'm too stupid to operate, retracts and a constant speed prop?
Keep the daylight VFR rule. Keep the pilot and 1 passenger rule. Keep the single engine rule.
Open the aircraft rules to include heavier, safer, more robust aircraft, retracts, constant speed props.
Require instruction and endorsements for each different aircraft.

Just my opinion.

[MovingOn]

.......

[FastEddieB]

LSA rules were written for Sport Pilots, not Private Pilots. The issue is, should Privates and up without a medical be given more privileges than just Sport Pilot privileges? I think they should.

Agreed.

Not having a medical does not logically deprive one of a skill set already obtained.

I'm a commercial pilot with (expired) instructor ratings. I've spent lots of time at oxygen altitudes and in IMC and at night and flying turbocharged and complex and even pressurized and multiengine aircraft.

So logically, why do I now have LSA restrictions on flight conditions? Occasional forays over 10,000' or on top of an overcast or at night hardly seem riskier just because I'm self-certifying my condition to fly.

But...

I don't think the LSA rules are "totally ridiculous". The Sport Pilot license was based on simplicity. I'm not sure someone trained to just Sport Pilot standards needs to be flying complex aircraft in the mid-teens, for instance.

Anyway, when all is said and done I still feel blessed that right at the point in my life when medicals were becoming problematical, I have a way to legally keep flying - which I intend to do right up until the time I consider it unsafe to do so, at which point, without regret, I'll be able to say "What a great ride!"

[Torque]

Sport Pilot is such a " Tiered " certificate on how those who have this certificate use it. You have those that use the Sport Pilot Certificate to commute across the country as a PP would in an airplane that costs as much or more then most GA airplanes. Then you have those who use this certificate to take their " Fat Ultralight " style airplane up in the air just to burn holes in the sky above their own airfield just to be flying. I believe the SP certificate should be offered in tiered certificates.
You will find those that say it is offered in tiered format but all you have to do is read the posts and you will see this is just not the case.

Tony

[MrMorden]

LSA rules were written for Sport Pilots, not Private Pilots. The issue is, should Privates and up without a medical be given more privileges than just Sport Pilot privileges? I think they should.

The PTS standards for actual pilot flying skills for Sport Pilots and Private Pilots are IDENTICAL.

I understand where the rules came from, but if the real goal is to have lower energy crashes, the only LSA limits that really makes sense are stall speed and overall weight. That takes care of the landing energy problem, and out of control airplanes falling out of the sky don't obey the LSA speed limit rules anyway. The restrictions on constant speed props and retractable gear make little sense...the pilot is safe to operate an airplane, but can't figure out a prop control or gear switch? Gear up landings are rarely fatal, so the "more dangerous landing" argument is pretty weak.

My recommendation: Keep the stall speed and weight limits if you much, chuck the rest.

[CharlieTango]

...my Light Sport check ride was identical to my Private Pilot check ride...

Why did you take both?

[MrMorden]

...my Light Sport check ride was identical to my Private Pilot check ride...

Why did you take both?

He must have "upgraded" to PP from SP.

My understanding is that the only difference in a PP checkride is the need to demonstrate radio navigation.

[dstclair]

I understand where the rules came from, but if the real goal is to have lower energy crashes, the only LSA limits that really makes sense are stall speed and overall weight. That takes care of the landing energy problem, and out of control airplanes falling out of the sky don't obey the LSA speed limit rules anyway. The restrictions on constant speed props and retractable gear make little sense...the pilot is safe to operate an airplane, but can't figure out a prop control or gear switch? Gear up landings are rarely fatal, so the "more dangerous landing" argument is pretty weak.

My recommendation: Keep the stall speed and weight limits if you much, chuck the rest.

Retractable gear and a controllable prop are considered 'complex' by FAA definition and require an endorsement as a PP. This allowed the FAA to draw a bright line. I kind of agree on the retractable gear but a controllable prop could be considered a safety feature. I'm not talking about the monster hydraulic systems but the new lightweight electric ones. They typically have 3 settings -- take-off/landing, constant speed and manual. The safety aspect would be to have the prop pitched for best climb on t/o and landing resulting in shorter runways required, then set to optimize in cruise. Pretty easy to just have a step in the check list. Also, there is only a performance delta if one forgets to set it 'right' or the unit fails in flight.

FWIW -- I agree that stall speed and weight limits would have been sufficient for LSA.

[MovingOn]

.......

[MovingOn]

.......

[rgstubbsjr]

...my Light Sport check ride was identical to my Private Pilot check ride...

Why did you take both?

I got back into flying after a forty year lay-off. I was concerned about taking a medical, so I started with Sport, moved on to Private, complex, working on Instrument, and Sea. Besides, with a Sport cert, my wife and I could go flying whenever we wanted while working on the PPL.
Because of the path I chose, if I am out flying a Tecnam and I get caught in IMC, it's not a death sentence. I can fly my way out. Honestly, I have no interest in flying at night, in bad weather, in big expensive airplanes. I had enough of that while I was in the Air Force to last me a lifetime. I like light sport, but I want the rules for light sport to be more than random, meaningless political blather. As a physicist for the last 37 years the argument about "energy" is total BS. Even if it wasn't, having a 130/140 knot top speed, a constant speed prop or retracts would have ZERO effect on the outcome of any incident. We already have heavier Light Sport aircraft with retracts, look at the amphibs and seaplanes.
I want all Light Sport planes to be able to do more than a half a turn in a spin without shedding the wings. That means increasing the weight by a hundred or so pounds. I'm aware of at least 2 Light Sport aircraft that have come apart in the air because of turbulence or pulling too many "Gs".
Right now, you put two normal sized adults in a Sport Plane and your normal flight gear and a weekend bag, and you have a potential disaster on your hands. That plane is going to be over gross by at least 70 lbs. I see people doing this constantly. Increase the weight of the plane, and you can increase the lifting capacity, and you can help avoid this sort of thing.
Don't get me wrong. You can't fix stupid. Increase the useful load to 1000 lbs, and some Darwin Award candidate will try to put in 1200 lbs. But the rest of us will be pilots who have a better chance of arriving intact at our destination.

[MrMorden]

LSA rules were written for Sport Pilots, not Private Pilots. The issue is, should Privates and up without a medical be given more privileges than just Sport Pilot privileges? I think they should.

The PTS standards for actual pilot flying skills for Sport Pilots and Private Pilots are IDENTICAL.

I understand where the rules came from, but if the real goal is to have lower energy crashes, the only LSA limits that really makes sense are stall speed and overall weight. That takes care of the landing energy problem, and out of control airplanes falling out of the sky don't obey the LSA speed limit rules anyway. The restrictions on constant speed props and retractable gear make little sense...the pilot is safe to operate an airplane, but can't figure out a prop control or gear switch? Gear up landings are rarely fatal, so the "more dangerous landing" argument is pretty weak.

My recommendation: Keep the stall speed and weight limits if you much, chuck the rest.

Having flown many hours in complex aircraft and multi-engine aircraft and IFR at night, I think the Sport Pilot restrictions make perfect sense for Sport Pilots. If you want to fly other aircraft, get a Private or Commercial.

Why? As I said, the flying skills portions of both tests are identical. Why not have a complex endorsement for SP? Your statements make it sound as if you think that SPs are somehow less competent aviators, but the PTS disagrees at least with regard to flying ability.

If it's the medical thing, why would you think a PP unable to get a medical would be somehow more safe than a SP without a medical on the same equipment, given the exact same training?

Not really arguing, just kind of talking this out so I understand your position.