Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:48 AM - Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (deuskid)
2. 06:10 AM - Re: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening (Pete)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "deuskid" <empire.john@gmail.com>
pete(at)flylightning.net wrote:
> It sounds like John is a bit out of touch. If he thinks that Kitfoxes and
> Sonex are "never real popular" he is mistaken. Sonex just sold their 1000th
> kit in only 6 years. There are well over 1000 Kitfoxes out there. Granted
> all those figures look small compared to Vans. It is true that acquisition
> cost is higher for a new airplane - it always is. Operating costs for the
> new LSA's, though will most probably make up the difference plus C140's do
> not qualify as LSA and who wants to fly a Taylorcraft when so many larger,
> more comfortable, and more efficient plastic LSA aircraft are available.
>
> Pete
>
> --
Pete... I quoted George for the comment he made about restoring an older aircraft
for LSA use rather than buy new.
You have said the LSA regs don't allow a 'regular' a/c to be re-designated as LSA
while George seems to indicate otherwise.
I'm trying to understand the two viewpoints.
You are correct tho, Geo doesn't like LSA because he believes the regulations are
arbritrary and over limiting. He did comment that your regular Lightning [and
the RV-9A [and one other model I can't recall]] are excellent aircraft and
the right way to go lighter - and don't limit speed. The comments he made above
were part of a larger narrative where he was making the point the a new Cessna
that costs $1000k and is limited isn't a very good value.
So, is George mistaken about refurbishing an older a/c for LSA status?
Thanks
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68687#68687
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A v. Lightening |
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "Pete" <pete@flylightning.net>
The LSA rule states that for an aircraft to be flown by a pilot with Sport
Pilot privileges it must have been "originally certificated and continuously
operated within the parameters of the LSA rule". There is no way to make an
aircraft LSA compliant that was at any time in its existence a non compliant
aircraft. That's why a C140 does not qualify. That's why no one can take a
C140 and change it's gross weight to a lower number to make it qualify.
Can't change props either to slow the aircraft down or add vortex generators
to stall slower. If the plane has ever operated out of the parameters you
can't fly it as LSA.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of deuskid
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:48 AM
Subject: Lightning-List: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening
--> Lightning-List message posted by: "deuskid" <empire.john@gmail.com>
pete(at)flylightning.net wrote:
> It sounds like John is a bit out of touch. If he thinks that Kitfoxes and
> Sonex are "never real popular" he is mistaken. Sonex just sold their
1000th
> kit in only 6 years. There are well over 1000 Kitfoxes out there.
Granted
> all those figures look small compared to Vans. It is true that
acquisition
> cost is higher for a new airplane - it always is. Operating costs for the
> new LSA's, though will most probably make up the difference plus C140's do
> not qualify as LSA and who wants to fly a Taylorcraft when so many larger,
> more comfortable, and more efficient plastic LSA aircraft are available.
>
> Pete
>
> --
Pete... I quoted George for the comment he made about restoring an older
aircraft for LSA use rather than buy new.
You have said the LSA regs don't allow a 'regular' a/c to be re-designated
as LSA while George seems to indicate otherwise.
I'm trying to understand the two viewpoints.
You are correct tho, Geo doesn't like LSA because he believes the
regulations are arbritrary and over limiting. He did comment that your
regular Lightning [and the RV-9A [and one other model I can't recall]] are
excellent aircraft and the right way to go lighter - and don't limit speed.
The comments he made above were part of a larger narrative where he was
making the point the a new Cessna that costs $1000k and is limited isn't a
very good value.
So, is George mistaken about refurbishing an older a/c for LSA status?
Thanks
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=68687#68687
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|