---------------------------------------------------------- Lightning-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 10/18/06: 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:48:31 AM PST US Subject: Lightning-List: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening From: "deuskid" --> Lightning-List message posted by: "deuskid" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:10:25 AM PST US From: "Pete" Subject: RE: Lightning-List: Re: RV-9A v. Lightening --> Lightning-List message posted by: "Pete" 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" 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