Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:09 AM - Fat ultralights (rhartwig11@juno.com)
2. 09:36 AM - Re: We mean the same thing (BARNSTMR@aol.com)
3. 03:27 PM - Our grass, quiet, but diverse airfield (walt evans)
4. 06:55 PM - Re: Fat ultralights (Mark)
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 |
|
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
Mark,
You wrote, "I am really not sure that there is much to gain by getting a
fat ultralight certified Experimental LSA...........................As
far as operation as long as the aircraft meets LSA operational
limitations, its my impression that its LSA an thats all you need."
An airplane must have an N number in order to be operated as an LSA. A
"fat" ultralight has to have an N number to be legally flown.
Dick H.
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: We mean the same thing |
Chris and the rest,
Howdy... it has been a long time since I have posted. I am going thru some
custody issues with the kids and haven't had a lot of time for Piet stuff.
Anyway... I have been lurking.
This topic is one I have thought about in the past. On my Piet, I plan to
extend the nose way out sorta like Chuck did to accommodate my A75 Continental.
I have talked with several Continental guys like Chuck, Bob Siebert, and
others. I think they all ended up lowering the horiz stab leading edge. Your
discussion about the airfoil shapes got me to thinking.... perhaps I will ad some
airfoil shaped strips on the underside of my horiz stab surfaces before
cover. I just wonder how much of an effect this would give. Since they are
already built, its not too feasible to increase their size. But the airfoil shapes
could be added and not really affect the "looks" of the airplane. What to you
guys think?
Terry B.
Message 3
| 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: | Our grass, quiet, but diverse airfield |
Never know what you're gonna see!
Today they dragged out the Helo , and after hours of setup, went for a flight.
walt evans
NX140DL
Message 4
| 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: Fat ultralights |
--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark <aerialphotos@dp.net>
rhartwig11@juno.com wrote:
>--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: rhartwig11@juno.com
>
>Mark,
>You wrote, "I am really not sure that there is much to gain by getting a
>fat ultralight certified Experimental LSA...........................As
>far as operation as long as the aircraft meets LSA operational
>limitations, its my impression that its LSA an thats all you need."
>
>An airplane must have an N number in order to be operated as an LSA. A
>"fat" ultralight has to have an N number to be legally flown.
>Dick H.
>
>
>Dick
>
I have done a little research and doing some additional work with AOPA
today as to what the differences might be. I should hear back early
next week for sure but here is the understanding now. With an E-LSA the
51% rule is not a factor. I understand some builders are actually
selling the product as an E-LSA when its nearly complete or has been
totally completed and then had say the wings removed for the final
builder to assemble the brand new airplane. The S-LSA has some
advantages, but also some extra hoops for the manufacturer to jump through.
In reality there is no such thing is a fat ultralight, though the phrase
has existed for many years. Its either 254 or less to be classified as
an air vehicle, or its an airplane. Now few realize that when they get
into one that 255, they are not going to get violated for flying an
overweight ultralight. They are going to get violated for every
violation that applies to airplanes until the inspector gets tired of
writing. No N number, No Airworthiness Certificate, No inspection, ect
until they don't want to bother with more of the paper work. Now that a
new and cheaper way of compliance is in place, expect a push to find a
few examples and trips to remote strips to find the airplanes and have
the owners prove compliance.
Just for my own enquiring mind, I wonder how many of you Piet builders
would still be building your own airplane IF you had the option of
buying a Piet already built by a factory at a reasonable price brand
new? Many of you I am sure would rather build anyway. I personally
would rather fly, if it was an option. In fact if money was no option I
would buy one and build one while I flew one, but then thats just me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|