---------------------------------------------------------- Pietenpol-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 06/04/05: 4 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:09:40 AM PST US Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fat ultralights From: rhartwig11@juno.com --> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:36:19 AM PST US From: BARNSTMR@aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:27:53 PM PST US From: "walt evans" Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:55:29 PM PST US From: Mark Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fat ultralights --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Mark 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. > > > > > > > > >