Flying light sport airplane outside sport rules?

bflynn

bflynn

Final Approach
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
9,820
Location
KTTA
Display Name
Display name:
Brian Flynn
So, question -

If you have an airplane certified for light sport, can you fly it in excess of light sport rules as a private pilot? Specifically, it a plane is limited in speed because of sport rules, can you go faster?

Thinking out loud -

Suppose you have an E-LSA that meets the criteria, for the purposes of this, let's call it an early 2 seat RV that was carefully built to be under 1320 gross.

The engine easily powers it past 120 kts, but the manual says Vne is 120 to comply with E-SLA rules. The airplane is engineered to far higher speeds and absent the E-SLA designation, can safely fly faster.

I think the legal answer is no? But I can't figure out why
 
It's not Vne, it's the aircraft's maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH), which may not be not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. If it can go faster while not exceeding the powerplant rating for continuous power, it's ineligible to be operated as LSA. Note that a higher TAS at altitude is allowed.

Some manufacturers deliberately derate the engine / propeller combination with an artificial rpm limit to keep it legal, wink wink nudge nudge.
 
My guess would be the legal answer is "yes", you can exceed the V speeds listed in a POH / aircraft certification. This would be rather foolish IMHO BTW.

The only limitations I can think of are license based - 250 kts if you have Basic Med, or 120 kts if you have a Sport License - I don't recall any based on airframes.


EDIT: Thanks to PalmPilot, changing my answer to "no".

Palmpilot said:
Maybe this would apply:

§ 91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So is this a hypothetical or a legit question. I'm guessing you are talking about a light weight low powered RV-4, but I can't see a DAR certifying an RV-4 as an LSA, because it's just too fast, manual or not. I knew of a 135 hp RV-4 that would still run around at 135-140kts all day long.
 
WDD said:
My guess would be the legal answer is "yes", you can exceed the V speeds listed in a POH / aircraft certification. This would be rather foolish IMHO BTW.

The only limitations I can think of are license based - 250 kts if you have Basic Med, or 120 kts if you have a Sport License - I don't recall any based on airframes.
Click to expand...


That 120kts is a limitation on the aircraft SPs are allowed to fly. AFAIK, there’s no regulation saying the pilot can’t operate the plane beyond redline, though that might not be wise. As Dana says, redline may be artificial, but do you want to chance it?

I believe some manufacturers may pitch the prop to set the speed at 120kts at the engines redline.
 
Dana said:
Some manufacturers deliberately derate the engine / propeller combination with an artificial rpm limit to keep it legal, wink wink nudge nudge.
Click to expand...

Sonex LLC did that with the Jabiru 3300 "L" series engines. They are the exact same engine as the rest but are limited to a lower RPM for continuous power. Great thing about this is that the FAA was on board with this.

Not so long ago a man was said to be building RV 6's that were Light Sport legal. I seen one for sale on Barnstormers but I'm not believing it to be true. There is a thread about it here: https://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=2976
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that 120 kts was generally not Vne for an LSA. Some LSAs are only capable for doing 120 kts level, but you may be allowed to go well above 120 kts while descending.
 
There are a bunch of E-LSA and S-LSA planes that easily will go faster than the "legal" limit.
They get around it by telling you to not exceed a certain RPM after x number of minutes.
Of course we all absolutely comply.
 
Shepherd said:
There are a bunch of E-LSA and S-LSA planes that easily will go faster than the "legal" limit.
They get around it by telling you to not exceed a certain RPM after x number of minutes.
Click to expand...
Is that power setting published as a Maximum Continuous Limit?
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
I was under the impression that 120 kts was generally not Vne for an LSA. Some LSAs are only capable for doing 120 kts level, but you may be allowed to go well above 120 kts while descending.
Click to expand...

On my LSA VNE is at 165 knots - generally it tends to be somewhere between 130 and 170 knots on most LSAs.
 
There are a few LSA's that were 1400lb or better airplanes overseas that were "derated" to 1320 for LSA rules here. The plane doesn't know that it's been derated. But if something happens the FAA and insurance will know.
 
midwestpa24 said:
So is this a hypothetical or a legit question. I'm guessing you are talking about a light weight low powered RV-4, but I can't see a DAR certifying an RV-4 as an LSA, because it's just too fast, manual or not. I knew of a 135 hp RV-4 that would still run around at 135-140kts all day long.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't need to be certified as an LSA. In fact I don't believe an RV-4 could be certified as an E-LSA, since there is no S-LSA version of the RV-4. A SP or someone flying under SP privileges can fly any airplane that meets (and has met, since it was created) ALL of the requirements and limitations regardless of whether it's E-LSA, S-LSA, E-AB, or type certificated.
 
If LSAs are so wonderful, why do we see a question here every week with someone trying to weasel in some exception?
 
Don't confuse sport pilot limitations with sport aircraft limitations. As a private pilot, I can exceed sport pilot limitations but I can't exceed the limitations in Section 2 of the POH (or equivalent). If the aircraft is certified for night flight, one exercising private pilot privileges may fly it at night. A sport pilot cannot. If Vne is published as an aircraft limitation, it's an aircraft limitation, just like its max gross weight and may not be legally exceeded.

But... you don't know that the 120 Vne you are seeing is not structural. The 120 KCAS regulatory limit is for level cruse flight at max continuous power, not a Vne limit.

I'm teaching in a SportCruiser. Published Vne is 138.

upload_2022-2-3_4-3-25.png
 
Last edited:
Once again: Vne has nothing to do with it. It's Vh (level flight speed at the maximum continuous power setting specified by the manufacturer) that may not exceed 120 knots.

To use the OP's example of a lightly built RV-4: As DaleB said, it can't be an E-LSA, it has to be E-AB, but if it complies with the LSA limits (unlikely) it can be flown by a SP. But a couple of hypothetical what-ifs:

Say you build it light (1320#_ with an O-200 (most have O-320s). I have no idea if it could even fly with 100HP, let's say it could, and it maxes out at 119kts at sea level: LSA legal. If it maxes out at 121kts in level flight, not legal.

Put a Lycoming O-320 in it, it maxes at 200kts: not LSA legal even if the gross weight is 1320#.

Put a home-assembled engine with all O-320 parts, technically not a "Lycoming" because Lycoming didn't build it, it's a "Joe Smith O-320". Joe Smith (the engine manufacturer) determines that the maximum allowable continuous rpm is, say, 1500 rpm, placards it as such, and at that rpm, the aircraft does 119 knots in level flight. The aircraft is LSA legal. If you operate it at a higher power setting, you've overspeeded the engine and must do whatever inspection or repair is required. Now Joe Smith makes a modification or does some new testing, and determines that the engine can be operated at 2000 rpm continuously, where it can do, say, 150kts. It's no longer LSA legal and won't ever be again, even if you revert to the 1500 rpm limit later.
 
Dana said:
Once again: Vne has nothing to do with it. It's Vh (level flight speed at the maximum continuous power setting specified by the manufacturer) that may not exceed 120 knots.

To use the OP's example of a lightly built RV-4: As DaleB said, it can't be an E-LSA, it has to be E-AB, but if it complies with the LSA limits (unlikely) it can be flown by a SP. But a couple of hypothetical what-ifs:

Say you build it light (1320#_ with an O-200 (most have O-320s). I have no idea if it could even fly with 100HP, let's say it could, and it maxes out at 119kts at sea level: LSA legal. If it maxes out at 121kts in level flight, not legal.

Put a Lycoming O-320 in it, it maxes at 200kts: not LSA legal even if the gross weight is 1320#.

Put a home-assembled engine with all O-320 parts, technically not a "Lycoming" because Lycoming didn't build it, it's a "Joe Smith O-320". Joe Smith (the engine manufacturer) determines that the maximum allowable continuous rpm is, say, 1500 rpm, placards it as such, and at that rpm, the aircraft does 119 knots in level flight. The aircraft is LSA legal. If you operate it at a higher power setting, you've overspeeded the engine and must do whatever inspection or repair is required. Now Joe Smith makes a modification or does some new testing, and determines that the engine can be operated at 2000 rpm continuously, where it can do, say, 150kts. It's no longer LSA legal and won't ever be again, even if you revert to the 1500 rpm limit later.
Click to expand...

14CFR1 doesn’t say that Vh is max continuous as specified by the manufacturer. It doesn’t contain the word in that clause. If it’s E-AB, the builder is free to set max continuous at whatever level the DAR will sign off on. It wouldn’t always work for the engine manufacturer to set it, due to airframe and prop limitations.
 
ateamer said:
14CFR1 doesn’t say that Vh is max continuous as specified by the manufacturer. It doesn’t contain the word in that clause. If it’s E-AB, the builder is free to set max continuous at whatever level the DAR will sign off on. It wouldn’t always work for the engine manufacturer to set it, due to airframe and prop limitations.
Click to expand...
Who but the manufacturer could set it? For an E-AB, the builder is the manufacturer, and can set the max continuous power to whatever he wants, as long as the DAR doesn't object.
 
Warmi said:
What do you give a crap ? If you don’t like LSAs , don’t fly them ..how’s that for a solution ?
Click to expand...

I am just pointing out that the LSA fan club is on here weekly trying to some how expand the regulatory limitations by trying to see if the FAA left any loop hole open.

I accept the government allows people with substance abuse and some very bad medical history to fly low performance aircraft, it’s the people who have these histories who are unhappy of the restrictions.
 
ateamer said:
14CFR1 doesn’t say that Vh is max continuous as specified by the manufacturer. It doesn’t contain the word in that clause. If it’s E-AB, the builder is free to set max continuous at whatever level the DAR will sign off on. It wouldn’t always work for the engine manufacturer to set it, due to airframe and prop limitations.
Click to expand...
Is that a semantic distinction? I'm not sure what you are saying.
FAR 1.1 defines Vh as "maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power."
FAR 1.1 also includes "A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level" in the definition of LSA.
Isn't max continuous power at some point specified by the manufacturer even if it's subject to testing based on Part 33 requirements?
 
Clip4 said:
I am just pointing out that the LSA fan club is on here weekly trying to some how expand the regulatory limitations by trying to see if the FAA left any loop hole open.
Click to expand...
I will point out that the private fan club is on here weekly trying to some how expand the regulatory limitations on compensation / medicals by trying to see if the FAA left any loop hole open.

:)
 
Last edited:
I remember the CSTL that I flew ages ago was capable of more than 120 kts in level flight. I had considered buying one for a minute, then I remembered the useful load sucks. :(
 
midlifeflyer said:
Isn't max continuous power at some point specified by the manufacturer even if it's subject to testing based on Part 33 requirements?
Click to expand...
Which manufacturer?
Airframe / installation limits such as cooling or fuel flow may "limit" the max continuous power for some particular application more than some other.
 
Clip4 said:
I am just pointing out that the LSA fan club is on here weekly trying to some how expand the regulatory limitations by trying to see if the FAA left any loop hole open.
Click to expand...
Not really. It's mostly the non-LSA people looking to hammer the round LSA peg hard enough to fit into the medical certificate-sized rectangular hole left by whatever it is that's knocking them out of flying with private/commercial/ATP privileges. Been there, done that.
Dana said:
To use the OP's example of a lightly built RV-4: As DaleB said, it can't be an E-LSA, it has to be E-AB, but if it complies with the LSA limits (unlikely) it can be flown by a SP. But a couple of hypothetical what-ifs:

Say you build it light (1320#_ with an O-200 (most have O-320s). I have no idea if it could even fly with 100HP, let's say it could, and it maxes out at 119kts at sea level: LSA legal. If it maxes out at 121kts in level flight, not legal.

Put a Lycoming O-320 in it, it maxes at 200kts: not LSA legal even if the gross weight is 1320#.

Put a home-assembled engine with all O-320 parts, technically not a "Lycoming" because Lycoming didn't build it, it's a "Joe Smith O-320". Joe Smith (the engine manufacturer) determines that the maximum allowable continuous rpm is, say, 1500 rpm, placards it as such, and at that rpm, the aircraft does 119 knots in level flight. The aircraft is LSA legal. If you operate it at a higher power setting, you've overspeeded the engine and must do whatever inspection or repair is required. Now Joe Smith makes a modification or does some new testing, and determines that the engine can be operated at 2000 rpm continuously, where it can do, say, 150kts. It's no longer LSA legal and won't ever be again, even if you revert to the 1500 rpm limit later.
Click to expand...
Probably - and apparently - correct. I say apparently, because that's what one of the Cub clones does; they've got an engine that's limited by paperwork to keep the plane within LSA limits. I was astonished that they were able to get that past the FAA, but they did. And it's also a good point that you could take an LSA qualified E-AB out of LSA spec and it will still be fine to fly, but can never be legal to fly under SP privileges again, ever. And you can't take a non LSA qualified plane and make it LSA. And if you take an S-LSA or E-LSA out of compliance, it can never be made legal for anything at all, ever again.

Aren't regulations fun?
 
Clip4 said:
I am just pointing out that the LSA fan club is on here weekly trying to some how expand the regulatory limitations by trying to see if the FAA left any loop hole open.

I accept the government allows people with substance abuse and some very bad medical history to fly low performance aircraft, it’s the people who have these histories who are unhappy of the restrictions.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's quite the assumption :rolleyes2: Also not even what the OP asked about.
 
Clip4 said:
I am just pointing out that the LSA fan club is on here weekly trying to some how expand the regulatory limitations by trying to see if the FAA left any loop hole open.
Click to expand...

So you think I’m in the LSA fan club? Lol…
 
Clip4 said:
I am just pointing out that the LSA fan club is on here weekly trying to some how expand the regulatory limitations by trying to see if the FAA left any loop hole open.

I accept the government allows people with substance abuse and some very bad medical history to fly low performance aircraft, it’s the people who have these histories who are unhappy of the restrictions.
Click to expand...
The FAA issues A LOT of SIs, but I don't think they issue them for "very bad" medical history. They do, however, take an unreasonable length of time to issue them, while subjecting the applicants to unreasonable levels of hassle and expense.
 
Sorry to derail conversation - but back to the OP’s original question …..:)

Is there a FAR/AIM that dictates a pilot must abide by the published V’s? It would be foolish not to - but is that an actual regulation?
 
WDD said:
Sorry to derail conversation - but back to the OP’s original question …..:)

Is there a FAR/AIM that dictates a pilot must abide by the published V’s? It would be foolish not to - but is that an actual regulation?
Click to expand...
Maybe this would apply:

§ 91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.​
 
WDD said:
Sorry to derail conversation - but back to the OP’s original question …..:)

Is there a FAR/AIM that dictates a pilot must abide by the published V’s? It would be foolish not to - but is that an actual regulation?
Click to expand...
Vh is a property of the airframe / engine / prop - not a speed that the pilot needs to adhere to. Now, in a nudge, nudge, wink, wink LSA where the IO-540 had been derated with a max continuous RPM of 1800, then the question is "is there a regulation that dictates that a pilot must abide by the engine limitations in the POH?"

Edit: which was apparently answered by FastFingers @Palmpilot
 
One caveat, however: my understanding is that speeds that appear solely outside of the Limitations section of the manual are not considered to be limitations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top