Ground Adjust vs "Electrically Adjustable" in LSA aircraft

[Skylane81E]

This I completely agree with. If the change can be done with a logbook entry, it should be no big deal.

How about allowing the reversal or removal of modifications (STC or otherwise) to return the plane to LSA eligible, but not allow the addition of an STC to put an otherwise ineligible plane in?

 

[VanDy]

How about allowing the reversal or removal of modifications (STC or otherwise) to return the plane to LSA eligible, but not allow the addition of an STC to put an otherwise ineligible plane in?

I'm not entirely sure what I think about that yet... I plead ignorance on the basis of I haven't personally done any STC's that increase gross weight yet. If its heavily involved (doublers or invasive sheet metal work) then I do lean towards no..




-VanDy

 

[Skylane81E]

I'm not entirely sure what I think about that yet... I plead ignorance on the basis of I haven't personally done any STC's that increase gross weight yet. If its heavily involved (doublers or invasive sheet metal work) then I do lean towards no..




-VanDy

Only one I have done was the fresh pick on a 182Q,

just paper.

Honestly I wouldn't care if it was more than that though, as what is the worst that happens, the plane is too strong? Sure such would would add weight but if the owner is willing to deal with the reduced UL...


Doesn't strike me any differently than artificially suppressing the GW to 1320 on the new LSAs

 

[VanDy]

Let me clarify a bit

I meant if the STC install required structural mods and to reverse it they were required to be removed.

Only one I have done was the fresh pick on a 182Q,

just paper.

Honestly I wouldn't care if it was more than that though, as what is the worst that happens, the plane is too strong? Sure such would would add weight but if the owner is willing to deal with the reduced UL...


Doesn't strike me any differently than artificially suppressing the GW to 1320 on the new LSAs

-VanDy

 

[Skylane81E]

Ah, for simplicity I would leave that up to the removing mechanic.

In reality a paper change driving it back down to 1320 wouldn't bother me either. You would see a lot of luscomes and Aircoupes with "gross weight reduced to 1320lbs, revised W&B data" in the logs if that ever happened!

 

[Geico266]

I personally totally don’t get it. What's the purpose of "have continued to meet" as it relates to the current configuration of a craft? So a plane was fitted with an LSA ineligible piece of equipment ages ago, but has been flying safely without it for the last 50 years. What is the reason to exclude it from the LSA category if that's what the owner would like to do with it? Why would they not want people stripping down an airplane to meet the LSA requirements? Couldn't it just be recertified as an experimental at that point? I could see them not wanting to let an aircraft, once it was modified to meet LSA requirements, restored back to a certified type.

It doesn't make sense that if you can manage to cobble together some tubes and fabric into an airplane shape of your own design, strap an engine on it and find a seat big enough for you and your enormous balls, then more power to ya. But to simply lighten up a time tested design is verboten?

I can't figure out if this part of the rule was added by lawyers trying to shelter the FAA from some kind of liability, by curmudgeons trying to protect the sanctity of aging classic airplanes, or by elitists trying to keep their little hole in the sky free from the encroachment of "shortcut" pilots. It certainly wasn't written to bring more people into aviation.

You can still register the plane as Experimental Exhibition.

You would not be able to fly the rag & tube contraption without an airworthyness cert, unless you were going ultra light, Part 103.

 

[Geico266]

I think that if the plane can meet LSA requirements when configured per the TCDS then you should be able to return it to that LSA standard.

I'm not for a blanket ban on weight reduction as I would have no issue with a metalized Aircoupe having a gross reduction STC applied and put back into LSA limits.

The real issue is speed. As design standards and efficiencies increase (Think Pantheria) we have to figure out how to slow them down. I think gross weight, stall speed, fixed pitch prop, fixed gear should be the only limiting factors.

 

[Skylane81E]

The real issue is speed. As design standards and efficiencies increase (Think Pantheria) we have to figure out how to slow them down. I think gross weight, stall speed, fixed pitch prop, fixed gear should be the only limiting factors.

It is fun, when I worked with the engineers on the sadly scrapped Toxo it took a three blade ground adjustable set very flat to slow it down enough, even after the wing was made larger from the original euro design to slow the stall speed.

 

[tinerj]

If you take a certified plane that is too heavy to be LSA (Cessna 120 misses by only about 20 pounds) and reduce the weight it still is not LSA.

If you take a certified plane that meets LSA, but then has something added that increases the max gross beyond LSA, you still cannot walk it back.

The first example makes sense (sort of), but the second one doesn't.

Doesn't matter, neither one is allowed by FAA rules.

 

[Skylane81E]

If you take a certified plane that is too heavy to be LSA (Cessna 120 misses by only about 20 pounds) and reduce the weight it still is not LSA.

If you take a certified plane that meets LSA, but then has something added that increases the max gross beyond LSA, you still cannot walk it back.

The first example makes sense (sort of), but the second one doesn't.

Doesn't matter, neither one is allowed by FAA rules.

Yes, we know this, has been stated a few times in this thread even

 

[Geico266]

If you take a certified plane that is too heavy to be LSA (Cessna 120 misses by only about 20 pounds) and reduce the weight it still is not LSA.

If you take a certified plane that meets LSA, but then has something added that increases the max gross beyond LSA, you still cannot walk it back.

The first example makes sense (sort of), but the second one doesn't.

Doesn't matter, neither one is allowed by FAA rules.

Rules can be changed.

Rules for LSA were drafted after much input and arm twisting by EAA ( AOPA was against LSA and wanted to keep "Recreational pilot" ) the public, and LSA aircraft manufacturers. Rules can and will be changed, modified, and updated as time goes on. Get involved with EAA and become a force for change. Wishing something would change does nothing, taking action is what effects change.

Either you are part of the solution, or part of the problem.

I am hoping they drop the speed limit and adjust the weight limits to include some old iron to allow cheaper airplanes to be flown LSA, but hoping doesn't get action. Contacting EAA, and the FAA (OSH is more than a vacation ) and campaigning for change is the only way to get results. EAA is the organization to contact for changes to the LSA rules.

Doing away with the 3rd class medical would go a long way towards meeting these goals and more. LSA has given the FAA about 10 years of data of people flying without medicals, and the data is very good for all of us.

 

[QuiQuog]

Is EAA lobbying for any changes to light sport at the current time?

 

[JHW]

Is EAA lobbying for any changes to light sport at the current time?

yes, you can get a higher gross weight if you buy one of the front-center viewing areas for the afternoon airshows at OSH

 

[bbchien]

and the data is very good for all of us.

Actually that is not quite true. There is no data being funded for that collection of data. There are apparently about six incapacitations about which the agency knows about and for the database of LSA activity (still pretty small) it doesn't look so good.

And example would be the guy who ran off the runway in NW suburban Chicago due to an MI and died 6 days later at Northwestern Hospital. He was flying under LSA rules....not in the database anyplace. But, all the FSDO guys know about that one.

This situation has been discussed here, before. Repeatedly saying the above does not advance the case.

 

[Geico266]

Is EAA lobbying for any changes to light sport at the current time?

Yes.

 

[RyanShort1]

Actually that is not quite true. There is no data being funded for that collection of data. There are apparently about six incapacitations about which the agency knows about and for the database of LSA activity (still pretty small) it doesn't look so good.

And example would be the guy who ran off the runway in NW suburban Chicago due to an MI and died 6 days later at Northwestern Hospital. He was flying under LSA rules....not in the database anyplace. But, all the FSDO guys know about that one.

This situation has been discussed here, before. Repeatedly saying the above does not advance the case.

Yeah, and one of the SAT FSDO FAAST CFI meetings intimated as much.

Ryan

 

[RogerT]

The difference is the LSA rules prohibit it.

I'm certain many people break the rules, but the plane at that point is no longer LSA according to the rules. My interpretation of the rules is the plane can no longer be flown LSA even if the prop is changed to fixed. Once the rules are broken you cannot go back and get a do over. Obviously, it depends on the FSDO you are working with to get the plane compliant. You can "shop" for a FSDO.

The plane has to .. at all times .. since original certification met the requirements to be flown under LSA rules. If at any time it doesn't ..
it can't be made LSA compliant again. Larry has it right.

RT

 

[Goofy]

Looks like this thread morphed into another discussion. But if the original question is of interest, my hangar neighbor found the ground adjustable marks on his LSA were way off. Made a tool with a laser strapped to each blade and got them right - marks way off.

 

[bbchien]

Sorry about the sidetrack. But I have to correct the ones who keep drinkin the cool-aid.....thank you Craig Fuller (not). They somehow think, if they keep repeating it, and often, it must be true.

I just spent the whole morning with the regulatory brass in Chicago and they're talking about whether our criteria after closed head injury are exact enough....

The cool-aid is very very seductive. But it is just that.

 

[Goofy]

Sorry about the sidetrack. But I have to correct the ones who keep drinkin the cool-aid.....thank you Craig Fuller (not). They somehow think, if they keep repeating it, and often, it must be true.

I just spent the whole morning with the regulatory brass in Chicago and they're talking about whether our criteria after closed head injury are exact enough....

The cool-aid is very very seductive. But it is just that.

OK - let me guess....
Re: Ground Adjust vs "Electrically Adjustable" in LSA aircraft
is no longer the topic. As in (spelling issues and all): Ive been looking through a lot of threads regarding ground adjustable props and it seems that someone usually brings up in-flight adjusable options, which frequently brings up questions of LSA compatability and "Electrically Adjustable" workarounds.

Master Brucie has a new topic that is more important to this thread than the OP topic? Is that correct?

I know he'll make anything he can about him and his magnificence, experience, superior knowledge, medical superiority, etc. etc. and his gang of suckups will jump in and insist on it but hey - what happened to the prop question?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

OK - let me guess....
Re: Ground Adjust vs "Electrically Adjustable" in LSA aircraft
is no longer the topic. As in (spelling issues and all): Ive been looking through a lot of threads regarding ground adjustable props and it seems that someone usually brings up in-flight adjusable options, which frequently brings up questions of LSA compatability and "Electrically Adjustable" workarounds.

Master Brucie has a new topic that is more important to this thread than the OP topic? Is that correct?

I know he'll make anything he can about him and his magnificence, experience, superior knowledge, medical superiority, etc. etc. and his gang of suckups will jump in and insist on it but hey - what happened to the prop question?

Conversations can be multifaceted, with no known harm to willing participants.

 

[QuiQuog]

Since less than a third of this entire thread is directed to the original topic, I'll consider it skyjacked. But since I've been a willing participant in the skyjacking I'll let it slide. I'd still like to hear thoughts about the original question though, if anyone has anything else to add.

 

[poadeleted21]

OK - let me guess....
Re: Ground Adjust vs "Electrically Adjustable" in LSA aircraft
is no longer the topic. As in (spelling issues and all): Ive been looking through a lot of threads regarding ground adjustable props and it seems that someone usually brings up in-flight adjusable options, which frequently brings up questions of LSA compatability and "Electrically Adjustable" workarounds.

Master Brucie has a new topic that is more important to this thread than the OP topic? Is that correct?

I know he'll make anything he can about him and his magnificence, experience, superior knowledge, medical superiority, etc. etc. and his gang of suckups will jump in and insist on it but hey - what happened to the prop question?

No, it's very much on topic.

Questions like "Can I put an adjustable prop on my plane?", "Can I reduce the gross weight of my plane?", "Can I slow down my plane?" are ridiculous questions that no plane owner would ask.... unless they don't want to deal with medical certification. Which is why every one of these type posts will go D-> to an FAA 3rd class medical discussion. It's the root of the problem.

 

[QuiQuog]

No, it's very much on topic.

Questions like "Can I put an adjustable prop on my plane?", "Can I reduce the gross weight of my plane?", "Can I slow down my plane?" are ridiculous questions that no plane owner would ask.... unless they don't want to deal with medical certification. Which is why every one of these type posts will go D-> to an FAA 3rd class medical discussion. It's the root of the problem.

LSA isn't a problem, it's an option. It's really no different than an ultralight pilot squeezing everything he can out his aircraft while trying to stay within the limits imposed on the class. Maybe so he can fly without a license, but maybe because it's fun to fly as an option. So, would any question relating to the limits of UL be ridiculous?

There are multiple reasons that one would choose light sport, just as there are multiple reasons to add any particular rating. Maybe because it looks like a good entry point, or seems more affordable, or some other reason. But yes, I fly LSA because I don't want to deal with medical certification right now, that makes my questions ridiculous? No, it makes my comment related to LSA, that's all. There's a reason that I posted this topic in the sport pilot section, and it wasn't so I could be called ridiculous. Comments like yours only serve to shut down any conversation and don't contribute to any meaningful exchange.

Now, as Willy Wonka once said "Good DAY sir!

 

[poadeleted21]

LSA isn't a problem, it's an option. It's really no different than an ultralight pilot squeezing everything he can out his aircraft while trying to stay within the limits imposed on the class. Maybe so he can fly without a license, but maybe because it's fun to fly as an option. So, would any question relating to the limits of UL be ridiculous?

There are multiple reasons that one would choose light sport, just as there are multiple reasons to add any particular rating. Maybe because it looks like a good entry point, or seems more affordable, or some other reason. But yes, I fly LSA because I don't want to deal with medical certification right now, that makes my questions ridiculous? No, it makes my comment related to LSA, that's all. There's a reason that I posted this topic in the sport pilot section, and it wasn't so I could be called ridiculous. Comments like yours only serve to shut down any conversation and don't contribute to any meaningful exchange.

Now, as Willy Wonka once said "Good DAY sir!

I didn't say LSA was a problem, I said the 3rd class medical is.

The LSA regs were very generous in the loophole they closed.

The easiest and most cost efficient way to put an adjustable prop on your plane is go go give the AME $100, walk out with a 3rd class medical and install the thing.

 

[QuiQuog]

I didn't say LSA was a problem, I said the 3rd class medical is.

The LSA regs were very generous in the loophole they closed.

The easiest and most cost efficient way to put an adjustable prop on your plane is go go give the AME $100, walk out with a 3rd class medical and install the thing.

I should apologize for my rant. I was feeling a bit froggy yesterday.

But to your statement "The easiest and most cost efficient way to put an adjustable prop on your plane...", like I said, it's not that I want to put one on. Read the OP. I just think it's an interesting topic.

As for "give the AME $100, walk out with a 3rd class medical...", it's not that easy for everyone.

Having said that, assuming that you're talking about going the PPL route, if I were to get a medical and install the thing it wouldn't be to light sport anymore and the interesting aspects of it wouldn't apply. But I wasn't really looking for a solution, I was looking for a discussion.

 

[TriGear28]

This is kind of like saying, "The gear doesn't retract, the plane collapses onto it!"

 

[QuiQuog]

This is kind of like saying, "The gear doesn't retract, the plane collapses onto it!"

No it isn't.

 

[tsts4]

I'm a little dense -- OK a lot. Other than as an intellectual exercise to explore the art of the possible, I don't get it. What performance are you trying to obtain that an inflight adjustable prop would provide? I'm just trying to figure out the cost benefit of such a configuration on a aircraft that by design is meant to have limited performance to begin with.

 

[Skylane81E]

I'm a little dense -- OK a lot. Other than as an intellectual exercise to explore the art of the possible, I don't get it. What performance are you trying to obtain that an inflight adjustable prop would provide? I'm just trying to figure out the cost benefit of such a configuration on a aircraft that by design is meant to have limited performance to begin with.

It is an attempt at a cheat. An admirable one in my mind as what the hell is so magic about 120kts?

Doesn't make any less an attempt to cheat the regs.

 

[QuiQuog]

Other than as an intellectual exercise to explore the art of the possible, I don't get it.

No, I think you got it. I just wanted to discuss it.

What performance are you trying to obtain that an inflight adjustable prop would provide? I'm just trying to figure out the cost benefit of such a configuration on a aircraft that by design is meant to have limited performance to begin with.

I suppose you just need to ask yourself what an adjustable prop is for to answer that question.

It is an attempt at a cheat. An admirable one in my mind as what the hell is so magic about 120kts?

Doesn't make any less an attempt to cheat the regs.

No, it's actually a question of what cheating is on this point in the regs.

I'm not trying to cheat, like I said before, I just think it's an interesting topic. I just wanted to see what people think the rule means, because we all now that the FAR's are always not always cut and dried and are subject to interpretation just like any other rules. Just as an example, the "has continued to meet" statement that was mentioned earlier. Some say that if you ever exceed gross weight, or fly faster than 120kts, then your plane isn't light sport anymore. Because if you ever had an IFA prop in the books that seems to be the case. So why not everything else? Others view it differently.

I didn't ask how to skirt the regs, I asked what the regs mean. I wanted to explore the topic of what is meant by in flight adjustable. If you're not able to adjust it in flight, does that mean that it isn't in flight adjustable?

 

[docmirror]

I'm a little dense -- OK a lot. Other than as an intellectual exercise to explore the art of the possible, I don't get it. What performance are you trying to obtain that an inflight adjustable prop would provide? I'm just trying to figure out the cost benefit of such a configuration on a aircraft that by design is meant to have limited performance to begin with.

Well, having flown behind a CS prop and a controllable prop for a while I can tell you that there are significant performance improvements to be had in take off and cruise with a CS prop. This requires an additional managing of the control that is in opposition to the LSA ideals. I really want a high RPM takeoff with engines that have limited power avail.

When I take off with my CS prop plane at low pitch/high RPM I know I'm getting the most of my engine and prop combo. For LSAs, there is a compromise for cruise. I think it's a safety benefit that outweighs the extra cockpit workload of a prop control, but I'm in the minority when it comes to regulation.

 

[tsts4]

Well, having flown behind a CS prop and a controllable prop for a while I can tell you that there are significant performance improvements to be had in take off and cruise with a CS prop. This requires an additional managing of the control that is in opposition to the LSA ideals. I really want a high RPM takeoff with engines that have limited power avail.

When I take off with my CS prop plane at low pitch/high RPM I know I'm getting the most of my engine and prop combo. For LSAs, there is a compromise for cruise. I think it's a safety benefit that outweighs the extra cockpit workload of a prop control, but I'm in the minority when it comes to regulation.

I get that -- I have a CS prop too. For any aircraft with a fixed pitch prop, performance is a compromise. So what my question really was getting at was for an LSA aircraft, would the performance increase really be worth the effort (cost, training, complexity, etc) since the LSA performance envelope pretty limited to begin with.

 

[QuiQuog]

I get that -- I have a CS prop too. For any aircraft with a fixed pitch prop, performance is a compromise. So what my question really was getting at was for an LSA aircraft, would the performance increase really be worth the effort (cost, training, complexity, etc) since the LSA performance envelope pretty limited to begin with.

Worth is pretty subjective. I suppose most people could get by with a fixed pitch or ground adjust set to their lucky number and be fine, but I think it could be worth it for some people. Say, you take off for a cross country trip from a field that would benefit from some extra climb to get over an obstacle, then later in the flight, after fighting unexpected headwinds you're racing sunset or ominous weather to get home. Some extra speed on that trip would have increased the safety margins, but so did the extra climb. Is your safety worth it? Are there any other situations that come to mind where in flight adjust would benefit a light sport?

I really don't know how complex it is though as I've never used one. Are there any conditions that a doctor might find during a 3rd class medical that would make someone who is able to operate an airplane unable to operate a controllable pich prop?

Just thought now. Do you ever find yourself trying to set the prop to a setting that's not best climb or best cruise? I wonder if it would be less complex if it were controlled by a toggle with settings for climb and cruise. Pretty simple. Pre-takeoff you set it to climb, at cruise altitude it gets flipped to cruise. Maybe they have that, I don't know.

 

[docmirror]

I get that -- I have a CS prop too. For any aircraft with a fixed pitch prop, performance is a compromise. So what my question really was getting at was for an LSA aircraft, would the performance increase really be worth the effort (cost, training, complexity, etc) since the LSA performance envelope pretty limited to begin with.

That was not the question you originally posed:

" I don't get it. What performance are you trying to obtain that an inflight adjustable prop would provide? "

The answer I provided. I don't have much direct experience with LSA planes, the only two I've flown are the Sonex, and a Pietenpol, I can say that the take off performance was less than thrilling. I want all the ponies pulling when I'm at 200' on the take off roll. Then I want low speed engine ops at cruise speed to lessen engine wear, fuel consumption and heat(non-adiabatic).

An LSA can cruise at ~120Kts and sea level. This can translate into about 135-140Kts at 9500'. I don't know, but seriously suspect that I could get that up to around 150Kts at 6500' with a controllable prop, which is the whole process of the exercise in this thread.

 

[tsts4]

That was not the question you originally posed:

" I don't get it. What performance are you trying to obtain that an inflight adjustable prop would provide? "

My apologies- I was too obtuse with my OP. However I'm still not buying the performance gain on a typical LSA without hard data.

 

[docmirror]

My apologies- I was too obtuse with my OP. However I'm still not buying the performance gain on a typical LSA without hard data.

That's fair, as an engineer I can get behind that. There's a pretty good market in the EXP category that is non-LSA with both ground and in flight adjust props. I don't think people are using them for the added cost or cachet of having one. Like most things, if they provided no benefit, there would be no market, or a very small market.

I suspect, due to the nature of the low HP engines used in many LSAs that the economy/performance would be a boon. But as the FAA doesn't allow it, no one will know unless they take their plane out of the LSA category and test it, and then never, ever be allowed back into LSA, which is another problem.

 

[RyanShort1]

From what I have heard, the Beech Roby prop makes a much better Taylorcraft float plane...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2