LSA weight restrictions changing?

I believe the EASA European regulations have improved both the weight and TopSpeed limitations over the initial regs.

Seems like the EU is more concerned with a vibrant aviation industry than the USA. They also led the way in certified reg simplification.
 
The weight increase would be a good place to start,another ten knots of speed ,can probably be accomplished by tweaking the current motors.
 
frfly172 said:
The weight increase would be a good place to start,another ten knots of speed ,can probably be accomplished by tweaking the current motors.[/QUOTE

Most don't need tweeking. My Dad had a Remos and in Europe it comes with an electric constant speed prop with a top speed of 145kts. His had a fixed pitch prop and a RPM restriction to keep it under 120kts. Also in Europe the gross weight is 1500lbs.
Click to expand...
 
I sure hope so. My plane can easily handle a few hundred more pounds and with some tweaking some more speed. dumb for me to have to travel with half empty fuel tanks when I have a passenger just to meet these arbitrary limits.
 
Weight has been a long term complaint because it compromises structure. The LSA operator at KLHZ had their Remos destroyed by people training in it..the hard landings added up until the plane just wasn't airworthy anymore.

It would be nice to bring a few more planes into the group. What's the odds they'll raise it to 6000lbs and allow 6 seats? :D:p:p
 
bflynn said:
Weight has been a long term complaint because it compromises structure. The LSA operator at KLHZ had their Remos destroyed by people training in it..the hard landings added up until the plane just wasn't airworthy anymore.

It would be nice to bring a few more planes into the group. What's the odds they'll raise it to 6000lbs and allow 6 seats? :D:p:p
Click to expand...
Don't know about 6,000 and 6, but I think we're in for some significant changes. The FAA, EAA, etc. are not likely to enter a two-year process for a lousy 300-pound change in gross weight. With BasicMed, the groundwork has been established for not requiring commercial-style medicals for large complex privately-owned aircraft.

My guess:
1. Gross weight upped to 1,800 lbs. Additional allocation for floats (per current rules) and a BRS (similar to Part 103).
2. Limited to one passenger, regardless of seats
3. Stall limit now in "dirty" configuration, possibly another value specified for clean stall
4. Electric power allowed
5. Variable-pitch propellers allowed (byproduct of #4).
6. Max level-flight speed raised to 150, or eliminated entirely (rely on stall limit keeping things safe)

With nearly 15 years' experience with current Light Sport, and (by then) three years experience with BasicMed, I think they'll have a good basis for relaxing the rules quite a bit.

Ron Wanttaja
 
A group of us were just discussing this the other day. We agreed it is probably just a matter of time until the Sport Pilot and Recreational Pilot certificates somehow get merged.
 
bflynn said:
Weight has been a long term complaint because it compromises structure. The LSA operator at KLHZ had their Remos destroyed by people training in it..the hard landings added up until the plane just wasn't airworthy anymore.
Click to expand...

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” Edmund Burke

What few people realize is that this idea of very light aircraft being used for training was tried way back in the thirties - several companies attempted to make what would now be LSAs, but of course due to the light weight there are hardly any surviving examples outside of a couple museums.
PiperJ-3Cub02.jpg
 
NordicDave said:
In my opinion… Adding 200 pounds of gross weight improvement and 10 kts of top speed, would make the LSA market much more attractive as an option. Even with the two seat limitations.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree.
Retracts and variable\constant speed prop would be nice also. Make the planes more efficient. ;)
Also the Germans make an awesome LS version of the P-51D and are working on a Spit that just happen to have both options. :rollercoaster:
 
If the objective is to promote access to aviation it would make an awful lot of sense to have the U.S. rules somewhat in line with the European airframe rules to broaden the sales base for manufactures on either side of the pond.

We can be sure that will never happen.
 
frfly172 said:
The weight increase would be a good place to start,another ten knots of speed ,can probably be accomplished by tweaking the current motors.
Click to expand...
Lots of the non-US “Light Sport” planes are certified at higher weights in the 1500-1600 lb Range, or even four pax, elsewhere, unmodified. The Jabiru 250 is called a 450 overseas, and carries 4. The Paradise is another example, rated to 1500 everywhere but here on the same motor. The IBIS or the Sirius are two more that come to mind
 
FlyingElvii said:
Lots of the non-US “Light Sport” planes are certified at higher weights in the 1500-1600 lb Range, or even four pax, elsewhere, unmodified. The Jabiru 250 is called a 450 overseas, and carries 4. The Paradise is another example, rated to 1500 everywhere but here on the same motor. The IBIS or the Sirius are two more that come to mind
Click to expand...
I think the Czech Sport/PiperSport line was certified at higher in Europe as well. Thought I read somewhere 1600lbs, but I could be wrong.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” Edmund Burke

What few people realize is that this idea of very light aircraft being used for training was tried way back in the thirties - several companies attempted to make what would now be LSAs, but of course due to the light weight there are hardly any surviving examples outside of a couple museums.
PiperJ-3Cub02.jpg
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. :rolleyes:
 
Nobody in their right mind would buy a plane from the 50s, much less the 30s.
 
I WISH one could use an LSA for limited non-passenger Part 91 ops. We're flying a 40+ year old Cardinal and I'd love to try and see if a Pipistrel would work... since I doubt Cessna will ever build a new Cardinal.
 
I'd love to be able to use a (E)LSA for photo/videography work to get around expensive STC type stuff. Have a rough sketch of a husiness plan ready for it and a custom rig that we've flown in a 172 before. Any idiot with a drone can do stuff that even a licensed pilot with a commercial couldn't in a LSA.

And there are a few LSA's I'd be interested in buying tomorrow as a $100 burger grabber, if they had enough payload for me and my buddy.
 
Is there a NPRM posted for this yet, and if so what is the name of the NPRM and where can we find it?

AOPA doesn't seem to mention any of the news regarding the LSA weight increase rulemaking other than only Avweb.

EAA did mention they are working on LSA reform although it's not under a news article, only under the Top Issues page.
 
C
NordicDave said:
I believe the EASA European regulations have improved both the weight and TopSpeed limitations over the initial regs.

Seems like the EU is more concerned with a vibrant aviation industry than the USA. They also led the way in certified reg simplification.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have never flown a light aircraft in Europe if you believe this. Europe is a hodgepodge of regulations that have strangled private aviation.
 
NordicDave said:
Here’s an article I read recently in Flying Magazine on the topic.
Click to expand...
That article is dated October 2018. The "promised" date for the NPRM was months ago and I don't believe there has ever been a hint of anything directly from the FAA that the weight increase was real and in lb not Kg. I'm not holding my breath.

Nauga,
and a game of telephone
 
Lots of discussion about this over on sportpilottalk. The consensus from folks close to Terry Chasteen (FAA Program Manager for light sport aircraft) seems to be that any changes to the LSA rules regarding parameters like gross weight, cruise speed, stall speed, retractable gear, constant speed props, etc., will take three or four years.
 
Jeff767 said:
C


Clearly you have never flown a light aircraft in Europe if you believe this. Europe is a hodgepodge of regulations that have strangled private aviation.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but all I know is one can buy this airplane, factory built, retractable gear, constant speed prop, turbo engine, runs on MOGAS and out performs my Mooney in every category except passenger seats, useful load, baggage area and range. It takes off shorter, climbs faster, cruises faster, has a higher service ceiling, burns less gas, lands shorter, still flies farther than I personally am able to stand in a cockpit and stalls way slower. All of this is LSA, or "ultralight" over there, not experimental and not certified.

I WANT.

VMB VL3

iu
 
Yes, it is a fast and great local fun flying machine but the reason it outperforms you Mooney is because it maxes out at 1320 lbs gross weight , which means it is a fair weather type of aircraft only.
Again, great for what it was designed for but is not a replacement for a cross country , heavier plane like your Mooney.
 
Just because the VL3 is light doesn't inherently make it a fair weather aircraft only, though it won't be as solid as a heavier plane. But with its speed and retractable gear, while it may be "ultralight" under other countries' rules, it's not LSA in the US.
 
The listed price was around $80,000. I could not find if that was the fully loaded or just bare bones configuration.
 
Warmi said:
Yes, it is a fast and great local fun flying machine but the reason it outperforms you Mooney is because it maxes out at 1320 lbs gross weight , which means it is a fair weather type of aircraft only.
Again, great for what it was designed for but is not a replacement for a cross country , heavier plane like your Mooney.
Click to expand...

I get that. I think I am vastly different from most of regular forum posters in that I don't think useful load is the end all and be all of an airplane. I have no need to fill all the seats, fill the tanks all the way up, pack the baggage compartment full and then fly as far as I can go. However I think I'm pretty typical of the silent pilot population that don't post. 99.5% of the time I all by myself and hate flying longer than about 3 hours. The VL3 was made for me. I wish I could afford one. I would trade my Mooney in a heartbeat with zero regrets.

Also, these birds can be flown IFR all day here in the US and they are fully equipped to do so. My point of bringing this plane up is, to illustrate how much better Europe's "ultralights" are compared to our ultralights, or even LSAs. Not even a contest. Europe blows us away.

BTW, I went for a demo flight in VL3 at Oshkosh a few years ago and it was demonstrated to me that the performance numbers weren't just optimistic BS. I got some stick time and... love at first flight. Come on America!! Get with it!
 
I actually own and fly a similar plane from a competitor of VBM ( http://www.tl-ultralight.cz/en/ultralight-aircraft/tl-2000-sting-rg ) - although is a fixed gear version since that’s what can only be imported to this country at the moment.

I do pretty much exactly the type of flying you do - buzzing around , mostly by myself in a decent weather so this sort of plane is all I need ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top