Should the ATSM standards for LSA be reviewed?

Should the ATSM standards for LSA be professionally reviewed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 40.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 52.0%

  • Screw standards

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • Total voters
    25
Hell, I don't know what they are. I've looked in the Embry-Riddle library, and, we've got them. What do you want me to look up? I think we've got the whole series of the books. Ask and ye shall receive.

After a little bit of looking around, and I found some spec's for the CH601XL, but no Va. Everything I've found for the Vne is right around 140 KIAS
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Hell, I don't know what they are. I've looked in the Embry-Riddle library, and, we've got them. What do you want me to look up? I think we've got the whole series of the books. Ask and ye shall receive.

After a little bit of looking around, and I found some spec's for the CH601XL, but no Va. Everything I've found for the Vne is right around 140 KIAS
Click to expand...

I'll get back to you on the standards, are they in electronic form????(I'd take em all:smilewinkgrin:)

Jay, if I was in level flight at altitude, say 5000' and I left the throttle in, how much rate of descent would I be looking at to hit 140? Oh yeah, what is the highest number on the ASI?
 
Henning said:
In level flight what percent power are you carrying for those speeds?
Click to expand...
I power back to 2100 RPM to hit 90 KIAS in level flight. For reference, 2550 is 75% cruise power at 5000 feet or so, and produces a 115 KTAS cruise at that altitude.

Henning said:
Jay, if I was in level flight at altitude, say 5000' and I left the throttle in, how much rate of descent would I be looking at to hit 140? Oh yeah, what is the highest number on the ASI?
Click to expand...
The ASI goes up to 160. I would think it would take greater than a 1000 FPM descent to hit 140 KIAS at full throttle. I've never tried it, and don't intend to.
 
Henning said:
I'll get back to you on the standards, are they in electronic form????(I'd take em all:smilewinkgrin:)

Jay, if I was in level flight at altitude, say 5000' and I left the throttle in, how much rate of descent would I be looking at to hit 140? Oh yeah, what is the highest number on the ASI?
Click to expand...

Nope, they sadly are in paper form, with really big, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University use only printed on them.

However, here's one that I think might be important.

From F2245-07 (Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane)

5: Structure
5.3 Control Surface and System Loads:
5.3.2 Control System Loads-Each part of the primary control system situated between the stops and the control surfaces must be designed for the loads corresponding to at least 125% of the computed hinge moments of the movable control surfaces resulting from the loads in the conditions prescribed in 5.3.1 through 5.7.3. In computing the hinge moments, reliable aerodynamic data must be used. in no case may the load in any part of the system be less than those resulting form the application of 60% of the pilot forces described in 5.3.3. In addition, the system limit loads need not exceed the loads that can be produced by the pilot. Pilot forces used for design need not exceed the maximum pilot forces prescribed in 5.3.3.

5.3.3 Loads Resulting from Limit Pilot Forces-The main control systems for the direct control of the airplane about its longitudianl, lateral, or yaw axis, including the supporting points and stops, must be designed for the limit loads resulting from the limit pilot forces as follows:
5.3.3.1 Pitch- 445N(newtons) (100lb) at the grips of the stick or wheel.
5.3.3.2 Roll- 180N (40.5lb) at the grips of the stick or wheel
5.3.3.3 Yaw- 580N (130lb) acting forward on one rudder pedal.
5.3.3.4 The rudder control system must be designed to a load of 580N (130lb) per pdeal acting simultaneously on both pedals in the forward direction.
5.3.4 Dual-Control Systems- Dual-contorl systems must be designed for the loads resulting from each pilot applying 0.75 times the load specified in 5.3.3 with the pilots acting in opposition.
5.3.5 Secondary Control Systmes- Secondary control ssytems, such as those for flaps and trim control must be designed for the maximum forces that a pilot is likely to apply.
5.3.6 Control System Stiffness and Stretch-The amount of control surface or tab movement available to the pilot shall not be dangerously reduced by elastic stretch or shortening of any system in any condition.
5.3.7 Ground Gust Conditions- Omitted (i didn't want to type a massive equation)
5.3.8 Control Surface Mass Balance Weights- If applicable shall be designed for:
5.3.8.1- The 16x of the limit load normal to the surface
5.3.8.2- The 8x of the limit load fore and aft and parallel to the hinge line
5.3.9-(Deals with flaps only, ommited)
5.3.10- All primary controls shall have stops within the system to withstand the greater of pilot force, 125% of surface loads or ground gust loads.


The bold was added by me, in what I personally think could be an issue with the 601XL
 
jmaynard said:
I power back to 2100 RPM to hit 90 KIAS in level flight. For reference, 2550 is 75% cruise power at 5000 feet or so, and produces a 115 KTAS cruise at that altitude.


The ASI goes up to 160. I would think it would take greater than a 1000 FPM descent to hit 140 KIAS at full throttle. I've never tried it, and don't intend to.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmmm.... I can see someone going for greater than 1000fpm descent with full throttle still in.... Looks like a reasonably clean plane, fair to assume it accelerates quickly with the nose down?

For some reason the wings are collapsing at a rate to be considered by any standard "Outside the Norm". So Why? The early Bos had a problem where people would depart from flight regimes inside the operational envelope and break the plane trying regain proper flight parameters. These issues were addressed decades ago and structural reinforcements were applied, yet even today you hear "I wouldn't buy a Bo, the tails break off." If the same thing is happening to your plane, it needs to be figured out before you have a grounded orphan.

There is also this control force/balance issue that is quite hazardous especially when things are going wrong and you are operating at the bottom end of the envelope trying to dig your way back into it while avoiding a loss of control near the ground.
 
Last edited:
KSCessnaDriver said:
Nope, they sadly are in paper form, with really big, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University use only printed on them.

However, here's one that I think might be important.

From F2245-07 (Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane)

5: Structure
5.3 Control Surface and System Loads:
5.3.2 Control System Loads-Each part of the primary control system situated between the stops and the control surfaces must be designed for the loads corresponding to at least 125% of the computed hinge moments of the movable control surfaces resulting from the loads in the conditions prescribed in 5.3.1 through 5.7.3. In computing the hinge moments, reliable aerodynamic data must be used. in no case may the load in any part of the system be less than those resulting form the application of 60% of the pilot forces described in 5.3.3. In addition, the system limit loads need not exceed the loads that can be produced by the pilot. Pilot forces used for design need not exceed the maximum pilot forces prescribed in 5.3.3.

5.3.3 Loads Resulting from Limit Pilot Forces-The main control systems for the direct control of the airplane about its longitudianl, lateral, or yaw axis, including the supporting points and stops, must be designed for the limit loads resulting from the limit pilot forces as follows:
5.3.3.1 Pitch- 445N(newtons) (100lb) at the grips of the stick or wheel.
5.3.3.2 Roll- 180N (40.5lb) at the grips of the stick or wheel
5.3.3.3 Yaw- 580N (130lb) acting forward on one rudder pedal.
5.3.3.4 The rudder control system must be designed to a load of 580N (130lb) per pdeal acting simultaneously on both pedals in the forward direction.
5.3.4 Dual-Control Systems- Dual-contorl systems must be designed for the loads resulting from each pilot applying 0.75 times the load specified in 5.3.3 with the pilots acting in opposition.
5.3.5 Secondary Control Systmes- Secondary control ssytems, such as those for flaps and trim control must be designed for the maximum forces that a pilot is likely to apply.
5.3.6 Control System Stiffness and Stretch-The amount of control surface or tab movement available to the pilot shall not be dangerously reduced by elastic stretch or shortening of any system in any condition.
5.3.7 Ground Gust Conditions- Omitted (i didn't want to type a massive equation)
5.3.8 Control Surface Mass Balance Weights- If applicable shall be designed for:
5.3.8.1- The 16x of the limit load normal to the surface
5.3.8.2- The 8x of the limit load fore and aft and parallel to the hinge line
5.3.9-(Deals with flaps only, ommited)
5.3.10- All primary controls shall have stops within the system to withstand the greater of pilot force, 125% of surface loads or ground gust loads.


The bold was added by me, in what I personally think could be an issue with the 601XL
Click to expand...

How is that? Do you think that tabs are at play? What and what type of tabs does the 601 use?
 
Henning said:
How is that? Do you think that tabs are at play? What and what type of tabs does the 601 use?
Click to expand...

I've got no idea. I was thinking along the lines of, control system and amount of traveled caused by an "elastic stretch" some where in the system. I'm way out of my league here, I'm just a pilot, not an engineer. I was just trying to make a somewhat educated guess. Don't shoot the messenger:D
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I've got no idea. I was thinking along the lines of, control system and amount of traveled caused by an "elastic stretch" some where in the system. I'm way out of my league here, I'm just a pilot, not an engineer. I was just trying to make a somewhat educated guess. Don't shoot the messenger:D
Click to expand...

Not shooting at all, just curious, you may have some knowledge about the system I don't, because I'm ignorant as to the specifics of this aircraft. LSA has no particular advantage for me that I can't get in spades going experimental and get a plane that will meet my desires better for even less money. Granted, I have no medical issues that would cause me to be flying with a valid medical. That's why I haven't been paying specific attention to LSAs, but I do have an interest in how they succeed because it's the opening rounds of the FAA easing its grip on GA and I don't want to see that F-d up. The LSA industry really owes it to the rest of us not to screw this up, or they go to the top of my "Purge" list when I become Ruler of the World!.
 
Henning said:
Not shooting at all, just curious, you may have some knowledge about the system I don't, because I'm ignorant as to the specifics of this aircraft. LSA has no particular advantage for me that I can't get in spades going experimental and get a plane that will meet my desires better for even less money. Granted, I have no medical issues that would cause me to be flying with a valid medical. That's why I haven't been paying specific attention to LSAs, but I do have an interest in how they succeed because it's the opening rounds of the FAA easing its grip on GA and I don't want to see that F-d up. The LSA industry really owes it to the rest of us not to screw this up, or they go to the top of my "Purge" list when I become Ruler of the World!.
Click to expand...

I'm just young and dumb enough to play the, hey, looks like cheap time game. The only reason the specific reg popped out at me, dealt with the control systems and stretching. Not really sure if that is an issue or not. I'm trying to get an electronic copy, but don't hold me to it.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I'm just young and dumb enough to play the, hey, looks like cheap time game. The only reason the specific reg popped out at me, dealt with the control systems and stretching. Not really sure if that is an issue or not. I'm trying to get an electronic copy, but don't hold me to it.
Click to expand...
If you want cheap time you can go balls to the walls with, look at the Midget Mustang aka Busby Mustang... and Cassuett or any of the Formula type racers. You can often get one for <$10k, competitive ones go between $30-$50k mostly and this comes with campaign spares and such. Top end concerns can be had for <$100k. These are great fun to fly and make commuting several hundred miles like I used to cheaper and faster.

Also as for career development, it is the cheapest time possible that makes the reviewer go "Hey, 1000hrs in an MM flying XC, that counts for something" rather than glance at another "1000hrs CFI 15/72", and a plane like an MM makes it pretty cheap to just pack a backpack and go tour the country. Even the big Jet FBO will smile when you pull up and stick you under the wing of a jet in the hangar no charge. Some because they like it, some because they don't want a jet blowing it away. Backpacking GA is pretty fun. I've been invited home and to a lot of parties over the years by FBO staff.
 
Not to hijack the thread here, but I'll say this. I've got two planes in mind for building down the road. Either the Taylor Coot or some version of the Piel Emeraude. Both look really nice, and they seem like fairly decent designs.

Hijack over
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Not to hijack the thread here, but I'll say this. I've got two planes in mind for building down the road. Either the Taylor Coot or some version of the Piel Emeraude. Both look really nice, and they seem like fairly decent designs.

Hijack over
Click to expand...

I like the Coot, I'd want at least 160hp in it. Great choice as a backpack camping plane, although high wings provide the tarp/fly for the tent advantage. I'd love to get an experimental amphib for this, but most of the small ones I see have freeboard/sea worthiness issues for some of the places I want to go.
 
I've always thought it would be cool to have some experimental like the Coot, except in a 4 place variety, along the lines of an Lake LA-4. Big enough to get 4 people, and some baggage in the thing. Amphibious, of course.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I've always thought it would be cool to have some experimental like the Coot, except in a 4 place variety, along the lines of an Lake LA-4. Big enough to get 4 people, and some baggage in the thing. Amphibious, of course.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawind_(aircraft)

Not cheap, a kit and not LSA, but if LSA doesn't screw this up, I may be able to buy a factory built one one day.
 
I wonder if somebody could come up with something along the lines of a Grumman Widgeon, except in a four place model, with either two Rotax 912's or something along the lines of two IO-235/240's. That would be a sweet plane.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I've always thought it would be cool to have some experimental like the Coot, except in a 4 place variety, along the lines of an Lake LA-4. Big enough to get 4 people, and some baggage in the thing. Amphibious, of course.
Click to expand...
Thurston Trojan (aka Seafire).
seafire2a.jpg


Plans-built only, though, and you'd have to find a used set for sale.

Ron Wanttaja
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I wonder if somebody could come up with something along the lines of a Grumman Widgeon, except in a four place model, with either two Rotax 912's or something along the lines of two IO-235/240's. That would be a sweet plane.
Click to expand...

TECNAM P2006T - The Future
twin%20over%20sea.jpg
 
Except, last time I checked, the Tecnam wasn't a flying boat. I like the Tecnam, and I like they went with the G950 (experimental G1000) but I really think a four place flying boat might be able to establish itself in a nice little niche market.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Except, last time I checked, the Tecnam wasn't a flying boat. I like the Tecnam, and I like they went with the G950 (experimental G1000) but I really think a four place flying boat might be able to establish itself in a nice little niche market.
Click to expand...

Just showing that there is a multi-engine Rotax powered plane. Might be at Sun-n-Fun.
 
Might be at Sun n Fun? I was told in Sebring that it would be at Sun n Fun. Plus, this isn't the first multi Rotax. Look up the AirCam/Drifer. Open cockpit, twin pusher rotax. Neat looking stuff. http://www.aircam.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top