Search the archive:
Simviation Main Site
|
Site Search
|
Upload Images
Simviation Forum
›
Real World
›
Real Aviation
› Light Sport Aircraft
(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)
‹
Previous Topic
|
Next Topic
›
Pages:
1
Light Sport Aircraft (Read 931 times)
Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 2:41pm
DaveSims
Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa
Gender:
Posts: 2453
Ok, as I mentioned in another post, I got to see one of the first of the PiperSport, as our FBO is a dealer for them. I was immediately impressed with the aircraft, until I read the operating handbook,
DAY VFR ONLY
. After seeing that, and a little research, it seems aircraft certified Light Sport, all carry that limitation.
With that knowledge, I believe that the manufacturers of the Light Sport aircraft have gone about it completely wrong. The original intent of the Light Sport program was to give people a cheaper avenue to fly. However, almost all of the Light Sport aircraft being produced cost more than $100,000 US,
for an airplane that can only be flown Day VFR
. Looking at the PiperSport, I can see why. Why do you need a full glass cockpit for Day VFR? A compass, airspeed indicator, altimeter, and a few engine gauges would suffice, and save $20,000-$30,000, not to mention weight. Almost all Light Sport aircraft also have ballistic parachute systems. Flying only Day VFR, you should never be in a situation to need one of those. There goes another 100 lbs of unnecessary equipment, and maybe another $5,000 to $10,000 off of the sticker price.
I would think it would be possibly for some manufacturer to create a basic Light Sport aircraft, since that is what they are meant to be, and be able to do it for under $60,000 new.
Dave
www.flymcw.com
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #1 -
Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 3:06pm
Hagar
Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica
Posts: 33159
I understand that the PiperSport is the CZAW SportCruiser built under licence. This is a Czech design which is becoming popular in Britain where the NPPL restrictions are slightly different from the Light Sport category in the US.
I've always thought that some of these "Light Sport" aircraft are very expensive & not suitable for the average sport pilot. There are some types which are much more economical & times are hard at the moment. I know several pilots who can no longer afford to run their own aircraft. We'll have to wait & see if the new Piper will 'take off'.
Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the
Fox Four Group
Need help? Try
Grumpy's Lair
My photo gallery
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #2 -
Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 3:23pm
beaky
Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA
Gender:
Posts: 14187
Part of the problem is that the Sport Pilot rating only allows daytime VFR flight...
I often hear from pilot wannabes who are thinking the Sport thing is some sort of cheap short-cut into flying (including starting out Sport and then going on to the PPASEL), but unless you get an older type that meets the criteria (Cub, Champ, Luscombe) and are satisfied to fly under the limitations, you won't be saving money. The price of these new Sport machines bears that out.
I don't get the glass panel thing, either, but I guess there's a market for it. Heck, even the new Wacos are being offered with IFR-certified glass suites. Not sure who's out there shooting WAAS approaches in IMC in biplanes, but there you have it.
The Sport rules, for pilots and machines, really most benefit those who just want to fly something more substantial than an ultralight or glider, but do not want to risk failing the FAA medical exam. For those folks, it's a godsend.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #3 -
Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 3:27pm
specter177
Offline
Colonel
Check out the Maverick
Flying Car!
I-TEC - X35
Gender:
Posts: 1406
What I don't understand is why the AIRCRAFT is limited to that. What is wrong with it that it's not allowed night flights?
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #4 -
Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 3:47pm
Hagar
Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica
Posts: 33159
specter177 wrote
on Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 3:27pm:
What I don't understand is why the AIRCRAFT is limited to that. What is wrong with it that it's not allowed night flights?
Not sure I understand it either. It might be a question of certification category. That particular aircraft might be registered under the LSA category. Providing it meets the requirements I can see no reason why you couldn't register a light sport type under full FAA approval.
Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the
Fox Four Group
Need help? Try
Grumpy's Lair
My photo gallery
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #5 -
Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 4:02pm
DaveSims
Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa
Gender:
Posts: 2453
Hagar wrote
on Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 3:47pm:
specter177 wrote
on Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 3:27pm:
What I don't understand is why the AIRCRAFT is limited to that. What is wrong with it that it's not allowed night flights?
Not sure I understand it either. It might be a question of certification category. That particular aircraft might be registered under the LSA category. Providing it meets the requirements I can see no reason why you couldn't register a light sport type under full FAA approval.
I always knew the LSA pilots were restricted to day, but I always thought if a private pilot (myself) was in a LSA aircraft, I could exercise the priveleges of my private pilot. Apparently not so I've found out. The aircraft is certified as a LSA, and subject to all the rules there of. It is not a matter of how it is registered (LSA's all have N-Numbers anyway).
I thought the PiperSport had a lot of promis (very roomy, good range and economy, just as fast as a Cherokee or 172), and maybe they will sell a version that is a certified aircraft. But I know of at least a couple of potential owners who decided against it because of the day restriction. Plus for that kind of money, I can get a really nice 182 or even Bonanza.
My biggest beef was the price of these glorified ultralights. They are packed full of the newest and greatest technology (and charge you for it), but aren't allowed to use it.
Dave
www.flymcw.com
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #6 -
Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 4:05pm
Hagar
Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica
Posts: 33159
The FAA seems to have its knickers in a twist over this Light Sport thing. Other countries seem able to cope with it.
Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the
Fox Four Group
Need help? Try
Grumpy's Lair
My photo gallery
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #7 -
Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 6:55pm
Brett_Henderson
Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB
Gender:
Posts: 3593
As Rotty mentioned; whether intended or not, the LSA thing found a solid niche... A means for older pilots to keep flying reasonable aircraft, after they reach a point where they will not pass a medical exam (this might be me as soon as October). Whether or not that's a good thing, is subjective. I know a fella flying LSA whose health has him pushing his limits backing a car out of a driveway.
As for IFR flight; the type of commitment needed to become a competent instrument pilot throws the cost-saving thing out the window.
I can't comment on the Piper, but I have plenty of exposure to one of the most popular LSA models.. a 'Flight Design' CTLS. I could fill a thread with the reasons I won't even climb back into one. It has a complete glass panel, which
IS
certified for instrument training only. Why that's a bad idea could be another thread... but we can start with the fact the the panel is junk. The mechanisms/electronics for the HSI alone, are unreliable, and innaccurate. The engine gauges are awaiting a factory recall. The AP guy I talked to, as our club's CTLS was getting repairs has an equally low opinion of not only the avionics and instrumentation, but the airframe itself. He pointed out several potential problem spots in how the frame was modified on the fly; where the exhaust system needed to be re-routed.. the regulator circuitry is cheap and problematic.. and (get this), the "receptacle" for attaching an external battery ended up being two, bared wires extending under the cowling with a bizarre support/protecion arrangement that guarantees a short-circuit. The landing gear will crack the fuselage within a dozen landings, and the tail has a gigantic "bumper" because tail-strikes are inevitable. It's uncomfortably twitchy during takeoff in ANY wind.. and ridiculously uncomfortable in any turbulence.
Now.. that aside, assuming most LSA are sound designs, gets us back to another glitch. Sure, it's cheaper per hour for training, but once licensed, you'll have trouble finding one to rent and fly on your own. Insurance companies still aren't keen on non-medically-certified pilots, with less than PPL training, going off solo. So.. you'll end up having to BUY an airplane to fly without an instructor.. which makes the whole cost-saving thing moot.
Any of you who've been here long, know that I think this whole LSA thing was not only a solution for a problem that doesn't exist; it creates a whole set of new problems.
The airplanes themselves can be great ways to ecomomically punch holes in the sky for an already licensed pilot. But this whole theory of making learning flying cheap, is oxymoronic.
As for instrument flight in general.. LSAs aren't a very stable platform for knowingly venturing into IMC. I do believe that an experienced instrument pilot should have the option for equiping his LSA with good avionics/instruments and getting it certified for instrument flight. Trick there, is that a very small percentage of experienced instrument pilots would even want to fly off into poor weather, in a 90hp airplane weighing 1200 pounds.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #8 -
Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 8:03pm
DaveSims
Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa
Gender:
Posts: 2453
Brett_Henderson wrote
on Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 6:55pm:
As Rotty mentioned; whether intended or not, the LSA thing found a solid niche... A means for older pilots to keep flying reasonable aircraft, after they reach a point where they will not pass a medical exam (this might be me as soon as October). Whether or not that's a good thing, is subjective. I know a fella flying LSA whose health has him pushing his limits backing a car out of a driveway.
As for IFR flight; the type of commitment needed to become a competent instrument pilot throws the cost-saving thing out the window.
I can't comment on the Piper, but I have plenty of exposure to one of the most popular LSA models.. a 'Flight Design' CTLS. I could fill a thread with the reasons I won't even climb back into one. It has a complete glass panel, which
IS
certified for instrument training only. Why that's a bad idea could be another thread... but we can start with the fact the the panel is junk. The mechanisms/electronics for the HSI alone, are unreliable, and innaccurate. The engine gauges are awaiting a factory recall. The AP guy I talked to, as our club's CTLS was getting repairs has an equally low opinion of not only the avionics and instrumentation, but the airframe itself. He pointed out several potential problem spots in how the frame was modified on the fly; where the exhaust system needed to be re-routed.. the regulator circuitry is cheap and problematic.. and (get this), the "receptacle" for attaching an external battery ended up being two, bared wires extending under the cowling with a bizarre support/protecion arrangement that guarantees a short-circuit. The landing gear will crack the fuselage within a dozen landings, and the tail has a gigantic "bumper" because tail-strikes are inevitable. It's uncomfortably twitchy during takeoff in ANY wind.. and ridiculously uncomfortable in any turbulence.
Now.. that aside, assuming most LSA are sound designs, gets us back to another glitch. Sure, it's cheaper per hour for training, but once licensed, you'll have trouble finding one to rent and fly on your own. Insurance companies still aren't keen on non-medically-certified pilots, with less than PPL training, going off solo. So.. you'll end up having to BUY an airplane to fly without an instructor.. which makes the whole cost-saving thing moot.
Any of you who've been here long, know that I think this whole LSA thing was not only a solution for a problem that doesn't exist; it creates a whole set of new problems.
The airplanes themselves can be great ways to ecomomically punch holes in the sky for an already licensed pilot. But this whole theory of making learning flying cheap, is oxymoronic.
As for instrument flight in general.. LSAs aren't a very stable platform for knowingly venturing into IMC. I do believe that an experienced instrument pilot should have the option for equiping his LSA with good avionics/instruments and getting it certified for instrument flight. Trick there, is that a very small percentage of experienced instrument pilots would even want to fly off into poor weather, in a 90hp airplane weighing 1200 pounds.
I am a private pilot, but have never finished my instrument training. When I first saw the PiperSport, I was quite impressed, it was wide enough for me and the missus, which a Cherokee is tight. It has a decent cruise speed for what it is, looks like a real airplane (indeed is all metal), and was very comfortable. But the day limitation is what chaps me. I don't fly often at night, but I would hate that hanging over my head anytime we travel anywhere (have to be home before dark!) I have heard some do fly theirs at night (it is equipped, although not certified), but I can just imagine IF anything every happened, your insurance company would act like they didn't know you, and the FAA would leave you to hang.
That being said, the other part of my rant was why they spend so much on avionics and instrumentation, that you truly do not need if flying by LSA rules. For the money, I'd rather find a decent 172 or Archer, and have a fully capable aircraft.
Dave
www.flymcw.com
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #9 -
Jul 14
th
, 2010 at 11:01am
specter177
Offline
Colonel
Check out the Maverick
Flying Car!
I-TEC - X35
Gender:
Posts: 1406
Well, if you're not a sport pilot, don't get a sport plane. Buy a used certified plane, preferably one with 4 seats and an IFR panel. There are many that are cheaper than a new LSA, and are proven designs.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #10 -
Jul 15
th
, 2010 at 3:55pm
beaky
Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA
Gender:
Posts: 14187
specter177 wrote
on Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 3:27pm:
What I don't understand is why the AIRCRAFT is limited to that. What is wrong with it that it's not allowed night flights?
There's no night restriction on the
aircraft
; it's the
pilots
...
If a LSA has the equipment needed for legal night flight, it can legally be flown night VFR... but
not
by a Sport Pilot.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #11 -
Jul 15
th
, 2010 at 4:00pm
DaveSims
Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa
Gender:
Posts: 2453
beaky wrote
on Jul 15
th
, 2010 at 3:55pm:
specter177 wrote
on Jul 12
th
, 2010 at 3:27pm:
What I don't understand is why the AIRCRAFT is limited to that. What is wrong with it that it's not allowed night flights?
There's no night restriction on the
aircraft
; it's the
pilots
...
If a LSA has the equipment needed for legal night flight, it can legally be flown night VFR... but
not
by a Sport Pilot.
The aircraft is equipped, but is placarded and has DAY VFR ONLY in the operator's manual. That was my question, why go through the trouble of equipping it if it won't be doing it.
As for buying it versus a real airplane, I many liked the PiperSport because it meets all my mission requirements, and has a 46.5 in wide cabin, something not many other light aircraft that I have found have. There was an opportunity to get into a partnership on one, for a reasonable price, but the DAY issue killed it.
Dave
www.flymcw.com
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #12 -
Jul 16
th
, 2010 at 5:09am
beaky
Offline
Global Moderator
Uhhhh.... yup!
Newark, NJ USA
Gender:
Posts: 14187
DaveSims wrote
on Jul 15
th
, 2010 at 4:00pm:
The aircraft is equipped, but is placarded and has DAY VFR ONLY in the operator's manual. That was my question, why go through the trouble of equipping it if it won't be doing it.
Aha... I didn't know about the placard. But I have heard that the PS can be flown at night by a PPASEL... I can't think of any other reason why it would have lights.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #13 -
Jul 16
th
, 2010 at 1:46pm
Ivan
Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands
Gender:
Posts: 6058
So its basically the same as getting winter wheels for your Audi S6 and the 'no more than 210 kmh' sticker on the window because they dont have winter wheels over speed category 'V'... You can do it but its not legal
Russian planes:
IL-76 (all standard length ones)
,
Tu-154 and Il-62
,
Tu-134
and
An-24RV
&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found
here
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #14 -
Jul 16
th
, 2010 at 3:05pm
DaveSims
Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa
Gender:
Posts: 2453
Ivan wrote
on Jul 16
th
, 2010 at 1:46pm:
So its basically the same as getting winter wheels for your Audi S6 and the 'no more than 210 kmh' sticker on the window because they dont have winter wheels over speed category 'V'... You can do it but its not legal
And I have heard some folks are flying their PiperSports at night. But just imagine something not good were to happen. You would be very alone very quick. Your aircraft insurance probably would not help you at all, since you were operating outside of its legal limitations. The FAA would be looking to hang you for the same reason. If anyone was hurt, they would be able to sue you to no end. Even though it is a paper limitation, I would be careful.
Dave
www.flymcw.com
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #15 -
Aug 2
nd
, 2010 at 9:40pm
DaveSims
Offline
Colonel
Clear Lake, Iowa
Gender:
Posts: 2453
Ok, I have learned why the PiperSport is not certified at night. It actually has nothing to do with the LSA cert. The Czech sport aircraft (which Piper bought and relabeled), is certified at night. However when Piper asked the FAA to cert it as the PiperSport, they noticed the white navigation lights (which are wingtip mounted instead of on the tail) are not completely visible from directly aft, due to the shape of the wingtip. There is talk of a fix, basically a white led mounted on the tail, which would remove the night restriction.
Dave
www.flymcw.com
Back to top
IP Logged
Pages:
1
‹
Previous Topic
|
Next Topic
›
« Home
‹ Board
Top of this page
Forum Jump »
Home
» 10 most recent Posts
» 10 most recent Topics
Current Flight Simulator Series
- Flight Simulator X
- FS 2004 - A Century of Flight
- Adding Aircraft Traffic (AI) & Gates
- Flight School
- Flightgear
- MS Flight
Graphic Gallery
- Simviation Screenshots Showcase
- Screenshot Contest
- Edited Screenshots
- Photos & Cameras
- Payware Screenshot Showcase
- Studio V Screenshot Workshop
- Video
- The Cage
Design Forums
- Aircraft & 3D Design
- Scenery & Panel Design
- Aircraft Repainting
- Designer Feedback
General
- General Discussion
- Humour
- Music, Arts & Entertainment
- Sport
Computer Hardware & Software Forum
- Hardware
- Tweaking & Overclocking
- Computer Games & Software
- HomeBuild Cockpits
Addons Most Wanted
- Aircraft Wanted
- Other Add-ons Wanted
Real World
- Real Aviation ««
- Specific Aircraft Types
- Autos
- History
On-line Interactive Flying
- Virtual Airlines Events & Messages
- Multiplayer
Simviation Site
- Simviation News & Info
- Suggestions for these forums
- Site Questions & Feedback
- Site Problems & Broken Links
Combat Flight Simulators
- Combat Flight Simulator 3
- Combat Flight Simulator 2
- Combat Flight Simulator
- CFS Development
- IL-2 Sturmovik
Other Websites
- Your Site
- Other Sites
Payware
- Payware
Old Flight Simulator Series
- FS 2002
- FS 2000
- Flight Simulator 98
Simviation Forum
» Powered by
YaBB 2.5 AE
!
YaBB Forum Software
© 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.