dave jackson

The use of the Lycoming 320 engine is at or above the top end of the
proposed EAA Light Sport Aircraft category (1,232 lbs max. GW). I assume
that the EAA SportPilot/Light Sport Aircraft will be successful, and that it
will cause a decrease in the production of slightly heavier aircraft.

The question is; Will the production of EAA Light Sport Aircraft decrease or
increase the production of Lycoming 320 engines?

The question relates to 'should I design a craft based on using the Lycoming
O-320-B3C

Thanks.

Dave J. http://www.UniCopter.com

morgans

Can you list any planes that are currently using a Lyc 320 that can meet
the weight of LSA, and keep a useful load of say, 650 lbs.?

I think your "over" is more accurate.
--
Jim in NC

ron natalie

Why do you want a useful load of 650? It's a two seater...two two hundred pounders
and over 40 gallons of fuel? The question is how draggy you gotta make the plane
to keep it under 115 with 160HP.

morgans

I would like to carry 2 200 ponders, 100 lbs luggage, and 50 gallons of
fuel, for long legs, and plenty of range. Also, it should contain no
unobtainium.

OK, I could get more realistic, and say 550 lbs useful load. I still think
that would be tough to do with a 320.

And the top speed issue? I'm hoping that disappears. If not, one hell of a
flat pitch climb prop ought to do the job. <g>
--
Jim in NC

rich s.

I still haven't seen anything in the proposed rule that will allow any plane
but an "approved" factory built plane.

Rich "Trust me, I'm from the government" S.

morgans

???????????????????????????????????????????????

Hmmmm. I didn't read it that way. Anyone else care to weigh in?
--
Jim in NC

rich s.

Here's the text. . . .

"These are the two new airworthiness certificates that would be established:
a.. A new experimental light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate for
existing light-sport aircraft that do not meet the requirements of Part 103
(ultralight vehicles) of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
b.. New special, light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificates for
light-sport aircraft that meet an airworthiness standard developed by
industry.
These are the two new airworthiness certificates that would be
established:

a.. A new experimental light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate
for existing light-sport aircraft that do not meet the requirements of Part
103 (ultralight vehicles) of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
b.. New special, light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificates for
light-sport aircraft that meet an airworthiness standard developed by
industry. "
Nuthin' in here about homebuilts that I kin see. As far as I can tell, this
is just creating a new class of "Certified" "Factory built and approved"
airplanes - with the exception of reining in the illegal, overweight
ultralights.

Rich "Call me skeptical" S.

rich s.

Do not archive


Oops......... Please excuse the repeated quote on my previous post - I hit
<cntrl><V> twice when nothing happened the first time, then failed to proof
read the text.

Rich S.

ed wischmeyer

After tracking this closely for a few years, here's a few points of
"clarification", if I've got my facts straight:
* The proposal allows "sport pilots" to fly any aircraft which meets the
"light sport aircraft" limitations, regardless of whether said aircraft
is certificated LSA, experimental / amateur built, or standard category,
but possibly subject to some limitations.
* "Light sport aircraft" can avoid all of the certification hassles of
standard category, and the 51% rule of experimental amateur built, by
meeting the consensus standards for LSA.
* There is no "light sport aircraft experimental amateur built" -- those
are two separate categories.
* "Light sport aircraft" can be flown by "real" pilots, also, but this
will not necessarily exempt the "real" pilots from the same limitations
as "sport" pilots.

Haven't taken the time to read the final rule that's going through the
works. I'm waiting for the Cliff notes...

Ed Wischmeyer

morgans

Looks to me, that there needs to be a way for the factory builts to be flown
for testing. That would be meeting consensus standards. If I want to build
one, and meet consensus standards, I say I am going into production, and
this is my prototype. Work for you?
--
Jim in NC