I've been investigating the possibility of building a Q1 and having it
registered as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, and was wandering
what you guys thought about this.

Do you think it could be done?

According to what I have found published on the Q1, listed flight
specifications put it right on the edge of the acceptable parameters
for an LSA class aircraft. It is well within the weight limits of the
class as well as the other requirements.

LSA limitations:

Max Gross Weight: 1320lbs
Max Airspeed: 138mph
Max Stall Speed: 51.7mph (45knots)


All comments pertaining to this discussion are welcomed.


Thanks,
Matt C. in Atlanta

Matt,



The published stall speed for the Q1 is 53 mph which is just a bit too high
to qualify for LSA.



Dan LaFon

League City, TX



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
matt_v01
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:46 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?



I've been investigating the possibility of building a Q1 and having it
registered as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, and was wandering
what you guys thought about this.

Do you think it could be done?

According to what I have found published on the Q1, listed flight
specifications put it right on the edge of the acceptable parameters
for an LSA class aircraft. It is well within the weight limits of the
class as well as the other requirements.

LSA limitations:

Max Gross Weight: 1320lbs
Max Airspeed: 138mph
Max Stall Speed: 51.7mph (45knots)

All comments pertaining to this discussion are welcomed.

Thanks,
Matt C. in Atlanta

Matt, look in the Archives on this list. This has come up before and I believe it has been concluded that the Q1 will not qualify.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Doug Humble" <hawkidoug@...> wrote:

Matt, look in the Archives on this list. This has come up before and

I believe it has been concluded that the Q1 will not qualify.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: matt_v01
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:45 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?


I've been investigating the possibility of building a Q1 and having it
registered as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, and was wandering
what you guys thought about this.

Do you think it could be done?

According to what I have found published on the Q1, listed flight
specifications put it right on the edge of the acceptable parameters
for an LSA class aircraft. It is well within the weight limits of the
class as well as the other requirements.

LSA limitations:

Max Gross Weight: 1320lbs
Max Airspeed: 138mph
Max Stall Speed: 51.7mph (45knots)

All comments pertaining to this discussion are welcomed.

Thanks,
Matt C. in Atlanta

I searched for LSA, and could only come up with a definite answer of
NO for the Q2/200/Dragonfly's.

From what I found it appears that the stall could be lowered slightly
by increasing AOI or perhaps building lighter if possible. The stall
only need be reduced by about 1.5mph (at least according to printed
literature).

Which brings me to another question, what is the real stall speed of
the aircraft? Reading in the archives leads me to believe that the
53mph stall stated by QAC is a little unrealistic.

To me it looks like it could still be possible.

It is my understanding that the FAA is not likely to approve a LSA
certificate unless manufacture data indicates all of the parameters can be
met. In the case of the Quickie, the FAA is unlikely to approve Light Sport
even if a builder modifies the Quickie in some manor to reduce the stall
speed.

Sorry, but even if you could reduce the stall speed it still does not
qualify. Experimental LSA requires a kit LSA and allows the builder
NO design changes. You must register it as amateur built
experimental. If it is LSA qualified, a light sport pilot may fly
it, but as Doug says, it fails that test as well.
Rick

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Doug Humble" <hawkidoug@...> wrote:

Matt, look in the Archives on this list. This has come up before

and I believe it has been concluded that the Q1 will not qualify.

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
A Sign Above www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: matt_v01
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:45 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?


I've been investigating the possibility of building a Q1 and

having it

registered as an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, and was

wandering

what you guys thought about this.

Do you think it could be done?

According to what I have found published on the Q1, listed flight
specifications put it right on the edge of the acceptable

parameters

for an LSA class aircraft. It is well within the weight limits of

the

class as well as the other requirements.

LSA limitations:

Max Gross Weight: 1320lbs
Max Airspeed: 138mph
Max Stall Speed: 51.7mph (45knots)

All comments pertaining to this discussion are welcomed.

Thanks,
Matt C. in Atlanta





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It is my understanding that the FAA is not likely to approve a LSA
certificate unless manufacture data indicates all of the parameters can be
met. In the case of the Quickie, the FAA is unlikely to approve Light
Sport
even if a builder modifies the Quickie in some manor to reduce the stall
speed.

Gang,

Before this gets too far, I have to gig this on a technicality.

First, the only aircraft that can be registered as an E-LSA are those kitted
as such, by a manufacturer of a certified S-LSA. In other words, since
Zenith makes and sells an S-LSA CH601, they can if they chose, offer an
E-LSA kit of that same plane (verbatim) and it has to be built 100%
according to plans and specs, with absolutely NO deviations, save maybe
paint.

Exception: If you own an S-LSA, YOU may downgrade it to an E-LSA.

That's currently the ONLY way to register any aircraft as an E-LSA.

Second, the Quickie line of aircraft, in its current state of ownership,
will always be just an experimental.

If you, as a Sport Pilot, wish to exercise your privileges to fly under your
SP license, you have to do so in an LSA qualifying aircraft, be it a
certified production S-LSA, an E-LSA, an Experimental, or a Certified GA
aircraft. It's up to you to know if the plan qualifies or not.

Now back to the question at hand. There are three LSA performance
parameters:

1. Maximum takeoff weight - 1320 lbs
2. Maximum speeds - 120 kts at maximum power (138 MPH) calibrated airspeed
3. Max stall speed - 45 kts (51.8 MPH) VS1* calibrated airspeed

*VS1 = the stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed obtained in a
specific configuration.

Numbers one and two, no problem. If #2 IS a problem, re-pitch the prop until
it's not. Accept the vertical climb capability in trade.

Number three could become a problem, but VG's and a very low weight could
solve it.

Here's the "loophole" if there is one.

YOU are the builder and the author of the POH and the placards.

YOUR plane is unproven until you fly it and find or define the flight
envelope, including stall. Q's don't "stall" in the traditional manner so we
have to look further at the definition: "or the minimum steady flight speed
obtained". What is considered "steady flight"? I'm not sure but a lot of
definitions use the term, "minimum controllable speed". Can you still
"control" your Q at max pitch-buck? (Make controllable turns and keep a
heading? Maintain a constant airspeed within a reasonable range?) If so, is
that speed below 45 kts? Then placard that as the bottom of the green arc
and consider your plane LSA-qualified.

Pat

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...> wrote:

It is my understanding that the FAA is not likely to approve a LSA
certificate unless manufacture data indicates all of the parameters can be
met. In the case of the Quickie, the FAA is unlikely to approve Light
Sport
even if a builder modifies the Quickie in some manor to reduce the stall
speed.

Gang,

Before this gets too far, I have to gig this on a technicality.

First, the only aircraft that can be registered as an E-LSA are those kitted
as such, by a manufacturer of a certified S-LSA. In other words, since
Zenith makes and sells an S-LSA CH601, they can if they chose, offer an
E-LSA kit of that same plane (verbatim) and it has to be built 100%
according to plans and specs, with absolutely NO deviations, save maybe
paint.

Exception: If you own an S-LSA, YOU may downgrade it to an E-LSA.

That's currently the ONLY way to register any aircraft as an E-LSA.

Second, the Quickie line of aircraft, in its current state of ownership,
will always be just an experimental.

If you, as a Sport Pilot, wish to exercise your privileges to fly under your
SP license, you have to do so in an LSA qualifying aircraft, be it a
certified production S-LSA, an E-LSA, an Experimental, or a Certified GA
aircraft. It's up to you to know if the plan qualifies or not.

Now back to the question at hand. There are three LSA performance
parameters:

1. Maximum takeoff weight - 1320 lbs
2. Maximum speeds - 120 kts at maximum power (138 MPH) calibrated airspeed
3. Max stall speed - 45 kts (51.8 MPH) VS1* calibrated airspeed

*VS1 = the stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed obtained in a
specific configuration.

Numbers one and two, no problem. If #2 IS a problem, re-pitch the prop until
it's not. Accept the vertical climb capability in trade.

Number three could become a problem, but VG's and a very low weight could
solve it.

Here's the "loophole" if there is one.

YOU are the builder and the author of the POH and the placards.

YOUR plane is unproven until you fly it and find or define the flight
envelope, including stall. Q's don't "stall" in the traditional manner so we
have to look further at the definition: "or the minimum steady flight speed
obtained". What is considered "steady flight"? I'm not sure but a lot of
definitions use the term, "minimum controllable speed". Can you still
"control" your Q at max pitch-buck? (Make controllable turns and keep a
heading? Maintain a constant airspeed within a reasonable range?) If so, is
that speed below 45 kts? Then placard that as the bottom of the green arc
and consider your plane LSA-qualified.

Pat

I see. Well this is all very disappointing. I was hoping to be able to build one, get my LSA
certification (will save me at least $3k because I'm colorblind and would only be able to fly
during daylight hours even with a GAPP endorsement) and have a great airplane that is
very economical and fun to fly.

Thank you so much for weighing in on the issue gentlemen.

Have a good evening.

-Matt C

I agree with Matt, "[E-LSA] is all very disappointing." I would like to suggest everyone bug there EAA chapters and anyone they know at national about this. The whole LSA movement does little for those of us interested in experimentation, and it certainly hasn't reduced the cost of flying. I would like to be able to license any 2 seat homebuilt that meets LSA stall and top speed as an E-LSA; alternately I would prefer the FAA do away with Medicals for day-VFR flight.

Maybe the EAA should rename itself the EMAA for Expensive Manufacturers Aviation Association.

Mike Perry

matt_v01 wrote:

I see.

With all due respect, I'm not sure you do.

Well this is all very disappointing.

Why? I told you how you could go about making it happen.

I was hoping to be able to build one,

You can.

get my LSA certification (will save me at least $3k because I'm
colorblind and would only be able to fly
during daylight hours even with a GAPP endorsement)

I think you mean "get my Sport Pilot rating", which there's nothing
stopping you, certainly nothing that's been stated in this thread thus
far could stop you.

and have a great airplane that is very economical and fun to fly.

You still can.

So... what's stopping you?

You could never get dual in a Quickie Q1 anyhow.

Even if the Q-1 didn't qualify as an LSA (which I'm arguing that it
could) there are literally hundreds of LSA-qualified experimental
aircraft, most of which are very economical to build/own/fly that you
could even get training in, even further reducing your costs. You can
even fly off the "40" with the proper endorsement.

I just don't understand your disappointment or defeatist attitude.

Pat

I agree with Matt, "[E-LSA] is all very disappointing." I would like

to

suggest everyone bug there EAA chapters and anyone they know at

national

about this. The whole LSA movement does little for those of us
interested in experimentation, and it certainly hasn't reduced the

cost

of flying. I would like to be able to license any 2 seat homebuilt

that

meets LSA stall and top speed as an E-LSA; alternately I would prefer
the FAA do away with Medicals for day-VFR flight.

I'm not sure I understand your complaint.

Are you saying that gross weight is the hindrance?

Since a private pilot with an expired medical (but not failed or
otherwise revoked or surrendered) or a Sport pilot can fly ANY airplane,
experimental or not, that meets the minimum requirements of LSA, there
is NO REASON to license any experimental as E-LSA, which can't be done
anyhow as there is absolutely NO need to do so.

Here's a short list of may of the experimental aircraft available today
that one can build and register as experimental, amateur-built and fly
as a Sport Pilot. http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/likely_lsa.html
The last three issues of KITPLANES has a more comprehensive list.

LSA is a great rule. It's not perfect by any stretch but it has either
put or kept hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the air who would
never otherwise be allowed. Odds are real good that you already know
more than one person who is actively flying as a sport pilot or is
planning to skip their next medical and switch to sport pilot.

Affordable? The local flight center recently put a spanking new LSA on
the flight line, and has it priced about $10 per hour more than the
literally trashed Tomahawk parked next to it. It has a full glass panel,
including GPS, burns half the fuel per hour, and goes the same speed
except it will out-climb the Tomahawk by about 3x and has a better
useful load.

It's clean, pretty, and my passengers are not afraid to climb in it.
It's booked solid, where as the Tomahawk collects dust and cobwebs.

To put anything but an LSA on the flight line that was spanking new
would have cost the flight center 2-3 times the purchase cost and they
could have to charge 2-3 times the rental fee, it would burn 2-3 times
the fuel, and since it doesn't go 2-3 times faster, it just wouldn't
pencil as a trainer.

Since I'm an instrument rated pilot with a current medical certificate,
I can fly the LSA at night and if it were equipped and properly papered
for IFR flight (which many are), I could fly it in IMC... which I would
consider for the type of IMC we get around here (low visibility from fog
or smog).

A new student can chose to become a private pilot in 40 hours, using the
crusty old tomahawk, spending $80 per hour for the plane and $30 for the
instructor. He needs 20 hours of dual @ $120 per hour and 20 hours of
solo @ $80-- total expenditure on just these items, $4000.

Said same student can opt for Sport pilot in 20 hours, spend $90 on the
plane and $30 on the instructor. He needs 10 hours of dual @ $130 per
hour and 10 hours of solo @ $90-- total expenditure on just these items,
$2600.

Affordable? Maybe. Cheaper? Substantially.

So again, I don't understand the disappointment.

Pat

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@...> wrote:

I see.

With all due respect, I'm not sure you do.

Well this is all very disappointing.

Why? I told you how you could go about making it happen.

I was hoping to be able to build one,

You can.

get my LSA certification (will save me at least $3k because I'm
colorblind and would only be able to fly
during daylight hours even with a GAPP endorsement)

I think you mean "get my Sport Pilot rating", which there's nothing
stopping you, certainly nothing that's been stated in this thread thus
far could stop you.

and have a great airplane that is very economical and fun to fly.

You still can.

So... what's stopping you?

You could never get dual in a Quickie Q1 anyhow.

Even if the Q-1 didn't qualify as an LSA (which I'm arguing that it
could) there are literally hundreds of LSA-qualified experimental
aircraft, most of which are very economical to build/own/fly that you
could even get training in, even further reducing your costs. You can
even fly off the "40" with the proper endorsement.

I just don't understand your disappointment or defeatist attitude.

Pat

Pat,

I never meant to come off as having a defeatist attitude. Which I do
not. I don't give up easily, in fact I am quite hard headed. One
thing that I have learned about myself is I do have a "stick-to-it"
character trait (4 years as a US Marine, 6 years in College to obtain
a degree in Architecture and in Construction Management, while being
married, with twin infants, and working a job) and Aviation has been a
dream for me for 22 years and I still haven't given up on getting there.

I think your right though, I don't think I fully understood the
LSA-Sport Pilot-Experimental relationship nor the registering of
aircraft, but it is becoming more clear as I re-read the rules and the
replies here and talk to more people about it. With so many classes
and rules it can become a bit confusing. That's why I came here for
input on this topic.


For me, at this point in my life, economy is everything. It may just
be smarter in the long run for me to buy something like a Sonex,
finance it, build it, and train in it under the Sport Pilot Program.
I need to get deeper into my research before I will know which road to
take. I want to be sure about which path I will be taking so that I
don't waste any time, money or effort.

Thanks again for all the input, I have learned a lot through this
discussion. You in particular have been very helpful and informative.

Regards,
Matt C

Pat,

You stated the following:

I'm not sure but a lot of
definitions use the term, "minimum controllable speed". Can you still
"control" your Q at max pitch-buck? (Make controllable turns and keep a
heading? Maintain a constant airspeed within a reasonable range?) If
so, is that speed below 45 kts? Then placard that as the bottom of the
green arc and consider your plane LSA-qualified.

In your opinion, do you believe that the Q1 if built lightly could
meet this criteria? Or would it require "pencil whipping" the
documentation, being that it is a single seat aircraft it would be
hard to verify by anyone other than yourself.

Regards,
Matt C

Pat:

Several people are confused about the LSA rule and E-LSA. I don't know who those people are other than me. At the local EAA chapter I hear a very different message about experimentals than what you are saying, Pat. What I read in the various magazines also seems contradictory, and at times they seem to be saying experimentals can only be flown as E-LSA if they were licensed as E-LSA. In other words a certificated airplane can be flown as an LSA but an experimental can't be flown as an E-LSA because they don't meet the consensus standard. I would be glad to hear I was wrong.

What seems absolutely clear to me is you can't build an experimental, register it as an experimental and fly off the 40 hours without a private license. This is what Matt wants to do, and I don't think he can. This is what I want to see the EAA fix.

As far as costs go, the Tomahawk costs too much in the first place; I'm not impressed with a replacement that costs more.

FAA Medicals continue as a classic example of a bureaucracy with an ever expanding mission. I support medicals for anyone being paid to fly but otherwise -- too much effort for too little benefit. I hate to pull "I'm a Doctor, believe me" but this time I'm telling you, I am a Doctor and its a waste of money.

Mike Perry

Patrick Panzera wrote:

Pat:

Several people are confused about the LSA rule and E-LSA. I don't know
who those people are other than me. At the local EAA chapter I hear a
very different message about experimentals than what you are saying,
Pat. What I read in the various magazines also seems contradictory, and
at times they seem to be saying experimentals can only be flown as E-LSA
if they were licensed as E-LSA. In other words a certificated airplane
can be flown as an LSA but an experimental can't be flown as an E-LSA
because they don't meet the consensus standard. I would be glad to hear
I was wrong.

Hopefully you'll be glad to hear that you are totally wrong.

Anyone flying under sport pilot rules can fly ANY aircraft that he is
appropriately rated or endorsed for, as long as it meets the minimum LSA
criteria. The plane can be S-LSA, E-LSA Experimental or GA. It can be a kit,
plans-built, or an original design. It don't matter.

But don't take my word for it:
http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=1657

What seems absolutely clear to me is you can't build an experimental,
register it as an experimental and fly off the 40 hours without a
private license.

Nothing could be further from the truth. A student pilot, be it GA or sport
pilot can in fact fly the 40 off any experimental he's legally able to fly,
if properly endorsed by his instructor.

A licensed sport pilot may fly any LSA-conforming experimental, even one in
which he's acting as the test pilot, weather he built it or not.

This is what Matt wants to do, and I don't think he
can. This is what I want to see the EAA fix.

There's no need to fix it. Mat most certainly can be his own test pilot. In
a very practical sense, he might be hard-pressed to find a CFI who would
endorse him to act as the test pilot if he was still a solo student.

Additionally, as a fully licensed sport pilot, he would need a specific
endorsement to fly a Q-1, so again, it might be tough to find a CFI willing
to make such an endorsement in his log book, but there are no FAA regs
disallowing a SP to be a test pilot.

Great Q&A Page:
http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmtopics.asp

As far as costs go, the Tomahawk costs too much in the first place; I'm
not impressed with a replacement that costs more.

It is what it is. Flying GA is expensive. Flying LSA is "cheaper".
Affordable is a subjective term.

Back in the mid 1970s when I was making $1.75 per hour, I couldn't "afford"
$15 per hour to fly a $5000 air-knocker. I also couldn't afford the $8 is
cost to tank up my $100 1955 Chevy and my dad cringed at signing a 20 year
mortgage on a $23k home at $225 per month PITI.

FAA Medicals continue as a classic example of a bureaucracy with an ever
expanding mission. I support medicals for anyone being paid to fly but
otherwise -- too much effort for too little benefit. I hate to pull
"I'm a Doctor, believe me" but this time I'm telling you, I am a Doctor
and its a waste of money.

I agree 100% Dr.

Maybe that will be next month's poll for the new EAA Experimenter
eNewsletter about to hatch. Check the editorial in the current (newest)
Sport Aviation or Sport Pilot.

Pat

I think I would pencil whip it if I could and be done with it.. Of course I am a non conformist anyway.. lol

Mark

Okay Pat:

Yes I'm glad to hear I was wrong. This does expose a big communication problem with my local EAA group.

Mike Perry

Patrick Panzera wrote:

Remember Matt, that while acting as pilot under Light Sport rule (you
may hold private or commercial, let your medical expire, and fly
under LSA rule), you can fly any aircraft for which you are rated and
which also qualifies as LSA criteria (see previous posting for
weight, speed qualifications) (regalrdless of how that aircraft is
registered such as Standard, Experimental, ELSA), but under LSA rules
you may not fly at night anyway. A Q1 suitably modified (and we are
not necessarily advocating that it is safe to do so) for LSA
qualification would be legal for you to fly under LSA rules. A stock
Q1 would not qualify.
Rick Hole

--- In Q-LIST@..., "matt_v01" <mattxb@...> wrote:

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Patrick Panzera" <panzera@> wrote:

It is my understanding that the FAA is not likely to approve a

LSA

certificate unless manufacture data indicates all of the

parameters can be

met. In the case of the Quickie, the FAA is unlikely to

approve Light

Sport
even if a builder modifies the Quickie in some manor to reduce

the stall

speed.

Gang,

Before this gets too far, I have to gig this on a technicality.

First, the only aircraft that can be registered as an E-LSA are

those kitted

as such, by a manufacturer of a certified S-LSA. In other words,

since

Zenith makes and sells an S-LSA CH601, they can if they chose,

offer an

E-LSA kit of that same plane (verbatim) and it has to be built

100%

according to plans and specs, with absolutely NO deviations, save

maybe

paint.

Exception: If you own an S-LSA, YOU may downgrade it to an E-LSA.

That's currently the ONLY way to register any aircraft as an E-

LSA.

Second, the Quickie line of aircraft, in its current state of

ownership,

will always be just an experimental.

If you, as a Sport Pilot, wish to exercise your privileges to fly

under your

SP license, you have to do so in an LSA qualifying aircraft, be

it a

certified production S-LSA, an E-LSA, an Experimental, or a

Certified GA

aircraft. It's up to you to know if the plan qualifies or not.

Now back to the question at hand. There are three LSA performance
parameters:

1. Maximum takeoff weight - 1320 lbs
2. Maximum speeds - 120 kts at maximum power (138 MPH) calibrated

airspeed

3. Max stall speed - 45 kts (51.8 MPH) VS1* calibrated airspeed

*VS1 = the stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed

obtained in a

specific configuration.

Numbers one and two, no problem. If #2 IS a problem, re-pitch the

prop until

it's not. Accept the vertical climb capability in trade.

Number three could become a problem, but VG's and a very low

weight could

solve it.

Here's the "loophole" if there is one.

YOU are the builder and the author of the POH and the placards.

YOUR plane is unproven until you fly it and find or define the

flight

envelope, including stall. Q's don't "stall" in the traditional

manner so we

have to look further at the definition: "or the minimum steady

flight speed

obtained". What is considered "steady flight"? I'm not sure but a

lot of

definitions use the term, "minimum controllable speed". Can you

still

"control" your Q at max pitch-buck? (Make controllable turns and

keep a

heading? Maintain a constant airspeed within a reasonable range?)

If so, is

that speed below 45 kts? Then placard that as the bottom of the

green arc

and consider your plane LSA-qualified.

Pat

I see. Well this is all very disappointing. I was hoping to be

able to build one, get my LSA

certification (will save me at least $3k because I'm colorblind and

would only be able to fly

during daylight hours even with a GAPP endorsement) and have a

great airplane that is

very economical and fun to fly.

Thank you so much for weighing in on the issue gentlemen.

Have a good evening.

-Matt C

Well said, Pat. Much education in the LSA is needed.

Rick Hole, CFI (light sport)



_____

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Patrick Panzera
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:21 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

I agree with Matt, "[E-LSA] is all very disappointing." I would like

to

suggest everyone bug there EAA chapters and anyone they know at

national

about this. The whole LSA movement does little for those of us
interested in experimentation, and it certainly hasn't reduced the

cost

of flying. I would like to be able to license any 2 seat homebuilt

that

meets LSA stall and top speed as an E-LSA; alternately I would prefer
the FAA do away with Medicals for day-VFR flight.

I'm not sure I understand your complaint.

Are you saying that gross weight is the hindrance?

Since a private pilot with an expired medical (but not failed or
otherwise revoked or surrendered) or a Sport pilot can fly ANY airplane,
experimental or not, that meets the minimum requirements of LSA, there
is NO REASON to license any experimental as E-LSA, which can't be done
anyhow as there is absolutely NO need to do so.

Here's a short list of may of the experimental aircraft available today
that one can build and register as experimental, amateur-built and fly
as a Sport Pilot. http://www.sportpil
<http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/likely_lsa.html>
ot.org/learn/lsa/likely_lsa.html
The last three issues of KITPLANES has a more comprehensive list.

LSA is a great rule. It's not perfect by any stretch but it has either
put or kept hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the air who would
never otherwise be allowed. Odds are real good that you already know
more than one person who is actively flying as a sport pilot or is
planning to skip their next medical and switch to sport pilot.

Affordable? The local flight center recently put a spanking new LSA on
the flight line, and has it priced about $10 per hour more than the
literally trashed Tomahawk parked next to it. It has a full glass panel,
including GPS, burns half the fuel per hour, and goes the same speed
except it will out-climb the Tomahawk by about 3x and has a better
useful load.

It's clean, pretty, and my passengers are not afraid to climb in it.
It's booked solid, where as the Tomahawk collects dust and cobwebs.

To put anything but an LSA on the flight line that was spanking new
would have cost the flight center 2-3 times the purchase cost and they
could have to charge 2-3 times the rental fee, it would burn 2-3 times
the fuel, and since it doesn't go 2-3 times faster, it just wouldn't
pencil as a trainer.

Since I'm an instrument rated pilot with a current medical certificate,
I can fly the LSA at night and if it were equipped and properly papered
for IFR flight (which many are), I could fly it in IMC... which I would
consider for the type of IMC we get around here (low visibility from fog
or smog).

A new student can chose to become a private pilot in 40 hours, using the
crusty old tomahawk, spending $80 per hour for the plane and $30 for the
instructor. He needs 20 hours of dual @ $120 per hour and 20 hours of
solo @ $80-- total expenditure on just these items, $4000.

Said same student can opt for Sport pilot in 20 hours, spend $90 on the
plane and $30 on the instructor. He needs 10 hours of dual @ $130 per
hour and 10 hours of solo @ $90-- total expenditure on just these items,
$2600.

Affordable? Maybe. Cheaper? Substantially.

So again, I don't understand the disappointment.

Pat

Pat,

I never meant to come off as having a defeatist attitude. Which I do
not. I don't give up easily, in fact I am quite hard headed. One
thing that I have learned about myself is I do have a "stick-to-it"
character trait (4 years as a US Marine, 6 years in College to obtain
a degree in Architecture and in Construction Management, while being
married, with twin infants, and working a job) and Aviation has been a
dream for me for 22 years and I still haven't given up on getting there.

We have a lot in common.

Three years USN, 8 years cabinet shop owner, 5 years construction
superintendent with 1.5 years of those as a certified building inspector, 15
years residential design and at least 20 years of being on the wrong side of
the airport fence, dreaming about being on the other side.

For me, at this point in my life, economy is everything.

No, it's not everything. Establish your primary goal(s) then backwards
engineer it to where you are now.

For example...

Is your number one goal to fly or build?
To which extreme is this your primary goal, as there are multiple facets to
either one? If it's to build, do you want to build something fast or cheap.
This will tell you if you need a kit or a set of plans. Does the plane need
to be mission-specific, such as amphibious or off-field capable? Do you have
the talent to build from scratch?

I could go on and on here, but the point I would like to make here is that
sometimes cheap is a false economy. I've often heard it said that one would
be better off to take a part-time, minimum wage job and use that money to
make payments on a plane than it is to try and build a plane to fly.

...if you goal is to fly.

If your goal includes the desire to fly something you built with your own
hands, the flying part may have to wait.

It may just
be smarter in the long run for me to buy something like a Sonex,
finance it, build it, and train in it under the Sport Pilot Program.

It could... especially if you get an orphaned project. There are
unbelievable deals out there where one can get a partially complete project
for less than the cost of a kit, with hundreds of free hours already into
the project. Best bang for the buck, this is a good place to start... if
your goal includes building.

I need to get deeper into my research before I will know which road to
take. I want to be sure about which path I will be taking so that I
don't waste any time, money or effort.

Big picture, you will waste time and money. Just try to mitigate it.

If you are anywhere near Livermore CA this weekend, you should join us.
http://web.mac.com/flaglvk/iWeb/FLAG/ccol.html
You may or may not be interested in Corvair engines but you will get to meet
30-50 experimental aviation enthusiasts, many of which are or will be Sport
Pilots, all of which are building or dreaming of building an experimental
aircraft, with an automobile engine- probably the cheapest of the cheap.

We can collectively either help steer you in the right direction or scare
the crap out of you. :)

If that event won't work, there's always the Mountain State Tandem Wing
www.contactmagazine.com&#92;Roundup&#92;Mountain_States_Tandem.html the date will
probably be decided this weekend or next week some time, but it will be in
April.

Then there's the Spring Fling, the first weekend in May
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/message/32912

We also have an annual gathering at the end of Sep in the Kansas area. It
seems to move around a bit from year to year.

Or use this to help find something close to you:
http://www.eaa.org/calendar/

And don't forget to go to your local airport and introduce yourself. Join
the local EAA chapter. You have no idea what forms of resources you might
stumble upon. You might get some stick-time out of the deal.


Pat