170 Forums - Light Sport Aircraft and Sport Pilot

[AntiqueAirways]

George:

I don't know how your forums schedule is forming up, but if you would like, I could do an hour or 2 on LSA and Sport Pilot. I know it has nothing to do with the Cessna 170, but it does have to do with the future privileges of many of our members. Let me know what you think.

Dale Faux

[iowa]

i had a pilot tell me yesterday
that his tiny little C140
does not qualify for LSA.
it must be just over the GW limit
iowa

[doug8082a]

Gross weight for LSA landplane = 1320#, LSA seaplane = 1430#

Gross weight for a C140 = 1450#, C140A = 1500#

[iowa]

i suppose it won't matter
if the pilot promised not
to fill his C140 over the LSA limit?!
iowa

[doug8082a]

Nope.

There was a big push when the LSA regs were being ironed out to up the GW to 1500# Doing so would have included a host of other aircraft... Virtually any "vintage" two-seat taildragger, plus the early C150s.

Obviously, that didn't happen...

[iowa]

why was this doug?
what was so magical about
the number they decided on?
dave

[doug8082a]

I don't recall why or how they arrived at 1320#. I know there was a lot of debate over it, but I can't remember of hand if they actually gave a reason "why".

Here's a list of standand category aircraft that qualify for LSA
http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/lsa/sta ... craft.html

[lowNslow]

Hey Doug, have you got a web page going yet showing the progress on your Hatz?

[N2865C]

I fell in love with a Hatz last summer. I have been saying ever since that if the right one came up I just might have to sell the 170..... I sure wish I had the time and money to build one. What a great plane! http://www.hatzclassic.com/index.html

[doug8082a]

Nope. No web site yet. Sorry folks. Ater the holidays I got sucked up in renovating my laundry room and building cabinets.

I'm working on the ribs right now. At this point I'm just cutting gussets and other rib parts. Nothing exicting to report.

[jrenwick]

why was this doug?
what was so magical about
the number they decided on?
dave

I recall someone from EAA, maybe it was Tom Poberezny, answering this question by saying that the accident statistics actually show a break point around 1300 pounds max gross. The production types that were certified below this weight have significantly fewer fatalities.

It's been said many times before: a J3 Cub is so safe, it can just barely kill you! (If you browse NTSB reports for the type, you'll see this borne out.)

Best Regards,

John

[iowa]

thanks john for the
very logical explanation.
dave

[cessna170bdriver]

I don't recall why or how they arrived at 1320#. I know there was a lot of debate over it, but I can't remember of hand if they actually gave a reason "why".
...

Would it be due to the metric system? 1320lb happens to be 600kg even. Is there a European or Canadian set of rules the FAA is adapting to the US? I seem to remember that some of the numbers defining the "ultralight" category had metric roots (220 lb = 100 kg).

Miles

[170C]

I don't know this for a fact, but I was told (maybe Dale Faux can comment), that the limit on weight was set to match the European criteria. If this is true, then the number of seats, speed, night time & IFR restrictions are probably copied from the European criteria as well. Unfortunately the US is no longer a leader in setting standards (IMHO). We just follow whatever the other countries do. There may be some good reasons to do so in some situations, but we adopted the airspace terminology from Europe. ie: class B instead of using abbreviations that made some sense (TCA-terminal control area) to something that has little relationship to anything. Obviously those who fly internationally benefit from one set of terms for all airspace, but that doesn't mean much to most GA pilots.

[bsdunek]

I don't know this for a fact, but I was told (maybe Dale Faux can comment), that the limit on weight was set to match the European criteria. If this is true, then the number of seats, speed, night time & IFR restrictions are probably copied from the European criteria as well. Unfortunately the US is no longer a leader in setting standards (IMHO). We just follow whatever the other countries do. There may be some good reasons to do so in some situations, but we adopted the airspace terminology from Europe. ie: class B instead of using abbreviations that made some sense (TCA-terminal control area) to something that has little relationship to anything. Obviously those who fly internationally benefit from one set of terms for all airspace, but that doesn't mean much to most GA pilots.

Amen!