Flight Training Question

[ViperMarkVII]

Hey Everyone,

I’m interested in flying to one day obtain my Sport Pilot certificate. I won’t qualify for a Class 3 medical. I’m working on losing weight, but also want to fly. It’s just too damn tight of a fit in the cockpit. I fit pretty decently in a Cessna 172 or 182. My plan was to just build hours in either one of those with an instructor, and one day obtain the sport pilot license. That way I get training along the way. Heck, they might even change the requirement in a year or two allowing for bigger weight aircraft to qualify. Any flaw that you guys see in my plan?

Scott

 

[rk911]

your dual instruction hours in a 172 will count toward either an SPL or PPL but without a 3rd class medical your solo hours and check ride will need to be in an LSA.

 

[ViperMarkVII]

your dual instruction hours in a 172 will count toward either an SPL or PPL but without a 3rd class medical your solo hours and check ride will need to be in an LSA.

Awesome! That’s the plan. I could care less if I spend 50hrs with an instructor before I fly solo. I’m guessing I’d be ripe for starting instrument flight by the time I solo in an LSA. And I’d be proficient in two aircraft types.

 

[exncsurfer]

Hey Everyone,

I’m interested in flying to one day obtain my Sport Pilot certificate. I won’t qualify for a Class 3 medical. I’m working on losing weight, but also want to fly. It’s just too damn tight of a fit in the cockpit. I fit pretty decently in a Cessna 172 or 182. My plan was to just build hours in either one of those with an instructor, and one day obtain the sport pilot license. That way I get training along the way. Heck, they might even change the requirement in a year or two allowing for bigger weight aircraft to qualify. Any flaw that you guys see in my plan?

Scott

I don't know how much you weigh, but useful load of the plane typically would limit you more than fit. Some LSA planes actually are more roomy than say a Cherokee or a 172, but you will have a useful load(with fuel) issue if your weight is above average and the instructor is of average weight.

For example a Flight Design CTLS shows these specs:
Cabin Width 49 inches
Aspect Ratio 7.29:1
Empty Weight: 810 Pounds
Gross Weight: 1,320 Pounds
Fuel Capacity 35 Gallons

Cessna 172 cabin width is 40 inches(I think).

But, the CTLS has 500ish pounds of useful load, so thats around 210lbs of fuel and 290lbs of people(and stuff). Doesn't leave much room for hamburgers!

 

[tspear]

I don't know how much you weigh, but useful load of the plane typically would limit you more than fit. Some LSA planes actually are more roomy than say a Cherokee or a 172, but you will have a useful load(with fuel) issue if your weight is above average and the instructor is of average weight.

For example a Flight Design CTLS shows these specs:
Cabin Width 49 inches
Aspect Ratio 7.29:1
Empty Weight: 810 Pounds
Gross Weight: 1,320 Pounds
Fuel Capacity 35 Gallons

Cessna 172 cabin width is 40 inches(I think).

But, the CTLS has 500ish pounds of useful load, so thats around 210lbs of fuel and 290lbs of people(and stuff). Doesn't leave much room for hamburgers!

At the low fuel burn, and one hour lessons, only put 20 gallons in the CTLS. That gives another 90lbs of UL.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[rhkennerly]

I recall a Dan Johnson YouTube interview with one of the builders of the Bushcat LSA where she mentioned in passing that guys as big as 325 have fit into both the cockpit (which IS wide) & the W&B envelope, with room for an instructor & training fuel. Check out the BushCat Tom & Darrel Curtis YouTube channels; they carry pretty good weights at times.

Another option is the Jabiru j230, with a hefty 6-cyl. Power plant, which is actually a 3 passenger airplane in Australia, restricted on paper only to LSA weights in the US. That’s probably true of many aircraft. Paul B.,who does the AVWeb vids, even commented recently on most LSAs routinely being operated at 50 lbs over gross (dryly tossing out the “honored more in the breach…” line.)

(Not that I recommend anyone flying over gross. But if you are buying, it makes sense to position yourself for a change in the regs. Anyway, when you look at wing-loading & climb performance of most LSAs compared to similarly powered GA training aircraft like C-150, it’s clear most SLSAs could—on paper—carry more weight. I imagine most are LPA-ready.)

A lot of planes in the resale market seem to have lost a lot of gross weight in the ads, I assume to appeal to bargain LSA shoppers. So they can carry a bit more weight than currently advertised, according to the original manual.

This is particularly true of the Aeronca family, Taylorcrafts, Luscombes, Stinson, & the Piper Pacers.

(Not saying fabric covered planes can’t get lighter over time by swapping out for modern radios, lightweight Dacron re-coverings, & modern “dope” & spray paint (I remember slathering on cans of real dope & paint with a paint roller on my dad’s plane. I’m pretty sure it was the dope that held the plane together, so it went on thick…or maybe I just enjoyed sitting on the grass smoking a cigar & enjoying the fume high. We didn’t call it dope for nothing)).

Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

A lot of planes in the resale market seem to have lost a lot of gross weight in the ads, I assume to appeal to bargain LSA shoppers.

So you are saying that someone buying an aircraft that they intend to use under the Sport Pilot rules needs to look carefully at the original weight and balance data to make sure the seller isn't lying about it qualifying as an LSA?

 

[rhkennerly]

So you are saying that someone buying an aircraft that they intend to use under the Sport Pilot rules needs to look carefully at the original weight and balance data to make sure the seller isn't lying about it qualifying as an LSA?

I don't know.

As I mentioned, there are lots of reasons for an airplane to lose weight since 1946. I'm thinking my Dad's old Stinson could have shed 50-100 lbs just by resurfacing in synthetic fiber and using one of the thin, colored, epoxy spray systems available today. Maybe new lightweight cylinders. Replacing seats with newer aftermarket seats and materials. Plex instead of glass. It all adds up to considerable weight savings.

Having an A&P re-weigh your plane is always an option.

Yes, exceeding 1320 as an LSA pilot is always illegal. However, it is unclear to me if re-placarding an old GA airplane that has been brought into LSA W&B standards (Stinson, Aeronca, etc.) as an LSA actually meets the requirements of an LSA. My very limited understanding is that there are also some handling requirements.

It's all a bit murky...and in murk there is opportunity.

All I'm saying is that I've noticed a lot of Champs, TCrafts, and Stinsons being marketed in the LSA category. And that many new sLSA planes have more potential performance capacity than what they are placarded for, looking at wing loading, HP, and climb.

I suspect most sLSAs are actually positioned for the new (proposed) LPA standard (light personal aircraft, between GA & LSA) and are paper-cripples solely to meet the --arbitrary--sLSA standard. See Dan Johnson's article https://bydanjohnson.com/better-new...ulation-clarifications-to-earlier-statements/ and his article on the FAA's proposed Power-Index calculation to replace strict weight limits in PLA/LSA https://bydanjohnson.com/faas-proposed-regulation-mosaic-lamas-spring-2020-update-report/

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

However, it is unclear to me if re-placarding an old GA airplane that has been brought into LSA W&B standards (Stinson, Aeronca, etc.) as an LSA actually meets the requirements of an LSA.

You can now be clear that this does not work. At least, not within the regulations. If an aircraft has ever been outside the limits of the definition of LSA, it is forever not an LSA (or, at least until / if the boundaries of LSA move...).

Section 1.1 Definitions:
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than—
(i) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or
(ii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
etc.

I've noticed a lot of Champs, TCrafts, and Stinsons being marketed in the LSA category.

If they fit into the LSA bucket as defined in 1.1, they can be flown under the Sport Pilot rules.

The complete definition:
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:

(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than—

(i) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or

(ii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.

(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.

(3) A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of not more than 120 knots CAS for a glider.

(4) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.

(5) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.

(6) A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.

(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.

(8) A fixed or feathering propeller system if a powered glider.

(9) A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane.

(10) A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.

(11) Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.

(12) Fixed or retractable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for operation on water.

(13) Fixed or retractable landing gear for a glider.

 

[somorris]

My understanding is that a new group is imminent (in FAA time!) called LPA. It will include higher weight aircraft, and (I think?j allow flying on a driver’s license medical. I don’t know for sure whether Cherokees and 172s will be included, but I believe 182 size aircraft will not fit the new definition.

 

[ViperMarkVII]

Thanks for the info guys. I had a Discovery Flight in. Cessna 182 this morning. I did sit in a Cessna 172 as well to check how roomy before I left too. I fit fine. Which tells me I would likely fit fine in an LSA (assuming pilot is not chunky like me). LOL!

 

[somorris]

Just enjoy life, ViperMarkVII! You only get one turn. If you want to fly, get started. You can work out the details later.

 

[rhkennerly]

You can now be clear that this does not work. At least, not within the regulations. If an aircraft has ever been outside the limits of the definition of LSA, it is forever not an LSA (or, at least until / if the boundaries of LSA move...).

Gotta love a pilot who reads the FAR as a bathroom book! Tnx.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

You can now be clear that this does not work. At least, not within the regulations. If an aircraft has ever been outside the limits of the definition of LSA, it is forever not an LSA (or, at least until / if the boundaries of LSA move...).

Section 1.1 Definitions:
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than—
(i) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or
(ii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
etc.


If they fit into the LSA bucket as defined in 1.1, they can be flown under the Sport Pilot rules.

The complete definition:
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:

(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than—

(i) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or

(ii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.

(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.

(3) A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of not more than 120 knots CAS for a glider.

(4) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.

(5) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.

(6) A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.

(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.

(8) A fixed or feathering propeller system if a powered glider.

(9) A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane.

(10) A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.

(11) Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.

(12) Fixed or retractable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for operation on water.

(13) Fixed or retractable landing gear for a glider.

Kill-joy (in the most loving sense though, lol).

 

[rhkennerly]

You can now be clear that this does not work. At least, not within the regulations. If an aircraft has ever been outside the limits of the definition of LSA, it is forever not an LSA (or, at least until / if the boundaries of LSA move...).

Section 1.1 Definitions:
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than—
(i) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or
(ii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
etc.

Which does then beg the question of what's going to happen to LSA pilots buying these "reweighed" GA aircraft and flying them in good faith.

Interesting reg on the face of it. It pretty much amounts to new LSA manufacturers creating their own guaranteed market, since, with few exceptions, older GAs near the max LSA weight can't be engineered into standards.

No wonder LSA is the province of older Med-less, PPLs who can afford them. I'd certainly feel better about harassing sheep and sunset flights driving a $25k AirKnocker than a $120k Aerotrek A-220. And would certainly prefer a $20k C-150 I could tie-down rather than hanger. Not much affordable in LSAs.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"reweighed" GA aircraft and flying them in good faith.

Who is going to know?
But, I have not seen many what appear to me to be "reweighed" aircraft - unless one has applied an STC to increase the gross, most original J3s, Champs, Taylorcraft, and Ercoupes gross less than 1320 when they came out the factory door. So, why wouldn't you fly your $25K airknocker with a 1220 pound gross?

I drive a 1300 pound gross E-AB that cost me $20K.

 

[rhkennerly]

Who is going to know?
But, I have not seen many what appear to me to be "reweighed" aircraft - unless one has applied an STC to increase the gross, most original J3s, Champs, Taylorcraft, and Ercoupes gross less than 1320 when they came out the factory door. So, why wouldn't you fly your $25K airknocker with a 1220 pound gross?

I drive a 1300 pound gross E-AB that cost me $20K.

You’re probably right. but I have noticed some pacers as well as several STC’d re-engined mods from 65 to 100 or 120, posing as LSAs. Add in a starter, battery, & some com/nav.

No one will know, unless they prang it.

 

[Daleandee]

No one will know, unless they prang it.

To be sure the insurance company will know if there is an accident. If there is serious injury or a fatal the FAA (NTSB) will know as well. If you land in a farmer's field and he sues for damages his lawyer may make it their business to find out.

This is the reason I try to play by the rules ...

 

[rhkennerly]

To be sure the insurance company will know if there is an accident. If there is serious injury or a fatal the FAA (NTSB) will know as well. If you land in a farmer's field and he sues for damages his lawyer may make it their business to find out.

This is the reason I try to play by the rules ...

Yeah, but there are lots of ways to play by the rules. One is to carry liability for damages/medical to others and fly cheap enough to walk away in the event of a crash.

For example, we cruised sailboats for a number of years. Once we left the states, comprehensive was impossible full-time in the Carribean outside of the ruinously expensive Lloyds of London markets. So we cruised a small $50k 30 yr old boat instead of the $150k boat we wanted and carried liability. We spent several years in the Caribbean and two in the Med with no losses but were prepared to walk away...float away...if we ended up on a reef or holed by a submerged container (a far greater threat than whales or ships).

The view of paradise is the same from every cockpit, sail or plane.

 

[Daleandee]

YFor example, we cruised sailboats for a number of years. Once we left the states, comprehensive was impossible full-time in the Carribean outside of the ruinously expensive Lloyds of London markets. So we cruised a small $50k 30 yr old boat instead of the $150k boat we wanted and carried liability. We spent several years in the Caribbean and two in the Med with no losses but were prepared to walk away...float away...if we ended up on a reef or holed by a submerged container (a far greater threat than whales or ships).

I was aiming at your comment that no one would know about a plane that wasn't legal unless there was an accident. You make a good point about minimizing cost.

But even if one were flying a old clapped out rag and tube plane with minimal insurance that was legal it would get mighty expensive if the pilot accidentally snagged his wingtip on the prop of the SR22 parked next to them as they taxied out ...