Everything certified since Part 23 became the rule(s) has a life limit. Grummans, Tomahawks, Cirri, name it, it has a life limit. This began in the early '70's.
Decathlon! Completely unsuitable for the mission, but he'll have fun and can overcharge. I'm told a school in my area gets $400 an hour.
how much was the new engine
Could always go with a PA22-108 Colt. 2 seats with a better useful load. Fuel burn averages out to 6gph. Landing gear that is forgiving, no flaps, and a better trainer for rudder use in my opinion. Although its so gentle in stalls students may struggle learning how to recognize them.
Your buddy should join POA and ask for himself.
I’ve owned one. For some reason it’s looks just didn’t do well for attracting students. I could get people to sit in a 172 all day.
Parts expenses is what I’ve always heard.
That's honestly good to know. Must be similar to the whole "Traumahawk" deal.
You can use an experimental for instruction as long as that experimental isn't provided by the instructor for a fee. But an instructor can't build a business around training in an experimental he provides, as that would be considered "commercial use" of the aircraft. There are some narrow exceptions for specific type transition training under a LODA.
Can you log dual?
Yes.
Correct. It must be an S LSA and not an E LSA. The S LSA can be rented for flight training. But renting out a plane you own and also providing the pilot services (the instructor) would I believe be a "wet lease", opening up the instructor to also having to be an operator, a flight school. Which means the 100 hour inspections, etc.
91.319 e 2
As posted previously the RV-12 can be an S-LSA which is not experimental.
I disagree. Learning to fly “an airplane” vs learning only a specific model is highly beneficial.
Probably because the S-LSA is built according some sort of ANSI standard by the factory. The A&P can build an E-LSA but need not conform to the ANSI standard.
I would agree if you are planning a career in aviation or expect to be flying a wide variety of planes during your flying life. That isn't the case with most pilots. Most of the people that earn their PPL fly the same plane they learned in for a couple hundred hours (if that) and then move on to other pastimes. For those folks, learning the idiosyncracies of the plane you will continue to fly is more important than getting a broad base of experience that will not be relevant to your future activity in the pastime. I would also argue that the broad base of experience from flying a range of aircraft types is more beneficial after you've become conversant with the basics and your brain has enough bandwidth to branch out into the subtleties that different aircraft bring to the table. I didn't add the differences between high and low wing planes to my repertoire until after I had solidly mastered the basics. That was well after I got my PPL. Even later I added taildragger experience, acro experience and went for my IFR rating and commercial license. 47 years after I got my PPL, that broad base of experience is valuable. As a low-time student pilot it would have just been confusing.
Again, I disagree. You can learn to fly a Cessna 150 and pass a checkride. You can learn to fly an airplane and pass the same checkride. I think what many people see as “idiosyncrasies” of a particular airplane are similar across many models.
Technically, anyone can become an S-LSA manufacturer. In general, develop your design with the applicable ASTM standards per Part 22 (when released), develop your QC system, complete the required FAA forms, and present your S-LSA aircraft to the world.
An A&P certificate is not equal to a Part 21 or 22 manufacturer. Same reason a mechanic cannot produce parts under Part 21. However, follow the requirements listed above and any mechanic can become an S-LSA mfgr.
I agree with your statement in general. However, I read the statement below as the A&P building someone else's design under ASTM:
The A&P won't have access to Van's QC procedures, for example. It also isn't the A&P's design, but rather Van's design. I don't think the A&P can copy the parts for to make an RV-12 clone either, even if they did develop their own QC and filled out the paperwork.
I read it in a more general context. Without Part 22 live yet can only guess, but if a mechanic were to buy say an e-lsa kit, followed the required steps per Part 22,
It will be interesting to see the final rules. Are you only considering FAA rules? ASTM has several levels. Some are voluntary and anyone can produce something that is ASTM compliant. Some of ASTM are part of our legal systems. Some ASTM requires inspection and confirmation for compliance by a third party. If LSA aircraft require the inspection by a third party to ensure compliance, that might make it too expensive for an A&P to make just a few planes. In other words, the combination of FAA compliance, and ASTM standards may make it uneconomical for an A&P to simply make a few planes. However, the economics is different from the rules and is a different discussion altogether.
The Part 22 guidance will list the specific ASTM standards just as its done for Part 23. However, Part 22 required new ASTM standards which is why there was a delay for the airworthiness side. Once Part 22 goes live the supporting guidance should be live as well.
Just as with previous SLSA, its my understanding Part 22 will use the same OEM generated Manufacturer's Statement of Compliance to declare the aircraft conformity to Part 22 standards. No 3rd party inspect requirement.
This is all likely true. But that means the "enterprising party" has become a "manufacturer", even if they only produce a few planes a year. I would agree that it is much easier for an A&P to become such a manufaturer, making this statement false:
Assuming "RV-12" is a generic term for an airplane produced under the new MOSAIC rules.
Definitely. Know of a couple mechanics and a small repair station that are looking into this potential option, but need to see what final guidance is released.
The RV-12 is already being produced under the existing LSA rules. MOSAIC simply widens the definition of LSA to faster and more complex aircraft (and gets rid of the term "LSA").
