Original Posted By: "Carl D. Vought"
Very interesting list of airplanes that supposedly comply with the new rule. Interesting in that the manufacturer (or someone) has to demonstrate that the aircraft complies with the rule requirements, not just states it in a fact sheet or sales flyer.I wonder if the Pietenpol family applied for approval and demonstrated compliance somehow?And how did St. Croix make it? I have heard that St. Croix's "Air Camper" is merely a copy of the Flying & Glider Manual plans or something like that.Oscar ZunigaSan Antonio, TXmailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.comwebsite at http://www.flysquirrel.net________________________________________________________________________________Date: 9 Aug 2004 21:53:20 -0000
Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft
Re: Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft
Original Posted By: "Oscar Zuniga"
Oscar,All that compliance stuff is for the manufactured Light Sport Aircraft(LSA). It permutates the final rule to such an extent that one wonders ifthe FAA is fixated on the manufacturing end of it and forgot about the rest.LSA won't affect us homebuilders at all but will allow certain folks to flycertain homebuilts that they would not otherwise have been able to.There are three types of LSAs:1) Regular airplanes like the Cub and the Taylorcraft that meet thedefinition of the LSA but need to be maintained as they have in the pastwith an annual inspection done by an IA, etc. You coule fly these with aSport Pilot ticket with an endorsement for the category and class (likeland airplane with tailwheel). It is easy to figure out which ships meetthe LSA requirements by looking a the type certificate data sheet for themake and model in question.2) Yet to be MANUFACTURED LSAs that will be built under the yet to beadopted consensus standards. With these, a special type of mechanic andinspector rating will be required for maintaining and doing the annualinspections on these. Sounds awful but it might be a five day class and youhave an A & P for LSAs and meet some other requiresments and more schooltime and you have an IA for LSAs. The manufacturer of these aircraft willverify and mandate compliance through procedures and limitations in the yetto be adopted consensus standards that the aircraft will meet the LSAdefinition.3) Homebuilts that are certified under the Experimental Amateur Builtexisting regulations that meet the performance limitations as stipulated inthe LSA final rule as to speed, power, etc. will qualify as an LSA and willbe able to be flown by Sport Pilots during the day, etc. that have theappropriate category and class endorsements in their logbooks. As forexceeding the performance maximum limits for LSAs, WHO IS TO KNOW THE TRUEPERFORMANCE IF YOU ARE THE ONLY GUY TO FLY THE SHIP? You can write stuffinto your limitations during your flyoff period and then routinely go alittle or a lot beyond them. A little static leak in the airspeed hookupwill take care of the top cruise speed maximum. Besides, you can just put aplacard in that says MAX CRUISE SPEED is XXX KNOTS with whatever the numberis. That does not mean you will go beyond it when you are flying. Youwon't be able to fudge weight or number of seats but I see lots of room inthe other areas, hee, hee. Just make sure you use the max limits as allowedin the LSA final rule when you do the paperwork for your ship.Maintenance of the Experimental Amateur Built will continue to be done as italways has with the builder eligible for the Repairman's Certificate whichwould thne allow him e to do the Annual Condition Inspection, etc.I have hacked half way through the final rule's 452 pages. Thanks forreminding me to read the rest.Chris----- Original Message -----
Oscar,All that compliance stuff is for the manufactured Light Sport Aircraft(LSA). It permutates the final rule to such an extent that one wonders ifthe FAA is fixated on the manufacturing end of it and forgot about the rest.LSA won't affect us homebuilders at all but will allow certain folks to flycertain homebuilts that they would not otherwise have been able to.There are three types of LSAs:1) Regular airplanes like the Cub and the Taylorcraft that meet thedefinition of the LSA but need to be maintained as they have in the pastwith an annual inspection done by an IA, etc. You coule fly these with aSport Pilot ticket with an endorsement for the category and class (likeland airplane with tailwheel). It is easy to figure out which ships meetthe LSA requirements by looking a the type certificate data sheet for themake and model in question.2) Yet to be MANUFACTURED LSAs that will be built under the yet to beadopted consensus standards. With these, a special type of mechanic andinspector rating will be required for maintaining and doing the annualinspections on these. Sounds awful but it might be a five day class and youhave an A & P for LSAs and meet some other requiresments and more schooltime and you have an IA for LSAs. The manufacturer of these aircraft willverify and mandate compliance through procedures and limitations in the yetto be adopted consensus standards that the aircraft will meet the LSAdefinition.3) Homebuilts that are certified under the Experimental Amateur Builtexisting regulations that meet the performance limitations as stipulated inthe LSA final rule as to speed, power, etc. will qualify as an LSA and willbe able to be flown by Sport Pilots during the day, etc. that have theappropriate category and class endorsements in their logbooks. As forexceeding the performance maximum limits for LSAs, WHO IS TO KNOW THE TRUEPERFORMANCE IF YOU ARE THE ONLY GUY TO FLY THE SHIP? You can write stuffinto your limitations during your flyoff period and then routinely go alittle or a lot beyond them. A little static leak in the airspeed hookupwill take care of the top cruise speed maximum. Besides, you can just put aplacard in that says MAX CRUISE SPEED is XXX KNOTS with whatever the numberis. That does not mean you will go beyond it when you are flying. Youwon't be able to fudge weight or number of seats but I see lots of room inthe other areas, hee, hee. Just make sure you use the max limits as allowedin the LSA final rule when you do the paperwork for your ship.Maintenance of the Experimental Amateur Built will continue to be done as italways has with the builder eligible for the Repairman's Certificate whichwould thne allow him e to do the Annual Condition Inspection, etc.I have hacked half way through the final rule's 452 pages. Thanks forreminding me to read the rest.Chris----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: SHIRT FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS LATER
Original Posted By: "Carl D. Vought"
Yep. A man only has one Mama.We feel for you, Sterling.Chris Bobka----- Original Message -----
Yep. A man only has one Mama.We feel for you, Sterling.Chris Bobka----- Original Message -----
> Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft
Original Posted By: "Douwe Blumberg"
No...St. Croix's plans are a direct negative copy ( white on a black background) of the Pietenpol family's plans...I bought my first set before I knew any better from him from an ad in Kit Planes magazine in Jan, 2000 ( where they lists all the hundreds of plans available each January) Before I even knew what a Pietenpol was...It just looked like a really neat plane to me....It's funny but out of all those hundreds of plans I sent away for info packets on the GN-1 and the Pietenpol, I have since bought an "official" set from the Pietenpol's to build from...There were a few things in St. Croix's plans that weren't updated like the gussets on the rudder so they must have been copied from a really old set...Still doesn't seem right to me....He also sells plans for the Ariel... Ed G.>From: "Oscar Zuniga" >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft>Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:23:31 -0500>>>>Very interesting list of airplanes that supposedly comply with the new >rule. Interesting in that the manufacturer (or someone) has to demonstrate >that the aircraft complies with the rule requirements, not just states it >in a fact sheet or sales flyer.>>I wonder if the Pietenpol family applied for approval and demonstrated >compliance somehow?>>And how did St. Croix make it? I have heard that St. Croix's "Air Camper" >is merely a copy of the Flying & Glider Manual plans or something like >that.>>Oscar Zuniga>San Antonio, TX>mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net>>________________________________________________________________________________
No...St. Croix's plans are a direct negative copy ( white on a black background) of the Pietenpol family's plans...I bought my first set before I knew any better from him from an ad in Kit Planes magazine in Jan, 2000 ( where they lists all the hundreds of plans available each January) Before I even knew what a Pietenpol was...It just looked like a really neat plane to me....It's funny but out of all those hundreds of plans I sent away for info packets on the GN-1 and the Pietenpol, I have since bought an "official" set from the Pietenpol's to build from...There were a few things in St. Croix's plans that weren't updated like the gussets on the rudder so they must have been copied from a really old set...Still doesn't seem right to me....He also sells plans for the Ariel... Ed G.>From: "Oscar Zuniga" >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft>Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:23:31 -0500>>>>Very interesting list of airplanes that supposedly comply with the new >rule. Interesting in that the manufacturer (or someone) has to demonstrate >that the aircraft complies with the rule requirements, not just states it >in a fact sheet or sales flyer.>>I wonder if the Pietenpol family applied for approval and demonstrated >compliance somehow?>>And how did St. Croix make it? I have heard that St. Croix's "Air Camper" >is merely a copy of the Flying & Glider Manual plans or something like >that.>>Oscar Zuniga>San Antonio, TX>mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net>>________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft
Original Posted By: "Ed Grentzer"
St. Croix is Chad Wille and he is in bed with the Antique AirplanceAssociation. I don't care much for the ripoff either...Chris----- Original Message -----
St. Croix is Chad Wille and he is in bed with the Antique AirplanceAssociation. I don't care much for the ripoff either...Chris----- Original Message -----
RE: Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft
Original Posted By: "tmbrant1(at)netzero.net"
Yeah, these guys called us up at work asking about plans for new designsthat we haven't even had a chance to test-build ourselves yet! They can waitand buy a set later, like everyone else. Sheesh.Mike> from the Pietenpol's to build from...There were a few things in St.Croix's> plans that weren't updated like the gussets on the rudder so they musthave> been copied from a really old set...Still doesn't seem right to me....He> also sells plans for the Ariel...> Ed G.________________________________________________________________________________
Yeah, these guys called us up at work asking about plans for new designsthat we haven't even had a chance to test-build ourselves yet! They can waitand buy a set later, like everyone else. Sheesh.Mike> from the Pietenpol's to build from...There were a few things in St.Croix's> plans that weren't updated like the gussets on the rudder so they musthave> been copied from a really old set...Still doesn't seem right to me....He> also sells plans for the Ariel...> Ed G.________________________________________________________________________________
> > Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft
Original Posted By: "Dennis Engelkenjohn"
> >> >> >> >Very interesting list of airplanes that supposedly comply with the new> >rule. Interesting in that the manufacturer (or someone) has todemonstrate> >that the aircraft complies with the rule requirements, not just states it> >in a fact sheet or sales flyer.> >> >I wonder if the Pietenpol family applied for approval and demonstrated> >compliance somehow?> >> >And how did St. Croix make it? I have heard that St. Croix's "AirCamper"> >is merely a copy of the Flying & Glider Manual plans or something like> >that.> >> >Oscar Zuniga> >San Antonio, TX> >mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com> >website at http://www.flysquirrel.net> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> _________________________________________________________________>>________________________________________________________________________________
> >> >> >> >Very interesting list of airplanes that supposedly comply with the new> >rule. Interesting in that the manufacturer (or someone) has todemonstrate> >that the aircraft complies with the rule requirements, not just states it> >in a fact sheet or sales flyer.> >> >I wonder if the Pietenpol family applied for approval and demonstrated> >compliance somehow?> >> >And how did St. Croix make it? I have heard that St. Croix's "AirCamper"> >is merely a copy of the Flying & Glider Manual plans or something like> >that.> >> >Oscar Zuniga> >San Antonio, TX> >mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com> >website at http://www.flysquirrel.net> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> _________________________________________________________________>>________________________________________________________________________________