Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: I need help

Bikerider,

 

    Elitist attitude??  Are you kidding me?  What you have experienced is certainly not elitist attitude.  It is simply facts.  You see, this whole flying thing is kinda scientific.  It's about defying gravity.  You know,  thrust vs. drag and lift vs. WEIGHT.  Getting the whole thing off the ground is not exactly easy.  The ability to LIFT more WEIGHT requires a larger aircraft.  It, itself will weigh more.  Our friendly folks at the FAA have set the GROSS weight of LSA's, those that can be flown with fewer training hours and the driver's license "medical", at 1320lbs.  That's just the way it is.  So , say two guys weighing 260lbs each want to go flying:  That's 520lbs of the 1320 used up already.  That leaves just 800lbs for the aircraft and fuel.  If you just want to fly for two hours, that'll be somewhere in the vicinity of 10 gallons of fuel, or roughly 60lbs.  Now you're down to 740 lbs for the aircraft.  That's one light airplane!  And if you're talking more than the 260lbs, it only gets worse.  One way to keep them light is to keep them small, reducing dimensions.  Not good if you want to handle "large" humans. 

 

    The other comments that you mentioned were certainly not "nice", but they weren't without a bit of reality attached.  This whole thing has nothing to do with "tolerance for peoples differences".  It has to do with facts.  You mention that the "Aviation Community"  and the " Aviation Family" ought to offer "more help in trying to find ways for people to realize their dreams of flying".  Apparently the only things standing in your way might be your weight and your size.  It would seem to me that YOU have more control over that than any one else.  Do you expect the "Aviation Community" to concentrate it's efforts just so YOU can learn to fly?  Talk about an elitist attitude!

 

    If you are really interested in learning to fly, you've got to put forth some effort.  You've been shying away from it for "50 years".   Make a decision.  Find a way.  Make it a goal.  There are lots of folks out there willing to help.  Make a plan.  "I can't" or "THEY won't" won't get it done.

 

Please forgive me if the above sounds harsh.  I've been accused of being harsh before.  I just get tired of hearing this kind of stuff.  I'm certainly not an elitist.  I had to build my own airplane in order to afford to fly.  Sometimes I can't afford to put fuel in it.  So sometimes I have to wait.  But I've never met a better bunch of guys willing to help another guy fly than the pilots I know.  They are not elitists, either.

 

Make it happen.  Then tell others how they can do it too.

 

Bob Taylor
TigerCub N657RT

From: bikerider1959

Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:59 PM

To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: I need help

 

so you're saying hey big guys, you have to have twice as many hours , study more and get a medical before you can do what us thin guys can do with less time and our drivers license.

this elitist attitude is one of the things that has kept me from even attempting to learn how to fly for 50 years, comments from pilots like you might have a hard time fitting in the plane, and we might not even be able to take off,or there is no way you could ever pass the medical exam,and other comments when ever I would ask questions about it. that made me feel inferior and forever afraid of trying to get a medical certification.
so Now I hear about the new class of flying with a drivers license Medical requirement that is intended to bring more new pilots into general aviation with less cost to the individual.
you would think that with all the talk about the "Aviation Community" and the "Aviation Family" out there that there would be more tolerance for peoples differences and more help in trying to find ways for people to realize their dream of flying, instead we have an elitist I am better than you fat boy attitude. new pilots are fine as long as they fit into the Ken And Barbie mold.

--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, Peter Walker <peterwalker58@...> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> There is a class that allows a higher gross Its galled GA However the rules are different Some people just dont fit Light SportGet over it
> Peter
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "pwrsport@..." <pwrsport@...>
> To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 3:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: I need help
>
>
>  
> Well of course.
>  
> Would be great if the gross could be increased to take advantage of capable aircraft.
>  
> Ed
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Bill Bower
> >Sent: Apr 26, 2012 11:46 AM
> >To: "Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com"
> >Cc: "Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com"
> >Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: I need help
> >
> > 
> >Except LSA restriction is1320 so it does not matter what they demonstrate because it would not qualify.
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >On Apr 26, 2012, at 11:12 AM, "pwrsport@..." <pwrsport@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >I was just thinking, if a manufacture could demonstrate g loads that exceed the numbers you show, could then result in having their sport plane with gross weigh over 1320.  Could be your plane did exceed those numbers?  Say you load up your plane to 1400 and still meet the requirement? You now have marketing advantage over others.  There are planes out there that can handle over 1320.  Having a plane with higher published g loads is good, but does not necessarily translate into useful condition for the consumer.  I suspect if that could happen, then the race would be on.   
> >> 
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: apollonorthamerica
> >>>Sent: Apr 26, 2012 9:06 AM
> >>>To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> >>>Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: I need help
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>Ed
> >>>I am not sure what you mean.
> >>>All ASTM compliant LSA airplanes have to meet the design criteria and they have to show +4G and -2G at gross weight as allowed max load (working) and ultimate being with a multiple of 1.5 (+6, -3). These loads are to be sustained for certain number of seconds only as these are not aerobatic airplanes.
> >>>
> >>>There are various ways of showing this via static load tests or dynamic testing.
> >>>Abid
> >>>
> >>>Thatâs correct. I would like to see (but will never happen) the LSA criteria for gross weight be established on a standard G load, say 2 and 4 which would allow a 1320 gross. If a manufactures aircraft has a G load capacity exceeding that then the gross weight could be higher until a force of 2 and 4 is reached. Not sure what is going on out there right now with manufactures, but some aircraft have low G load ratings, could some of those still list a 1320 max weight just to fit in the field of all other light sport craft?
> >>>
> >>>Ed
> >>>
> >>>
>

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4963 - Release Date: 04/27/12

__._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___