| Re: OT Interesting video
On Jan 28, 7:22 am, Mark Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 27, 7:42 am, Mark Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote:
> >> But compare the numbers to the 152...
>
> >> 44" wide ****pit
> >> 85 horsepower watercooled Rotax 912S
> >> 620 pounds
> >> Cruise: 161mph
> >> Range: 590 miles
> >> Takeoff roll: 541 feet
>
> >> 152
> >> ****pit width: 40" ??? (is it even that wide? I know that I was
> >> wedged into the 150 I used to fly if the instructor was on board))
> >> 110 horsepower
> >> Useful load: 589 pounds
> >> Cruise: 115mph
> >> Range: 477 miles
> >> Takeoff roll: 750 feet
>
> >> And... the Rotax is a LOT quieter than the Lycoming O-235.
>
> >ahh geezzz..this is so apples and oranges...these LSA are all 'home
> >builts', very limited to both who can fly them(meaning sport pilots
> >can fly these ONLY) and what they are. Remember a sport pilot can't
> >even fly a C-152 legally. Great that there is a way for people to fly
> >more cheaply and easier but this program really is a 'bicycle with
> >training wheels'.There are a lot more aircraft out there that are far too fast to
> qualify for SP flying, and many of the LSA are becoming available as
> factory-built aircraft as well (it's a very new field, but IIRC there
> are 40-50 types available now).
>
> >I can't imagine any SP would stay that way, would
> >get another 20 hours and be a genuine private pilot, with all the
> >benefits that carries, like the ability to get an instrument rating.It's still up in the air as to how successful the SP rating will be.
> Certainly there are some limitations - one passenger, limited to a
> certain cruise speed, no night / instrument flying. But in reality,
> that's pretty much what 50% of the potential pilots would limit
> themselves to anyway (if only for financial reasons). Add to that the
> fact that there's no medical requirement for a SP certificate, and
> that means that a lot of those who (for whatever reason) can't pass
> the stringent requirements for a private pilot certificate now have a
> way to fly (assuming they transition to SP BEFORE losing their
> medical). My dad lost his medical after having a heart attack and had
> to give up flying.
Sorry, don't agree with this one. Passing a not rigorous medical once
every year is a GOOD idea. I have had yearly medical exams when flying
in the USN and have had FAA medicals the the FAA ones are a sliver of
what the military ones were. Knowing that somebody is going flying w/o
a potentially serious medical condition is a GOOD thing.
>
> >BUT these are not 'trainers', will not be used for anybody wanting to
> >get a private ticket. This is a formal way for sombody to fly an
> >ultralight...not much more.I'm a little confused by your terminology though - if you consider a
> plane that's faster, bigger, and all-around more capable than the
> venerable Cessna 152 an "ultralight", you certainly have to consider
> the 152 as an "ultralight" as well, right?
Apples and oranges...again. LSA are 'baby' a/c, really just a warmed
over ultralight or homebuilt, now regulated by the FAA. As I have said
3 times now, good that it is easier for a new pilot to fly, with less
hours and less restrictions(altho not cheaper)..good, but these are
not for any pilot that wants to have a long term flying 'career',
IMO.. I have had a private ticket for 37 years, a instrument ticket
for 34 years, an ATP for 15 years but if new, I would just step up to
the Cessna 152/172 plate and press towards a private ticket, then an
instrument rating, which gives a pilot much more versatility.
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycleshttp://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame
|