KITPLANES
 Home
 Hobby
 Subscriber Log-in
 Get Web Access
 Subscribe
 Magazine E-Library
 Classifieds
 Aircraft Directory
 Supplier Directory
 Reader Feedback
 SportPlanes
Links
 Back Issues
 Shopping
 Bookstore
How to Advertise
 Event Calendar
 Contact Us



SPORTPLANES™

Articles


Does the Sebring Expo Point to LSA's Future?

Inspect Your Experimental Category LSA

Flying as a Sport Pilot

Lowdown on Sport Pilot Training in a New LSA

Links

FAA-LSA Registration

Sport Pilot Certification

Sport Pilot Examiner Listing


How to become a Sport Pilot

 

Check out the analysis of the Light-Sport Aircraft rule from two KITPLANES Magazine articles by Ron Wanttaja.


Today’s Light Sport
Looking Forward, Looking Back

With the category more than heating up, let’s have a look at how we got here.

BY DAVE MARTIN

The Light Sport Aircraft directory featured in the February 2007 issue of KITPLANES Magazine reveals a snapshot of a dynamic new category of recreational aircraft  In just two and a half years since LSA and the accompanying Sport Pilot license became effective, nearly 40 factory-built aircraft have been approved by the FAA. Additionally, scores of Experimental/Amateur-Built category homebuilts qualify as LSAs, and many of their builders and pilots are already benefiting from Sport Pilot/LSA.More on this later.

At this point, public and industry interest in LSAs and Sport Pilot has exceeded expectations. (The new license has limitations but should cost about half as much as a Private license and obviates the need for an FAA medical certificate.)

We’re at a crossroads with LSA, no doubt; it is showing promise of growing rapidly and filling a big hole in the ranks of pilots and aircraft owners. But how did all of this activity and excitement come about? And, have we been down this path before?

Blame It on Francis and Gertrude
In the late 1940s, Francis Rogallo was an engineer working for NACA (NASA’s predecessor), and he designed a folding-fabric-wing, kite-like device that he thought might work as an inexpensive sport aircraft …and possibly as a way for space vehicles to glide to a landing. The
Rogallo wing featured a keel tube, two steeply swept leading-edge tubes, and a flexible material between the tubes.Francis’s wife, Gertrude, sewed the sail for the first Rogallo wing using window curtain material, and their names appear on the 1948 patent.

NASA tested the Rogallo wing and discarded it for spaceship landings, but in the early ’70s, a few young Californians tried the concept on some truly cheap gliders. Some were made of bamboo, plastic sheeting and duct tape, leading to the experimenters’ well-advised mantra: “Don’t fly higher than you’re willing to fall.”

The Rogallo wing’s main drawback was its low glide ratio, typically about 3:1. Yet it inspired others to look for better performance in rigid-wing hang gliders. While still a high school student in San Diego, Taras Kiceniuk Jr. designed, built and flew a swept-wing biplane hang glider that he named Icarus. His next design, the Icarus II, swept the wings more and flew better. Of course, some potential hang glider pilots—especially those without a convenient hill or ridge nearby—hankered for power.

At the 1976 Oshkosh convention, John Moody offered the first public demonstrations of his Icarus II fitted with a tiny engine and prop. One day during a demo he survived an unintentional loop in front of the crowd. That got him grounded and resulted in his apology for scaring everyone (including himself) in a subsequent edition of EAA’s magazine.

What’s the FAA to Do?

The genie was out of the bottle. Soon dozens of experimenters were building powered hang gliders of one sort or another, and companies offered ready-to-fly hang gliders and kits for powered ultralights. Accidents occurred. People died, and flying sites were lost.

The FAA took a novel approach to this totally unlicensed activity. Flying machines—whether they were powered or not—that could be foot-launched at least once by somebody were decreed to be air vehicles, not aircraft . That avoided the immediate need to clear the skies of hang gliders and powered ultralights while drafting new regulations, but it resulted in strange configurations such as trap doors below the pilot seat. It also taxed the supply of demo pilots who were light, skillful and very strong.

By early 1982, 106 companies in the U.S. and Canada were producing ultralights. The Big Three (Eipper Aircraft [originally Eipper Formance], American Aerolites and Rotec Engineering) were selling thousands of machines. Design and construction ranged from primitive yet crude to elegant and effective. In the latter category was the twin-engine Canadian Lazair. With its original pair of 5.5-hp Pioneer chainsaw engines, it weighed less than 200 pounds and could do consecutive low-altitude loops. (Designer Dale Kramer got wiser and stopped demonstrating loops.)

FAA staffer Mike Sacrey was assigned to write the proposed ultralight regulation; he visited flying sites and consulted with industry leaders. The proposed FAR, which became known as Part 103, gathered 40,000 comments and became effective in September 1982. Major requirements were (and still are) single seat, maximum empty weight of 254 pounds for a powered ultralight (155 pounds for unpowered), 63 mph maximum speed in level full-power flight, 27 mph maximum power-off stall speed, and a 5-gallon maximum fuel capacity.

Click here for the PDF file with the rest of the story

 

Headlines
New Products: CD-Based Weather Course Introduced

News: Superior Says "All OK"

Chelton Flight Systems, S-TEC to Become Roomies



From the Horse's Mouth: The FAA Won't Re-Evaluate Kits

Now the Sounds from Sun 'n Fun

Rocket Racing



That's All Folks....

A New Spin on Plane Power

Lightspeed Aviation Announces Improvements to Zulu Headset