Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Recreational pilot

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

cjhukill(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:26 am Post subject: Recreational pilot

When I built my RV-8 ten years ago, I had an engine  built that produced 210 HP, but was limited by placards to 180 for the purpose  of qualifying it to be flown under the Recreational pilots license. Back then  AOPA was trying to get the Feds to allow that class of pilot to operate under  the medical self certification exemption that is allowed for sport pilots,  glider and balloon pilots. The restrictions back then would also require a fixed  pitch prop, so I put one of those on as well. 

 The Feds didn't go for it then, but said they would  re-evaluate after the Sport pilots exemption has been in effect for about ten  years. Well in the last ten years, there has been zero medical deficiency caused  accidents for sport pilots. Now, again the EAA and AOPA lawyers are submitting  to the FAA an exemption to allow the Rec pilots to self certify. The aircraft  requirements would once again allow for a max of 180HP, but not a restriction  for fixed pitch prop. The 2 seat restriction is also removed, and replaced with  "one Passenger". So my question is...How does the RV10 perform with the reduced  payload of 1 pax and 180HP? It would be interesting to experiment with a flying  RV10 that was limited by how far in you push the throttle to see if it would be  practical to placard your engine instruments to allow you to operate under those  conditions without a medical. Even  if the Feds required modifications to  your IO540 to physically limit you to 180, at what altitude? The rules would  require you to operate under 10,000 msl, but you could probably still pull 180HP  at that altitude with your downrated motor. And you could still have the other  80 HP available for emergencies down low.  A pilot with a medical could  simply remove whatever limiting devise is require (placards) and fly it like a  normal RV10. It would be nice to have that flexibility and would open your  machine up to a whole other class (market) of pilots. 

 Chris Hukill

   [quote][b]

bhughes(at)qnsi.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:30 am Post subject: Recreational pilot

Chris,

I would expect a climb rate of 600-700 fpm at 180 HP with fwf weight equal to the io 540. Lighter fwf may make the rear baggage area worthless. 

Bobby



Sent from my iPad



On Oct 30, 2011, at 8:37 AM, "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net (cjhukill(at)cox.net)> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		    When I built my RV-8 ten years ago, I had an engine  built that produced 210 HP, but was limited by placards to 180 for the purpose  of qualifying it to be flown under the Recreational pilots license. Back then  AOPA was trying to get the Feds to allow that class of pilot to operate under  the medical self certification exemption that is allowed for sport pilots,  glider and balloon pilots. The restrictions back then would also require a fixed  pitch prop, so I put one of those on as well. 

 The Feds didn't go for it then, but said they would  re-evaluate after the Sport pilots exemption has been in effect for about ten  years. Well in the last ten years, there has been zero medical deficiency caused  accidents for sport pilots. Now, again the EAA and AOPA lawyers are submitting  to the FAA an exemption to allow the Rec pilots to self certify. The aircraft  requirements would once again allow for a max of 180HP, but not a restriction  for fixed pitch prop. The 2 seat restriction is also removed, and replaced with  "one Passenger". So my question is...How does the RV10 perform with the reduced  payload of 1 pax and 180HP? It would be interesting to experiment with a flying  RV10 that was limited by how far in you push the throttle to see if it would be  practical to placard your engine instruments to allow you to operate under those  conditions without a medical. Even  if the Feds required modifications to  your IO540 to physically limit you to 180, at what altitude? The rules would  require you to operate under 10,000 msl, but you could probably still pull 180HP  at that altitude with your downrated motor. And you could still have the other  80 HP available for emergencies down low.  A pilot with a medical could  simply remove whatever limiting devise is require (placards) and fly it like a  normal RV10. It would be nice to have that flexibility and would open your  machine up to a whole other class (market) of pilots. 

 Chris Hukill

    	  Quote:

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:15 pm Post subject: Recreational pilot

I would expect the FAA to place the same stringent requirements on a qualifying aircraft as they do for Light Sport. That is that from certification forward it must have met the requirements of the category at all times. In other words they don't let you go back and forth between categories. Hard to say if they would place a gross wt limit on the category...don't recall if there ever was one.  There are some numbers that Vans has for the prototype with Continental IO-360 engine as to performance. I don't believe that engine has ever been derated below 195hp.

 

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Bobby J. Hughes <bhughes(at)qnsi.net (bhughes(at)qnsi.net)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Chris,

I would expect a climb rate of 600-700 fpm at 180 HP with fwf weight equal to the io 540. Lighter fwf may make the rear baggage area worthless. 

 Bobby



Sent from my iPad

 



	


#avg_ls_inline_popup{position:absolute;z-index:9999;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:hidden;wordWrap:break-word;color:black;font-size:10px;text-align:left;line-height:130%;}#avg_ls_inline_popup div{border-width:3px;border-style:solid;padding:3px;padding-left:8px;padding-right:8px;-moz-border-radius:5px;-webkit-border-radius:5px;}#avg_ls_inline_popup .red{border-color:#D20003;;background-color:#F5D4C1;;}#avg_ls_inline_popup .orange{border-color:#F57301;;background-color:#FFD3B0;;}#avg_ls_inline_popup .yellow{border-color:#EAA500;;background-color:#FEEFAE;;}#avg_ls_inline_popup .green{border-color:#00A120;;background-color:#C3E5CA;;} 

  [quote][b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

davidsoutpost(at)comcast.
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:48 pm Post subject: Recreational pilot

There is also a maximum 130 knot limitation.



David Clifford



RV-10 Builder

Howell,  MI

From: "Chris Hukill" <cjhukill(at)cox.net>

To: "RV10 post msg" <rv10-list(at)matronics.com>

Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:22:01 AM

Subject: Recreational pilot



       When I built my RV-8 ten years ago, I had an engine  built that produced 210 HP, but was limited by placards to 180 for the purpose  of qualifying it to be flown under the Recreational pilots license. Back then  AOPA was trying to get the Feds to allow that class of pilot to operate under  the medical self certification exemption that is allowed for sport pilots,  glider and balloon pilots. The restrictions back then would also require a fixed  pitch prop, so I put one of those on as well. 

 The Feds didn't go for it then, but said they would  re-evaluate after the Sport pilots exemption has been in effect for about ten  years. Well in the last ten years, there has been zero medical deficiency caused  accidents for sport pilots. Now, again the EAA and AOPA lawyers are submitting  to the FAA an exemption to allow the Rec pilots to self certify. The aircraft  requirements would once again allow for a max of 180HP, but not a restriction  for fixed pitch prop. The 2 seat restriction is also removed, and replaced with  "one Passenger". So my question is...How does the RV10 perform with the reduced  payload of 1 pax and 180HP? It would be interesting to experiment with a flying  RV10 that was limited by how far in you push the throttle to see if it would be  practical to placard your engine instruments to allow you to operate under those  conditions without a medical. Even  if the Feds required modifications to  your IO540 to physically limit you to 180, at what altitude? The rules would  require you to operate under 10,000 msl, but you could probably still pull 180HP  at that altitude with your downrated motor. And you could still have the other  80 HP available for emergencies down low.  A pilot with a medical could  simply remove whatever limiting devise is require (placards) and fly it like a  normal RV10. It would be nice to have that flexibility and would open your  machine up to a whole other class (market) of pilots. 

 Chris Hukill

   [quote]

[b]

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:59 pm Post subject: Re: Recreational pilot

I don't recall any speed limitations for recreational pilots. There is one for Sport Pilots.



The FAR wording says the aircraft must not have been certificated for more than 2 seats. So I don't think you can go back and forth between a "regular" RV-10 (4 seats) and a "recreational" one. You have to declare the number of seats when you get your A/W inspection. Once in writing, it's not easy to change.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: Recreational pilot

Ignore my last comment. I see that you say the FAA has changed the wording from 2 seats to one passenger. Is this done, or a proposal?

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:32 pm Post subject: Recreational pilot

Not to put too fine a point on it but... I think one would end up with an expensive, heavy, underpowered aircraft that has minimal resale potential.



Robin

Do Not Archive

richard.beebe(at)yale.edu
Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:41 am Post subject: Recreational pilot

No, this is a different animal. They're not talking about adding another 

category of aircraft. And actually there's some confusion in the 

original message. It doesn't just apply to pilots with Recreational 

licenses.



EAA and FAA are going to submit, in January, a proposal to the FAA that 

would let pilots flying recreationally to self-certify. Under the 

proposed exemption, pilots holding recreational, private, commercial, or 

airline transport pilot certificates who only fly recreationally could 

use the same driver’s license medical self-certification standard 

currently available to sport pilots. The limitations would be that the 

plane has to have 180hp or less, fixed gear, max 4 seats, in daylight 

VFR, with up to one passenger. The pilot will have to take and pass an 

on-online course that shows they understand the ramifications of 

self-certification (it'll be similar to the ADIZ course in size and 

difficulty I think). You'll get a card to carry that shows you've passed.



The specs on the aircraft were derived from the limitations imposed on 

Rec pilots as that's something the FAA is comfortable with.



Since the proposal hasn't been submitted yet, the details could, of 

course, change.



--Rick



On 10/30/2011 5:09 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I would expect the FAA to place the same stringent requirements on a

 qualifying aircraft as they do for Light Sport. That is that from

 certification forward it must have met the requirements of the category

 at all times. In other words they don't let you go back and forth

 between categories. Hard to say if they would place a gross wt limit on

 the category...don't recall if there ever was one. There are some

 numbers that Vans has for the prototype with Continental IO-360 engine

 as to performance. I don't believe that engine has ever been derated

 below 195hp.

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:58 am Post subject: Recreational pilot

Hi Rick,

I understand that the EAA and AOPA are wanting to define it as a set

of rules that apply to a pilot. Odds are very strong that the FAA will

want to apply it to a set of aircraft qualifying requirements, because

that is much easier for them to draw the line in the sand. (inspectors

can more easily determine if an airplane conforms than if a pilot

does)  I was under the impression that the request had been submitted.

Otherwise, why all the press hoopla for a non-submittal?

Kelly



On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Rick Beebe <richard.beebe(at)yale.edu> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 No, this is a different animal. They're not talking about adding another

 category of aircraft. And actually there's some confusion in the original

 message. It doesn't just apply to pilots with Recreational licenses.



 EAA and FAA are going to submit, in January, a proposal to the FAA that

 would let pilots flying recreationally to self-certify. Under the proposed

 exemption, pilots holding recreational, private, commercial, or airline

 transport pilot certificates who only fly recreationally could use the same

 driver’s license medical self-certification standard currently available to

 sport pilots. The limitations would be that the plane has to have 180hp or

 less, fixed gear, max 4 seats, in daylight VFR, with up to one passenger.

 The pilot will have to take and pass an on-online course that shows they

 understand the ramifications of self-certification (it'll be similar to the

 ADIZ course in size and difficulty I think). You'll get a card to carry that

 shows you've passed.



 The specs on the aircraft were derived from the limitations imposed on Rec

 pilots as that's something the FAA is comfortable with.



 Since the proposal hasn't been submitted yet, the details could, of course,

 change.



 --Rick

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

richard.beebe(at)yale.edu
Guest

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:32 am Post subject: Recreational pilot

I think because they wanted a "big announcement" at AOPA Summit. They're 

still working out the legalese of the proposal and they're waiting until 

after the elections. Word I have is that it will be submitted in January.



--Rick



On 11/04/2011 10:55 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



   Hi Rick,

 I understand that the EAA and AOPA are wanting to define it as a set

 of rules that apply to a pilot. Odds are very strong that the FAA will

 want to apply it to a set of aircraft qualifying requirements, because

 that is much easier for them to draw the line in the sand. (inspectors

 can more easily determine if an airplane conforms than if a pilot

 does)  I was under the impression that the request had been submitted.

 Otherwise, why all the press hoopla for a non-submittal?

 Kelly

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum