Light Sport Aircraft

Eclipse · December 21, 2009, 03:18:45 AM

Getting defensive about these "toys" isn't going to change our opinion. There's barely enough room in the cockpit of a 160 blow your nose.

If you like them, fly them, I'm sure they are a lot of fun, but expecting CAP to adopt an a/c that requires you take your wallet out of your back pocket so you don't hit your head on the ceiling is just not reasonable.

C-150 · December 21, 2009, 03:26:38 AM

No a bit defensive....just don't want 2 active professional pilots to be lumped in with guys that can't pass a medical or are unsafe. Just educating the masses that many pilots fly LSA. Oh well shouldn't even have brought it up.

a2capt · December 21, 2009, 04:04:55 AM

I didn't see mentioned either.. the performance specs for every LSA are practically the same.

Max gross ramp weight, landplane, 1320 lbs. seaplane, 1430 lbs.
Max stall speed 45 kts.
Max seating 2
Fixed speed, or ground adjustable prop only, and it's probably made of wood or composite.
Fixed gear unless it's a seaplane.

As well, I seem to recall a max fuel capacity of 24 gallons. Pile on 60-1 and that aircraft can't even get off the ground. That was the problem with the Maul. 18 lbs of paint, all the CAP 'junque' and pilots hated them as the range/airborne time was severely limited, despite it making a nice platform with plenty of view.

cap235629 · December 21, 2009, 08:06:53 PM

I researched this at length last night and have a theory. How about a tandem configuration with a "photo window" on both sides? 2 man crew working extremely efficiently. Looks like the Sky Arrow 600 Sport would be an ideal platform:

http://www.trevesgroup.com/giottoair/skyarrow/documents/SA600_Datasheet.pdf

blackrain · December 21, 2009, 09:26:55 PM

I saw an article a while back mentioning the Sky Arrow as a low cost aerial alternative for various Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Agencies. I think the stock engine is 100Hp. I would add another 10 hp and call is a pretty good surveillance platform albeit lacking in the night vision dept.

sparks · December 21, 2009, 11:27:27 PM

A two man crew may work for an electronic search but anything else needs a crew of three. If the back seater is taking pictures and recording all the required parameters the mission will be long, have multiple passes or incomplete.

Another issue is the girth of many pilots and crewmen, not well suited for the LSA. Sure we should all be in shape but that isn't the current membership profile. Just look at the last conferance pictures in Texas (seniors not cadets). As mentioned before, add in the CAP specific gear and the useful load takes a hit.

Yes, the military used modified Tailorcrafts in WWII and I think Korea for liaison and observation missions. I don't think going backwards 50 years would fix any of CAP's mission problems.

ol'fido · December 22, 2009, 12:11:31 AM

Let's see... aircraft I have seen used at missions since ...oh...1979. C172, C182, Beech Baron, Beech Staggerwing, Piper Super Cub, Kachina Varga, O-1/L-19 Birddog, C150, C152, Citabria, Cherokee Six and a Cessna Citation I. These are jast the ones I remember.

MooneyMeyer · December 22, 2009, 02:50:03 AM

How absurd LSA's, really?! We should be looking into upgrading the fleet into more capable aircraft with better useful loads. Not moving towards those 100hp strap-on airplanes. Give me a break. Now don't get me wrong, I love hand proping my old 80hp Aeronca Champ and going for a low and slow cruise, but its not the sort of plane that CAP should invest in.

We should look at upgrading to the 206, its a great airplane. They're easy to fly and we would be better able to accommodate you "fluffier" types and the tech toys we'll be using going forward.

N Harmon · December 22, 2009, 02:34:35 PM

Quote from: C-150 on December 20, 2009, 06:58:09 PM
Just wondering if LSA will ever have a place in CAP? With their low operating cost some of the types may be great for SAR and damage survey flights etc. Just a thought.

I think it's possible. Perhaps not in the near future, but I think UAV technology may eventually render mission observers and scanners obsolete. And if you have such a sensor package, AND fuel prices double or triple from what they are today?

Yeah, I think it would be silly to outright dismiss the idea that LSAs could, some day, have a place in CAP.

blackrain · December 22, 2009, 05:02:12 PM

Quote from: N Harmon on December 22, 2009, 02:34:35 PM
Quote from: C-150 on December 20, 2009, 06:58:09 PM
Just wondering if LSA will ever have a place in CAP? With their low operating cost some of the types may be great for SAR and damage survey flights etc. Just a thought.

I think it's possible. Perhaps not in the near future, but I think UAV technology may eventually render mission observers and scanners obsolete. And if you have such a sensor package, AND fuel prices double or triple from what they are today?

Yeah, I think it would be silly to outright dismiss the idea that LSAs could, some day, have a place in CAP.

Kind of like the Surrogate Pred but something akin to the Israeli Aircraft Industries POP 300 sensor package from the Shadow UAV. 10 1/2 in diameter by 15 in high ball assembly. Probably less than 80 LBS behind the back seat for the ball and associated electronics. (ALL this is open source so don't throw the OPSEC flag) On top of that the imagery can be sent directly to the ground. The show stopper for now is the $250,000 (not sure about the accuracy of the price but definitely high) price tag. Time should see the price come down though I'm sure it will take a long time.

sparks · December 22, 2009, 05:20:23 PM

Making the leap from an LSA to a UAV is huge! If CAP liquidated all of its' aircraft assets and had a UAV package to do CAP missions maybe it could be done. An expensive electronics package with superior detection capability compared to a Becker or the Mk1 eyeball might be worthwhile. Training and operational expenses become an issue along with no need for many CAP pilots. Is it a pipe dream, maybe not? Several years ago who would have thought the Air Force would be training pilots to fly out of a climate controlled trailer via satellite link!

EMT-83 · December 23, 2009, 04:01:00 AM

Of course cadet O-rides are difficult in a UAV.

cap235629 · December 23, 2009, 06:38:26 AM

Quote from: EMT-83 on December 23, 2009, 04:01:00 AM
Of course cadet O-rides are difficult in a UAV.

I bet a cadet weened on X-Box can fly a UAV better than a 2000 hour CFII

sparks · December 23, 2009, 01:37:01 PM

A simple change to 60-1 would fix the "O" ride issue if CAP didn't have 172/182 aircraft. That regulation seems to be changed every January so one more amendment would be normal. The change would be to allow "O" rides in CAP member owned aircraft if approved by a wing commander. That also could be a good idea if CAP aircraft are out of range of the ferry flight matrix (X number of cadets per hour of ferry time).

Check Pilot/Tow Pilot · December 25, 2009, 08:29:46 PM

Quote from: twofivexray on December 20, 2009, 10:55:09 PM
The Sky Arrow 600 gives superb visibility. I understand from the 3I website that it was originally designed as an observation aircraft for NATO.

With the wings and engine above and behind the cockpit, the view is more like a helo than an airplane.

http://www.skyarrow.com/mainwebsite_html/eng_informazioni.htm

The Sky Arrow, bah

What you want is a twin engine LSA that can climb 1,500 fpm, do 300 fpm on one engine, have an open cockpit so you can take those all important pictures, a nice low cruise speed of 50-100 mph (Can you imagine the POD at that speed), six hour endurance, high wing, and a 640 lb useful load! And of course the most important feature of conventional gear!

Maybe we can be issued some USAF Flight helmets or WWII flying goggles.

It was designed for the National Geographic Society for flying in the Congo. Only $110,000 plus paint!

Check it out at http://www.aircam.com/index.htm

ol'fido · December 26, 2009, 03:27:42 AM

Wayyyyyyyy COOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!

Check Pilot/Tow Pilot · December 26, 2009, 06:03:45 AM

I was at Harris Ranch with the CAWG DOV six months ago, and there were two AirCams there. A most impressive beast from the ground. One had a GNS-430W for GPS, and it looked like it had a ton of room.

PHall · December 26, 2009, 06:47:32 AM

They look like they're real nice aircraft except for two little "problems".
They're homebuilts and they're taildraggers. The 60-1 has a problem with that.

Gunner C · December 26, 2009, 05:42:29 PM

Quote from: Amelia Earhart SQ on December 25, 2009, 08:29:46 PM
Quote from: twofivexray on December 20, 2009, 10:55:09 PM
The Sky Arrow 600 gives superb visibility. I understand from the 3I website that it was originally designed as an observation aircraft for NATO.

With the wings and engine above and behind the cockpit, the view is more like a helo than an airplane.

http://www.skyarrow.com/mainwebsite_html/eng_informazioni.htm

The Sky Arrow, bah

What you want is a twin engine LSA that can climb 1,500 fpm, do 300 fpm on one engine, have an open cockpit so you can take those all important pictures, a nice low cruise speed of 50-100 mph (Can you imagine the POD at that speed), six hour endurance, high wing, and a 640 lb useful load! And of course the most important feature of conventional gear!

Maybe we can be issued some USAF Flight helmets or WWII flying goggles.

It was designed for the National Geographic Society for flying in the Congo. Only $110,000 plus paint!

Check it out at http://www.aircam.com/index.htm

I see you have the fat boy as close to the CG as possible.

That looks like fun - kinda windy, though. I'll have to pull out my high altitude warmies. Cold and wind are not my friends.

Flying Pig · December 26, 2009, 05:49:00 PM

Quote from: Amelia Earhart SQ on December 26, 2009, 06:03:45 AM
I was at Harris Ranch with the CAWG DOV six months ago, and there were two AirCams there. A most impressive beast from the ground. One had a GNS-430W for GPS, and it looked like it had a ton of room.

You shoulda given me a call!!! I go with the tri-tip sandwich myself. Never disappointed.