Ferrying an EAB that has current airworthiness documentation and out of phase 1

[KeithO]

So one low wing tricycle gear LSA is not equivalent to a second low wing tricycle gear LSA that only differs in having 1 seat vs 2 ? How was it that all the part 103 pilots managed to get trained and not kill themselves when the 2 seat ULs could definitely not be compared to 1 seat part 103's ? Today someone wanting training for a 103 has to get training in a 2 seat LSA since there are no alternatives.. Performance envelope definitely not comparable. yet that again is OK ?

Thats like saying that training in an RV-4 does not prepare you to fly an RV-3.

Sounds like a lot of excuses.

 

[rv7charlie]

No, it's not.

You can now buy tricycle Cub clones. You can bet they fly nothing at all like an RV-12. A person who's only trained in a -12 would have fits trying to fly a Cub, even with tricycle gear.

A -12 is going to be a bit of a stretch from a C152, and a *big* stretch from a C172.

You're ignoring the fact that pt103 is totally unregulated. Using now-typical LSA designs for training is obviously not a sensible thing, but UL guys fouled their own bed by using '2seat ULs' for everything *but* training, and the FAA acted. They even gave them an 'out' by allowing them to register the 2seaters.

 

[Pops]

I have flown somewhere between 85 to 90 different airplanes and had to learn each one. Some sort of similar and some way out there.
Going to be a big jump from the RV-12 to the BK-1.3 in handling. Take small steps at a time.

 

[Dana]

Using now-typical LSA designs for training is obviously not a sensible thing, but UL guys fouled their own bed by using '2seat ULs' for everything *but* training, and the FAA acted. They even gave them an 'out' by allowing them to register the 2seaters.

But the "out" expired, and now only brand now SLSAs may be used for training on a commercial basis... which effectively means no ultralight instruction.

 

[rv7charlie]

Exactly. There *are* still a few '2seat ULs' that are legal SLSAs and can be used for training, so the legal path is still there. It's really not the FAA's job to decide which planes survive in the market place; that's on the consumer. If there was demand for UL trainers, there would be UL trainers.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Thats like saying that training in an RV-4 does not prepare you to fly an RV-3.

What if a student pilot gets 61.87 training required for solo in an RV-4 then wants to fly solo in an RV-3? Those could likely be similar enough, that would be on a case by case basis. As a CFI, would I endorse someone to do that? Perhaps for a relative or close friend but for anyone? No. Too much risk and no benefit. Any mishap and the CFI would be looking at a 709 exam. Not into fast and loose with my certificates.

BTW, there are no training regulations for part 103 ultralights. Can get in and go.

 

[Daleandee]

Going to be a big jump from the RV-12 to the BK-1.3 in handling. Take small steps at a time.

More of the "sage" advice I've been referring to.

In my first Sonex I may have been surprised if I had not driven to another state to take a ride in one as I had been flying a Challenger ll CWS. The Sonex was VERY different in handling than the Challenger. I had experience in a number of planes, and between the Challenger & the Sonex I flew a variety of similar and not so similar aircraft with other pilots and my instructor.

I did the first flight on the aircraft (Sonex) and felt qualitied to do so but I spent a lot of time in preparation. Some may have thought I had lost my mind sitting in the plane and "flying" the initial flight while in the hangar ... several times. Building muscle memory, knowing where to look for certain information, and committing the view over the nose to memory.

Speaking of ultralights ... a friend had bought a Legal Eagle (40hp Mosler). Flying that one was eye opening as it took a bit more tailwheel skills than anything I had flown up till then. Another tricycle gear pilot taxied it around and it shook him up so bad that he told me he considered us tailwheel pilots to be gods. Told him it was just another skill to learn.

Insurance for planes? I didn't used to but then the reality of liability came to me, especially if a passenger was involved. Last few years I gained hull coverage as the cost was reasonable and I'd like to get something back for my troubles if I have a good but not so great landing.

 

[KeithO]

For now the single seater is off the table since it was damaged and improperly repaired in my opinion. There are unfortunately very few of the Titans for sale with a 4 stroke engine. I may have to buy one with a 2 stroke and then install a used Jabiru engine.. Becomes a project again.... But that would meet all the purchase goals. Modest cost, 2 seat dual controls, tricycle gear, very low fuel burn, I already have an instructor willing to instruct in it. I can fly it later as a sport pilot by myself.

Given the fact that the Rotax 2 strokes are discontinued, the 912's and Jabiru 4 and 6 cylinder engines are now the factory default engine choices so it should be pretty straight forward to install a JAB engine because there should be nothing to invent and the POH etc should already exist for that configuration. Of course it would need a new 40 hour Phase 1 period. I'm pretty sure our CFI would love to get that job and hours....

 

[KeithO]

Sorry Charlie, but I dont think you are making a fair comparison.

We are talking this: vs this

Both low wing, tractor configurations with nearly identical performance numbers.

No, it's not.

You can now buy tricycle Cub clones. You can bet they fly nothing at all like an RV-12. A person who's only trained in a -12 would have fits trying to fly a Cub, even with tricycle gear.

A -12 is going to be a bit of a stretch from a C152, and a *big* stretch from a C172.

You're ignoring the fact that pt103 is totally unregulated. Using now-typical LSA designs for training is obviously not a sensible thing, but UL guys fouled their own bed by using '2seat ULs' for everything *but* training, and the FAA acted. They even gave them an 'out' by allowing them to register the 2seaters.

 

[BJC]

Sorry Charlie, but I dont think you are making a fair comparison.

We are talking this:

vs this

Both low wing, tractor configurations with nearly identical performance numbers.

Neither LG / wing configuration nor performance numbers have much to do with how an airplane handles. I’ve flown neither one, but certainly would listen to those who have.


BJC

 

[KeithO]

BJC, I believe there are 3 BK planes flying so obviously very few people who know about their handling qualities.

 

[BJC]

BJC, I believe there are 3 BK planes flying so obviously very few people who know about their handling qualities.

I’ve wondered why there aren’t more. It looks to be one of the better Teenie derivatives, I suppose the low number accounts for the training wheel; trying to attract more customers, a la the Ugly Cub.


BJC

 

[KeithO]

Its a scratch build and Bruces wife stopped the plans sales the moment he passed away. So I believe there were only about 80 sets of "beta" plans sold and about 1/10th of those being actively worked on.

In addition to that, it not an easy build. Tapered wing, many different form tools to make, same for the fuselage bulkheads. Then its mostly solid rivet with a lot of hard to access areas. All these things make it take as many hours as a typical RV. It would have been better if primary structure was made somewhere complete, like the wing spars and center section for the RV, made complete by Vans. Then ribs and skins could have been pop riveted, similar to Sonex or Zenith. That would have saved a LOT of time in building. 1 set of aluminum or steel dies for the ribs and bulkheads then at least these could be formed already, that would again save a massive amount of time. I'm sure Bruce had plans to offer these extra services but his life was cut short.

 

[BJC]

Then ribs and skins could have been pop riveted, similar to Sonex or Zenith. That would have saved a LOT of time in building. 1 set of aluminum or steel dies for the ribs and bulkheads then at least these could be formed already, that would again save a massive amount of time.

Yup, but then it would be just another Teenie.


BJC

 

[KeithO]

I found a PDF plans set of the Teenie on an Italian site, and it is certainly a simplified BK. Straight wing with no taper, pop rivets. All the EAA links on it are gone, Spruce has no info on it, so it seems to have died. It was around prior to the Hummelbird, could be that Bruce never knew about it. It was widely acknowledged that what he wanted was a more spacious, higher load rated version of the Hummelbird.