Aero 2016 in pictures from my PAX.
mh wrote:
Sorry, but that’s nonsense. Furthermore LSA and ULM are completely different classes.
What does that even mean, technically speaking? Lycoming (and Continental for that matter, and Rotax) also produce non-certified engines. Parts in the Lycoming engines are interchangeable, they come from the same lot, yet one is certified, the other is not (speaking of standard engines, not custom made variants). The difference is purely a legal construct, traceability mainly. At ACS you can purchase hardware and materials with and without a C of C. The stuff is identical, and ACS themselves issues a Certificate of Conformance on all sales. To get a Certificate of Conformity on the actual part/material you have to pay additional charges. Experimental parts are parts with no certificate of conformity, and the main reason is there exists nothing for the part to conform to, and for the most part it is not even desirable for the part to conform to anything specific.
Particularly with engines, avionics and instruments, conformity will stop development because you cannot develop stuff when it has to conform to some pre-made recipe. For simpler parts, like hardware and materials, conformity or not makes no practical difference. ACS issues C of Conformance on all experimental parts, for whatever that is worth, but it means a Garmin EFIS is a genuine Garmin EFIS, and not a fraud, AN hardware is AN hardware and so on. Not even a certificate of conformity will prevent deliberate fraud by the manufacturer, so this certificate is only a legal thing.
ok thanks. I must agree there are too many statutes these days, for aeroplanes, governed by too many authorities and designated by far too many acronyms.
Restricted type certificate. Don´t ask for details, originally was to be VLA with non-certified engine perhaps. So 912 in UL version, not 912 in the certified version. But this might had evolved over the time, I am not involved for some years, just learning bit and pieces when speaking to some people….
Michal wrote:
There should be something with the good elements from the both worlds….
Wasn’t that what the LSA concept tried to be?
(PS @Michal, what do you mean by RTC ?)
Dynamic is RTCed for while and they did promise to all customers to get LSA and don´t ask about status – did you notice their presence this year at Aero (there was none)….Viper was on the list because they´ll be following the same sales number as anybody else.
Don´t take it wrong, I am not making fun of these guys, I am sad …The already limited market is too segmented.Too many people come to the market (with clearly the best aircrarf)…and with 5-10 aircraft per year you can hardly achieve profitability….going RTC/LSA or even VLA or whatever is making another burden and fixed cost – like DOA, POA. Was bankrupted Flight design way too different from other, did they something obviously wrong?
But this has something to do with overall regulatory and legal structure and different word of UL and certified aircraft. There should be something with the good elements from the both worlds….
Well, Tomark just got the TC for their Viper at this years Aero (On Thursday at 10:00 to be precise). A bit early to dismiss their alleged lack of sales, isn’t it? And I haven’t found an EASA(LSA) TCDS for the Dynamic, but that may be my fault….
mh wrote:
What do you mean with UL-manufacturers?
most of them – if not all of them. Evektor with eurostar RTC, Aeropro with Dynamic RTC, Viper RTC, Flight Design RTC etc….
mh wrote:
The A210/A211 is a VLA, not an LSA.
Of course you’re right – mixed that up.
