ASW22 wrote:
It wouldn’t be an LSA. The MTOW of the UL would be upgraded to 500-600 kg (still open).
Got it – my bad.
…and how would the difference between certified LSA (600kg) and an uncertified ULM (600kg) be justified ?
In particular, ex-post for existing frames ?
Not specifically to you, just wondering.
For example ULM aren’t allowed to land in LOWI, but the same aircraft as LSA would be allowed to do so.
ASW22 wrote:
To my knowledge the LSA-version of a WT9 has the same airframe as the UL-versionNot quite, the CS-LSA variant received a number of changes under the hood (sorry I can only find this article in french). That being said, said changes might be retro-fittable to existing airframes. Like an STC.
I heard at Aero EDNY yesterday that currently in Europe it may be easier to certify a 600kg one as CS23 i.e. fully certified and thus capable of flying anywhere, whereas some countries are absolutely not recognising the 600kg category.
The only drawback of CS23 is that you can’t take advantage of concessions which are relevant on the medical front e.g.
The other drawback is the need for EASA compliant maintenance and the use of certified equipment. Where ‘certified’ does not always mean more reliable. We’ve discussed before the fact that Rotax certified and uncertified engines are exactly the same except for some paperwork.
Having said that, indeed some UL manufacturers have certified/ are certifying their designs under CS23 so they see a market for it (use for training for instance). I understand there are very little or no modifications needed to upgrade, just testing and paperwork..
The other drawback is the need for EASA compliant maintenance and the use of certified equipment.
That was exactly the point I made to the guy who told me (who works in certification).
If I recall his reply correctly, it was that the manufacturers issue an EASA-1 anyway as it doesn’t cost them anything extra. Of course that assumes the mfg is a 145 company to start with, which AFAIK is not a requirement for UL parts. There is a way to issue an EASA-1 form by “renting” another company’s 145 approval, and there is this exemption.
some UL manufacturers have certified/ are certifying their designs under CS23 so they see a market for it (use for training for instance).
It would be interesting how many such training flights, with 2 persons, would be legally loaded. Private flying is one thing but schools can’t really bend the rules. IIRC, that was one issue with the Cessna 162, which was 600kg too and would have been over MTOW with two average size people.
Peter wrote:
how many such training flights, with 2 persons, would be legally loadedThey are closer to legality, and actually possible, than the same plane with the same 2 people within the UL 450kg framework (unless both are ultra-skinny)(ie I am disqualified).
Example:
Empty weight: 370 kg (that’s on the high side of an UL being converted to CS23 LSA, my UL weighs 335 kg and would probably qualify unmodified).
Student plus instructor: 180 kg
That leaves:
1) 3 kg for a proper stick to beat the student into submission after his repeated mistakes
2) 47 kg of mogas, which is 70 liters or about 4 hours of endurance
my UL weighs 335 kg and would probably qualify unmodified
The Bristell? Nope.
The Bristell? Nope.
@mh As you will know there is a ‘HD’ version (stronger wing spar). The version of the HD that flies in the the US as an LSA is good for 600 kg MTOM. That version has a slightly bigger wing span and a fixed prop. HD versions with a smaller wing span (mine) fly in the UK as a microlight kit with 600 kg as well as in CZ, I believe. The other parameters that go with the 600 kg uplift (stall speed, take-off distance) can easily be met.
I may be overlooking something, so I’m interested in your analysis.
