PDA

View Full Version : Need to buy a certified LSA, any recommendations?



motoadve
06-10-2009, 07:50 AM
My airport wont allow LSA unless is certified.

I wanted a STOl plane.
What would you uys recommend as a certified LSA?
That can be a STOL? I want trike gear.

motoadve
06-10-2009, 08:41 AM
High wing.
This is in Costa Rica and its an international airport.

They say the LSA has to be certified by the FAA
No Exoerimentals allowed either just certified so the tower can have official performance of the plane by FAA, cruise speed, aproches ect.

motoadve
06-10-2009, 08:53 AM
Thanks I already saw that list but dont like any of those planes, I wanted something more like a Kitfox or CH750 or 701

motoadve
06-10-2009, 08:59 AM
Costa Rica regulations only accept USA FAA certified planes.
No other countries (I tried from Colombia who makes the Savannah)

SkyPirate
06-10-2009, 09:11 AM
I'd tell the airport thanks for their input,..walk away ,..go find a flat field and rent a section 500 foot long by 100 foot wide put up a portable hangar. fly what you want...problem solved

Chase

SkyPirate
06-10-2009, 10:00 AM
acording to the FAA..Costa Rica doesn't have an IFIM for the public view..where did you get the info on the type aircraft Costa Rica will or will not allow?
If it's an issue of the approach speed's and such like you say,..why can't they allow you to provide that,..if your going to be based at that particular airport..
this is right from the FAA site (quote)

<LI sizset="91" sizcache="7">Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP)

The IFIM staff is not aware of a free-access Aeronautical Information Publication website for this country (Costa Rica)
(quote)
I'd want to see it in writing myself as to what plane I could or could not fly in Costa Rica.

SkyPirate
06-10-2009, 10:23 AM
there's 97 manufacturers on the bydanjohnson list,..there has to be something compatable to a persons needs with in it.

motoadve
06-10-2009, 10:52 AM
Thanks for the replies.
By the way the Savannah is quite different than the CH701

Way better glide ratio with same STOL performance.


Comparison
It has been said that the Savannah and the Zenith Aircraft CH701 are the same aircraft. This is because the Savannah and the CH701 are quite comparable in looks and components. Both trace their origins to the FIESELER STORCH (http://www.skykits.com/Storch.htm), first flown in 1936 (we are proud to say that many of the Savannahs design features were inspired by that famous aircraft). Both are high wing STOL all-metal aircraft with many of the same interior and exterior features. However, the CH701 has an inverted horizontal tail and full flying rudder while the Savannah has a conventional tail. As well, the Savannah has a straight wing that is 2' 5" longer than the CH701's dropped wing. The Savannah's cabin is larger with more headroom. Most importantly, the 701 has a gross weight of 1100lbs. effectively making it, with full fuel, a single place airplane. The Savannah's gross weight is 1234 lb. meaning that with full fuel, the payload (depending on installed equipment and paint) is 445 - 485 lb.
Both aircraft fly well although the Savannah does fly faster and is more stable due to its conventional design. The Savannah is also much quieter in flight due to it's fuselage structure while the CH701s flat sides oil can loudly. But where the difference is really apparent is in their kit forms. In our opinion, the Savannah kit is far superior to the CH701 kit in terms of value for your dollar, kit components, included options and building time.
The CH701 is available as a kit or as plans. The Savannah is only available as a kit. That's because the Savannah is fully CNC machined which makes all replacement parts interchangeable. Simply remove the damaged part and replace it with a machined factory new part. The CH701 has few, if any, interchangeable parts - they must be fabricated by you. CH701 kit parts are usually just a flat piece of metal cut to the approximate size of the finished part. You then have to find that part number in the large set of plans and cut, shape, drill and bend it to it's final configuration. This is very difficult work for a first time builder and that's why there are many CH701 kits unfinished and gathering dust in workshops and garages. You'll also need thousands of dollars worth of tools to build a CH701 kit but only a few hand tools to build a Savannah.
Upon cursory examination of their price lists, the CH701 appears to be less expensive than the Savannah. This is an illusion. The CH701 published kit price is for a bare airplane from the firewall back. The Savannah kit price is for a complete airplane right down to the upholstered seats, instruments and even the wiring harness.
Below is a comparison of the two aircraft kits.

Component Savannah CH701


.

Specifications Savannah vs CH701

MTOW (max takeoff weight) 1234 lbs. 1100 lbs.
Wing span 29' 5" 27' 0"
Wing area 139.5 sq.ft. 122.0 sq.ft.
Length 20' 2" 20' 11"
Height 9' 0" 8' 7"
Cruising speed 90 mph 80 mph
Top Speed 110 mph 95 mph
VNE 125 mph 110 mph
Glide ratio 12:1 Won't say
Assembly time - hours 160 - 250 1200 - 1600

Comparison Information
The above component comparisons were arrived at by an actual physical examination of a CH701 kit and a Savannah kit in 2003. Both kits were in their unopened original crates. Various people were involved in the examinations and comments were elicited from them all. Using the MD-RA 51% Amateur Determination Checklist, it was unofficially determined that 56% of the Savannah kit required builder input while a whopping 76% of the CH701 kit required builder input.
Looks, performance, quality, value for your dollar, kit components, and building time all combine to make the Savannah your best choice in an all-metal STOL aircraft.

Mark
06-11-2009, 07:50 AM
motoadve,
Did you know that Kitfox makes an SLSA? It's an FAA certified manufactured LSA - not experimental. The same great handling as the experimental version, but all you've got to do is pick up the keys and fly it home. Your search is over!

Mark
06-12-2009, 03:42 AM
My airport wont allow LSA unless is certified.
motoadve
I guess the question is - what does your airport consider a "certified" LSA?Since all SLSA are issued a 'statement of compliance with industry standards' rather than a 'type' certificate, your search may be limited to aircraft such as Aeroncas, Luscombes, Pipers, and Ercoupes.

If they're looking for 'factory built' or 'not home-built', then the SLSA could suit your needs.

motoadve
06-12-2009, 05:21 AM
Seems to be I will be limited to those planes they want FAA certified planes only, like the Aeroncas, Luscombes, Pipers, and Ercoupes.

And I dont like them much, will they be more fun than a Cessna 182?


The airport is located at 5,500 feet with hot humid weather so need something with some hp to be able to fly.

SkyPirate
06-12-2009, 06:58 AM
Quote/Seems to be I will be limited to those planes they want FAA certified planes only, like the Aeroncas, Luscombes, Pipers, and Ercoupes.

And I dont like them much, will they be more fun than a Cessna 182?


The airport is located at 5,500 feet with hot humid weather so need something with some hp to be able to fly. quote/

I flown planes made by all the designs you listed including a converted Ercoupe,..
at the alt. with heat you mentioned scratch the ercoupe and smaller aeronca's and pipers ..unless it's a super cub or the plane is been upgraded with bigger hp. and you plan on taking someone with you. I've only flown one luscombe and that was in the winter from a field at 545 alt.
the tripacer has a glide ratio of a rock with engine out I know this first hand,..this was at an altitude less then 5500 during the summer .

You want to look for a high lift winged plane or a plane with so much HP it would make a barn door fly to have good stol characteristics at alt. 5500 with heat , especially if you plan on taking someone with you.
your problem is not going to be landing short ..but rather taking off short
if the plane you choose doesn't have good power to weight ratio with high lift wings for stol

Chase

SkyPirate
06-12-2009, 07:10 AM
well that's too bad,..I know the tripacer if it's got good ponies on the nose will fit the bill and it's fun to fly..but with that short wing, it doesn't leave much room for error in an engine out situation,..if I did not have any other choices,..I'd find a non metalized tripacer and install a BRS.
Personally I'd be moving to a more pilot friendly enviroment :)

motoadve
06-12-2009, 07:17 AM
I wanted a STOL plane, with slow stall speed.
Kitfox or Savannah were my priorities.
What about a Cessna 172 with 180HP conversion , or a 182?

And the Maule is it hard to fly?

The problem with those is operational costs.

Dorsal
06-12-2009, 08:00 AM
Have you considered the Flight Design CT

SkyPirate
06-12-2009, 08:30 AM
I've got to ask again motodave,..is it just that particular airport that has set these rules?? or the entire airspace over Costa Rica ? what is stopping you from flying out of a private field, and flying what you want.

SkyPirate
06-12-2009, 08:57 AM
Ok so your saying it is just the particular airport that has these rules,..well there has to a piece of ground somewhere close to you you could fly out of,...the biggest advatange of any stol aircraft is that you do not need a runway,..
I've use roads,..corn fields,..football fields..and it doesn't have to be flat either,..I've even landed on a roof of a manufacturing plant,..
here where I'm living now ,..the access road in front of my house is on a hill and it has a 25% grade..that is going to be my runway.
If you let someone stand between you and your goal,..then you have to follow the parameters,.
So find a place where you can do the closest to your goal.
From the sounds ..the airport your speaking of has allot of different traffic for them to set a rule like the rule you state

jdmcbean
06-12-2009, 02:53 PM
My airport wont allow LSA unless is certified.

I wanted a STOl plane.
What would you uys recommend as a certified LSA?
That can be a STOL? I want trike gear.

motoadve,

The Kitfox S-LSA is an FAA certified aircraft.

It is certified by the FAA under different guidelines than the conventional FAR Part 23 certification.

Any questions please feel free to call me.