1943 L2M on Floats

[TC747paul]

we are getting closer to getting the L2M back in the air, i got wondering, has anyone seen or heard of one on floats?
thanks all

Paul

[Ragwing nut]

If anyone had one on floats it would have been Amelia Reed. I personally have never seen one, but for some reason I keep thinking I was told about one years ago.

[n6346m]

Paul,
I am the current owner of a one time STC for the installation of EDO 1320s on an L-2M. I do not own the aircraft that it was issued to and I was intending on using most of the data from this STC to put floats on my L-2B. In addition to the STC I acquired the ventral fin and proper length float struts from the original owner's estate. I have not been able to make much progress on this project due to the lack of spreader bars and the current state of my wing rebuild. Interestingly, it seems that from the FAA CD on the original float installation on the subject aircraft was done while it still powered by an A-65. A later STC shows that it was converted to an O-200. The current owner of this aircraft who lives in Texas has no interest in putting back on floats. I believe that the subject aircraft is currently in the process of undergoing a slow or no-progress restoration. Another interesting thing about this STC that it makes a non-LSA eligible L-2M into an LSA aircraft if on floats due to the increased gross weight allowance. Attached is a picture of that aircraft on floats. As you can see, it also had the greenhouse replaced with a DC-65 looking aft cabin area.

Bob Picard
N48923 Taylorcraft L-2B
N6346M Stinson 108-3
Anchor Point, Alaska

[3Dreaming]

Another interesting thing about this STC that it makes a non-LSA eligible L-2M into an LSA aircraft if on floats due to the increased gross weight allowance. Attached is a picture of that aircraft on floats. As you can see, it also had the greenhouse replaced with a DC-65 looking aft cabin area.

Bob Picard
N48923 Taylorcraft L-2B
N6346M Stinson 108-3
Anchor Point, Alaska

The way I read the definition of a light sport aircraft, I don't think adding the floats will make it a LSA. Granted the gross weight allowed for a LSA on floats is higher than the gross weight of the L2M, but it is the "since its original certification", weight on wheels that would keep it from being a LSA.

[n6346m]

3Dreaming,
I see where you're coming from in the "since its original certification". I think you're right. I believe that it was intended for aircraft that were STC'd with higher gross weights could not be unmodified back to their original state. If I understand it correctly, only aircraft with floats listed in their TCDS are eligible for the 1420 lbs gross limitation. If their gross weight is between 1321 and 1420, they are not legal on wheels but OK on floats only if that float is specified in the TCDS. If a manufacturer did not list a specific float in their TCDS any STC of any make or manufacturer of floats makes them ineligible.

Bob Picard

[3Dreaming]

3Dreaming,
I see where you're coming from in the "since its original certification". I think you're right. I believe that it was intended for aircraft that were STC'd with higher gross weights could not be unmodified back to their original state. If I understand it correctly, only aircraft with floats listed in their TCDS are eligible for the 1420 lbs gross limitation. If their gross weight is between 1321 and 1420, they are not legal on wheels but OK on floats only if that float is specified in the TCDS. If a manufacturer did not list a specific float in their TCDS any STC of any make or manufacturer of floats makes them ineligible.

Bob Picard

I don't think TCDS has anything to do with it. For the definition it doesn't matter what kind of airworthiness certificate the aircraft has. It simply that it meets the definition, and has continued to do so since it received its airworthiness certificate. An airplane that is certified that does not meet the definition can not be modified into the definition by adding floats.

[Edwin Otha]

Nothing you do to it will make it an LSA aircraft. That is a completely different classification of aircraft. The floats would allow a Sport Pilot to operate it due to the increased G/W of the float configuration. Remove the floats and the Sport Pilot cannot fly it due to it not meeting the weight restriction. That would be my interpretation of it.

EO

[3Dreaming]

Nothing you do to it will make it an LSA aircraft. That is a completely different classification of aircraft. The floats would allow a Sport Pilot to operate it due to the increased G/W of the float configuration. Remove the floats and the Sport Pilot cannot fly it due to it not meeting the weight restriction. That would be my interpretation of it.

EO

We have been through this before. Light Sport Aircraft is a simple definition of an aircraft that meets certain characteristics. Just like an aircraft that has more than one engine is a multi engine aircraft, any aircraft that meets the definition of a LSA as spelled out in CFR 1.1 is a Light Sport Aircraft. This shouldn't be confused with how an aircraft receives its airworthiness certificate. When the Sport pilot/light sport rules went into effect they created a couple new avenues to receive airworthiness certificates. One is Experimental operating as a light sport, the other was special light sport aircraft. With the exception of moving from Special light sport aircraft moving to Experimental operating as a light sport you can not change the type of airworthiness certificate the aircraft has.

Since the aircraft has not continued to meet the definition since its original certification it can not be operated by a pilot operating under sport pilot privileges.

[Edwin Otha]

The definition of a light sport is just another confusing chapter in the saga for the FAA. The Light Sport I am referring to is the one built under ASTM F2972-15. Fly what you want, when you want and how you want.

[PA1195]

This is interesting and informative, but the FAA at least in Alaska has more important issues to deal with than a LSA qualified configuration or not....and they do just that. Now for conscientious owners and mechanics it becomes a question of actual basic empty weight versus legal useful load in any configuration...but we are not required to have an actual empty weight as determined by certified scales. Many are just calculated initially or over time via pencil scales.

The "since it's original certification" exists and Terry Bowden has confirmed that to me very clearly.

Gary

[3Dreaming]

The definition of a light sport is just another confusing chapter in the saga for the FAA. The Light Sport I am referring to is the one built under ASTM F2972-15. Fly what you want, when you want and how you want.

Ed, The rule is not so confusing for pilots and what they can fly. A sport pilot or any pilot flying under sport pilot privileges and limitations can fly a light sport aircraft as defined in CFR 1.1. This definition applies to all aircraft regardless of how their airworthiness certificates were issued.

What you are confusing is the difference between a light sport aircraft, and a light sport aircraft issued an special airworthiness certificate in the light sport category. A light sport aircraft can have an airworthiness certificate issued in the Standard, primary, experimental, or special light sport category. CFR 21.190 covers the issuance of an special airworthiness certificate in the light sport category, and it has several requirements that must be met for issue. First and foremost, is it a light sport aircraft as defined in CFR 1.1? It must meet the definition. Second has it ever had an airworthiness certificate issued before? If it has, it is not eligible for issue of an airworthiness certificate in this category. Third was it built to a standard accepted by the FAA? ASTM F2972-15 is the only standard to date that has been accepted by the FAA. Because of the second requirement an aircraft that had been previously issued an airworthiness certificate can not be switched to the light sport category.

Where things do become confusing is maintenance, and especially preventive maintenance. I did a nice presentation on light sport maintenance at out IA renewal seminar this year.

[PA1195]

Where things do become confusing is maintenance, and especially preventive maintenance. I did a nice presentation on light sport maintenance at out IA renewal seminar this year.

Is that available and if so can we inform ourselves? Maybe it's here already?

Gary

[3Dreaming]

Is that available and if so can we inform ourselves? Maybe it's here already?

Gary

I could share the power point, but I don't think the presentation was recorded. In a nut shell, it boils down to how the airworthiness certificate for the aircraft was issued, the pilot certificate held (not the privileges being exercised), or the certificate a mechanic or repairman holds. The biggie is that a sport pilot can not perform preventive maintenance on all light sport aircraft. They can only perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft with a airworthiness certificate in the special light sport category. The one exception is experimental aircraft, and anyone with or without credentials can perform preventive maintenance on those.

[PA1195]

Thank you for that explanation. Mine is a certified T and I have always maintained the standard air worthiness as built. But...if the power point presentation is available I'd review it and fill in the assumed verbiage.

As to the blah blah of mine in Post #10 I prefer to know what my plane weighs via scales then compute a useful load.

And as far as a L-2? on floats it would be interesting to read the particulars for basis of the one time float STC to A-746...and the later O-200's tests to maintain conformity when on floats. The under tail fin was determined to be required-why?-per CAR 4a? C-85 T's (BCS12D-85 and BCS12D-4-85) do away with that gadget on EDO 1320's.

Gary

[3Dreaming]

This is interesting and informative, but the FAA at least in Alaska has more important issues to deal with than a LSA qualified configuration or not....and they do just that. Now for conscientious owners and mechanics it becomes a question of actual basic empty weight versus legal useful load in any configuration...but we are not required to have an actual empty weight as determined by certified scales. Many are just calculated initially or over time via pencil scales.

The "since it's original certification" exists and Terry Bowden has confirmed that to me very clearly.

Gary

As far as LSA is concerned empty weight and useful load are not factors that determine eligibility, That is determined by gross weight. That being said the empty weight does matter for those aircraft built to ASTM standards. There is a formula based on fuel required per maximum continuous power and pilot and passenger weight of 190 pounds each. That is why the Carbon Cub SS has a maximum continuous power of I think 85 on an engine that puts out 180 for take off and some are certified as single place aircraft. It is odd though, because some of the single seat airplanes have what looks like a seat to strap baggage to.