Tweet
I am looking again for another Taylorcraft... must be LSA - including previous propellers. Budget is under 20K, MUST have a useful load of 430 or better... and have at least 650 hrs left on the engine.
Ryan
Ryan
-
Ryan Short, CFI, Aerial Photographer
Former Taylorcraft BC-12D owner - hopefully future owner as well.
KRBD and KGPM - Dallas, TX
TexasTailwheel.com -
Re: Looking again
Ryan, I feel bad about pointing that out on your other airplane. Make sure you get a CD from the FAA and closely look over the paperwork for the new airplane before you buy. -
Re: Looking again
Please don't feel bad. I'm actually OK with it at this point.
I have learned a LOT since then. That was my first ever airplane purchase.
Here are some interesting things...
The plane had been flown for 6 years before I bought it by a sport pilot and was advertised as such.
The aircraft has the McCauley prop on it, and even the San Antonio FSDO guys that I talked to initially thought I was OK because it no longer had the adjustable prop on it. One would literally never know that this wasn't LSA unless one had a really thorough look at the logs.
I should have looked up the 1.1 definition again myself (I teach it to students all the time - ugh!)...
A WHOLE lot of people advised me to just fly it as an LSA and not worry about it. I probably could have have even squeaked by since I doubt any examiners would have checked anything but the last annual and 100 hr. for it's airworthiness, but I just didn't feel right about leaving some student hanging if an issue ever occurred such as a ground loop, or something where the FAA got involved at looking at the logbooks. Even then, I suspect it would've been OK, but I didn't want to risk it.
When I looked at the logs (and I did get the CD from the FAA) I didn't even know what a "Beech Roby" prop was, just that it had been installed, and was not on the plane any more. When it got mentioned on here, I remembered seeing that on the 337 list on the FAA CD, and then thought about it being cool to re-install but forgot about the 1.1 definition... that's when things got ugly.
It's really too bad that a plane can't have something installed that is legal per the TCDS, and then have it removed and be OK. I personally think we should get together and try for a NPRM attempt on the Federal Register to change that so that if an aircraft meets the TCDS, and should have previously been OK (ie. not a Cessna 150 that someone's tried to lower the gross weight on) then it can be returned.
I love having had the bird (it's still mine until I hopefully get the balance of the money within a month or so) and do not regret having owned a T-craft. They are great birds and every time I fly the Cub that I also teach in, I wish I was flying my T-craft instead.
RyanLast edited by RyanShort1; 05-30-2013, 07:33.Ryan Short, CFI, Aerial Photographer
Former Taylorcraft BC-12D owner - hopefully future owner as well.
KRBD and KGPM - Dallas, TX
TexasTailwheel.comComment
-
Re: Looking again
It's crazy that the rule has the "once out, always out" clause. Why would it matter if someone restored an airplane to the original config?Comment
-
Re: Looking again
That's a question that makes no sense to me, either. Terry Chasteen, who is the manager of the Light Sport division said that it's supposed to keep the airplane simple, and not have anything that could depart from that. My plane doesn't have the controls for the Prop at all, so how could it's complexity even concern the student?
RyanRyan Short, CFI, Aerial Photographer
Former Taylorcraft BC-12D owner - hopefully future owner as well.
KRBD and KGPM - Dallas, TX
TexasTailwheel.comComment
-
Re: Looking again
I think it was a rule with purpose that reached beyond the reason it was created. I think it was there mainly for the issue of weight. There was talk before the rule was published that one could do a STC for an airplane like a L2M reducing the gross weight by 5 pounds to make it legal. This rule put a stop to that. The fact that it reaches an airplane that had a controllable pitch prop at one time is not what they intended IMO.Comment
-
Re: Looking again
Now the way it's writen this rule applies to the LSA certificated aircraft,NOT Standard catagory. If the plane was properly modified and exceeded the Sport Pilot operation limitations it could no longer be operated by a Sport Pilot. If it is modified back to the operation limitations it is again able to be operated by a Sport Pilot. The Taylorcraft is not a LSA aircraft and no LSA specifications apply.
The FAA did publish a document, not a ruling, that they would not allow a decrease in certificated gross weight to meet any LSA/Sport Pilot requirements.
EOComment
-
Re: Looking again
I was always told once modified out of Light Sport it could never return again to light sport specs. Do you have something to support this?Cheers,
Marty
TF #596
1946 BC-12D N95258
Former owner of:
1946 BC-12D/N95275
1943 L-2B/N3113SComment
-
Re: Looking again
Sounds like there may be a small crack in the door. Documents and rules are SUPPOSED to be treated differently by the feds.
HankComment
-
Re: Looking again
CFR 1.1 says, "Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft,...", it doesn't say SLSA or ELSA it just says aircraft. I think our beloved Taylorcraft is an aircraft. If this definition from part 1 doesn't apply to type certified aircraft like you think then you couldn't fly the Taylorcraft as a sport pilot, because part 61 says a sport pilot can only fly light sport aircraft. The way I see it you can't have your cake and eat it too.Originally posted by Edwin Otha View PostComment
-
Re: Looking again
I knew you would chime in, Tom. I remember certain Ercoupes that were once Light Sport but were modified taking them out of Light Sport. They could never be returned to Light Sport once modified even if the modifications were reversed.Cheers,
Marty
TF #596
1946 BC-12D N95258
Former owner of:
1946 BC-12D/N95275
1943 L-2B/N3113SComment
-
Re: Looking again
A light sport aircraft is not directly regulated by the FAR's. So following that CFR would mean that you need to maintain your Taylorcraft to the ASTM specs and not the FAR's. And we don't do that. The manufacturer is the only person that can approve a major repair that would take the LSA out of it's specification. This CFR is in place to prevent the manufacturer from building an aircraft to LSA specs and then blanket approve a weight increase, skirting all of the requirements of Part 23.
The FAR's are not an easy read, and open to many differing ideas. I think this is by design, they only tell you what is prohibited never what is allowed.
Your local ASI can tell you that a frog has wings so it doesn't bump its ass when it lands, but with no regulation it's just an opinion.
EOComment
-
Re: Looking again
Talk to the Light Sport branch in OK. They will advise you what Tom and I advised. Not saying the FAA is all-knowing, but they are the ones enforcing it by their interpretation.Cheers,
Marty
TF #596
1946 BC-12D N95258
Former owner of:
1946 BC-12D/N95275
1943 L-2B/N3113SComment
-
Re: Looking again
That's not accurate per the head of the FAA's Light Sport division...Originally posted by Edwin Otha View Post
RyanRyan Short, CFI, Aerial Photographer
Former Taylorcraft BC-12D owner - hopefully future owner as well.
KRBD and KGPM - Dallas, TX
TexasTailwheel.comComment
-
Re: Looking again
Ryan,
I would say he is trying to create regulation by opinion. The FAA likes you to believe that what they say is gospel. When pressured, they cave in, the FAR's can work for you as well as the FAA.
These little planes were Standard Catagory for the last 70 years and they would like you to believe they now are something different. I don't believe it and until I see some regulations saying all Standard Catagory aircraft, fitting the reqirements, are now considered LSA aircraft. This is the same line the EAA wanted go to 10 years ago. The AAA steped in and told the FAA to do their job, not sluff it off on a user group.
EOComment
Comment