What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-3 on sport pilot ticket

L

learningtofly

Member
hi to everyone, first posting, am new to the game and have many questions. my goal is to build a very lite rv3 and fly on the cheap with a sport pilot lic. i am not trying to bypass any rule and want to stay within defination. i guess my first problem is clean stall. i was thinking of a jab 2200 80hp to lighten up extended mounts for cg. would someone help me along with this thought process or shoot it down. ive saw the comments on the 9 jab3300 and 4 3300 but want to stay with the single seat. well i guess i should also take some flight lessons!
 
Ben,

Welcome. Let me kindly shoot down that idea. There are no RV-3's flying with a jab to my knowledge and you'll be on your own with everything. The money you'll spend troubleshooting the engine install will be greater than the cost of just getting a regular private pilot's license and installing a proven powerplant, I would imagine.

My thinking at least...

b,
dr

learningtofly said:
hi to everyone, first posting, am new to the game and have many questions. my goal is to build a very lite rv3 and fly on the cheap with a sport pilot lic. i am not trying to bypass any rule and want to stay within defination. i guess my first problem is clean stall. i was thinking of a jab 2200 80hp to lighten up extended mounts for cg. would someone help me along with this thought process or shoot it down. ive saw the comments on the 9 jab3300 and 4 3300 but want to stay with the single seat. well i guess i should also take some flight lessons!
Click to expand...
 
rv3 shot down

thanks for your reply, but in s florida there is a 9 with a jab 3300 that is within definition- weight, stall-sport pilot ready
 
learningtofly said:
thanks for your reply, but in s florida there is a 9 with a jab 3300 that is within definition- weight, stall-sport pilot ready
Click to expand...

Someone may have gotten it approved, but it is extremely likely that a Jab3300 powered RV-3 will significantly exceed the top speed limit on the LSA category. I wouldn't count on a knowledgable DAR signing off any version of an RV-3 as LSA compliant with a clear conscience.

Don't forget what happens when too many people stretch the legalities of a category. That category gets special attention and (sometimes) gets regulated out of existance (e.g. two seat ultralight trainers)...

If all-metal with a Jabiru is your desire, a 2200 powered Sonex probably fits the bill, although it won't climb very well with two aboard. A local with that set-up eventually sold his because he didn't like its climb performance and lack of weight carrying ability. Short wings (whether RV or Sonex) have their downsides, particularly in the absence of plenty of excess power.
 
Kyle Boatright said:
I wouldn't count on a knowledgable DAR signing off any version of an RV-3 as LSA compliant with a clear conscience.
Click to expand...

The DAR has no say in this at all. To him, it's "Experimental, amateur built" just like any other RV-3.

I personally think it's quite possible to build an RV-3 that complies with the Sport Pilot limitations just as well as the Sonex does ;) If I do it, I will make sure it does comply in actuality, not just on paper.

Cheers,
Rusty
 
Rusty is right. The aircraft could not be signed off as an Experimental Light-Sport anyway unless it was registered before 1/31/2008. It would signed it off as experimental amateur-built. Operating it with a sport pilot ticket is an operational issue which rests on the shoulders of the operator.
 
Mel said:
Operating it with a sport pilot ticket is an operational issue which rests on the shoulders of the operator.
Click to expand...
And just to elaborate, the aircraft must have been in operated in compliance with the LSA limits during its entire life. It cannot be slowed down after certification to become a LSA. Sad, but that's the rule.

TODR
 
An expermental can be modified to meet LSA, but it is not easy and may not get past every inspector. I have a two place biplane that I want to operate as a LSA. It meets all the requirements except gross weight. The feds won't let me change just the GW, but I can modify the airplane requiring a new weight and balance and then change gw. The plan is to replace the engine (0-290 out, 0-320 in), add more fuel and do away with the fwd seat. Making it a single place plane is the key. Without the front cockpit, the cg would exceed aft limits if loaded to the old gw, therefore I could lower the gw and also just happen to meet LSA gross weight limits. I checked this with a DAR and he checked with FSDO to see if it would work. So you can change things so they fall within LSA limits, but you need a good valid reason other than just wanting to fly it as a LSA.
 
Possible but impractical

The 3 is basically just an improved Stit's Playboy, which was well within the LSA parameters on 80-100 hp. So it might actually be fairly easy to build an LSA version of the 3. It wouldn't be much fun, but as a stunt, yes, it could probably be done.

The part of this picture that really disturbs me is the idea of a non-flying novice building this thing that nobody has ever built, and then with the ink still wet on his LSA ticket, hopping in for REAL first flight in a type that no-one has ever flown before.

Fortuanately, an LSA pilot has to be signed off for every type they fly, so this idea is not likely to get very far.

My advice would be to focus on learning to fly right now. Your ideas about the kind of plane you want to spend years building will likely change a great deal in the meantime.
 
rv3 on sport pilot ticket

thanks for your replys guys, i am not a pilot therefore ignorant of many things. i have been studying all aspects of this great sport. searching for a light sport airplane, they all seem to be the same , side-by-side, rotax 100hp. i like the rv3 but it goes to fast and will not fly slow enough. could anyone suggest mods to make it meet the stall requirement? 80 or 100 hp was my intention for power, how can i keep the speed down without lowering engine rpm?
 
learningtofly said:
I have been studying all aspects of this great sport. searching for a light sport airplane, they all seem to be the same , side-by-side, rotax 100hp.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with the airplane you describe, 138+ MPH is nothing to sneeze at. My suggestion is look closely at somthing that is already flying in that range. Get your license and build time flying a sport plane. Then you can decide if the sport is for you or not. Alot of people find out it's not for them so they have built a plane they will never fly.

There is nothing wrong with a Rotax 912. They burn car gas, and many go 3,000 - 4,000 hours TBO off setting the cost of an overhaul of something else. I have 600 TT (total time) hours behind several 912's. Many CC (cross country) trips. They are a true aircraft engine designed from the ground up for light aircraft. There are more Rotax engines flying world wide than any other engine.
 
cheap?

I don't mean to hijack the thread. But I don't understand how a sport license can be significantly cheaper than a normal PPL? Someone please explain.
 
Sport Pilot license is cheaper...

I guess it depends on the definition of 'significantly'. The training requirements for a Sport Pilot are less, so fewer hour$ are required.
The big swinger is typically that no medical is required (priceless to many folks).
 
DGlaeser said:
I guess it depends on the definition of 'significantly'. The training requirements for a Sport Pilot are less, so fewer hour$ are required.
The big swinger is typically that no medical is required (priceless to many folks).
Click to expand...
That pretty much sums it up. Most SPs need close to 40 hours, so you don't save that much, but remember that not all PP get out in 40 hours either. You tend to fly cheaper airplanes (hard to find 150s at flight schools these days, they all want 172s to keep up with "super-sized" people), so that helps too.

And yes, if you don't have / don't want / can't get a medical, then it doesn't matter that the PP costs.

I wouldn't encourage anyone to get a SP just because of cost. A SP is a good stepping stone that, in some ways, keeps you away from certain risk factors - day VFR only in lower performance airplanes with slow landing speeds. LSA tend to be more demanding on the rudder, and IMHO there's some value to learning in an airplane that requires you to shuffle the feet.

TODR
 
rv3 sport pilot

thanks for all the comments. i like the rv3 @ 138mph vfr sunny morning over ky lake. in my opinion it is better than any other offering if i can get it to fly slow enough. just want super lite single seat, i want to stay compliant with all regs -plane & pilot. if i can do it with fewer dollars good for me. i can only see two planes that i can really build, zenith-sonex, if i can i will buy an rv. have a great day!
 
wilddog said:
An expermental can be modified to meet LSA, but it is not easy and may not get past every inspector. I have a two place biplane that I want to operate as a LSA. It meets all the requirements except gross weight. The feds won't let me change just the GW, but I can modify the airplane requiring a new weight and balance and then change gw. The plan is to replace the engine (0-290 out, 0-320 in), add more fuel and do away with the fwd seat. Making it a single place plane is the key. Without the front cockpit, the cg would exceed aft limits if loaded to the old gw, therefore I could lower the gw and also just happen to meet LSA gross weight limits. I checked this with a DAR and he checked with FSDO to see if it would work. So you can change things so they fall within LSA limits, but you need a good valid reason other than just wanting to fly it as a LSA.
Click to expand...

Sure...it can be modified to meet the performance requirements of an LSA airplane but it still could not legally be flown by a Sport Pilot with the way the rules are currently written.
An aircraft must have met the LSA performance requirements for its entire existence for a sport pilot to be able to fly it. This goes for a J-3, champ, experimental amateur built, or any other airplane. If you are talking to FAA officials that say differently, then they don't understand there own rules (happens all the time by the way).

Example... If an LSA compliant airplane ever had an engine upgrade which made it too fast or had the gross weight increased above 1320 lbs, even if it was converted back to its orig. factory configuration, a sport pilot still could not fly it.
 
rv3 sport pilot

thanks for your replys, one question- if i build a rv3 that will meet stall & 138 mph top speed ,assuming it will meet weight req., i still couldnt fly it as a sport pilot?
 
learningtofly said:
thanks for your replys, one question- if i build a rv3 that will meet stall & 138 mph top speed ,assuming it will meet weight req., i still couldnt fly it as a sport pilot?
Click to expand...

As long as it can meet the LSA requirements, a sport pilot can fly it.

My post was regarding another post about modifying an airplane to make it meet the requirements (in its current state it does not).

I would like to second a post made by someone else...if you could build an RV-3 to meet LSA specs (I think it would be too fast even with 80 HP. You would probably have to severely under prop it to keep it slowed down),,,
assuming you could do it, I don't think it would be the best airplane for a new low time pilot. With it being single place, there is no way to get transition training to get you up to speed on what this airplane would be like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top