Basically, anyone that says they want a metal prop and more gas and round windows....better not cry at the empty weight.
And, if you guys want to certify this stuff under the new changed product rule...be my guest.
New LSA Champ manufacured ?
Really busy trying to catch up right now.
Basically, anyone that says they want a metal prop and more gas and round windows....better not cry at the empty weight.
And, if you guys want to certify this stuff under the new changed product rule...be my guest.
Basically, anyone that says they want a metal prop and more gas and round windows....better not cry at the empty weight.
And, if you guys want to certify this stuff under the new changed product rule...be my guest.
Jerry Jr @ ACA
Company DER
Consultant DER too! (7's and 8's only)
Company DER
Consultant DER too! (7's and 8's only)
-
Paul Agaliotis
- Posts: 2589
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 18:49
- Location: San Martin, California
- Contact:
Hmm, I dunno, with the channel sticking out, that might look a little funny.
"looks good from a far but far from good" Certainly would be easier than building the wood frame for the rear window, though.
As for the prop, its a weight saver. The Urethane is not going to fall off the second you wash the thing. One thing this plane needs is a diet. I believe I expounded upon that months ago, however. If its any consolation, MT wants to provide a prop. This might be the best compromise as it will be within a few ounces of the Sensenich. Sensenich wants to provide their ground adjustable full composite, but that is a ways off for certification.
Quite honestly, 1320 is VERY restrictive of a weight. It worked years ago when there was nothing to put in an airplane and you could get lower HP engines. I found out the Top Cub SLA is even heavier than our 7EC. They get a clean slate and no FAA, but they have lots of options. The structure for a 1320 airplane wont really get much lighter; it cant. Already have every other person asking how aerobatic it is. Really the airplane would do well at 1450 or so, like it had with the no bounce gear, but thats not an option with LSA.
"looks good from a far but far from good" Certainly would be easier than building the wood frame for the rear window, though.
As for the prop, its a weight saver. The Urethane is not going to fall off the second you wash the thing. One thing this plane needs is a diet. I believe I expounded upon that months ago, however. If its any consolation, MT wants to provide a prop. This might be the best compromise as it will be within a few ounces of the Sensenich. Sensenich wants to provide their ground adjustable full composite, but that is a ways off for certification.
Quite honestly, 1320 is VERY restrictive of a weight. It worked years ago when there was nothing to put in an airplane and you could get lower HP engines. I found out the Top Cub SLA is even heavier than our 7EC. They get a clean slate and no FAA, but they have lots of options. The structure for a 1320 airplane wont really get much lighter; it cant. Already have every other person asking how aerobatic it is. Really the airplane would do well at 1450 or so, like it had with the no bounce gear, but thats not an option with LSA.
Jerry Jr @ ACA
Company DER
Consultant DER too! (7's and 8's only)
Company DER
Consultant DER too! (7's and 8's only)
-
Nathan K. Hammond
- Posts: 2371
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 00:22
- Location: Danville, KY (DVK)
- Contact:
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 08:28
- Location: Jasper, Georgia
- Contact:
-
Carl Prather
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:21
- Contact:
Jerry,
Cub Crafters lists their empty weight as 825 lbs whereas the ACA lists is empty weight as 950 lbs. I'm wondering if much of the 7EC goods are direct off-the-shelf items or not. The oleo gear 7ECA also came in 950 lbs back in 1965. I have a Champion bulletin allowing Champion front to replace Aeronca front struts with and increase in of 3.5 lbs over the old struts. I understand that the metal spars weigh 10 or 11 lbs more than the wood spars. The rinds I know are heavier gauge than the old Champ. There is documentation advising on how to swap fuselage tubing to a convert the earlier Champs to later models with gross weight increases. Many people believe that the our modern covering systems weigh more than they should in the interest of glossy finshes. Engine and electrical systems aside, I would wager there are 30 pounds that can be saved form the airframe if the original 7AC plans were used.
Could ACA or does ACA use the aluminum gear for the 7EC? Could Jabiru engine be used? The Jabiru 120 horse engine weighs roughly 35 pounds less than the 0-200. Does ACA use an Odyssey battery which also weighs about 10 lbs less than a standard aircraft battery. It seems that the 7EC could wigh 80 lbs less without a great deal effort. A wood prop not only wieghs less but it put less stress on the enignes crankshaft.
As much as I am happy to see ACA commit to building an LSA, a 370 lb. useful load pretty much makes the 7EC a single seat plane unless both occupants are relatively small.
Cub Crafters lists their empty weight as 825 lbs whereas the ACA lists is empty weight as 950 lbs. I'm wondering if much of the 7EC goods are direct off-the-shelf items or not. The oleo gear 7ECA also came in 950 lbs back in 1965. I have a Champion bulletin allowing Champion front to replace Aeronca front struts with and increase in of 3.5 lbs over the old struts. I understand that the metal spars weigh 10 or 11 lbs more than the wood spars. The rinds I know are heavier gauge than the old Champ. There is documentation advising on how to swap fuselage tubing to a convert the earlier Champs to later models with gross weight increases. Many people believe that the our modern covering systems weigh more than they should in the interest of glossy finshes. Engine and electrical systems aside, I would wager there are 30 pounds that can be saved form the airframe if the original 7AC plans were used.
Could ACA or does ACA use the aluminum gear for the 7EC? Could Jabiru engine be used? The Jabiru 120 horse engine weighs roughly 35 pounds less than the 0-200. Does ACA use an Odyssey battery which also weighs about 10 lbs less than a standard aircraft battery. It seems that the 7EC could wigh 80 lbs less without a great deal effort. A wood prop not only wieghs less but it put less stress on the enignes crankshaft.
As much as I am happy to see ACA commit to building an LSA, a 370 lb. useful load pretty much makes the 7EC a single seat plane unless both occupants are relatively small.
Hawker Battery...installed
Aluminum Gear...installed
Jabaru...not FAA Approved.
Basically, all that is left to to start spartanizing the interior. Which might seem fine to you guys, but when you slap down $100K people want something soft to the touch. BTW, we do intend to indeed spartanize the interior....pray everyone orders headsets
So what engine would we use on the 7AC?
Rotax? no thank you.
After 18 months, you have to realize we did not just stumble into this. We are more proof in the pudding that an approved aircraft cannot be built today under regulation that won't be stocky unless you skimp on the items that actually sell the airplane.
BTW, I would bet anything that 850 is something totally stripped and undesirable. While 950 is a fully equipped airplane. We see it all the time in brand A and their weight claims.
We seen it in the first 1000 airplanes...you can add 3 pounds in the blink of an eye with some gadget the customer wants...but struggle to take 3 ounces out of the same area.
Aluminum Gear...installed
Jabaru...not FAA Approved.
Basically, all that is left to to start spartanizing the interior. Which might seem fine to you guys, but when you slap down $100K people want something soft to the touch. BTW, we do intend to indeed spartanize the interior....pray everyone orders headsets
So what engine would we use on the 7AC?
Rotax? no thank you.
After 18 months, you have to realize we did not just stumble into this. We are more proof in the pudding that an approved aircraft cannot be built today under regulation that won't be stocky unless you skimp on the items that actually sell the airplane.
BTW, I would bet anything that 850 is something totally stripped and undesirable. While 950 is a fully equipped airplane. We see it all the time in brand A and their weight claims.
We seen it in the first 1000 airplanes...you can add 3 pounds in the blink of an eye with some gadget the customer wants...but struggle to take 3 ounces out of the same area.
Jerry Jr @ ACA
Company DER
Consultant DER too! (7's and 8's only)
Company DER
Consultant DER too! (7's and 8's only)
Hi Jerrymjr, I'm 100% with you on the Rotax engine, much tooooo touchie with special startup and shut down procedures, SB and Ad's being issued every few weeks and way too complex ( when it comes to overhaul its cheaper to buy a new engine). I know that the Ledge Cub offers the Jabiru 3300 as an option and I guess its maybe better than the Rotax, but its hard to beat the Continental for all around dependability simple easy to work on and very few Ad's. Just my $.02
GB MN.Flyer
Flying a Champ 7DC and a HKS Kitfox III
Flying a Champ 7DC and a HKS Kitfox III
Well, remember that the Legend is NOT certified. Its ASTM Light Sport Certified (i.e. the company says it meets the specs). Our 7EC is FAA certified (thanks to an old TC) and we just had to approve all the changes we did (easier said than done). Anyway, we cannot use the Jabiru until it gets a TC.
Jerry Jr @ ACA
Company DER
Consultant DER too! (7's and 8's only)
Company DER
Consultant DER too! (7's and 8's only)
-
Nathan K. Hammond
- Posts: 2371
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 00:22
- Location: Danville, KY (DVK)
- Contact:
David, I bet you could just slide the gascolator over a little and knock a hole in the cowl. If the FAA man ever ask questions, just tell him you read your yard stick wrong and didn't want to drill more holes in the firewall. 'In the interest of safety' you know. 
While other power plants have potential, look at it from a maintnenance standpoint. Every mechanic in the world knows an O-200 inside and out, not to mention they're the basis of every other Continental out there. And the availability of parts is second to none.
nkh
While other power plants have potential, look at it from a maintnenance standpoint. Every mechanic in the world knows an O-200 inside and out, not to mention they're the basis of every other Continental out there. And the availability of parts is second to none.
nkh
7AC-5691
Super 85-12F @ DVK
Super 85-12F @ DVK
Personally Jerry, I hope you can sell thousands of these "Champs" no matter which engine you put in them. It only shows the reliability of a basic fine design. Wish I could afford one, but then, I am an addicted tinkerer with enough projects to last me for the rest of my life.
Good Luck!!
Mike Berg
Good Luck!!
Mike Berg
"If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money"
-
Carl Prather
- Posts: 234
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:21
- Contact:
Jerry,
I hear you about the O-200. It's just that the Champ is not a true 2 place airplane for LSA use. As far as Jabiru engines go, they are certified under S-LSA rules. Jabiru engines clearly don't have Continental's track record but then only Lycoming or possibly LOM could in today's market. The lack of track record doesn't necessarily make the Jabiru any more suspect than when Continental got its start 70+ years ago. As for aircraft certification, I doubt seriously that the CAR 3 or CAR 4 regs under which the Champ was originally built are superior to the consenus standards for today's LSA, but I also don't think they are less effective or safe, either. I do believe the production standards are higher for standard category aircraft since, if memory serves, the LSA manufacturers are expected to self regulate. Sadly, lawsuits seem to always trump whatever FAA rules apply when it comes to conservative design and construction so I think there is plenty of motivation to self police no matter the aircraft maker. And while time will tell whether the consensus standards are worthy of their stature, I don't the think the FAA has the appetite for taking many risks with any production standard and probably took little risk in this arena.
I have a Champ with an A-75, three tanks and it weighs 759 pounds empty. I'm building a C-85 for the plane and should I add a starter, generator and battery, an 80 pound increase for an electrical system appears conservative. (16 lbs for the battery - a Hawker, 25 pounds for a starter and generator, 25 lbs for wiring still leaves 14 pounds) If I had optioned to install an O-200, the plane would add only about 12 more pounds than for a C-85 making by theoretical Champ weighing about 851 lbs empty. This why I wonder why my airplane or Cub Crafters' offering could weigh so much less than the LSA Champ. There seems to something missing here and I wonder if it because the LSA Champ is merely a reconfigured Citabria and not a plane designed specifically for the LSA class of aircraft.
As I said in my earlier post I am happy that ACA has an LSA product but it's fair to say Champ's utility will be limited for LSA use. Hopefully ACA will agressively pursue a weight reduction program to improve its usefulness and make it the real threat as LSA competition because I want more, not less, Champs in the air.
I hear you about the O-200. It's just that the Champ is not a true 2 place airplane for LSA use. As far as Jabiru engines go, they are certified under S-LSA rules. Jabiru engines clearly don't have Continental's track record but then only Lycoming or possibly LOM could in today's market. The lack of track record doesn't necessarily make the Jabiru any more suspect than when Continental got its start 70+ years ago. As for aircraft certification, I doubt seriously that the CAR 3 or CAR 4 regs under which the Champ was originally built are superior to the consenus standards for today's LSA, but I also don't think they are less effective or safe, either. I do believe the production standards are higher for standard category aircraft since, if memory serves, the LSA manufacturers are expected to self regulate. Sadly, lawsuits seem to always trump whatever FAA rules apply when it comes to conservative design and construction so I think there is plenty of motivation to self police no matter the aircraft maker. And while time will tell whether the consensus standards are worthy of their stature, I don't the think the FAA has the appetite for taking many risks with any production standard and probably took little risk in this arena.
I have a Champ with an A-75, three tanks and it weighs 759 pounds empty. I'm building a C-85 for the plane and should I add a starter, generator and battery, an 80 pound increase for an electrical system appears conservative. (16 lbs for the battery - a Hawker, 25 pounds for a starter and generator, 25 lbs for wiring still leaves 14 pounds) If I had optioned to install an O-200, the plane would add only about 12 more pounds than for a C-85 making by theoretical Champ weighing about 851 lbs empty. This why I wonder why my airplane or Cub Crafters' offering could weigh so much less than the LSA Champ. There seems to something missing here and I wonder if it because the LSA Champ is merely a reconfigured Citabria and not a plane designed specifically for the LSA class of aircraft.
As I said in my earlier post I am happy that ACA has an LSA product but it's fair to say Champ's utility will be limited for LSA use. Hopefully ACA will agressively pursue a weight reduction program to improve its usefulness and make it the real threat as LSA competition because I want more, not less, Champs in the air.