LSA plans built first flight

[Mark Goldberg]

Today a Bearhawk LSA in Oregon made its first flights. You may have noticed the articles in KitPlanes that Ken Scott, one of the builders, was writing about the build. Here are his words:

I made the first flight of N112PR out of Dietz this afternoon. Rion and I each made two flights. Other than a pronounced reluctance to return to earth it flew well

[davzLSA]

That says a lot about the Bearhawk considering Ken is or was an engineer for Vanns Aircraft? Congratulations Ken!!!!

[Flygirl1]

Congrats guys!!

[johnb]

Great news. Any pictures of the finished plane?

[zkelley2]

Is the bearhawk lsa actually an lsa or is it strictly e-ab operated under lsa rules?

If not has anyone looked at making one?

[Chris In Milwaukee]

It qualifies as LSA if you choose to certify it in that weight class. But it can be certified as an EAB up to 1500 lbs if that is your desire. Gross weight range is 1200-1500 lbs.

https://bearhawkaircraft.com/lsa-specs/

[Mark Goldberg]

Ken called me last night and gave me a little more info on how the plane flew. The prop does not appear to be pitched correctly as he only saw 2300 rpm in WOT level flight. 106 kts. I see 2850 rpm and make 130 mph at that scenario. And surprise surprise - he says it is a rudder plane. You would expect to hear that from some one coming from an RV. They had to cut the flying short due to an oil leak. But getting into the shop to find the leak with temps in the upper 30's is holding them back a little. Mark

[davzLSA]

awesome looking airplane Ken

[zkelley2]

It qualifies as LSA if you choose to certify it in that weight class. But it can be certified as an EAB up to 1500 lbs if that is your desire. Gross weight range is 1200-1500 lbs.

https://bearhawkaircraft.com/lsa-specs/

So most people don't know the difference between something with an E-LSA airworthiness certificate and and E-AB one. In theory you can get an E-LSA certificate while building it yourself but it has to be exactly the same as the approved S-LSA version when the DAR looks at it.(And this is done, especially with the RV-12) If there is no S-LSA version, you can't do an E-LSA, only E-AB. There only needs to be one S-LSA in existence for the airplane to qualify it for this.
Uniquely, an S-LSA can be converted to an E-LSA fairly simply.
The difference comes in with maintenance and who can do what and how to get the corresponding repairmen certificates. And of course S-LSA allows some limited forms of commercial use like flight instruction without a waiver.
To the builder this is all irrelevant, but to a second owner who cannot get the repairman certificate for building the E-AB, if it were E-LSA, anyone who own's the aircraft can still get a repairman certificate with only a 2 day course.

And we're all eagerly looking forward to the supposed new LSA rules (3600lbs). Which hopefully is going to allow for a TON of new business within what is currently just experimental. ASTM standards are far more reasonable than FAR 23 and significantly cheaper to comply with. My comment vs making one is in this regard - an S-LSA.

[svyolo]

So this confuses me. Does that mean that their are 3 LSA categories? SLSA, ESLA, and EAB LSA? There are many companies offering "LSA" kits, but don't manufacture SLSA.

[zkelley2]

Svyolo,

Ya, it can be confusing. As far as the airworthiness certificate goes think of it purely from a maintenance and manufacturing point of view.

There are only 2 LSA categories. S-LSA(Manufactured under ATSM standards by a manufacturer who has gone through the process of being an S-LSA manufacturer with the FAA) which stands for Special Light Sport Aircraft since it's still a special airworthiness certificate and E-LSA, which is Experimental. To get an E-LSA airworthiness certificate you need to first build the aircraft to be an exact copy of what is approved for the S-LSA version and the DAR will bless it. After the DAR inspection, you can change anything you want. Additionally, you can change an S-LSA that you bought, say an RV-12 to an E-LSA, but now you can't flight instruct in it. While an E-LSA could be amateur built, it probably wasn't. Fun fact - when Cessna figured this out they were very upset. They didn't want anyone making the C162 experimental, but a bit of paperwork and another visit from the DAR is all it takes.

There is no such thing as EAB LSA, only EAB that conforms to LSA requirements which let a Sport pilot fly it. From an airworthiness perspective it's is Experimental - Amateur Built and not an LSA. This would apply to the Bearhawk LSA. So from a sport pilot's perspective it is an LSA provided it complies with the sport pilot rules(like how you can fly a Cessna 120 as a sport pilot), from a mechanic or FAA perspective it is not. In order for it to be an E-LSA there has to be an S-LSA version. If there is not, the kit is actually E-AB that conforms to the sport pilot rules from the pilot's perspective. Most of the kits are this.
Here is a list of all the current S-LSA aircraft - https://www.bydanjohnson.com/slsa-list/ if it's not on that list there's no S-LSA version and it's E-AB.

Where that matters is an E-AB needs the builder with his repairman certificate or an A&P to do the annual conditional inspection, an E-LSA needs the owner of the E-LSA with his Light Sport Repairman with Inspection rating or anyone with a light sport repairman with a maintenance rating or an A&P to do the conditional. Subsequent owners can get an LSRI with a 2 day course. Not just the builder.

Last, if the 3600lb LSA weight increase happens you're probably going to see a good handful of people go into business building previously only experimental aircraft as S-LSA.(and Cessna go out of business with their ridiculous $400k 172s) The ASTM standard is relatively reasonable. I would expect to see a full size Carbon Cub and Sportsman 2+2(and anything with a TW2T program) within months offered from the manufacturer as an S-LSA. Which could become an E-LSA a day later and then a repairman certificate 2 days after that. Give it 10-15 years and you have sub 100k highly capable aircraft on the used market instead of 60 years old at that price.

[svyolo]

Interesting, including your take on the future in the last paragraph. The FAA hitting the reset button, on their own 70 year old rules. Maybe it is time. Or maybe well past the time it should have been done.

It would definitely muddy the waters on airplane choice. An LSA with a Rotax or O200 doesn't cost a whole lot less to build than a bigger (Patrol or 4 place) aircraft. I really like the BH LSA, but if I could fly both under the same rules, which one would I want? The 4 place is barely more than the Patrol to build and operate given the same engine. Same question.

[zkelley2]

Interesting, including your take on the future in the last paragraph. The FAA hitting the reset button, on their own 70 year old rules. Maybe it is time. Or maybe well past the time it should have been done.

It would definitely muddy the waters on airplane choice. An LSA with a Rotax or O200 doesn't cost a whole lot less to build than a bigger (Patrol or 4 place) aircraft. I really like the BH LSA, but if I could fly both under the same rules, which one would I want? The 4 place is barely more than the Patrol to build and operate given the same engine. Same question.

So those rule changes were "Announced" last year at an AOPA event iirc. And the reports at the time said expect something in January 2019. Crickets so far. It'll require an NPRM, which I'm sure with get thousands of comments so who knows if it will happen or what it will end up looking like. If all they do is change the gross weight, then you end up with a RV series or Sportsman that still costs a large chunk of money that is limited to flight instruction only in commercial operations and also day VFR as well. That last part would sink it for me.
GA is dying, and it's because of cost. Something needs to be done to stop the lawyers. Again.

As far as cost of an LSA vs a 4 place bearhawk, it's pretty significant. 12-14GPH of 100LL or 5GPH of 91 pump. $45 an hour in fuel difference alone. That's almost $7000 a year at my average flying.

[zkelley2]

Jim, E-LSA does not require ASTM compliance. Hence the E.

The easiest way to do it would be certify say the Patrol, then anyone that wanted to change anything could just change from S to E and do it themselves, but they'd have a flying airplane.
ASTM is not even close to as costly or thorough as FAR 23. Most the LSA companies have a pretty good range of mods you can do.

And I disagree the advantage would be more airplanes that can be flown by sport pilots. The sport pilot certificate, while marginally cheaper, it's main advantage was no medical required, but now with basic med, that's not an advantage. The difference in certification(if you will cause it's not certification) of ATSM and FAR 23 is millions of dollars. ASTM is the change we need to everything under 12.5k lbs not flown for hire.

Honestly though, a two weeks to taxi program would have more benefits and doesn't cost 1/100th as much to do. You still end up with airplanes going out the door flying.

[JimParker256]

I think the "2 weeks to taxi" type program would be incredibly beneficial for a lot of people (myself included, though I probably could not afford it). But I suspect that for any of the Bearhawk models, it might be more like "2 months to taxi." The even the quick-build kits are fairly "labor-intensive" in comparison to the vastly more expensive Carbon Cub, Sportsman, and other "faster-build" kits.

I also agree with you 100% that the ASTM process would be FAR less expensive way to bring a new model to cerfitication than the current Part 23 certification process. And I believe the ASTM process also makes a LOT more sense for the vast majority of GA aircraft. If the FAA were to expand the ASTM consensus process to cover larger, faster aircraft, it would increase the odds of new and innovative designs coming to market faster and with lower costs, both to the manufacturer and consumer.

But there is also a HUGE difference between the current FAA Basic Med and the Sport Pilot medical requirements. The FAA only requires that you hold a valid driver's license as proof that you meet the medical qualifications to fly as a Sport Pilot. To fly using Basic Med, you must FIRST pass an FAA flight physical (either with or without "special issuance"). If you fail that physical for any reason, you have to go through all the hoops to get a special issuance, or give up on your dream of flying. That's why you often hear the recommendation that anyone who has reason to believe they will NOT pass the Class 3 FAA physical without any issues would be well-advised to skip that process entirely and pursue flying under Sport Pilot rules.

That's why I believe the expansion of Sport Pilot license to allow them to fly heavier, faster, 4-place (or even 6-place) aircraft opens the doors for a LOT more people to find utility in those aircraft. I don't believe, however, that it would automatically mean that it would be economically viable to factory-produce ASTM-approved Bearhawk aircraft for sale to the general public. As Jim Bede found out when he formed American Aviation to manufacture the AA-1 (originally designed to be EAB), there are a lot of things Bob might have designed differently if he were designing for mass production, instead of for ease of manufacture by individuals like me, who have only hand tools at their disposal.

Final point on E-LSA vs EAB. You said E-LSA does not require ASTM compliance. I disagree. The ASTM process must be followed to create the S-LSA on which the E-LSA is based. Most E-LSA kits do not meet the FAA's 51% rule for EABs. And most E-LSA kits require only a very small percentage of the operations to be done by the owner / builder – more like 10-15% for many of the kits (versus 51% for EAB kits). As I understand it, the E-LSA kit manufacturer must continue to follow the ASTM standards for producing the components and parts for the kits in order to offer an E-LSA kit – otherwise they simply offer an EAB kit that just happens to meet LS pilot requirements, like the Bearhawk LSA. The ASTM-related information came from Dan Johnson at Sun-N-Fun several years ago, shortly after he began his byDanJohnson.com web site, and shortly before he was named president of LAMA (Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association).

[zkelley2]

Once an aircraft has an E-LSA airworthiness certificate, it no longer has to meet ASTM. Up to that point it does. So if you build it yourself you have to build it exactly like the S-LSA, it'll just get an E-LSA cert. Then you can do anything you want after the DAR inspection.

To do a mod, the easiest way would be after the inspection. The factory could sell post inspection mod kits.

I do agree, the build methods of the bearhawk do not lend themselves to cheap production.

[svyolo]

I remember the LSA rules taking years to finalize.

With expensive gas I don't read too many on hear that blaze around at 75% power in either a O360 4 place or Patrol. I don't plan on it, as with big tires it might cost 5 gph to go another 15 mph. My guess is I will fly around normally at 7-10 gph, at speeds at the high end of what a LSA will do at 5-6 gph. A Patrol throttled back to LSA speeds might burn within 1 gph of and BH LSA.

The biggest difference in price, because of my choices, were a CS prop and avionics. A Patrol with a fixed prop and minimal instrumentation vs LSA? It will mostly come down to what you chose for an engine.

[zkelley2]

I agree, when you're spending 100k why not 110k for a whole lot more utility. This is why the Ford Ranger didn't sell. It was close enough in price to the F150, everyone just bought the F150.

[interstate al]

Congratulations on the first flight, can't wait to hear more in the near future!

[svyolo]

What has he got in it for an engine? How many LSA's are flying now?

[Mark Goldberg]

I think it is an C85 or C90 that they rebuilt. Just guessing but there are around 9-10 LSA's flying. Mark