Quoted:
I guess it’s  good thing, but LSA are already expensive anyway.

Quoted:
Makes an annual San Fran to Hawaii flight much more feasible.

Quoted:


Sure.  That's a long flight on the summer solstice, 3000 lbs should give you enough fuel, might need to be a Diesel though.

Quoted:


Given it's a one way trip for a Light Sport pilot, and would be setting a world record for LSAs, no.  But it's theoretically possible for an LSA pilot around the summer solstice, as at 120 kts, the flight can be made entirely in daylight.  To return, the flight has to be made by a pilot w/ at least a Private rating, as much of the return flight would be in darkness.

Quoted:
They need retracts and constant speed props, not more weight (although that would open up some options.) There are some really sweet euro LSA planes that don’t qualify here as LSA, and that really sucks.

The current § 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition limits light-sport aircraft to those
with a single reciprocating engine if the aircraft is powered. This requirement from the
2004 rule provided for a simple engine design that would be appropriate for operation by
a sport pilot. With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the design of
light-sport category aircraft and the intention to decouple from sport pilot limitations,
there is no longer a need to restrict light-sport category aircraft to a single reciprocating
engine. This proposed rule would omit the single reciprocating engine limitation as an
eligibility requirement in § 22.100. Accordingly, this proposed rule would allow
light-sport category aircraft to be built with any number and type of engines or motors.
The performance limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot may act as pilot in command of
would not include the limitation on a single reciprocating engine if the aircraft is
powered.
Since this powerplant limitation was established in 2004, full authority digital
engine control (FADEC) technology has evolved significantly. FADEC18 automates and
simplifies the operation of a turbine powerplant. Today, many turbine-powered aircraft
use FADEC automation to manage powerplant performance and simplify aircraft
powerplant operations, reducing pilot workload. As a result, many turbine-powered
aircraft are no longer directly associated with excessive speed or complexity.
Advancements in simplified designs of turbine-engine technology have led to the use of
small turbine engines in a variety of aircraft, including self-launching gliders. The FAA
recognizes that because of automation, many modern turbine powerplants are now easier
to operate than many existing piston-powered aircraft. Modern automated powerplants
reduce the complexity previously associated with piloting aircraft that use powerplants
other than non-turbine engines.
The FAA also reasons that removal of a specific engine requirement will
encourage ongoing development, innovation, and increased efficiency of various types of
powerplants for aircraft. The FAA seeks to encourage flexibility for aircraft
manufacturers to include simple-to-operate powerplants of any design that will provide
benefits to include reduced cost, ease of operation, and reduced emissions—especially for
electric-powered aircraft. In summary, limiting the number and type of powerplants for
light-sport category aircraft is no longer necessary and any risk associated with their use
would be appropriately mitigated by aircraft and pilot certification processes.

The § 1.1 definition of a light-sport aircraft currently requires a fixed or ground
adjustable propeller if the aircraft is a powered aircraft other than a powered glider. The
light-sport aircraft definition also requires that powered gliders have a fixed or feathering
propeller system. These requirements from the 2004 rule provided for simple designs that
would be appropriate for a sport pilot to operate.
With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the design and
certification of light-sport category aircraft, as well as the decoupling from sport pilot
aircraft limitations tied to the light-sport aircraft § 1.1 definition, there would no longer
be a need to restrict propeller designs for light-sport category aircraft. This proposed rule
would omit propeller limitations from the light-sport category eligibility requirements in
§ 22.100. Accordingly, this proposed rule would allow light-sport category aircraft to be
built with any type of propeller design that meets an FAA-accepted consensus standard.19
Although the operation of controllable-pitch propellers and their associated
systems can impose some additional workload on pilots, the FAA considers these
propeller designs to be safe and reliable, as they have been used in general aviation
aircraft for decades. While controllable-pitch propeller designs can increase workload
because they require attention and adjustment by the pilot, the FAA considers the overall
design of these systems to be relatively simple to operate and appropriate for inclusion in
light-sport category aircraft.
However, proposed § 61.316, which would provide the performance and design
limitations for aircraft that may be flown by sport pilots, would retain some propeller
limitations and training requirements for sport pilots. Specifically, for powered aircraft
other than powered gliders, proposed § 61.316 would permit sport pilots to fly aircraft
with a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller, but also allow those with an automated
controllable-pitch propeller. Aircraft with an automated controllable-pitch propeller
would enable pilots to take advantage of the improved performance associated with these
aircraft without imposing additional workload. The current requirement for powered
gliders would be relocated to proposed § 61.316.
Due to the significant increase in climb and cruise performance, the FAA is also
proposing to permit sport pilots who receive additional training and an instructor
endorsement to operate airplanes designed with controllable-pitch propellers that are not
automated. The FAA contends that permitting the design and use of a controllable-pitch
propeller on airplanes increases safety by taking advantage of the improved climb
performance associated with that propeller system design to avoid and clear obstacles
during the climb and departure phase of a flight.
The FAA proposes two allowances to this requirement in the proposed
§ 61.316(e). First, the FAA proposes that, for powered aircraft other than powered
gliders, the airplane may also be equipped with an automated controllable-pitch propeller.
These propellers are easy to use and increase airplane performance and efficiency.
Specifically, allowing use of an automated controllable-pitch propeller, in addition to
fixed or ground-adjustable propellers, increases safety because of increased climb and
cruise performance associated with a controllable pitch propeller design.
Second, under the proposed § 61.331, sport pilots would be required to obtain
additional flight training and a flight instructor endorsement validating sport pilot
proficiency to operate an airplane with a controllable-pitch propeller that is not
automated. The FAA contends that additional training and instructor endorsements would
appropriately validate that sport pilots can safely operate airplanes with a manually
operated controllable-pitch propeller.

Per the current light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1, a light-sport aircraft, except
for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider, must have a fixed landing gear.
The proposed rule would remove this limitation as an eligibility requirement in § 22.100.
Accordingly, this rule would allow light-sport category aircraft to be designed with fixed
or retractable landing gear, or with floats for aircraft intended for operation on water.
In the 2004 rule, the requirement for fixed landing gear was intended to enable
aircraft designs that would be simple to operate by persons exercising the privileges of a
sport pilot certificate. With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the
design of light-sport category aircraft and the decoupling from sport pilot restrictions,
there is no longer a need to restrict light-sport category aircraft to fixed landing gear. This
rule would provide for more robust structures and greater weight allowances that would
accommodate necessary enhancements needed for retractable landing gear.
The FAA recognizes that additional training and instructor endorsements can
validate that sport pilots can operate aircraft with retractable landing gear safely. The
FAA is proposing to permit sport pilots to operate aircraft with a retractable landing gear
by requiring additional training and obtaining a flight instructor endorsement validating
proficiency, as discussed later in section IV.E. By proposing to establish separate airman
and aircraft certification requirements, manufacturers would be provided with the ability
to create a wider range of aircraft designs that may be operated by any appropriately rated
pilot. Pilots could then pursue the appropriate level of pilot certification necessary to
operate light-sport category aircraft and any other aircraft. This would enable greater
flexibility for both aircraft manufacturers and pilots.

Quoted:
Wow.  This sounds like the low end of General Aviation w/o a medical or A&P maintenance.

Is the 120 kts limit still in force?

3000 lbs, multi engine, variable prop, retrac gear...

Quoted:
Interesting. How does someone with a SEL Private get a Sport license?  I am not current, and can't get a medical, but it looks like you just need a Drivers License for medical

Quoted:


Wow, cool. Just have to get current. been 23 years

Quoted:
That what I was hoping. I'm pretty sure I can't pass a medical anymore.

Quoted:


That's to fly something that's not light sport.  For light sport aircraft under light sport rules, no basic med required.  DL only.

Quoted:
This might actually cause me to get off my ass and get my Sport. It would open up a ton of new aircraft possibilities.

The § 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft limits light-sport aircraft to a VH of not
more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. A VH speed
limit would not be retained for the airplanes or gliders in the proposed § 61.316
performance and design limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot could operate. Although
an airplane or glider’s maximum airspeed is typically limited to approximately three to
four times the aircraft’s VS1 under ideal conditions, proposed § 22.100(a)(4) would
include a VH limit of 250 knots CAS for light-sport category aircraft to account for
potential advances in technology and manufacturing practices that could enable higher
speeds. Furthermore, after approximately 20 years of experience with the operation of
light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has not noted any definitive data that links cruise
speed as a contributing factor in accidents involving light-sport category aircraft. This
experience informs the FAA’s current rulemaking proposal, including its proposal to
increase the airspeed limitation.
Analysis of performance data for 117 type-certificated, light-sport category, and
amateur-built airplanes with stalling speeds less than or equal to the proposed 54 knots
CAS stalling speed limit shows a maximum speed of 220 knots CAS, with the majority
below 190 knots CAS. Allowing a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS is intended to
provide an upper limit appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation, flight
training, and limited aerial work while providing sufficient margin to avoid practical
constraints of new airplane designs by this limit.8

For pilot certification purposes, the FAA does not propose to retain or include a
VH airspeed limitation in the proposed § 61.316 aircraft performance limitations because
the FAA determined that, the proposed maximum stalling speed VS1 of 54 knots (as
explained in section IV.C.4) for airplanes and the existing maximum stalling speed VS1 of
45 knots for gliders, will indirectly limit the cruise airspeeds9
for the aircraft that sport
pilots may fly under the proposed performance limitations in part 61. The FAA
recognizes helicopter design and aerodynamic flight limitations inherently limit the VH
speed. The existing fleet of two seat helicopters do not exceed 150 knots in cruise flight.
Therefore, the FAA does not propose or need a prescriptive speed limit for two seat
helicopters that a sport pilot can operate.
In 2018, the FAA codified additional training and endorsement privileges for
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.10 This provision authorized these flight
instructors to provide additional training and endorsements for sport pilot applicants who
wish to conduct cross-country flights in light-sport airplanes with a VH greater than 87
knots CAS.11 These amendments reinforce that additional training and a subsequent flight
instructor endorsement can properly qualify sport pilots to operate various aircraft safely
in the national airspace system.
Additionally, the FAA notes that student pilots, who receive training and a
validating flight instructor endorsement, can operate aircraft at speeds greater than 120
knots as pilot-in-command. The FAA contends that, since the implementation of the
training and instructor endorsement requirements permitting sport pilots to operate
airplanes up to the current VH speed limitation of 120 knots, instructor training and
endorsements have been demonstrated to be a proven, effective method for validating
that sport pilots can safely operate faster aircraft in the national airspace system, just as is
allowed for student pilots with a lower grade of pilot certificate. This reflects the
incongruities between the allowed operations for student pilots and sport pilots. For
example, student pilots can operate aircraft at faster speeds than individuals that hold a
sport pilot certificate, even though a sport pilot certificate is a higher grade of pilot
certificate than a student pilot certificate. Thus, the FAA reasons that sport pilots can be
permitted to operate faster aircraft safely in the national airspace system using instructor
training and endorsements for validating pilot proficiency.

The light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1 limits the maximum VS1 for light-sport
aircraft to 45 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most
critical center of gravity. The proposal would retain the 45 knots CAS maximum VS1 for
gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum
VS1 to 54 knots CAS for airplanes. Regulatory provisions addressing VS1 would remain
inapplicable to rotorcraft and lighter-than-air aircraft (e.g., balloons and airships), and
would be removed for powered parachutes.
The 45-knot limitation indirectly prohibits the use of heavier airplanes due to the
correlation between stalling speed and aircraft weight. Because the FAA is seeking to
accommodate greater airplane weights to enable more robust airframe designs and
availability of safety enhancements, the FAA selected this proposed VS1 speed limit at
nine knots above the current limitation for light-sport aircraft. The FAA determined that
an airplane with a maximum VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up
to approximately 3,000 pounds. As proposed in §§ 22.100(a)(3) and 61.316(a), the new
stalling speed limitation would apply to airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff
weight.
In the absence of a specific weight limitation in the proposed rule, the new VS1
limit would provide flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to build more robust airframes
and include desirable safety enhancements. This proposed change would expand aircraft
that sport pilots may operate to include any existing aircraft that meets the sport pilot
performance limitations as specified in proposed § 61.316. For airplanes, the proposed
VS1 limit is not more than 54 knots CAS for sport pilots.
The FAA has monitored the accident history of light-sport category aircraft since
2004. As of 2021, there have been 984 accidents or incidents involving light-sport
category aircraft, with approximately half of those accidents or incidents occurring during
the landing phase. Of the 501 landing accidents, seven resulted in a fatality. The second
highest number of accidents or incidents, 164, occurred during an emergency descent.
The FAA chose a VS1 of 54 knots CAS to strike a balance between allowing heavier
aircraft to accommodate increased safety features, while increasing the stalling speed no
more than necessary to retain low speeds during approach and landing. While the FAA
recognizes that low stalling speeds will reduce kinetic energy levels and serve to improve
occupant survivability in the event of an aircraft accident, enabling the addition of safety
enhancing designs commensurate with increased weight could also improve occupant
survivability.
The FAA has determined that retaining the current VS1 restriction of 45 knots
CAS for light-sport category airplanes would overly restrict the ability of aircraft
manufacturers to produce heavier airplanes with additional safety features that this rule is
intending to enable. A maximum VS1 of 54 knots CAS for airplanes would facilitate the
production of heavier, more robust airplanes without unduly compromising the ability of
these airplanes to be safely operated. Although the FAA considered increasing the
proposed maximum stalling speed of airplanes above 54 knots CAS, the agency’s review
of current aircraft performance data showed that this proposal would be sufficient to
produce four-seat airplanes.
Although the FAA proposes to permit the certification of rotorcraft under the
proposal, stall speed restrictions, such as a maximum VS1, are inapplicable for aircraft that
depend principally for their support in flight by the lift generated by one or more rotors.
Rotorcraft have the ability to hover or remain in place in the air with no horizontal
movement. In the event of engine failure, they can autorotate in a controlled descent to
the ground. Accordingly, rotorcraft are not subject to a maximum stall speed in this
proposed rule.
Stalling speed restrictions are also not being proposed for powered-lift due to their
ability to operate in various flight mode configurations, including thrust-borne or hover,
similar to a rotorcraft. The designs of lighter powered-lift typically do not have large
wing surface areas and therefore have higher stalling speeds during wing-borne (airplane)
flight mode. However, these aircraft also can transition to semi-thrust borne mode where
the powerplant shares the responsibility of producing lift as airspeed transitions between
enroute airspeeds and hover. Therefore, as discussed under proposed § 22.115 and
consistent with the airworthiness criteria from Federal Register notifications for the Joby
Aero Inc., Model JAS4-1 and Archer Aviation Inc., Model M001 powered-lift, this
NPRM proposes to require the determination of minimum safe speeds for various flight
configurations for powered-lift rather than a maximum stalling speed.12
As discussed, the proposed stalling speed would generally limit the weight of
airplanes. However, similar proposed limits would not have the same effect for other
classes of aircraft. The FAA recognizes that while restrictions on maximum seating
capacity and limitations on aerial work may effectively limit a manufacturer’s interest in
building larger aircraft, the absence of any aerodynamic or other prescriptive design
restriction would not otherwise limit the potential weight of these aircraft. The FAA
specifically requests comments on appropriate parameters to limit the weight of lightsport category rotorcraft and powered-lift.

Quoted:
Very interesting. In a good way...

I'd love to do light sport flying, but as it is now, I'm just too heavy for that. I still need to lose the weight whether I ever fly or not, but this could make that dream more attainable.

Quoted:

This could be expressed as a ratio making the whole mess above simpler.  I should have put this method first.

(New Stall Speed)^2 = (book stall speed)^2(original wing area/ new wing area)

Since all the other terms are not changed.  No need to convert units.

Quoted:


Given it's a one way trip for a Light Sport pilot, and would be setting a world record for LSAs, no.  But it's theoretically possible for an LSA pilot around the summer solstice, as at 120 kts, the flight can be made entirely in daylight.  To return, the flight has to be made by a pilot w/ at least a Private rating, as much of the return flight would be in darkness.

Quoted:



I dont know if a small cessna has ever made a CONUS to Hawaii flight, but there's an interesting story of a guy who did a ferry flight with a cessna 150 from the US to south africa, solo.   Had a special UHF antenna wire that he manually retracted and an extra gas tank in olace of the passenger seat
 It was not non stop however.

I doubt with the winds it would be possible to stretch out a C172 flight  from CONUS to Hawaii.   Maybe cheat and leave from the Aluetians?

https://cessna150152club.org/Transatlantic-Cessna-150/