Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
Moderator: drseti
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
Some people, but not all, want more gadgets and luxury. Some, including me, prefer less in an LSA.
Retired from flying.
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
Some would probably do ,others wouldn’t but what sort of gizmos you would cram into these things to nullify 220 lbs ?
I guess a mountable BAR rifle could be handy for an emergency off airfield landing here in Chicago ...
But on a more serious note ... this would most likely be utilized to provide things like chutes , maybe a bit sturdier landing gears ... perhaps a bit heavier engine etc ..
I guess a mountable BAR rifle could be handy for an emergency off airfield landing here in Chicago ...
But on a more serious note ... this would most likely be utilized to provide things like chutes , maybe a bit sturdier landing gears ... perhaps a bit heavier engine etc ..
Flying Sting S4 ( N184WA ) out of Illinois
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
But let's look at a typical "premium" LSA, like a CTLSi or Bristell, decked to the gills with gizmos. Right now a lot of them are around 480-490lb useful load. If they got a 100lb weight bump, what *more* could manufacturers put in them?!? They already have leather seats & trim, dual EFIS/EMS, dual pitot, two axis autopilot, full suite of ADS-B, night lighting, BRS, blah, blah...HornedFrogGrant wrote:So if gross weight increases, what's to stop the typical empty weight of LSAs from creeping upward, due to the perception of more "wiggle room" for optional gadgets and gizmos?
I'd be happy to see the gross weight increased, but I fear that manufacturers would interpret it as a green-light to build heavier empty LSAs. Which would have the practical effect of making the gross weight increase all for naught.
Just my $0.02.
What's left to drive the weight up? even if they need a little more for structure at the higher weight, it will still be a strong net plus for useful load.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
Which reminds me of my quest - my Sting has a chute but is not decked out with gizmos yet I still end up with only 485 LBS useful load ... my current theory is a chunk of lead somebody cleverly hidden somewhere on board... either have to find it or wait for the FAA to get the change thru.MrMorden wrote:
But let's look at a typical "premium" LSA, like a CTLSi or Bristell, decked to the gills with gizmos. Right now a lot of them are around 480-490lb useful load. ....
Flying Sting S4 ( N184WA ) out of Illinois
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
That does seem weird, I thought most Stings have 520-550lb useful. As delivered, at least.Warmi wrote: Which reminds me of my quest - my Sting has a chute but is not decked out with gizmos yet I still end up with only 485 LBS useful load ... my current theory is a chunk of lead somebody cleverly hidden somewhere on board... either have to find it or wait for the FAA to get the change thru.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
Your Sting seems like it does pretty well with a ‘chute. My Sportcruiser (without a BRS) gives 511.9 pounds useful load. If it had a BRS (guessing about 50 pounds “all-in”), I’d be down to 461.9 pounds of useful load.Warmi wrote:Which reminds me of my quest - my Sting has a chute but is not decked out with gizmos yet I still end up with only 485 LBS useful load ... my current theory is a chunk of lead somebody cleverly hidden somewhere on board... either have to find it or wait for the FAA to get the change thru.MrMorden wrote:
But let's look at a typical "premium" LSA, like a CTLSi or Bristell, decked to the gills with gizmos. Right now a lot of them are around 480-490lb useful load. ....