Light Sport Weight Limit

[geevans]

All,
It seems to me there is a problem with a lot of the light sport planes regarding the weight limit regulation.
The average U.S. adult weight is 200 lbs, now those that eat burgers are more, say 250 lbs.
Most planes have a real problem carrying two average American adults.

If you consider the weight limit of the typical Light Sport to be around 460 lbs, it seems a dangerous situation.
If the plane carrying two people is loaded to 400 lbs with two people, that leaves 10 gallons of fuel with no baggage before hitting the weight limit, which in turn limits the plane to 1 1/2 hour at most before having to land.
I know some planes can handle more weight, but why is this limit so low in the first place.
No one in their right mind wants to fly a plane carrying everything with them, but to have to limit passenger or baggage vs fuel seems to be a balancing act that is dangerous.
If I’m calculating this incorrectly, I’d love to hear from you.
Thanks,
Gary

[3Dreaming]

First off it is not just the LSA aircraft that are like this. If you look at the majority of two place light aircraft you will have to balance fuel with passengers and baggage. I've owned a Cub, a few Taylorcraft, and a Cessna 152 over the years which all needed to balance passenger and fuel to remain within limits.

The reason the weight limit for LSA is so low is because of safety. The lower the kinetic energy the better chance of surviving a mishap. The reason many of these airplane are heavy is the American marketplace. In 2004 when the rule went into effect the airplane that was intended to be flown as a sport pilot was much different than what you see today. The market kept asking for more avionics fancier finishes and faster airplanes. The manufactures have obliged with increased empty weight being the end result. For example when the Flight Design aircraft were introduced here in the US the useful load was around 600 pounds. That number has shrunk considerably as the desired improvements have been added over the years.

There are some new LSA aircraft that have good useful loads, but they are not the fastest and most well equipped of the choices out there. Because of this they are often overlooked by most who are searching for a new airplane.

[ShawnM]

And because many want the latest and greatest avionics, parachutes and gadgets the useful load will of course suffer. There are a few SportCruisers that rolled off the line in 2019 that are within a pound or two of the max BEW for LSA. Why? Because they loaded it up with everything including the kitchen sink, yes it has a kitchen , and now it's really a single place aircraft.

Adding to your point about "the average US adult", two out of every three people in the US are overweight or obese so this doesn't help the argument either.

As mentioned, in 2004 things were different and those who made the rules didn't have a crystal ball to know what the future would be like for the LSA market. Since you only needed a minimum of 20 hours to be a pilot the committees who made the rules had safety in mind first and foremost.

Before you plunk down your hard earned money on a LSA, or any aircraft for that matter, you should decide what your "mission" is for that airplane and will your choices of aircraft fit that mission.

[geevans]

All,
This is informative. Thanks for responding.
It really helps!
Gary

[Warmi]

...

As mentioned, in 2004 things were different and those who made the rules didn't have a crystal ball to know what the future would be like for the LSA market. Since you only needed a minimum of 20 hours to be a pilot the committees who made the rules had safety in mind first and foremost.

A missing crystal ball you say ?

May I suggest a perfect and well tested solutions - it is called... let the damn market decide as opposed to bureaucrats who always seem to be behind and trying to legislate yesterday’s problems...

[3Dreaming]

...

As mentioned, in 2004 things were different and those who made the rules didn't have a crystal ball to know what the future would be like for the LSA market. Since you only needed a minimum of 20 hours to be a pilot the committees who made the rules had safety in mind first and foremost.

A missing crystal ball you say ?

May I suggest a perfect and well tested solutions - it is called... let the damn market decide as opposed to bureaucrats who always seem to be behind and trying to legislate yesterday’s problems...

And, the market did, it just wasn't what was envisioned. The regulations and standards established the limits of what was allowed. The manufactures based on the market pushed everything to the established limits. Now people are complaining that there isn't enough useful load. I don't think that is the fault of the bureaucrats. The market and manufactures knew what the limits were when they started.

[Warmi]

...

As mentioned, in 2004 things were different and those who made the rules didn't have a crystal ball to know what the future would be like for the LSA market. Since you only needed a minimum of 20 hours to be a pilot the committees who made the rules had safety in mind first and foremost.

A missing crystal ball you say ?

May I suggest a perfect and well tested solutions - it is called... let the damn market decide as opposed to bureaucrats who always seem to be behind and trying to legislate yesterday’s problems...

And, the market did, it just wasn't what was envisioned. The regulations and standards established the limits of what was allowed. The manufactures based on the market pushed everything to the established limits. Now people are complaining that there isn't enough useful load. I don't think that is the fault of the bureaucrats. The market and manufactures knew what the limits were when they started.

The problem is not with the market but with regulations and limits ( as pretty much always ) - hopefully we won't need to argue that point since even the mighty FAA is now admitting their regulations and limits were too rigid in the first place and are busy ( well .. government agency style "busy" anyway ) trying to come up with something that is less restrictive and limiting in terms of design choices and compromises while still preserving the original concept of "safer and for the masses" aviation.

Ultimately, you are absolutely correct - people want this fancy stuff and want their planes loaded with more stuff so the choice is really between basically having them fly rather unsafe and overloaded planes ( as the original poster pointed out ) or come up with some way of accommodating what the market wants while still maintaining overall safety .

[ShawnM]

Ultimately, you are absolutely correct - people want this fancy stuff and want their planes loaded with more stuff so the choice is really between basically having them fly rather unsafe and overloaded planes ( as the original poster pointed out ) or come up with some way of accommodating what the market wants while still maintaining overall safety .

And where do you propose that magic line in the sand is? They'll change the rules and in 10 years people will be complaining that they are be suppressed by the rule makers, again, and we'll start this same charade all over. I think it's pretty simply actually, if you don't like the LSA rules go get your PPL and fly a bigger plane that suits your new mission.

[3Dreaming]

The problem is not with the market but with regulations and limits ( as pretty much always ) - hopefully we won't need to argue that point since even the mighty FAA is now admitting their regulations and limits were too rigid in the first place and are busy ( well .. government agency style "busy" anyway ) trying to come up with something that is less restrictive and limiting in terms of design choices and compromises while still preserving the original concept of "safer and for the masses" aviation.

Ultimately, you are absolutely correct - people want this fancy stuff and want their planes loaded with more stuff so the choice is really between basically having them fly rather unsafe and overloaded planes ( as the original poster pointed out ) or come up with some way of accommodating what the market wants while still maintaining overall safety .

I don't think the FAA is admitting anything. The regulations have done exactly what they were intended to do. They have established that it is possible to safely operate aircraft built to a standard other than theirs. They have proved that aircraft can be operated by a pilot who doesn't have a medical. The latter led to basic med. In my opinion exploring expansion of the limits is in no way admitting that the previous were to rigid, as they served their intended purpose. In addition without the original regulations there would be no expansion.

[designrs]

Some manufacturers have been progressive and have used technology and materials to make lighter planes, in addition to offering different configurations to fit different needs.

So if you’re not heavy, usually fly alone and like tons of options and have a big budget... that’s certainly available.

On the flip side, if you’re heavy, and usually fly with a passenger you’ll probably do better with less options. Or get a PPL.

Look to your situation and intended mission. There’s a plane out there for you. Choose wisely.

[geevans]

Richard,
That is a wise, courteous, and intelligent answer to my question.
It confirms that my weight calculations are correct, and confirms that the pilot should choose based on their mission, and people have different requirements.
Thanks,
Gary Evans

[designrs]

Thank you Gary. I’m glad that you found the post helpful. Let’s take it another step.

My 2011 SportCruiser was heavy at 870 pounds empty. I’m skinny and tall at 165 pounds. I could take passengers up to 170 pounds with a decent amount of fuel. Now if my pasenger was 200 pounds or above, I really needed to evaluate my fuel more closely.

The heavy plane worked very well for me for solo cross country and for day trips with passengers that were not too heavy.

The easiest way to calculate weight and balance is to have a spreadsheet setup for your plane, or use the weight and balance tool in ForeFlight or similar application. After your plane is setup in the weight and balance parameters, you just enter the variables for people, fuel and luggage.

As far as planes and design evolution, Bristell is a good example. Bristell is basically the “next generation SportCruiser” as it is a continuation from the same airplane designer Milan Bristela.

What Bristela did was use thinner aluminum and “wet wings” (fuel in the wing itself, not requiring a fuel tank) which saved weight. The plane is also stronger by other improvements.

So you can get a “base level” Bristell at 789 pounds empty with a 912is and it would be EIGHTY POUNDS LIGHTER than my SportCruiser. (It would be even lighter with a 912 ULS motor.)

Or you could get it with the heavy 915is motor at 852 pounds. Much more performance and still lighter than my SportCruiser.

The BRS chute is usually the first option people consider removing for weight savings.

https://thelandingdoctor.com/inventory

[FastEddieB]

My Sky Arrow was nearly as porky as Richard’s as delivered at about 860 lbs. it’s a tad lighter now after switching to a lithium-iron battery, though it’s a couple pounds heavier than in the chart below after my ADSB-out installation last year.

It’s nearly impossible to bust either the fore or aft limits in my plane, so I usually just consult a cheat sheet I made in Excel if I have a heavier passenger. It’s the lower portion here:



It helps that my max fuel is 17.8 gals usable in a fuselage tank behind the passenger seat. I wish it was more, and newer Sky Arrows ship with 24 gals split between 2 wing tanks. I’ve also gained some cushion by being closer to 180 lbs now than 190. As it is, figuring 6 gph I usually plan legs not much longer than 2 hours, and Karen and I are usually more than ready for a pit stop by then anyway.

[JimParker256]

To further the point about "there are airplanes for every pilot..."

My Rotax 912 ULS powered RANS S-6ES Coyote II cost less than 1/5 what a Bristel would cost, but also delivers a completely different aviation experience... Where the Bristel is a sleek, fast, sexy low-wing speed demon (at least to me!), my Coyote II is a fabric-covered, low and slow, enjoy the scenery type airplane for those that want to be able to land pretty much anywhere (and take off again!). It is perfect for Young Eagles flights – I can't wait to fly with my grandkids!

The high wing keeps me in the shade on hot Texas days, and also delivers S.T.O.L. performance at a fraction of the cost of most S.T.O.L. airplanes. Even at gross weight, takeoff and landing ground rolls are well under 300 ft in no-wind conditions, and the plane stalls well below 30 mph (under 26 knots) with VGs on the wings. Solo, with a decent headwind, I've had it off the ground in well under a hundred feet! I thoroughly enjoy doing pattern work, striving to touch down right on my aim point when landing, and to bring the plane to a full stop quickly without locking up the brakes or wearing out my tires. I'm building up my skills so I can more safely tackle some of the backcountry airstrips in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and elsewhere... Taking a several-weeks long trip out there, flying all over this gorgeous country is one of my "bucket list" goals.

My plane weighs in at 750 lbs, which is a little bit higher than average for an S-6. But mine has an aluminum baggage compartment (versus a fabric "sling" that most have), and much larger tires for off-field work (8:00x6 versus the more typical 5:00x6). I also added a 2.75 gallon aux "header" tank for peace of mind on those longer trip segments (total of 20.75 gallons).

With a max GW of 1320, that leaves 570 lbs for people, fuel, and baggage. Payload with full fuel (125 lbs) is 445 lbs, so I can take a good-sized passenger (or an awful lot of baggage) and still carry plenty of fuel. Since the major weight stations are located pretty much right in the middle of the CG range (pilot, passenger, wing tanks, and even the aux tank), you'd have to work pretty hard to load the airplane outside the CG limits.

Max continuous power cruise for the S-6 is about 120 mph. With my bigger tires, I see around 115 mph (100 kts) at that power setting. But it's more pleasant to run the engine at 5200-5300 rpm, which gives me 105-110 mph. After all, I bought this plane because I thoroughly enjoy "low and slow" flying, and am not in a huge hurry to get anywhere.

But other people have very different priorities (and finances!), so I'm very glad there are options out there like the Bristel, CT, SportCruiser, KitFox, Highlander, etc. that offer very different flying experiences for the Sport Pilot. Somewhere out there, you'll find the perfect plane for your needs and skills.

As

[Wm.Ince]

To further the point about "there are airplanes for every pilot..."

My Rotax 912 ULS powered RANS S-6ES Coyote II cost less than 1/5 what a Bristel would cost, but also delivers a completely different aviation experience... Where the Bristel is a sleek, fast, sexy low-wing speed demon (at least to me!), my Coyote II is a fabric-covered, low and slow, enjoy the scenery type airplane for those that want to be able to land pretty much anywhere (and take off again!). It is perfect for Young Eagles flights – I can't wait to fly with my grandkids!

The high wing keeps me in the shade on hot Texas days, and also delivers S.T.O.L. performance at a fraction of the cost of most S.T.O.L. airplanes. Even at gross weight, takeoff and landing ground rolls are well under 300 ft in no-wind conditions, and the plane stalls well below 30 mph (under 26 knots) with VGs on the wings. Solo, with a decent headwind, I've had it off the ground in well under a hundred feet! I thoroughly enjoy doing pattern work, striving to touch down right on my aim point when landing, and to bring the plane to a full stop quickly without locking up the brakes or wearing out my tires. I'm building up my skills so I can more safely tackle some of the backcountry airstrips in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and elsewhere... Taking a several-weeks long trip out there, flying all over this gorgeous country is one of my "bucket list" goals.

My plane weighs in at 750 lbs, which is a little bit higher than average for an S-6. But mine has an aluminum baggage compartment (versus a fabric "sling" that most have), and much larger tires for off-field work (8:00x6 versus the more typical 5:00x6). I also added a 2.75 gallon aux "header" tank for peace of mind on those longer trip segments (total of 20.75 gallons).

With a max GW of 1320, that leaves 570 lbs for people, fuel, and baggage. Payload with full fuel (125 lbs) is 445 lbs, so I can take a good-sized passenger (or an awful lot of baggage) and still carry plenty of fuel. Since the major weight stations are located pretty much right in the middle of the CG range (pilot, passenger, wing tanks, and even the aux tank), you'd have to work pretty hard to load the airplane outside the CG limits.

Max continuous power cruise for the S-6 is about 120 mph. With my bigger tires, I see around 115 mph (100 kts) at that power setting. But it's more pleasant to run the engine at 5200-5300 rpm, which gives me 105-110 mph. After all, I bought this plane because I thoroughly enjoy "low and slow" flying, and am not in a huge hurry to get anywhere.

But other people have very different priorities (and finances!), so I'm very glad there are options out there like the Bristel, CT, SportCruiser, KitFox, Highlander, etc. that offer very different flying experiences for the Sport Pilot. Somewhere out there, you'll find the perfect plane for your needs and skills.

Good report, thanks Jim.