Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).
CTLSi wrote:. . ."The whole weight debate for LSA is silly because the limit on gross weight is very low for all of us." . . .
That makes about as much sense as a football bat.
You still don't get it.
With the LSA land limit being 1320 lbs., what certainly does matter is allowable payload.
My CTSW has the capability to carry 80 lbs. more than your CTLSi.
80 lbs. is 80 lbs., and in my humble opinion, especially considering light sport, that is significant.
Looking at it another way, it equates to about 13 gallons of fuel. . . .
Ever wished you had 13 gallons of extra fuel?
I bet you have.
For comparison, I got all excited about my last W&B update:
That 11 lbs or so would have let Karen and me just about top off at fuel stops on the way to and from Page, rather than always seeking to leave 2 gals behind (full fuel put us about 12 lbs over gross).
Anyway, high empty weight is a negative, no matter how you slice it. To rationalize it smacks of apologetics.
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
CFI, CFII, CFIME [email protected]
If you reduce fuel load again to 20 gals this gives you 30 lbs for bags
In an earlier post CTLSI said he flies for 5 hours on 20 gals. This doesn't leave the VFR reserve. Lets say 4.5 gph (conservative) which leaves 15.5 for cruise. At 4gph it's a bit under 4 hours but with the 912iS engine lower burn maybe 4 hours.
If it's 20gals with the 30lbs of bags then allowing for a VFR reserve this gives you a cruise of about 3.8 hours. If that's acceptable then okay BUT…that means the CTLSi is typical of other LSAs…it's weight restricted in some missions and compromise is required. To improve margins may mean re-evaluating adding some options, like the BRS chute for example.
If both you and your passenger are well under 'typical' passenger weights then good for you BUT in the REAL WORLD it doesn't work for the typical 170lb+ weight passengers.
Did anyone say anything about bringing golf clubs?
My point here is not to knock the FD CTLSi…but rather to point out that just about ALL LSA aircraft require a compromise on mission due to the relationship of the 1320lb max weight limit to empty weight. Solo a pilot can usually take full fuel and bags. Add a passenger and that will likely change, especially on LSAs with larger fuel capacity. It's that way for Tecnam too. (The demo plane at Sebring had only 292lbs of useful load!!) Add heavier passengers (with modern weights!) and it may further reduce.
The RV-12 can take 2 x 210lb people, with full bag load, and full fuel..PROVIDING the empty weight is kept low (for an RV-12). Most are in the lower 700lb area, whilst the SLSAs are in the area of 750-765lbs. Then again, the RV-12 has only a 19.8 gal max fuel capacity so if longer range is the mission, you may need to keep looking.
The Skycatcher's weight issue is that most airplanes are in the 860-870lb range so there is little margin for adding fuel and being able to complete , for example, a training mission, especially if the CFI and student are over the 170lb typical weight. Again, solo, not so much of a problem.
Surely this all just serves to reinforce the argument that many have made here that in choosing an LSA the pilot's 'personal mission' is a key factor in selecting the LSA right for them. It has to be REAL WORLD and not some intellectual argument or silly bragging rights.
It doesn't matter a great deal if the LSA with 'lighter carbon fibre' construction is still heavier than one made with metal and rivets. Weight is weight. Weight drives the LSA operation. Options like larger fuel capacity, extra avionics, heavier engines, BRS chutes etc all serve to add weight. If the mission is mostly solo pilot then going full fuel and adding the options makes some sense ( it may not at time of sale however).
If the mission is always with 2 people, no bags and for short flights and occasional short cross-country, then the weight is perhaps less of an issue, or at least, the compromise is more acceptable.
We owe those thinking about getting into sport flying, be it through renting or owning, to provide realistic and meaningful information. Taking the arrogant, bragging, 'my plane is best, so I diss all the rest' approach simply does sport flying, and those involved with it, or contemplating getting into it, a huge disservice.
Last edited by Nomore767 on Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Nomore767 wrote: Taking the arrogant, bragging, 'my plane is best, so I diss all the rest' approach simply does sport flying, and those involved with it, or contemplating getting into it, a huge disservice.
While simultaneously arguing against one of the cornerstones of the entire Sport Pilot license and decade of safe operating experience.
Nicely done Nomore767. Just the point I tried to make earlier suggesting those who are newer to recreational aviation should be 'fairing the curve' of comments you see here and discarding the outlier claims which promise the free lunch.
And to amplify on Eddie's comment, weight can be much more than "weight" per se. 80# is the equivalent of our large tent & fly, sleeping bags and Thermarest mattresses, two food bags, stuffed cooler, camp chairs, all our cooking & galley gear and the ditch bag. 80# represents our ability to fly to a beautiful remote setting and then be able to camp, hike and chill, sometimes at locations others can only reach by backpacking in. And the bonus is that we probably have the softest footprint of all land users. No trail maintenance needed to support our access, no roads to be built or pull-thru's to be asphalted in place. Weight can exchanged for any number of benefits to the pilot.
Just discussing absolute weights can also mislead: As one example, there's a popular S-LSA with full panel & 100 hp Rotax that can carry 2 x 200# crew plus its full load out of baggage (50#) and full fuel (22 gals useable)...and it's MTOW is only 1235#. That MTOW weight might suggest this LSA is 'small' by comparison, but in terms of performance it's full featured. (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... l-featured)
We need a flow diagram or PERT chart available as a reference at this forum which provides a decision tree for selecting an LSA. Has anyone seen such a thing that is suitable across the various l 'missions' of the LSA community? Might provide some helpful structure for some of these discussion topics, too.
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
In the near (or distant) future, CTLSi may be listing his (somewhat porky) plane so he can step up to the new CT4.
When potential buyers read the list of features, they'll really want his plane. But a lot of buyers will hear the empty weight, do the math, and move on - realizing that bells and whistles are nice, but limited useful load can be a deal breaker. Not all pilots are as svelte as he and his wife. In fact, looking around, few are.
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
CFI, CFII, CFIME [email protected]
Jack, I've flown the A220 (on tundra tires, no less!) and can attest that it's an ideal aircraft for your particular mission. In addition to having a good payload, it's agile, docile, and forgiving. That article, however, is a little misleading. It states that the max gross weight was kept down to meet the LSA stall speed limit (true), and then goes on to claim a ridiculously slow stall speed. Read the fine print; you'll see that the specs show indicated stall speed. When you factor in the significant airspeed indicator error at high angles of attack, you'll find that, at 1235#, the Aerotrek stalls at exactly... 45 KCAS! (No big surprise there...)
Evektor did exactly the same thing with the original SportStar, initially limiting max gross to 1268 to meet ASTM stall speed limits. Later, they authorized a vortex generator mod to enable the max gross to be raised to 1320. Perhaps a similar mod will be possible downstream for the Aerotrek.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, 1C9 [email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
I think at some point an LSA pilot who is contemplating becoming a customer has the technical ability to compare airplanes, weights and performance etc.
As we've said before, we can intellectualize it all ad nauseum, but at the end of the day, it's whether the airplane we chose can now actually do what we want it to do.
Perhaps we should determine 'the mission' first, as in the type of flying we realistically will do on a day to day basis. This is what I did.
I wanted to be 'able' to do a cross-country of several hours but only on an occasional basis. My bread and butter flying is local flying, maybe to an airport up to 2 hours away, going up for an hour in the early morning or evening, and maybe take a passenger from time to time. Being able to quickly prepare the airplane for flight, fairly easy service and maintenance and the goal of the lowest cost to do this.
I looked at many models, asked questions, went to the LSA Expo, talked to owners and took demo flights.
I then tried to match planes to my mission, rather than pick a plane and try to make the mission work.
Let me compare the Tecnam Astore to the RV-12 SLSA that I chose.
Astore
Empty weight | 809 lb
Empty weight, as tested | 877 lb
Max ramp weight | 1,324 lb
Max gross weight | 1,320 lb
Useful load | 511 lb
Useful load, as tested | 443 lb 555
Payload w/full fuel | 338 lb
Payload w/full fuel, as tested | 270 lb
Max takeoff weight | 1,320 lb
Max landing weight | 1,320 lb
Fuel capacity, std | 29 gal (28.8 gal usable) 174 lb (172.8 lb usable)
Baggage capacity | 77 lb
The Astore is a beautiful airplane, better fitted out, nicer interior, has luggage door option, sliding seats, dual Garmin G3XTouch
and so on. However, as tested by AOPA it was about $75k more than mine. With full fuel only I can fly in it and take bags. If I take a passenger then I have to reduce fuel Even reduced to 20 gals, the same as the RV-12, the Vans still offers better load.
Interestingly, in the AOPA article, the sales guy couldn't get more than about 113 KTAS, on the 2 blade prop. After adding the 3 blade they got 118KTAS max. My RV-12 gets 118KTAS at 5300rpm and over 120KTAS at 5500rpm.
So, I chose an airplane that replaces nicer (and heavier) interior with lower and more useful weight. I can put 2 200lb people, full fuel and have 35lbs for bags, every time. And I chose the higher weight SLSA. This completes MY mission. It doesn't work for other planes, hence I didn't choose them. The Astore works better, for me IF I wanted mostly solo long cross-countires, but as I said, that's NOT in MY mission.
The airplane has Dynon Skyview Touch, full ADSB-IN, and OUT .It has more than enough for me to complete the flying I choose to do and the a/p and other things simply add the latest and greatest (which has likely already changed!). The Astore doesn't have any better capability that I need.
I can easily take the plane out of the hangar, service and clean it and so far the fuel burn on a mix of 93 non-ethanonol/100LL is working very well.
Jack, you outlined YOUR mission flying, I've outlined mine. We have different airplanes, but we're happy.
I hope that readers of this site can understand the point about defining 'the mission' and then finding the airplane that best meets their particular mission. They'll probably be happy too if they can and do.
Last edited by Nomore767 on Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
CTLSi, I suggest you stop poking the bear, lest you get eaten.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, 1C9 [email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
CTLSi wrote:The theme that keeps surfacing is how frustrated you guys are over the 1320 limit. My new C4 will have 1320 useful load. Maybe that's will alleviate some of the frustration out there? Oh wait. You guys can't fly a certified 4-seater. Oh well...
The theme that keeps re-surfacing is your inability to get facts straight or support your outrageous claims with factual numbers. You actually, sound increasingly frustrated with the fact that your CTLSi isn't all that you keep telling us it is. Now, you've resorted to the childish stance of bragging about your next 'latest thing'.
Make sure to read the POH and review the weight and balance info of the C4 so that you don't make the repeated mistakes you have with the CTLSi.
Frustrated, nope. Having a lot of fun flying light sport ….yet... still able to fly 4 seaters, six seaters, twins, turboprops and jets.
Be sure to read us the brochure with all the features and options for the C4…I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath.
CTLSi wrote:The theme that keeps surfacing is how frustrated you guys are over the 1320 limit. My new C4 will have 1320 useful load. Maybe that's will alleviate some of the frustration out there? Oh wait. You guys can't fly a certified 4-seater. Oh well...
Try to remember, CTLSi, that you're just one doctor's visit away from not being able to fly that new C4 - or your existing CT, for that matter. I suggest you start enjoying all the flying you can, in whatever you can, while you can -- just like the rest of us are doing -- instead of lording your superior health, youth, and immortality over the rest of us. Ain't none of us getting any younger.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, 1C9 [email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
CTLSi wrote:The theme that keeps surfacing is how frustrated you guys are over the 1320 limit. My new C4 will have 1320 useful load. Maybe that's will alleviate some of the frustration out there? Oh wait. You guys can't fly a certified 4-seater. Oh well...
Just love when folks make assumptions regarding the audience. Many of us can fly what we want, have current medicals, and choose to fly an LSA for enjoyment. Additionally, many of us have designed, built, and tested aircraft, and have learned to temper our opinions instead of displaying arrogance about what we can afford and our various ratings. I belong to this forum as it is informative, helpful, and has assisted me in several areas of maintenance of my LSA. Most members are experienced, helpful, generous with their wealth of knowledge, and are willing to share their experiences with others. VR.. Don
CTLSi wrote: But let's admit that your panel is mostly steam gauges, no autopilot, ...
Actually I have a 2-axis AP and 1/2 glass. My point wasn't that I have more useful load than you but that all LSA have different useful load depending on their empty weights.
Sorry CharlieTango but I just don't believe that's your plane. You're going to have to fly up here to KBVU and let me see (and fly) in person. That's the only way I'll believe you!
