Stereotypes about LSAs: True, False, or both?

[N918KT]

Paul (drseti), I would find comments online about what LSAs can do or cannot do, and some I do not agree with.

First off, I would hear that LSAs are unsafe because the max gross weight of 1320 lbs is too low and cannot add enough safety systems or beef up the structure of the LSAs to make them safe in a crash. But I noticed you mentioned that the magic number of 1320 lbs is not arbitrary and you said there is some kind of special formula, something involving kinetic energy that at 1320 lbs it would be possible for a pilot and his passenger to survive a landing accident, right?

Second, another stereotype about LSAs are that LSAs cannot fly far and cannot carry two American-sized people with full fuel. I don't know if it is completely true, but I know that some LSAs have good useful load and can fly farther and faster than a traditional GA aircraft.

That's all the stereotypes and misunderstandings I hear about LSAs online. I also know LSAs are quite expensive compared to older traditional GA aircraft but I guess we could say that LSAs are cheaper to maintain and cost less to operate than GA aircraft. And if I ever want to buy a used SLSA in the very far future, I could always partner up with a few other owners.

Paul, do you hear about these stereotypes about LSAs all the time, and if so, do you try to correct their ways of thinking on LSAs?

[comperini]

I'm not Paul, but:

First off, I would hear that LSAs are unsafe because the max gross weight of 1320 lbs is too low and cannot add enough safety systems or beef up the structure of the LSAs to make them safe in a crash. But I noticed you mentioned that the magic number of 1320 lbs is not arbitrary and you said there is some kind of special formula, something involving kinetic energy that at 1320 lbs it would be possible for a pilot and his passenger to survive a landing accident, right?

When the Sport Pilot NPRM first came out, the FAA proposed a lower (1232 lbs) weight. It was increased to the 1320 we have now. The FAA's actual reasoning as published in the NPRM, is:

"Some commenters wanted the weight increased to permit stronger aircraft structures, use of four-stroke or typecertificated engines, electrical systems for avionics, starters for engines, or ballistic recovery systems. The FAA is increasing the weight limitation of the light-sport aircraft from the proposed 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms). The originally proposed weight limitation was based on the 1,200-pound weight limitation proposed by the ARAC’s light-sport aircraft working group. The FAA agrees that there may be a safety benefit to light-sport aircraft designs to include provisions for currently produced type certificated four-stroke engines and ballistic parachute recovery systems. Commenters submitted data that indicated that an additional 60 to 70 pounds would accommodate four-stroke aviation powerplants, and that an additional 30 to 40 pounds would accommodate the ballistic parachute recovery systems. For these reasons, the FAA has revised its proposed maximum takeoff weight limitation to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft designed for operation on land."

That's all the stereotypes and misunderstandings I hear about LSAs online. I also know LSAs are quite expensive compared to older traditional GA aircraft

Are you comparing NEW vs NEW prices?? or NEW SLSA vs old, fully depreciated Cessnas? Need to compare apples to apples.

[Nomore767]

"Second, another stereotype about LSAs are that LSAs cannot fly far and cannot carry two American-sized people with full fuel. I don't know if it is completely true, but I know that some LSAs have good useful load and can fly farther and faster than a traditional GA aircraft."

I know you addressed your post to Paul but if I may add my 2 cents?

I picked up my RV-12 SLSA from Vans in Oregon last July and flew it, by myself, to SC. I did the trip in 5 days, mainly because I was trying to fly in the early morning to mid-day due to the summer heat and turbulence over the southwestern states. The plane performed flawlessly. If it'd been cooler and less bumpy in the afternoons I could have done it in 3 days without much trouble.

My airplane has an empty weight of 765lbs. Max fuel of 20 gals is 120lbs. Max baggage capacity is 50lbs. This leaves 385 lbs for passengers. I didn't need to carry 50lbs of bags, more like 28lbs. I'm about 205 so I could have added another 200lb person.

I usually flew at 75% power and got 4.5 to 4.9 gph so I planned on 3 to 3hrs 20 min max time legs with a 4 gallon reserve. That was plenty of time and I was getting 120 to 125 KTAS and usually a tailwind.

There are some excellent LSAs around and I think mine, and many others compete very well with traditional GA airplanes.

[N918KT]

Are you comparing NEW vs NEW prices?? or NEW SLSA vs old, fully depreciated Cessnas? Need to compare apples to apples.

I am comparing new SLSAs against old, fully depreciated traditional GA aircraft. Yes, when compared against each other, the older GA aircraft usually is the cheaper one but if new SLSAs are compared against brand new traditional GA aircraft, the new SLSAs are the cheaper ones.

"Second, another stereotype about LSAs are that LSAs cannot fly far and cannot carry two American-sized people with full fuel. I don't know if it is completely true, but I know that some LSAs have good useful load and can fly farther and faster than a traditional GA aircraft."

I know you addressed your post to Paul but if I may add my 2 cents?

I picked up my RV-12 SLSA from Vans in Oregon last July and flew it, by myself, to SC. I did the trip in 5 days, mainly because I was trying to fly in the early morning to mid-day due to the summer heat and turbulence over the southwestern states. The plane performed flawlessly. If it'd been cooler and less bumpy in the afternoons I could have done it in 3 days without much trouble.

My airplane has an empty weight of 765lbs. Max fuel of 20 gals is 120lbs. Max baggage capacity is 50lbs. This leaves 385 lbs for passengers. I didn't need to carry 50lbs of bags, more like 28lbs. I'm about 205 so I could have added another 200lb person.

I usually flew at 75% power and got 4.5 to 4.9 gph so I planned on 3 to 3hrs 20 min max time legs with a 4 gallon reserve. That was plenty of time and I was getting 120 to 125 KTAS and usually a tailwind.

There are some excellent LSAs around and I think mine, and many others compete very well with traditional GA airplanes.

That is a good example of how some SLSAs are useful. I am not sure where do other pilots get the stereotype that SLSAs does not have good useful load and cannot fly far.

[comperini]

I am comparing new SLSAs against old, fully depreciated traditional GA aircraft.

There ya go.. not really a fair comparison is it? By the way, don't just equate LSAs with "S-LSA", which of course are the more expensive of the LSAs. Remember, experimentals, and even some of the older fully depreciated GA aircraft (Champ, Taylorcraft, etc) are also LSAs

I also forgot to address your original "safety" question, which pretty much went down the path of "less weight equals less safe in a crash". While I suppose that's true to some extent, that's really like saying "is a freight train safer than a Prius in a head on collision". Well ya, I guess the freight train will win that match, but it doesn't mean the Prius is unsafe.

Am I more likely to crush an airframe of LSA weight easier than some big old GA plane? I guess. So what? I don't think a Prius is unsafe, and yet it will crush a lot sooner than the big ol' 4x4, right?

[bottleworks]

(I'm gone. Everything deleted! Can't stand the ignorant data spread here).

[zaitcev]

Second, another stereotype about LSAs are that LSAs cannot fly far and cannot carry two American-sized people with full fuel.

Kevin, this line always makes me mad. Imagine two airplanes, let's call them "Zessna 150" and "Zessna 150 Patroller". They are almost entirely identical, and use wet wing tanks. The Z-150 has a 22 gallon fuel capacity, and Z-150 Patroller has 36 gallon fuel capacity. The difference is merely where the tank bulkhead is located in the wing, nothing else. The dry weight of the two is the same. I think it should be obvious to anyone that Z-150 P is a better airplane. If you fuel it with 22 gallons, there's absolutely no difference with Z-150. It carries same weight to the same distance. However, in addition to that, you can fly it solo with 36 gallons, if you need that.

But here's the kicker: according to the logic of the people who peddle the "payload with full fuel" meme, our imaginary Z-150 is a better airplane than Z-150 Patroller, because its "payload with full fuel" is 84 lbs better. It's ridiculous, but that's what they are saying. Why would anyone even care about "payload with full fuel"? It's STUPID (well, it's important to a strategic bomber, certainly, but not for a basic light single).

The real reason this useless measure is bandied about as something important is simple. If you compare Cessna 150 with a number of LSAs, its payload with full fuel is superior, because its fuel tank is tiny. That does not make it a better airplane at all. It's just anti-LSA agenda, pure and simple.

-- Pete

[N918KT]

Second, another stereotype about LSAs are that LSAs cannot fly far and cannot carry two American-sized people with full fuel.

Kevin, this line always makes me mad. Imagine two airplanes, let's call them "Zessna 150" and "Zessna 150 Patroller". They are almost entirely identical, and use wet wing tanks. The Z-150 has a 22 gallon fuel capacity, and Z-150 Patroller has 36 gallon fuel capacity. The difference is merely where the tank bulkhead is located in the wing, nothing else. The dry weight of the two is the same. I think it should be obvious to anyone that Z-150 P is a better airplane. If you fuel it with 22 gallons, there's absolutely no difference with Z-150. It carries same weight to the same distance. However, in addition to that, you can fly it solo with 36 gallons, if you need that.

But here's the kicker: according to the logic of the people who peddle the "payload with full fuel" meme, our imaginary Z-150 is a better airplane than Z-150 Patroller, because its "payload with full fuel" is 66 lbs better. It's ridiculous, but that's what they are saying. Why would anyone even care about "payload with full fuel"? It's STUPID (well, it's important to a strategic bomber, certainly, but not for a basic light single).

The real reason this useless measure is bandied about as something important is simple. If you compare Cessna 150 with a number of LSAs, its payload with full fuel is superior, because its fuel tank is tiny. That does not make it a better airplane at all. It's just anti-LSA agenda, pure and simple.

-- Pete

Pete, I see what you mean.

[SportPilot]

.......

[MrMorden]

Second, another stereotype about LSAs are that LSAs cannot fly far and cannot carry two American-sized people with full fuel.

Kevin, this line always makes me mad. Imagine two airplanes, let's call them "Zessna 150" and "Zessna 150 Patroller". They are almost entirely identical, and use wet wing tanks. The Z-150 has a 22 gallon fuel capacity, and Z-150 Patroller has 36 gallon fuel capacity. The difference is merely where the tank bulkhead is located in the wing, nothing else. The dry weight of the two is the same. I think it should be obvious to anyone that Z-150 P is a better airplane. If you fuel it with 22 gallons, there's absolutely no difference with Z-150. It carries same weight to the same distance. However, in addition to that, you can fly it solo with 36 gallons, if you need that.

But here's the kicker: according to the logic of the people who peddle the "payload with full fuel" meme, our imaginary Z-150 is a better airplane than Z-150 Patroller, because its "payload with full fuel" is 66 lbs better. It's ridiculous, but that's what they are saying. Why would anyone even care about "payload with full fuel"? It's STUPID (well, it's important to a strategic bomber, certainly, but not for a basic light single).

The real reason this useless measure is bandied about as something important is simple. If you compare Cessna 150 with a number of LSAs, its payload with full fuel is superior, because its fuel tank is tiny. That does not make it a better airplane at all. It's just anti-LSA agenda, pure and simple.

-- Pete

Totally agree. And the fact is, rarely does ANY single engine GA airplane fly with full fuel. When they do, they can't fill all the seats. Try to put full fuel and four normal sized adults in a Cherokee 160, 172, or even SR20. It doesn't work out. In that regard most LSA are just like other singles.

My CTSW holds 34 gallons (33 usable). I weigh 190lb. I can take two people my size and full fuel, but nothing else. Or I can take two people and 24 gallons and 60lb of bags. Or I can fly solo with full fuel and 190lb of bags (I would probably run out of space before weight). I have options. And even with 24 gallons of fuel I have 400 mile range with a fat reserve.

Even a 65hp Luscombe or Taylorcraft will go a couple hundred miles without stopping with two people, and many have cross-crossed the country for decades. A buddy of mine recently flew an Ercoupe from GA to CA to deliver it, no problems.

[CTLSi]

......

......

[drseti]

Sorry not to chime in sooner, since the Q was originally addressed to me - I've been tied up all day at Expo. There's not much I could add, Keven, beyond what others have already said (and all of with which I pretty much agree).

[designrs]

Negative stereotypes about LSA are pure ignorance.
Proof is being here at the LSA expo in Sebring.
I can't wait for the damn medical petition to pass.
LSA will have to stand on it's own product.
It's amazing to see all of the great LSA aircraft that have evolved here at Sebring!

[Nomore767]

Hey guys at the Expo in Sebring…if you get a chance please send some reports and pictures! have fun!

[N918KT]

Hows the Expo down there guys?

I wish I was there. I never been to the Sebring Expo. What is the Expo like?