FastEddieB wrote:WDD wrote:On the other hand, if it can only truly handle 1320 pounds or so, its not going to have a lot of reserve performance - if any.
You and most others here probably are aware of this, but the word "performance" here can be misleading.
I've heard time and time again that a plane limited to 3,200 lbs, let's say, has "performed" just fine up to 3,500 lbs, with excellent rate of climb even at the higher weight. I honestly think that many think that engine output and rate of climb are what establish maximum weight. It may be a factor, but weight limits are more often the result of loads on the structure at higher weights, regardless of horsepower reserves. I guess "performance" can include the ability of the structure to handle loads, but again, I don't think thats the way its normally uses.
Yeah, that could be what's throwing off the discussion. When I stated "performance", I was thinking the structure could handle more loads, landing gear more robust, etc. I was also thinking that if a plane could handle itself well at 1600 pounds (handling well, agility, be able to get out of a stall and spin), it would be even better - more reserve performance - that a plane that was maxed out at 1320 by design.
The discussion seems to keep bouncing back to "don't overload / go beyond 1320 lbs. Which isn't the premise of the question. Perhaps think of it this way. "Do certain LSA airplanes provide a benefit over others because we WON'T load it beyond 1320lbs ?"