Page 3 of 3
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2018 9:54 pm
by TimTaylor
Some people, but not all, want more gadgets and luxury. Some, including me, prefer less in an LSA.
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:00 pm
by Warmi
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 ..
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:57 am
by MrMorden
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.
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...
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.
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:38 pm
by Warmi
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. ....
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.
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:56 pm
by MrMorden
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.
That does seem weird, I thought most Stings have 520-550lb useful. As delivered, at least.
Re: Jack Pelton comments on LSA weight restrictions
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:53 pm
by RTK
Warmi wrote: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. ....
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.
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.