Sport Pilot Talk

I don't think that's the biggest issue. I thin the bigger issue is that they had problems bringing the aircraft within the weight limits that they wanted to, and are having to do a re-design for weight purposes. The wing was supposed to fold, and they can't have both the folding with and the retractable landing gear, or something along those lines.

Ryan

_________________
Independent Flight Instructor at http://www.TexasTailwheel.com. Come fly tailwheel LSA's.

I think the unusual problem here is that the airplane allows sharp banking while scooting or just above the surface. They want to prevent people from cartwheeling. Personally, I suspect it's a fool's errand. You cannot design the reckless out of an airplane, especially if you want to keep the fun in. But it is what it is and hopefuly they know what they are doing.

Agreed. I saw the video of the company president taking off from a lake and it looked like he came real close to hooking a wingtip. Nothing wrong with selling a fun aircraft, lots wrong with selling thrills that way.

I came to realize that Ryan was more right than I thought, when I read that Icon invited Lotus to design structural interior parts. Smells like a last-ditch effort to scrape a few pounds to me. In fact I don't know of a single airplane with structural interior (not that they don't exist, but they are uncommon). BTW, the electric folder and the land gear give 100 pounds, according to the A5 Booklet.

_________________
http://zaitcev.mee.nu/

I'm not very knowledgeable about LSA airplanes, but isn't it really the case that many, perhaps most of them, are routinely flown above the 1320 pound LSA weight limit?

Not the one's I am familiar with.

Ryan

_________________
Independent Flight Instructor at http://www.TexasTailwheel.com. Come fly tailwheel LSA's.

Based on conversations, certainly not ramp-checks, I'd say flying LSAs over-gross happens much less than that... and probably parallels whatever the rate is in general aviation. It's not something that's taken lightly by most pilots I know.

_________________
Tim
-----
check out CTFlier.com

I don't know how common it is, but the first 3 slsa I encountered (Jab 230, sportcruiser, Rans s19) were touted by certain reps for routine use in excess of 1320 lbs. Being new to aviation I thought this must be standard, accepted practice. I now know better.

_________________
DAVE

Salesmen say darnest things. Jim Lee, seller of Phoenix, once told me that it was ok to fly Phoenix without a tailwheel endorsement. He may even be correct legally speaking. But you have to be some kind of moron, or a god-pilot to attempt it.

Note that A5's gross is 1450 lbs, not 1320, because it's a seaplane.

_________________
http://zaitcev.mee.nu/

I think the LSA market is particularly susceptible to rumors of flying over gross since in some designs the MTOW may be a regulated maximum versus design maximum (like Part 23 aircraft). Keep in mind that even IF (and that's a big IF) the structure can handle more than 1320, V speeds change with mass. Evektor's Sportstar originally had a lower gross weight than 1320 due to not being able to hit stall speeds minimums. They added vortex generators and we're able to increase the gross. Basically, the plane will fly differently than the book if over the POH MTOW. There is an old adage that you become a test pilot when you fly outside of the design limits. I prefer to just be a regular pilot

Also, keep in mind that salesmen may exaggerate the design gross since it is likely there is no documentation in the public domain to support or refute.

_________________
dave

He's technically right. There is no tailwheel endorsement available or needed for gliders (only for airplanes). If you have a glider rating (or a glider endorsement to your Sport Pilot license), you can fly a glider with a nosegear, a tailwheel, a single wheel under the seat, a skid, or any other arrangement. (However, it's still a very good idea to get tailwheel training before trying to land a glider, or especially a motorglider, that has a conventional landing gear).

FWIW, I don't have a tailwheel endorsement, because when I started flying (in conventional landing gear) there was no such thing -- that's all anybody flew! I suppose I really should have gotten a tricycle gear endorsement when I transitioned...

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

Correct. The original max gross (1268 pounds) was determined by loading up the airframe and determining the weight at which the clean stall speed reached 45 kts (the LSA maximum). The VGs didn't so much raise the weight capabilities as they did lower the stall speed.

The SportStar airframe (like, in fact, many other S-LSA airframes) was derived from a design that, structurally, could easily handle over 1400 pounds. Yes, some people may choose to load it up that way, but (a) the stall speed then exceeds LSA limits, and (b) all the V-speeds will change. Not really a good practice!

Is it common practice to fly over gross? Sadly, it may be so. That doesn't make it legal, or right, or particularly smart. Those limits are there for a reason, and it's not just a political reason. The reason has to do with safety. Kinetic energy varies with mass, and with the square of velocity. Raise the weight, and kinetic energy goes up. Raise the stall speed, and takeoff and landing speeds increase, and with them, kinetic energy can go way up. In an accident, kinetic energy has to be dissipated. If the structure crushes, and I'm in it, I want that kinetic energy to be as low as possible!

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org

JimNtexas, I see a lot of "discussion" about flying above the ASTM-mandated 1320# limit by some distributors because their aircraft are certified to higher weight limits in their own countries. Paradise, Pipistrel and Jabiru models are examples of this, and such comments may generate a bit of the impression you've developed. Beyond that, some models are marketed in part on their larger and more accessible baggage areas, which can create the impression that such models offer more useful load. And then of course we have owner pilots who believe their aircraft is capable of more than what the builder felt it wanted to be held accountable for. Numerous examples of that in the Part 23 fleet, to be sure.

_________________
Jack
RAF Florida State Liaison
Please visit www.theraf.org

Today's news:



Love this part:



(from http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/ICON ... 991-1.html)

So, all the while we discussed the overgross in this thread, Icon was working on larger gross A5.

Note that although Indendent Aircraft sells vapor, SeaMax definitely proves that an LSA airplane is feasible (even if Helen is not a fan of it).

Also note that power loading of A5 is going to suffer unless they switch to 914 or something.

_________________
http://zaitcev.mee.nu/

250 lbs over the extra 100 lbs they get for being amphibious? Remember that the FAA turned down the Cessna 120/140 owners that wanted to fly Light Sport and only needed 130 lbs over the 1320 max.

I would be seriously concerned about the extra weight and a 100 hp engine as well. I see they have changed the standard engine to a Rotax 912i with no explanation.

_________________
PP-ASEL, Flight Design CTSW owner.