Board index

Sport Pilot Talk

The discussion forum for Sport Pilots and Light Sport Aircraft
* * * CHECK Out the Sport Pilot Talk Flight School and Rental Finder Map! * * * It is currently Sun May 26, 2013 1:50 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: CTSW baggage
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:47 am
Posts: 376
Location: Tucson, Az. Ryan Airfield (KRYN)
Hi Dave,

Plenty of baggage room on both sides and up to 55 lbs each side. Give me a call if you have any questions. I have seen some carry full size bikes, golf clubs, full camp ground gear. Like I said you can't really get it out of CG if you put weight where it was designed to be.

_________________
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maint. Rated
Rotax Repair Center - Heavy Maint Rated
(520) 574-1080 (Home) Try Home First.
(520) 349-7056 (Cell)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Useful load
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:00 pm
Posts: 17
One interesting thing about the Sport Cruiser is the actual gross weight of the airplane (from the designer, not the FAA/ASTM) is 1716 pounds! So you can overgross on paper, but probably not in reality. Also, the SC uses 6016 aluminium like the Bristell. BL uses carbon fiber in the seats for support vs. SC plywood (soon to change to composite). I spent time with 2 of the head guys at Czech Sport Aircraft and they are very interested and invested in raising the official useful load of the SC. I personally think the FAA is forcing too much compromising by LSA co's with 1320. Why not 1500lb? Or allow all safety items to be not counted in the Gr Wt.

The Sport Cruiser, CTLS and Evektor (I think) have all just become 'fully certified' aircraft in Europe, which I believe, will let them fly at actual design gross wt. and be used for commercial ops etc. Maybe that will help us in the US get the Gr Wt raised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:21 pm
Posts: 158
Very interesting me as a PiperSport owner. I've never seen these numbers before. I would love to see the source material.

_________________
Dave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:57 pm
Posts: 380
deltafox wrote:
Very interesting me as a PiperSport owner. I've never seen these numbers before. I would love to see the source material.


I'd love to see more info on this too!
As well as European spec SportCruiser gross max, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Useful load
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:19 pm
Posts: 191
Location: KHWV
znurtdog wrote:
One interesting thing about the Sport Cruiser is the actual gross weight of the airplane (from the designer, not the FAA/ASTM) is 1716 pounds! So you can overgross on paper, but probably not in reality.


Like the previous two posters I'd like to see some documentation on this also.

It is common and documented that others like the Jabiru, Paradise and Lightning were all based on airframes with higher gross weights.

However don't be caught in an accident flying over legal gross. Not only will the FAA nail you but worse insurance won't pay. The other thing to keep in mind your stall speeds and climb rate will change. Also consider the published load factors were for 1320#'s.

_________________
Marcus - WA2DCI
PP ASEL IA

Daidalos Greek: Δαίδαλος
Remember don't fly too close to the Sun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Useful load
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:15 pm
Posts: 192
Location: KOJC
Daidalos wrote:
However don't be caught in an accident flying over legal gross. Not only will the FAA nail you but worse insurance won't pay. The other thing to keep in mind your stall speeds and climb rate will change. Also consider the published load factors were for 1320#'s.


And I'd like to see some documentation of insurance not paying when someone broke a regulation.

_________________
KSCessnaDriver (ATP MEL, Commerical LTA-Airship/SEL, Private SES, CFI/CFII)
LSA's flown: Remos G3, Flight Design CTSW, Aeronca L-16, Jabiru J170


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Useful load
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:19 pm
Posts: 191
Location: KHWV
KSCessnaDriver wrote:
And I'd like to see some documentation of insurance not paying when someone broke a regulation.


I can't site an actual case. I based my statement on my personal and business experience with insurance company claims in general. I did a quick Internet search and found quite a but on denial of aviation claims. They all have a common theme.

The FAA has a huge number of rules, which govern the certification, maintenance, and operation of aircraft. Because a great portion of these regulations are safety-oriented, aviation insurance policies have come to incorporate one or more provisions that exclude coverage if the aircraft is being operated in viola tion of FARs. 

BTW I never said that I have never flown over gross , just understand the risk! I don't want anyone reading this thread to think it's acceptable.

_________________
Marcus - WA2DCI
PP ASEL IA

Daidalos Greek: Δαίδαλος
Remember don't fly too close to the Sun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Useful load
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 2485
Location: Lock Haven PA
Daidalos wrote:
aviation insurance policies have come to incorporate one or more provisions that exclude coverage if the aircraft is being operated in violation of FARs. 


It doesn't even have to be about the FARs. My insurance policies have always specified that they provide coverage only if the aircraft is operated in accordance with the limitations in its airworthiness certificate. If the AC was issued with a particular maximum gross weight in mind, I think that clause gives the insurance carrier grounds for invalidating the policy, should max gross weight be exceeded.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Useful load
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:57 pm
Posts: 380
Daidalos wrote:
The other thing to keep in mind your stall speeds and climb rate will change. Also consider the published load factors were for 1320#'s.


Very valid point if someone were to look at the specs on paper it might be very difficult to see the whole picture of the performance envelope looking at just one spec such as Gross Weight. Some of the manufactures have to work quite hard to achieve the required LSA low stall speed at LSA legal gross.

Maybe the FAA knows this, and realizes gross weight needs to be quite low to achieve the low LSA stall speed?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Useful load
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:19 pm
Posts: 191
Location: KHWV
designrsVery wrote:
valid point if someone were to look at the specs on paper it might be very difficult to see the whole picture of the performance envelope looking at just one spec such as Gross Weight. Some of the manufactures have to work quite hard to achieve the required LSA low stall speed at LSA legal gross.

Maybe the FAA knows this, and realizes gross weight needs to be quite low to achieve the low LSA stall speed?


Good point. The SportStar was originally submitted as an LSA with a gross weight of 1260 lbs. The existing airframe could handle the 1320 GW but stall speed was not within LSA limts at that weight.

The new Sportstars added the vortex generators on the leading edge meet the sstall pecs at 1320 lbs.

_________________
Marcus - WA2DCI
PP ASEL IA

Daidalos Greek: Δαίδαλος
Remember don't fly too close to the Sun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Useful load
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:57 pm
Posts: 380
designrs wrote:
Maybe the FAA knows this, and realizes gross weight needs to be quite low to achieve the low LSA stall speed?


Everybody keeps asking "Why is the gross so low? Want can't we have a little more weight?"

Maybe the question becomes, "How much gross weight can you have and still maintain the LSA required maximum stall speed?"

OR

Maybe the hypothetical regulation should be, "You can have up to say 1650# gross BUT you must be in compliance with the LSA max stall speed."

Thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Useful load
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 2485
Location: Lock Haven PA
Daidalos wrote:
The new Sportstars added the vortex generators on the leading edge meet the stall specs at 1320 lbs.


And Evektor provided both a Service Bulletin and a parts kit to install those VGs on earlier SportStars. I did that with my SportStar Plus to turn it into a SportStar Max, increasing max gross from 1268 to 1320. My actual stall speeds at full LSA max gross are now 38 kts clean, 37 kts dirty!

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Useful load
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:19 pm
Posts: 191
Location: KHWV
drseti wrote:
And Evektor provided both a Service Bulletin and a parts kit to install those VGs on earlier SportStars. I did that with my SportStar Plus to turn it into a SportStar Max, increasing max gross from 1268 to 1320. My actual stall speeds at full LSA max gross are now 38 kts clean, 37 kts dirty!


Paul did you install the rudder SB? My right foot often slipped on to the left copilot pedal. They came up with a barrier for that. The nose wheel sensitivity was also a problem.

_________________
Marcus - WA2DCI
PP ASEL IA

Daidalos Greek: Δαίδαλος
Remember don't fly too close to the Sun.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Useful load
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 2485
Location: Lock Haven PA
designrs wrote:
Maybe the question becomes, "How much gross weight can you have and still maintain the LSA required maximum stall speed?"


There's a safety reason for keeping the max gross weight low. Kinetic energy (which must be dissipated in the event of an accident) varies directly with mass, and with the square of velocity. Keeping the plane both light and slow significantly limits kinetic energy, which minimizes the likelihood of injury in the event of an accident. Increasing gross (even if stall speed remains constant) will inevitably increase the fatality rate.

Here are some figures I derived, comparing my Evektor SportStar to a Beech G-36 Bonanza:

-------------------------------SportStar------------------Bonanza----Units
Max gross wt------------------600-----------------------1656---------kg
Vso-------------------------------19--------------------------30---------m/s
KE-------------------------------217-----------------------1790---------kJ

So, you see that, at max gross weight and full-flap stall speed, a landing accident in the Bonanza involves 6.9 times as much kinetic energy as one in the SportStar. That means a landing accident that would subject the LSA pilot to 5 G (probably non-injury) would subject the Bonanza pilot to 34.5 Gs (possibly fatal).

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Useful load
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 2485
Location: Lock Haven PA
Daidalos wrote:
Paul did you install the rudder SB?


Not yet, Marcus. I have the parts kit, but haven't been able to take the aircraft out of service long enough to install the new rudder pedals and the barrier. So, I just warn my students and renters about how easy it is to overlap.

Quote:
The nose wheel sensitivity was also a problem.


The problem with the mod to reduce the steering sensitivity is that it significantly increases turning radius, making it more difficult to taxi safely around other aircraft on a crowded ramp. I opted not to do that one, instead training my pilots not to over-control on the ground. Steady, gentle rudder pressure makes taxiing safe.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Archive