My first W&B, 1320 is crazy.

[martymayes]

And yet, as Frank indicated, there's a sense that 1320 is a number arbitrarily chosen in a meeting room somewhere, with little scientific reasoning behind it.

Maybe not science but there was a system of reasoning used to arrive at 1320# meaning it wasn't entirely arbitrary. Briefly, they wanted some legacy airplanes to slip in under the wire without allowing the new category to be flooded with existing airplanes. It was a compromise intended to promote innovation with new products while existing legacy planes provided an initial boost in activity to get the ball rolling.

Whether or not it was a good call will be debated forever. Regardless of what weight was chosen for LS aircraft, somebody would have found fault with it.

[belgianbuzzer]

Happy flying all!

First off, congratulations for taking the steps to join the pilot ranks!



Actually, a lot of effort was made to get the weight increased to 1320 in the formation of the LSA rules! It is indeed completely arbitrary, a function of negotiation around a table with no particular aircraft in mind. However, getting the LSA definitions changed at this point is like trying urinate towards the effect of differential air density caused by heat in the atmosphere.


It's not completely arbitrary; 1320 lbs = 600 kg which is the EU standard, a round number and since there are visions of globalization .....

[Spezioman]

Even if the 1320# LSA limit was increased it would very likely NOT help the purpose designed LSA aircraft like the 162 already designed to the 1320# weight. Indeed that is why the limit will likely not be increased because it would leave the present 1320# aircraft orphans. You do not/can not just simply increase the gross weight of an aircraft carefully designed to a lower weight. Some aircraft may be able to handle a small increase, others will be problematic.

Of coarse the other option is the present goal of 3rd class medical reform which would give pilots the option of being able to continue flying aircraft up to 6000# w/o medical . My understanding is that LSA rules will remain as they are at present.

Once you get your light sport license you will find several interesting options in E-AB aircraft.

For instance I recently completed a Acroduster 2 that is light sport compliant flown as a single place @ 1320 #. As a new build I licensed it @ 1320# gross. It came in at 912# EW and even with my big 200# butt I can haul full main fuel. Several people have tried to make a Pitts Special LSA compliant but they have not been able to meet the stall speed with only 100 square ft. wing area. I figured with 130 sq./ft. the Arcoduster would comply @ 1320# and it did, stall speed carefully confirmed by GPS is 51 mph. OTOH to achieve a low EW I used a smaller IO320 w/FP prop. so my airplane would only be able to compete in lower classes but it would enable a acrobatic pilot to continue to "play".

IMO that's what EAA is all about.

My wife does hope for medical reform which is the only way she will get a ride in the new Biplane.(unless she flies it herself) Of coarse if we fly it at a higher weight it can not go back to being LSA compliant....

That to me is the stupid(or most stupid) part of the LSA rules. Why not be able to make any airplane that offers a usable useful load @ 1320# reduce it's gross to that amount. Why not let an airplane like mine be LSA compliant as a single place and at the same time allow a PP to fly it two place at higher gross....?

I know why,

Logic and the FAA in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

BTW, as far as how the 1320 came about, yes the above 600kg number is part of it. Also remember, as I recall, the original goal of LSA was to bring the two place "fat ultralights" into some kind of FAA rule. The LSA gross weight could have easily been even lower......

Jack

[martymayes]

I know why,

Logic and the FAA in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Ready, fire, aim! Are we sure the FAA is to blame? After all, they only adopted rules that originated elsewhere.

[jethro99]

What is being described is completely normal in most all airplanes.

The number of pax may be limited by the MZFW.

If loaded with passengers then the fuel load may be limited by the MGTOW.

If loaded with fuel then the pax load may be limited by the MGTOW.

You cannot fill all pax seats in a Boeing 787 and also fill up all of the fuel tanks.

In some airplanes you cannot fill all of the first and business class seats and fly the airplane with no economy class pax on board. Some air lines have been known to sell economy class seats at almost nothing in order to get economy class riders.

Manufacturers tout ABC range and XYZ payload carrying ability. What is not said is that in many instances both cannot happen at the same time.

Everything in aviation is a trade off.

[Cary]

What is being described is completely normal in most all airplanes.

The number of pax may be limited by the MZFW.

If loaded with passengers then the fuel load may be limited by the MGTOW.

If loaded with fuel then the pax load may be limited by the MGTOW.

You cannot fill all pax seats in a Boeing 787 and also fill up all of the fuel tanks.

In some airplanes you cannot fill all of the first and business class seats and fly the airplane with no economy class pax on board. Some air lines have been known to sell economy class seats at almost nothing in order to get economy class riders.

Manufacturers tout ABC range and XYZ payload carrying ability. What is not said is that in many instances both cannot happen at the same time.

Everything in aviation is a trade off.

This is absolutely true with most GA airplanes in addition to airliners, so Sport Pilot isn't being victimized. My 4 seat Cessna P172D can indeed carry 4 people--with about half tanks. In its case, half a tank is 156 lbs. Otherwise, it's a 3 person airplane. When I took aerobatic lessons some 35 years ago, the Decathlon had to be at half tanks just to carry both me and my instructor, and neither of us were particularly weighty (not true of me now!). About the only airplane I can think of right now which can fill the seats and the tanks and add a little baggage is a Cessna 182, perhaps also a Piper PA 28-235. But as long as you realize the limitations, and honor them, even a 2 seat SP trainer can be a pretty good airplane.

I also like the term, "Lump of simulated emergencies." My first instructor fit that description, and when I instructed, I emulated him. In the long run, it paid off for me, when I had a real emergency about 12 1/2 years ago, threw a rod through the top of the engine case, and had to land in a field. We simulate them, because once in a while, they're real, and the only way to be able to handle the real ones is to go through a bunch of simulations.

Cary