• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

LSA 'Maximum Empty Weight' clarification

Bill, I did not get any of the particulars on the standard for the props.

Carl, I think the trickle down effect of the weight shaving and structural analysis will benefit us all.
 
Why are PA18-95's called 95's ? Piper doesn't allow the 90 to be turned to 95 for 5 minutes, even though Continental does.
JimC
 
The L18C (90hp SC) that I fly weighs 957 lbs. with Stits polytone covering, no flaps, F. Atlee Dodge Saftey Cables, 8:50/6 Tires mounted on Cleveland Wheels & Brakes, Scott 3200 Tailwheel, Micro Vortex Generators, Micro-Air 760 Com, Dan's A/C Underseat Sealed Battery Mod, Cub Crafters Underseat Storage and Headerless Fuel System, Inertia Reel Pilot Shoulder Harness front seat only, left and right 18 gallon fuel tanks, stock generator, B&C alternator and the basic instruments except for an electric turn and bank.

Sounds like to me they are doing pretty good with the LSAs empty weight.
 
CC11: Flaps, l and r 12 gal fuel tanks, PS intercom, Garmin 40SL, Garmin 496 added to (std VFR panel), strobes, lighting pkg (landing and nav lights), stock electrical system with light wt. starter, alternator, underseat battery; wood prop, Scott 3200, AKB (airstreak) 26" tires. 870 lbs. The significant problems we have experienced have been related to the 60 year old Continental engine/carb....that, I don't understand.
 
centmont, Cub Crafters order summary must be pretty conservative. According to it, an airplane equipped like yours would weigh 889. It is interesting to see how much this stuff weighs. Someone put a lot of time and effort into this.


http://cubcrafters.com/pdfs/SPORTCUBS2_Order_Summary.pdf

848 lbs. basic airplane
8.5 basic VFR panel with Garmin 496
1 intercom
3 light package
3.5 strobes
22 26" Airstreaks
3 Scott 3200 tail wheel
889 Total

I bet it performs real well. What kind of problem are you having with the carb? What is the warranty on the engine?

I also wonder about insurance. If CC isn't building any spare parts I would think the insurance companies would get tired of paying out $100K plus and totaling them out and raise rates.

http://www.aigaviation.com/salvage/N475CC/SalvageN475CC.aspx
 
Lsa Maximum Empty Weight

Steve,I don't know what exactly is wrong with the carbs but word is they are going to release a complete new number.Lot's of people having problems.

Some are loss of rpm,some rich at idle.Continental had one guys new plane for a month trying to figure it out.Mostly seems to be too rich.

These are new carbs,new engines not reman.
 
jnorris said:
....The 890 lb empty weight number only applies to a two seat aircraft with a 100 hp engine...... This is due to the formula that's called out in the consensus standard for minimum useful load, which is 190 lbs per seat plus a number equal to half the maximum horsepower of the engine. So, for a two seat aircraft with a 100 hp engine the formula comes out as 190+190+50=430 lbs. 1320 lbs minus 430 lbs equals 890 lbs. ....for an aircraft with a 120 hp engine the formula would be 190+190+60, which equals 440 lbs. So the maximum empty weight of an SLSA with a 120 hp engine would be 880 lbs...
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this LSA minimum useful load issue. Seems like the FAA really shot themselves in the foot with that 1320# limit, not only does it leave a lot of otherwise suitable old airplanes out of the picture (C-140,C-150,J-4, etc)- but it seems even newly manufactured airplanes have trouble actually meeting the spec's.
Both the original 1232 limit and the actual final limit of 1320 seem like they were just pulled out of a hat. The european JAR-VLA weight limit is 750 kilos, aka 1650#. Joe Norris, do you think there's any chance of the feds ever revising their LSA weight limit upward to this more realistic figure? Is there any kind of push by EAA or anyone else to do such a thing?

Rooster
 
redrooster said:
Joe Norris, do you think there's any chance of the feds ever revising their LSA weight limit upward to this more realistic figure? Is there any kind of push by EAA or anyone else to do such a thing?
Click to expand...

Right now the FAA isn't interested in making any changes to the LSA definition. They need to get some mileage under their belts with the rules as they stand right now before they even consider making any changes. Don't expect anything to change in the LSA definition or sport pilot rules for some time.

As for the whole discussion of empty weight, what fits LSA and what doesn't, and all that related stuff, I don't really have enough time or finger strength to type all that out in this forum. But you have to realize that there are several aircraft that don't have any problem meeting the LSA definition with plenty of useful load. Yes, there are some that don't work out well, but that's not a reason to condemn the entire program or process.

When you look at what was originally proposed and how far we came by the time the final rule was on the books, I think you'll see that it could have be much, much worse. Yes, there are some who think this or that should have been done differently, but for the most part it's a workable rule that has put some people back in the air, kept some people in the air, and will bring more people into flying that might not have otherwise come on board. Let's give it some time and hope the safety record is good so that we can build on that success as time goes on.
 
Steve: I must have missed your reply back in September. My aircraft is an S-1 not an S-2. The base weight on those were 825# and included the basic VFR panel...to which I added a GPS (2#). Actually, while very happy with the aircraft (except for the @%#@^%$ carburetor) I thought it would be lighter than the 870 it weighs.

I think many of you might be missing an interesting point. With limits of 890/1320 the only way to make a better aircraft is through innovative engineering, R & D, and application of newer materials. That is what I had hoped for and got! Leave the basic design alone and use better manufacturing materials and methods. Now if we can get someone to work firewall forward to produce something lighter and more powerful. Ralph
 
centmont said:
Steve: I must have missed your reply back in September. My aircraft is an S-1 not an S-2. The base weight on those were 825# and included the basic VFR panel...to which I added a GPS (2#). Actually, while very happy with the aircraft (except for the @%#@^%$ carburetor) I thought it would be lighter than the 870 it weighs.

I think many of you might be missing an interesting point. With limits of 890/1320 the only way to make a better aircraft is through innovative engineering, R & D, and application of newer materials. That is what I had hoped for. Leave the basic design alone and use better manufacturing materials and methods. Now if we can get someone to work firewall forward on to produce something lighter and more powerful. Ralph
Click to expand...

Then again it would be nice if a guy could buy a $15K C-150 and use it as a sport pilot plane. EAA dropped the ball on this one in my opinion.
 
I think the EAA did the best that they could. I am sure the Feds were not going to allow that many airplanes to fall in the LSA category. Think about how much more damage to persons and property a Cessna 150 can cause over a J3 Cub or a 7AC Champ. :eek: Actually I am glad and surprised we got as much as we did.
 
behindpropellers said:
Then again it would be nice if a guy could buy a $15K C-150 and use it as a sport pilot plane. EAA dropped the ball on this one in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Considering that the FAA started out with a 900 lb gross weight for LSA, then for a while talked about 1000 lb, and then 1100 lbs, and finally 1232 lbs in the NPRM, I think EAA did a pretty good job by getting the final limit up to 1320 lbs.

You also have to remember that the FAA NEVER considered what type-certificated aircraft did or didn't fit the LSA definition. The rule was never intended to focus on existing TCed aircraft. In fact, the FAA could have just as easily written the rule to exclude TCed aircraft all together. The fact that we have as much opportunity under the rule as we do should be looked at as a victory instead of something to gripe about.
 
LSA Empty Weight Clarification

I would like to understand why the 1320 gross number when you are allowed 1430 on floats.Why not make it 1430 for any configuration.I don't see in any float manufacturers data that they provide the difference in lift.
Bill
 
jnorris said:
behindpropellers said:
Then again it would be nice if a guy could buy a $15K C-150 and use it as a sport pilot plane. EAA dropped the ball on this one in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Considering that the FAA started out with a 900 lb gross weight for LSA, then for a while talked about 1000 lb, and then 1100 lbs, and finally 1232 lbs in the NPRM, I think EAA did a pretty good job by getting the final limit up to 1320 lbs.

You also have to remember that the FAA NEVER considered what type-certificated aircraft did or didn't fit the LSA definition. The rule was never intended to focus on existing TCed aircraft. In fact, the FAA could have just as easily written the rule to exclude TCed aircraft all together. The fact that we have as much opportunity under the rule as we do should be looked at as a victory instead of something to gripe about.
Click to expand...

Ask any guy with a J-4, J-5, C-120, C-140, PA-18-95 if it was a victory and see what they say when they need to sell their plane and spend another 20K just to get a J-3 these days to fit in sport pilot.

I understand the rule to was to contain the ultralights but I don't see how it helps the average guy get into (sport) flying unless they want to fly a bunch of lawn chair parts around.
 
Several years ago there was a man with two airworthy Ercoupes nearby that couldn't hardly give them away. Asked three or four grand apiece, and didn't get any takers. I just finished repairing a wrecked 415C, which is light sport eligible. We are working on the paperwork now, and will fly it this week. It is already sold... For thirty five thousand. It is solid, but by no means a creampuff. The D models are identical except for a few things like elevator travel, placarding and the boot cowl. In fact many C models were converted to Ds. But the Ds are not LSA approved, and go for considerably less. The FAA has not allowed any of them to be converted back, either.

As an aside, the 'coupe I've been working on made a forced landing in a field without too much damage. Then it fell off the trailer while they were trucking it home... :oops:
 
Re: LSA Empty Weight Clarification

willyb said:
I would like to understand why the 1320 gross number when you are allowed 1430 on floats.Why not make it 1430 for any configuration.I don't see in any float manufacturers data that they provide the difference in lift.
Click to expand...

For the same reason that Type Certificated aircraft are allowed higher gross weights when flown on floats. For example, just check the J3 Cub TC and you'll see that, depending on which floats are installed the gross weight can be raised a certain amount. The same thinking was applied to LSA.
 
jnorris,

Not sure I buy that argument regards float gross weights. I've heard all sorts of discussions regarding the WHY of higher GW on SOME aircraft when installed on floats. They are all over the place.

The ONLY ones that really made any sense to me were the ones where there was a GW limitation based on landing gear and structural integrity in a drop test. If that's what limited GW on wheels, I can buy that floats may do better.

But, I've heard that floats create enough lift to carry their own weight (that one's BS, I've been told be some competent authority), etc.

In some cases, I think this has more to do with how big the cajones are on the guy who proposes the TC to the FAA Certification office. :wink: .

Consider the PA-18, for example. Then the Husky, then the C-185, etc. It's all over the place, and SPECIFIC to TC.

So, how can it be universal in the LSA world? My guess is cause EAA was smart (or gutsy) enough to ask for it.

That works for me, though.... :lol:

MTV
 
LSA Empty Weight Clarification

I am aware that the higher weight is allowed on certificated aircraft on floats.

My question is what is the logic that allows a higher gross on floats.If the darn airplane will fly and stay together at 1430 on floats then why not allow the same gross on wheels.

I understand that a float installation in most cases ads to the empty weight and a higher gross on floats is allowed to maintain useful load.

I would like to see the explanation for not allowing the float gross when on wheels.

Bill
 
LSA Maximum Empty Weight Clarification

Mike I agree that structural integrity of a given airframe on a particular gear,floats,wheels,skis would make the most sense.
Bill
 
Aviat has always gotten a ten percent GW increase for the Husky when installed on floats. I asked the test pilot there why. He said choose a reason that you like....The gear will go higher, cause they've now increased the wheel gross from 1800 to 1980 to 2000, to 2200. Changed the tailwheel a bit, but....

Some say the floats are aerodynamic enough to carry their own weight. So, if that's the case, why isn't this universal? Granted the Cub EDO 2000 are installed at 5 or 6 degrees angle of incidence, and teh Husky is at 1 degree, but???

Some of the American Champion aircraft increase GW when on floats, but not all.

None of the Cessnas go up in GW because of floats.

My point is, there is no standardization in certified aircraft.

Course, that's pretty much standard :lol:

And, you start asking people who should know, and you get answers all over the place.

I'm sticking with the concept that he who has the guts to ask may succeed.

MTV
 
I guess I'm kinda like the guy who bitched when they hung him, even though they used a new rope....
Joe, I agree that the EAA did a helluva job actually getting the FAA to put the whole SP/LSA thing in place-- a long and i'm sure very frustrating process. Just wishing there was a little more lee-way with the weight issues...

Eric
 
redrooster said:
I guess I'm kinda like the guy who bitched when they hung him, even though they used a new rope....
Joe, I agree that the EAA did a helluva job actually getting the FAA to put the whole SP/LSA thing in place-- a long and i'm sure very frustrating process. Just wishing there was a little more lee-way with the weight issues...
Click to expand...

No matter where the "line" was drawn there would be some aircraft that were just outside the "box", and someone would be upset that their aircraft wasn't included. The fact of the matter is that we were darned lucky to get the weight set as high as it is, and even luckier that they allowed some extra weight for floats. This whole works could have been stuck at 1232 lbs, or even less.

Here's a novel idea; instead of crabbing about what a rotten deal the new regulations are, why not look toward the future and how things might someday be even better! If we can be careful and conscientious and have a great safety record with sport pilot operations, maybe the FAA will finally consider allowing recreational pilots to fly with a drivers license instead of an FAA medical certificate. If that were to happen, ALL our Super Cubs (up to 180 hp) would qualify for day VFR operations and none of this argument about what fits LSA and what doesn't would matter.

Even better, maybe if recreational pilot pilot operations without a medical hold a good safety record, the FAA would then consider day VFR for private pilots without a medical certificate. Wouldn't THAT be much better than niggling with the sport pilot/LSA details?

Let's work with what we have for now and try to make sure we don't screw that up before we start asking for changes.

Off the soapbox now!
 
LSA Empty Weight Clarification

You are right Joe.I hope no one took my question as whining or complaining.

I was just looking for an answer in mechanical terms as to why different gross weights were applied wheels vs floats.Seemed like a logical question.Maybe without a logical answer.

Bill
 
Re: LSA Empty Weight Clarification

willyb said:
I was just looking for an answer in mechanical terms as to why different gross weights were applied wheels vs floats.Seemed like a logical question.Maybe without a logical answer.
Click to expand...

Hi Bill,

No, logic cannot be applied in this case (or in most cases involving federal regulations). In fact, if logic would have prevailed we'd have had the recreational pilot certificate without the need for a medical way back when. Once again the legal team jumped in at the last minute to mess things up, as happened again with the sport pilot rules (as it relates to pilots who's most recent medical application was denied).

Cheers!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
cubcrafters sport cub S2 debut
Replies
0
Views
2K
freestone
F
Randy
Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft Category
Replies
5
Views
3K
Bill Rusk
Bill Rusk
L
Carbon Cub Long Range Fuel
Replies
14
Views
14K
azdave
A
sj
CUBCRAFTERS SPORT CUB RECEIVES LSA CERTIFICATION
Replies
2
Views
3K
jberanek
J
Cardiff Kook
Talk to me about empty weight and flight characteristics
Replies
20
Views
8K
frequent_flyer
frequent_flyer
Back
Top