LSA weight increase

Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by navybipe, Oct 9, 2018.

Help Support Biplane Forum by donating:

  1. Oct 9, 2018 #1

    navybipe

    navybipe

    navybipe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    179
    AOPA/EAA announcing feds are to issue NPRM in January raising LSA max weight from 1320 to 3600 lbs. stay tuned....
     
  2. Oct 9, 2018 #2

    jetsareforkids

    jetsareforkids

    jetsareforkids

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    53
    It is clear that the current weight was too light. They created a new class of mediocre planes that couldn’t realistically carry two average people. I’m surprised, that they are willing to increase the weight, and even more surprisied that they are talking 3600 lbs.
     
  3. Oct 9, 2018 #3

    smutny

    smutny

    smutny

    Biplane Addict Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,292
    Likes Received:
    251
  4. Oct 9, 2018 #4

    Mmalone442

    Mmalone442

    Mmalone442

    Registered Users

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2016
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    There’s a thread going on the vans forum on this subject. Some say it’s 3600 KG or 1633 lbs. is the proposal. There is no mention of a top speed or stall speed change though for LSA.
     
  5. Oct 9, 2018 #5

    acropilotbret

    acropilotbret

    acropilotbret

    Senior Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,929
    Likes Received:
    381
    FAR part 1 definition of an LSA needs a complete overhaul. Simply increasing the weight is not that helpful. If it’s to be even remotely helpful the stall speed needs to change or the requirement of 45 KCAS “without the use of lift enhancing devices” aka flaps need to change. Stall speed is a function of weight, wing area and Coefficient Of lift. There is a density term and Nz term in there but for stall speed determination it has to be done at 1g. So if you just change the weight the wing has to be either really big (area) or really fat (CL) or both. Flaps would help the Cl term too. So if no other changes this weight increase is Not helpful.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  6. Oct 9, 2018 #6

    Knight Twister

    Knight Twister

    Knight Twister

    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,759
    Likes Received:
    1,119
    Any NPRM will move at the usual speed of government.
     
  7. Oct 9, 2018 #7

    kjkimball

    kjkimball

    kjkimball

    Been there...Done that... Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,273
    Likes Received:
    510
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mount Dora, FL
    Other way around. 1kg =2.2lb. 3600lb is 1633kg
     
    ernstfokker and acropilotbret like this.
  8. Oct 9, 2018 #8

    EAABipe40FF

    EAABipe40FF

    EAABipe40FF

    Registered Users Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    5,153
    Likes Received:
    970
    Right, 1600 pounds is more realistic but the 3600 lb. figure is on many different sites. Bret is also right on. My AD2 barely meets the stall at 1320# and the weight increase would have zero benefit..

    Jack
     
  9. Oct 9, 2018 #9

    Dave Baxter

    Dave Baxter

    Dave Baxter

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,688
    Likes Received:
    795
    It is my understanding it is a four yr process, and they are currently in the second yr, it is also my understanding that it will not be just a higher weight, but some sort of formula that encompasses not just the weight, but also wing area, stall and cruise speed, so two yrs from now it may or may not be of value for any of us especially us old guys? I just remember the recreational pilots license fiasco some time ago that was suppose to make it easier to become a pilot, less than 300 chose to go that route, and currently only 153 pilots hardly any help at all in this respect, who really knows just idle speculation on our part? So until it happens means little as we speak. Just my take. Dave
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
  10. Oct 9, 2018 #10

    acropilotbret

    acropilotbret

    acropilotbret

    Senior Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,929
    Likes Received:
    381
    Dave you are correct in that what they are kicking around ideawise is a formula or a risk table. One could design an aircraft with more gross weight but may cruise slower have a parachute, spin resistance. One idea could be they look at the design holistically and evaluate in a merit based form. As long as the merits are available and not subjective or ambiguous I’m all in. Kinda an al la cart approach to regulations. Pretty cool if you ask me. It allows more innovation. You want to design a stol aircraft that’s slow has a slow stall speed can land everywhere who cares that it has a 2000 lb gross weight if it doesn’t have any Schlitz behind it. Then you have an aircraft that is spin resistance weighs a bunch medium Vh but because of the weight stalls faster why does the stall speed matter that much if it meets spin resistance standards? Then you have the sleek fast aircraft that stalls at a medium high speed but does’t weigh much. As you can see Each design trade has a consequence and a merit why try to shove all aircraft into one bag. Let the designer have some maneuvering room within a reasonable trade space and see what they come up with?

    I patiently await what they actually decide to do but based on conversations I have been witness to the future looks promising and the FAA is all ears and at least walking in a good direction.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  11. Oct 9, 2018 #11

    smizo

    smizo

    smizo

    Moderator Staff Member Moderator Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,078
    Likes Received:
    3,192
    start snatching up those 8K Cessna 150s. store them for a few years and sell the all for 45 each...……..
     
    RickRice and ernstfokker like this.
  12. Oct 9, 2018 #12

    crankyklingon

    crankyklingon

    crankyklingon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    702
    Yes, put an O-320 in em and you have a real airplane!
     
  13. Oct 9, 2018 #13

    smizo

    smizo

    smizo

    Moderator Staff Member Moderator Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,078
    Likes Received:
    3,192
    that's what we have here as our shop runner or air uber plane..... 1968 150 with an O320.
     
  14. Oct 9, 2018 #14

    crankyklingon

    crankyklingon

    crankyklingon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    702
    Wasn't there also a mention of allowing professional construction of experimental aircraft?
    It should be interesting to see how that plays out.
     
  15. Oct 9, 2018 #15

    smizo

    smizo

    smizo

    Moderator Staff Member Moderator Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,078
    Likes Received:
    3,192
    I read something about that proposed. while it would be cool, I don't exactly understand how it could be an "amateur built" then...……..
     
  16. Oct 9, 2018 #16

    acropilotbret

    acropilotbret

    acropilotbret

    Senior Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,929
    Likes Received:
    381
    No, professional construction of S-LSA aircraft to the manufacturers specifications and quality process. Amateur built aircraft were not a topic
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
  17. Oct 9, 2018 #17

    wanttaja

    wanttaja

    wanttaja

    Registered Users

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    122
    We actually have that now; Most of the SLSA RV-12s were built by a separate company. Vans just recently brought that work back in-house.

    Certainly a pro-built airplane wouldn't be "amateur-built," but it's not unlikely that they'd create another subcategory under "Experimental." Call it, "Experimental Custom-Built" and require that the builder have a certain level of established expertise (having an A&P or having built an example as an EAB).

    Ron Wanttaja
     
  18. Oct 9, 2018 #18

    smizo

    smizo

    smizo

    Moderator Staff Member Moderator Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    6,078
    Likes Received:
    3,192
    Right now a probbuilt airplane is stuffed into the experimental exhibition category, which also has its own issues. Not big ones just annoying. Would be great if a new category was created but I definitely won’t hold my breath for that.
     
  19. Oct 9, 2018 #19

    DaleB

    DaleB

    DaleB

    Registered Users

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2017
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    32
    And...

    Since there is no requirement for an E-LSA to be amateur built, there is from what I understand a little cottage industry around building RV-12s for sale as E-LSA. I've seen some older "Experimental Amateur Built" airplanes that I suspect had less than 51% involvement by amateur builders - the Epic LT comes to mind.
     
  20. Oct 10, 2018 #20

    EAABipe40FF

    EAABipe40FF

    EAABipe40FF

    Registered Users Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    5,153
    Likes Received:
    970
    I believe they are looking at many options including extending the repairman's cert. to new owners who might receive a certain level of training.....who knows....hence the 4 years. I've been holding my breath for almost 15 years and will most likely no longer need anything by the time it happens.....but maybe hope for the younger folk.
     

Share This Page