EXP Gross WT

After learning from my previous post about how Exp amateur built are licensed , with no relationship to the consensus standards that SLSA's must conform to I talked again with my local DAR. He said that even though nothing has changed with how exp amateur builts are licensed he was in the future not going to license any exp amateur built and allow the builder to set his gross wt. His take it or leave it rules are as follows: For any experimental amateur built two place he will take empty weight plus 190 lbs for each seat, plus full fuel, plus baggage desired and add it up and that is the minium allowed gross wt. In other words you must meet SLSA standards for your exp amateur built even though this is not in the rules.
My question is this some safety issue or going above and beyond to limit unnecessory happiness. In my case I weigh 155 and my wife weighs 115 and I would be happy with a pilot/passenger total of say 320lbs for my plane that I built and would as always ensure that I didn't exceed the rated gross weight.
For you DARS out there is this the standard rules for a experimental amateur built C of A? Isn't setting and operating at a lower gross, that is within the bounds of reason a more safer approach ? As they say out here in the field the FAA is not happy until you are not happy.

Thanks
Jim Miller

Hi Jim,

It sounds to me like your DAR is making up his own rules. The simplest solution to this is to find another DAR, even if he's not the closest or cheapest. I just wouldn't waste any more time arguing with this guy.

Good luck,
Rusty

I'm really sorry to hear that. It was always my understanding that it's up to the builder to establish the max. gross weight for the airplane, and then the DAR can either agree or disagree, but they can't do that on their own without the builder's consent.

I think Rusty is right on when he says that you should just go find another DAR and forget about this person.

What?

Even his "rule" of 190lbs x seats + fuel + bags, is kind of arbitrary.

On a RV that would put some RV's with high empties well over recommend.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

His take it or leave it rules are as follows: For any experimental amateur built two place he will take empty weight plus 190 lbs for each seat, plus full fuel, plus baggage desired and add it up and that is the
minium allowed gross wt.

If you don't meet the minium allowed gross wt then you can't fly? And then I guess there is no max. gross weight to worry about!

What am I missing here? Or is this a typo??

Jim,
I don't understand your DARs reasoning. He can set those kind of limits, but you don't have to use him.
I suspect with that type of reasoning, he won't have much business.
Find another DAR.

gmcjetpilot said:

Even his "rule" of 190lbs x seats + fuel + bags, is kind of arbitrary.

On a RV that would put some RV's with high empties well over recommend.

Click to expand...

I looked at Van's numbers and even with his published empty weights you can't meet these arbitrary numbers. How many RV6, 7 ,8 are built anywhere near as light as Van says they should weigh?

Jim Miller

Actually....

Very few if any production aircraft will meet his rules.

Mel said:

Very few if any production aircraft will meet his rules.

Click to expand...

Mel
In my case I am in the early stage of building a exp clipped wing cub. I am building up a fuselage from a tack-welded PA-18 style to use some wings built up from some Colt wing parts giving a span about 28.5 feet. (This span is almost indentical to a REED CLIPPED WING) I will keep as light as possible with only instruments found in a standard J3, will use a handheld comm and GPS. Only a starting system using a oddessy battery without any charging system. Engine 0235 C-1 with a very simple custom exhaust. Will cut down old PA-18 struts, one 18 gal wing tank, no upholstry of any kind. It won't be exactly a reed clipped wing J3 but far from a standard supercub. The Reed clipped wing is actually on the J3 type certificate and has a max gross of 1100lbs (Part of the mod to straight J3 is adding many extra ribs plus as everyone knows cutting off 4 foot from each wing panel. In light of all this, regardless of any other motivating factors, a 1320 lb gross would be a prudent choice. It seems now that a lower gross wt might have some desirable advantages it is harder to get than trying to plead for more gross pre- LSA. It is like whatever you need- that is what you can't have. If I was a DAR I would think long and hard about forcing someone into a larger gross wt when saftey always favors a lower gross .

Thanks
Jim Miller

WHAT AM I MISSING HERE??

gasman said:

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

His take it or leave it rules are as follows: For any experimental amateur built two place he will take empty weight plus 190 lbs for each seat, plus full fuel, plus baggage desired and add it up and that is the
minium allowed gross wt.

If you don't meet the minium allowed gross wt then you can't fly? And then I guess there is no max. gross weight to worry about!

What am I missing here? Or is this a typo??

Click to expand...

Just checked my Piper manual.............. found no place where it has a minium allowed gross weight.....

I agree with the DAR!

After taking a bit more time to read this,

and realise that the DAR is not setting maximum gross weight, I agree!

Just think of the resale value!!! Not everyone weighs in at a lightweight 155 lbs. for a male & 115 lbs. for the female passenger. Set these values as limits to make the gross weight look low, and all slightly "bigger" people as potential buyers or passengers will exceed the aircraft's listed gross weight. Could even lead to a citation for a ramp check.

Since many Americans are "fatty's", or at least taller these days; I don't believe that 190 lb. per person is unreasonable.

Just take a visit to England or perhaps some Civil War era boarding houses, to see beds that are much to short by todays standards. People were smaller then. At a 6'1", I'd been considered a near giant in the days of English castles. At least that's what they told me!

IMO, 170 lbs. per person, is a bit out of reality, these days. However, many people really ARE too FAT !!! Could stand to loose 30 myself...

L.Adamson

P.S. ---- while some say.............build light,
I wouldn't give up a C/S prop for anything. I live in mountain country, and those overweight constant speeds are well worth the extra pounds!

The whole idea of experimental is the ability to deviate from the norm without compromising safety. 160 -170 is not unreasonable. If you look at van's numbers very few licensed RV 6,7,8 could meet those 190lb requirements without flying over Van's design gross weight. What will happen to the RV-12 when people get done adding all the widgets you know they will add and the empty weight edges up 40-50 lbs. Should they call the FAA and confess they can't meet the S-LSA payload requirements any longer which is exactly what we are talking about here. It needs to be made a rule if safety/common sense dictates that all homebuilts should meet these payload requirements.

Take his numbers.....

and apply them to a C-172, the most popular general aviation airplane ever built.
Four 190 lb. people, full fuel, plus baggage. I think we just grounded most of the general aviation fleet.

Mel said:

and apply them to a C-172, the most popular general aviation airplane ever built.
Four 190 lb. people, full fuel, plus baggage. I think we just grounded most of the general aviation fleet.

Click to expand...

Mel
Thanks for the support. I am just going to say one more thing and shut up. This is after all a RV-12 site.
My contention is at 160lb I would not be breaking any exp am built rules
I would not be compromising safety-actually the opposite
As for resale- I would never sell a homebuilt but value could go either way. It would if operated per its C of A be an LSA compliant exp.
We have enough rules to follow in our hobby-more than most would bother to put up with if aware of what we go thru. We should strictly obey them but not create new ones that don't exist or ever beg for more.

jim miller said:

Mel
Thanks for the support. I am just going to say one more thing and shut up. This is after all a RV-12 site.
My contention is at 160lb I would not be breaking any exp am built rules
I would not be compromising safety-actually the opposite
As for resale- I would never sell a homebuilt but value could go either way. It would if operated per its C of A be an LSA compliant exp.
We have enough rules to follow in our hobby-more than most would bother to put up with if aware of what we go thru. We should strictly obey them but not create new ones that don't exist or ever beg for more.

Click to expand...

Oops...

If this is an RV12 site, then nevermind!

I didn't read enough, I suppose...

I don't get my postings from specific forums, just "todays" post.

Yes, keep an RV-12 light, or it will be like an overloaded C-172, that scares me to death, for several personal reasons!
I live in high mountain country, and have seen the aftermath of several "overloaded" & fatal accidents. One was just down the street behind my house. I live next to an airport.

edit: the first "S" in SLSA threw me off guard of what we're talking about. I'm just use to LSA (Light sport Aircraft) as far as RV12's are concerned.

L.Adamson