LSA Regulations

[N941WR]

By now everyone has a basic understanding of the LSA aircraft requirements.

If you could change just the aircraft regulations, what would you like to see changed and why?

[Steve Brown]

Mostly Its all good, but the gross weight limit adds nothing to safety, and excludes aircraft like the C152 for no good reason.

I see no reason for any gross weight limit at all. Drop the GW limit, then maybe add a HP limit of 200, which will cap the upper end just to keep people from going crazy.

[craigvince]

I would say bring the GW up to 1500#. Also, an in-flight adjustable propeller would be nice.

[the_other_dougreeves]

I agree with the others that think some extra MGTW is called for. How much is debatable. 1500lb would allow more "antique" LSA such as the later model Ercoupes, Cessna 140s, some Citabria 7ECA. 1650 is needed to include all 150 and 152 models.

If you increased the MGTW, you would (a) allow more existing certified airplanes to fly as LSA and (b) allow for sturdier new LSA. Let me give you an example: Consider new all-metal designs like the RV-12, RANS S-19 and, yes, even the Cessna Skycatcher / 162.

Much has been made of the porky empty weight of the RANS and Cessna, leaving, well, not a lot of useful load. The RANS went from the O-200 to the Rotax because of weight - it was pushing 870 empty with the O-200. Increasing the MGTW would allow O-200/O-233/O-235 powered LSA while still having a decent cabin load. My definition of "decent" is 400lb of crew and baggage with 4 hours of fuel on board (3+1 reserve). At 5.5 gph, that translates into 532 lb payload. With an empty weight of 850, that's 1,400 MGTW. I'm lucky enough to have a LSA with light empty weight and lots of payload (712 and 603 lb/ respectively), but there are clearly sacrifices that have been made to keep weight down at the expense of durability.

The 120kt limit .... As much as I'd like to have it increased, I can see why the limit is there. You could make a case for slightly more speed or a Hp-based limit, but you have to draw the line somewhere. 120kt is about 172 performance, and given the relaxed requirements of the SP ticket, that seems to make sense. Hp limits are problematic with very clean airframes, e.g., the Rutan Quickie, which would probably do 145kt on 100Hp.

In-flight adjust props don't make that much sense to me, given the speed restriction. The rules are very unclear on what kind of adjustment can be made on ground-adjust props and how manufacturers and pilots can have some assurance that they are in compliance with the 120kt ISA/SL limit.

Unpressurized, 2-place cabins are Ok, as is the 45kt stall speed. Ditto the fixed gear.

On the Sport Pilot side, the FAA has proposed a number of changes that make sense, e.g., eliminating the requirement to carry a logbook with all applicable endorsements. The proposed change in maximum altitude restrictions from 10k MSL to 10k MSL or 2k AGL, whichever is higher, is helpful, but flying 2000 feet over a 9k mountain pass doesn't strike me as a high level of safety. 2,500 AGL would be slightly better and then harmonize it with the requirements for oxygen, which (IIRC) begin at 12.5k. Yes, lots of LSA aren't going to perform well at 12,500 (or even get there!) but some will and do.

TODR

[craigvince]

Originally Posted by the_other_dougreeves

Much has been made of the porky empty weight of the RANS and Cessna, leaving, well, not a lot of useful load. The RANS went from the O-200 to the Rotax because of weight - it was pushing 870 empty with the O-200. Increasing the MGTW would allow O-200/O-233/O-235 powered LSA while still having a decent cabin load. My definition of "decent" is 400lb of crew and baggage with 4 hours of fuel on board (3+1 reserve). At 5.5 gph, that translates into 532 lb payload. With an empty weight of 850, that's 1,400 MGTW. I'm lucky enough to have a LSA with light empty weight and lots of payload (712 and 603 lb/ respectively), but there are clearly sacrifices that have been made to keep weight down at the expense of durability.

There are a few LSAs that fit the bill.

The Skylark, for example, only weighs 647# empty, well equipped. It holds 24 gallons of fuel, leaving a generous 529 lbs for 2 really big guys (like me), and a weekend's worth of baggage.

The Breezer weighs in at 763#, holds 18 gallons of fuel leaving 449 pounds for 2 pretty big guys and bags.

There are also several composite LSAs that are in the same weight range.

My point is this: It is possible to build a light airplane that still strong and safe, without going overboard on the weight. The problem is, not everyone has the luxury of buying a $125,000 airplane. It would be really nice to be able to include some of the 2-place, pre-existing "certified" airplanes in the category. Maybe 1500 isn't enough, but I don't know if we can convince the FAA to go up to 1650. I don't know how they came up with 1320 in the first place, so maybe one arbitrary number is just as good as another?

Originally Posted by the_other_dougreeves

On the Sport Pilot side, the FAA has proposed a number of changes that make sense, e.g., eliminating the requirement to carry a logbook with all applicable endorsements. The proposed change in maximum altitude restrictions from 10k MSL to 10k MSL or 2k AGL, whichever is higher, is helpful, but flying 2000 feet over a 9k mountain pass doesn't strike me as a high level of safety. 2,500 AGL would be slightly better and then harmonize it with the requirements for oxygen, which (IIRC) begin at 12.5k. Yes, lots of LSA aren't going to perform well at 12,500 (or even get there!) but some will and do.

I thought they had proposed 12k or 2K AGL??