Tom Baker Posted August 3, 2018 Report Share Posted August 3, 2018 8 hours ago, sandpiper said: It's hard to find specs on the LE. One article alludes to the wing being beefed up, another says the only change allowing the 1500# is that it has to be a Public Aircraft. So far I haven't found anything about the BRS except that it has one. I think it is the same airplane except for hard points added to the wing for camera mounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S3flyer Posted August 3, 2018 Report Share Posted August 3, 2018 What is the part number for the BRS? The BRS products specifically tagged for LSA claim max weights between 1331 and 1350 pounds(https://www.leadingedgeairfoils.com/engine-airframe-accessories/ballistic-recovery-parachutes/brs-6-1350-vls.html) . They also have products for 1600 and 1800 pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted August 3, 2018 Report Share Posted August 3, 2018 To my knowledge the LE is the same construction as the plain LS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted August 3, 2018 Report Share Posted August 3, 2018 39 minutes ago, Roger Lee said: To my knowledge the LE is the same construction as the plain LS. Seems if FD is okay with 1500lb for the LE, they should be okay with the same weight for the LS. Though I think LE airplanes don't have to meet normal ASTM specs. Because physics don't affect police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted August 3, 2018 Report Share Posted August 3, 2018 2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said: Seems if FD is okay with 1500lb for the LE, they should be okay with the same weight for the LS. Though I think LE airplanes don't have to meet normal ASTM specs. Because physics don't affect police. Actually I think they are built to ASTM standards, and have a airworthiness certificate in the special light sport category. If they are true public use the FAR's don't apply to them like they do the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted August 3, 2018 Report Share Posted August 3, 2018 After I talked to a company rep. back in 2007 I have never worried up to 1500 lbs. The two Swiss guys flew around the world in all kinds of weather at 1645 lbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted August 3, 2018 Report Share Posted August 3, 2018 13 minutes ago, Roger Lee said: After I talked to a company rep. back in 2007 I have never worried up to 1500 lbs. The two Swiss guys flew around the world in all kinds of weather at 1645 lbs. I’d be up for that...1645lb gross would give me a CT with 900lb useful load, or 695 with full fuel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted August 4, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2018 4 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said: I’d be up for that...1645lb gross would give me a CT with 900lb useful load, or 695 with full fuel! That would be tough to take but I would be surprised (pleasantly) if FD allowed it. They would have to do a lot of performance testing and write new ops manuals plus who knows what else. Approving the Swiss 1645# for around the world into all sorts of weather says volumes about the airplane. Approving 1500# would be just fine as it would give me a usefull equal to my empty weight. We should be able to convert to ELSA and establish a higher gross. Sounds easy but I am sure there are obstacles in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted August 4, 2018 Report Share Posted August 4, 2018 I was kidding really, 1430lb or more would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted August 4, 2018 Report Share Posted August 4, 2018 Why worry or even speculate. It's at least two years away. Andy will be in an Old folks home by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtk Posted August 4, 2018 Report Share Posted August 4, 2018 8 hours ago, Roger Lee said: Why worry or even speculate. It's at least two years away. Andy will be in an Old folks home by then. D’oh! While the proposed increase to LSA MTOW is interesting (especially for those of us who fly heavier aircraft - namely me and my Sportcruiser), the 2020 ADS-B mandate is probably a bit more pressing in my mind. But whatever is decided, it is nice to know (given the above) that Flight Design air frame maximum gross weight limits are likely above what FAA will publish as revised MTOW limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted August 4, 2018 Report Share Posted August 4, 2018 Keep in mind that the CTLE and the Swiss airplanes were all based on the CTLS not the CTSW. I'm not certain the landing gear on the CTSW will handle the extra weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted August 4, 2018 Report Share Posted August 4, 2018 My SW was fine with the weight, but I never dropped mine either. Normal landing will work just fine. Any gear will crunch on a bad landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted August 4, 2018 Report Share Posted August 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Roger Lee said: My SW was fine with the weight, but I never dropped mine either. Normal landing will work just fine. Any gear will crunch on a bad landing. Not disputing any of that. I have replaced landing gear on both CTSW and CTLS. It is my opinion that the landing gear on the CTLS is better suited for the heavier weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted August 4, 2018 Report Share Posted August 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Tom Baker said: . . . I have replaced landing gear on both CTSW and CTLS. It is my opinion that the landing gear on the CTLS is better suited for the heavier weight. Tom, Can you be a little more specific with some reasons why? Additionally, it is my understanding, that if gear is damaged due to a hard landing, the LS is more prone to have airfame damage where the gear connects vs. the same for the CTSW. Would you concur with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted August 4, 2018 Report Share Posted August 4, 2018 14 minutes ago, WmInce said: Tom, Can you be a little more specific with some reasons why? Additionally, it is my understanding, that if gear is damaged due to a hard landing, the LS is more prone to have airfame damage where the gear connects vs. the same for the CTSW. Would you concur with that? I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted August 4, 2018 Report Share Posted August 4, 2018 1 hour ago, WmInce said: Tom, Can you be a little more specific with some reasons why? Additionally, it is my understanding, that if gear is damaged due to a hard landing, the LS is more prone to have airfame damage where the gear connects vs. the same for the CTSW. Would you concur with that? It depends. For certification the standard test is the drop test. For the CTLS I think the failure in this mode will be primarily gear leg failure. I also think the CTLS will stand more weight in this test. If you damage the gear by running it through a ditch or something like that I think it is more likely to damage the mounting structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted August 4, 2018 Report Share Posted August 4, 2018 16 hours ago, Roger Lee said: Why worry or even speculate. It's at least two years away. Andy will be in an Old folks home by then. And where will that put you? In a sarcophagus somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted August 5, 2018 Report Share Posted August 5, 2018 Most likely. What took you so long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarguy54 Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 Couple things. First, I learned at OSH that a mfg in the EU has released a Service Bulletin increasing the GW of their aircraft. It only required changes to placards and POH. It would be really cool if FD could do that to the existing fleet (BRS is an issue). (I don't recall which mfg did this) Second, the Rotax 915-iS delivers 141 HP all of the way to 15,000' and already has the software to control a CS prop allowing for full FADEC operation. Compare that to an IO-360. 180 HP at sea level, but only 126 at 10,000' vs 141 HP at 10K' from the 915-iS. Phil Lockwood said he is developing a FWF package for the 915 and it is 100 pounds LIGHTER apples-to-apples than the Lycoming install. He said that he doesn't think that there will be a big market for FWF conversions since it is so much lighter. You'd have to mount the engine WAY forward (like a PT6). But, to design new aircraft around this capability would be significant improvement. If FD does a 4-place, I'd expect the 915 to power it. Sid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.