Light Sport Experimental for "big boys"?

brian]

brian]

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
1,473
Location
Arkansas
Display Name
Display name:
brian]
Long complicated reasoning here that won't add up if I posted it. But, educate me on the experimental aircraft kits available that can be flown buy guys 250 pounds or lighter. That is, are there any where 2 250 pound good old boys can fly without using 10,000' of runway for takeoff..

This would have to be from kit - not already put together. Long story.

Do they exist?
 
Max gross weight is 1320 lbs. Take away 500lbs and say 120lbs for 20 gals of fuel doesn't leave a lot of empty weight.
 
500 pounds in the seat would limit me to 10 gallons of fuel in my Merlin GT to remain under the 1300 pound gross. Would require several hundred feet to get off the ground.

U B pushing the limits.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
500 pounds in the seat would limit me to 10 gallons of fuel in my Merlin GT to remain under the 1300 pound gross. Would require several hundred feet to get off the ground.

U B pushing the limits.
Click to expand...

That's pushing it for any two seater. Y'all need a 172 and just leave the back seats empty.
 
Joey4420 said:
Depending on how fast you want to fly this may work http://www.bushcatusa.com/bushcat-kit/ I know I like the idea of this a lot, not just for weight, but fun factor. 703 empty 24 gallons of fuel... if you don't top it off you can fly 500lbs of people.
Click to expand...

Hmm - let me dig into that one.

Speed isn't the issue. The issue are some guys that want to build and can't get a 3rd class medical. So - light sport it is.
 
Joey4420 said:
Depending on how fast you want to fly this may work http://www.bushcatusa.com/bushcat-kit/ I know I like the idea of this a lot, not just for weight, but fun factor. 703 empty 24 gallons of fuel... if you don't top it off you can fly 500lbs of people.
Click to expand...
36 pounds lighter and an extra 20 on the gross side. I can only carry 16 gallons anyhow.

Build it light, my ride is supposed to be close to 700 empty vs 739 from the last guy to weigh it. Could be that the "measured" weight is less than accurate, but...
 
Engine weight is a big factor in selecting an LSA to accommodate heavier crew, and generally glass panels are lighter than steam gauges. A number of LSA kits are designed to accept several engines depending on the builder's preference, and choosing a lighter engine and glass panel can mean 100 pounds difference in empty weight. Generally speaking, Rotax 912 engines are lighter than Continental O-200 or Lycoming O-235 and converted automobile engines. UL Power and Jabiru engines fall in the middle weight wise.

I weigh 185 lbs, and my Continental O-200-A Zodiac equipped with steam gauges and IFR certified instrumentation is basically a single place airplane with full fuel (30 gallons).
 
Last edited:
EppyGA said:
Max gross weight is 1320 lbs. Take away 500lbs and say 120lbs for 20 gals of fuel doesn't leave a lot of empty weight.
Click to expand...
Right. That would leave 700 pounds empty weight. When you add a 200 pound engine (dry), that leaves 500 pounds for the airframe, instruments, and avionics. That's beginning to sound scary light.
 
RV-12 will fly two 250-pounders, legally, as long as you don't fill the tank. 1320 gross, roughly 750 empty. Two Bubbas leaves you enough for 10-11 gallons, and you'll still be off the ground in under 750'. And yes, those are real numbers... I've flown them. It's not even cramped.
 
brian] said:
Hmm - let me dig into that one.

Speed isn't the issue. The issue are some guys that want to build and can't get a 3rd class medical. So - light sport it is.
Click to expand...

And I suppose basic med is out too?
 
The rv12 would probably be a good choice for your mission.
 
I forgot about the RV12. We had one show up a year or so ago - looked pretty nice! Hmm - lots of RV experience around here - one airport over from me ...
 
It’s my understanding that the Sling 2, when built as an experimental, can be flown at 1540 lbs. The factory S-LSA IS 1320 lbs.
 
I believe a Rans S-20 could do it if tanks aren’t topped off. It’s 1500 gross for EAB and has a big cabin, but still respectable at LSA Gross of 1320.
 
RANS S-7 has about he same empty weight as RV-12, both with Rotax 912. I think it's actually even lighter when covered with Oratex. So, if you don't want to build an all-metal kit, and prefer a Cub-style airplane, you have that option. Both of them have good short-field performance.
 
FormerHangie said:
To do BasicMed, you still need that first third class medical.

Also, you can figure 20 more hours to get a Private over a sport. That can be $3000 - $4000.
Click to expand...

Yeah, within the past 10 years, but A. we don't know if either of these 2 gents has held a medical with the the allotted period or B. whether either one is already a pilot.
 
Three guys, actually. One was a pilot in and the others are prospective pilots. For mild medical reasons, none of the three are able to get a 3rd class at this time.

The RV is easy to get the nod- but that Bush cat has me interested- as a float plane.
 
C-1 PILOT said:
It’s my understanding that the Sling 2, when built as an experimental, can be flown at 1540 lbs. The factory S-LSA IS 1320 lbs.
Click to expand...
Yes but if it's an experimental at 1540 it cannot be flown by a sport pilot. The legal max has to be 1320 or less for a lsa.

Bob
 
The Remos has one of the highest useful loads of all the light sports. As I remember my Dad's was just under 700lbs useful.
 
Carbon Cub SS. Something under 900# empty. Two full size guys will push it over 1320 (like anybody pays attention to that) but the plane will still take off short and fly great.
 
It's true that Remos is probably the champion among the LSA. Although I heard of other claimants with rather optimistic numbers, Remos is a real deal. Its maximum pilot weight is 260 lbs, too, which is just enough. However, the OP asked about a kit.
 
Last edited:
RANS lists their S-6ES at a 675 lb empty weight. Sounds like if they build it light (conventional gear, glass panel, light avionics, minimal interior) they could both get in and still put 20 gallons of fuel in the tanks.
 
yakdriver said:
RV-12 it is then.
Click to expand...
Well, that's what I decided. There were other possible choices, but only the 12 met my requirements -- a combination of speed, payload, construction (wifey will not fly in tube & fabric), cost, etc. Other people have other criteria and may make other choices.

Point is -- yes, there are a few choices for kit-built, light-sport aircraft that will safely and legally haul two fatboys, albeit usually with reduced fuel.
 
The factory built -12 was my first choice, sadly VAN’s is way behind on finalizing the iS. Until they do, production has ceased. If it started tomorrow Inwouldnt see a plane until next year. Way too long.
 
The 12 is about as easy to build as any homebuilt. If you have some mechanical skills you should be able to build one in less than a year. I have helped on a couple of them and they are first class. Also got to do all the test flying so got some fun out of it.
 
There's a Rans S6S on Barnstormers now, says its empty weight Is 685 lbs. You could get two of your beefy friends aboard and fill the 18 gallon tanks and still be under gross.
 
brian] said:
Long complicated reasoning here that won't add up if I posted it. But, educate me on the experimental aircraft kits available that can be flown buy guys 250 pounds or lighter. That is, are there any where 2 250 pound good old boys can fly without using 10,000' of runway for takeoff..

This would have to be from kit - not already put together. Long story.

Do they exist?
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the Aeroprakt A22LS? Tough STOL bird with empty weights of 680 pounds and a nice flying machine.
 
I’ve heard of them, but never seen one for reals.

The guys are talking about a powered paraglider - at least that is what I think it is. It would only take one, but would get them in the air.
 
I have to wonder what can be done to reduce the payload requirement over a year.

You boyz 7' 0"?
 
Ravioli said:
I have to wonder what can be done to reduce the payload requirement over a year.

You boyz 7' 0"?
Click to expand...

No problem, I lost 65lbs over the last 10 months. Lost 27 in the month of December alone. Wouldn't recommend the cancer diet but I'm in remission and down to 175lbs so I'm almost an official FAA person.
 
Wow! Prayers..

I had my own reason to solicit doctor Bruce’s services last year. Sure makes me think about joining these guys in a partnership. At 200 pounds, they would call me tiny...

Nobody over 7 foot. Just southern eating...
 
brian] said:
I’ve heard of them, but never seen one for reals.

The guys are talking about a powered paraglider - at least that is what I think it is. It would only take one, but would get them in the air.
Click to expand...

If the want to go Part 103, there are a number of choices. There's a powered paragllider, quite often called a paramotor, which is something you wear.
iu



In this case, your legs are the undercarriage, and they'll need to be in good shape. I just turned 60, and am in good shape, but knowing what I know from hang gliding, I would not personally fly one of these, I think my left leg would not take the stress.

Next up, there's the powered parachute, which has its own undercarriage.
iu


This one I could do.

If you like your wings to have some bones, there are ultralight trikes that use a hang glider style wing.

4448397_orig.jpg




I've got the itch to go try one of the light sport versions of these. If your friends decide to take up trike flying, this is what they'll be learning in.

s-l1000.jpg

iu



Next up, there are the fixed wing ultralights. Here's an Aerolite 103.
iu


There are some of these that are more airplane like, such as the Kolb Firefly.
iu



I should add that your friends would be a bit over the design weight for the Kolb, there may be others that have a greater design weight.

Square parachutes have some interesting failure modes that limit when you can fly them. Obviously, none of these aircraft are suitable to fly in known rough air, but since they're all fly for fun only, you wouldn't knowingly do that anyway. Since you can't see what you're flying into, you need to be prepared just in case the atmosphere gets a little raucous, and for me that requires a wing with some structure.

I've heard a couple of instructors say that you should expect to do 20 hours of dual to become a safe ultralight pilot. I don't know anything about paramotor or powered parachute training. They should be simpler, all you have are the toggles and the throttle. Trikes are two axis control, and there are both two axis and three axis controlled fixed wingers.
 
Last edited:
Sweet lineup? I'll send this to the guys for ideas. I'll see if they might want to join POA too - although I hope I don't offend on the post title ... gulp!
 
I once was on a picnic to watch a solar eclipse and a bunch of paramotor folks were flying off the field nearby. Taking off, circling around, landing. It looked pretty cute, until a guy in a trike showed up. He was like a ******n rocketship. I didn't realize just how slow paramotors were.

Another thing, there was a series of articles in PSF magazine about the safety issues with chutes. It was pretty hair-raising. I mean sure, you can misrig elevator cables backwards on a conventional airplane too, but jeez.

If I was looking for alternatives to light-sports, I'd get a gyro. They have similar limitations (no negative g's), and they are noisy, but at least they make close to 60 knots. A takeoff can be short with good power.
 
zaitcev said:
I once was on a picnic to watch a solar eclipse and a bunch of paramotor folks were flying off the field nearby. Taking off, circling around, landing. It looked pretty cute, until a guy in a trike showed up. He was like a ******n rocketship. I didn't realize just how slow paramotors were.

Another thing, there was a series of articles in PSF magazine about the safety issues with chutes. It was pretty hair-raising. I mean sure, you can misrig elevator cables backwards on a conventional airplane too, but jeez.

If I was looking for alternatives to light-sports, I'd get a gyro. They have similar limitations (no negative g's), and they are noisy, but at least they make close to 60 knots. A takeoff can be short with good power.
Click to expand...

Some of the ultralight trikes can do 50 mph, and the faster light sport trikes will cruise at 70 knots. The downside of that is a higher stall speed for the light sport trikes of. 35 knots or so, compared to the 25 knots for an ultralight trike.

The gyros look cool, but I'm guessing they are considerably more expensive than a light sport trike and would require more maintenance.
 
brian] said:
Long complicated reasoning here that won't add up if I posted it. But, educate me on the experimental aircraft kits available that can be flown buy guys 250 pounds or lighter. That is, are there any where 2 250 pound good old boys can fly without using 10,000' of runway for takeoff..

This would have to be from kit - not already put together. Long story.

Do they exist?
Click to expand...
Bought my challenger for this very reason. On the day I Test flew, I took rear seat (245lbs) the builder and pilot in command, Chad weighed in at 250. We took off from Deer Park in Phoenix with 15 gallons of fuel on board and were off the ground in 450' with a reasonable climb rate.
Mine is equipped with Rotax 503, I have seen them with the 582 and even the 912 UL
index_html_m2bee38db.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top