What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

LSA Gross Weight Restriction to be Removed?

vlittle

Well Known Member
Directly from a respected executive in the LSA/kitplane industry:

?The FAA is planning to remove the gross weight limitation on Light Sport Aircraft. Provided the airframe has the beef and power to go to a higher gross you will see the Sport class of planes become much more useful.?

If that is true, it will be a huge benefit to the sportplane market. Can anyone (hi Paul) confirm this?
 
I’ve heard a lot of rumors within the industry and via other sources....but that’s not one of them Vern.
 
It would never happen, for to do so would mean the FAA admitting it was wrong.

The FAA doesn't like to change its mind, no matter how outdated the topic, unless it's to be more restrictive. It'll "clarify" or "expand" or "interpret" as much as it can within the existing rules, but an outright relaxation is just out of the picture.

I've heard FAA types make cracks about certain regs being "on the third tablet that Moses dropped". The intended message was "don't bother asking about this, we aren't changing our minds even if we don't know why it's a rule any more".
 
It would never happen, for to do so would mean the FAA admitting it was wrong.

The FAA doesn't like to change its mind, no matter how outdated the topic, unless it's to be more restrictive. It'll "clarify" or "expand" or "interpret" as much as it can within the existing rules, but an outright relaxation is just out of the picture.

But isn?t that exactly what the Light Sport rules were? No more medical required. Easier certification.

Even though basicmed was a law, it also did much the same thing.
 
So, if the GW restriction is removed, I suppose all the other restrictions remain.

Two seats
FP prop
132 mph at max continuous sea-level power
Fixed gear
Max stall 51 mph (This will probably limit the higher GW to a reasonable number.)
Below 10K (Higher above higher terrain)
etc.

That said, it would probably allow C120/140/150/152 and some others play in the LSA game.
 
Last edited:
So, if the GW restriction is removed, I suppose all the other restrictions remain.

Two seats
FP prop
132 mph at max continuous sea-level power
Fixed gear
No night flying
No IFR
Max stall 51 mph (This will probably limit the higher GW to a reasonable number.)
Below 10K (Higher above higher terrain)
etc.

That said, it would probably allow C120/140/150/152 and some others play in the LSA game.
And . . . the RANS S-21!
 
Let's not forget that even if the LSA category gross weight limit went up, that would not affect any existing aircraft. RV-12, for example, has a gross weight established by structural and performance considerations, which would not change. Only new clean-sheet designs (and some heritage non-LSA airplanes, e.g., a C150) would get the higher gross weight.

Dave
 
Let's not forget that even if the LSA category gross weight limit went up, that would not affect any existing aircraft. RV-12, for example, has a gross weight established by structural and performance considerations, which would not change. Only new clean-sheet designs (and some heritage non-LSA airplanes, e.g., a C150) would get the higher gross weight.

Dave

Maybe. I'm thinking that the CarbonCub SS LSA with it's 180hp might benefit from a GW increase since it already has E-AB and Far 23 brothers and sisters.
 
Is no night flying part of LSA? I thought if you had a PP ticket and "downgraded" to LSA, you could still fly at night, or if you had a sport pilot ticket you could do some training and fly at night.
 
Is no night flying part of LSA? I thought if you had a PP ticket and "downgraded" to LSA, you could still fly at night, or if you had a sport pilot ticket you could do some training and fly at night.

Sorry, thinking about the pilot, not the plane.
 
Let's not forget that even if the LSA category gross weight limit went up, that would not affect any existing aircraft. RV-12, for example, has a gross weight established by structural and performance considerations, which would not change. Only new clean-sheet designs (and some heritage non-LSA airplanes, e.g., a C150) would get the higher gross weight.

Dave

How would that change a plane like the Sling2? Which I believe when experimental built or is sold outside the US, can have a gross weight of 1540 lbs. no structural difference, just paper. Do you think there would be a way to up the weight?
 
How would that change a plane like the Sling2? Which I believe when experimental built or is sold outside the US, can have a gross weight of 1540 lbs. no structural difference, just paper. Do you think there would be a way to up the weight?

The Sling was designed to meet the EASA CS-VLA (Very Light Aeroplanes) Specification which allows a MAUW of 700 kg (1540 lb).
 
Let's say that the FAA changes the gross weight/stall speed restriction to a kinetic energy restriction.

A 1320 lb. LSA with a stall speed of 45 knots has the same kinetic energy at stall as an 1850 lb. plane with a stall speed of 39 knots, using e = 1/2 mV^2.

Now, that would allow a lot of flexibility in design... but the low stall speeds may have troublesome crosswind issues.

V
 
Let's not forget that even if the LSA category gross weight limit went up, that would not affect any existing aircraft. RV-12, for example, has a gross weight established by structural and performance considerations, which would not change. Only new clean-sheet designs (and some heritage non-LSA airplanes, e.g., a C150) would get the higher gross weight.
Don't forget about the guys (somewhere in Florida I think?), who were selling RV-9's as Light Sport by claiming to have optimized the build for extreme weight reduction during construction... Power limited to 50% throttle after takeoff or some such silliness.
 
Dreaming is nice, and of course anything is possible, but I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.
 
But isn?t that exactly what the Light Sport rules were? No more medical required. Easier certification.

Even though basicmed was a law, it also did much the same thing.

But from the FAA's POV, those were simply reinterpretations (for Basicmed they at least claim the same standards technically apply) or additional restrictions (in the case of LSA, it was adding regulations to two-seat ultralights--at least as they saw it). And with Basicmed they were pretty much forced by an act of Congress to make it happen. Anyone here really think the FAA would have done it on its own?

A wholesale change to the LSA weight, not just an exemption like Icon has, would be both the FAA admitting it chose a bad figure, but would also mean the FAA would have to contradict its earlier reasoning.

Go read the final Sport Pilot rule as it was published in the Federal Register. Specifically, pay attention to the FAA's comments on why it did things the way it did. The FAA honestly, truly intended for LSAs to mainly be "fat ultralights"--open-frame, cloth-wing aircraft with no electrical system, and mostly topping out under 85kt or so. They set the limits they did (speed, weight, etc.) just to give a little margin or room for outliers, and to allow a few more existing aircraft for training purposes. And they figured the primary purpose of LSAs would be to train ultralight pilots.

They never expected that the vast majority of LSAs would be up near at least one of the limits, and be more or less "real" airplanes. Something like the new RV-12, with glass cockpit and EFI, was completely out of their imagination. And I think if you got a time machine and showed them what has actually played out, the final rule would have been far more restrictive.
 
Let's not forget if FAA were regulating automobiles , 1/2 of population would still be
driving horse pulled bugies ! Tom
 
Back
Top