Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

"The weight limit had another effect. It would presumably result in airframes that cost less to manufacture."

 

Who on this planet doesn't understand that lightweight, relative to performing 'X' performance parameters, doesn't "cost less to manufacturer", it costs more.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Posted

But!

 

With the ever increasing weight (maximum takeoff), & no increase in wing area.

 

Will we see more aircraft going out of "wing-loading" specification's.

 

I would like to see more emphasis put on Safety, not bureaucracy of rigid rules.

 

spacesailor

 

 

Posted

I can't see why no increase in wing area is the only possibility. Most of our limits are stall speed power off and most forward Cof G allowed and max flap used. More effective flap will mean less wing area needed so faster cruise possible. LSA always seemed to anticipate growth in the future being likely. (as I see it) Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Winner 1
Posted
But!With the ever increasing weight (maximum takeoff), & no increase in wing area.

Will we see more aircraft going out of "wing-loading" specification's.

They can easily keep/decide on performance parameters to be met that would effectively enforce an increase in wing area just as it was forced it onto LSA. There is no wing area/loading for LSA but nearly all of them (typical 2 seat 600kg one) are at aprox 120 square feet in order to meet the stall speed regulations.

 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...