Cubdriver

If the useful load for an R is 750 lbs. and you subtract fuel (53 x 6 = 318 lbs. ) and 2 humans (400 lbs.) it doesn't leave much (32 lbs.) but the advertising for the Ecoflyer makes it sound like a pickup truck- far from the truth.

airventure

I have one handy for the R model (remember these are 160hp). Using the empty weight for one of our aircraft I get a useful load of 767lbs - max fuel (53Gal = 318) = 450lbs. I'd say they both have a deceptively large cabin. I can't tell you how many times I've had explain to passengers that I can't fill up all of the seats. Atleast you can camp out in the back of the this LSA!

Cubdriver

Yeah I agree the R is not much more than an LSA, and I had a chance to find out what the useful load is for one and edited my post accordingly.

I really think this Ecoflyer is a dangerous and misleading design. Buying an LSA with the idea of carrying anything in it besides yourself is not a prudent way to advertise one. Some guy with a light sport ticket is going to overload one with his kayak, bicycle, picnic table and bed mentioned in the website ad and the cause of his death will be the design as much as his own stupidity.

Experience generally shows that if you build a dangerous machine someone will quickly find a way to die in it, and to some extent the designer is liable no matter how many warnings they place on it. I think this airplane design is really asking for trouble, period. It seems to blatantly ignore one of the most common causes of small airplane crashes, which is overloading in the summer months- exactly what they are advertising the airplane for.

usmc-sgt

You are a bit off by around 70 knots. 370 knots on a good day and 360 all day. VERY slow when compared to any competing RJs.

As for the plane I think it is a great design and has a nice little niche and something I have not seen done yet.

stinsonjr

The airplane below may well be the perfect airplane. It is called a Mullicoupe. It is a homebuilt airplane that was meant to combine the best features of Monocoupe 110's and Howard airplanes. It is bigger than a Monocoupe, but smaller than a Howard. Power is a Pratt & Whitney R-985. Fast and climbs really well.

usmc-sgt

Stinson,
I think you are on to something. They make a radial that I REALLY wanted to put on my plane but it just hasnt been that proven yet. I believe it is Rotec and it is an R2800...and not cubic inches...cubic centimeters.

stinsonjr

I love the little Rotec radial - and it is a great name - an R2800!

What is unproven - the Rotec, or the Rotec+your airframe? I believe the people building the new Luscombes in California are putting a Rotec R2800 on those as an option. The R2800 on the little Luscombe 8 design makes it look like a miniature Luscombe Phantom (one of the most beautiful airplanes ever in my opinion).

Here is a link to the new LSA-8 Luscombe, with a pic of the radial - no other pictures of that one though:



Here is the Luscombe Phantom:

FastDEW

About 15 years ago I was with some friends and we rented a Cesna 172 for the afternoon. I was about 240lbs, the two of them both about 180lbs so the total wt was 600lbs plus fuel and jackets and a few other items. We flew it out to Catalina for lunch.

My question - Were we over the wt limit? How bad was this? Were we actually lucky we didnt crash? FYI - My fat but was in the back seat....

Cubdriver

There is no way to know unless you obtain all the numbers and crunch them to find out. It does sound like you were over gross by a little bit, depending on what model it was and whether it has the 160 engine or the 180hp engine.

I suggest you look up the max takeoff wt., useful load, and the fuel capacity of your airplane and reconstruct the scenario using real numbers.

Even if you were under gross you may have come close to exceeding the runway length, obstacle clearance, CG limits, or all of these. The climb rate of a fully loaded 160hp Skyhawk can be well under 500 fpm on a hot day, as little as 150 fpm on a hot day at a mountainous airport.

Many general aviation pilots think that only mountainous airports offer risky conditions on hot day ("hot and high"), but they fail to realize it is density altitude that counts, not pressure altitude. Density altitude is normally around 3,000 minimum on a typical summer day, and goes up from there. You may be operating in 4,500 ft density altitude on a hot summer day where the local elevation is only 1,000 msl. Imagine how high this figure could be if the local elevation is already 5,000 ft. It may well be 9,000 density altitude or so. The airplane may not climb at all under such conditions, even if it is under gross limits.

usmc-sgt

Even if it was a new Sp skyhawk and you only carried 36 gallons of fuel (3 hours) and 50 lbs of misc stuff you would have been over by roughly 30 lbs. So I suppose it depends on how much stuff you had or how little fuel you had, it was close.