|
|
Colyn,
Thanks for the great points to consider. I also learned that the ES-P has a lot of carbon fiber in its construction which is stronger than E-glass. Also they changed out the nose gear strut which also increased max gross weight. George
On Dec 27, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Colyn Case <colyncase@earthlink.net> wrote:
Legally you can set the gross weight where you want.
Legally you can be prosecuted for flying the airplane above that gross weight.
As far as technically, I don't know the answer but here are some things to consider:
- fuel in the wings does not stress the spar as much as weight in the fuselage.
- one aspect of weight limitation is climb performance. The turbo has more climb performance.
- aft CG limit
- the Lancair company guidance on the IV was revised upward after an internal study. I don't know how or if that relates to the ES
On Dec 26, 2012, at 12:57 PM, George Wehrung wrote:
Question: How can the ES-P have a higher gross weight of 3550 lbs. than the ES of 3200 lbs? Are they not built on the same fuselage and wing? I know the Turbo-charged version of the IO550 weighs more and they also utilized the outboard wing lockers to take the fuel capacity up from 95 to 105 gallons which will increase the overall weight of the aircraft when filed to capacity.
Am I wrong in assuming that both models use the same wing and wing spar? Or am I being conservative in using Lancair's published brochure weights of 3200 lbs for our ES?
By the way, does anyone have any flight test data for stall speeds on their ES?
Thanks for the help and clarification as I am revising my POH.
George
--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|