Like Ed, I feel the gross-weight-increase STC is very worthwhile. I
had it completed recently. The biggest benefit of that legal extra
60#: it allows me to carry my flight instructor (185#) and full fuel
-- or an adult passenger -- without having to fuss with reducing the
amount of fuel in the tanks, or be concerned that -- in the event of
mishap -- insurance would disavow coverage for being over-gross. In
my case, little change was needed: the landing gear change
requirement only applies to some very early serial numbers, the Sky
Sprite already had the wide trim-tab, and already had very nearly the
correct up-travel restriction on the elevator.
Frank: IIRC, your elevator travel felt very similar to mine the day
I went over to look at it. The up-travel on both of ours was less
than the down-travel, and the only rigging combo for which that is
true (per Ed B's posted chart) was the D-style rigging. (I am
guessing that some past owners may have been incrementally moving
toward changing to a D model, but never completed all the elements.)
The A&P did have to adjust the trim tab travel on mine, but that
produced the added benefit of freeing-up a trim tab control that had
previously felt just binary, i.e. it was either trim up or trim down,
and now I have finer gradations of trim possible -- nice!
This may just be a coincidence, but the 5th landing after that was
probably the best landing of my life: couldn't even feel it when the
wheels touched down!
Linda
N3437H (Sky Sprite)
415-C
L.A.
2e. Re: LSA Weight increase STC
Posted by: "AJ DeMarzo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] n8686a
Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 6:15 am ((PST))
Roy;
You said a mouthful. My contention is that the aircraft will carry
the weight just as well without the paper GW increase. If the object
is just to be "legal" I can't justify the costs. The O-200
conversion is, for me, a no brainier, though. Someone please
enlighten me of your varying opinions and remember I'm not telling
anyone to violate the laws.
