Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"Anthony W" wrote in message
news:fwJsj.332$ph.312@trnddc06...
Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:57 am, Anthony W wrote:

...
So let me get this straight. Unlike in powered flight, pilot weight
isn't a problem? So guys like Chuck S. and myself could fly one of
these?

Tony

If only it were that simple...

Water ballast is typically carried in the wings so to not stress the
airframe and wing root connections (remember, the wings are removable
with minimal to no tools - just to complicate the situation). The
maximum design load for the cockpit is usually not that high - I see a
target weight for the HP-24 of 300 pounds. And, unlike water ballast,
you can't perform do-it-youself lyposuction to shed weight if the day
gets a little weak and you are having trouble making it back home. The
glide angle is the same, but at higher weights, the higher sink rate
means you need stronger lift to regain altitude.

Ain't no such thing as a free lunch, eh?

Plus, if you are serious about performance, then you end up with a
cockpit that is often a bit tight for plus size individuals - dunno how
roomy the HP-24 is.

My problem with flying (besides money) is that I was 6'7" before my back
injury and weight builds fast on tall guys. At my perfect weight I'm too
heavy for 90% of the planes I'd like to fly (and I'm far from my perfect
weight.)

I'm mostly looking at small 2 seaters to build in a single seat
configuration. I'm looking to build something under the LSA rules so I
don't have to pass the physical to fly it.

Tony