Tom Baker Posted January 20, 2013 Report Share Posted January 20, 2013 gbigs, Mark has been involved with the forum since 2010, this was before you joined and before he became a sales person for Tecnam. He came here because this is the best light sport site on the web. It just happens to be flavored for the Flight design CT series aircraft. I think Cessna is also a member of GAMA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercity Posted January 20, 2013 Report Share Posted January 20, 2013 I welcome the knowledge of other aircraft. In the end we decide to buy what we feel is best for us, and for me that was a CT. Nothing wrong with knowing what else is out there though. I think competition brings innovation and that is helpful for all of us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 What Eric said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin2 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Gentlemen, We have always been and will continue to be a happy family. We have stood up for each other, helped each other, support each other and educate each other and we are friends and neighbors. We can agree to disagree because as we know there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat and if it works for you then have at it, but we will do it with some civility. Thanks, Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Getting a little testy around here... I happen to have purchased 2 CT's, first a 2006 CTSW, recently, a 2012 CTLS. Each time I purchased an LSA I wound up choosing Flight Design for my own specific reasons (high useful load, high wing / no strut, carbon fiber, Large fuel capacity, no L/R fuel management, BRS, wide cabin, avionics, true 110 kts + cruise, etc). Technam was my runner up both times. One plane I considered a "death trap" was the Czech Sportcruiser (but thats a different post) I can appreciate the fact that Technam has been building planes since the 1940's and consider their fit and finish to be excellent and on par with any airplane manufacturer on the planet (quality sure feels like a part 23 certified aircraft). One area I knock Flight Design hard is interior finish, slowly getting better but still a long way to go to reach Technam. While I have chosen Flight Design twice now, I also enjoy other manufacturers planes. Seeing what the "other guy" is doing and building is a good thing in my opinion. If competition advances all, than I'm all for it. I have flown Cirrus, Cessna 172, 182, Flight Design, Various Vans RV's, Boeing Stearman, Technam, Piper Cub and enjoyed every one of them. I am happy to see pics and learn about any LSA out there. I just read an article that said the only 2 categories of aircraft with increased sales are corporate jets and LSA's (all other category's down). I personally believe that LSA's are the future of GA. Not too many people out there can afford a half a million dollar Cirrus SR22 or even a 300k Cessna 172. Sipping 4 to 5 gallons per hour, LSA's are going to get more and more market share from guys who don't want to screw around with medicals, buy ancient airframes for too much money, etc. I for one think all airplanes are fun to fly, we all make personal choices for various reasons, I see no right or wrong, just personal choice so let's have some PEACE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Hi Larry, I attended the Sebring Expo on Saturday. I am in the process of choosing an LSA myself. I really like the CTLSi, but something else caught my eye at the show. Did you see the Bristell there? The one on display belonged to a private party, so only walk-around observations were allowed. I did get to sit in one and talk to a rep later, that afternoon, on the flight line. I was very, very impressed with the Bristell. I still like the CTLSi, but after my experience with the Bristell, I must have a demo ride. Check it out yourself at: http://www.bristell.com/ Either way, I don't think you can go wrong. By the way, if you are an AOPA member, the December issue of the magazine has a picture of the Bristell on the front cover with a featured story about it on page 54. Hope that helps. Happy airplane hunting. Bill I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Hey, Larry! Fast Eddie here from COPA. I was obviously in the same boat, looking to lower costs. My little Sky Arrow has certainly done that, and has what I think is the best visibility of any LSA out there. I converted to Experimental, and took the course so I can do my own inspections. My last annual came in at well under $100 if you don't count my time - really just the cost of the oil and filter, though this year new plugs are going to be a major hit. They're about $2.50 each -that's about $20 all in! It is slower than others on the same power and fuel burn, and not everyone loves tandem seating, but if you're looking for a day trip, bop down to Copperhill, TN and we can trade some stick time, and maybe some Mexican food! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Hi Bill, I have about 50 hours in a Czech Sportcruiser. The Sportcruiser is a pre-cursor to the Bristell and as you pointed out (or the article did) the same folks are involved. The Bristell (and the Sport Cruiser) are both "sexy" airplanes. Here are some things I didn't like about the Sportcruiser, perhaps the Bristell has been "sufficiently updated" but the basic design remains very similar. It sure looks SEXY! 1.) Although it says the empty weight is 750 pounds I can see from the pics its an all metal or mostly metal airframe and skin (like the Sportcruiser). Check anyone's Sportcruiser, I've never seen one below 800 pounds unless it was stripped. Most have an empty weight of 820 to 830 without a parachute. Add a chute and you need to add 25 - 35 pounds or so although I don't see a chute as an option on the Bristell? (Is it because they know they don't have the useful load?) Since a 912 with injecton weighs 20 pounds more, I'm guessing the Bristell with a full avionics suite is pushing 850-870 or more (and still no chute). For me thats the first deal killer. The CTLSi will be 840 with parachute, dual Dynon Skyview, Garmin 796, Tundra and Amsafe. How do I know? I'm at 820 on a 2012 CTLS with every option including tundra gear (only have to add 20-30 for 912 with injection). 2.) Read about SportCruiser accidents. My fundamental problem with the Sportcruiser is that too many have crashed and burned, literally. The Aviation Consumer / Aviation Safety magazines call the Sportcruiser a "deathtrap". They call it "unsafe". One issue I struggled with on a Sportcruiser is that most off airport rough terrain landings would yield a nose gear collapse and an inverted plane. The plastic bubble crushes and you are inside trapped and unable to exit. If a CTSW or CTLS lands off airport, and its also rough terrain the nose gear will also collapse and put you inverted (unless you popped your chute). When a CT is inverted the strength of the carbon fiber and the high wing strutless design does not crush and trap you. You are inverted, gravity makes door opening easy, egress is easy. If you also have the AM Safe airbags you have a better change of "walking away". 3.) The SportCruiser also has the 15 gallon wing fuel tanks. Depending on whether you are flying alone or with a guest, have baggage or don't you'll find that if you intend to stay legal (within the 1320 Gross limit) you will be managing fuel to low levels. When flying with 2 male adults, the Sportcruiser I flew had very little weight left for fuel. Managing L/R and remembering which way to slip were important. On more than one occassion I landed and had very little fuel left. When I land a CT I have many gallons left per side because the useful load allows the luxury. 4.) The SportCruiser just can't hit 120 kts on its own, you'd need help from winds or be in a descending attitude. Best I could ever get out of a Sportcruiser is about 105kts. The CTLS (or SW) is hard to slow down. Dial in -6 flaps and that clean airframe leaps over 100 and easily cruises at 110 to 115. Although all LSA's say they go 120 kts, the CT is the only one I have seen actually do it. 5.) On the pro side the Sportcruiser is not only a very easy airplane to fly, its a very easy airplane to land, acting much more like a 172 or 182. 6.) The CTSW or CTLS is a finiky plane to land, it wants to fly. When it loses energy the transition from airplane to rock can be abrupt. You'll become a very good stick and rudder pilot flying a CT and you'll get very good at flaring. If you review the accident database you'll see most accidents or mishaps relate to landing one. Seldom are the incidents catastrophic. This is mostly a training and practice thing. 7.) With over 2000 CTs flying around the world the airplane has a mature design, its got a good support network and a mature company behind it. The Bristell is a new design, there are only a handful flying. The Czech Sportcruiser has some issues, accident and death rate per flight hour is much higher than a CT. Its a sexy airplane, lets hope the Bristell is an improved variant. 8.) When I bought a CTSW my useful load was a calm cool 600 pounds. 2 men plus full fuel, no L/R fuel management, room for some luggage, good speed, parachute, man I was living large. As the CTLS has matured the airplane has become better. Landing gear on a CTLS is much better than a CTSW. Avionics has improved, minor changes to length and design have continued to improve the airframe. One thing that has been steadily eroding is the useful load. I'm not sure if I'm a fan of the CTLSi yet or not. I don't like losing the 20 to 30 pounds of useful load (although I guess I don't need as much fuel), I don't like now having to manage L/R fuel with the CTLSi when I didn't before. I'm sure the pro's outweigh the cons but I'd like to see some weight come out, or just see the FAA let the gross weight go from 1320 to a higher level. That would help all designs and all manufacturers get a little "safer". If a CTLS can handle floats and the higher gross weight allowance that goes with it, I know it could handle the higher useful load landing with wheels on land too! Give me an extra 100 pounds and I'd be a whole lot more happy with any LSA! (and you'd immediately see all LSA's have parachutes, better landing gear and other safety related features. When an LSA doesn't have a parachute, its a weight issue! (thats the first clue). The Bristell starts with one display, no parachute, a 912 ULS and an ipad mount. Load this puppy up with the fuel injected option, dual 10" Dynon Skyview and tell us what the empty weight really is. Good luck with your discovery flight. Report back how that Bristell does. Another plane to consider if you are going that route (new design, low wing, sexy, low numbers flying and willing to assume the associated risk) is the Sling. http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/the-airplane-factory/the-soul-of-a-fighter.html This plane is imported by a friend of mine and is available built or as a kit. You can go for a ride in Torrance California at KTOA. Tell Matt Adam sent you! This is also a very sexy plane. While you are there, ask Matt for a ride in his Christian Eagle, he is an award winning aerobatic pilot who will scare the hell out of you safely! (also an FAA examiner for Light Sport). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 The Bristell is not a Sport Cruiser. It's an entirely different airplane. The wing is different. The fuselage is different. The landing gear is different. It uses carbon fiber where it is advantageous. It flies different, is more comfortable and more economical to operate than the Sport Cruiser. The BRS chute is an option, which can even be added by a second purchaser, should the original purchaser elect not to order it. The fittings and harness come installed with all airplanes. It was designed by the same aeronautical engineer though. His aim was to make a better airplane with the Bristell. From what I could see, as compared to the Sport Cruiser, he has accomplished that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 I believe it is a Christen Eagle - not sure about its religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 I believe it is a Christen Eagle - not sure about its religion. Funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Koerner Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Anyone who says there is only one right answer in selecting an aircraft has a very narrow perspective. There are big advantages to a low wing including optimum structural design (the main gear is tied directly into the spar), improved aerodynamics (reduced interference drag) and improved visibility for formation or canyon flying (you can see what your turning toward). I chose a high wing because I wanted the best possible view of the ground and to keep the tips out of the brush off-field. As previously noted the high wing also offers improved passenger protection if you flip over. Wing struts are added drag but you can make up for it in reduced fuselage height by eliminating most of the spar carry-through we have over our heads in the CTs. Struts also offer the unique ability to support the wing during removal, providing the REMOS with a single-man quick-fold capability that greatly reduces storage space and hangar cost. Aluminum structures are lighter in weight and can handle storage outside better than plastic. But they are not as aerodynamically smooth, they may eventually corrode in humid climates, and they are subject to fatigue. Fuel injection is certainly intriguing, but for the difference in price you could have your Bings adjusted every couple months and replaced annually. And with the added redundancy of the 912is comes increased complexity. Mission reliability goes up, but system reliability goes down. In other words, you are less likely to lose power in flight, but more likely to have one of the fuel pumps go out. So not only is the initial cost higher, your repair costs are also likely to be more expensive. All of these are all normal, everyday engineering tradeoffs. As stated previously, the correct approach is to define your personal mission (what do you want to do with the airplane) then pick the aircraft that best fulfills that objective. For example, if flying across the North Atlantic is your goal, for heaven’s sake, go with the 912is. If you’re flying across Iowa during the day... not so much so. Mike Koerner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Thanks Mike. All good points to consider. Bill I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 I forgot to ask....should I be looking at the 914T? What are the performance comparisons? Also, I am used to the toe brakes in my Cirrus. Is it easy to adapt to the CT braking system? Thanks again. I am truly looking for info to make a good decision. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 I forgot to ask....should I be looking at the 914T? What are the performance comparisons? Also, I am used to the toe brakes in my Cirrus. Is it easy to adapt to the CT braking system? Thanks again. I am truly looking for info to make a good decision. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 I flew 162 s before my CTSW, no problem switching from toe to hand brake...although I still press the rudder pedals simotaniously while operating the hand brake on landings. Old habits:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Struts in a high wing are a vestige of the past, they produce extra drag AND they block looking down at the ground. The Remos concept has proven to be a dud. The company is near bankrupcy, their design didn't prove to be a winner. Even with foldable wings. Up close, the struts and foldable wing is a big mess really, I have been in one, and took a small test drive in one. The next time you are in you're CT, look up. That thick spar carry-through box that crosses just a few inches from your head is the price you pay for no struts. It is just quietly waiting to bash your skull in and give you a traumatic brain injury in the event of an accident that involves any forward or upward forces on your body. If the airplane noses over, there is at least a fair chance your head will hit that box and then your body weight will push down and break your neck. Then you can argue from your wheelchair about how cool it was that you gained those extra three knots. EVERY design is a compromise, EVERY design has positives and negatives. The CT strutless wing has some great advantages. It is not without downsides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 CTLSi, I do agree with you that the Remos wing fold mechanism is not great...the aileron pushrod connections are frighteningly fragile, using only a twist/tab lock with no retaining pin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Aircraft design is always a compromise. The strutless C177 Cardinal was designed to replace the strutted C172. The market decided, and only one is being made today. Getting rid of form drag by eliminating struts or retracting the gear makes more and more sense as speeds increase. 120k is probably close to the cusp above which where it might makes sense to go with a cantilevered wing. But that does come with a weight and other costs, as Andy pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Andy, your concern about head bashing is an excellent reason to be confident your seat and shoulder belts work as you wish them to. And in turbulence, we all snug them up. If I had time to prepare for a rough landing or for pulling the chute, belts would be high on my check list. On this topic, has anyone heard anything about head trauma due to striking the spar carry through on a CT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Not yet, but I have seen some that padded the spar tunnel, spar box, passage, encasement, ect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 Not yet, but I have seen some that padded the spar Padded the spar? That is not a spar! It is a cover for the spar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 If by trauma you man that it hurt, I would raise my hand. I am fairly contentious about tightening my belts, but I have not modified me belts do they tend to loosen. My headset and cap softened the blow a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 After a rough ride I learned that banging the spar box wasn't a problem but the fuselage and bulkhead hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 Okay Tom I fixed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.