Tom Baker Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 Okay Tom I fixed it. There are quite a few people who think that that is the spar, so that is why I said something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 I am fairly contentious about tightening my belts, In light hearted light of the words post, the above is actually pretty funny. It's OK, Doug, you can pull it as tight as you want. contentious: causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 I like my harness pretty snug, but I still need a little play in the shoulder belts to allow me to reach everything in the cockpit, such as the breakers on the far right side. My lap belt is VERY snug and should hold me in place if inverted, but crashes are violent and there will always be a lot of movement. I'd be a bit hesitant to pad the spar box, since my head is pretty close to it already and I don't want even *less* clearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 Autocorrect! But it is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrnflyr Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Did anybody go to Sebring and look at the new Tecnam P2008TC? I'm curious about useful load, cockpit room, etc. Looks like a great plane being refined even more much like the earliest CT evolving to the CTLSi. Surely a plane with this many amenities has a worthless useful load similar to a Carbon Cub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cat Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Did anybody go to Sebring and look at the new Tecnam P2008TC? I'm curious about useful load, cockpit room, etc. Looks like a great plane being refined even more much like the earliest CT evolving to the CTLSi. Surely a plane with this many amenities has a worthless useful load similar to a Carbon Cub I took a demo flight in this airplane. It's a truly beautiful airplane. Well designed, and a quality build. Composite fuselage and metal wings and tail. Smart and shrewd choice. Interior is really nicely appointed, quiet and well thought out. Wide and comfortable with two aboard. Nice cargo area. No BRS chute but I believe it has the fittings installed if you have to have it. The Rotax 914 Turbo is the smoothest running engine I've experience in an LSA. I'm not 'sure' if it's heavier than the 912iS engine , but it has the turbo and produces 115hp. If I lived out west in the higher elevations, it'd be my choice. If I needed to go everywhere fast, like many young whippersnappers, I'd choose the turbo. Heck I'd choose the Turbo because…heck, it's an absolute blast to fly! The fuel load is just under 30 gallons, in the wings, behind the spars, and this model had two accurate fuel gauges either side of the Andair fuel selector. Flying qualities are excellent. It's very much like a Part 23 airplane, rather than a 'light sport'. Indeed, it was designed in Europe to meet higher weight standards, and will do it well. Therein lies the rub. In the USA, with the 1320lb limit, it's 884 empty weight is the real downside. The price tag was around $215k too. Mind you, this was a demo airplane with a host of bells and whistles. At the Expo my wife and I looked at the CTLSi too. My wife doesn't like small planes to begin with but her comment was "the CTLSi looks like a 'tadpole', or an 'egg with wings' whereas the P2008 looks like a real airplane' Her words , not mine. To be fair, I've flown the CTLS and liked the flying qualities. It would be an excellent choice no doubt. It has a lot of features, good load, good fuel etc. I don't think the quality is quite as good as Tecnam however. The P2008 is just quality in every aspect, however, it comes with a price. The CTLSi had a lot of decals and stickers, which had all but worn off in the training plane I flew. Perhaps I'm being nitpicky. The toe brakes on the Tecnam are better, in my view, than the handle brakes in the CTLS. The Remos I flew had the same handle, which operated opposite the CTLS. I got used to handles, but I prefer toe brakes. Personally, I quite like nose wheel steering, but some prefer the differential brakes and get tighter turns. The CTLS I flew had steering, the P2008 has the option for both. Forward visibility is excellent, sideways not as good. The Skycatcher I flew had a much better view, in my opinion, and the lower wing was that much higher than the P2008. However, the P2008 is easier to get into, door opens froward, all the way. Windows are tinted. Stick is curved to allow easy access. Seat is adjustable forward and very comfortable. The CTLSi I looked at at Sebring had a higher weight than the CTLS, but I can't remember what it was, exactly. With the P2008 I've crunched the numbers and my wife and I can fly 2-2.5 hours (her absolute max!) or I can fly alone for 7 hours (beyond my max). To be fair, I can also do that in the CTLSi. Mark's photo's show the P2008's upgraded paint scheme. There are two choices. The standard scheme is much like the CTLS 'squiggly paint lines' or you can have the paint scheme in Mark's photos, a rusty red, blue and silver too. At Sebring Tecnam had another demo P2008..more basic with round dials and the 912ULS engine. I wouldn't choose round dials but I could choose a good variety of avionics options. I've seen P2008 with Dynon, Garmin and Advanced and they all were awesome. Having seen just about every LSA on the market (and the newTecnam Astore is going to be on show at Sun n Fun!), my take is that the Tecnam P2008 is the best LSA on the market, hands down. Yes, it comes with a premium price, but I definitely believe you get what you pay for. The P2008 Turbo is well,…awesome!! The nicest flying, best looking, highest quality LSA in the market. Period. You can hurl abuse, knock it, sulk, throw rocks, whatever…in my view, it's still the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 The Technam 2008 has wing struts reducing visibility - this same defect is in the Cessnas Cessnas have a rear window, allowing visibility directly to the rear, which all CTs lack. Just curious, do you consider this design choice a "defect" in the CTs, since it reduces visibility compared to other designs? If not, why would you consider wing struts, which reduce vision much less than the lack of a rear window, to be a defect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 The 914 Turbo is a carb'd engine built on the 912ULS platform. It might be more correct to say that the 914 is built on the 912UL platform. It doesn't have the high compression found in the ULS. How many cantilevered high wings are there compared to strut braced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 At the Expo my wife and I looked at the CTLSi too. My wife doesn't like small planes to begin with but her comment was "the CTLSi looks like a 'tadpole', or an 'egg with wings' whereas the P2008 looks like a real airplane' Her words , not mine. The look of a CT is the most recognizeable and I love it! I do love the traditional look of tecnams too. Anyways, the weight on tecnams is something that I really don't like, and has been a turn off. Although, Flight Design needs to get that under control too, they are getting heavier and heavier. I am curious to how the turbo 914 performs at altitude though. I bet it just blazes the path. Fun fact: the predator drone is powered by the 914. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Agreed, the bloat in many popular LSAs is getting out of hand...I'd say if the useful load gets below 525lb, then they need to rethink some things. That's two 200lb guys (honestly, that is the average for adult males in the US), 16gallons of fuel, and 25lb of stuff. Pretty much the minimum for a useful mission for many buyers. CTs have gone from typical useful loads over 600lb to under 500lb, and IMO they need a diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cat Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 As I said, your mileage may vary when you compare airplanes. My point is, I've flown both the CTLS and the Tecnam P2008 and for me, the Tecnam is the better product. That is not to knock the CTLSi airplane in any way. In my view the Tecnam is better built, more like a Part 23 airplane, and has all the same avionics options and engines that FD offer. I think the Tecnam is a nicer looking airplane. My wife said the same, she thinks the CTLS looked like "a tadpole, like an egg with wings' when I was getting checked out in a CTLS. "The Tecnam looked like a 'proper airplane'. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, obviously. Me, I don't care that much. The Tecnam's cargo area is neat and right behind the seats, no need for access doors. There are paint options. Propellor options, avionics options, engine options, including a turbo. Maybe apples and oranges. Mark, the thread starter presented photos of the P2008. Someone asked about the Turbo engined P2008 at Sebring, I replied. My wife and I had a close look at both the Tecnam and the CTLSi. We both prefer the Tecnam. I'm not interested in a urination contest. If it makes that guy feel better that his CTLSi is the best thing ever, no problem. I don't really care. Hey I love all airplanes, I love the differences, I love trying them all out. Life's too short to sit and sulk and throw eggs just because people are talking about another product. The plane you didn't buy. I think the CTLSi is good, I think the Tecnam P2008 is very good, and the Turbo is awesome. Actually, a couple at the Expo did too and after a demo in the Turbo P2008 they bought it on the spot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 I'd bet the Tecnam flies better, the p92 I flew in training was superb...really a great flying and feeling airplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Just for......., At least your wife didn't say it looked like a sperm! Seriously though, I have been to a number of fly ins, pancake breakfasts, etc. and most of the women think its cute. It's not unusual to see a woman grab her mate by the arm and pull him towards the CT saying "lets look at this one George, it's so cute". Makes me wish I had one when I was young and single. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Why didn't you get a used Tecnam then instead of a used CTSW? Because overall I think the CT is the better choice. That doesn't mean the Tecnam doesn't beat it in some areas. Tecnam has been making airplanes since the 1940s...they know how to make beautifully harmonized controls. The CT has better load, speed, larger fuel tanks and baggage, and has the standard chute. Just because I choose one over the other doesn't mean I'm not allowed to say anything nice about the one I didn't choose. Most choices are not that black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Another airplane that is awesome is the BRISTELL. More shoulder room than a CT and very balanced flight controls. No "centering springs," it flies like a bigger airplane and has many outstanding features. Fuel-injection available. Like the CTLSi though, it is too heavy. As of Sebring Expo, they had delivered 9 over the year end, with another one on the way. One major drawback for me was, they do not have much history behind them, as Flight Design does. That was something I valued in my selection. Will a company stand behind the product? So far, I think Flight Design has done a pretty good job at that. So has Van's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cat Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 I think Andy made a good point earlier that goes to an issue with the most recent LSAs. The weight is creeping ever higher. Manufacturers have been saying for quite a while that LSA owners, whilst complaining about price, then proceed to add more and more options, BRS parachutes, etc which although may offer more functionality and make cross country flying better, all eat away at the weight ceiling. Unlike other GA airplanes, the LSA 1320lb weight ceiling is set. For that reason owners will still have to decide whether their 'mission' will be affected by their option choices, especially if they impact useful load. Do I need the fairings, BRS chute etc? Certainly, the Tecnam demo planes typically had most of the options and thus had higher empty weights. Same with the CTLSi which had a surprisingly higher weight. Yes, my wife did actually make the 'sperm' comment! I heard the 'cute' comment quite a few times at the Expo; one husband gruffly told the 'misses' "Ah, don't want a 'cute' airplane honey!!" No offense, just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cat Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 "The CTLSi Tecnam P2008 is a new design using advanced materials equipped with state of the art avionics (digital cockpit with GPS and paperless cockpit) and utilizing the latest in advanced aviation engineering concepts." Tecnam bought a company that specializes in the manufacture & use of composites. It chose composite in the fuselage and metal for the flying surfaces. There is a weight penalty but also a cost penalty if there's damage. Composite damage, usually due to hangar 'rash' or similar incidents, can be time consuming and costly to repair. The Remos I flew (all composite) had a dinged wing tip and it was out for a long time, waiting for both parts and a skilled composite repairman. One of the CTLS I flew at a flight school had cracks around a baggage door that eventually grounded it for quite a while. I guess the combination of strength and weight considerations play a huge part in any modern LSA design. At some point the company will decide on both style and materials as they bring their design to manufacturing. Tecnam is the world's largest producer of LSA airplanes with the biggest range of models. A new model, the Astore, is about to appear on the US market. Flight Design must surely be a close second and has successfully sold a large number of models. The company is constantly working on making a better product and appears to offer good support. When choosing a car I might pick a Lexus or I might like the Mercedes. Each may have some features that the other doesn't. In the end I have to decide which is the best for me and my wallet. It's no difference for airplanes. In the end as long as we get airborne and enjoy flying we should be happy. If we spend the time sitting on the ground constantly reviewing the airplane's brochure, options & features and telling everyone just how wonderful our airplane is, compared to everyone else's, well it sounds a lot like buyer's remorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Cessna is doing carbon fiber (as are may others) and their advanced systems are more sophisticated than Dynon at this point. It all depends on mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mocfly Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 CTLSi, Could you take a few minutes and expand on this for me. You can send the reply privately if you feel the need. The future is not Cessna. The future is Pipistrel, Flight Design and really what's coming out of Europe. That's sad for a country once known for its innovative spirit and ability to advance the art. Icon A5 excepted, of course "The future isn't Cessna" In what context? "That's sad for a country once known for its innovative spirit and ability to advance the art". I'm missing the point here. The Icon is a beautiful one off. When the sell one they will be a manufacturer. At this point they are merely a R&D company doing proof of concept. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mocfly Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 I wish I could replace the 912 with a 914 turbo when it's time to overhaul. I bet it would scream... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 I wish I could replace the 912 with a 914 turbo when it's time to overhaul. I bet it would scream... Go experimental and make your dream come true. If you think it's going to break the LSA speed limit, put a max continuous RPM limit into the aircraft limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 None of that makes a rat's ass bit of difference when poking around in an LSA, VFR, at 120 knots, which is what most of us are doing. Spot on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrnflyr Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Who is this CTLSi person? I know I don't post here often since I'm back in a spam can, but you seem to be contrary to anybody who posts here... And what about the Corvalis? I know it's post Lancair! but it's now a CESSNA and has been for many years. It wouldn't be here at all if Cessna didn't rescue them from the hail storm nightmare in Oregon. And the new TTx is probably the most advanced four seat aircraft ever produced in America. I was simply asking about how the new turbo engine fits on an LSA since most of my flying is around the Rockies. Somebody gets on here and gives his honest and qualified opinion and there's an immediate counterpoint. Do your homework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Why would we want to replace ILS with a GPS based system? Are we going to make all navigation use GPS? What happens when the GPS goes down in a 300 mile radius, as happens from time to time? I love using GPS, but we should not put all our eggs in that one basket for every task. If we do we are one large solar flare away from having no automated nav systems at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 None of that makes a rat's ass bit of difference when poking around in an LSA, VFR, at 120 knots, which is what most of us are doing.It's all relative. My Cirrus would cruise at 170k+, and a trip to S FL from N GA could be knocked off non-stop in about 3.5 hours. After "stepping up" to LSA, that same trip at about 95k takes a couple fuel stops and virtually all day, one way or another. In my plane, at least. I admire the ability of many lighter and slicker Light Sports to carry more fuel, and go faster on less fuel. That's paramount for some. But more time spent in the air getting somewhere and more stops is not all negative. Flying itself is fun, so why the rush? And stopping in new places and meeting new folks is also not without it's merits. Oh, and while my last two planes were/are composite, composite has not yet meet the promose of lighter weight envisioned a few years back. Beech Starship comes to mind. And somehow my composite Sky Arrow porks out at over 850 lbs with no chute and minimal options. Where composite shines now is in ease of manufacture and more flexibility in form. Maybe weight in the future, but certainly not in the present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.