Jump to content

Potential New Owner -- unfamiliar


Admin2

Recommended Posts

Conjecture on my part, but to be called a CTLSi presumes all the enhancements needed to include and support the 912iS engine, (cowling rails, header tank, engine monitoring, Lane A B warning lights, etc). If you are not getting a 912iS, you would not include the enhancments and woud not call the plane a CTLSi. My original question was trying to get at this. If you are FD struggling to meet demand would you really want to be building both airframes side by side or would you rather ship as many as possible as "i"s and tell anyone who wants non fuel injected the wait is extra long? Is anyone on this forum awaiting delivery of a CTLS that isnt fuel injected?

 

To be clear, I love the concept of the CTLSi, so much so that, that I put down a deposit sight unseen (er...unflown) six months ago. Because I am on the lighter side, I did not have to seriously consider if the reduced useful load would impact my typical mission to the point where I would have to consider a different configuration or thankfully a different plane. I fully appreciate however that the CTSW and the CTLS are great planes and for me at least, who can get to 10,000 feet first, is thoroughly irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Check out this youtube video put out by John Hurst from Lockwood Aviation. They put a Rotax 912ULS and a 912IS engine on an Aircam and flew 15 hours round trip from Florida to Oshkosh and back. http://youtu.be/TTQ4psahui4.You can also see the video by going to Lockwood Aviation's new website. I see a lot of negative comments from people who have not flown the CTLSI. Don't knock it until you have tried it. I know Eddie (Charlie Tango)likes to fly inverted (legally out of canyons)in his SW and maybe the SW is right for you. Some people do not like the location of the main wing spar on the SW (right next to your forehead). Do not cut yourself short. Fly them all and decide for yourself. Flight Design keeps making these airplanes better and better each batch. After flying the SI cross country with many take off and landings with big heavy customers, for me the SI is hands down by far the best airplane Flight Design has built to date. Yes I sell FD airplanes from time to time, but mostly I fly and demonstrate a carbureted CTLS. It's not just the fuel injection, but the combination of the package and refinements of the whole. I love these airplanes because I love to fly and it gives me a break from my main job of running a very busy maintenance shop.

Roger, I do not want to wager a months wages, but I would love to see GBIGS's wife in her new CTLSI and you in an SW and see who out climbs each other to 10,000 feet. I would pay just to see that. I would put my money on her. Can we arrange that?

 

A lot of negative comments? Perhaps just reactions to unsupported claims? More power, more speed, more performance, better handling, no more sputtering... etc.

 

I don't see any negatives except the weight and I see that as a compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, I agree with CT, I don't recall anything negative about the airplane. It should prove to be a great airplane by the same company that built the airplanes most of the people on this forum own. It is just not going to be the best or only choice for an airplane as gbigs claim. Do you have much time in a CTSW to have an idea about how they would compare?

 

Just curious, what is the empty weight of the CTLSi that you brought back to Sonoma?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new plane is an improvement in all areas of the aircraft.

 

How about the payload?

How about the composite material?

How about the gear?

How about the propeller?

How about the plexiglass?

How about the rigging?

How about the wing?

How about the stab?

How about the rudder?

How about the ultimate load?

How about the spar design?

How about the handling?

How about the flight characteristics?

How about the trim tab?

How about the control forces?

...etc.

 

Perhaps it really isn't an improvement in all areas of the aircraft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gbigs, one little 3 letter word. From your post, "The new plane is an improvement in all areas of the aircraft." It is little claims like this that have the people who have been doing this longer than you in disagreement with what you're saying. I don't think that an increased empty weight is an improvement. I don't think increased cost is an improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

How about the payload?

 

...etc.

 

Perhaps it really isn't an improvement in all areas of the aircraft?

 

How about ease of maintenance?

 

Affordability?

 

I think fuel injection is the future and carbs are the past, but history has shown that buying ver. 1 of anything is risky, often turning the buyer into a beta tester.

 

Unlimited funds? I'd wait a year or two and get an injected one then - either a new one or a lightly used one with the bugs worked out (hopefully!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gbigs, the CTLSI is not an improvement in all areas. Flight Design took a very good airplane in the CTLS and made it a lot better. The engine is way better, two fuel tanks are better, flying further on less fuel is better. Starting is better. A much smoother engine is better. Electric trim is better. Less maintenance is better. Less carb balance is better. No bounce landing gear is better, bigger tundra tires is better. No carb ice is better. The overall combination is better. Latest avionics and warranty are better. Just like the dreamliner, bugs have to be worked out with anything new and that's what warranties are for. Why do you think the people from Flight Design do not comment on this web-site? You will never convince a lot of these guy's who have to much time on their hands and will pick apart every smallest detail, take words out of context and say "there it is", but have not seen or have not flown one. You will never convince these detractors. To the people who have legitimate questions, Tom Peghiney and his wife Natasha answer the phone at Flight Design USA. They will get all the information you need, plus take you for a nice long flight. If you are going to spend $160,000 then it is worth it to fly somewhere and fly one. The 'How abouts' will never get it. If you want more useful load, then take a look at the CTLS-club version, it weighs 730 lbs empty. Yes I have flown in a SW, long enough to know that I personally would not own one. I have a Cessna 182 and other airplanes that I fly. I just sold an SI to a 6'2 260lb guy who just had a hip replacement and before he bought the airplane, he sat in it for over an hour to see if he would be comfortable. Flight design is selling a lot of new airplanes, why, because they are the best out there. Take a good long test flight and decide for yourself. Gbigs congrats on you new airplane! I know you will love it. You are lucky you can afford one. Is a race to 10,000 feet 'thoroughly irrelevant'? Of course it is...but thorough entertainment? You bet! and just silly. Gbigs, I know you throttle these guys on purpose. Please try and hold back a little and then brag when you get your airplane. I look forward to doing some fly outs with you. I do think you would be very entertaining to chat with in person (no politics please). Happy flying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flight Design does post here on occasion. Is there someplace they post more? This site has more information and experience represented than any other I know of. Yes, there is disagreement, most of the time it is healthy and intelligent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... I just sold an SI to a 6'2 260lb guy who just had a hip replacement and before he bought the airplane, he sat in it for over an hour to see if he would be comfortable. .

 

On the demo flight how many gallons of fuel could you legaly carry when you took him up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, I have not flown a CTLSi yet, but I will get to someday. I do have quite a bit of time flying several different CT's. Three that I have owned and several that belong to customers. The SW is a wonderful airplanes to fly, and there are things it does better than a CTLS. I think that when people read these forums that they should be able to get correct information about the airplane whether it comes from you, me, gbigs, or anyone else. Call it nit picking if you want , but there are things from your last post that are not right.

The new airplane has 3 fuel tanks and not 2. One in each wing plus the header tank.

The no bounce gear was introduced on the CTLS in Jan. 2008 and is not new to the CTLSi.

It is your opinion that the tundrs gear is better, and not fact. If the Tundra tires were better they would be put on all of the new airplanes and not just an option. I didn't like the way the airplane landed on the one I flew with the bigger tires.

There are other tings that only time in service with the airplane will prove to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...No bounce landing gear is better,

bigger tundra tires is better.

Latest avionics and warranty are better...

 

You will never convince a lot of these guy's who have to much time on their hands and will pick apart every smallest detail, take words out of context and say "there it is", but have not seen or have not flown one. You will never convince these detractors.

 

Again, I don't hear anyone being unfair at all. Isnt the gear the same? What do you mean 'no bounce'? Tell us about the wing spar change that you mentioned earlier. I have 6x600 tundra gear on my old CTSW, does the CTLSi have bigger yet?

Are latest avionics exclusive to the CTLSi?

 

While you correct bigs you seem to continue to make the design out to be better in ways that go beyond the fuel injection and related items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my 600-6 tires look right to my eyes and the 4" tires don't. Given that even a normal landing for me at home is +5kts ground speed and if the winds are crazy it could be +45kts I see them not as tundra gear but just normal or not light duty gear.

 

When my wheel pants where off it didn't cost me any speed that I could tell, I have to wonder if the tire/wheel size would cost much speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tundra gear will take away from both speed and useful load. I have the tundra gear and would probably order it again. However, if you will not be operating off unpaved runways and will not be doing frequent taxi on grass, gravel, etc, then you probably don't need it.

 

At one time you had to buy the tundra option to get tougher landing gear legs and attach points but that is no longer true.

 

Bigger tires will roll easier on gravel, unimproved surfaces, etc. This means less stress on the gear and less chance of prop damage.

 

Now, since I don't get off pavement much, and if I was buying a new LSi that probably weighs in north of 830 when delivered, I would want to know the tundra extra weight. If minuscule, I would go with it - say 5#. More than 10, I may not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planes do not evolve at a rate similar to cars and trucks. Your comparison of a 10 years of change in the popular Toyota truck compared to offering a fuel injected CTLS ( 1 year change ) is about as unfair as your straw man.

 

Straw man = But the debate here is whether as some contend that the new CTLSi is not worth the money, and not an improvement over the older planes. No one is having that debate, instead we are pointing out that the fuel injected model is merely that, a fuel injected CTLS. The seachange you discribe isn't what is being offered, that is the argument.

 

Those who persist is pretending otherwise are basically accusing FD of hyping and not delivering. I take issue with that.

 

That's just silly. You are putting words in my mouth.

 

You, and to a small extent Ron are the ones doing the hyping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd really like to have the old forum back. You know, the one where the focus was on technical, training and maintenance issues. And the answers were accurate, brief and polite. Where did that forum go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed - you got it. Every so often I'll be parked next to a cub, husky, whatever on true tundra tires. Sometimes I mention that our two planes have something in common. When they ask what, and I tell them, it can get comical. The last guy is still rolling around on the ramp laughing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...