Runtoeat Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 Recently "Flying" magazine published an column titled "Rising Stars: LSA Universe". I eagerly opened the magazine, expecting to read about the latest LSA airplanes, fully expecting to see something on the CTLSi or at least something on the CTLS. Much to my dissapointment, there was no mention of the CTLS. Instead, Flying mag touted the Carbon Cub with a Titan CC340 180 hp engine that's derated to 80 hp for cruise (uh, huh, gotta keep th 120kt limit), has a range of 361Nm and costs over $200K as being something the masses should consider if interested in the LSA universe of of avaiable aircraft. Seems like "Flying" still doesn't "get it" when it comes to LSA being a class of lightweight economical aircraft. I sent a letter to Flying mag and they published it in this month's (August) issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 Saw it. Nice. I'm sure it reflected the opinion of many readers. tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 With the Carbon Cub having a Vno of 101 and a Vne of 141 MILES PER HOUR, not knots, I doubt that they are worried about the 120 knot speed limit. The limit that they are trying to meet is one set by ASTM dealing with weight. To meet the standards the empty weight must allow for a specified weight for each seat, ( I don't remember the exact number), plus 1 pound of fuel for each max cont. HP. If the weight is 180 per person and 80 hp you need an empty weight less than 880. At least that is my understanding on the weights. Please post your reply to Flying here for us to see. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT2kflyer Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 "Flying" magazine definitely "doesn't get it. Flying magazine does't want to get it............ they have a different audience in mind - someone who wants to buy a new Light Jet, or a new Pilatus. "Plane and Pilot" has guys like us in mind, but we are not even on the "Flying" magazine's radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted July 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 CT2kflyer, exactly, but if the Flying mag is going to lower themselves and report on something in the LSA world, at least be relevant. I wonder if perhaps those who publish Flying may sense that their audience isn't getting any younger and the day is fast arriving when they will no longer be able to keep their medicals and must give up their Phenoms and settle for a LSA to stay in the air? Tom, you might be correct about the reasoning for the speed limiting. Seems I read that the driver for the large engine with high horsepower and the derating for this engine was to provide tremendous "climb out" for bush usage while under full 180hp while limiting speeds to the LSA max of 120kts with the derated 80hp. All easy to arrange with the Titan engine FADEC system. My note sent to Flying mag follows: As a light sport owner, your June issue article “Rising Stars: LSA Universe” immediately got my interest. Come on now, is a $200,000 Carbon Cub that offers a 361mn range truly an LSA “Rising star”? Where was the Flight Design CTLS, which is the best selling LSA and offers best-in-class cabin dimensions, range, usable load and a max speed of 120 knots, while still happy landing on short grass strips? If this isn’t cool and unique, what is? Dick Harrison Belleville, Michigan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 The article was off in my book not because it included the Carbon Cub, (which is the #2 best seller if memory serves) but rather because the other planes mentioned had a combined installed base I can count on 2 hands. I too was completely expecting to read about our plane as one of the "stars"... Oh well. Hey, btw while mentioning the Carbon Cub, don't forget that the same plane if purchased as a non LSA has a much higher useful load. They have an ability to de-rate and sell it as an LSA so they do, but the same plane certified as the "Top Cub" has a useful load of 2300 lbs (far more than the 1320 limit posted for the LSA variant). Comparing a Carbon Cub to a CTLSi is just wrong. Different animal, different mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 They don't need FADEC for the power to work out, they can just do what the Carbon Cub did...say max continuous rpm is some number that equals 80hp, and anything above that is only allowed for 5min max. This satisfies all the regs and requires no engineering. Sonex/Jabiru does this in the experimental world too with the Jabiru 3300...instead of the normal 2850rpm redline the Sonex-used 3300A has a redline of 2650rpm continuous power, keeping the Sonex barely sport pilot legal. The actual change is just a data plate change on the engine Jabiru will do in either direction for any 3300 engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 Adam - I haven't researched it, but I thought the Carbon Cub and Top Cubs were different airframes or at least that the Top Cub airframe was substantially beefed up. Would be interesting to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted July 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Andy, your explanation makes sense. Adam, I agree. I wanted to keep my note to Flying mag short so I settled on the Carbon Cub and didn't get into questioning how their choices were made. Seems like the magazine needed to fill up some empty space with publishing deadlines approaching and threw this colum together without much thought or research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Adam - I haven't researched it, but I thought the Carbon Cub and Top Cubs were different airframes or at least that the Top Cub airframe was substantially beefed up. Would be interesting to know. Fair point, I should have said the Carbon Cub EX can be certified as an E-LSA for 1320 lbs or as an Experimental at 1865 (same airframe, same engine). The SS, EX and Top Cub all feature the same engine. The SS and EX are the same plane, one is factory built, one is home built. The Top Cub goes to 2300 lbs but does have a beefed up frame. There are a lot of variants! Hard to keep them straight! http://www.cubcrafters.com/aircraft So I guess my point still stands just not to the same degree. (the same airframe can go 540 lbs heavier depending on how you certify it and which one you buy or build). Here is a quote from the website: *The builder is legal to fly the Carbon Cub EX as a "Light Sport" pilot as long as the kit is certified at a maximum weight of 1,320 lbs. Our kit was tested to ASTM standards at a gross weight of 1,865 lbs. If you decide to set the gross weight at 1,865 lbs, you will not be allowed to fly as a "Light Sport" pilot; and you will need a medical and a private pilots license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.