ralarcon Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Ian: granted - it is speculation, but it's important to make a distinction between wild and reasonable speculation. There's a great deal of evidence in the recent trading record of the company and in their recent behaviour to support the speculation. It's very difficult to draw a more positive conclusion, much as I'd like to. Of course their customer response is deplorable, but could this manufacturing problem be caused by their switching production from war torn Ukraine to China ? Do not know, would like to see opinions. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 Agree to disagree. Now how the heck am I going to start a political argument about our government with you if you're just going to be so nice and civilized? Anyways, from a conservative viewpoint, you are right, it should be set exactly. On the other hand, I've never seen an airplane where the performance charts matched! Unless those charts were written from the test of that airplane, there's going to be some differentiation. Especially as a plane ages, or has adjustments or repairs done, these charts are never going to remain accurate. Unless I know they come with fudge factor built in, I put in a fudge factor when reading them! Even my CT POH has a disclaimer that these charts are, paraphrasing, "estimates, and vary on a wide number of factors. Always add a reserve [...]". Tweaking ground adjustable propellers has been very common and accepted since the vintage days of flying. Again, I'd just ask the factory about it (and check prop or other accessory limitations too!). I'd also argue that the manual is telling me how to assemble the prop. What if it's installed already? What if the default installation doesn't match the performance charts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 On the other hand, I've never seen an airplane where the performance charts matched! Unless those charts were written from the test of that airplane, there's going to be some differentiation. Especially as a plane ages, or has adjustments or repairs done, these charts are never going to remain accurate. Unless I know they come with fudge factor built in, I put in a fudge factor when reading them! We have to stop agreeing like this - people are starting to talk! As an instructor, I had to point out to students that performance charts were typically for a brand new plane flown by a test pilot under ideal conditions. By implication, the slightly ratted out C150 they were flying with their limited skill set on a bumpy day could never hope to match the book figures most of the time. Now, let's get back to arguing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrnflyr Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 I don't post here a lot but when I go to "Delay and Delivery Problems" I'm reading about how to adjust a prop? Talk about thread creep! Also, politics all over the place. One person I've blocked (so I don't know what he's saying) seems to have disappeared. Flight Design seems to be going out of business due to misappropriation of funds? Roger Lee and Tim were (are) my idols and they've almost disappeared? What's going on? I would think that Flight Design in trouble would be the only thing that you all are talking about. Believe me, I've own an orphan aircraft and it's only a matter of time before parts become unavailable. If I owned a CT right now, I'd be hammering that company daily with ALL members trying to find out what the heck is going on! A fellow pilot has lost a six digit figure from a fraudulent charge. Stand up and get this company back on track (or dump the C4). That's my political comment. I LOVED my CTLS and feel it's the best LSA out there. It hurts me to no end to see what they're doing to people... Maybe someone could PM me with everything that's going on so I can get caught up. Yes, I own a T182T now, but I've made four Page trips and was even thinking of becoming an LSA instructor with my CTLS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 What was the orphaned aircraft? Anyways, the nice thing is, there is nothing in a CT that is particularly special that a skilled composite repair man and welders can't repair or replace as an experimental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrnflyr Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 Grumman Tiger AA5B. If it wasn't for FletchAir in Houston, I'd never have purchased it. Appears Diamond is hurting too and I owned a DA40. Hey, wait a minute, I hope I'm not causing these airplane companies to go out of business!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 Standard category aircraft are actually a little easier than S-LSA to work with regarding new parts, since anyone can manufacture them, instead of ONLY the mfg :-). Can't say it helps the pocketbook though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrnflyr Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 What was the orphaned aircraft? Anyways, the nice thing is, there is nothing in a CT that is particularly special that a skilled composite repair man and welders can't repair or replace as an experimental. Without permission from the company? When I owned mine, we could barely put a flashlight inside the plane without an approval letter from FD! Maybe things have changed but if the company folded, where does that leave the owners? Free to turn their CT's into anything they want or does the FAA pull their support? Anyway, thread creep again. Back to this poor guy's problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 Without permission from the company? When I owned mine, we could barely put a flashlight inside the plane without an approval letter from FD! Maybe things have changed but if the company folded, where does that leave the owners? Free to turn their CT's into anything they want or does the FAA pull their support? Anyway, thread creep again. Back to this poor guy's problem I said experimental :-) (E-LSA). It's Special Light Sport Aircraft that requires the mfg "or authorized individuals" (still would like the FAA to tell us what that means, since there aren't any DERs (designated engineering representatives) approved for LSA mods...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 Without permission from the company? When I owned mine, we could barely put a flashlight inside the plane without an approval letter from FD! Maybe things have changed but if the company folded, where does that leave the owners? Free to turn their CT's into anything they want or does the FAA pull their support? Anyway, thread creep again. Back to this poor guy's problem As Corey mentioned, the best path at that point would be a conversion from SLSA to ELSA. With an experimental you can repair, replace, alter, or fabricate anything on the airplane, as long as it doesn't take the performance outside of LSA limits. If you bent a gear leg you could make another one. Another benefit is with an ELSA you can do your own annuals after simply taking the 16hr repairman course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrnflyr Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 As Corey mentioned, the best path at that point would be a conversion from SLSA to ELSA. With an experimental you can repair, replace, alter, or fabricate anything on the airplane, as long as it doesn't take the performance outside of LSA limits. If you bent a gear leg you could make another one. Another benefit is with an ELSA you can do your own annuals after simply taking the 16hr repairman course. I think a better option would be to kick FD in the back end and tell them the core of their company are the owners that are already out there, support the new ones who want to buy and put the C4 on the back burner for awhile until their business model improved. I think it's a travesty that a company can do this to an individual while they continue to develop another plane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DECZR Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 One more became nervous and made a site: http://www.flightdesign-airplane.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Took almost no effort to find out who it is and where they are. (sorry sounds stalkerish, I was just curious if this was our lawyer friend again). Lends credibility though when someone isn't hiding their info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIK Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Dear All, This is just a friendly information to all new buyers www.flightdesign-airplane.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 I'm not willing to throw FD under the bus on this. I'd wait for a comment from them. We know the political mess in Ukraine, and FD just opened production in China...there may have been very valid reasons for any delays in the last year or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DECZR Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 I'm not willing to throw FD under the bus on this. I'd wait for a comment from them. We know the political mess in Ukraine, and FD just opened production in China...there may have been very valid reasons for any delays in the last year or two. Not at all! It seems to be a kind of business named pyramid scheme and now days it's the end of the game. I suppose the money was used for C4 project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 The gentleman in Denmark has a valid issue and none of us know all the facts and this isn't worldwide. We don't have any like that here in the US thanks to Tom P. at FDUSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deckofficer Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 This article came out Feb 2 http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2016/February/02/Flight-Design-reduces-lead-time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 There's even more to the story, but you'll have to wait for public announcement. It's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 There's even more to the story,. It's all good. I'm sure you'll agree, Roger, that it's only 'all good' if the customers who paid FD for new aircraft several years ago still get their aircraft. There's no question that FD has been less than transparent in this - withholding hundreds of thousands of dollars of customers' cash for several years with insincere promises and misleading statements is not a minor thing. If the new FD trading entity exercises its legal right to ignore those customers who have paid without receiving an aircraft - and they can do this as FD Germany is no longer in existence - then I'm sure all the honest and right-thinking members of this forum will stand up and demand fair treatment for them. But I'm hoping that you're right, and that it'll be 'all good' in the end. Come on FD, we're all looking to you to do the right thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 I'm sure you'll agree, Roger, that it's only 'all good' if the customers who paid FD for new aircraft several years ago still get their aircraft. There's no question that FD has been less than transparent in this - withholding hundreds of thousands of dollars of customers' cash for several years with insincere promises and misleading statements is not a minor thing. If the new FD trading entity exercises its legal right to ignore those customers who have paid without receiving an aircraft - and they can do this as FD Germany is no longer in existence - then I'm sure all the honest and right-thinking members of this forum will stand up and demand fair treatment for them. But I'm hoping that you're right, and that it'll be 'all good' in the end. Come on FD, we're all looking to you to do the right thing! Insolvency is not bankruptcy, FD Germany is still in existence. It's like Chapter 11 in the United States. Basically, the courts take the company's debt, take a recovery proposal from the company, and keeps a very close eye on them. If they fail in their obligations, creditors can seize assets through the court. I'd love to get my hands on that manufacturing data though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Corey, thanks for the correction. Lots of loose usage of the word bankrupt, and I swallowed it without checking. Well, at least our European customers can rest a little easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Insolvency is not bankruptcy, FD Germany is still in existence. It's like Chapter 11 in the United States. Basically, the courts take the company's debt, take a recovery proposal from the company, and keeps a very close eye on them. If they fail in their obligations, creditors can seize assets through the court. I'd love to get my hands on that manufacturing data though. What is the recovery proposal from the company? Are the guys that didn't get their paid for airplanes listed as creditors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 What is the recovery proposal from the company? Are the guys that didn't get their paid for airplanes listed as creditors? That depends on how German law works. I highly doubt insolvency would shed debts, that's more of a bankruptcy dissolution thing, which for business, is basically when all other options possible have been exhausted. Everything is sold off and it ceases to exist. I bolded and underlined that statement because there are a LOT of options before that final deathknell is sounded, and insolvency is usually quite a ways away from it, so long as there is a course of recovery for the business, that is. Again, insolvency is used relatively often. In this case, FD probably overextended with the C4 project and delays in the FAR rewrites, which pushed them beyond reasonable limits with any lines of credit they had. I speculate that by filing for insolvency, they are not purging their debts, but rather bringing them back into a manageable level, affording both creditors and the business legal protections in exchange for strong legal oversight during the recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 I'm guessing this is a re-org/debt restructuring situation. Probably caused by too much long term capital investment in the C4 and new production facilities, with insufficient cash flow to back it up. Once the C4 is in production and the new plants start producing, the cash flow will probably catch up to the debt. So in the short term they need a plan to let them breathe a bit until that happens. Just my guess, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.