Delivery delay and delivery problems

[gbigs]

For the record.  The FD is just one of my planes now. We plan to keep the FD as a patch plane and a toy for the wife to fly her friends around.

 

(note. I assumed the RV-12 was able to burn 91E10 mogas straight from the pump as I have done in the FD (today paid $2.38/gal).  93UL non ethanol fuel is not available in the West but it can be burned in the FD as can 100LL) 

[FlyingMonkey]

That's somewhat of a false argument however.  Just leave out 10 gallons of fuel.

Not a false argument at all. Put twenty gallons in each airplane (120lb). In the CTLSi you now have 360lb left for people and gear. In the RV-12 you have 430lb for people and gear. 70lb is not a tiny difference. Sure, you can load up 34 gallons in the CT and fly a six hour leg...but now your remaining load is 275lb...it's a one seat airplane.

[gbigs]

Not a false argument at all. Put twenty gallons in each airplanes (120lb). In the CTLSi you now have 360lb left for people and gear. In the RV-12 you have 430lb for people and gear. 70lb is not a tiny difference. Sure, you can load up 34 gallons in the CT and fly a six hour leg...but now your remaining load is 275lb...it's a one seat airplane.

 

I weigh 185, the wife 90.  It's a two seat airplane. 

 

Btw. no one runs full fuel nor flys for eight hours straight single pilot (4gph / 34 gals with .5 hr reserve), at least not comfortably or safely.   In fact, every aircraft spec assumes a tradeoff between fuel/baggage and people.  That includes certified 4/6 seat GA aircraft in production...  Cessna, Cirrus, Piper, Moonies and Diamonds. 

[Top Cat]

For the record.  The FD is just one of my planes now. We plan to keep the FD as a patch plane and a toy for the wife to fly her friends around.

 

(note. I assumed the RV-12 was able to burn 91E10 mogas straight from the pump as I have done in the FD (today paid $2.38/gal).  93UL non ethanol fuel is not available in the West but it can be burned in the FD as can 100LL) 

The RV-12 is approved to burn 91octane with ethanol . I prefer to burn non-ethanol 93, higher octane, no ethanol.

[Anticept]

The RV-12 is approved to burn 91octane with ethanol . I prefer to burn non-ethanol 93, higher octane, no ethanol.

 

Higher octane than rated is actually slightly less efficient because of the extra additives that displace the fuel.

 

We run 93 with ethanol for three reasons. 1) if the fuel begins to decay, it will never go below 91 (10% ethanol boosts 2 octane points). 2) can't find non-ethanol in our state that isn't in the middle of BFE. 3) most stations only have a couple of fuel tanks, and mix 89 and 93 to make the stuff in between. I really don't want to find out the hard way that the 93 pump was malfunctioning and I only got 89 when I asked for 91.

 

912 ULS can actually run on 90 bare minimum, but as with every other safety factor, they report 91 in the manual.

[IrishAl]

It seems like the one constant criticism/drawback of the current FD offering is weight.  (Eg. Andy says the low useful load is a dealbreaker for more than 50% of potential customers.)

 

Are any of the lighter, non-injection models still bought in any numbers?

 

I can't help thinking that if FD introduced an LSA version of their European CT Supralight to the USA market (it is basically a CTSW with CTLS landing gear and winglets) a lot of people would buy it - it would be a fair bit cheaper and it would provide a superb useful load at 1320lbs gross.

[Anticept]

I asked Tom about this a little while ago. For some reason, people in this country want to load it up with all the features they can possibly buy. Weight seems of little concern when orders are placed. Once in a while, they do get a carbeurated LS order still though.

 

I think he did mention that you could order a supralight. They just don't advertise it because nobody seems to want them here.

[FlyingMonkey]

There is also a possibility than many CTLS/CTLSi owners just fly them over the legal gross weight.

 

That's another advantage of an airplane with a generous useful load -- there is less temptation to erode safety margins by flying too heavy "just this once".

[FastEddieB]

Eddie,

 

  After your demo flight in the Sky Arrow what were the deciding factors that made you and Karen buy it? What other airplanes did you consider and how did they compare?

 

I actually first became somewhat enamored with the Sky Arrow at Oshkosh 2006.

 

It stood out mainly by being quirky and different. Having owned two Citabrias, I really prefer tandem seating and Karen claims not to mind. The visibility is fantastic - the wing is so far back that its invisible to the pilot for all practical purposes, and nearly so for the passenger. The passenger also sits higher than the pilot, so there's not the same feeling of being in a cave as there is in a Cub or Citabria. Also liked the solid feel of the side stick, using control rods rather than cables for the elevator and ailerons.

 

Build quality seemed high, and the company, 3i, had a track record going back to 1947, which provided some comfort compared to some of the Johnny-come-latelies. Though that still did not protect them from the equivalent of bankruptcy. Fortunately, they were bought out by a much larger company, Magnaghi, so there's still support. Reliability has been very good. Price was right - $75.5k in 2007, though they are now a tad over $100k for an only slightly improved model.

 

Drawbacks are:

 

High empty weight (856 lbs now with a lighter battery - it was over 860 from the factory). 

Limited fuel - 17.8 usable.

Cruise speed just below 100k.

Engine access a bit awkward, requiring a ladder for most things. 

 

But I was coming from a Cirrus SR22, so I've had the pleasure of IFR flight on long cross countries. Been there, done that. I was mainly looking for "fun to fly" and the Sky Arrow is certainly that! Flight plan for 95k and legs of about 250 nm.

 

I had looked at LSA Cub replicas - I really like taildraggers - and glanced at the CT but it was well out of my self-imposed price range.

 

Thanks for asking!

[Ian]

Eddie you might like to take a look at this site

 

http://www.nickray.plus.com/gioia/index.htm

 

it would appear there are 13 Sky Arrows on the UK register compared with 7 CTLS, 47 CTSW and 19 CT2Ks

[gbigs]

It seems like the one constant criticism/drawback of the current FD offering is weight.  (Eg. Andy says the low useful load is a dealbreaker for more than 50% of potential customers.)

 

Are any of the lighter, non-injection models still bought in any numbers?

 

I can't help thinking that if FD introduced an LSA version of their European CT Supralight to the USA market (it is basically a CTSW with CTLS landing gear and winglets) a lot of people would buy it - it would be a fair bit cheaper and it would provide a superb useful load at 1320lbs gross.

 

Ah, but Andy is wrong.  The CTLSi is still the best selling S-LSA.  The Carbon Cub is an STOL and not really a pure LSA given its over limit engine HP.  

 

Remember the RV-12 only has a 20 gallon tank.  If the FD only put in 20 gallons (and it would still fly nearly twice as far on that fuel) its useful load would increase by 84 lbs.

 

And FD does it with the widest cabin and best safety features of them in all. 

[Top Cat]

Ah, but Andy is wrong.  The CTLSi is still the best selling S-LSA.  The Carbon Cub is an STOL and not really a pure LSA given its over limit engine HP.  

 

Remember the RV-12 only has a 20 gallon tank.  If the FD only put in 20 gallons (and it would still fly nearly twice as far on that fuel) its useful load would increase by 84 lbs.

 

And FD does it with the widest cabin and best safety features of them in all. 

 

  If you use 810 lbs empty weight, from FD, and use $100 Burgers numbers, his wife and he weigh 275, full fuel is 204 (34 gals?) and he says baggage is 110 lbs. That comes to 1399 lbs or 79 lbs overweight.

  So lets say the baggage has to fly so to get the weight down you need to lose 13 gals so that leaves 21 gals. Close to Andy's number of 20 gals.

 

 If you say you have to have full fuel then you'd have to take off 79lbs of baggage leaving 31 lbs . 19 lbs less than the RV-12 with 20 gals.

 

This is using FD's empty weight, no one knows what $100 Burgers plane's weight is because he won't tell us. I assume that FD's number is conservative and doesn't include a few options. The BRS would weigh maybe 25-30 lbs? If that's true then in my example above with full fuel they could take no bags.

 

In $100 Burger's own words:-

"

I weigh 185, the wife 90.  It's a two seat airplane. 

 

Btw. no one runs full fuel nor flys for eight hours straight single pilot (4gph / 34 gals with .5 hr reserve), at least not comfortably or safely.   In fact, every aircraft spec assumes a tradeoff between fuel/baggage and people."

 

 Agreed…with LSAs it's usually a trade-off with weight and fuel to allow the mission. But…if no-one flies solo with max fuel of 34 gals because of comfort and safety as Burger stated and you can only fly with 31 lbs of bags (maybe none if the empty weight is increased with pitons and the BRS) then what's the point of having a 34 gal fuel capacity?

 In Burger's case he and his wife could carry say 25 gals of fuel and 85 lbs of bags in order to complete a cross country. Again this assumes the 810 empty weight and because of their light weights ( if they were typical 200 and 150lb persons they'd lose another 75 lbs of useful load).

 

 Point being, it's one thing to boast and brag about the airplane's brochure, but in reality, as he admits, there is a trade off in order to complete the mission. In that regard I fail to see the need to diss and bash another aircraft with a fuel capacity of 20 gals and baggage of 50 lbs when in real world reality he admits that his plane would have to compromise on baggage and fuel load in order to meet gross weight.

  If the real empty weight of his plane is closer to 850 lbs say then with he and his wife's weights of 275 his plane would be over by 119 lbs. If he went with 20 gals and 75 lbs of bags he's okay. Close to the 20 gal and 50 lb baggage airplane he's bashing. If his plane was flown with people with more typical weights say a 200 lb hubby and a 150 lb wife then the plane is over by 244 lbs with full fuel and bags. Even with 20 gals and no bags it's 50 lbs over weight because of the much higher empty weight, another point that Andy made earlier and was bashed for.

 

  This is the dilemma raised in an earlier post. Customers want planes with all the toys and then when their personal mission is attempted they can't do it because of the LSA weight limit.

  In truth they want sport flying yet the plane suffers from equipment/options creep. I know of a guy who bought a demo plane with barely 300 lbs useful load. he's hardly flown it in 2 years. paid well over 200k for it and has been fighting with the manufacturer since.

 Not a great experience and so much grief could have been avoided if the guy had looked at his mission and bought the plane accordingly.

[Tom Baker]

Ah, but Andy is wrong.  The CTLSi is still the best selling S-LSA.  The Carbon Cub is an STOL and not really a pure LSA given its over limit engine HP.  

I think an airplane is either a LSA or it is not. It is like being pregnant, either you are or your not.

[FlyingMonkey]

Ah, but Andy is wrong.  The CTLSi is still the best selling S-LSA.  The Carbon Cub is an STOL and not really a pure LSA given its over limit engine HP.  

 

Remember the RV-12 only has a 20 gallon tank.  If the FD only put in 20 gallons (and it would still fly nearly twice as far on that fuel) its useful load would increase by 84 lbs.

 

And FD does it with the widest cabin and best safety features of them in all. 

 

You have some mass confusion going on here.

 

First, I'm not wrong.  Even if the CTLSi is the best selling LSA (current market numbers say otherwise), that has nothing to do with how many airplanes they WOULD sell if the useful load was back up over 550lb.

 

How do you figure useful load would increase with smaller tanks?!?  Useful is goss weight - empty aircraft weight.  A smaller tank would not change useful load at all, it would just give less options to fill the tanks with more fuel.  Big tanks are great, and very useful.  But whether a CTLSi has 34 gallon tanks or 3.4 gallon tanks, the useful load is still the same if the empty weight doesn't change!

 

The ONLY things that can increase useful load are an increase in gross weight (not possible with LSA), or a decrease in empty weight.  Period, full stop.

[FastEddieB]

 Customers want planes with all the toys...

 

It sure seems like most do.

 

But I seem to fit in a class that has, in fact, owned a plane with a LOT of toys - in my case a 2003 SR22*. At some point each additional option/goody/system/feature becomes just another thing to maintain and to mess with and to distract from the pure joy of flying.

 

Someone here bragged he never had to touch the controls for most of a flight. Sorry, that takes a lot of the "Sport" out of "Sport Flying" - for me, anyway.

 

Along these lines a lot of airline pilots get their jollies in Cubs and Luscombs and Taylorcraft and Ercoupes and the like.

 

But to each his own.

 

 

*Avidyne PFD/MFD, dual 430's, STEC autopilot, traffic, TKS, CAPS, oxygen, all that good stuff. Of course, new ones have a lot more!

[Doug G.]

Silliness! It is nice to know the stats, but since Burgers well never admit being even remotely wrong (even though he has said his perfect plane is being downgraded to a "toy" so he can have his next perfect plane) he is not open reason or rational thought. He enjoys contradicting what others say. It is a gotcha game. (Have you noticed he continually occupies three or four eternal optimists who think they can get reasonable thought from him?)

The RV-12 is a very good plane, so is the Sky Arrow, so is the CTLSi, and the CTLS which I happen to own.

I also currently own a couple of Forda, but I don't go around telling people their Chevys are worse vehicles - because it was just their choice.

I would love to fly in any of your planes.

[Ed Cesnalis]

... A smaller tank would not change useful load at all...

 

A smaller tank might weigh less ???

[Top Cat]

"Remember the RV-12 only has a 20 gallon tank.  If the FD only put in 20 gallons (and it would still fly nearly twice as far on that fuel) its useful load would increase by 84 lbs."

 

This is voodoo-math by 100Hamburger.

 

Assuming a 20 gallon tank  allowing 3 gals for reserve leaves 17 gallons.

 

If the Sport engine in his plane burns 3.5 gph then 17 gallons gives 4.9 hours.

 

If the ULS engine burns 4.8 gph then 17 gallons gives 3.5 hours.

 

4.9 hours is 40% more than 3.5 hours.  Hardly 'nearly twice as far'.

 

Assuming full fuel of 34 gallons or 204 lbs, and 20 gallons being 120 lbs, then using only 20 gallons is 84 lbs less load but this has nothing to do with useful load, as Andy pointed out. Is this where the 84 lb number came from?

 

"And FD does it with the widest cabin and best safety features of them all".

 

I would argue here that a competent and safe pilot is the best safety feature.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I would argue here that a competent and safe pilot is the best safety feature.

 

Well said

[Top Cat]

Silliness! It is nice to know the stats, but since Burgers well never admit being even remotely wrong (even though he has said his perfect plane is being downgraded to a "toy" so he can have his next perfect plane) he is not open reason or rational thought. He enjoys contradicting what others say. It is a gotcha game. (Have you noticed he continually occupies three or four eternal optimists who think they can get reasonable thought from him?)

The RV-12 is a very good plane, so is the Sky Arrow, so is the CTLSi, and the CTLS which I happen to own.

I also currently own a couple of Forda, but I don't go around telling people their Chevys are worse vehicles - because it was just their choice.

I would love to fly in any of your planes.

 

  Doug,

 

 Good post, good points.

 

 Don't expect 'reasonable thought' but do offer a factual response to factual inaccuracies, especially when there are folks lurking who may assume that the poster  left unchallenged is therefore 'right' by default.

[WmInce]

"The best safety device in any aircraft is a well trained pilot."

[FredG]

...but do offer a factual response to factual inaccuracies, especially when there are folks lurking who may assume that the poster  left unchallenged is therefore 'right' by default.

 

As a cartoon posted on POA noted,

 

From outside the cartoon frame a voice says:  "Honey, come to bed, it's late."

Man sitting in front of computer replies:  "I can't... someone just wrote something incorrect on the Internet..."

 

Good luck.

[Top Cat]

As a cartoon posted on POA noted,

 

From outside the cartoon frame a voice says:  "Honey, come to bed, it's late."

Man sitting in front of computer replies:  "I can't... someone just wrote something incorrect on the Internet..."

 

Good luck.

Now that's funny!!  True….but funny!

[WmInce]

As a cartoon posted on POA noted,

 

From outside the cartoon frame a voice says:  "Honey, come to bed, it's late."

Man sitting in front of computer replies:  "I can't... someone just wrote something incorrect on the Internet..."

 

I can think of only one individual on this entire forum who chronically does that . . . and we all know who he is.

He posts crap and when called out, promptly leaves the scene . . only to strike again on another thread.

He is the only dude on my twit filter.  Pay him little or no attention.

[Doug G.]

Doug,

 

Good post, good points.

 

Don't expect 'reasonable thought' but do offer a factual response to factual inaccuracies, especially when there are folks lurking who may assume that the poster left unchallenged is therefore 'right' by default.

Exactly what he thrives on.