Jump to content

MOSAIC Announcement consequences


Recommended Posts

The results of the FAA’s MOSAIC regulation LSA are due to be released.   Some think they will announce at Sun n Fun or Oshkosh.   There has been talk that LSA might encompass some 4 seat certified planes.  ‘My question is what will happen to the current LSA market (both used and new) if LSA pilots can now fly a number of certified aircraft? Would this dump a number of 2 seat 1320# aircraft into the used market as pilots look to upgrade?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be a small percentage of 1320 airplanes sell, but most of the CT owners have them because they are a modern airplane. I don't think they will be willing to give up the modern airplanes for some vintage 4 place bird. New 4 place airplanes are quite expensive. Besides it is still to early the speculate what the FAA will do. Their track record of making positive changes is less than stellar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 10 year old daughter, so family flying requires 3 seats. When I bought my CT, I thought for sure I’d sell it for an old 4 seat plane if the upcoming rule change allowed it. Now, I have my doubts. I really enjoy the CT, and as Tom stated, there is something special about owning a more modern airplane than a 50 year old one. If 2 seats were all I needed, I wouldn’t even think of selling the CT.

I’ve also heard that the rule changes may allow sport pilots to fly four seat airplanes, but only carry one passenger. If that’s the case, I’ll definitely be keeping the CT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I am fine with my CT for what it is and the type of flying I do.  I doubt I'd sell it for a four-seat certified airplane that drinks 8-10gph, needs a $3500 cylinder every few hundred hours,  and has $2500+ annuals.  What I would really like to see is Sport Pilots allowed to fly night VFR with an endorsement, as well as flight up to 17,999ft MSL.  That would really make my flying experience complete and more flexible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really agree with your comments. Why can’t night flight be another sign off like controlled airspace. I would bet most flying under sport pilot rules are like me, private pilots that don’t have medicals,  but with prior night flight experience.

And altitude… living near the Sierra Mountains makes it interesting. Peaks over 14k feet. It only takes about 20 minutes to cross the tall stuff, but I’d really like to give myself more than a 2000 ft cushion when over 10k feet. While I obviously don’t cross the 14k areas, I do have to go above 10k often. I just want more than 2k feet above the ground in case there is a problem, so I’d have a little more time to problem solve. Even downdrafts can eat that 2k feet up quickly. Their rule seems to prevent safe flying, not to support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we will see a surge of LSA owners selling to get into a 4 seater. I for one don't feel like taking 3 others with me anywhere LOL.

I'm happy to keep my modern 2006 airplane vs. say a 60's/70's Bonanza or Cessna. Have you seen the annual bills on those? 

I would like to see  the rules change to allow more weight, allow night flight with a sign-off, more HP on engines and a higher KT rating. Constant speed prop would be great too.

Why? I'd love to own a RV3B/RV4 or a Rutan Long-EZ one day. Technically you could make the RV3B fit into LSA rules, but I would really like a 4 model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Syber said:

I don't think we will see a surge of LSA owners selling to get into a 4 seater. I for one don't feel like taking 3 others with me anywhere LOL.

I might like a four seater just for the carryimg capacity.  I'd almost never take more than one additional person, but I could see me hauling a lot of camping gear or other cago around.  But again the additional expense makes that a hard sell for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another perspective:  

I bought and learned to fly in a CTLS and got my PPL about 2 years ago.  I bought my plane not for it's LSA rating but for everything it offered such as a parachute, modern airframe and avionics and engine and speed.   I never entertained the Sport Pilot rating as I knew I would someday move up to a 4 seater.

The CT was a great airplane to learn in and has been awesome to fly but I could routinely use 4 seats/cargo and more speed.  And to clarify what I mean by 4 seats, at least once a quarter I travel somewhere where another couple would go with and more than that I have the need to travel with luggage that doesn't easily conform to the baggage area for the CT.(My wife just doesn't like the idea of soft sided bags)  I considered building a Sling TSi due to my love for the Rotax engines.  Airtime Aviation is on my field and I have talked with them regularly about the upcoming F4 but there's no definite date and it would most likely be similar to the TSi but less baggage space.  I suspect that Flight Design is holding off on finalizing the airframe until the ruling comes out. 

I eventually settled on an RV10 due to the increased speed and ability to have a parachute and air conditioning while still carrying 4 passengers.  Based out of Oklahoma it seems like there's 20 knots of headwind both coming and going so the extra speed really makes a difference.  I have no interest in a certified airplane for the reasons I listed above and the extra cost for maintenance/ownership.

I just finished up a Kitfox S7 and chose not to register it as an LSA because I put a constant speed propeller on it and won't gamble on what the mosaic ruling does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gilligan's Airport said:

Do we have any idea if Flight Design might increase the weight limit for the existing CTs in the fleet, if permissible and in line with the final MOSAIC rules (if or when MOSAIC ever gets finalized)?

This has been brought up before.  I can see that possibly happening for the current CT Super Sport and F2 models to increase sales.  I do *not* see this happening for CT 2000, CTSW, or CTLS/LSi models.  From a business perspective, there is no upside.  The airplanes are already sold and there is nothing but liability for the company in increasing the weight limits.

That said, there might be a path forward to higher weights for the "legacy airplanes that are E-LSA.  I guess time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Jabiru basically turned a 4 place aircraft into a 2 seat aircraft and derated the weight limit  to meet USA LSA standards and if that could be retro fitted with 1 or 2 more seats (and have a rotax engine) I would think it would be a great option. 

This was my first choice of aircraft but I just couldn't get over the Jabiru engine reliability and maintenance costs.

 Even with the newer Gen4 version there are many complaints on the forum. I was on both engine forums (Rotax and Jabiru) and the number of posts with issues seemed 100 to 1 more on the Jabiru.

As one poster in  Australian said " if you want a Jabiru you just have to own a paddock and sooner or later one will have done a forced landing there." 

 

Cheers,

Ken

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

This has been brought up before.  I can see that possibly happening for the current CT Super Sport and F2 models to increase sales.  I do *not* see this happening for CT 2000, CTSW, or CTLS/LSi models.  From a business perspective, there is no upside.  The airplanes are already sold and there is nothing but liability for the company in increasing the weight limits.

That said, there might be a path forward to higher weights for the "legacy airplanes that are E-LSA.  I guess time will tell.

What are we talking about here? 10, 30, 50 lbs more?   Is it safe to fly 20 lbs over gross? 
Asking for a friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind the CTLE (same airplane, but equipped with surveillance equipment for law enforcement) is allowed to fly at 1500 lbs gross.  I'm not suggesting one flys over 1320 from a legal and proper judgement perspective, but from my perspective this is more of a regulatory line in the sand verse a performance and safety mater in a CT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bill3558 said:

What are we talking about here? 10, 30, 50 lbs more?   Is it safe to fly 20 lbs over gross? 
Asking for a friend.

Personally, I don’t sweat if I have to go temporarily over gross for 20-40 lbs due to extra fuel because of a particularly long leg or something along these lines ( which is rare anyway ) but I definitely consider it to be an exception and don’t want to make it into a habit …

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GrassStripFlyBoy said:

Keep in mind the CTLE (same airplane, but equipped with surveillance equipment for law enforcement) is allowed to fly at 1500 lbs gross.  I'm not suggesting one flys over 1320 from a legal and proper judgement perspective, but from my perspective this is more of a regulatory line in the sand verse a performance and safety mater in a CT.

While I would not advocate flying an airplane over gross weight in violation of the FARs, it is true that the CTLE has an exemption for a higher gross.  Additionally, two ATP pilots got exemptions and flew two CTSWs around the world at 1675lb.  I don't think the problem is one of safety, it's more one of compliance with the FARs and insurance.  Remember that if you have an incident and are found to be operating over gross weight, you might have to "convince" the insurance company to pay out.  I don't think they would actually refuse to pay the claim, but you might be uninsurble after that with any insurer.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I flew a Jabiru 250 and it was even more control uncoordinated than the CT.  No fun to fly.  Also, 15 years ago, the tank wouldn't take ethanol, based on my observations during a visit to the US facility in Tennessee.

The planes that flew around the world had the extra weight in the wings.  That is a lot different than extra weight in the fuselage which has to be supported by the wings.  Weight in the wings does not contribute so much to the wing bending moment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jim Meade said:

I flew a Jabiru 250 and it was even more control uncoordinated than the CT.  No fun to fly.  Also, 15 years ago, the tank wouldn't take ethanol, based on my observations during a visit to the US facility in Tennessee.

The planes that flew around the world had the extra weight in the wings.  That is a lot different than extra weight in the fuselage which has to be supported by the wings.  Weight in the wings does not contribute so much to the wing bending moment.

 

How was the weight in the wings? I thought they removed the passenger seat and put tanks there and in baggage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jim Meade said:

I flew a Jabiru 250 and it was even more control uncoordinated than the CT.  No fun to fly.  Also, 15 years ago, the tank wouldn't take ethanol, based on my observations during a visit to the US facility in Tennessee.

The planes that flew around the world had the extra weight in the wings.  That is a lot different than extra weight in the fuselage which has to be supported by the wings.  Weight in the wings does not contribute so much to the wing bending moment.

 

The passenger seats were removed and replaced with large fuel tanks, based on the pictures I saw...not all the weight was in the wings.  What can you put in the wings, without sawing big holes in them?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sandpiper said:

How was the weight in the wings? I thought they removed the passenger seat and put tanks there and in baggage. 

That was my understanding.

Anyway, back to the original question, another consideration is that the float version of the CT has a weight of 1430lb.  While the floats do contribute some lift to the airplane, I don't know if they support the entire 110lb weight difference (seems unlikely).  Also, I do know of at least one pilot that regularly flies above 1400lb in a CT and has no issues with that.  Just remember that once you exceed manufacturer's specifications, you become a test pilot.  Also a factor is that the CT's parachute is rated for 1350lb -- anything beyond that and a deployment is in unknown territory.  It would probably still work, but the descent rate would be higher and the chances of injury or death are greater.

Also remember the weak link in the airframe is *not* the wings...it's the tail.  Once some years ago I found some engineering data on the CT's wing load factors, and determined with some napkin math that the failure point for the wings was above an 8g load at maximum gross weight.  So overloading the airframe by 10% is unlikely to pose any danger to the wings at any reasonable maneuvering wing loading.

The tail is a different problem.  The all-moving stabilator type tail is generally the weakest form of airplane tail, and if you look at the CT design (at least on the SW), the entire tail is held in place by a single large bolt and some reinforced bearings on each side, and I don't really know how strong horizontal stab structure itself is.  The +4/-2 rating on the airframe is likely a limitation of the tail components.  I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I'm assuming that the forces on the tail are above being linear, meaning that a 10% higher gross weight puts more than 10% additional stress on the tail.  In any event, if I were to fly above gross weight by more than a few pounds, I'd be careful about hard maneuvering or flying in moderate or higher turbulence that could put additional stress on the horizontal stabilator.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure they at least doubled the fuel in the wings by adding outboard fuel tanks. This was in addition to the fuel carried in the cockpit.

Andy, I am pretty sure the floats will provide the 110 pounds of lift to support the weight increase. The bad thing is that the floats added to the CT weigh about double the allowed weight increase, even further reducing the useful load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

I'm pretty sure they at least doubled the fuel in the wings by adding outboard fuel tanks. This was in addition to the fuel carried in the cockpit.

Andy, I am pretty sure the floats will provide the 110 pounds of lift to support the weight increase. The bad thing is that the floats added to the CT weigh about double the allowed weight increase, even further reducing the useful load.

Thanks for the clarification on the floats!

As to the increased wing tank volume...how?  Did they cut the tops on the wings and add fuel tanks?  There's no way to get tanks or bladders in the stock wings unless you do major surgery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Thanks for the clarification on the floats!

As to the increased wing tank volume...how?  Did they cut the tops on the wings and add fuel tanks?  There's no way to get tanks or bladders in the stock wings unless you do major surgery.

On the floats all of the airplanes where I have looked at the specifications the gross weight was increased based on the lift produced by the floats.

I think the fuel tanks were added at the factory, or maybe by Flight Design Technique. They were fashioned the same as the stock tanks, just located outboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

On the floats all of the airplanes where I have looked at the specifications the gross weight was increased based on the lift produced by the floats.

I think the fuel tanks were added at the factory, or maybe by Flight Design Technique. They were fashioned the same as the stock tanks, just located outboard.

Yes you are correct Tom, the extra tanks were done at the factory. It is not a difficult job because the extra tanks are just using the space next to the spar the same as the inboard tanks. They had an extra filler on the outboard end and were connected at the rib at the outside end of the original tank by a pipe between the two. Control on the prototype setup was by a fuel tap operated with a screwdriver, Not sure but the final version control was by a solenoid I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CTLS.  Wing tanks 80 gallons, aux seat tank 31 gallon.  Pages 12, 13 "Azimut270", Yannick Bovier, 

Kent Johnson, formerly FD dealer at Stanton airfield, MN, had some work done on a repair job by  the FD technician who installed the tanks and Kent told me about them.

Yeah, I know it's upside down.  I don't know how to correct it.

 

Azimut270.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...