Jump to content

C4 To Be Made In USA


gbigs

Recommended Posts

Of course many airplanes have parts with service life limits, and some airplanes (Like the Piper Tomahawk) even have limits on major components like wings.  Cirrus is the only one I know of with a limit on the entire airframe.  

 

We are not talking about parts.  IIRC the 12,000hr limit is on the entire Cirrus *airframe*, and essentially means when it hits that number it becomes unairworthy and cannot be used.

 

Andy, if you do a little digging the story on the Cirrus airframe limit gets interesting. It sounds like you can go that 12,000 hours without any special inspections on the airframe. Some of the other composite aircraft require major inspections, but have a longer life limit or no limit at all. Cirrus says that when these aircraft start reaching the 12,000 hour mark that the will likely develop some kind of inspection to extend the life of the airframe. The way they make it sound is that the life limit may not actually be a life limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lifespan of composite aircraft is unknown because of the lack of empirical evidence as to their lifespan.  The limit has been increased every time the fleet has neared the previously set lifespan.  Like other airframe types, these will get inspected and judgements will be made.  As far as I know, there hasn't been any evidence pointing to a specific time of failure for composites.  Diamonds have no airframe life limits, and the Cessna Corvalis is rated at 22+K hours.

 

I personally get creaped out by some of the old aluminum skins I see out there.

 

I think the more valid concern for composites is simply time instead of hours.  50+ years of heating cycles, UV light and chemical breakdown would have to cause some problems.  Metals are UV tolerant and generally chemically resistant (minus moisture-related corrosion).

 

Though there are numerous metal planes that fly out of my home airport that I would not get into.  Every airplane is its own test case I suppose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every airplane is its own test case I suppose. 

 

Absolutely correct.

As far as composites, they have been around a long time in the airline, military environment and have shown their drawbacks also.  Airbus soon found out, that their new generation A-320 (1988), was not immune to breakdown from the rigors of extended cycles.  That was an expensive lesson.  They sprang for the repairs at the airline.

With composites, it's about the weight, not necessarily the strength.  If it were about strength, we would all be flying titanium.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.......  If it were about strength, we would all be flying titanium.

 

One of us wouldn't! Haven't we all learned by now that carbon fibre sprinkled with fairy dust outperforms any other material ever used in the aviation industry, or indeed known to man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate over carbon fiber and fiberglass is circular. 

 

Consider both the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A350 XWB are carbon fiber planes.  And of course the most popular 4-seater Cirrus SR22 is all composite.   Same goes for Diamond who makes the most sold twin on the market.   In fact all the most advanced designs are composite, Lancair, the new Mooneys, the Carbon Cub, all the Rutan designs.

 

The day of the metal and rivet beast is fast coming to an end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About that Carbon Cub...

 

"The aircraft's airframe is made from welded steel tubing, aluminum and the judicious use of carbon fiber, covered in doped aircraft fabric."

 

The Carbon Cub Use Of  Composites

  • Cowling, air filter box and spinner
  • Cowl flaps
  • Engine cooling plenum
  • Interior panels
  • Floorboards and front seat base
  • Pilot Seat
  • Wingtips
  • Aft upper baggage compartment

Somehow the Boeing 787 Dreamliner escaped your attention?  Laughing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About that Carbon Cub...

"The aircraft's airframe is made from welded steel tubing, aluminum and the judicious use of carbon fiber, covered in doped aircraft fabric."

All true. A great airplane with awesome power to weight performance.

Flies really well and from what I saw at the Yakima factory, the workmanship is top notch, none better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new $1.9m Cirrus SF50 Jet is also an all composite aircraft and is equipped with a BRS parachute.  It has the Garmin G3000 avionics suite.  And has a 500 order backlog.  The first production planes are just coming off the line just prior to FAA certification.

 

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/jets/new-details-cirrus-jet-program?cmpid=enews042415&spPodID=030&spMailingID=22541521&spUserID=NDcyODMyMzM0MjUS1&spJobID=542582381&spReportId=NTQyNTgyMzgxS0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This unresponsiveness is just plain weird.

 

I sometimes feel the site would be better served if I filled in both sides of the conversation.

 

For instance, I say something like, in regard to the Carbon Cub..."The aircraft's airframe is made from welded steel tubing, aluminum and the judicious use of carbon fiber, covered in doped aircraft fabric."

 

The other side would normally respond with something like, "Wow, Ed! I had no idea! I really, really thought the Carbon Cub was a composite airplane - I mean, half of the name is "Carbon"! I really did not know the basic plane was tube and fabric, using construction techniques that go back 70 or 80 years or more. Construction that I have labeled as "beasts" and "turds" and denigrated nonstop for I don't know how long! No way I would have lumped it together with those other true composite planes had I known only a few isolated components were carbon fiber. I have to hand it to the company - that is brilliant marketing if they can fool even one person into thinking their plane is new, new, new - when in fact all the basics are kinda old, old, old. Steel tubes and doped fabric - sheesh! What is this, 1930?  Anyway, thanks again and maybe I'll think twice before dumping on other planes because they are not built "just so"!"

 

Better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In no way did I mean to "diss" the Carbon Cub. If money was no object, I would not mind having one in my hangar. Still have a soft spot in my heart for taildraggers.

 

And you can get one from the factory already certified as an E-LSA. That's definitely how I would go.

 

But $200k or thereabouts is nosebleed territory for me. Just SO many other options out there in that price range and well below. Plus, truth be told its probably not that great of a traveling plane, though of course that's not why people buy them. And my Sky Arrow suits me fine for now.

 

But anyway, if anyone has a rich uncle that leaves them a billion dollars or so, don't forget me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

New member, first post.  2600 hr TT, instrument rated private pilot.  I have owned a couple of Peterson 260se/stol and a Katmai conversion of the Cessna 182, about 1400 hr total in the type.  I also have about 100 hr each in SR20 and SR22.  Apologies if this is not the proper forum for such an introduction.

 

Additionally, hello to Ed Benson from a former fellow-traveler on the COPA forum.

 

The CT caught my eye a number of years ago and I have remained interested.  Now that LSA flying may be in my future, I'm considering possible ownership, perhaps even a new one with the sport engine.  Is there a particular post(s) or thread(s) on this site that could give a new member an expedited introduction or "guided tour" of forum information regarding CT performance and ownership experiences?  Something like this post that I compiled on the 260se pilots owners' forum is what I had in mind.  If not, I'll continue to hunt around and ask newbie questions.   :)

 

But I might wait for the C4, especially if PBORII passes.  To the topic at hand, I agree, the C4 as presented is an extremely attractive concept.  The specs and projected performance are very impressive and as stated it will compete in the same market segment as the SR20, DA40, C172SP and even C182, with a considerable price advantage against those other products--if the target price can be sustained.  As with other new designs, we will see how the payload, performance and cost projections play out in the real world.  Flight Design has a good track record thus far so I am hopeful and optimistic.  

 

The only cautionary note would be that "first adopters"--those who buy the first several dozen units at least--are "beta testers."  The C4 will almost certainly have its own teething problems (which will be worked out in due course) and those who have a low tolerance for that type of frustration might pause before charging to the head of the line.  

 

Does anyone here know if FD has announced anything like a "trade-up" program, for example, "Buy a CTLSi now and reserve a delivery position for a C4 with a guaranteed trade-in value for your CTLSi when the C4 is delivered?"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kwmoore.  welcome to the forum.

 

The best place to find FD info is on the German and USA websites. 

http://flightdesignusa.com/

http://flightdesign.com/wordpress/

 

Also, the POH is online for free.  http://ramaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/POH-Flight-Design-CTLS.pdf

 

It is also possible to use the search function on this site to look for particulars by search term. Most on the forum own an FD.  Many own the older SW, and a few of us the newer CT and CTLSi.

 

FD did offer an early bird program for CTLSi buyers and a $10k off the C4 purchase and a spot in the queue.  Not sure if they are still offering that...

 

The first 20 or so C4s are going to be factory owned.  So the first production units to customers will be well known.

 

If you do go for a CTLSi now (or want to get in the queue for the C4), your local contact is Santa Rosa at Sonoma Flight Center (see contact info on the forum below).  Or contact Ken Scherado at Lone Mountain Aviation in Las Vegas, NV.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New member, first post.  2600 hr TT, instrument rated private pilot.  I have owned a couple of Peterson 260se/stol and a Katmai conversion of the Cessna 182, about 1400 hr total in the type.  I also have about 100 hr each in SR20 and SR22.  Apologies if this is not the proper forum for such an introduction.

 

Additionally, hello to Ed Benson from a former fellow-traveler on the COPA forum.

 

The CT caught my eye a number of years ago and I have remained interested.  Now that LSA flying may be in my future, I'm considering possible ownership, perhaps even a new one with the sport engine.  Is there a particular post(s) or thread(s) on this site that could give a new member an expedited introduction or "guided tour" of forum information regarding CT performance and ownership experiences?  Something like this post that I compiled on the 260se pilots owners' forum is what I had in mind.  If not, I'll continue to hunt around and ask newbie questions.   :)

 

But I might wait for the C4, especially if PBORII passes.  To the topic at hand, I agree, the C4 as presented is an extremely attractive concept.  The specs and projected performance are very impressive and as stated it will compete in the same market segment as the SR20, DA40, C172SP and even C182, with a considerable price advantage against those other products--if the target price can be sustained.  As with other new designs, we will see how the payload, performance and cost projections play out in the real world.  Flight Design has a good track record thus far so I am hopeful and optimistic.  

 

The only cautionary note would be that "first adopters"--those who buy the first several dozen units at least--are "beta testers."  The C4 will almost certainly have its own teething problems (which will be worked out in due course) and those who have a low tolerance for that type of frustration might pause before charging to the head of the line.  

 

Does anyone here know if FD has announced anything like a "trade-up" program, for example, "Buy a CTLSi now and reserve a delivery position for a C4 with a guaranteed trade-in value for your CTLSi when the C4 is delivered?"  

Welcome! I am a recent Cirrus-to-CT convert. (SR20G1 to CTLS) I'd be glad to share my experiences, if you would find that helpful. Call me at 602-920-5400 (I'm PDT).

:D Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome! I am a recent Cirrus-to-CT convert. (SR20G1 to CTLS) I'd be glad to share my experiences, if you would find that helpful. Call me at 602-920-5400 (I'm PDT).

:D Kevin

 

We haven't heard much from you on your transition...was the change over to the CT a big change, or a non-event?  What do you like and dislike about the CTLS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...