So long Flight Design......

[Scrapman1959]

After purchasing 4 new FD AC, the first being an SW, the 2 nd being the 2nd registered CTLS in the USA, and then two more new CTLS,s after that, I have jumped ship for a new Tecnam P2008. Flight Design and the Gutmans have been great. There were two main reasons for the change to Tecnam. Turbo charged 914 and a baggage compartment that easily holds normal carry on suitcases and larger. We frequently pickup buyers in Chicago and fly them out to our facility in Iowa, to our 1200' grass strip and the luggage is always an issue. This is a 1.2 hour flight versus a 4.5 hr drive. The extra power and speed will be welcome as well. It was a tough call after more than 2500 hours of flying FD. I will stay active on this forum as long as I'm flying, and thank all of you for the help solving the minor problems we have had with our 4 FD AC. 

[Ed Cesnalis]

I hear you, the 914 calls to me, but not the wing strut.  

I assume a ground adjustable?  If so we'd all like to know how much we are giving up given ground adjustable and no in-flight ability to optimize.

[Roger Lee]

The 914 will be better than the 912 at higher altitude, but will be a waste of its benefits with only a ground adjustable prop.

[Scrapman1959]

That's not quite true Roger...... the 914 is not turbo normalized, it boosts to 42" for 5 minutes and runs continuous at 35" MP. The one I flew for my demos was 132 TAS at 3000 MSL and the same AC with a 912 is 12 to 14 knots slower In same conditions. I have seen screen shots from one at 17,500 ft TAS 143, but it had a constant speed prop, so yes, it would be optimal to have that in flight adjustable prop in a 914 equipped AC. 

[Scrapman1959]

Ed, the wing strut doesn't seem to be a problem, given the fact that a P2008 912 equipped has identical speeds as a CTLS. The wing itself is not as thick as the FD wing and I believe this is where they get back what they gave up in drag using the struts. It's actually more of a laminar flow wing. I noticed right away it didn't lift off at quite as low a speed as my CTLS and the stall speed is a few knots higher than FD. 

[Ed Cesnalis]

1 hour ago, Scrapman1959 said:

Ed, the wing strut doesn't seem to be a problem, given the fact that a P2008 912 equipped has identical speeds as a CTLS. The wing itself is not as thick as the FD wing and I believe this is where they get back what they gave up in drag using the struts. It's actually more of a laminar flow wing. I noticed right away it didn't lift off at quite as low a speed as my CTLS and the stall speed is a few knots higher than FD. 

My wing strut comment is Re photography not drag.

[FlyingMonkey]

What good is a huge baggage bay with a low useful load, and a baggage limit of 44lb?

 

BTW I love the Tecnams, got my ticket in a P-92 Echo Super at Lockwood.

[Scrapman1959]

Well sir, when u show up to pickup a passaenger in Chicago, and they have a normal carry on suitcase, you better not plan on taking your passenger and their luggage with you in your CT. As far as useful load, maybe it's not for everybody. My wife and I together are 285 pounds, so it's not an issue for us. I'm not advocating anybody fly an AC over the posted gross weight, but the P2008 is legal in Europe at 1450 lbs or something close to that, and over 1500 lbs in some other countries. 

[Tip]

Sorry to hear that you are leaving Flight Design, Fred. I always pay close attention to your posts as you fly more than most. Good luck with your new plane.

[FlyingMonkey]

11 hours ago, Scrapman1959 said:

Well sir, when u show up to pickup a passaenger in Chicago, and they have a normal carry on suitcase, you better not plan on taking your passenger and their luggage with you in your CT. As far as useful load, maybe it's not for everybody. My wife and I together are 285 pounds, so it's not an issue for us. I'm not advocating anybody fly an AC over the posted gross weight, but the P2008 is legal in Europe at 1450 lbs or something close to that, and over 1500 lbs in some other countries. 

I hear you.  I have an FAA-standard carry on bag that fits in the CT baggage bay, but it's soft sided.  I always tell passengers to use only soft-sided bags, and they can usually be fit in the baggage bays.  The bays are a little tight and do have oddly shaped openings for loading.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Tecnam is a great airplane.

[Scrapman1959]

Thanks Tip, but I'm not going anywhere. Will still be here with the CT family, just flying a different bird, which will make for some interesting comparisons etc. 

[Scrapman1959]

If  FD offers the CtLS with 914 in Germany, as the gentlemen posted on his trip to Italy over the Alps with his GF, why don't they offer it here in the USA? After all Tecnam is doing it? I wonder if they are having  oil cooling problems during the climb, since the whole engine compartment is so much smaller and tighter than Tecnam. I did notice the radiator and oil cooler are bigger on the 914 in the  Tecnam. Obviously it would have to be prop pitched not to exceed the 120 knot limit from the factory, but plenty of LSA manufacturers are doing this. What the customer does after the sale, they cannot control. Until I read that post over the Alps, I had no idea FD had built a 914 equipped CTLS.  Or was this just a "one off" experimental deal they did to see the performance etc. if he truly was getting 155TAS at 12,500 that's better than Tecnam can do by more than 10 knots! Sign me up for one now! I would like to see that speed ground gps verified flying a box pattern. The TAS on the Dynon can be very inaccurate. 

[Ed Cesnalis]

15 minutes ago, Scrapman1959 said:

Obviously it would have to be prop pitched not to exceed the 120 knot limit from the factory, but plenty of LSA manufacturers are doing this.

You could do 160kts TAS at 13,500' while your CAS (similar to IAS) never exceeds 120kts.

The rub with the ground adjustable is that you could set for top speed but you would have to use 'high gear' to get there.  It would work so much better than a ULS even at fixed pitch.

[ct9000]

6 hours ago, Scrapman1959 said:

If  FD offers the CtLS with 914 in Germany, as the gentlemen posted on his trip to Italy over the Alps with his GF, why don't they offer it here in the USA? After all Tecnam is doing it? I wonder if they are having  oil cooling problems during the climb, since the whole engine compartment is so much smaller and tighter than Tecnam. I did notice the radiator and oil cooler are bigger on the 914 in the  Tecnam. Obviously it would have to be prop pitched not to exceed the 120 knot limit from the factory, but plenty of LSA manufacturers are doing this. What the customer does after the sale, they cannot control. Until I read that post over the Alps, I had no idea FD had built a 914 equipped CTLS.  Or was this just a "one off" experimental deal they did to see the performance etc. if he truly was getting 155TAS at 12,500 that's better than Tecnam can do by more than 10 knots! Sign me up for one now! I would like to see that speed ground gps verified flying a box pattern. The TAS on the Dynon can be very inaccurate. 

The CT over the alps is not a CTLS but a CTSL otherwise known as a supralite and is available with 914 but is euro spec and limited to 472kg. The only turbo CTLS that I know of is mine on its way to AUS currently in the red sea. This one was conceived as a glider tow for hot and high conditions and fitted with the larger radiators and the longer wings from the C4. The model is called CTLS hlt. Mine is specked with the advanced skyview package cs prop a/p leather int etc. due in AUS about 3rd. week of October, after a five year wait. As far as I know this package was only on the pricelist for a short time. 

[Anticept]

It's called a CTHL (as according to the brochures), and it doesn't just have larger wing area, but also a larger stabilator. It uses a wing design more like the old CT2K. The CTSW is called the short wing because it reduced the wing area over the CT2K, and the LS lengthens the boom.

The HL is no longer listed on flightdesign.com, so unfortunately I can't provide the specs and brochure that talked about it.

I know, pictures of it shows "CTLS HL" on the tail, but that's the only place I've seen it called the "CTLSHL"

[ct9000]

Just to add to Corey's post, the turbo was the only engine option on the hl. I have the manuals and the model is referred to as CTLS-HL But in the price list it is called CTLSt hl . The wing span is listed at 9690mm or 31ft 91/2in. and the stabilator is 2645mm or 8ft.8in. 

[Scrapman1959]

Thx Guys. IMHO FD is going to need to offer the CTLS with 914 or suffer the loss of sales to others that do offer it. I would have had a much tougher decision on FD or Tecnam, if FD had the 914. The luggage area in CTLS, is still a big problem for some of our missions though. In reality the Tecnam will cruise 20 knots faster than a CTLS, both flying at normal cruise speeds, and it can do it even at lower altitudes. The difference in speed increases more the higher you go. 

[Ed Cesnalis]

17 minutes ago, Scrapman1959 said:

Thx Guys. IMHO FD is going to need to offer the CTLS with 914 or suffer the loss of sales to others that do offer it. I would have had a much tougher decision on FD or Tecnam, if FD had the 914. The luggage area in CTLS, is still a big problem for some of our missions though. In reality the Tecnam will cruise 20 knots faster than a CTLS, both flying at normal cruise speeds, and it can do it even at lower altitudes. The difference in speed increases more the higher you go. 

The play here is to recognize that the LSA rule is to limiting and no longer a big attraction with new relaxed medical options.  The CT needs both the 914 and an in-flight adjustable prop to leverage it.

[Mike Koerner]

Ed,

The LSA market is about more than just relaxed medical requirements. The manufacturers don't have to certify the aircraft to normal FAA standards. That saves millions of dollars on each model and makes the planes affordable. If a manufacturer abandons the LSA rules - either with greater than 120 knot cruise speed capability, constant speed props, or max gross weights over 1320 lbs. - they will have to certify their planes... Which drives up the cost... and reduces the market.

It's up to us, instead, to convince the FAA:

1) That 145 knots is no less safe... because we get where we are going faster and thus arrive with less fatigue and better mental acuity???

2) That constant speed props are no less safe... because they are more efficient and thus produce fewer polluting emissions which will eventually kill us all???

3) That higher gross weights are no less safe... because they make it easier to land safely in gusty wind conditions???

Good luck with that.

Mike Koerner

[Ed Cesnalis]

14 minutes ago, Mike Koerner said:

Ed,

The LSA market is about more than just relaxed medical requirements. The manufacturers don't have to certify the aircraft to normal FAA standards. That saves millions of dollars on each model and makes the planes affordable. If a manufacturer abandons the LSA rules - either with greater than 120 knot cruise speed capability, constant speed props, or max gross weights over 1320 lbs. - they will have to certify their planes... Which drives up the cost... and reduces the market.

It's up to us, instead, to convince the FAA:

1) That 145 knots is no less safe... because we get where we are going faster and thus arrive with less fatigue and better mental acuity???

2) That constant speed props are no less safe... because they are more efficient and thus produce fewer polluting emissions which will eventually kill us all???

3) That higher gross weights are no less safe... because they make it easier to land safely in gusty wind conditions???

Good luck with that.

Mike Koerner

Mike,

I'm not suggesting part 23, even the C4 likely will circumnavigate that requirement.

If an LSA change accommodated a 914 CT it would only have to relax the prop restriction to allow the more complex in flight adjustable.  You don't have to bust 120kts CAS to realize the TAS benefits. 

[FlyingMonkey]

13 hours ago, ct9000 said:

The CT over the alps is not a CTLS but a CTSL otherwise known as a supralite and is available with 914 but is euro spec and limited to 472kg. The only turbo CTLS that I know of is mine on its way to AUS currently in the red sea. This one was conceived as a glider tow for hot and high conditions and fitted with the larger radiators and the longer wings from the C4. The model is called CTLS hlt. Mine is specked with the advanced skyview package cs prop a/p leather int etc. due in AUS about 3rd. week of October, after a five year wait. As far as I know this package was only on the pricelist for a short time. 

What is the max gross weight on this interesting bird?

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

472kg = 1040.58lb

[FlyingMonkey]

2 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

472kg = 1040.58lb

With the extra weight of the 914 and the longer wings, seems an almost impossible weight to stay within, unless solo all the time.

[Ed Cesnalis]

5 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

With the extra weight of the 914 and the longer wings, seems an almost impossible weight to stay within, unless solo all the time.

One of the primary intents is/was a tow plane.

[FlyingMonkey]

4 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

One of the primary intents is/was a tow plane.

It might work dedicated in that role, but it really can't do much else.  If it weighs 800lb empty, it has a 241lb useful load.  That's a 180lb pilot and ten gallons of fuel and *nothing* else.  Basically a one hour plus reserve, solo-only airplane at those weights.