Jump to content

Skycatcher's End


Jim

Recommended Posts

Andy - like CT says, they kept getting heavier. Mine, with a Jan 2007 build and May delivery, was 750# with Tundra and D-100 but steam for engine gauges, no auto pilot. At the time their literature was saying empty weight of 650 or 680, I forget which. I bought it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

John by your numbers then, 25 lbs lighter give or take than a CTLS (not the eye since RV-12 isn't fuel injected is it)? I put them both in a similar category then, decent cruiser, but not the machine the CTSW is for long hauls. Again I think that is perfectly reasonable and can be sold in good numbers (relatively speaking). For some owners it won't be enough.

 

Paul - I agree with you except the -12 does not have a BRS so it's more like 60#. Goes back to my thinking when I got the CTSW. The main selling points then were fuel capacity, BRS, cabin width, max baggage, easy to get in and out of, etc. Even though it was heavier than advertised a 570# useful isn't bad. Whereas, as much as I would like a CTLSi, I would have a hard time with a 490# useful. Then again, these days my butt and bladder only have about a 3 hour range so maybe a CTLSi would work after all! But, not for my plane plus $100K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FAA didn't seem to think that was the mission for LSA Andy or it would have set an empty weight limit, not gross weight.

 

LSA came about due to an industry push made by ultralight manufacturers. They wanted the FAA to recognize time flown in ultralights to be loggable. Ultralights in the USA are actually microlights in most other countries, and their ultralights could be used for time logging.

 

In fact, this is why you cannot get an STC for say, a 150, to try and get the gross weight changed to fit the LSA category. Per CFR 1.1, an aircraft, since ORIGINAL certification, must meet the requirements set forth in the definition of light sport.

 

I got this information from Edsel Ford in OK City, AFS 610, light sport regulatory branch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Anticept, I'm familiar with some of the background as well as the actual stated reasons in the LSA adopting rules release. My question is this: Why does it matter to the FAA if there are two 150 pound humans or two 225 pound humans aboard? My point to Andy was if they really cared about usefull mission, they could have excluded pilot and passenger and put a max weight of 1,000 pounds on it (for example). Then it wouldn't matter who weighs what. But they didn't. I'm guessing they figured if you cant find an LSA plane at 1320 that fits your misison, get a Part 23 one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy - like CT says, they kept getting heavier. Mine, with a Jan 2007 build and May delivery, was 750# with Tundra and D-100 but steam for engine gauges, no auto pilot. At the time their literature was saying empty weight of 650 or 680, I forget which. I bought it anyway.

 

Yours sounds like mine...I have D100, steam engine gauges, no autopilot, but no tundra gear. May 2007 build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CTLSi is the culmination of what LSA promised originally to be...

 

Not the promise I had envisioned.

 

I, personally, had hoped that Light Sport would lead to planes in the $50k area - if a new plane could be had for the price of a luxury car, it might bring in droves of new pilots who could see themselves in a plane instead of a new Lexus. And in that way help to rejuvenate GA.

 

I did not envision 2-place Light Sports for $160k, nor Cubs for nearly $200k. it's wonderful that some can afford that kind of money for that kind of plane, but it's still rarified air and is not achieving the goal of making flying more accessible, which I saw as the real promise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the promise I had envisioned.

 

I, personally, had hoped that Light Sport would lead to planes in the $50k area - if a new plane could be had for the price of a luxury car, it might bring in droves of new pilots who could see themselves in a plane instead of a new Lexus. And in that way help to rejuvenate GA.

 

I did not envision 2-place Light Sports for $160k, nor Cubs for nearly $200k. it's wonderful that some can afford that kind of money for that kind of plane, but it's still rarified air and is not achieving the goal of making flying more accessible, which I saw as the real promise.

 

It's not really possible to make a 50k plane that looks like a plane. There's an absurd amount of engineering involved, let alone manufacturing, support, administrative, and legal staff. Even kit planes will run you 50k unbuilt...

 

There ARE light sports out there that cost 40k, but they start looking like powered gliders instead: http://www.msquareda....com/page4.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really possible to make a 50k plane that looks like a plane. There's an absurd amount of engineering involved, let alone manufacturing, support, administrative, and legal staff. Even kit planes will run you 50k unbuilt...

 

Totally agree. I've worked designing products for mass production for the last 35 years. Every airplane made is hand-built. There's no way to build and sell an aircraft for $50k that even vaguely resembles a CT or a Sportstar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess.

 

My Sky Arrow was $75.5k in 2007, and that was at the high end of what I was willing to spend on a Light Sport.

 

Same plane with minor improvements is now pushing $100k.

 

I thought the action would mostly be at the low end. I was wrong. People seem to want all the bells and whistles and are willing to pay for them.

 

But I don't see Light Sport taking off with prices near or over $150k - there are just too many other options available in that price range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddie, I agree with you but maybe their version of a luxury car is a Bently? In reality, at least for me, I envisioned $100K to $120K, which was the price of mine in 2007. But, even with a little extra content and minuscule inflation we have had still doesn't get to todays prices. Wish my retirement check was going up at that rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats extra fun is that the CTLSi is selling like hotcakes and everyone else keeps whining about their wannabeez in the space.

 

Can you only be happy if others suffer? Will you only happy if everyone flies a CT and there are zero choices for other aircraft? I'd be excited if ALL aircraft sold like hotcakes, because I don't just like the CTs, I love recreational flying and want it to thrive in as many possible configurations and aircraft as possible. This "I have the best plane all others are crap" attitude is so juvenile it hurts my brain.

 

On one of the other forums, AOPA I think, there is a guy who started a thread called "Why Doesn't Everybody Want a Bonanza?" I think you should go over there and tell him how his dinosaur metal airplane is an antique, he can tell you your slow and tiny plastic airplane with a snowmobile engine is a toy, and the rest of us can live in peace and harmony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddie, I agree with you but maybe their version of a luxury car is a Bently? In reality, at least for me, I envisioned $100K to $120K, which was the price of mine in 2007. But, even with a little extra content and minuscule inflation we have had still doesn't get to todays prices. Wish my retirement check was going up at that rate.

 

Inflation is not minuscule. The way inflation is calculated was changed twice, in 1980 and 1990; both times more inflationary items like food and fuel were removed to lower the baseline perception of inflation. If you calculate inflation based on the official 1990 method, it's about 6%. If you use the 1980 method, it'd closer to 10%. Bottom line, don't trust governement numbers, trust your eyes. There is a reason that LSAs have gone from $100K-ish to $150K-ish in just a few years...

 

http://www.shadowsta...nflation-charts

 

There's a link there to the site's comments about the changes, it's very interesting. The reason for the change is to underestimate inflation so annual cost of living adjustments (COLA) to programs like Social Security can me made smaller, saving the government money. It's pretty cynical stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Inflation is not minuscule. The way inflation is calculated was changed twice, in 1980 and 1990; both times more inflationary items like food and fuel were removed to lower the baseline perception of inflation. If you calculate inflation based on the official 1990 method, it's about 6%. If you use the 1980 method, it'd closer to 10%. Bottom line, don't trust governement numbers, trust your eyes. There is a reason that LSAs have gone from $100K-ish to $150K-ish in just a few years...

 

http://www.shadowsta...nflation-charts

 

There's a link there to the site's comments about the changes, it's very interesting. The reason for the change is to underestimate inflation so annual cost of living adjustments (COLA) to programs like Social Security can me made smaller, saving the government money. It's pretty cynical stuff.

 

The big change is the fluctuation of the dollar in exchange rates, and the shortage of raw material due to china and india's extreme build up. The US enjoyed extremely inexpensive post-wwii rates because of the insane surplus of raw material. As the world becomes more developed, raw materials are only going to go up.

 

China and india are seeing their consumers and workers increasing better working conditions too, and that contributes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big change is the fluctuation of the dollar in exchange rates, and the shortage of raw material due to china and india's extreme build up. The US enjoyed extremely inexpensive post-wwii rates because of the insane surplus of raw material. As the world becomes more developed, raw materials are only going to go up.

 

China and india are seeing their consumers and workers increasing better working conditions too, and that contributes.

 

If you are saying the root cause is dollar devaluation, then I agree. The more we print, the less each dollar is worth. Currently we are printing and monetizing somewhere around $85-100 billion monthly, JUST to finance debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought a Sonex was down around $30k?

I local flight school got rid of it's 150's and went to 172's because the owner, whom I know, said the 150's were costing too much in maintenance. And, students are getting too heavy.

We each look at airplanes through our own mission lens and tend to assign our preferences more weight than those of others.

I agree with Eddy that it would have been nice to see lower cost airplanes, but we could all go out and buy a Quad City Challenger. No, we want a BMW for the price of a Trabant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought a Sonex was down around $30k?

I local flight school got rid of it's 150's and went to 172's because the owner, whom I know, said the 150's were costing too much in maintenance. And, students are getting too heavy.

We each look at airplanes through our own mission lens and tend to assign our preferences more weight than those of others.

I agree with Eddy that it would have been nice to see lower cost airplanes, but we could all go out and buy a Quad City Challenger. No, we want a BMW for the price of a Trabant.

 

The Sonex airframe kit is about $30K, add engine and avionics and you are probably looking at $40K for a basic Sonex with VW power, and $55K+ for one with a Jabiru 3300 and nice panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inflation is not minuscule. The way inflation is calculated was changed twice, in 1980 and 1990; both times more inflationary items like food and fuel were removed to lower the baseline perception of inflation. If you calculate inflation based on the official 1990 method, it's about 6%. If you use the 1980 method, it'd closer to 10%. Bottom line, don't trust governement numbers, trust your eyes. There is a reason that LSAs have gone from $100K-ish to $150K-ish in just a few years...

 

http://www.shadowsta...nflation-charts

 

There's a link there to the site's comments about the changes, it's very interesting. The reason for the change is to underestimate inflation so annual cost of living adjustments (COLA) to programs like Social Security can me made smaller, saving the government money. It's pretty cynical stuff.

 

So, now I know why prices are going up at least 3X the so called CPI!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... I am still learning in a Skycatcher.. and I'll be taking my checkride in one hopefully real soon.. Better do it quick I reckon :) Wow I wonder what they'll do with the 90 or so they have in stock.. My flight school said they were obligated to by one every 1 or 2 years to keep the Cessna brand.... interesting.

 

WHen I flew 323CT several months ago in Daytona, I knew instantly I didnt want the Skycatcher - but honestly it's not a bad plane. I enjoy flying it around...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morden, I can speak for members of mine that flew both. This is what I have been told:

 

First and foremost, the stoke is a piece of junk. It is completely unnatural and placed in a wierd place, making flying uncomfortable.

 

Secondly, it's cramped.

 

Finally, as with all cessnas, visibility is a fraction of CTs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Anticept's comments, I found it dark and spartan (like they ran out of money to finish the interior). I didn't like the manual flap bar nor (if I remember correctly) the stationary seat. If it was priced sub $100,000 you might forgive all those points. Then again, if it was, why wouldn't you just buy a used CTSW? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FD CTLSs are handmade and constructed of advanced carbon fiber without cables and cheesy steam guages. If the FD were mass produced, and they never will be, economy of scale would kick in and the price would drop dramatically.

 

So, those that complain that the CTLS costs too much should remind themselves about the details THe CTLS is not the little kit and local puddle jumper type plane like the Zodiak or the RV-9 and RV-12. The cost 'too much' crowd should stop expecting the hand-made sports cars like the CTLS to cost the same as the junky kits and little low wing metal toys that would be horrible to try and take on a 400nm trip.

 

How would a 400 mile trip in an RV-9 be horrible? Even with the lowest powered recommended engine (118 HP) it will cruise at 165 MPH at 75%. Probably wouldn't use any more gas than a CT getting there faster. With the most powerful recommended engine (160 HP) the 75% cruise is 187 mph. With those engines the plane will climb at up to 2000 fpm. Range is over 700 sm.

 

Not bad for a POS tin can (your implication, not mine)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...