Jump to content

Skycatcher's End


Jim

Recommended Posts

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.

 

You soloed yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

 

Since you are being so critical, and just for the record, how many RV's have you flown?

How much flying experience do you have, to back up those condescending assertions about metal airplanes?

Seems like you are eager to share your opinion about something you apparently know little about, but you are not will to share with us how much experience you actually have . . . to back up those claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, every airplane in the world is hand-made, even production F-22s and 787s. They sit in place and are constructed on stands and jigs by technicians. It's not like they are builts by robots on a conveyor belt. So saying a CT is unique because it is hand made is like saying it's unique because it has wings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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)

 

I know that I should not ask however never having flown an RV-9 I would like to know. This past week at the Page flyin my CTLSi on several flights was performing about 110 knots, 8500 feet at fuel burn of 3.6 gallon fuel burn level flight. This was at 5050 RPM and 1300 lbs calculated weight. Can a RV -9 perform at this economy rate? my hanger mate's RV-9 sure looks good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that I should not ask however never having flown an RV-9 I would like to know. This past week at the Page flyin my CTLSi on several flights was performing about 110 knots, 8500 feet at fuel burn of 3.6 gallon fuel burn level flight. This was at 5050 RPM and 1300 lbs calculated weight. Can a RV -9 perform at this economy rate? my hanger mate's RV-9 sure looks good.

 

I bet with the small engine and powered back to that speed it would be close. There is a fellow here with a Thorp T-18 that I fly with and if he slows down to fly with me his fuel burn is about the same as my CT. The thing is he can push it up and cruise at 170+ MPH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that I should not ask however never having flown an RV-9 I would like to know. This past week at the Page flyin my CTLSi on several flights was performing about 110 knots, 8500 feet at fuel burn of 3.6 gallon fuel burn level flight. This was at 5050 RPM and 1300 lbs calculated weight. Can a RV -9 perform at this economy rate? my hanger mate's RV-9 sure looks good.

 

Good question but I can't answer with any authority since I have never flown an RV-9. I pulled the figures from Van's site. My airpark is full of RV-6, 7 and 8's which are all faster than the -9 since they all have 180-200 HP. An RV-7 with 160 HP will 75% cruise at 191 mph at gross. With 200 HP it will cruise 75% at 206 mph. 55% figures are 172 and 186 respectively.

 

Without doing any math, I wouldn't be surprised to find that one of these RV's can turn in similar MPG's to a CTLSi. But that's just a guess. However, a 118 HP -9 (if you could find one) can probably park off the wing tip of a CTLSi at a 5300 RPM cruise and probably be in the same GPH ballpark as the CT. I'm fairly certain that the -9, at a higher cruise setting , could probably match MPG's. Again just a guess.

 

The best way for you to find out is to talk and fly with your hangar mate. Then go for a flight with him parked on your wing tip. Compare some real numbers.

 

If you do, post your results.

 

In the end, it's all academic for most of us who will never own a -9 - unless the FAA does away with the 3rd class medical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CTLSi has fuel injection which gives the efficiency that cannot be matched by any carb'd engine, regardless of HP. The drag on a metal airframe has to require the added HP if the RVs in fact are up there that high in HP.

 

The optimal fuel efficiency in the CTLSi is at 4800 RPM, but that's too slow. I was out yesterday doing 5000 rpm over a practice area and saw the fuel burn was computing to be 2.8gph @100kts ground. No wind.

 

They are, in fact, up there that high in HP. And in speed. And many of them are fuel injected. And, if they had that much drag, how come the -9 goes about 30 mph faster with only 18 more HP than a CT. Doesn't sound like they have a drag problem to me.

 

There are over 8400 completed RV's out there and over 15,000 kits sold. Sounds like they are doing something right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I bet with the small engine and powered back to that speed it would be close. There is a fellow here with a Thorp T-18 that I fly with and if he slows down to fly with me his fuel burn is about the same as my CT. The thing is he can push it up and cruise at 170+ MPH.

 

I think my Long Ez will be able to turn in a CT like mpg, but don't know if it will fly that slow :), of course I'd have to finish it first it doesn't fly fast sitting on my hanger floor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend that has a Long EZ. I'll have to ask him about these things. One thing I know (and never really thought about before talking to him) is that he doesn't fly into grass strips because it takes quite a bit of speed to get the canard to give enough lift for rotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend that has a Long EZ. I'll have to ask him about these things. One thing I know (and never really thought about before talking to him) is that he doesn't fly into grass strips because it takes quite a bit of speed to get the canard to give enough lift for rotation.

 

They do burn up some runway to get going but once they get airborne they really book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emini, you really enjoyed the CT that much better that the 'Catcher? What did you like about it, what didn't you like compared to the Cessna? I'm curious to hear from somebody who has flown both.

 

The biggest thing I noticed was the space inside. I'm a fairly large guy - about 220. When I fly the Cessna - after an hour, I am ready to get out. When I flew the CT, I felt like I had more room. BUT - I only flew the CT for about 40 minutes - and to be fair, it was several months ago. I remember though, that I very much liked it alot as soon as I got in it.

 

 

I know its kinda a lame reply - but that's all I got right now :)

 

I will say this... if the Skycatcher was priced at the $100k mark - I would not have thought twice about buying one. Just for sh*** and giggles I checked out the prices of used 162's last night and found quite a few. Now I suspect the prices will eventually start to drop on the used models in time..

 

My biggest dilemma now is deciding to go for my private. I was under the impression that I could not pass a 3rd class. Well, after speaking with 2 AME's, it turns out I was wrong. Because of the size of my family, and the real need to have more useful load, i'd much rather buy a 4 place plane... so not sure that i'll ever buy a CTLS now or not. I am now researching the FD C4 as well as the Diamond DA40 - both seem to be very exceptional aircraft...

 

But still dont even have a license :) :) YET!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Beechcraft discontinued the Starship (a sad story worth revisiting about life on "the bleeding edge" and how much "better" composites are), they bought back the existing fleet and destroyed them. All to avoid support and liability issues going forward.

 

I would not be surprised if Cessna did the same. Though it's far from inevitable - Piper does not seem to mind having a small number of PiperSports out there running around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Good question but I can't answer with any authority since I have never flown an RV-9. I pulled the figures from Van's site. My airpark is full of RV-6, 7 and 8's which are all faster than the -9 since they all have 180-200 HP. An RV-7 with 160 HP will 75% cruise at 191 mph at gross. With 200 HP it will cruise 75% at 206 mph. 55% figures are 172 and 186 respectively.

 

Without doing any math, I wouldn't be surprised to find that one of these RV's can turn in similar MPG's to a CTLSi. But that's just a guess. However, a 118 HP -9 (if you could find one) can probably park off the wing tip of a CTLSi at a 5300 RPM cruise and probably be in the same GPH ballpark as the CT. I'm fairly certain that the -9, at a higher cruise setting , could probably match MPG's. Again just a guess.

 

The best way for you to find out is to talk and fly with your hangar mate. Then go for a flight with him parked on your wing tip. Compare some real numbers.

 

If you do, post your results.

 

In the end, it's all academic for most of us who will never own a -9 - unless the FAA does away with the 3rd class medical.

From the Vans forum for 118hp -9:

 

On calm days I cruise at 75%, 2500 rpm, 8000 ft, at about 130 kn/hr, and burn about 4.1 g/h. At 2600 rpm, 140 kn/hr, I burn closer to 5 g/hr. So, Im delighted with the fuel burn, range, and speed.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my Long Ez will be able to turn in a CT like mpg, but don't know if it will fly that slow :), of course I'd have to finish it first it doesn't fly fast sitting on my hanger floor!

 

It almost certainly will meet or exceed CT economy, even the injected engine, that is a crazy efficient airframe. A guy I know has a VariEZ with a C-85 in it (hand-propped, no starter!)...on that 85hp he can get speeds around 160mph. Just crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest thing I noticed was the space inside. I'm a fairly large guy - about 220. When I fly the Cessna - after an hour, I am ready to get out. When I flew the CT, I felt like I had more room. BUT - I only flew the CT for about 40 minutes - and to be fair, it was several months ago. I remember though, that I very much liked it alot as soon as I got in it.

 

 

I know its kinda a lame reply - but that's all I got right now :)

 

I will say this... if the Skycatcher was priced at the $100k mark - I would not have thought twice about buying one. Just for sh*** and giggles I checked out the prices of used 162's last night and found quite a few. Now I suspect the prices will eventually start to drop on the used models in time..

 

My biggest dilemma now is deciding to go for my private. I was under the impression that I could not pass a 3rd class. Well, after speaking with 2 AME's, it turns out I was wrong. Because of the size of my family, and the real need to have more useful load, i'd much rather buy a 4 place plane... so not sure that i'll ever buy a CTLS now or not. I am now researching the FD C4 as well as the Diamond DA40 - both seem to be very exceptional aircraft...

 

But still dont even have a license :) :) YET!

 

If you were only in the CT 40 minutes, you were not there long enough for your back to start screaming at you. :) The CT seats have terrible lower back support; I put inflatable lumbar cushions under the seat covers to resolve this and it seems to have really helped a LOT.

 

I saw your thread on the other forum about your medical. If that is your only medical issue, and it's certifiable, I'd suggest you get the medical and do the PP. If you do, just remember, if there is ever any doubt about passing/renewing a medical, do not get one without a lot of expert advice first. The outcome of a medical should be known with certainty before you ever step in the AME's office.

 

The PP rating will open up a huge world of aircraft types, and with additional ratings and endorsements you can fly basically anything under 12,500lb gross weight. You can always drop back to LSAs later if necessary or desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

....at about 130 kn/hr, and burn about 4.1 g/h. At 2600 rpm, 140 kn/hr, I burn closer to 5 g/hr.

 

I think you just copied and pasted, but as a reminder...

 

Knots per hour is redundant, since a knot is one nautical mile per hour.

 

Now, back to your scheduled programming.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Beechcraft discontinued the Starship (a sad story worth revisiting about life on "the bleeding edge" and how much "better" composites are), they bought back the existing fleet and destroyed them. All to avoid support and liability issues going forward.

 

I would not be surprised if Cessna did the same. Though it's far from inevitable - Piper does not seem to mind having a small number of PiperSports out there running around.

 

Beech bought back many, but not all. Using Wikipedia as s source because I'm too lazy to go to the FAA registry, there are:

 

Survivors[edit]

 

As of January 2010, nine Starships hold an active registration with the FAA. Three Starships are registered in Oklahoma (NC-29, NC-35 & NC-45), one in Texas (NC-50), one in Colorado (NC-51), and four are registered to Hawker Beechcraft in Wichita, Kansas (NC-2, NC-8, NC-19 & NC-24).[33] NC-51 was used as a chase plane during the re-entry phase of Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne.[34] In October 2008 NC-29 was the first of the five remaining privately owned airworthy Starships to complete RVSM certification, returning the aircraft's service ceiling to the original FL410 limit.[35]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The biggest thing I noticed was the space inside. I'm a fairly large guy - about 220. When I fly the Cessna - after an hour, I am ready to get out. When I flew the CT, I felt like I had more room. BUT - I only flew the CT for about 40 minutes - and to be fair, it was several months ago. I remember though, that I very much liked it alot as soon as I got in it.

 

 

I know its kinda a lame reply - but that's all I got right now :)

 

I will say this... if the Skycatcher was priced at the $100k mark - I would not have thought twice about buying one. Just for sh*** and giggles I checked out the prices of used 162's last night and found quite a few. Now I suspect the prices will eventually start to drop on the used models in time..

 

My biggest dilemma now is deciding to go for my private. I was under the impression that I could not pass a 3rd class. Well, after speaking with 2 AME's, it turns out I was wrong. Because of the size of my family, and the real need to have more useful load, i'd much rather buy a 4 place plane... so not sure that i'll ever buy a CTLS now or not. I am now researching the FD C4 as well as the Diamond DA40 - both seem to be very exceptional aircraft...

 

But still dont even have a license :) :) YET!

 

Go buy a decent C182, train in it and fly your family in it for a few years. You'll buy an older one for a lot less than $100k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you just copied and pasted, but as a reminder...

 

Knots per hour is redundant, since a knot is one nautical mile per hour.

 

Now, back to your scheduled programming.

 

Knots per hour isn't redundant it is a representation of acceleration. Much like 32' per second per second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were only in the CT 40 minutes, you were not there long enough for your back to start screaming at you. :) The CT seats have terrible lower back support; I put inflatable lumbar cushions under the seat covers to resolve this and it seems to have really helped a LOT.

 

I saw your thread on the other forum about your medical. If that is your only medical issue, and it's certifiable, I'd suggest you get the medical and do the PP. If you do, just remember, if there is ever any doubt about passing/renewing a medical, do not get one without a lot of expert advice first. The outcome of a medical should be known with certainty before you ever step in the AME's office.

 

The PP rating will open up a huge world of aircraft types, and with additional ratings and endorsements you can fly basically anything under 12,500lb gross weight. You can always drop back to LSAs later if necessary or desired.

 

Yaeh i talked with Bruce at great length as a "consultant" and he gave me basically the same advice. but yaeh I am really considering doing the PP and eventually IFR but I like the idea of 4 seats, more weight, and as you said the door really opens on the availability of airplanes.

 

I suppose your right about my time in the CT but it was still a great plane. I LOVED how it looked. Another thing about Cessna Skycatcher is that Cessna has the G300 locked down. If I wanted to add a GDL39 for traffic, technically it WOULD work but Cessna locked it out and will not allow it to be used.. Not sure why. but whtaever.. after the announcement from Cessna there is no way I would even consider one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grumman Travelers and Tigers are great for that - their rear sets fold flat, leaving a long, flat area, easy to load through the opened canopy.

 

I remember flying in to see a shuttle launch with two standard bicycles in the back, and then riding to a better observation point.

 

Shuttle didn't launch that particular day, but the capability was still appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RV people are just as prone as real humans to exaggerate performance numbers.

 

Naw, they don't exaggerate. They just embellish!! Although some may call it by another name. :ph34r:

 

You gotta admit though, they do get a lot of performance out of a small engine. Not as much as a Long EZ though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...they do get a lot of performance out of a small engine. Not as much as a Long EZ though.

 

That performance has its price. There is at least EZ that comes to Mammoth but if you were based here it wouldn't be a design that you would consider. They eat up some runway and at altitude they eat it up by the mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...