FlyingMonkey Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Can we just confirm the math before we all go down the usual rabbit hole of which model is best. Even at 833 pounds, the CTLSi can take over 4 hours of fuel and carry two 175 pound adults. Is that not sufficient for a trainer? No question the CTLSi is not as capable a long haul cross country machine as the CTSW-- in terms of weight and non-stop distance. But is the typical mission of an LSA a long cross country with two adults and plenty of baggage? There are a handful of CTs used in training. The vast majority are in than hands of individuals or partnerships. I think designing around the training mission when training is at most 10% of customers is a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Not everybody is 175 pounds. :blush: I used to be 175#. When I graduated high school!! :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredG Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 If the CTsw was a "mistake", I'm sure glad they made it. I have one (2006) and, given its cost and utility, I see no better LSA for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 A certain individual keeps saying how riveted aluminum planes are so yesterday and ready for a museum or scrapheap. If this is so, how come Vans is having such success with their RV-12? Over 750 kits have been sold and around 200 are now flying. Even though they were late to the LSA party, the number of flying -12's will soon overtake the CT population. In addition, they just entered the SLSA market and, like FD, they can't keep up with demand. Most ELSA -12's are coming in at less than 750# although some thru the roof equipped planes are running 770. And, my neighbors -12 can out climb and out run me in my CT. It also has much better control harmony than my CTSW. I don't mean to imply that the -12 is perfect, it's not. It's narrower, holds less gas, and carries less baggage. No BRS. But it sure is popular. When I finish my -12, I will have a tough decision determining which to keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 What would RV-12 weigh with 34 gallons fuel and BRS? about 100 pounds more. I like the plane alot by the way. Had they been further along on SLSA development I may have gone that way. Then again my mission seems to be different than many of you guys on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 There are a handful of CTs used in training. The vast majority are in than hands of individuals or partnerships. I think designing around the training mission when training is at most 10% of customers is a bad idea. I agree Andy but since we were comparing Skycatchers to CT's I thought we would make it apples to apples. The Skycatcher was meant to be a trainer. Maybe that's why it failed. At the end of the day, I don't think any $160k plane will make a good trainer in this environment, especially for a license like the Sport Pilot. I do think the CTLS (for those weighing more than 175) and the CTLSi (for those weighing less than 175) are great cruisers. Again neither can complete the same mission as the CTSW. Based on the sales of the CTLS, RV-12, and the Carbon Cub however, I just don't think the typical LSA mission behind their business models is two dudes, baggage and 6 hours endurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I agree Andy but since we were comparing Skycatchers to CT's I thought we would make it apples to apples. The Skycatcher was meant to be a trainer. Maybe that's why it failed. At the end of the day, I don't think any $160k plane will make a good trainer in this environment, especially for a license like the Sport Pilot. I do think the CTLS (for those weighing more than 175) and the CTLSi (for those weighing less than 175) are great cruisers. Again neither can complete the same mission as the CTSW. Based on the sales of the CTLS, RV-12, and the Carbon Cub however, I just don't think the typical LSA mission behind their business models is two dudes, baggage and 6 hours endurance. I see your point. But given the zillions of cheap 172s, 152s, Cherokees, and even DA-20s available, the training mission is a tough nut to crack for a $150K airplane. If I ran a flight school I'd much rather buy 152s for $20k each, even if I have to put $20k more into them, than spend $150k to get similar training utility from a 162 or CT. Even a used CT is going to cost 3x the 152...I'd rather have 3 152s than one CT for training. The business case might not be two full-size people, bags, and decent range, but I guess my point is that maybe it should be. Many (most?) Sport Pilots are guys stepping down from larger airplanes for medical reasons, and they don't want to lose all the utility they used to enjoy in flying. They'd till like to be able to take a weekend with the wife a few hundred miles away without stopping three times for fuel, or take a week's worth of camping gear to that back woods strip they visit every year to meet their friends. We're not talking 6hr legs, but two hour legs with an hour's reserve would be the minimum I'd like. If they aim at the travel/utility market, they can still have a great airplane for training. If they just narrowly fit the training market, they miss out on a lot of customers who want something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I quickly got used to fueling only in my hangar for most trips. I just went on a 2 1/2 hour trip and returned home with over 3 hours remaining and neither tank was full. My plane has seen very little avgas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 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. On your numbers, you need 15 gallons fuel in a rotax (90 lbs) and 50 lbs baggage. That leaves about 350 for people in a CTLSi. Average weight of husband and wife combined is.....? Question for you and Ed C (an anyone else with a touring mission--Chanik?), if you were buying new today what LSA would you buy that would suit your mission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I still prefer the SW for long distance and carrying capacity, luggage room, simplicity, I like to sit up straighter and is a great value money wise for a used CTSW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 What would RV-12 weigh with 34 gallons fuel and BRS? about 100 pounds more. I like the plane alot by the way. Had they been further along on SLSA development I may have gone that way. Then again my mission seems to be different than many of you guys on this forum. I would disagree about the 100# because fuel is not included in empty weight. However I would like to see the -12 with a BRS, with fuel tanks in the wings, and without removable wings since virtually nobody with a -12 uses that option. So, take a typical -12 weight of 740#, add a 35# BRS, get rid of the removable wings, and put the fuel in the wings with increased capacity and you have an empty weight of about 775#. I think the extra weight of the larger tanks is a wash with the deleted removable wing option. Then add 5# for a second Skyview and you have 780# empty weight. Then you would have a good X-country cruiser with adequate baggage because half the baggage compartment would no longer contain the fuel tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I still prefer the SW for long distance and carrying capacity, luggage room, simplicity, I like to sit up straighter and is a great value money wise for a used CTSW. All good reasons to own one. I personally like new plane smell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I would look at a CT Supralight with a 914. also a new CTSW. if those didn't work probably an RV12 or trade up to a Panterra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I think the weight penalty is more like 80-100 pounds from the average CTSW. I was being kind Tom :-) You are absolutely correct. My 2006 CTSW had an empty weight of 720. That was with the "advanced panel" (no tundra). That was a useful load of 600 pounds. My 2012 CTLS had an empty weight of 817 with dual skyview and tundra. That equates to a useful load of 503 (a loss of 97 pounds - YIKES!). When my CTLSi delivers it will lose another 17 pounds or more of useful load. Now into the high 400's. When I graduated highschool in 1982 I was 6' 125 lbs, 31 years later I'm now 6' 200 pounds. Seems that both myself and the airplane are moving in the wrong direction however what took me 31 years to add, the airplane gained in 7! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 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. On your numbers, you need 15 gallons fuel in a rotax (90 lbs) and 50 lbs baggage. That leaves about 350 for people in a CTLSi. Average weight of husband and wife combined is.....? Question for you and Ed C (an anyone else with a touring mission--Chanik?), if you were buying new today what LSA would you buy that would suit your mission? I was not clear about this in this thread, but I have said it elsewhere...I think the CTLS and especially the CTLSi are too heavy. They are dangerously close to, if not at, Skycatcher weights. This gives them very little utility, as you note. The CTSW, OTOH is great in this regard. My plane has 585lb useful, which is me, the wife, 24 gallons of gas, and 65lb of baggage -- plenty for any mission I can envision. I don't really care what the FAA thinks my mission should be, unless they are going to buy me the airplane for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Reponding to Ed C., Excellent. I didn't think FD imported the Supralight into the US and I didn't think they even made the CTSW new anymore, but if they do even better. Everyone can get an FD plane that fits them (no pun intended). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Excellent. I didn't think FD imported the Supralight into the US and I didn't think they even made the CTSW new anymore, but if they do even better. Everyone can get an FD plane that fits them (no pun intended). Your probably right, I'm not an easy sale, then again I have a well equipped CTSW that weighs 719lbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 All good reasons to own one. I personally like new plane smell. I understand the sentiment, but in my mind that just means in a year you end up with a less capable plane that still no longer smells new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 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. That's what it all really boils down to. What works for one pilot might not for another. I'm glad we have these choices! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Your probably right, I'm not an easy sale, then again I have a well equipped CTSW that weighs 719lbs. I wonder why mine less well equipped weighs 734? Grr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 But if I'm the one flying it Andy, it gives me all the utility I need. I can afford new and I can take the weight hit. CTLSi is great for me. It might not be great for others. Yes it's great there are choices. Let's hope it continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 I wonder why mine less well equipped weighs 734? Grr. About the time your plane came in at 734 there were a lot of CTSWs coming through Carson City. To see what was taking place we looked at the W&B for 8 planes and they were indeed getting incrementally heavier from one container to the next. I would guess you have 20lbs of evolutionary minor structural improvements that I do not enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 About the time your plane came in at 734 there were a lot of CTSWs coming through Carson City. To see what was taking place we looked at the W&B for 8 planes and they were indeed getting incrementally heavier from one container to the next. I would guess you have 20lbs of evolutionary minor structural improvements that I do not enjoy. I hope that's it, and not a skill saw faired inside the fuselage somewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 My CTSW is 740 lbs. Ed's is an older version. FD added some changes in 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.