Jump to content

CTLSi - major delays - frozen deliveries?


swiss_cheese

Recommended Posts

Everyone has a different mission....

Buy the airplane for your mission and  remember other folks  may have a different idea of what's best for them.

 

Along those lines...

 

 
1) Our Sky Arrow weighs a porky 860 lbs or so, with no chute and fairly basic avionics and instrumentation.
 
2) It only goes about 95k at 5,200 rpm
 
3) It only holds 17.8 gals usable.
 
 
On the one hand, it would be nice if it was lighter and faster and held more fuel.
 
On the other hand, it is still fully capable of taking me and Karen, full fuel and a modicum of baggage anywhere in the U.S. IOW, we do not feel unduly limited by its "shortcomings".
 
And on the third hand, with this view, who's complaining?
 
17717764660_c64289dea5_c.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I never get how these threads get like this (well, actually, I do).  TC likes his RV - it works for him.  I think that is great.  Andy likes his CT - it works for him.  I think that is great, too.  Eddie likes his Sky Arrow - it works for him.  Also great.

 

Every airplane has strengths and weaknesses (shocking, I know).  As pilot/owners chose a plane that meets most of our needs (and that we can afford) and we accept the fact that it isn't perfect.  

 

I like my CT - it works for me.  I'd also be happy with an RV in the hangar right along side it.  The more the merrier.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RV-12 SLSA  is an all metal tandem seat low wing, bubble canopy with the 912ULS carb'd engine (no option for the 912iS): 

Useful Load:  720lbs.

Baggage: 50lbs.

Fuel Capacity: 20 gallons (3 hrs with reserve) tank behind seats

Cabin: 42 inches at seats

Top Speed: 117ktas

Cruise: 113ktas

Range: 500nm

BRS parachute:  None

 

Flight Design CTLS is an all composite high wing tandem seat with 912ULS (has option for the 912iS Sport engine): 

Useful Load: 810lbs.

Baggage: 110lbs.

Fuel Capacity: 34 gallons (6 hrs with reserve of 50 minutes) wing tanks

Cabin: 49 inches at seats

Top Speed: 135ktas

Cruise Speed: 120ktas

Range: 900 nm

BRS parachute:  Standard

 

(Note. The two configs above are about the same price. No one orders an FD CTLS with the 912ULS engine anymore though it is an option - all are 912iS with Dynon or Garmin touch)

Here's an interesting post from a low-time pilot who can't read the airplane brochures or do math.

 

Cecil writes:-

 

"The two configs are about the same price". Not true. 

 

From Flight Design:-  Base Price CTLS    $143,800   Note: not including options

 

                                  Base Price CTLSi    $156,500  Note: not including options

 

Actual price I paid for RV-12 SLSA  $123,800  including all available options SkyView Touch, A/p, ADSB IN/OUT, etc

 

Hardly "about the same".

 

Cecil gets the empty weights mixed up with useful load.

 

   Empty weight:    CTLS  790lbs     CTLSI  810lbs   My RV-12 SLSA  765lbs

 

Using the CTLSi numbers lets plan a flight with full fuel, 110 lbs of bags and 2 x 200lb persons  (I use my own weight here)

 

 810 empty

 110 bags

 204 fuel x 34 gals

 400 2 x 200lb people

 

1524 total   204 over max gross

 

 lets remove all baggage

 

 1414 total  94lbs over max gross

 

lets remove 94lbs of fuel 

 

now at 1320 max weight

 

94lbs of fuel removed means remove 16gals (rounded up) leaving18gals of fuel total  meaning 15.0 gals cruise fuel after 45 min reserve

 

at 4.3 gph for CTLSi  this means 3.5 hours cruise.

 

Using my actual RV-12 SLSA numbers    765lbs empty weight and 20 gallon fuel capacity

 

765  empty

120  fuel

400  2 x 200lb people

  35  baggage

 

total 1320 max weight

 

at 5100rpm I've been getting actual burn of 4.5gph   which means allowing for 45 min reserve leaves 16.7 gallons for cruise

at 4.5 gph this means 3.7 hours of cruise.

 

So, Cecil using the numbers you supplied yourself , and which I have corrected for accuracy, my RV-12 SLSA can actually cruise for longer than the CTLSi, carry the same  2 people at 200lbs each AND carry 35lbs of baggage. Using my scenario above.

  If the CTLSi wanted to carry the same 35lbs that the RV takes then you have to deduct another almost 6 gallons of fuel thus reducing cruise to just over 2 hours.

 

Remember Cecil,  my RV-12  was delivered complete with all available options and came in at $32,500 LESS than the BASE price for the CTLSI without options.

 

  Sorry Cecil, but your facts are plain wrong and you can't read the brochures properly or do the math!!

 

When you actually sit down and crunch the numbers in the real world using actual numbers (not reading directly from the brochure which any idiot can do)  I think even you can see that the RV-12 actually does better than the CTLSI in the example I used.

 

  You brought the comparison up, not me. You introduced the numbers not me.

 

This is not to diss FD or the CTLSI but to make the point….do the math before you spout off…or someone will raise the BS flag!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never get how these threads get like this (well, actually, I do).  TC likes his RV - it works for him.  I think that is great.  Andy likes his CT - it works for him.  I think that is great, too.  Eddie likes his Sky Arrow - it works for him.  Also great.

 

Every airplane has strengths and weaknesses (shocking, I know).  As pilot/owners chose a plane that meets most of our needs (and that we can afford) and we accept the fact that it isn't perfect.  

 

I like my CT - it works for me.  I'd also be happy with an RV in the hangar right along side it.  The more the merrier.  

Fred,

 

 I think you DO know how these threads get like this!

 

Like any cockpit environment pilots in crews will use the 'Challenge and Response' technique. Cecil challenges and I responded.

 

I don't see why Cecil should be able to post inaccurate misstated half-truths and claim a pass later because he feels personally slighted.

 

For the record, I'm happy with my RV and have found it to be the perfect LSA for ME and and I'm fine with it. For a time I was actually using an all FD CTLS school in greenville SC until it closed down causing me to consider buying an LSA.

 

However, if someone like Cecil, who has a flea up his butt about any plane other than his CTLSI , continually posts inaccurate, nonsensical, 'facts' and wrongly  quotes the brochures with distortions I'm afraid I'm going to raise the BS flag.

 

I've never said the RV-12 is anything other than what it is. A nice, great flying, economic, well perfuming LSA, made in the USA. I've flown Remos, Cub Crafters, Cessna, FD, Tecnam and Vans amongst the numerous LSAs on the market. Liked them all in various ways. Chose the RV-12 SLSA as the best match for ME.

 

Cecil if you don't like it, fine. But to continually diss it and Vans because of some warped personal attitude about it is well…pretty pathetic.

 

Fred writes: "TC likes his RV - it works for him. I think that is great. Andy likes his CT - it works for him. I think that is great too. Eddie likes his Sky Arrow - it works for him. Also great."

 

Apprarently Cecil doesn't like his CTLSi anymore and it's up for sale for $150k…which, by the way, is still  $26,200 more than I paid for my RV-12 SLSA brand new.  Another of Cecil's 'facts'…corrected.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The side by side I posted is accurate.  The information right off each vendors website.  And Flight Design does in fact lead the market in SLSA sales, not RV.

 

As I stated earlier, when comparing aircraft the specs are the specs..  The RV is a patch plane, trainer.  The FDCT is both a patch plane and a cross-country traveler...and it's built for ultimate safety and value.

 

The RV versus the FDCT is slower (metal versus carbon fiber), half the range, carb's engine option only (not being able to get a 912iS is a hurt IMHO), has a half foot less cockpit width, 20% less useful load, restricted viewing (low wing), no BRS parachute, has half the baggage capacity - yet is the same price in an equivalent 912ULS version of the FDCT.

 

Please don't use my real name in posts...Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The side by side I posted is accurate.  The information right off each vendors website.  And Flight Design does in fact lead the market in SLSA sales, not RV.

 

As I stated earlier, when comparing aircraft the specs are the specs..  The RV is a patch plane, trainer.  The FDCT is both a patch plane and a cross-country traveler...and it's built for ultimate safety and value.

 

The RV versus the FDCT is slower (metal versus carbon fiber), half the range, carb's engine option only (not being able to get a 912iS is a hurt IMHO), has a half foot less cockpit width, 20% less useful load, restricted viewing (low wing), no BRS parachute, has half the baggage capacity - yet is the same price in an equivalent 912ULS version of the FDCT.

 

Please don't use my real name in posts...Thanks in advance.

Cecil,

 

  Based on the lengthy post I made in response to your continuing inaccurate statements, it seems once again, you haven't bothered to read anything and once again resort to personal attacks on airplanes, manufacturers, and owners. But, perhaps being a low-time pilot with little cross country experience, or experience flying other airplanes you expect us to give you a pass?

 

The side by side info you posted isn't accurate because you said the numbers are useful load when in fact they're empty weights. Are you seriously saying that the CTLS has a useful load of 810lbs? Seriously? So you're stating for the second time that your number is accurate because  a useful load of 810 lbs means the empty weight of a CTLS is 510lbs? Really?

 

Here are FDs specs on CTLS/CTLSi…note the empty weights, and then your figures which you say came form the vendor site.

 

SPECIFICATIONS Wing Span: 28 Feet, 2 Inches Length: 21 Feet, 8 Inches Height: 7 Feet, 8 Inches Cabin Width 49 Aspect Ratio 7.29:1 Empty Weight: 790/ 810Pounds Gross Weight: 1,320 Pounds Fuel Capacity 34/35 Gallons Fuel Economy: 5.5/4.3 Gallons/Hour Powerplant: Rotax 912S or 912iS (100HP) 2000 TBO Speed 120 KTS Economy Range @4300RPM 830 NM /1055 NM

 

From this, and previous topics, you seem to be confused as to what the relationship is between empty weight and useful load, which is actually quite concerning.

 

Here's a link to the Vans RV-12 (note the weights). Alos look at the 360 degree cockpit visibility, much better than a FD CTLS,

 

https://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv12specs.htm

 

Note nothing in there about 'patch plane' or 'bubble canopy', airspeeds, endurance, range etc..again your own personal attack.

 

As I mentioned in my response, which you've once again ignored, I agreed that Vans isn't the market leader in SLSA sales, I never said it was. and who really cares about that, apart from you?

 

BTW..you got the name of the company wrong…it's not RV it's Vans Aircraft.

 

You mention 'specs are specs' like a fact is a fact, then you proceed to place a personal attack on the manufacturer by stating that it's a 'patch plane' which s nothing more than your own personal attitude and bias.

 As you're well aware your attack on the RV as not being a cross-country plane is once again simply wrong. I and many others have personally flown RVs across the entire USA and feat which you haven't done yourself in your short experience, barely covering a couple of states, so your condescending attitude is simply weak and rather arrogant.

  

Probably the silliest thing you wrote Cecil is this:-

 

"The RV versus the FDCT is slower (metal versus carbon fiber)"…now that's funny!

 

As per usual you proffer no technical data to support your accusations and inaccuracies which leads me to believe that you can only quote a brochure and simply can't interpret real data. I posted an actual breakdown of where all your points were, and still are, wrong and I have come to the conclusion that you don't really understand how to compute weight and balance data for your airplane and that is frankly quite alarming.

 

You've never even flown an RV whereas I have flown both the CTLS and the CTLSi and  myself and others have posted here that in fact the visibility in the RV is better than the CT above, to the sides down to the pilots left and the left and right rear quadrants. If you had flown one you'd know so for you ignorance is still bliss.

 

Here's a link to FD's own pricing information:

 

http://flightdesignusa.com/aircraft/ctls/pricing-options/

 

The base price of a CTLS is far greater than the total delivery price of the RV-12 which included all the options. You don't like it, so you choose not to believe it. Too bad.

 

 I'll not bother to correct the other inaccuracies as I've already done it in the earlier post which you chose to either ignore or you just don't understand it.

 

Suffice to say, the BS flag is once again raised on you!

 

I expect you to continue to spout miss-truths, inaccuracies in your quest to diss other people's airplanes, other airplane manufactures.  Just don't expect to get a pass on continuing to proffer personal attacks with no data to support them other than personal bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange, anyone who wants to know your name only has to look up the tail number on the plane you are trying to sell. If you want to be anonymous you shouldn't be on the internet, or have an airplane.

Doug, 

 

I was talking to a guy at the airfield the other day who was interested in buying a FD CTLSi and he showed me this:-

 

http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?Manu=FLIGHT+DESIGN

 

I think its the only CTLSi for sale on the internet and there is anCTLS and CTSW for sale also. This guy was asking about the difference in airplanes and I said I'd flown the CTLS and CTLSi and thought they were very nice LSAs. Thought I'd plug Cecil/Burgers plane to try help him get a sale!

 

He was trying to see more details and the link didn't seem to be working. I said I believe the plane (N70ZZ)  is being sold by Cecil/ 100Hamburger who participates on this forum, and has posted here that his plane is for sale, although I think it's registered to an LLC.

 

See also "CTLSI for Sale" thread on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I bought my CTLS, the RV was not available as an SLSA or I would have considered it. I like the plane. The LS has a bit more space (I am 6'1" and 210 lbs.) and after training in a Skycatcher, I liked the fact that the seat moved instead of the pedals..

If it made sense to own two planes, I would love to have them both.

If I had lots of money and a PPL I would want a Stearman too. ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of any reason an RV12 would not be a great cross-country LSA.  The fuel capacity/endurance exceeds most of our personal endurance.  Personally, I prefer the metal construction to composite, but that's just my personal opinion.  I'm indifferent on high-wing vs low-wing.  The RV12 is a much better looking airplane, but again, that's just personal opinion.

As another data point, I have a good friend with a Jabiru 3300 powered Sonex. His fuel burn is higher (~6gph) and fuel capacity lower (17 gallons) than an RV-12, and he has flown that airplane to every state in the lower 48 and makes frequent trips from Georgia to Kansas to visit family. He flight plans for two hour legs and around 150mph. His useful load is about 500lb.

 

There is nothing terribly limiting about an RV-12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
 
Hello,
Excuse my English.
I have the same problem , CTLSi paid in 2013 and still no aircraft.
You have the serial number of the machine , I have a list of machines currently Kamenz .
Do you speak French ?.

We have paid our CTLSi in 2013, we have contract and still have no aircraft delivered two years after, and virtually we have no information or follow-up: the Flight Design management (Germany) is almost unreachable by phone or by email and when they finally reply it is to keep telling us the aircraft cell is soon delivered from Ukraine and they postpone the delivery date (twice by addendum to the contract). We fear a bankrupt due to the massive investments and the delay of the C4 certification.

 

Any one with similar recent experience with the CTLSi assembled in Germany???

 

Many thanks for your comments and posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 
Hello,

Excuse my English.

I have the same problem , CTLSi paid in 2013 and still no aircraft.

You have the serial number of the machine , I have a list of machines currently Kamenz .

Do you speak French ?.

 

Wow , somebody from FD needs to talk to this person ! (even if it is a dealer or a Rep. from the US.)   Sorry do not speak French. As a customer, there does not seem to be any problems with FD  deliveries in the US.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Adam, Still have your old hangar at HHR? Let me know if you need some CT time before you fly the

new bird! WF

Hi Wayne,  Thanks for the offer!  Perhaps one of these days I can buy you lunch at Eureka and we can do some pattern work?  I'm not worried about the flying part, just the landing part.  It would be nice to regain the landing sight picture.  I have not flown a CT in 2 years now (but have flown other stuff here and there just to get up in the air).  Insurance will require me to do some time with a CFI (5 hours) which is a good thing anyways.  I still have the man cave at KHHR.  I personally have moved to Orange County, built a house in Yorba Linda but my HQ is still in El Segundo so while I'm considering a larger hangar at KFUL (Fullerton), at least for awhile I'm keeping KHHR as home base.  I thought my plane was to be shipped already, looks like its delayed.  FD is "waiting on parts" to get my plane to the point of flight test and release for dealer shipping.  I'm remaining hopeful, have been told it will ship "soon".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We have the same problem of delivery in Europe (Switzerland, danemark, France, Belgium, etc ..).

Flight design seems to be on the limit of the bankrupt ....

Some structures of CT are waiting (in Kamenz) for engine and instrument delivery ... to be finalized.

Actual delay .... is 2 years and 7 month .... if promisses of delivery are respected.

CTLSi ordered in march 2013 and payed in full.

In fact Flight Design doesn't answer any more !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cirrus toyed with the idea of rebranding a low-winged European LSA and selling it as a Cirrus, but abandoned the idea:

 

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/cirrus-suspends-light-sport-srs-program

 

0805009_8.jpg

 

I thought it was a good idea. My suggestion was to sell the plane and lessons for a package price, then allow a trade-up to an SR20 or SR22 within a time certain.

 

The powers-that-be obviously disagreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, the FK14.  When I saw that, my mouth watered.  I think it's the best looking LSA I have ever seen.  You can still buy one, and they have an LSA-legal version (probably with a monster climb prop to slow it down).  I don't know why Cirrus didn't move forward with this., it seems like low-hanging fruit to get into the LSA segment.  

 

According to their website, it's got 122kt cruise at 75% power (obviously not the LSA version  B) ) and a 151kt Vne.  Stall is 33kt (!).  Useful load is 569lb.  Very impressive numbers.  Standard engine is an 80hp 912UL, with 100hp 912ULS and 912iS as options.  Also a BRS option.  I want one.

 

http://www.fk-lightplanes.com/aircraft.php?af=3&ln=2&pg=19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed that.

 

Yes, the logical way to limit top speed would be...

 

1) To just limit maximum RPM by placard. I believe the Carbon Cub does it that way.

 

Or...

 

2) To actually flatten prop pitch until at maximum continuous rpm 120 kts is not exceeded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, in looking at info I came across a Belgian accident report on an FK14 that involved two fatalities.  The Belgians know how to write a detailed accident report!

 

The accident was not airplane related, it was the common refrain of pilot mistakes:

 

*  Airplane flying 88lb over gross weight

 

*  Low altitude maneuvering (steep turn at 1500AGL or below, actual height could not be determined)

 

*  Low speed (~44kt) leading to stall and left hand spin. 

 

*  BRS activated at too low an altitude to fully deploy.  Pin was found on floor, indicating it might have been left in until the activation attempt.  :(

 

http://mobilit.belgium.be/sites/default/files/downloads/AA-10-4.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...