Flight Design insolvency

[deckofficer]

I think the requirements are money, more money, youth, and a strong heart. It's probably as stressful as the presidency!

That too!!!

[diegoh1]

This question is for Tom Peghiny or the FD USA staff. Do you plan to have parts from AeroJones and other suppliers for the planes in the USA or outside like Mexico?

As Gunther says, the Mexican dealer, Arturo, and sure Gunther and I would be happy if we can have parts and of course new CTLS planes from FD USA.

Regards,

[Cluemeister]

With the right commitment Bob, you too could turn $2 million into a $1 million in no time. 

[gbigs]

So your suggestion on the CTFLIER forum is for the US Distributor to drop all his current customers like bad baggage, to support your pet airplane type?  

 

Thanks for that odd suggestion, but I don't think that's Tom's style. 

 

Here here...if we wanted a Piipstrel we would have bought one instead of the superior Flight Design CTLSi.

 

Tom has integrity...and deep experience in the field...which has turned out to be a HUGE part of the reason FD has succeeded in the USA.

[deckofficer]

Here here...if we wanted a Piipstrel we would have bought one instead of the superior Flight Design CTLSi.

 

Superior US marketing and sales thanks to Tom's efforts. All of that currently under a dark cloud which is too bad. As to the aircraft, true FD is superior to all others with the exception of the Virus SW. Vb (rough air speed) is 130 kt, and don't you agree that speaks volumes? 

 

Can't find FD's Vb numbers (appears to be an impressive 120 kt) but VNE is 145 kt for FD, 163 kt for Virus SW.

[gbigs]

Superior US marketing and sales thanks to Tom's efforts. All of that currently under a dark cloud which is too bad. As to the aircraft, true FD is superior to all others with the exception of the Virus SW. Vb (rough air speed) is 130 kt, and don't you agree that speaks volumes? 

 

Can't find FD's Vb numbers but VNE is 145 kt for FD, 163 kt for Virus SW.

 

I am probably going to get into trouble responding to you, but you do know both are SLSA right?  It wouldn't matter if both planes had a Vne of 300kts.  They both  have to fly according to the rules.

[IrishAl]

Thank you for commenting, Tom.

[Tip]

Thanks Tom for your post.

[IrishAl]

Superior US marketing and sales thanks to Tom's efforts. All of that currently under a dark cloud which is too bad. As to the aircraft, true FD is superior to all others with the exception of the Virus SW. Vb (rough air speed) is 130 kt, and don't you agree that speaks volumes? 

 

Can't find FD's Vb numbers (appears to be an impressive 120 kt) but VNE is 145 kt for FD, 163 kt for Virus SW.

 

Deckofficer, you are right in saying the Virus SW is an exceptional aircraft, and a performance leader in its class, but if you're thinking of committing to one, I'd recommend you sit in one first.  

 

The cabin is quite small and lots of people don't like the low wing spar, even though your head can't hit it when you're strapped in.  Luggage capacity is also less than the CT.  It's definitely not an airplane for big guys.

 

But performance is outstanding, and I suppose it amounts to which you prioritize: extra speed or extra space.

[Cluemeister]

I agree with Al regarding the Pipistrel.  Sat in one at the Sebring Expo.  Lots to like, but still like the CT more.

[deckofficer]

I am probably going to get into trouble responding to you, but you do know both are SLSA right?  It wouldn't matter if both planes had a Vne of 300kts.  They both  have to fly according to the rules.

 

Why would you get into trouble for responding to me? I really do like the FD, and used there is a decent selection. As to LSA restrictions, that would only apply to the LSA offering of the Virus SW, where they disable the in flight adjustable prop and set a pitch that is LSA compliant in regards to speed. With this aircraft the owner has the flexibility of registering as Glider - Experimental Exhibition, so no LSA restrictions and if the pilot has a glider license with self launch endorsement, no medical requirements.

[Znurtdog]

3 Cheers for Tom P!    

[Fly Boss]

Thanks Tom

[Anticept]

Enjoy your research into Pipistrel, you might be pleasantly surprised. Besides, on a visual cue both FD and Pipistrel share a lot except for the high sailplane type elevator. On the Virus SW with the 35' wingspan, it does include as an option, the standard lift spoilers found on their 40' and 50' wing span models.

 

After your research would you mind commenting back here? I respect your opinion and background. 

 

These are comparisons of the AOIs/POH of each aircraft. I am comparing the CTLS carbureted and the Virus SW, 600 kg version. The big difference between the CTLS and CTLSi is fuel usage, but that's not fair to compare without a Virus SW with the 912iS engine as well.

 

Glide Ratio:

FD: 8.5:1 glide ratio (manual explicitly states this to be a conservative estimate)

VSW: 14:1 glide ratio

 

Aspect Ratios:

FD: 7.34 (calculated from dimensions)

VSW: 11.3 (from manual)

 

Dimensions:

FD: 28 ft 2 inches wingspan, 21 ft 8 inches tip to tail

VSW: 35 ft 1 inch wingspan, 21.3 inches tip to tail

 

Stall speed:

FD: 42 knots 0 flaps, 39 knots @ 35 degrees flaps

VSW: 44 knots 0 flaps, 40 with flaps (unspecified setting, max appears to be 19 degrees though)

 

Propeller dimensions:

FD: 65 inches Neuform, 68 inches Sensenich.

VSW: 67 inches

 

MTOW roll out distances (both have an mtow of 1320, virus says 1322, but both probably have much higher when not considering certification basis):

FD: 820 feet. 1500 ft for 50 ft obstacle. 15 degrees flaps. Note: in my experience, max flaps dramatically shortens this distance. Comparable with VSW, but VSW still a little shorter.

VSW: 410 feet. 790 ft for 50 ft obstacle. Unspecified flaps, but extrapolating from checklist (states to use 2^nd position, which is 19 degrees), max flaps.

 

Standard empty weight (greatly varies, take with grain of salt on both, this is from manuals):

FD: 730

VSW: 636

NOTE: FD requires parachutes. VSW is optional. This closes the gap a little bit as the parachute on FD is ~35 pounds.

 

Baggage size:

FD: 110 lbs baggage compartment, plus some odds and ends in belly bay and hat rack (5 lbs per “object” for hat rack).

VSW: 85 lbs

 

Max G loading (Warning: Don't do negative Gs. The airframe will take these forces, but rotax engines cannot do 0G or lower due to oil circuit design; you will immediately starve the engine and blow oil out of the breather tube. Carbs will also flood the engine and it will stop):

FD: +4 -2

VSW: +4 -2

 

Vne:

FD: 145 knots as limited by parachute. Actual demonstrated in testing is 162.5 knots (as manual states).

VSW: 163 knots. Parachute limitation unknown.

 

Range:

FD: 830 NM @ 97 CAS @ 4300 RPM

VSW: 795 NM @ 117 CAS @ 5300 RPM

 

Ceiling:

FD: Unstated. Varies. I believe some of these forum guys have gotten around 16,000 feet, maybe a little higher. I personally live close to sea level, so my prop is pitched lower. I can't go much above 13,000.

VSW: 16,400 ft

 

Total fuel Usable:

FD: 32 gallons

VSW: 24.5 gallons

 

Fuel Efficiency:

Really hard to compare direct numbers. Neither manual directly says anything. But, judging from the other characteristics, it's not hard to deduce that the VSW is a little better on fuel use.

 

Parachute?

FD: Required

VSW: Optional

 

Soarability:

FD: Not officially (and probably difficult)

VSW: Optional autofeathering prop (allowed by regs as it's not adjustable in flight) and manual has instructions on how to perform soaring.

NOTE: Cirrus has an automatic prop. Could LSA allow for this, as long as it's not adjustable by the pilot?

 

Tailwheel available?

FD: No

VSW: Yes (optional)

 

Floats available?

FD: Yes

VSW: They state it's possible, but no one has opted yet so they haven't done the certification and testing. It has been done on the Sinus.

 

Skis available?

FD: No configuration that I know of yet. I can't possibly see why it wouldn't be possible. However, it is a question of engineering.

VSW: Yes

 

Airbrakes available?

FD: No

VSW: Yes (optional)

 

Cockpit width (outside diameter, no statements from either on inside):

FD: Not explicitly stated. I went and measured. It looks to be about 47-48 inches at the widest point.

VSW: 44.4 inches

 

Mx Manuals:

FD: Pretty long, but not a lot of repair instructions beyond typical remove and replace. Layout is hard to read and follow. Lots of step by step instructions.

VSW: Relatively short. Uses a lot of isometric drawings (BIG PLUS for readability!). Has a few repair instructions for non structural items. Layout is easier.

 

Brake fluid:

FD: 5606 “red oil”, GA standard.

VSW: Dot 4

NOTE: I do not like the fact that this aircraft uses dot 4. This is extremely uncommon, and the two fluids and their system seals are completely INCOMPATIBLE. Dot 4 is clear or amber, so it's not easy to mix them up as long as they are paying attention, but the fact is, having this around the shop will raise eyebrows. Dot 4 is hydroscopic like ethanol, it sucks moisture right out of the air. 5606 has a flammability problem, but not really a factor in small aircraft because we don't carry much. Also, 83282 and 87257 is replacing 5606, they are compatible. 83282 makes up for the flammability problem, while 87257 makes up for the cold viscosity drawback of 83282 yet still maintains a decent fire resistance.

 

Pricing:

FD CTLS (NOT CTLSi): Pricing for ~143k USD flyable with decent outfitting. See: http://flightdesignusa.com/aircraft/ctls/pricing-options/

VSW: 100k USD starting point. It does not include even the basic instruments or lights to fly. Looks like it's around 120-130k outfitted similarly to FD CTLS. In addition, some of these options have notes that they will degrade aircraft performance or specs in some way. See: http://www.flypipistrel.com/price-lists/PIPISTREL-VIRSW-2015-09-19.pdf

 

Availability:

FD: All aircraft models: A lot of owners in the US (400?). Worldwide, numbers are pretty decent (2000ish?). Once they get past this recent development, hopefully parts and airframes will flow again.

VSW: All aircraft models: Unclear, not a lot in the US. Worldwide has a good number (600 as of 2014).

 

Adorability factor

FD: I love my CTLS. Totes Adorbs.

VSW: Actually looks pretty decent too. Doesn't have a face though.

 

So, in my opinion: get what you like. Between the two, they are still pretty comparable. The CTLS, I suspect, is a little more comfortable. The Virus looks like it has more useful load, but not many places to put it. Looking at the pictures of the Virus SW cockpit, there seems to be less room inside, and the seats don't seem to move (http://www.pipistrel.si/en/image/large/5081/sedezi7.jpg). The CTLS takes up less room in a hangar. Etc. etc. etc. Just going to come down to what you want.

 

Now, as said previously: I don't see the virus being comfortable for me. I'm a big guy. Wide shoulders. Bit of a pork belly. I look like a 30 year old retired linebacker. I like flying for cheap, but there's a limit to how cramped I want to be while I am at it.

[deckofficer]

Wow, when you research you don't mess around. Your right the seats don't adjust but I believe the rudder pedals do. As to fuel burn, on the Pipistrel forum owners report 3.7 gph @ 133 kt. The NASA efficiency competition did have FD at 2nd place behind the Virus SW. The LSA version shows 3.2 gph @ 115 kt. Rate of climb at 1680 fpm is impressive.

 

Bummer about the hydroscopic DOT 4, wonder why they use it.

 

http://pipistrel-usa.com/info-pack/Pipistrel-VirusSW-Information-Pack.pdf

[Anticept]

In my personal experience, I can get about 4 gph at 100-110. I didn't cross check instrumentation and calibration so I don't know if that's the actual results.

 

The one beef I have with the Virus SW stats, is they seem to be posting all of the best stats only, without stating the configuration and equipment used for each. That makes me a little suspicious of some of them. For one: 1680 fpm? What are they doing to get that? Anyways, the LSA version is 1020. Still sounds kinda stretched. Then again the speed and efficiency is absurdly high so maybe they really do.

 

I would like to see how an FD plane fares with a high aspect ratio wing. And props that can take full advantage of engine power!

[deckofficer]

In the 2008 NASA challenge, the top three competitors were the Pipistrel Virus SW, FD CT 180 (the efficient Supralight European version @ MTOW of 1042 lbs) and Lambada UFM-13. On the 400 nm course the Virus SW finished 1st, 10 minutes later the Lambada finished 2nd and 21 minutes later the FD CT 180 arrived at the finish line. This contest was for speed but they still measured fuel used and the Virus had the lowest fuel burn. Lowest fuel burn doesn't normally go to the fastest competitor.

 

The 1680 fpm is courtesy of the in flight adjustable prop.

 

A Pipistrel Sinus owner on the Pip forum buddy flies with a friend that has a plane that can only manage 80 kt. While his friend is close to 5 gph at that speed, the Sinus is burning 1.2 gph. 76 mpg is in the realm of the old Honda Insight in the hands of a talented hyper-miler, but not going 92 mph.

[FlyingMonkey]

I have a very hard time believing some of the fuel numbers for the Pip LSA.  3.2gph @ 115kt?  That's a number for 4500rpm or less setting on a 912ULS.  That would mean at a max continuous cruise setting of 5500rpm that airplane would be going WAY faster than LSA legal.  

 

Also the book Corey quoted states:  795 NM @ 117 CAS @ 5300 RPM  and that the airplane carries 24.5 gallons.  5300rpm on a 912ULS is at *least* a 5gph fuel flow rate, probably closer to 5.5gph.  But using the lowest believable number:

 

5gph / 24.5 = 4.9 hours...4.9hrs x 117kts = 573nm range, not 795nm.  Does anybody honestly believe the range of a Pip running 1000rpm higher and carrying 9.5 gallons less fuel will be within 35nm of the range of the CT, going 10kt faster?  I sure don't.  Can the Virus make 795nm?  Maybe.  At 117 CAS?  NO WAY.

 

Something is off with these factory numbers.   

[Ian]

Is it possible the gph figures are being quoted in imperial not US gallons? Still sound pretty incredible to me!

When are you lot going to shift to litres then we can have some consistency LOL ??

[deckofficer]

I have a very hard time believing some of the fuel numbers for the Pip LSA.  3.2gph @ 115kt?  That's a number for 4500rpm or less setting on a 912ULS.  That would mean at a max continuous cruise setting of 5500rpm that airplane would be going WAY faster than LSA legal.  

 

Also the book Corey quoted states:  795 NM @ 117 CAS @ 5300 RPM  and that the airplane carries 24.5 gallons.  5300rpm on a 912ULS is at *least* a 5gph fuel flow rate, probably closer to 5.5gph.  But using the lowest believable number:

 

5gph / 24.5 = 4.9 hours...4.9hrs x 117kts = 573nm range, not 795nm.  Does anybody honestly believe the range of a Pip running 1000rpm higher and carrying 9.5 gallons less fuel will be within 35nm of the range of the CT, going 10kt faster?  I sure don't.  Can the Virus make 795nm?  Maybe.  At 117 CAS?  NO WAY.

 

Something is off with these factory numbers.   

 

Like you, I felt the same way and wrote it off as vaporware marketing hype. But then I read about both the 2007 and 2008 NASA challenge, and those numbers proved out in competition. Here is the spec sheet on both the Virus SW and the LSA version, all parameters at full gross.

 

http://pipistrel-usa.com/info-pack/Pipistrel-VirusSW-Information-Pack.pdf

 

The icing on the cake is the tail wheel version has tundra wheels/tires as a $2500 option. Here is a video of a tundra wheeled SW making a number of low passes at 160 kt. Thanks to the Canada boys.

 

[FastEddieB]

When are you lot going to shift to litres then we can have some consistency LOL ??

 

 

Doubt it will happen any time in the next fortnight or so! 

[FlyingMonkey]

Like you, I felt the same way and wrote it off as vaporware marketing hype. But then I read about both the 2007 and 2008 NASA challenge, and those numbers proved out in competition. Here is the spec sheet on both the Virus SW and the LSA version, all parameters at full gross.

 

http://pipistrel-usa.com/info-pack/Pipistrel-VirusSW-Information-Pack.pdf

 

The icing on the cake is the tail wheel version has tundra wheels/tires as a $2500 option. Here is a video of a tundra wheeled SW making a number of low passes at 160 kt. Thanks to the Canada boys.

 

 

Let me rephrase.  I'm not quite calling "pants on fire", but IMO the specs pointed out by Corey in the POH are simply not possible.  Like the "better, faster, cheaper" saying, you can pick two for an airplane using a Rotax 912 with a fixed-pitch prop:

 

117kt

5300rpm

795nm range on 24.5 gallons. 

 

You are also VERY unlikely to be doing 115kt @ 3.2gph in any airplane that will make the LSA stall requirements.  

 

Also, any airplane can dive at the runway for a fast past.  I have run mine to 140kt in similar circumstances, the only reason I couldn't do 160kt is that it's above Vne.  Meaning I could have, but shouldn't have, so didn't. 

 

Physics are physics.

[Anticept]

Like you, I felt the same way and wrote it off as vaporware marketing hype. But then I read about both the 2007 and 2008 NASA challenge, and those numbers proved out in competition. Here is the spec sheet on both the Virus SW and the LSA version, all parameters at full gross.

 

http://pipistrel-usa.com/info-pack/Pipistrel-VirusSW-Information-Pack.pdf

 

The icing on the cake is the tail wheel version has tundra wheels/tires as a $2500 option. Here is a video of a tundra wheeled SW making a number of low passes at 160 kt. Thanks to the Canada boys.

I'm cautiously believing those numbers, simply because if you said 20 years ago there are planes out there that could go 100 knots at sub 4 gph, nobody would take you seriously then either lol. Anyways, it looks like they basically put a motor on the front of a glider. Those are some thin thin wings! Drawback: this thing will be crazy sensitive to ice and frost!

 

Anyways, canada guys can use adjustable props. We can't. I bet that's why you can get 3.x gph at 5300.

[FlyingMonkey]

BTW, don't get me wrong, I think the Pips are very nice airplanes and very efficient.  Just not "break the time/space continuum" efficient.  

[FlyingMonkey]

I'm cautiously believing those numbers, simply because if you said 20 years ago there are planes out there that could go 100 knots at sub 4 gph, nobody would take you seriously then either lol. Anyways, it looks like they basically put a motor on the front of a glider. Those are some thin thin wings! Drawback: this thing will be crazy sensitive to ice and frost!

 

Anyways, canada guys can use adjustable props. We can't. I bet that's why you can get 3.x gph at 5300.

 

All my comments were based on apples-to-apples with the CT using a fixed pitch prop.  I don't know enough about CS props to say what performance might be in a "non-LSA" configuration.  

 

I will say that those big wings incur a drag penalty.  More lift generates more drag.  It's counter-intuitive that an airplane with bigger, high-lift wings will be faster than a CT and more fuel efficient and still have better glide at the same weight (1320lb/600kg).  Wing profile plays a part, but you can't get away from that fact that generating more lift generates more induced and form drag.