CTLSi, F2, C182, DA40

[Nap]

Demoed a CTLSi, Sportcruiser, DA40 and have been flying a rental Cessna 182. I did not like the Sportcuiser that much for a variety of reasons but did like all the others. I would like to keep my purchase cost around $200K, so I would need to go used for a 182 or DA40 without the glass panel I really like. So that’s my dilemma, do I buy a CTLSi with glass or a 182 or DA40 without. I do use Foreflight on my Ipad so will hsve some glass with the 182 or DA40.  Speed, load capacity and 2 vs 4 seats are not much of an issue for me. Comments appreciated.

[Warmi]

CTLS is not a competitor to either a 182 or DA40 so I’m surprised this is even a contest. You either need 4 seats and faster/heavier plane or you don’t ...

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

With that budget you can find any aircraft and update avionics to your taste / needs.  Avionics are rapidly changing, I'd not limit what you're looking for based on panel.  The question is what do you want to fly around in, and missions it serves.  Also a factor is the 182 will be burning ~ 15 gal/hr or so?  As 100LL goes up in the future do you like idea of $100/hr+ in fuel operation costs?  I love flexibility of fuel options in the Rotax, and it sips gas compared to others.  Can't speak to DA40, but I much more enjoy the CT series compared to Cessna line up, stand out from the crowd and buy a CT - nobody runs out on the ramp and asks what a 182 is, but they do when a CT pulls up.

[AGLyme]

Nap, I too looked at a used 182 in solid condition when I was buying a plane... and, bought a CTLSi.  Tough to explain to people, but I get it.  

So, my flight instructor/pal borrowed my plane today.  He is an excellent stick and rudder guy.  He texted me  the following message tonight: 

 "I used 12.9 gallons and left you a check for $80" 

I wrote back stating that I burn 93 Octane @ $3.20/ gallon which is about 40 bucks.  And don't worry about it... If operating costs are no object, go for the 182 or Diamond.  I figured for the first plane the CT line is an excellent choice.  You can always trade up if you want more seats or IFR.  I have had mine for a year and I am looking forward to the next year.  I don't feel like I am missing out on much and meanwhile I pay very little for gas comparatively, now that is pretty cool.

[Ben2k9]

Do you need IFR capability or not?

i would consider a Cirrus SR20 also in this price range. You will have glass cockpit 

[FlyingMonkey]

a 182 is one of the most competent all-around single engine light airplanes ever made. 

[CTSW Bob]

I had a 172, then 182, and now a CTSW.  Completely different mission the 182 versus CT.  Now I fly for fun.  Love the CT.  Nobody takes the minivan out cruising for fun....

With that said, you also can’t fit more than two people and a bunch of stuff in a CT.  I flew my 182 in conditions that would ground me in an LSA, without nary a hiccup.  XC machine = 182, fun = CT.

That’s my take.

 

Bob

 

[CTSW Bob]

I also second the Cirrus over a 182 at your budget.  I would also add that a parachute, to me, makes all the difference.  You can add a chute to a 182 for roughly $20k last I checked.  Repacks are expensive on certified planes versus the CT line.

 

[KentWien]

Great analogy, Bob. Couldn’t have said it better. 

[Animosity2k]

Cirrus repacks are like $20k

[CTSW Bob]

Thanks Kent.  Yes, the repacks are expensive, but only if you never use it.  I think at resale the majority of the installation cost could be recouped.  A 182 is always in high demand, and one with a chute would stand out.  I had over 17 offers in a matter of days when I listed my 182.  Current repack prices are listed on the BRS website.  I know all my passengers think the chute on my CT is tops, and it brings us both piece of mind.  

 

[Animosity2k]

On 12/15/2019 at 10:57 PM, CTSW Bob said:

Thanks Kent.  Yes, the repacks are expensive, but only if you never use it.  I think at resale the majority of the installation cost could be recouped.  A 182 is always in high demand, and one with a chute would stand out.  I had over 17 offers in a matter of days when I listed my 182.  Current repack prices are listed on the BRS website.  I know all my passengers think the chute on my CT is tops, and it brings us both piece of mind.  

 

Outside of storage capabilities I think the CT makes for a great XC machine. I flew mine from from California to Ohio and did 6 hour legs without any issues, in fact I was quite comfortable.

[FlyingMonkey]

On 4/4/2020 at 1:50 PM, Animosity2k said:

Outside of storage capabilities I think the CT makes for a great XC machine. I flew mine from from California to Ohio and did 6 hour legs without any issues, in fact I was quite comfortable.

It's true, but the conditions have to be right.  If the sky is clear-ish and the winds are not outrageous, and you don't need to take more than one passenger, the CT does great for travel.

[AGLyme]

I think that’s with all GA planes tho.  I have had zero mega bumpy wind issues after 120 hours of flying the LS.  I go to lunch with a group who have bonanzas, an Arrow, a 182, cardinal and a 170.  Our complaints are similar.  With that said I’m sure the conditions are different out west re the mountain and heat issues.  Maybe the LS and SW have different outcomes in bumpy conditions.

[okent]

I have a good friend who lives about 150 miles away that we travel with who has a 182.  Solid docile plane and good 4 person hauler.  We both went on a trip to Nashville a few months ago and our travel times were within a few minutes of each other so the 182 really doesn't have much of a speed advantage.

The CT can hold 110 pounds of soft side bags so I don't  have a storage issue.

If you only need two seats and not IFR then I would forego the other options and get the CT.

No buyers remorse after a year of flying mine.

[FlyingMonkey]

3 hours ago, AGLyme said:

I think that’s with all GA planes tho.  I have had zero mega bumpy wind issues after 120 hours of flying the LS.  I go to lunch with a group who have bonanzas, an Arrow, a 182, cardinal and a 170.  Our complaints are similar.  With that said I’m sure the conditions are different out west re the mountain and heat issues.  Maybe the LS and SW have different outcomes in bumpy conditions.

Yeah, but you can't fly in IFR conditions like you can with an Arrow, Cardinal, or 170.  And a 1320lb airplane with lower wing loading is absolutely more susceptible to wind effects than a 2000lb+ airplane with higher wing loading.  If you had been on the gulf coast with me and Bill Ince a few years ago landing in 24G32 conditions, you would not say you'd have "zero mega bumpy wind issues" I promise you.

Don't get me wrong, I think for two seat airplanes it's an amazing traveling machine; I've logged over 600 hours in mine and been all over the USA in it.  But you do have to pick your battles more than in heavier, IFR-capable airplanes.   

[Tom Baker]

32 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Yeah, but you can't fly in IFR conditions like you can with an Arrow, Cardinal, or 170.  And a 1320lb with lower wing loading is absolutely more susceptible to wind effects than a 2000lb+ airplane with higher wing loading.  If you had been on the gulf coast with me and Bill Ince a few years ago landing in 24G32 conditions, you would not say you'd have "zero mega bumpy wind issues" I promise you.

I have thousands of hours flying pipeline patrol with both Cessna 172's and Piper Warriors. I flew in some pretty rough conditions. The CT is not that much different in the windy rough conditions. There is more to the equation than weight and wing area.

[AGLyme]

43 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

landing in 24G32 conditions

Agree with you on the landings for sure.  I will pass on flying on an unscientific metric basis at least 20% of the time I get offers to go due to my experience level vs landing in gusty conditions.  Where we disagree is your general flying comment.  If you were referring to landing only then I agree with you.

PS:  went up today in gusty conditions for my continued practice program after a (too) long winter of not enough flying.  Landed with 0 degs flaps for the first time because I "had to", meaning, I have practiced 0 degs landings many times, but just for practice.  Today was the real thing.  It is coming together.  I did kiss the plane after the hangar door closed but don't tell anyone.

[WmInce]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Yeah, but you can't fly in IFR conditions like you can with an Arrow, Cardinal, or 170.  And a 1320lb with lower wing loading is absolutely more susceptible to wind effects than a 2000lb+ airplane with higher wing loading.  If you had been on the gulf coast with me and Bill Ince a few years ago landing in 24G32 conditions, you would not say you'd have "zero mega bumpy wind issues" I promise you.

Don't get me wrong, I think for two seat airplanes it's an amazing traveling machine; I've logged over 600 hours in mine and been all over the USA in it.  But you do have to pick your battles more than in heavier, IFR-capable airplanes.   

Concur totally.

[FlyingMonkey]

37 minutes ago, AGLyme said:

I did kiss the plane after the hangar door closed but don't tell anyone.

I always give my CT a little pat on the nose when she brings me home after a tough flight.  No shame there!

[Animosity2k]

4 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

It's true, but the conditions have to be right.  If the sky is clear-ish and the winds are not outrageous, and you don't need to take more than one passenger, the CT does great for travel.

I've flown in 50kt winds aloft without an issue? The clear skyish thing resonates as there were plenty of times we had to change our flight plan to adapt for precipitation we could not penetrate like you could with an IFR capable airplane. 

[frfly172]

I have a two seat IFR capable aircraft in my liberty XL2,makes a good two seat cross country aircraft with higher gross weight. I am now considering going to a high wing LSA ,the ct line seems to be worth considering. 

[AGLyme]

frfly, I note you are from Boston.  Fly down to Chester, CT and see the LS... better yet, go to Woodstock (you can fly into Danielson which is nearby to Woodstock if you don't like short runways (Woodstock), and see the brand new F2... have fun during the search.

[Andy A]

My CTLSi is definitely fun to fly but can't carry the weight of the CTSWs or older CTLSs. The useful load of my plane is 464 pounds.  After subtracting 210 pounds for full fuel you are only left with 254 pounds for people and stuff.  You don't really need to fly around with full fuel at all times, since its about 7 hours worth of flying, but it is something you need to know.  Some of the CTSWs and CTLSs can carry 600 + pounds.  Also, don't forget to factor in the $4-5,000 for the 5 year rubber replacement in you operating costs.  It is very fuel efficient, but this reoccuring 5 year cost increases the operating costs.  With all that said, I still enjoy my CTLSi.  My mission will be changing in a year or two when our child gets a little older...and hopefully my airplane will too.  

Also, after 2 years of owning the CT, I personally don't think LSAs are cheaper to own that a similar standard category airplane.

[FlyingMonkey]

1 hour ago, Animosity2k said:

I've flown in 50kt winds aloft without an issue? The clear skyish thing resonates as there were plenty of times we had to change our flight plan to adapt for precipitation we could not penetrate like you could with an IFR capable airplane. 

Steady winds aloft are rarely a problem (other than they are always a headwind and slow you down!).  The problem is gusty winds and turbulence, which are more violent in a lighter airplane with less inertia which gets moved more than a heavier airplane.