Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
frfly172

Used ct values?

Recommended Posts

Prob similar to the SW effect when the LS was introduced.  Depending on the F2 intro pricing... The F2 release is both good and potentially bad for the LS in the short term only.

The “good” is FD is investing in the future which bodes well for the installed base of CT planes all around the world.  Carbon Cub keeps improving their products as do all the healthy plane makers.

If the F2 is Priced $10k + higher than the LS intro price then prob not a big value diminution in the used LS market.

The big surprise is how well valued the FD products held up during the bankruptcy and ultimate sale.  To me, that’s the best test for resale value there is.  The market really likes the plane.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tip said:

I’m more concerned about our values when Light Sport moves to 3600 pounds. 

Me too, I'm hoping it's marginal, with the hopes the new reg will allow things like constant speed props. And or raising the gross on the CTs to keep them competitive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, our planes are brand new with modern avionics compared to GA planes. The Flight Design is a true cross country machine that can get into 1200’. And, it hard to beat 5 gph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tip said:

But, our planes are brand new with modern avionics compared to GA planes. The Flight Design is true cross country machine that can get into 1200’. And, it hard to beat 5 gph.

Not compared to , say,  a 1700 lbs gross , 140 knots Rotax 915is equipped LSA plane - unless the new breed of LSAs will get priced so high as to keep older , first-gen , LSAs competitive purely on their much lower price point basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tip said:

I’m more concerned about our values when Light Sport moves to 3600 pounds.

I'm not.  The "Light Sport License" hasn't been hugely popular, which was the original projection...meaning, scads of pilots and newbie pilots would choose the Sport Pilot license option due to potential health issues with people my age (50's/60's/70's folks -- the ones who are buying new planes) and therefore push strong demand for the newer, better equipped, and yes lighter "LSA Planes"... but, the vast majority of the pilots I know who fly CT's and other Light Sport planes are PPL's... I think what the LSA producers achieved is inventing a pile of C-152 replacements (and C-172 and Cherokee replacements as well since most flights are with 1-2 people) with great avionics, dependability, low operating costs and great comfort.  

I hope as CT owners, we are fortunate enough to achieve a Gross Weight increase of at least the Float Plane max... say another 100 lbs... that would mean a lot to me in terms of taking a passenger and cover about 400-500 miles on a long trip.  If not, the weight limitation hasn't been a hardship for me - yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AGLyme said:

I hope as CT owners, we are fortunate enough to achieve a Gross Weight increase of at least the Float Plane max... say another 100 lbs... that would mean a lot to me in terms of taking a passenger and cover about 400-500 miles on a long trip.  If not, the weight limitation hasn't been a hardship for me - yet.

You can't automatically assume that because they allow the airplane to fly at 1430 with floats that the airframe can handle the same weight without the floats. The floats themselves help provide the lift to support at least some of their weight. However in the case of the CT it has been tested at a higher weight on wheels.

Last night I was using my tablet to post, and kept the reply short and simple. I would like to expand on what I said. I have heard many times people state that we should be able to increase the gross weight of our airplanes to 1430 because that is the weight allowed with floats install. That seems like a logical conclusion without knowing all of the details. Almost all airplanes that are allowed to fly with floats can operate at a higher gross weight on floats as compared to wheels. The reason being is the floats aerodynamically provide lift to help support their weight. While the floats might not be able to support all of their own weight, they do support the weight of the allowed increase. Since the floats are supporting the extra weight and not aircraft structure, the structure is not really tested at the higher gross weight when having floats installed.

Now with the CT it may be a little different. The airframe has been tested at a higher weight for the around the world flights, and the law enforcement version, but I don't know to what level or standard the testing was made.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So three of you have now mentioned in this thread the LSA Regs changing to allow more weight, possiblity of quicker speeds etc. Where has there been any solid information of this change happening? From doing some googling I can see that people also were having this same discussion about regulation changes on the horizon years ago that never panned out.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting discussion on  possible changes in LSA.  It's far enough away where I personally would not hold off on a purchase.  Two seats and 120 knots is exactly what I need right now as a new pilot and my plans include 4 seats in a year or so.  I will not change my plans based on 2024.  

One other thing is that the new regs will most likely be released in 2023 and then manufacturers will have to come up with an airframe that matches those if they don't have an existing product.(read more time until something is available)    I personally am not in the market for a new airplane since my 2008 CTLS fits my needs.

 

On the weight issue, can anyone speak to the weights that are allowed in other countries?  For some reason I was under the impression that if someone buys a CTLS in, say Europe, the airframe is allowed a higher gross weight similar to the flaps that can go to -12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop worrying about it and go fly.  It's a depreciating asset, not an "investment".  I don't plan to sell my CTSW for a long time, and yes it will be worth less then.  But the joy it gives me is priceless.  LSA at 3600lb (or whatever it ends up as) doesn't make my airplane less fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Animosity2k said:

So three of you have now mentioned in this thread the LSA Regs changing to allow more weight, possiblity of quicker speeds etc. Where has there been any solid information of this change happening? From doing some googling I can see that people also were having this same discussion about regulation changes on the horizon years ago that never panned out.

Thanks!

Recently there was an update from Dan Johnson on Facebook with a follow up discussion where he and Randy Shlitter ( the guy behind Rans aircraft) mentioned that it looks like new rules will be based on a wing loading formula - he even mentioned current proposal which was something like 14 which would put aircraft like RV 9 into LS category.

How much of that is solid info that will make its way into final regulations  - no idea, but I would assume guys like Randy would know more than aome average dude on the net ( like me for instance 🙂 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, okent said:

since my 2008 CTLS fits my needs

There is little diff between the 2008 version and the 2018... other than the avionics and a lower price, etc.  Compared to the balance of GA aircraft, you have a "new" plane.

Back to the original question, I don't think the F2 will impact the value of our planes one way or another.  I do think the F2 intro will support a floor of value because it is obvious the FD company is alive and well. 

Andy has a point, planes are not good financial investments.  They are like RV's and boats, they provide great experiences which are good for our mental health.  I always wanted a plane but could never justify the cost.  In early 2018, my then 19 year old son pointed out that I never invested in myself and needed a hobby.  His "you only live once" argument was extremely persuasive and that is how I went from a dreamer to an owner.

PS: I had no idea that floats added "lift", I figured at best they were neutral, thanks Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Warmi said:

Recently there was an update from Dan Johnson on Facebook with a follow up discussion where he and Randy Shlitter ( the guy behind Rans aircraft) mentioned that it looks like new rules will be based on a wing loading formula - he even mentioned current proposal which was something like 14 which would put aircraft like RV 9 into LS category.

How much of that is solid info that will make its way into final regulations  - no idea, but I would assume guys like Randy would know more than aome average dude on the net ( like me for instance 🙂 )

I am willing to bet that the regs will still have a stall speed limitation in all configurations, which Im betting will still be 45 knots. That would put the RV9 out of the category. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Skunkworks85 said:

I am willing to bet that the regs will still have a stall speed limitation in all configurations, which Im betting will still be 45 knots. That would put the RV9 out of the category. 

 

My guess is that will not be the case.  If there is a wing loading formula, you don't really need a stall speed limit also, since stall speed is directly related to wing loading (though airfoil shape matters also).  This new rule change is designed to capture common training airplanes like the 152, 172, Cherokee, etc.  None of those airplanes can hit a 45kt flaps up stall speed, so it wouldn't make sense to set that limitation.  The only airplanes significantly above LSA weight that can reasonably make a Vs1 stall speed of 45kt are motor gliders and other specialty airplanes.  The Diamond DA-20 is probably the slowest stalling of the common trainers, and it can only hit 45kt stall with full flaps, and it only weighs 1675lb.

If there is a stall speed limitation set, I'm guessing it will be more like 60kt.  The RV9 might not make the cut, but if so I bet a stall >45kt won't be the reason.

Of course it's all speculation at this point!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AGLyme said:

There is little diff between the 2008 version and the 2018... other than the avionics and a lower price, etc.  Compared to the balance of GA aircraft, you have a "new" plane.

Back to the original question, I don't think the F2 will impact the value of our planes one way or another.  I do think the F2 intro will support a floor of value because it is obvious the FD company is alive and well. 

Andy has a point, planes are not good financial investments.  They are like RV's and boats, they provide great experiences which are good for our mental health.  I always wanted a plane but could never justify the cost.  In early 2018, my then 19 year old son pointed out that I never invested in myself and needed a hobby.  His "you only live once" argument was extremely persuasive and that is how I went from a dreamer to an owner.

PS: I had no idea that floats added "lift", I figured at best they were neutral, thanks Tom.

That is something to understand about the CTs...they are *all* new!  The oldest ones in the USA are 2004 models, and that is brand new in airplane terms.  Most of the airplanes my friends fly are from the 80s...70s..60s...or even older.  The CTs have lighter construction than most older certified airplanes and might not last as long, but I bet with good care they will outlast any of us on this forum.  :)

Airplanes are definitely better for mental health than any anti-depressant!  I'm in a similar boat to you...I always wanted to fly, and in my 40s I was like "well, I'd better get on that if I really want to do it".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, I agree, but I would rather own a carbon fiber/ fiber glass plane than a metal plane 29 years from now... assuming both were cared for and hangared... think metal coke can or metal paper clip... constant bending is a no biggie with fiber... it’s a big deal with metal.  Look at all the spar issues the GA planes are having eg Arrow, Bonanza, Cardinal, etc... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AGLyme said:

Andy, I agree, but I would rather own a carbon fiber/ fiber glass plane than a metal plane 29 years from now... assuming both were cared for and hangared... think metal coke can or metal paper clip... constant bending is a no biggie with fiber... it’s a big deal with metal.  Look at all the spar issues the GA planes are having eg Arrow, Bonanza, Cardinal, etc... 

All materials have advantages and disadvantages.  The disadvantage of composites is they have no yield strength.  When a metal component gets over-stressed, it deforms and bends before it fails.  When composites get overstressed, they simply fail.  The failure is often spectacular as the structure shatters and separates.  If you over-G an airplane, would you rather have a bent wing that is probably still flyable, or a shattered wing that may or may not hit the ground before you do?  :D

Obviously I'm fine with composites, but I'm also fine with metal.  There are a LOT of metal airplanes that are 60+ year old still flying with no problems.  I don't think metals are problematic if the design is sound and its flown within limits.  Same goes for composites.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would a fair comparison if composite and metal had the same breaking point at which one shatters and the other just bends but that’s not the case. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

All materials have advantages and disadvantages.  The disadvantage of composites is they have no yield strength.  When a metal component gets over-stressed, it deforms and bends before it fails.  When composites get overstressed, they simply fail.  The failure is often spectacular as the structure shatters and separates.  If you over-G an airplane, would you rather have a bent wing that is probably still flyable, or a shattered wing that may or may not hit the ground before you do?  :D

Obviously I'm fine with composites, but I'm also fine with metal.  There are a LOT of metal airplanes that are 60+ year old still flying with no problems.  I don't think metals are problematic if the design is sound and its flown within limits.  Same goes for composites.    

Old metal airplanes have problems too, Corrosion is a big issue on older metal airplanes. Often it hides in areas that are not visible for inspection, and rears its ugly head in the form of a catastrophic failure. Once there are a couple failures the FAA steps in with an Airworthiness Directive.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

All materials have advantages and disadvantages.  The disadvantage of composites is they have no yield strength.  When a metal component gets over-stressed, it deforms and bends before it fails.  When composites get overstressed, they simply fail.  The failure is often spectacular as the structure shatters and separates.  If you over-G an airplane, would you rather have a bent wing that is probably still flyable, or a shattered wing that may or may not hit the ground before you do?  :D

Obviously I'm fine with composites, but I'm also fine with metal.  There are a LOT of metal airplanes that are 60+ year old still flying with no problems.  I don't think metals are problematic if the design is sound and its flown within limits.  Same goes for composites.    

 

Kind of like that German CT that had stabilator flutter and folded in half? I think the German pilots were able to land it ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

If you over-G an airplane, would you rather have a bent wing that is probably still flyable, or a shattered wing that may or may not hit the ground before you do?  :D

In that case, I would reach back and pull the chute and enjoy the view... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...