Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FD USA

New F2 Article in AOPA

Recommended Posts

Wow. Useful load with fuel is only 280 lbs. That's basically one person and no baggage. Two people would have to weigh only 140 lbs. Good luck on the males weighing that and don't put ANY baggage in. That would include any supplies that you want to carry. Now that's the legal argument. I'm sure the plane will actually hold much more in weight. My guess is since I think this is more like a converted C4 then the real carry weight is far greater than the 280 lbs. Only my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they end up certifying this plane under part 23 with higher gross I am sure they will do the same for the new LSA limits in 2024 ( or 2025 or whenever it happens )

Perhaps they will go even further .... even if you buy it now under LSA rules, you would be able to update the gross later when new rules are in effect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking at it hard.  After 2 years flying the LS, at a gross weight of 835, I have yet to "not" be able to go due to weight.  Thank goodness the injected engine sips fuel.  My CFI is a big guy.  I took up a big guy the other day and we had plenty of range on board.  If they can deliver an F2 weighing in at 840, I am a buyer.

 

Share this post


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

 even if you buy it now under LSA rules, you would be able to update the gross later when new rules are in effect.

That is a pretty big assumption!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that they incorporated design elements that made the stall a non event. If so, I wonder why they couldn't get some increase in the LSA gross as did Icon. Maybe their inprovements didn't add much weight as Icon supposedly did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt a plane certified by the factory for one weight and set of specs will be allowed to be increased just because the FAA says they are raising the weight. The factory would then have to do it all over and give everyone a new set of weight / balance specs and and other paperwork and some of it would be for each individual plane. It won't happen. 

Plus if and when the FAA releases these new parameters it isn't just for weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think stalls are already a non-event in my "old" CTSW.  Things can always be improved, but it's not like stalls in the previous CTs were white-knuckle scare festivals.

I thought the pre-release materials on the F2 said they were shooting for 550-600lb useful load.  I was very skeptical of those numbers, and I guess I was right to be.  I'm sure it's a wonderful airplane, and as Roger said it's probably got utility above that weight, but you can't legally fly like that.  Once again the arbitrary 1320lb limit turns a fantastic design into a marginally useful one.  At 1600lb gross this airplane would be unstoppable, carrying two Roger-sized adults and baggage as far as their bladders could stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking hard at buying one.  Weight is the #1 issue.  F2 has a bunch of premium goodies such as electric seats and airbags.  Not important to me and would gladly give them up.  I didn't buy a Tecnam 2 years ago because of the weight issue... can't make this up... I was advised by a plane broker (not the Tecnam people)  "No one does ramp checks"... gheesh.

I flew the F2, it is a fabulous airplane in terms of handling and "big plane feel".  I love my CTLSi, but I like the fact that I can carry bikes and a dog or two in the back of the F2.  My wife would go with me then... and I have to start planning for that phase of my life.  I will attract my wife to flying if I can bring the bikes or a dog.

If I can only carry roller skates and a hamster that would be a problem...; )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine stalls being any better than a CTSW. I have done hours of stalls when was working with VG's. One of the planes with similar characteristics is a J3. If anyone has issues with SW stalls, they probably should reconsider flying anything. Anyone who has only flown an SW or LS would be horrified at a C-150 power on stall.

As far as gross weight is concerned almost all certified aircraft keep adding weight over years with lots of additional perks that do nothing for performance but make the aircraft more eye appealing. These perks also require more maintenance and replacement. Just think how simple a manual flap lever would be as in many older planes. It's amazing what can be done with instant flap deployment,  just look at the Alaska fly off competitions.

I have flown a lot of different aircraft over the years but the SW really stands out as an incredible plane. Just my opinion. 

Share this post


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

I seriously doubt a plane certified by the factory for one weight and set of specs will be allowed to be increased just because the FAA says they are raising the weight. The factory would then have to do it all over and give everyone a new set of weight / balance specs and and other paperwork and some of it would be for each individual plane. It won't happen. 

Plus if and when the FAA releases these new parameters it isn't just for weight.

But that’s exactly what some manufacturers  are already hinting at ( Bristell, The Airplane Factory ) and for a good reason- as long as we have the prospect of significant changes out there, it has the potential of resulting in a variant of Osborne effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect ) which could devastate their sales.

Share this post


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

SW really stands out as an incredible plane.

Agree with that.  A lot of plane for its weight class.

Share this post


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

resulting in a variant of Osborne effect

Great point Warmi... Dumbest thing FD ever did... and they did it twice.  The FD products and dealers are best in class... FD Corporate invests in good R&D results and now with the F2, excellent manufacturing methods.  The Marketing team needs to be sent back to school.  I feel badly for the FD dealers, not their fault.

I am old enough to remember the Osborne, damned shame.  Loose lips sink ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Madhatter said:

I can't imagine stalls being any better than a CTSW. I have done hours of stalls when was working with VG's. One of the planes with similar characteristics is a J3. If anyone has issues with SW stalls, they probably should reconsider flying anything. Anyone who has only flown an SW or LS would be horrified at a C-150 power on stall.

As far as gross weight is concerned almost all certified aircraft keep adding weight over years with lots of additional perks that do nothing for performance but make the aircraft more eye appealing. These perks also require more maintenance and replacement. Just think how simple a manual flap lever would be as in many older planes. It's amazing what can be done with instant flap deployment,  just look at the Alaska fly off competitions.

I have flown a lot of different aircraft over the years but the SW really stands out as an incredible plane. Just my opinion. 

The CTSW is pretty tame in stalls most of the time. I have had two times in hundreds of stalls that it surprised me. The first when I was fairly new to the airplane I was doing a checkout and the pilot got a little sloppy with a power off stall with full flaps. It broke hard, and the nose was pointed at the ground. The second time I was flying doing a demo on a very windy rough day, and the same thing happened. All the others were a non event. I never had the CTLS drop a wing like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could stall my old C-182A straight-ahead, turning, flaps/no flaps, and it was a sweetie. Same goes for my Aerotrek A240 LSA and my CTLS - both are benign as can be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The stalls in a CTSW are pretty benign. But, I also agree with Tom.

Do this at altitude. Flaps 30, 30 degree bank, power off. Pretend a base to final overshoot, skid the turn with the ball out at least one ball width then pull back on the stick until it stalls.

When it stalls which way will it go? Over the top? You wish! It's gonna continue to roll in the direction of the bank and you will be looking at the ground. Recovery should't be a problem but it will get your attention.

This is how base to final stalls happen and how they kill people. There you are overshooting final and you want to get back on course so you bank a little more to make it happen, maybe pull back a little and load the wing. Then you realize the bank is steeper than you want but you still need to keep the turn going. So you step on the inside rudder to keep the turn going while using aileron to shallow the bank. Next thing you know you are in a skidding turn and if you stall at, say 500' AGL, it's all over.

I don't mean to scare anyone but that docile little kitty cat can turn into a tiger if you abuse it.

I'llprobably get flamed for this but so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is textbook reason for pilots to fly a rounded pattern instead of making "precise" square turns on downwind / base / final, a softer gradual turn sequence lessens the risk of these factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All aircraft will do that. I saw that the FAA has reported stall spin incidents on turn to final are now the largest cause of GA fatalities. I have found that very few pilots including flight instructors really understand the aerodynamics behind this issue. There is no recovery at 500 feet. You also don't need a tail slide for this to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My base to final turn is more gradual and with less bank than my downwind to base turn which may be 30 degrees. I do the base to final turn more gradual and "softer" as Dale suggests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At my uncontrolled home 'drome, I usually call "base AND final" instead of two separate calls. 

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...