Future of LSA industry?

[rfane]

i go 400-550nm without refueling.

Ed,

With that, you probably still have 2-3 hours left in the tanks, unless you have significant head winds. My CT burns 4.7 to 5 gph and trues out at 120 ktas. Thus, I can go up to 700 nm in calm winds, and still have an hour + reserve, not that I push it to that degree. I usually fill up at least every 5 hours, if I'm on a trip.

[EppyGA]

I personally think the only reason for Cessna to move forward with the Skycatcher is the ability to force them on their training centers. Other than for that purpose they serve no purpose. In 2007 I got reinterested in aviation. My wife and I went to OSH specifically to see what was going on with the intention of looking at the Light Sport offerings. Cessna introduced the Skycatcher there. By the time we got to the Cessna tent we had seen the Remos, Flight Design and Tecnam offerings and I had already focused in on the useful load numbers. Cessna had their chart up with their numbers and it didn't take too long to decide that it wasn't a real consideration. They may sell them to the training centers, but I wonder if they can really sell them to someone that really does want a two seat cross-country plane with a modern panel in it.

I'm still betting on Flight Design, Remos and Tecnam to make it through. Damn shame CZAW didn't make it as they had a nice design also. I've flown the Zodiac and it suffers the same problem as the Skycatcher, if you put two people in it you sit on the ramp and make motor noises instead of fly. I'd love to own one someday as it's just me and my wife, for now I'm renting an Archer near home.

[tech10002]

How do you guys find your CTs to be on long trips comfort wise? I live in a pretty barren area for LSAs, so I haven't gotten to sit in much less fly anything but a Sportstar since nobody rents LSAs and the dealers are all 300 miles away or more. I can't imagine spending more than a couple hours in the Sportstar. It's not that the seats are uncomfortable or the cabin isn't wide enough. You just feel like you're sitting in a sardine can the way it's made. Plus, there is zero room for anything but people and a ridiculously low baggage load. Just my laptop bag and flight bag almost max out the baggage compartment. LOL

I'm going to be making frequent 650 nm trips to visit my dad, and I'd really like to get a machine I could make the trip in nonstop fuel wise and comfort wise if I chose.

The Jabiru 230/250s look very comfortable and definitely have the legs and baggage capacity, but they're so hard to find used, and I'm not sure about the support network, either.

On the other hand, I keep hearing about the CTs being hard to land and having other strange flying qualities, high speed flutter issues, etc. I guess it's all subjective, though. I need to actually fly one.

[EppyGA]

The Jabiru 230/250s look very comfortable and definitely have the legs and baggage capacity, but they're so hard to find used, and I'm not sure about the support network, either.

On the other hand, I keep hearing about the CTs being hard to land and having other strange flying qualities, high speed flutter issues, etc. I guess it's all subjective, though. I need to actually fly one.

I'm sure Ed will chime in on the CT and landing as he has the experience. The Jabiru looks interesting but I haven't spent any real time looking at them. My wife and I would like to fly up to Shelbyville some day and try one out. I wouldn't rule it out, but it isn't in my top three.

The CT has a lot of room inside as well as the Remos and Tecnams.

[CharlieTango]

i bought my ctsw after a demo ride where the demo pilot struggled to land it. i could sense that the design was sensitive but within my ability.

after 400+hours in demanding conditions i am highly satisfied, the flying qualities, comfort, useful load, and range add up to a lot of enjoyment for a light sport.

if you are going to own it the landings will become routine in a short period of time. all slsa's fly slowly, are short coupled and have minimum kinetic energy so the landing issues are common to all slsa the ct included.

[glyn]

have you looked at the Tecnams? i have alot of time in the Sierra and Bravo. both are awesome lsa's. just now starting to fly the eaglet. i have taken them on long cross country flight pavement and grass. the Sierra has a bit more baggage room in it. i took ti to Reklaw texas flyin and had it PACKED full of camping gear for a 3 day stay and flying off a grass strip all day.
we have 2 remos on the flight line for training and they get BEAT up!!! but have stayed true.
actually we had a new cfi and a 5 hr student go down in a remos. the engine blew a rod and they put it down in a field just north of the airport. . had an engine out landing in a field, went out there with a flat bed trailer, folded the wings and went back to put a new engine in..

[rfane]

How do you guys find your CTs to be on long trips comfort wise?

I'm going to be making frequent 650 nm trips to visit my dad, and I'd really like to get a machine I could make the trip in nonstop fuel wise and comfort wise if I chose.

On the other hand, I keep hearing about the CTs being hard to land and having other strange flying qualities, high speed flutter issues, etc. I guess it's all subjective, though. I need to actually fly one.

I've made several long trips in my CT, solo and with a passenger. The CT can handle enough baggage for a week for two people easily. If the trip is longer than that, most motels have laundry facilities.

I took my CT to the east coast and back in December. I calculated it out to approx. 5,250 NM flown. I typically fly 2.5 - 3 hour legs as I like to get out to stretch, and take a bio break. The CT has more endurance than my bladder does, and my longest leg has been just over 4 hours. My CT was comfortable enough for that, but I did add some extra foam and lumbar supports to the stock seats.

As Ed mentioned, most of the LSA's have some landing issues, due to the light weight, short coupled designs, etc. Learn to manage airspeed properly, don't get behind the power curve, and use the rudder correctly, and the landings will become routine.

I've seen airspeeds as high as 145 Kts., and have never experienced any flutter issues.

Definitely go fly one yourself.

[Pawlander]

EppyGA wrote: "I personally think the only reason for Cessna to move forward with the Skycatcher is the ability to force them on their training centers."

I think the SkyCatcher will probably be very successful as an SLSA training airplane. At $111,500 the cost is comparatively low, and maintaining the Continental engine will usually fit right in with the other engines the flight school has to maintain. It is the modern version of the C-150 and will give schools a sturdy aircraft to bring in new pilots under the less costly Sport Pilot rules. Also of critical importance, it has the glass cockpit that will be essential to lure in new prospective pilots - steam guages won't cut it for the next wave of pilots.

I think the SkyCatcher will zoom to the top of the sales charts as a training plane... but I think it will end there. I don't see it being the plane that pilots go out and buy for themselves.

I am 6', 200 pounds and thought the SkyCatcher was very cramped compared to most of the other SLSA's I've had the opportunity to sit in. Visibility (sitting on the ground -- obviously haven't flown in one) seemed poor - much more like an old 150 than the other modern SLSA high-wings like the Remos and Flight Design.

At 490 pounds useful load, or 346 with about 4 hours of fuel, it just doesn't look like a plane people will buy for themselves after they have become licensed.

My question to the forum: Are you (or your friends) considering buying a SkyCatcher for your personal (not training) use?

[rfane]

My question to the forum: Are you (or your friends) considering buying a SkyCatcher for your personal (not training) use?

I personally love my CT, and wouldn't trade it for anything else out there right now. I'm 6'1" and 240 lbs., and find it to be comfortable, and a joy to fly.

I don't know of anyone considering buying a Skycatcher. I believe most of the sales they have made thus far have been to the Cessna Flight Centers. There will always be some that will buy it just because it's a Cessna, regardless of the other drawbacks. Some will tout the Continental engine over a Rotax, etc. I believe the engine will eventually change to a Lycoming, once they have a reduced weight version of the O-235 ready. Doesn't make sense for Textron to use a competitors engine, if they have their own available.

In the meantime, rumors are that Rotax will be extending the TBO of the 912 to 2,000 hours soon, up from 1,500 hours now.

[flyboy2007]

They already have done so with the new ones. The TBO is now 2000. They were taking the engines apart and not finding anything wrong with them so they extended the TBO.

[pitfield]

but here's something that I still don't understand.... Cessna is one of the world's greatest manufacturers of aircraft for general aviation, so how could they have thought such a modest useful load could ever compete? Why is it that so many other manufacturers can design and produce aircraft that offer such utility, but Cessna fails? I suspect the answer is as previously stated: it's a trainer they can cram into their network. It's unfortunate, because there's no reason they couldn't have designed a more useful aircraft. It's also unfortunate because the students learning on Skycatchers will assume there are no LSAs that provide the utility they desire (perhaps Cessna understands that?).

[CTflyer]

Cessna is one of the world's greatest manufacturers of aircraft for general aviation, so how could they have thought such a modest useful load could ever compete?

My guess (!) - the Skycatcher design makes it usable as a trainer, especially to replace the old 150/152 fleet across the country. It's flashy, so it catches the "young crowd" who may not really know what they're looking for and/or how to compare LSA. And if you're buying a plane just to fly a few hours on weekends, you're probably not all that interested in maximum useful load.

I'm still amazed at how over a year ago Cessna removed all the complaints about the Skycatcher from its website comments section. Most were "it's made in China and only re-assembled in the USA!", or "but many other LSA offer much greater value for dollar."

[tadel001]

Interms of a cross-country airplane, I can vouch for the Tecnam Eaglet and Sierra. I have flown them from Maryland to Texas and back (twice), to florida, Georgia, New York, Wisconsin, North Carolina, etc... They are a very comfortable plane, good range (more than my bladder), and easy to fly. My flights have been with and without autopilot.

[tech10002]

Thanks for the info about the CTs. I really like the CT and it's one of my top choices just based on the specs and looks. I am really starting to understand what you guys are talking about regarding landing LSAs. I'm just starting to get to the point where I'm not hamfisting the Sportstar on landing. It's definitely NOT a 172.

I'm going to Sun N Fun in April, so hopefully I'll get to demo at least a few LSAs so I can narrow down what we're gonna buy.

[westwindsportstar]

Just reading through a few posts since I haven't been on in a while and the comment by flyboy2007 caught my eye about the tbo on the Rotax. Anyone else heard this? That would be great news.
Anyway about the future of the industry, who knows, I know that for some of the LSA companies, the U.S. is not their main market. They have been making and selling these things for many years without the U.S. market. So I don't necessarily think they will go away based on success here.

I do think that Cessna entering the fold is bad for everyone. They will probably make an inferior product and hurt the sales of the companies trying to do somthing innovative and possibility force them out of the states. For the life of me considering the indifference that Cessna seems to have to the LSA market I could never buy one. But then again I think people must be brain damaged to spend $260,000 on a new 172 that is really not as good a aircraft as its predecessor the 170.

I think someone asked "Why is it that so many other manufacturers can design and produce aircraft that offer such utility, but Cessna fails?
What everyone forgets is Cessna has not designed a new single engine piston aircraft since (if my memory serves me correctly)1968 with the Cardinal, and their first effort there was not exactly stellar. Most of these small LSA companies have more recent experience with designing little planes than Cessna does. Which was my point in thinking Cessna getting into the industry is bad for everyone. Just about everyone else is making what appears to be a superior product but Cessna is the one with the fat order book.