illinoisflyboy wrote:hello everyone. I am looking to purchase a light sport aircraft very soon and am looking at the Cessna skycatcher or the Flight Design CTLSi with the fuel injected rotax engine. kinda leaning towards the Cessna because of it being a much better known brand and a more known continental engine. just wondering what others thoughts are on the two aircraft.
Great question!
Allow me to give you some of my experiences. I have flown the Cessna Skycatcher, the CTLS and the Remos GX, and (although you didn't mention it, the Cub Crafters Sport Cub. The Cub and Cessna use the 0-200 Continental (the C162 is the D model (lighter) and the Cub is the A model. The other two used the carburretted Rotax 912ULS.
Personally, I prefer the Continental engine, so far. Here's why. I have the most experience with them. The Cub and Skycatcher were both simple to preflight and started and ran beautifully. Every shop I've spoken to have no issues with them, they love them. The Rotax, they usually refer to a Rotax shop, which is some distance away. To be fair, it's a growing process and many LSAs use the engine or a variation.
Preflighting the Remos required me to open a small door (too small in my opinion) to check the liquid cooling level and the oil. Usually I had to go through the 'burping process' of turning the prop enough times to draw oil into the reservoir for a proper check. My point here, is for ME, and MY mission, the least things I have to do mean the least then can go 'wrong' or need someone else involved.
Same procedure for the CTLS. On the other hand the oil is a special type and the Rotax doesn't use much, although my school changed it every 25 hours.
The Skycatcher has an easy to use dipstick which, unless replaced correctly, won't allow the acces door to close. Good for new pilots.
The Cub was fabric covered and the Skycatcher metal, mostly. The Remos being almost exclusively composite, didn't like hangar rash and if you crack a component, the fix is expensive. The school hated the time and expense of support from Germany. Again, the Cessna and Cub are easier to fix with issues like that, in my opinion.
Starting is easy for the Continental, but the Roatax is great with it's choke. In fact it's like a car almost. On the other hand the twin Rotax carbs, in my experience weren't great. It was a problem in the plane I flew, the Remos, so It's not fair to judge others. In my case when throttling back, there was considerable vibration and noise. The CFI said "Yeah we need to keep synching them". Hmm.
One day, the engine idle wasn't quite right. As I throttled back to clear the runway the engine just quit. I restarted and taxied a bit and it quit again. NEVER had that in any other type. Just saying.
Told CFI and plane was down for 2 weeks! It also had a crack in the composite and required an expensive fix. It wasn't huge, just wear and tear but the down time and the cost were sup rising. to me anyway.
In fairness, I haven't much Rotax experience and so the high rpms and the noise from the reduction gearing throttling back was a bit disconcerting.
I've got a serious interest in the RV12. It's better at completing the mission in my view (see other thread here on the ICON) than the Skycatcher, although MY mission is probably mostly solo with an occaisional bag. So I can do it with the C162 but the RV12 allows me to take my wife AND full fuel AND bags. I don't have to play with the weight and balnce so much. Is this important in YOUR mission?
The Continental takes 100LL, although there are rumblings about it's supply. Right now it's everywhere and they're working on a replacement. The Rotax loves 91+ Octane Premium auto gas. I've heard both sides about ethanol or not. I've heard both sides about using additives to remove the lead if you use 100LL or mix with auto gas. Again, for ME..it's another thing to deal with that I don't with the Cub and Skycatcher. They use 100LL and it's available everywhere, for now. Auto gas isn't at most airfields so...if I want to keep using only auto gas, do I have to go off airport in the airport car to get gas? Do I bring my own gas containers (probably a bad idea) or use a possibly dirty one at the FBO? Hassle.
My schools used 100LL on their Rotax CTLS and Remos and took the hit on lead in the systems. Plugs are much cheaper than the
Continental ones, but who wants to keep changing plugs?
Rotax engines need their 'rubber changed' every 500 hours or so...I think that may mean the cooling hoses for the liquid cooling. Not sure, and I'm sure someone will tell me. Either way, you sure don't do it on the Continental.
The Cub is a delight to fly, as is the Legend. Of course the deal with tail-wheel is the landing and take-off. It's all about the tail-wheel endorsement. I've looked at it, and I have the endorsement and owned a tail-wheel, and for ME unless I was based at a grass strip, it's not worth the hassle of keeping current in a tail-wheel. My school isn't flying the Cub much lately as opposed to other types and I note that a large number of Legends and CC Sport Cubs are for sale with low time, some with prop strikes. I rest my case.
The CTLS was, for ME, just okay. Too much info on the Dynon and the CFI spent most of the time explaining which buttons to push etc and was weaker in actually flying it. I flew for an airline so I've pushed enough buttons in a glass cockpit to last a lifetime but thats not to say I don't like glass. For me I found the first few LSA hours interesting in that the Remos and CTLS were' more 'slippery' than the other GA planes I've flown. Once aware of the sensitivity to low inertia and to fly on speed (and not float) and carefully on approach then I got the knack of it. The Remos I liked better than the CTLS and it had a great useful load, except...the space to store it is poor. Conversely the Skycatcher has a large space and low useful load. Many could be tempted to chuck it in and forget weight and balance, which isn't good.
So far the Skycatcher is the easiest to fly LSA, best landing, best handling and most like other GA aircraft.
Having been looking at LSAs, and I still am, I flew the Champ, CC Cub, Remos, CTLS and then the Skycatcher. I found the Skycatcher to be great. The best one yet, for ME. I was checked out by a great CFI in an hour and we did everything. It was so easy for ME that he asked had I flown it before? Actually, I had an hour of just t/o and legs (due to low ceilings) and that was very easy, in my view.
The Cessna 'stoke' is easy to use (no you can't twist the grip) once you realise it's like the top part of a stick but it comes out of the panel...left/right, in/out and variations in between.
The Cessna Garmin panel is the best I've seen. I'd like them next to each but that's not huge. I like the redundancy. You should get the dual G300s (PFD/MFD) though. I would have like nose wheel steering but differential braking steering comes quickly. The Remos had nose wheel steering and it was great. The high wing is much cooler than the RV12 and less bright, plus the view is great. Better than the Remos because in the Cessna the wing is higher so the underside isn't right at your eye-line like in the Remos. Is this a high wing/low wing thing? Not for me. I started in Cherokees and instructed on Beech, Piper and Cessna. Liked them all in their own ways.
The door issue has a great fix in the Cessna although the pitot tube can poke you in the eye. The fuel is easy to see in wing root tubes which are very accurate. The Cessna was great to fuel as it has tabs set at 3/4, 1/2, 1/4 so you can fuel it specifically to the level you want. Important for that weight and balance issue. Fuel burn is higher than Rotax but not by that much..when I land is auto gas available? If not then we go through the mixing 100LL and do I need an additive routine> Plus, if there's an ssue can the local mechanic fix it or am I stuck?
The cabin's sparse but...mechanics have said it's easier for them to fix and inspect things...as in $$$ saved.
There are probably some other points but I'll remember them later I'm sure.
As far as buying a Cessna...I hesitate. I like the Cessna brand name, the ease of maintenance on plane and engine. I hesitate because Cessna is dithering and quiet on what they're doing with it. They have about 225-250 units but the ones sold I believe are under 200. The others are out there but they've not sold but a few units. Sales tailed off in late 2012 into 2013 and Cessna are quiet about their plans.There are quite a few for sale and not moving. People are waiting to see what Cessna are going to do, and so am I. You can get one used at a good price, less than the Remos, CTLS models but is that good if you're buying amdel only produced in small numbers?
In my view, if Cessna came out publically behind the plane in a big way (they're very quiet at Air venture) and made some improvements to useful load, perhaps engine and use of more composite where it's less likely to be damaged the plane would be a genuine successor to the 150/152. Not sure if it is yet, and neither is Cessna. That they aren't saying much is telling. Do I want to buy one of 180-90 planes with no others being built?
My views, my opinions. I stand corrected on my comments about Rotax, written by me based on my limited experience.
Right now, I'd buy a Skycatcher...still just warily mulling it over.
Cheers, Howard.