I am waiting patiently for the AVEO Phantom LSA to be ready.
I've had good luck with the lighting products and customer support from this company. I like the construction of the airplane and engine.
Hopefully the slow time to market is due to careful engineering and testing. We'll see when it's ready.
A question for Paul...
Moderator: drseti
-
Paul Hamilton
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 2:42 pm
- Location: Reno/Tahoe Nevada
Please understand I am not trying to say the current situation with the ASTM LSA is OK, I am just looking at where it is and why it is. There are more new LSA imports coming out that we will find out over time how they do through evolution.
Just so I am clear of my position on this, yes based on the FAA report some improvements are needed for manufacturers to meet ASTM standards. The question is, how much manufacturer improvement verses how much FAA “regulation” will be needed for this industry. Even though this has been around for 5 or so years, it is new in comparison to general aviation.
The S-LSA plaque reading "Passenger Warning. This Aircraft Is A Special Light-Sport Aircraft And Does Not Comply With The Federal Regulations For Standard Aircraft." Does mean something and a passenger, buyer, CFI, owner warning. If the FAA did all the extra regulation we would not have the placard. It is the balance of more regulation and higher prices verses self regulation and lower prices. Buyer, owner, CFI beware.
Even the FAA tested and certified aircraft have problems. Simply less than the S-LSA.
Would someone be willing to pay the extra $xx,000 for a Cessna Skycatcher per airplane to not have this plaque? They (Cessna) is claiming to be doing so much more testing than the ASTM standards with their vast resources, why not make it a “Standard Aircraft” to differentiate from the rest of the S-LSA? Also, they have created bad press and alienate Cessna followers by manufacturing it in China. Both reasons I suspect cost. I assume Cessna probably has a number somewhere in their research of what this would cost to make a “Standard Aircraft” LSA Skycatcher. It would be interesting to have this.
Getting back to the ASTM FAA report, I hope the manufacturers can step up to the plate and do a better job while the FAA helps them rather than puts them out of business from overregulation. This is the balancing act.
Buyers, pilots and schools will have to decide between the established companies with a track record with more expensive airplanes six figure $1xx,000 verses the existing and new five figure $xx,000 LSA airplanes. Eventually we will know if you get what you pay for. Eventually and unfortunately we will see through evolution which airplanes survive and thrive as industry leaders. In the meantime, buyers, owners, operators will have track records, our comments and opinions to utilize if they look past the good looks and sales techniques.
Just so I am clear of my position on this, yes based on the FAA report some improvements are needed for manufacturers to meet ASTM standards. The question is, how much manufacturer improvement verses how much FAA “regulation” will be needed for this industry. Even though this has been around for 5 or so years, it is new in comparison to general aviation.
The S-LSA plaque reading "Passenger Warning. This Aircraft Is A Special Light-Sport Aircraft And Does Not Comply With The Federal Regulations For Standard Aircraft." Does mean something and a passenger, buyer, CFI, owner warning. If the FAA did all the extra regulation we would not have the placard. It is the balance of more regulation and higher prices verses self regulation and lower prices. Buyer, owner, CFI beware.
Even the FAA tested and certified aircraft have problems. Simply less than the S-LSA.
Would someone be willing to pay the extra $xx,000 for a Cessna Skycatcher per airplane to not have this plaque? They (Cessna) is claiming to be doing so much more testing than the ASTM standards with their vast resources, why not make it a “Standard Aircraft” to differentiate from the rest of the S-LSA? Also, they have created bad press and alienate Cessna followers by manufacturing it in China. Both reasons I suspect cost. I assume Cessna probably has a number somewhere in their research of what this would cost to make a “Standard Aircraft” LSA Skycatcher. It would be interesting to have this.
Getting back to the ASTM FAA report, I hope the manufacturers can step up to the plate and do a better job while the FAA helps them rather than puts them out of business from overregulation. This is the balancing act.
Buyers, pilots and schools will have to decide between the established companies with a track record with more expensive airplanes six figure $1xx,000 verses the existing and new five figure $xx,000 LSA airplanes. Eventually we will know if you get what you pay for. Eventually and unfortunately we will see through evolution which airplanes survive and thrive as industry leaders. In the meantime, buyers, owners, operators will have track records, our comments and opinions to utilize if they look past the good looks and sales techniques.
Paul is a Sport Pilot CFI/DPE and the expert for ASA who writes the books and produces the DVD's for all pilots flying light sport aircraft.
See www.SportAviationCenter.com www.Sport-Pilot-Training.com and www.BeASportPilot.com to Paul's websites
See www.SportAviationCenter.com www.Sport-Pilot-Training.com and www.BeASportPilot.com to Paul's websites
I don't know of anyone who can afford to buy a $100,000+ airplane only to find out there are problems. Sell at a loss and then buy the "improved" airplane that truly meets the ATSM standards a year later.
No more regulations are needed. What rules we have are fine and are tailored to the type of flying machine a Sport pilot needs.
FAA or another audit capable entity just needs to inspect more often, pay attention to startups and actually fly an companies initial product to see how it handles BEFORE they are sold to the public. Once they get through the first one they probably will have a handle on what is expected.
I ordered / built three different airplanes.. All of which had larger tails installed within a few months of delivery. Two I missed the larger tails by a few serial numbers. A fourth type was owned by a local and he had the same problem. NO mention was made of a problem or upcoming changes when I was looking at or purchasing the airplane.
Sure enough when finished the airplanes were all unstable in yaw and had unusual pitch / stall / handling characteristics. All required structural beef ups, unusual inspections, had early parts failures, and all had aftermarket components unsuitable for their weight by design but it was ignored by the airframe manufacturers.
All were touted as "easy to fly and hundreds built and flying" "fully tested and engineered" etc.
ALL four have since crashed due to "Pilot error".
The "New" models were now the only one "recommended by the manufacturer" and the one year "old model" (ours) was looked down on. You can't upgrade it, you need to buy a new airplane to get the improvements.
The designer would have known there was a problem on the first flight of the first prototype. Rushed to market. Early purchasers financed the program and were the unknowing test pilots. I ran each airplane through my own flight test procedures and gave the designers, manufacturers detailed descriptions on what was wrong and what was needed to fix the airplanes. In some cases changes were made based on the things owners found and they were incorporated into the new production airplanes.
NO changes were made to the existing airplanes already out there. One manfacturer had parts kits for some of the changes but I could never get one in this country. Others you had to purchase the parts and install which made me mad because the product was obviously defective and still very new.
I had one kit designer tell me in his country they have a hard time getting a permit to fly so they make changes and wait until the builders give feedback to know how it worked. The builders are the unknowing test pilots! I have a file 2" thick from that airplane. I was a dealer for a year but never sold one kit after I finished and flew mine.
One airplane even failed it's British section S static test at a weight 132 lbs less than the weight the US importer was advertising. The fuselage cage crushed. He never changed his figures.
Now this should not happen because there are more LSA's out there and the chances are good to get a meaningful demo ride or renting one to try out. Do yourself a favor and get a checkout first or couple hours rental before buying an airplane. Talk to other owners and see how they like their airplane a few months after purchase.
It will be better than any FAA report.
No more regulations are needed. What rules we have are fine and are tailored to the type of flying machine a Sport pilot needs.
FAA or another audit capable entity just needs to inspect more often, pay attention to startups and actually fly an companies initial product to see how it handles BEFORE they are sold to the public. Once they get through the first one they probably will have a handle on what is expected.
I ordered / built three different airplanes.. All of which had larger tails installed within a few months of delivery. Two I missed the larger tails by a few serial numbers. A fourth type was owned by a local and he had the same problem. NO mention was made of a problem or upcoming changes when I was looking at or purchasing the airplane.
Sure enough when finished the airplanes were all unstable in yaw and had unusual pitch / stall / handling characteristics. All required structural beef ups, unusual inspections, had early parts failures, and all had aftermarket components unsuitable for their weight by design but it was ignored by the airframe manufacturers.
All were touted as "easy to fly and hundreds built and flying" "fully tested and engineered" etc.
ALL four have since crashed due to "Pilot error".
The "New" models were now the only one "recommended by the manufacturer" and the one year "old model" (ours) was looked down on. You can't upgrade it, you need to buy a new airplane to get the improvements.
The designer would have known there was a problem on the first flight of the first prototype. Rushed to market. Early purchasers financed the program and were the unknowing test pilots. I ran each airplane through my own flight test procedures and gave the designers, manufacturers detailed descriptions on what was wrong and what was needed to fix the airplanes. In some cases changes were made based on the things owners found and they were incorporated into the new production airplanes.
NO changes were made to the existing airplanes already out there. One manfacturer had parts kits for some of the changes but I could never get one in this country. Others you had to purchase the parts and install which made me mad because the product was obviously defective and still very new.
I had one kit designer tell me in his country they have a hard time getting a permit to fly so they make changes and wait until the builders give feedback to know how it worked. The builders are the unknowing test pilots! I have a file 2" thick from that airplane. I was a dealer for a year but never sold one kit after I finished and flew mine.
One airplane even failed it's British section S static test at a weight 132 lbs less than the weight the US importer was advertising. The fuselage cage crushed. He never changed his figures.
Now this should not happen because there are more LSA's out there and the chances are good to get a meaningful demo ride or renting one to try out. Do yourself a favor and get a checkout first or couple hours rental before buying an airplane. Talk to other owners and see how they like their airplane a few months after purchase.
It will be better than any FAA report.
-
Paul Hamilton
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 2:42 pm
- Location: Reno/Tahoe Nevada
Unfortunately, Cub Flyer provides a good description for many of the new airplanes introduced and how they have evolved. The customers are the test pilots and feedback determines design improvements. New enthusiastic buyers are unaware of this until they find out the hard way. It is like buying a computer a few years ago --- just as you bought one and brought it home, the new faster, more stable, easier to use model would come out at a lower cost and you are stuck with it.
Yes it is the intent for the "LAMA Sticker" to be some sort of design approval for a better aircraft (whatever that means) but I am checking in to see where this is now and what testing/certification it requires.
Yes it is the intent for the "LAMA Sticker" to be some sort of design approval for a better aircraft (whatever that means) but I am checking in to see where this is now and what testing/certification it requires.
Paul is a Sport Pilot CFI/DPE and the expert for ASA who writes the books and produces the DVD's for all pilots flying light sport aircraft.
See www.SportAviationCenter.com www.Sport-Pilot-Training.com and www.BeASportPilot.com to Paul's websites
See www.SportAviationCenter.com www.Sport-Pilot-Training.com and www.BeASportPilot.com to Paul's websites
-
Jack Tyler
- Posts: 1380
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
- Location: Prescott AZ
- Contact:
For those wondering why LAMA is being mentioned, there is much fruitful reading available at http://www.lama.bz/ Mind you, LAMA looks like it is struggling to get off the ground, its communications are infrequent (2 newsletters in all of 2010, none in 2009) and LAMA's own numbers suggest the role it announced for itself hasn't yet been embraced by the LSA builder community it says it wants to serve - all of this just more examples of how fluid and young this business is right now.
Still, just reading (and reading between the lines) LAMA's report to its own intended audience (LSA builders) about the FAA's LSA assessment, as well as LAMA's description of a potentially new, heightened accountability policy by the FAA, should provide some serious food for thought among LSA buyers & flyers.
One very useful (but hard to find) gem on that website, well worth reading & reflecting on, is a detailed summary on the FAA's findings when visiting only some LSA builders. This is not the 'FAA Summary' that e.g. you will find on the bydanjohnson.com website, but rather a 'best to worst' list, by individual area, of where the builders are (relatively) succeeding and where they are failing. You'll find this at: http://www.lama.bz/January_10.htm
What did these builders do best? 'Product conformity to regulations'. So e.g. the LSA aircraft being built actually weighed 1320# or less.
What did they do worst? 'Continuing Airworthiness'. So e.g. they didn't fully determine risks associated with operating the aircraft - or - where they did, they failed to notify owners of the risks.
Needless to say, this is serious stuff. A good deal more light needs to be shed on this industry, which will ultimately be to everyone's benefit, I would argue. How much light will be shed by LAMA is an interesting question. If you read the bios of the current board members, what you will find is that they almost all have a direct vested (financial) interest in specific LSA businesses. This can be a good thing, some would argue, as a 'rising tide raises all boats' and so the LSA industry's success will insure their own. However, the fox running the hen house has not historically been a model that widely disseminates objective information to the consumer.
Jack
Still, just reading (and reading between the lines) LAMA's report to its own intended audience (LSA builders) about the FAA's LSA assessment, as well as LAMA's description of a potentially new, heightened accountability policy by the FAA, should provide some serious food for thought among LSA buyers & flyers.
One very useful (but hard to find) gem on that website, well worth reading & reflecting on, is a detailed summary on the FAA's findings when visiting only some LSA builders. This is not the 'FAA Summary' that e.g. you will find on the bydanjohnson.com website, but rather a 'best to worst' list, by individual area, of where the builders are (relatively) succeeding and where they are failing. You'll find this at: http://www.lama.bz/January_10.htm
What did these builders do best? 'Product conformity to regulations'. So e.g. the LSA aircraft being built actually weighed 1320# or less.
What did they do worst? 'Continuing Airworthiness'. So e.g. they didn't fully determine risks associated with operating the aircraft - or - where they did, they failed to notify owners of the risks.
Needless to say, this is serious stuff. A good deal more light needs to be shed on this industry, which will ultimately be to everyone's benefit, I would argue. How much light will be shed by LAMA is an interesting question. If you read the bios of the current board members, what you will find is that they almost all have a direct vested (financial) interest in specific LSA businesses. This can be a good thing, some would argue, as a 'rising tide raises all boats' and so the LSA industry's success will insure their own. However, the fox running the hen house has not historically been a model that widely disseminates objective information to the consumer.
Jack
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
-
Jim Stewart
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:49 pm
I have a few biased thoughts on these issues. I own a 2006 Flight Design CTSW.
I joined ASTM for several reasons, one of which is that it's the cheapest way to get the standards. A yearly membership is $75 and entitles you to all of the light sport standards.
That said, the standards are very technical and of not much use to a non-engineer. OTOH, it is interesting to read the comments and proposals. From what I've seen over the last year, the two most active contributers to the ASTM light sport standards are Flight Design and Cessna, with Flight Design out-contributing Cessna by about 3-1. Flight Design appears to take the ASTM standards very seriously.
That said, I also feel strongly that the CT line of airplanes are extremely safe. The high wing and egg-shaped passenger compartment have let several people walk away from accidents that might have had a tragic ending in a low-wing aircraft. My experience is also that the CT has gentle and forgiving stall performance. The somewhat touchy landing behavior is typical of most light sport planes and can be mastered with training.
I joined ASTM for several reasons, one of which is that it's the cheapest way to get the standards. A yearly membership is $75 and entitles you to all of the light sport standards.
That said, the standards are very technical and of not much use to a non-engineer. OTOH, it is interesting to read the comments and proposals. From what I've seen over the last year, the two most active contributers to the ASTM light sport standards are Flight Design and Cessna, with Flight Design out-contributing Cessna by about 3-1. Flight Design appears to take the ASTM standards very seriously.
That said, I also feel strongly that the CT line of airplanes are extremely safe. The high wing and egg-shaped passenger compartment have let several people walk away from accidents that might have had a tragic ending in a low-wing aircraft. My experience is also that the CT has gentle and forgiving stall performance. The somewhat touchy landing behavior is typical of most light sport planes and can be mastered with training.
I don't know if they flight test, but I would guess they don't. They do audit to make sure the manufacture is in complience with the ASTM standards. The standards require testing. If they did testing it would likely be just to verify the airplane meets the standards. Flight testing is so subjective just like taste in women. The FAA's big complaint was the standards not being followed, so the LAMA seal should make a person feel better about a design which carries it.Cub flyer wrote:Do they fly one before issuing a seal of approval?
Jim, Calculate your airplanes weight with full fuel and a standard 170 lb person (solo). No bags.
Where's the CG? What is the limit at that weight? Please give us the inches aft of wing leading edge.
Now look at the limits in the 2005 CTSW manual. page 26
https://wiki.umn.edu/pub/CirrusWing/Cir ... fd_poh.pdf.
Compare this to the limits in Appendix 3 of the current CTSW manual
http://documents.flightdesignusa.com/SW-POH.pdf
Also keep in mind the 05 airplane did not have the larger vertical fin LE bonded on and would probably be more nose heavy empty.
Our airplane was flown by FD personnel from York to Woodstock to fix various problems. One was stabilator stalling and uncommanded pitch down at idle and trimmed for 55 knot glide with full flaps. Solo full fuel.
The airplane was rerigged but not tested for the pitch down even though exact instructions on how to reproduce it were given. This was after Sun-fun April 2006. The flight manual was revised to the current appendix 3 on April 5 2006. During this time the airplane was in FD hands. You would think this would have been pointed out or we would have been given a copy when I picked the airplane up in Woodstock. The revision did not happen out of the blue overnight. There was a known problem.
Now look at the NTSB report where I pointed out to the NTSB that the limits had changed and the airplane would have been within limits with the 05 manual. Out of limits with the 06 manual.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id= ... 220&rpt=fa
The numbers FD reported were for the empty airplane, not loaded to the operating weight. The 05 manual keeps the CG limits constant to gross weight. The 06 manual moves the forward limit back as weight increases.
Makes sense because the tail would need to make more downforce to flare correctly.
NTSB also refuses to change the report to correctly show the pilot had 30 hours of dual in the CT before 4 hours solo. Not 4 hours total time in type. Yes he messed up and yes it was pilot error but there are other factors.
If there is a major revision or safety note it should be mandatory the notice is mailed to all registered owners. Thinking to check a website is not a good way to get news out. Was this mailed to the 05 owners?
The CTLS fixes this with 18" or so longer tail moment. Notice the elevator trim / anitservo tab has shrunk again in span. FWD limit on the CTLS is now 11.1" and straight line again to gross.
Do your rudder centering springs have a definite notch as they pass through neutral? Does it take a push, push harder then pop it moves easy so you have to back off the pedal to keep from overcontrolling feeling? When in a left to right turn there was a detent as you passed neutral.
I never flew an 06 so I don't know but that's what they installed while it was in Woodstock because I was complaining about the lack of rudder centering and pedal float.
Crashworthiness. I'm not so sure. once the composite flexes it loses the bond to the fibers and shreds. I can e-mail you photos. We have had a lot of minor crashes here because of the short runway and tube steel structures always do the best. Better than aluminum airplanes.
I know your does not have the characteristics we did, You probably know people who have a small tail one and it flies great. For all I know it could be that particular airframe only.
No problem and I'm glad the owners are happy but there was a development / evolution that led up to this point. It should have been done before the airplane was released. This is not a reflection on the current airplanes with the changes.
It's all opinion and that's about all you can get with flying qualities reports but if some of this had been flown by an independent evaluation before being released to market then it might have been caught.
Where's the CG? What is the limit at that weight? Please give us the inches aft of wing leading edge.
Now look at the limits in the 2005 CTSW manual. page 26
https://wiki.umn.edu/pub/CirrusWing/Cir ... fd_poh.pdf.
Compare this to the limits in Appendix 3 of the current CTSW manual
http://documents.flightdesignusa.com/SW-POH.pdf
Also keep in mind the 05 airplane did not have the larger vertical fin LE bonded on and would probably be more nose heavy empty.
Our airplane was flown by FD personnel from York to Woodstock to fix various problems. One was stabilator stalling and uncommanded pitch down at idle and trimmed for 55 knot glide with full flaps. Solo full fuel.
The airplane was rerigged but not tested for the pitch down even though exact instructions on how to reproduce it were given. This was after Sun-fun April 2006. The flight manual was revised to the current appendix 3 on April 5 2006. During this time the airplane was in FD hands. You would think this would have been pointed out or we would have been given a copy when I picked the airplane up in Woodstock. The revision did not happen out of the blue overnight. There was a known problem.
Now look at the NTSB report where I pointed out to the NTSB that the limits had changed and the airplane would have been within limits with the 05 manual. Out of limits with the 06 manual.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id= ... 220&rpt=fa
The numbers FD reported were for the empty airplane, not loaded to the operating weight. The 05 manual keeps the CG limits constant to gross weight. The 06 manual moves the forward limit back as weight increases.
Makes sense because the tail would need to make more downforce to flare correctly.
NTSB also refuses to change the report to correctly show the pilot had 30 hours of dual in the CT before 4 hours solo. Not 4 hours total time in type. Yes he messed up and yes it was pilot error but there are other factors.
If there is a major revision or safety note it should be mandatory the notice is mailed to all registered owners. Thinking to check a website is not a good way to get news out. Was this mailed to the 05 owners?
The CTLS fixes this with 18" or so longer tail moment. Notice the elevator trim / anitservo tab has shrunk again in span. FWD limit on the CTLS is now 11.1" and straight line again to gross.
Do your rudder centering springs have a definite notch as they pass through neutral? Does it take a push, push harder then pop it moves easy so you have to back off the pedal to keep from overcontrolling feeling? When in a left to right turn there was a detent as you passed neutral.
I never flew an 06 so I don't know but that's what they installed while it was in Woodstock because I was complaining about the lack of rudder centering and pedal float.
Crashworthiness. I'm not so sure. once the composite flexes it loses the bond to the fibers and shreds. I can e-mail you photos. We have had a lot of minor crashes here because of the short runway and tube steel structures always do the best. Better than aluminum airplanes.
I know your does not have the characteristics we did, You probably know people who have a small tail one and it flies great. For all I know it could be that particular airframe only.
No problem and I'm glad the owners are happy but there was a development / evolution that led up to this point. It should have been done before the airplane was released. This is not a reflection on the current airplanes with the changes.
It's all opinion and that's about all you can get with flying qualities reports but if some of this had been flown by an independent evaluation before being released to market then it might have been caught.
-
Jack Tyler
- Posts: 1380
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
- Location: Prescott AZ
- Contact:
"If there is a major revision or safety note it should be mandatory the notice is mailed to all registered owners. Thinking to check a website is not a good way to get news out. "
That is apparently in the standard because that lack of follow-up communication to owners from the builder is explicitly identified by the FAA as one of the more frequent and more significant failures of LSA builders. ('Airworthiness Category, Point 4.')
I'll bet most buyers (and flyers) would like to think that the distributor of the largest number of LSA aircraft in the USA would have an owner notification program well sorted. So far, while I can find the FAA summary, the full FAA survey report, and the LAMA outline of builder failures by point & category, I can not find any information - detailed or general - about what the FAA concluded for any specific builder. Yet this is exactly what any buyer would want to review before choosing a product, spending $150K, and putting friends/family in the cockpit.
Does anyone know where that level of detail might be available to the public?
That is apparently in the standard because that lack of follow-up communication to owners from the builder is explicitly identified by the FAA as one of the more frequent and more significant failures of LSA builders. ('Airworthiness Category, Point 4.')
I'll bet most buyers (and flyers) would like to think that the distributor of the largest number of LSA aircraft in the USA would have an owner notification program well sorted. So far, while I can find the FAA summary, the full FAA survey report, and the LAMA outline of builder failures by point & category, I can not find any information - detailed or general - about what the FAA concluded for any specific builder. Yet this is exactly what any buyer would want to review before choosing a product, spending $150K, and putting friends/family in the cockpit.
Does anyone know where that level of detail might be available to the public?
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
I think FD has the owner notification sorted out now. The above changes were a while ago but how the notifications are done is something to ask about when looking at an LSA.
The CG range change is significant for the 05 airplane because full fuel and solo is well below gross weight and not where you would normally think of CG being a problem. There is no way to know where you are by simple calculator weight X moment calculations. You have to refer to the slope of the appendix 3 graph in the revised manual.
The previous 05 straight forward CG limit of 13.1 was a simple yes or no answer if you were within the envelope all the way to gross.
The CTLS goes back to this simple straight limit.
I would consider this a safety of flight issue for any 05.
The CG change revision was made a few weeks after the first larger tail 06 airplanes were being assembled in the USA. Were any 06 airplanes delivered with the earlier manual? The testing that made this change would have surely been going on or known when ours was issued a SLSA certificate and condition inspected 3-06.
The CG range change is significant for the 05 airplane because full fuel and solo is well below gross weight and not where you would normally think of CG being a problem. There is no way to know where you are by simple calculator weight X moment calculations. You have to refer to the slope of the appendix 3 graph in the revised manual.
The previous 05 straight forward CG limit of 13.1 was a simple yes or no answer if you were within the envelope all the way to gross.
The CTLS goes back to this simple straight limit.
I would consider this a safety of flight issue for any 05.
The CG change revision was made a few weeks after the first larger tail 06 airplanes were being assembled in the USA. Were any 06 airplanes delivered with the earlier manual? The testing that made this change would have surely been going on or known when ours was issued a SLSA certificate and condition inspected 3-06.
Cub flyer, I don't know about the 2005's and your link said it was un-available, but the latter airplane have an empty weight CG range. If the airplane falls into the empty weight CG range, is below gross weight, and you don't load outside the limits for max. and min. seat weight, baggage, fuel. You can't get it out of it's flight CG envelope.