Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on November 30, 2007, 10:00:26 AM
-
As the 'zomg its made in chinas!' thread was hogjacked, I'm starting one about the plane itself.
So... Cessna's LSA plane is coming, but I have some doubts about it. I'm curious what other folks think. Instead of a general unfocused rant (like we get in most of the Airbus/Boeing threads) I'll present a few specific items:
1. The cost. At over $111,500, it's pretty dang expensive. Sure, it's half what a 172 costs, but there's a lot less capability, and this is a lot of money compared to some of the other LSAs. Maybe this is a non-issue, it's not my biggest problem with this plane.
2. I'm not wild about production being moved to China. Not because of quality concerns (It'll be fine, there's way too much scrutiny in this industry for another 'lead paint' style defect), but because I'd like to see more domestic jobs, but that's a market forces issue so we'll see what happens.
3. This is the real problem. Useful load. The 162 has a max gross of 1,320lbs of course, that's the LSA maximum and plenty of planes do fine with that restriction. The problem is the empty weight of 830lbs dry. 490lbs of useful load. A skinny 152 has a useful load of 520lbs for comparison. Certainly the plane can be loaded more heavily, the placarded gross is an LSA restriction, but does this mean there'll be a generation of students significantly more likely to disregard loading because their instructors said "it's ok"?
Some of the good points:
1. Match hole drilling. Lots of kitplane builders have been doing this for a while, like Vans RV. Great way to cut production costs, maybe they'll start doing this w/ the 172 sometime.
2. Nice avionics. The Garmin G300 EFIS plus nice radio and transponder beats the panel that shipped in the 152 pretty handily. :)
3. Good sized cabin @ 44" wide.
4. Floor mounted control stick instead of panel mounted yoke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162
Talk amongst yourselves.
-
It looks utterly dull and soulless ... like most Cessnas.
-
I am on a personal boycott of China.
I don't shop at WalMart or Target and I won't be buying no friggin Chinese plane.
EAA build your own.
-
The range seems really short compared to a lot of other LSA specs I've read. 470 miles @ 118kt cruise @ gross weight. The CTSW is claiming 1000 miles @ 112kt cruise with the same gross weight, and $15k cheaper.
-
490lbs - my 230, = 260... - what 15 gallons? @ 6# (90 lbs) = 170 lbs - another 2 gallons @ 6 for oil, and that gets you 158 lbs for an instructor or a pax and a bag...
in a friggin Chinese plane.
-
To add insult to injury, the specs suggest that the cabin is roomier and more comfortable than a 152 (which has a higher usable load).
TANJ.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I am on a personal boycott of China.
I don't shop at WalMart or Target and I won't be buying no friggin Chinese plane.
EAA build your own.
Been there, done that. Very expensive process as well. And kinda defeats buying a plane and flying it, oh, a week later :)
The only thing that excites me about Cessna is that they bought up Columbia Aircraft. That'll give them two, sharp low wing, fast planes.
-
tanstaafl
The larger cabin probably ate up some of that useful load.
I went all out with my KR and my gross will be up at about 1250# as opposed to the published figure of 980#
Mind you there are very few KR2S's that meet that weight. I'd say I've gained about 100# in just the wider cabin (38"-44") and an extra 14" stretch.
-
The biggest problem I've read so far is that there are some aviation safety guys saying that the engine power limitations have made the overall design of LSA aircraft very marginal. Basically if you make the airframe strong enough to be safe, they have very little useful load and not a whole lot of climb rate in high density altitude situations. They've forced the industry to re-invent the cessna 150, which was a nice basic plane that couldn't lift 2 people higher than about 8000 ft and needed about 10k worth of runway when the density alt was over 6000 ft.
Not exactly the plane of the future there, but the basic design parameters used for the cessna 150 are the top-end limitations of the LSA class. The best proposal to "fix" this would be to add another 25 or 50 hp and 100-200 lbs to the design parameters. Leave everything else the same, just bump up the engine power and weight limits. That would allow the designers to use a bigger wing which would help climb rate, useful load, stall speed, and the bigger wing would help keep the top speed down within limits even with the larger engine.
I hope they mod the parameters but it's a bit late now.
-
the trouble is to mod the parameters and stay within speed and weight parameters for LSA.
-
Piper Cub is pretty much the baseline LSA, and it seems to have enjoyed a certain amount of success over the years.
-
Yeah, they've been around forever. Testament to good basic aircraft engineering.
-
Originally posted by SD67
the trouble is to mod the parameters and stay within speed and weight parameters for LSA.
Exactly. Allowing an extra bit of weight and hp while keeping the speed restrictions would give the designers a lot of extra room to enhance climb rates, useful load, and airframe strength. As it is, the LSA parameters are a big disappointment to a lot of people.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Piper Cub is pretty much the baseline LSA, and it seems to have enjoyed a certain amount of success over the years.
But allowing a little extra hp and weight would do so much towards making the planes safer, more comfortable, and more useful.
As it is now, anyone considering an LSA for purchase probably ought to be convinced to rent until they can afford their PPL and then buy a real airplane. Or go experimental and get something that really performs well.
-
If the exciting designs of the Experiemental World could meet the Certified world, then you'd have a heck of a market for fun flying.
I love the designs, I just dont want to build again!
-
Eagl, the main appeal for LSAs isn't the extra 20 hours of training, it's the different medical requirements. Buying a 'real airplane' does nothing for those folks.
-
What did you build LePaul?
How long did it take you?
I'm technically just starting mine, it spend 3 years in CAD sorting out the finer points of the modifications. It's good to know ahead of time just where the issues are going to be.:lol
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Eagl, the main appeal for LSAs isn't the extra 20 hours of training, it's the different medical requirements. Buying a 'real airplane' does nothing for those folks.
It seems like they'd be just as satisfied in the experimental category... I've seen ultralights that climb better than some LSA aircraft :)
You definately have a point though. The LSA licensing is a great idea. But the LSA aircraft limitations are dumb because they compromise safety. You cannot show that going from 80 or 100 hp to 150 hp results in a statistical increase in mishap rates or damage liability resulting from mishaps. But they've capped LSA aircraft at an unreasonably low hp rating even though there are a number of new design, lightweight engines that would be perfect for LSA aircraft except that they produce 20 or so hp over the LSA spec. WTF over?
-
It's not the engine horsepower that's capped, it's the maximum speed.
Weight being the all important concern therefore dictates that the engine need only have sufficient power to met the speed requirements.
Granted, more HP gives more safety margin but that means a higher top speed.
-
Originally posted by SD67
What did you build LePaul?
How long did it take you?
I'm technically just starting mine, it spend 3 years in CAD sorting out the finer points of the modifications. It's good to know ahead of time just where the issues are going to be.:lol
A BD-5
I bought a project a A&P mechanic took over from his Uncle. He did a superb job replacing all the pop-rivets with solid ones. But he had no time for it. The wife told him it goes or she goes. (And she's beautiful!) So I got it for an excellent price.
Once I got it home and in a hangar, the process of modernizing a 25 year old kit plane began. Long story short, it was an impressive money pit. Had some excellent support from the local EAA, FAA and BD-Micro (who still produce the kit, albeit in a much more modern form). After 9/11 and seeing as insurance would be a huge obstacle, I opted to sell it. It would've taken a good 3-4 years to get the thing flight worthy and even then, you're dealing with an aircraft with a grim safety record. I just didn't have the resources to pour into it.
Its since moved on to two more owners and currently has a jet engine installed (300 pounds of thrust) and undergoing taxi-tests. I haven't heard if its flown yet. The last email I got was a year ago and it was progressing smoothly.
I used to stay in close contact with a guy in Canada who had one equipped with a jet engine (Scott Manning (http://www.bd5.com/manning.htm) ). About the time I sold mine he had completed his and had it flying. Super nice guy. He died a year ago (maybe more now?) practicing for a big airshow up there.
That was 3 years of my life. Somedays I miss sitting in that plane making airplane noises :) But I know for me, Id be much happier doing similar to what Chairboy did. Go fly. Now! :D
-
I remember when Scott died :(
I have a friend in Sydney with a BD-5. They are a nice plane indeed.
I'm fully expecting to invest at least 5 more years before I'm doing taxi testing, but it will be well worth it :D I'll have one sweet looking plane with a Vno and ROC that'll make these certified stuffshirts green with envy.
Pity I can't fit a couple of Hispano's into the wings.:lol
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I bought a project a A&P mechanic took over from his Uncle. He did a superb job replacing all the pop-rivets with solid ones. But he had no time for it. The wife told him it goes or she goes. (And she's beautiful!) So I got it for an excellent price.
Man, I cannot believe an A&P went for that!
Then again, if you spend all day every day working on aircraft you probably won't be inclined to do so after hours either.
-
Originally posted by SD67
I remember when Scott died :(
I have a friend in Sydney with a BD-5. They are a nice plane indeed.
The site I linked has the investigation of the crash. In short, since the wings are removable, the owner is frequently bolting and unbolting them. On Scott's BD-5, he bolted them back on but the bolt didnt thread far enough in. (There's no way to visually check this) As he was making his slow speed pass, with flaps down, the right flap retracted (due to the bolt not making full contact with the flap system, etc). This resulted in him falling off into a right hand bank into the ground.
:(
-
Originally posted by SD67
It's not the engine horsepower that's capped, it's the maximum speed.
Weight being the all important concern therefore dictates that the engine need only have sufficient power to met the speed requirements.
Granted, more HP gives more safety margin but that means a higher top speed.
More power does NOT mean more speed. If you up the horsepower and increase the wing area, your top speed will remain the same but you'll gain climb rate. The problem is that the bigger wing will weigh more so you also need a bit of an increase in overall allowable weight.
-
Yes, what you say is true.
See how it all comes back to weight?
[RANT]
The way I see it, the LSA regulations are an attempt to try and prevent the death of General Aviation in this ever increasingly hostile environment.
We enthusiasts are facing hostile, greedy local, state and federal governments who would love nothing better than to sell off our airfields to developers and make the practice of our beloved pastime so laden down with fees that very few will be able to afford to fly at all. One local council in my area was thwarted in selling the airfield, so the built a fence down the middle of it for "zoning reasons" to make the field unusable until the local aviation lobbyists caved.
LSA was brought in to try and arrest the decline in pilot numbers. It allowed those who could not get an aviation medical to fly a specifically limited class of aircraft. It's interesting to note that although it has it's roots in ultralights, many ultralight aircraft readily outperform LSAs. Personally I feel it's a backwards step, and that too many compromises made been made to the legislators and pilot safety has been compromised on many levels.[/RANT]
-
With respect, I think you're full of plump purple crazy berries and disagree most vehemently.
-
:D
-
Time will tell, let's circle back in 10 years and see how the grand experiment worked out. :D
-
I agree. It will be interesting.
Hopefully my fears of pilots flying hamstrung aircraft with precluding medical conditions after a fraction of the usual training won't be borne out.
:t