Sport Pilot Talk

ct4me · Joined: 02 Mar 2007 Posts: 42 Location: Phoenix, AZ

I know it's the "sport pilot" forum, but this is sure to stir up some "hangar talk".... the new 4-place Flight Design C4 has been announced.

$308,000.
Shipping in 2013
160 kts max cruise
MTOW 2,640
Lycoming io-360, (and a diesel/jet-a),
70 gallon tank
Garmin G1000
Parachute
1200 nm range, at 65% power (1,700 for diesel)
10 hours at 55% power (13.5 for diesel)
View Spec sheet
Tim

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1387 Location: Lock Haven PA

That's pretty impressive. Performance equal to the Cirrus SR-20, for about the price of a Piper Cherokee Archer.

bryancobb · Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:04 am Post subject: Looks Like

Looks Like a Cirrus with the wang PhotoShopped onto the roof! LOL

Jack Tyler · Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:14 pm Post subject:

The photoshop comment is all but true. Only the mock-up has been introdcued:

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2011/110414flight_designs_four_seat_c4_debuts.html?WT.mc_id=110415epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan

Meanwhile, Tecnam jumped in front at the same show by announcing multiple new aircraft, including a regional commercial twin. More along the lines of the C4, Tecnam introduced this:

"Tecnam’s P2010 will be a roomy, 140-KTAS four-seater certified under FAR Part 23. Powered by a 180-hp Lycoming IO-360, the P2010 is aimed at the Diamond DA40 and Cessna Skyhawk competition. The airplane will be offered in round-gauge or Garmin G1000-equipped versions. Max takeoff weight is anticipated as being 2,557 pounds, fuel capacity will be 55.5 gallons, and maximum range should be 660 nm, Tecnam says. The airplane’s price will vary according to the choice of avionics and the vagaries of the dollar-euro exchange rate. Tecnam managing director Paolo Pascale said the price ought to sell for the equivalent of 180,000 euros, or about $250,000 at current exchange rates, and that first deliveries should begin in 2012."

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2011/110414tecnam_offers_regional_twin_four_seater.html?WT.mc_id=110415epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan

And now back to our regularly scheduled programs...

NCPilot · Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject:

I wonder if Flight Design will release a new version of their LSA.

KSCessnaDriver · Joined: 25 Jan 2009 Posts: 159 Location: KOJC

drseti wrote: That's pretty impressive. Performance equal to the Cirrus SR-20, for about the price of a Piper Cherokee Archer.

It looks like a DA-40 to me. Basically the same specs, and I'm sure that the $308,000 quoted is for a barebones airplane. Everything like a DA-40, minus the dealer support Diamond already has.

zaitcev · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 256 Location: Albuquerque, NM

KSCessnaDriver wrote: It looks like a DA-40 to me. Basically the same specs, and I'm sure that the $308,000 quoted is for a barebones airplane. Everything like a DA-40, minus the dealer support Diamond already has.
While they have the same takeoff weight, C4 promises 1.5 times greater useful load. Maybe the Europeans became fatter since DA40 was introduced. Also, BRS is standard.

KSCessnaDriver · Joined: 25 Jan 2009 Posts: 159 Location: KOJC

zaitcev wrote: While they have the same takeoff weight, C4 promises 1.5 times greater useful load. Maybe the Europeans became fatter since DA40 was introduced. Also, BRS is standard.

I've got no clue how they are going to manage that. I'm not sure if you've spent time in any of the Diamond Aircraft, but I'm not sure there is that much structure you could cut out of the airplane and manage to still pass the Part 23 certification regulations. Also, BRS is of little importance to me, as I feel like it is often used as a get out of jail free card by pilots who use it to do dumb things. Personally, I feel like we would be better off without BRS, but that's another whole topic.

I'll believe the numbers when I see a delivered plane. You've seen the advertised numbers for the CTLS and CTSW and the actual numbers in an airplane, no?

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1387 Location: Lock Haven PA

KSCessnaDriver wrote: BRS is of little importance to me, as I feel like it is often used as a get out of jail free card by pilots who use it to do dumb things. Personally, I feel like we would be better off without BRS, but that's another whole topic.

This topic has crept into other threads over the past year or two. I remain of the opinion that BRS should be an available option. The minute you make it standard, included equipment, you diminish the appeal of the aircraft for a non-negligible market segment. Piper did this to the SportCruiser. I'm certainly not saying that the addition of the parachute in any way resulted in Piper abandoning the PiperSport effort -- but maybe (just maybe) they might have sold more if buyers had been given the option to omit the 'chute and substitute more useful load.

NCPilot · Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:43 pm Post subject:

I've never seen the point of a BRS on an aircraft with WINGS! If you can't dead stick the aircraft back down onto the ground after an engine failure, then you need to learn how.

An aircraft without a running engine, just becomes a glider.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1387 Location: Lock Haven PA

NCPilot wrote: I've never seen the point of a BRS on an aircraft with WINGS!

As long as both wings stay attached, I agree.

Quote: An aircraft without a running engine, just becomes a glider.

Which is the best reason in the world for all pilots to get some glider training. I have my students pull power back to idle on midfield downwind, and do glider landings every time. They have to nail a particular airspeed, and then manage their descent with flaps and slips alone. If they misjudge, they can always cheat and add power -- and then keep trying until they no longer have to. That way, when (not if, but when) the engine fails some day, they have a fighting chance.

So, we should all be practicing glider landings. How often do the BRS-equipped guys get to practice parachute landings?

zdc · Guest

NCPilot wrote: I've never seen the point of a BRS on an aircraft with WINGS! If you can't dead stick the aircraft back down onto the ground after an engine failure, then you need to learn how.

An aircraft without a running engine, just becomes a glider.

I could understand the hostility to BRS if they were made mandatory. There are other good reasons to have a BRS besides engine failure: Inadvertent VMC to IMC, structural failure, loss of control due to a distraction such as canopy opening, engine failure and no good place to put down, midair collision, pilot incapacitation [medical or maybe smacked a goose and pilot eyesight impaired].

Since a lot of potential LSA buyers are middle aged men who got into the game late, a BRS is a good selling point to the wives.

drseti · Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 2:24 pm Post subject:

zdc wrote: Inadvertent VMC to IMC

Pulling the rip cord is certainly one option. I think the proper training to do an instrument 180, along with the willingness to execute it, is probably a better one.

Quote: Since a lot of potential LSA buyers are middle aged men who got into the game late, a BRS is a good selling point to the wives.

Yes, and parachutes (like wives) should be optional.

drseti · Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 2:34 pm Post subject:

drseti wrote: Yes, and parachutes (like wives) should be optional.

My wife just read the above, and said "You'd chose to have a wife anyway, whether required or not." I replied with the only thing a married man ought ever to say: "Whatever you say, dear."

zdc · Guest

drseti wrote: zdc wrote: Inadvertent VMC to IMC

Pulling the rip cord is certainly one option. I think the proper training to do an instrument 180, along with the willingness to execute it, is probably a better one.

Quote: Since a lot of potential LSA buyers are middle aged men who got into the game late, a BRS is a good selling point to the wives.

Yes, and parachutes (like wives) should be optional.

Didn't mean to imply that pulling the chute is the first thing one should do if a VFR accidently encounters IMC. Sure, students should be trained to execute a 180 and I've noticed some autopilots have a feature where you push a button and it will do it for you. However, there are times where a 180 doesn't work becuase the wx has moved in behind you or you are in a valley with the ridges on either side obscurred. Sure, you can claim that your students are well trained and they won't get in this situation in the first place or if they do they have the means to get out of it. The amount of training a Sport Pilot or Private Pilot receives does not eliminate the "pucker factor", whcih I'm sure has been the cause of numerous salvagible situations that resulted in death.