SLSA Dream Machine

[CTLSi]

......

[langj]

And cost $60,000 to $80,000 and they would have the market.

[FastEddieB]

This is close...

[FastEddieB]

But this is almost perfect!



If only it was yellow and had a tailwheel!

[Merlinspop]

+1, Eddie. Actually, SportCub S2 with 100 pounds more useful load would pretty much be it for me.

[zaitcev]

Missions are different for everyone, as are budgets.

My dream plane would be close to what Tim posted to begin with. I'm no fan of Cub, even a modern one with toe brakes and fuel in wing. Still requires too much acrobatics to get in, and the capability in S-LSA trim is not good. Cub really is a GA plane that needs 160 hp to blossom. Still, putting that aside, although I also think CT is nearly perfect, my list of improvements is different.

Since my paramount concern is useful load, I don't want folding wings, let alone electric ones. BTW this is where Eddie's Sky Arrow loses badly. I remember how he had to go across every little gadget with find comb. CT is way ahead in that regard. All the IFR-ready stuff sounds nice, but again it impacts the useful load. You do want a standby alternator like on Tecnams, right? If not, why pretend you're IFR capable when you're not.

The internal ergonomics could stand improvement, but I'm not sold on cupholders. I'd rather have the brake handle relocated so I don't bump throttle every time I brake. Sorry, but CT really fails there. Secondly, I'd like springs in controls gone, except elevator trim perhaps. If Remos can do it, so should Flight Design.

Finally, add the freaking door handles, come on. I know they do this kind of reach-through-storm-window dance in gliders all the time, but those really have issues with drag. Personally I could live with feeling like an idiot every time I unlock the airplane, but generally it seems like something should've been done years ago.

Other than the above CTLS is pretty much the ultimate S-LSA already, for recreational cross-country mission.

[Jim Stewart]

CTSLi's dream list is useless without a useful load. All those gadgets add up.

[snaproll]

Unfortunately, there is no perfect LSA. All LSAs are a compromise to meet stall speed, maximum speed, and gross weight requirements. Out of curiosity, did Flight Design get their production facility out of Russia yet?

[CTLSi]

......

[snaproll]

As the Crimean Peninsula is now part of Russia, hoping the EU and US sanctions don't impact deliveries. I flew the FD years ago before I acquired my Remos GX. The FD bird was very stable, good handling characteristic, and a joy to fly. Ended up with the Remos GX for the higher load capacity (reduced to 570 pounds due to the added equipment, chute, autopilot, etc.). I am 180 and I frequently take a 250 pound passenger and full fuel - still under gross weight and within the CG envelope. I don't get the 3.5 GPH as I run AVGAS and Rotax does not recommend the lower power settings - bad for the Rotax if running AVGAS.

[Jack Tyler]

"You do want a standby alternator like on Tecnams, right? If not, why pretend you're IFR capable when you're not."

"Pretend" ????

I file & fly IFR with a single alternator (as do tens of thousands of others). These days there are many alternatives that permit back-up IMC-capable instrumentation in the absence of DC power generation from an alternator. I've used induction-sourced vacuum, a D-1 and the Stratus-generated AI in my Grumman, and each IPC I've done has also required partial panel performance. The notion one either needs dual DC power generation or is flying unsafely isn't close to being universally true, altho' for a given pilot and given a/c it might be true.

Moreover, in IMC on a two-alternator, two-buss a/c, what would the safe pilot do on loss of one alternator? In my judgement, the same thing a pilot flying a single-alternator a/c would do. Divert, land and examine the source of the failure, because the alternator failure could be a symptom and not a cause.

[FastEddieB]

As far as redundancy goes...

The Cirrus was designed to be all electric and failsafe with two alternators.

Yet pilots found there were failure modes where first ALT1 would fail, followed very shortly by ALT2. That left this "all electric" plane dependent on whatever juice was left in the two batteries, which required very judicious use of the remaining power.

Just pointing out that backup systems don't always work the way we hope they might.

Oh and I also have hundreds of IFR hours in planes with one battery and one alternator. Most times the backup source (usually vacuum) was pretty rock solid and, more importantly, completely independent of the aircraft's electrical system.

[MrMorden]

CTSLi's dream list is useless without a useful load. All those gadgets add up.

I was thinking along similar lines. My ideal:

-- cruises at or very close to 120kt at sea level

-- has excellent handling

-- at least 4 hour endurance on full fuel

-- has 650-700lb useful load and the space and W&B to make it really useful.

[MovingOn]

.......

[drseti]

Mine would be:
<snip>
All Metal
Cont 0-200 100 hp engine
<snip>
490 lb useful load

I think those specs might be mutually exclusive. Given your useful load requirements, the empty weight has to be 830 or below. Given the weight of the O-200, and the weight of sheetmetal, I believe the only way you're going to achieve that is to go with composite construction.

It's all compromises, isn't it?

Fortunately, the cupholders don't add much weight.