Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

Warmi
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Frankfort, IL

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby Warmi » Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:29 am

Obviously it is an entirely different aircraft but it kind of reminds me a bit of Tecnam 2008 as far as external looks - the same ," I am going fast just sitting there" type of look .. and this one has no wing struts :D

Here is a video of A32 being "checked-out" before delivery to another customer in Australia ..

https://youtu.be/3B8-lqwriMI
Flying Sting S4 ( N184WA ) out of Illinois

jetcat3
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:01 pm

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby jetcat3 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:15 pm

Warmi wrote:Obviously it is an entirely different aircraft but it kind of reminds me a bit of Tecnam 2008 as far as external looks - the same ," I am going fast just sitting there" type of look .. and this one has no wing struts :D

Here is a video of A32 being "checked-out" before delivery to another customer in Australia ..

https://youtu.be/3B8-lqwriMI


Yeah, I agree! The P2008 is my favorite looking and flying high-wing hands down. It’s a beautiful handling airplane, and the A32 is an economy version of it with a little bit of STOL added in the mix. They both have stabilators too. The A32 just looks like a blast.

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby drseti » Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:05 pm

Cute!
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
fly@AvSport.org
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US

User avatar
Scooper
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:29 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby Scooper » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:55 am

I really like strutless cantilever high wing airplanes like the Cessna 195, 210, and 177 (and the new Ranger), but that lower drag comes at a price. The beefier wing structure and wing to fuselage attachment adds non-trivial weight. In an LSA equipped with an already heavy engine, the extra structural weight really limits the useful load.
Stan Cooper (K4DRD)
Private Pilot ASEL LSRI
Image
Experimental AMD CH601XL-B LSA N601KE (KOAK)

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1902
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby MrMorden » Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:10 am

Scooper wrote:I really like strutless cantilever high wing airplanes like the Cessna 195, 210, and 177 (and the new Ranger), but that lower drag comes at a price. The beefier wing structure and wing to fuselage attachment adds non-trivial weight. In an LSA equipped with an already heavy engine, the extra structural weight really limits the useful load.


Depends how you build it and the materials use. My CTSW has a cantilever wing and a delivered useful load of 585lb (now 575lb after adding an autopilot and upgraded wheels and brakes). Others CTSWs have been delivered with useful loads over 600lb.

I don't know of an LSA that does better than that, though I do agree with the heavy engine part. You can't hang an unnecessary 70lb up front in a 1320lb and not be impaired.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

Wm.Ince
Posts: 691
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:27 pm
Location: Clearwater, FL

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby Wm.Ince » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:25 pm

MrMorden wrote:
Scooper wrote:I really like strutless cantilever high wing airplanes like the Cessna 195, 210, and 177 (and the new Ranger), but that lower drag comes at a price. The beefier wing structure and wing to fuselage attachment adds non-trivial weight. In an LSA equipped with an already heavy engine, the extra structural weight really limits the useful load.

Depends how you build it and the materials use. My CTSW has a cantilever wing and a delivered useful load of 585lb (now 575lb after adding an autopilot and upgraded wheels and brakes). Others CTSWs have been delivered with useful loads over 600lb.

I don't know of an LSA that does better than that, though I do agree with the heavy engine part. You can't hang an unnecessary 70lb up front in a 1320lb and not be impaired.

Concur with you, Andy.
I'm biased, but everything considered, at an empty weight of 749 lbs., it's hard to beat my little CTSW.
In LSA world . . . it's all about the weight. All the other amentities are irrelevant, if the airplane comes in too heavy to begin with.
That is assuming, those airplanes are flown within regulation and operating limitations.
Bill Ince
CTSW
Retired Heavy Equipment Operator

Warmi
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Frankfort, IL

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby Warmi » Sun Mar 11, 2018 6:16 am

MrMorden wrote:
Scooper wrote:I really like strutless cantilever high wing airplanes like the Cessna 195, 210, and 177 (and the new Ranger), but that lower drag comes at a price. The beefier wing structure and wing to fuselage attachment adds non-trivial weight. In an LSA equipped with an already heavy engine, the extra structural weight really limits the useful load.


Depends how you build it and the materials use. My CTSW has a cantilever wing and a delivered useful load of 585lb (now 575lb after adding an autopilot and upgraded wheels and brakes). Others CTSWs have been delivered with useful loads over 600lb.

I don't know of an LSA that does better than that, though I do agree with the heavy engine part. You can't hang an unnecessary 70lb up front in a 1320lb and not be impaired.


That is actually pretty amazing ...your plane is 100 lbs lighter than newer CTLS ( and my Sting) without making any compromises ( BRS, similarity roomy cockpit )
Flying Sting S4 ( N184WA ) out of Illinois

TimTaylor
Posts: 662
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby TimTaylor » Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:34 pm

And for LSA, I think useful load is more important that almost everything else.
Commercial Pilot Airplane Single & Multiengine Land; Instrument Airplane; Sport Endorsement Airplane Single Engine Sea; Flight Instructor Airplane Single And Multiengine; Ground Instructor Advanced Instrument

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1902
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby MrMorden » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:51 am

Warmi wrote:
MrMorden wrote:
Scooper wrote:I really like strutless cantilever high wing airplanes like the Cessna 195, 210, and 177 (and the new Ranger), but that lower drag comes at a price. The beefier wing structure and wing to fuselage attachment adds non-trivial weight. In an LSA equipped with an already heavy engine, the extra structural weight really limits the useful load.


Depends how you build it and the materials use. My CTSW has a cantilever wing and a delivered useful load of 585lb (now 575lb after adding an autopilot and upgraded wheels and brakes). Others CTSWs have been delivered with useful loads over 600lb.

I don't know of an LSA that does better than that, though I do agree with the heavy engine part. You can't hang an unnecessary 70lb up front in a 1320lb and not be impaired.


That is actually pretty amazing ...your plane is 100 lbs lighter than newer CTLS ( and my Sting) without making any compromises ( BRS, similarity roomy cockpit )


What first led me to the CTSW was the high useful load. I agree with Bill and Tim, that weight trumps pretty much everything else with an LSA. It is the primary determinant of both performance and utility.

I agree that the CTSW empty weight is pretty amazing, but I won't say that it loses nothing to the CTLS. The CTLS has a longer tail boom and is more stable in the vertical axis (some call the CTSW "squirrelly"...I prefer to say it requires good rudder skills). The CTLS has composite landing gear instead of the earlier aluminum tube gear. That's a mixed bag because the tube gear is more prone to damage on a hard landing, but is MUCH cheaper to repair (a gear leg costs about $800) than the newer gear if it does break. Also the CTLS interior is a little nicer and has better rearward visibility because it has rear quarter windows the CTSW lacks.

But all of those "improvements" to me are not worth losing 100lb of carrying capacity. I have often said I think that Flight Design should have stopped "improving" the CT line with CTSW, and just concentrated on fixing any weak points mechanically and updating the panel. Maybe they should have even worked hard to make it lighter! A lot of guys would pay handsomely for a very fast and capable LSA with a 650lb useful load, even if it was not as fancy as some others out there. I'm among them!
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

3Dreaming
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby 3Dreaming » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:38 pm

MrMorden wrote:What first led me to the CTSW was the high useful load. I agree with Bill and Tim, that weight trumps pretty much everything else with an LSA. It is the primary determinant of both performance and utility.

I agree that the CTSW empty weight is pretty amazing, but I won't say that it loses nothing to the CTLS. The CTLS has a longer tail boom and is more stable in the vertical axis (some call the CTSW "squirrelly"...I prefer to say it requires good rudder skills). The CTLS has composite landing gear instead of the earlier aluminum tube gear. That's a mixed bag because the tube gear is more prone to damage on a hard landing, but is MUCH cheaper to repair (a gear leg costs about $800) than the newer gear if it does break. Also the CTLS interior is a little nicer and has better rearward visibility because it has rear quarter windows the CTSW lacks.

But all of those "improvements" to me are not worth losing 100lb of carrying capacity. I have often said I think that Flight Design should have stopped "improving" the CT line with CTSW, and just concentrated on fixing any weak points mechanically and updating the panel. Maybe they should have even worked hard to make it lighter! A lot of guys would pay handsomely for a very fast and capable LSA with a 650lb useful load, even if it was not as fancy as some others out there. I'm among them!


Andy, the net weight difference between a CTSW and CTLS in an apples to apples comparison is 40-50 pounds. It is the later airplanes with 10" Skyviews, bigger GPS's, and fuel injection that have the 100 pound delta.

A couple other advantages over the standard CTSW is a bigger nose wheel, more comfortable seats, oil and coolant thermostats, and a standard Rotax air box with carb heat that actually works.

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1902
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby MrMorden » Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:52 pm

3Dreaming wrote:
MrMorden wrote:What first led me to the CTSW was the high useful load. I agree with Bill and Tim, that weight trumps pretty much everything else with an LSA. It is the primary determinant of both performance and utility.

I agree that the CTSW empty weight is pretty amazing, but I won't say that it loses nothing to the CTLS. The CTLS has a longer tail boom and is more stable in the vertical axis (some call the CTSW "squirrelly"...I prefer to say it requires good rudder skills). The CTLS has composite landing gear instead of the earlier aluminum tube gear. That's a mixed bag because the tube gear is more prone to damage on a hard landing, but is MUCH cheaper to repair (a gear leg costs about $800) than the newer gear if it does break. Also the CTLS interior is a little nicer and has better rearward visibility because it has rear quarter windows the CTSW lacks.

But all of those "improvements" to me are not worth losing 100lb of carrying capacity. I have often said I think that Flight Design should have stopped "improving" the CT line with CTSW, and just concentrated on fixing any weak points mechanically and updating the panel. Maybe they should have even worked hard to make it lighter! A lot of guys would pay handsomely for a very fast and capable LSA with a 650lb useful load, even if it was not as fancy as some others out there. I'm among them!


Andy, the net weight difference between a CTSW and CTLS in an apples to apples comparison is 40-50 pounds. It is the later airplanes with 10" Skyviews, bigger GPS's, and fuel injection that have the 100 pound delta.

A couple other advantages over the standard CTSW is a bigger nose wheel, more comfortable seats, oil and coolant thermostats, and a standard Rotax air box with carb heat that actually works.


100lb might be rare for a CTLS, but there are a lot of well equipped CTLS out there with empty weights well over 800lb. The CTLSi are even heavier, often 840lb+. My CTSW is 745lb empty, it was 735lb before the autopilot was installed. The CTLS/CTLSi do not have larger wheels than the CTSW. All can be had with the standard 4.00x6 wheels I have, or the "tundra" 6.00x6 wheels. I land on grass a LOT, and I think the tundra wheels are unnecessary for that purpose; they might be good for landing on dirt roads, but I don't know about that and don't want to find out!

My list was not meant to be exhaustive of the differences between the CTSW and CTLS. BTW, I see thermostats as a negative rather than a positive. The guys that have them installed seem to have more issues than those of us without them. I "winterize" by putting metal tape over part of the radiator.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

3Dreaming
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby 3Dreaming » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:30 pm

MrMorden wrote: 100lb might be rare for a CTLS, but there are a lot of well equipped CTLS out there with empty weights well over 800lb. The CTLSi are even heavier, often 840lb+. My CTSW is 745lb empty, it was 735lb before the autopilot was installed. The CTLS/CTLSi do not have larger wheels than the CTSW. All can be had with the standard 4.00x6 wheels I have, or the "tundra" 6.00x6 wheels. I land on grass a LOT, and I think the tundra wheels are unnecessary for that purpose; they might be good for landing on dirt roads, but I don't know about that and don't want to find out!

My list was not meant to be exhaustive of the differences between the CTSW and CTLS. BTW, I see thermostats as a negative rather than a positive. The guys that have them installed seem to have more issues than those of us without them. I "winterize" by putting metal tape over part of the radiator.


Andy, go back and read what I said again. I said the CTLS has a bigger nose wheel. the CTLS has a 6" nose wheel compared to the 4" wheel on the CTSW. When the CTLS was introduced it was on average 40-50 ponds heavier than the last CTSW's brought into the states. My CTLS has an empty weight of 780 pounds. If I remember correctly my first CTSW weighed 733 pounds. After several years flying the CTLS I would not be willing to go back to the SW, just to save 50 pounds in empty weight

Warmi
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Frankfort, IL

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby Warmi » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:14 pm

Yeah , 780 is not too bad at all ... I think in my case , since I like my GRS , the only option for me is some kind of diet ( for myself, not for the plane ) I am 6 feet and 215 lbs so plenty of options here :D
Flying Sting S4 ( N184WA ) out of Illinois

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1902
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby MrMorden » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:23 pm

3Dreaming wrote:
Andy, go back and read what I said again. I said the CTLS has a bigger nose wheel. the CTLS has a 6" nose wheel compared to the 4" wheel on the CTSW. When the CTLS was introduced it was on average 40-50 ponds heavier than the last CTSW's brought into the states. My CTLS has an empty weight of 780 pounds. If I remember correctly my first CTSW weighed 733 pounds. After several years flying the CTLS I would not be willing to go back to the SW, just to save 50 pounds in empty weight


Sure, I read what you wrote, and I think you’re mistaken. The CTLS Maintenance manual in front of me right now lists the same standard nosewheel size as I have on my CTSW, 4.00x4. The only way to get a bigger nosewheel is if you get the Tundra gear option, just like the CTSW.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

3Dreaming
Posts: 2273
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Dynon founder is manufacturing a Light Sport Aircraft

Postby 3Dreaming » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:41 am

MrMorden wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
Andy, go back and read what I said again. I said the CTLS has a bigger nose wheel. the CTLS has a 6" nose wheel compared to the 4" wheel on the CTSW. When the CTLS was introduced it was on average 40-50 ponds heavier than the last CTSW's brought into the states. My CTLS has an empty weight of 780 pounds. If I remember correctly my first CTSW weighed 733 pounds. After several years flying the CTLS I would not be willing to go back to the SW, just to save 50 pounds in empty weight


Sure, I read what you wrote, and I think you’re mistaken. The CTLS Maintenance manual in front of me right now lists the same standard nosewheel size as I have on my CTSW, 4.00x4. The only way to get a bigger nosewheel is if you get the Tundra gear option, just like the CTSW.


Andy, you are right in that is what the maintenance manual says, even the parts catalog says the same thing. The thing to remember is the MM and PC for the CTLS was largely copied from the CTSW, instead of a complete rewrite. There are quite a number of inaccuracies. Having changed nose tires on both the CTSW and CTLS I can assure you that the CTLS uses a 6" wheel with a 6.00x4 tire. Here is a good article explaining the changes between the CTSW and CTLS.
https://flightdesign.com/files/Ed%20Dow ... S-0508.pdf


Return to “Light Sport Aircraft”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests