Thread: Prototype Testing of the Flight Design MC video

Here you get an impression of the professional work Flight Design is doing in development and certification of their airplanes.
please visit next link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v7pgg63OeY

This is a well done and interesting video.

BUT... I don't know how hard I'd be pushing a trainer right now. I've said before and I'll say it again - the "C" company is going to own the training business. That's not to say that FD doesn't need a trainer but I think more importantly right now would be a "ctsw" type model that sells for $99,995 with composite gear, stripped naked (no chute, etc) to hit that entry level price point. AND - don't stock it. It would be made order only, delivery in ninety days.

The LS would be the "step-up" model

Can you imagine the ad - "Fly the worlds best Light Sport Aircraft for under a hundred grand or buy the Caddie for a little more!!"

and.... "Learn to fly in a German designed and manufactured airplane - not a chinese import!!"

Oh, I'm in trouble now!!!!

roger,

your view might be more on target for the us market and less so internationally?

Yes Ed you're right, I wrote it with the US market in mind as I'm not to familiar with the rest of the world. You know us crazy Americans - we only think about ourselves!!

I agree with most of Rogers’ opinion regarding the ‘usefulness‘ of Flight Design plugging away with the CTMC. I would be worried with a company that feels it has to include old technologies and materials as if it was afraid of being bold and innovative with its initial design philosophy. Don’t forget that the CT stands for Composite Technology. Somehow I can’t imagine Sirrus going back to rivets and aluminium and besides even Boeing acknowledges that the future is composite with its 787. I don’t think Burt Rutan would have won the X prize using the old technology.
If flight Design feels that a trainer has to be metal then would they please tell me what’s wrong with the plane I invested a lot of my hard earned money into. If it needs ‘beefing up’ in certain areas for the training environment then do it. As you say Roger, refine the existing products, make them even better, keep the price low and make the next generation of model even ‘sexier’. IMHO the Germans never made a bad aeroplane ( and that acknowledgement comes from a Brit!)

There are lots of companies out there with composite skills, especially in eastern Europe, that would love to out sell the CT with their latest smooth as glass, Rotax powered, curvaceous looking designs ….. so in my opinion if it aint broke don’t fix it.

As regards your 'Crazy americans' comment just substitute the word patriotic and it sounds about right to my ear.

Happy New Year to all on the Forum.

Mac

I think the reason the trainer is a Metal/Composite construction is because of the abuse by student pilots. They tend to ding up the wings and elevator, which means lots of little repairs. To keep cost of repair down, the parts most likely to be dinged are metal. It would cost an enormous amount of money and downtime to be repairing composite parts. Its not that the CTSW/LS model is wrong, but more costly to maintain when subjected to typical student abuse.

I sometimes wonder if the issue is the plane being outside most of the time. I believe we all know that aluminum can with stand the element for many years but can composite? I don't know?