Aero Friedrichshafen 2019: Flight Design F4

A

asicer

Final Approach
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
9,554
Display Name
Display name:
asicer
So what does PoA think of the new Flight Design F4?
  • Rotax 915iS turbocharged engine.
  • Certified under FAR 23
  • Based on a stretched, modified and beefed-up version of the CTLS airframe.
  • Gross weight at 1100 kg (2420 pounds)
  • Predicted to be in the 150- to 160-knot range
  • Price target under $300,000.
  • Full-up IFR airframe
  • Garmin G3X touch avionics.
  • Ballistic parachute.
http://flash.avweb.com/avwebflash/n...-Announces-New-F2-and-F4-Models-232608-1.html

F4 looks like vaporware so far but they at least showed its little brother, the F2:
p1d8487i5n1v9637g1hdb4k1nfj6.jpg

Flight-Design-F2-1000x665.jpg
 
Well it has a chute and lots of buttons inside to play with. Looks like my next plane
 
WannFly said:
wait... that has the wing in the wrong place. i am out. may be its @Sinistar s next thing
Click to expand...
I'd rather see the ground below me than the sky above me. Unless I win the Sundowner in that contest. Then I'll switch teams.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I'd rather see the ground below me than the sky above me. Unless I win the Sundowner in that contest. Then I'll switch teams.
Click to expand...
i can see the ground when i am walking or driving... i dont need to see it while flying /....:D:D
 
asicer said:
So what does PoA think of the new Flight Design F4?
  • Rotax 915iS turbocharged engine.
  • Certified under FAR 23
  • Based on a stretched, modified and beefed-up version of the CTLS airframe.
  • Gross weight at 1100 kg (2420 pounds)
  • Predicted to be in the 150- to 160-knot range
  • Price target under $300,000.
  • Full-up IFR airframe
  • Garmin G3X touch avionics.
  • Ballistic parachute.
Click to expand...

If they can actually meet those specs, especially the speed, at that price, they'll have a winner. But, with a 2420-lb gross weight and the BRS chute, I'm wondering what the useful load will be. It may just be another four-seated two-seat airplane!

If it hits those specs, Cessna won't sell another 172. If they could only beef it up a little more so it had a 182-like useful load, they would really have a winner!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If they can actually meet those specs, especially the speed, at that price, they'll have a winner.
Click to expand...
The speed is the bullet point on which I'm most skeptical.

The 915iS is rated at 96% max continuous up to 15000 feet with a ceiling of 23000 feet. Perhaps it could get that fast when pushed to the absolute limit but I doubt real people will run it anywhere near that high and hard under normal circumstances.

75% power or less where you don't have to suck on a tube and I'm guessing it's probably Archer speeds.
 
I've been amazed at what some of the Euro manufacturers have come up with. This one, and Google the Pipistrel Panthera to see a possible Cirrus competitor.

For training, have a look at Pipistrel's Alpha Trainer, too.

Cessna is primarily interested in jets. I suspect they'll eventually wind down their legacy 172 and 182 products.
 
asicer said:
The speed is the bullet point on which I'm most skeptical.

The 915iS is rated at 96% max continuous up to 15000 feet with a ceiling of 23000 feet. Perhaps it could get that fast when pushed to the absolute limit but I doubt real people will run it anywhere near that high and hard under normal circumstances.

75% power or less where you don't have to suck on a tube and I'm guessing it's probably Archer speeds.
Click to expand...

The Pipistrel Virus SW is capable of 140-150 knots with a plain Jane 912. It is deliberately limited in the US for the LSA category.

One reviewer asked the Pip representative about that. He said the prop adjustment took care of the LSA limit ... then added, "once it's out of our hands ..." (wink)

Pip and FD both argue that careful attention to aerodynamics can make a big difference.
 
asicer said:
The speed is the bullet point on which I'm most skeptical. [...]
Click to expand...

The Sling S4 has already proven to achieve these speeds with the same engine. The CT appears to be more slippery, I therefore wouldn't be surprised if these numbers would turn out to be rather conservative.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If they can actually meet those specs, especially the speed, at that price, they'll have a winner. But, with a 2420-lb gross weight and the BRS chute, I'm wondering what the useful load will be. It may just be another four-seated two-seat airplane!

If it hits those specs, Cessna won't sell another 172. If they could only beef it up a little more so it had a 182-like useful load, they would really have a winner!
Click to expand...
I would guess that useful load will be, at least, in the mid-900s. My 2300 lb. gross Skyhawk had a 906 lb. useful load. This looks as if it could be lighter.
 
I like it. The interior is sorta utilitarian, but that helps hold down the price. The engineering and execution of the airframe is very well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top