New C4 4-Place from Flight Design

CT4ME

CT4ME

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
1,321
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Display Name
Display name:
CT4ME
The new Flight Design C4, four-place, certified aircraft is coming together and looks like a winner. The concept was announced a year ago... and the first test flight is just weeks away. A mock-up of the fuselage/interior was just shown at AERO 2012. The aircraft will be shown at the upcoming OSH 2012.
I can't wait. Why? Composite, strutless, 4-place, with great payload, speed, and distance for a projected price of $250K. That includes full Glass panel and whole-frame parachute, everything but autopilot.
While the panel manufacturer hasn't been announced, the plane will be powered by a Continental IO-360-AF. The engine will burn AVGas or "alternative fuels", to include MoGas.
The specs include super-roomy cabin, with real seating for four 6-footers, and fuel/power to transport them (plus 132 lbs luggage) 6+ hours at 150kts. The rear seat is wider than a 182 front seat:yikes:
C4_WEb.jpg

c4int3.jpg

c4int4.jpg

c4int6.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pipistrel Pantera stole C4's thunder. Firstly, it's much closer to availability, they have demonstrated a flyiable airplane. Secondly, it's promised to be much faster on about the same payload and power. I suspect that Flight Design missed a boat on this one by a lot. Instead of trying to emulate Cirrus, they should've tried to exceed it. Kind of obvious in retrospect, but they were far from alone. Just look at Cessna Corvalis and KAI Naraon.
 
Pete,
I agree to disagree. The C4 is going to cost $250K, while the Pantera is projected to cost $500K+ or you could buy the experimental Pantera for a mere $434K! I would suspect this to be two different market segments. For $250K, I believe the C4 will be a winner. Either way, I'm glad someone is advancing GA, even if it isn't an American company.
 
I love the Panthera, too, but the comparison is Apples and Oranges. $513,000 vs. $250,000. The Panthera is a radical new design and the C4 is just pretty much a larger version of the proven CT line. Pipistrel has 30 total aircraft registered in the US, covering several different types of aircraft. FD has 360, all of the CT line.
Panthera is experimental/built (that's all they're offering now, 2015 for factory), C4 is factory.
A better comparison would be the Tecnam P2010 and the C4.
 
Last edited:
I only have an hour in CTLS (a mock checkout in N505MA), but I like how it flies. The only part of the airplane I didn't like was the layout of the lower center - I kept bumping the throttle whenever I reached for the brake. That, and the strange idea to omit door handles! I cannot resign to the need to reach inside through the vent, it's just dumb. Clearly C4 can fix small items like that. If C4 is 2 times cheaper than Pantera, undoubtedly it's going to find a market. But as far as capturing the flying public's imagination, it does not work now as well as it did back when it was announced, IMHO.
 
Very true, but I have plenty of imaginary planes in my hangar... I'm looking for one I can fly! You're right, I do kinda feel like I'm "breaking in" everytime I open the CT door, but at least there hasn't been any doors falling off (or spontaneously opening) that I know of. I've haven't heard of anyone complaining about the brake/throttle thing... they are about the same distance apart as the mixture/throttle knobs in Cessnas.
 
The Flight Design C4 development process has been set back about 1 year, in order to take advantage of the impending, revised, simplified Part 23 Certification process. The FAA Part 23 ARC (Aviation Rulemaking Committee) is working on a goal of "doubling the level of safety, while reducing the certification costs by half". Flight Design management personnel are working with the committees involved in the process, and hope to have one of the first aircraft certified under the new standards.
 
CT4ME said:
The Flight Design C4 development process has been set back about 1 year, in order to take advantage of the impending, revised, simplified Part 23 Certification process. The FAA Part 23 ARC (Aviation Rulemaking Committee) is working on a goal of "doubling the level of safety, while reducing the certification costs by half". Flight Design management personnel are working with the committees involved in the process, and hope to have one of the first aircraft certified under the new standards.
Click to expand...

So its going to make certification easier but set the process back a year. :dunno:
 
dell30rb said:
So its going to make certification easier but set the process back a year. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Isn't it the same process / concept that Cessna is using to get the 162 back to market?

1 year delay is probably cheaper than multiple years of certification efforts.
 
I own a CTSW. Hoping the economy or at least my personal fortune improves so that I can trade it for a C4 some day. Flight Design builds great airplanes.
 
supernovae said:
Isn't it the same process / concept that Cessna is using to get the 162 back to market?

1 year delay is probably cheaper than multiple years of certification efforts.
Click to expand...

Not really SLSA certification is rather simple by comparison
 
supernovae said:
Isn't it the same process / concept that Cessna is using to get the 162 back to market?
Click to expand...
What is the word "back" supposed to signify in the phrase "get the 162 back to market"? It never went anywhere.
 
CT4ME said:
I love the Panthera, too, but the comparison is Apples and Oranges. $513,000 vs. $250,000. The Panthera is a radical new design and the C4 is just pretty much a larger version of the proven CT line. Pipistrel has 30 total aircraft registered in the US, covering several different types of aircraft. FD has 360, all of the CT line.
Panthera is experimental/built (that's all they're offering now, 2015 for factory), C4 is factory.
A better comparison would be the Tecnam P2010 and the C4.
Click to expand...
The numbers are growing on the Pipistrel line, though. And they are pretty nice birds. I guess I've seen a disproportionate percentage of them. The 5C1 Pipistrel just sold to a customer who couldn't wait for a new one from the factory after having flown one!

Ryan
 
It'll be hard to look cool flying that ugly thing around.
 
DavidWhite said:
It'll be hard to look cool flying that ugly thing around.
Click to expand...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We like to think of the CT as the plane Walt Disney would have designed. And the carbon fiber "egg" does a pretty amazing job of protecting the passengers in a crash.
 
While not a huge fan of high wing aircraft I think that thing is gorgeous. The more airplanes available, the better for us pilots. And I've never given a damn what anyone thinks about what I wear or what I drive.

Probably explains my wardrobe.
 
DavidWhite said:
It'll be hard to look cool flying that ugly thing around.
Click to expand...

As they say... "the eye of the beholder"....
I have a CTsw. For years, I couldn't go anywhere without drawing a crowd... "what's that?... it's so cute!". Granted, I'd love a more manly description... but have grown used to "cute".
 
I'll believe it when I see it

I'm from Missouri, so I'll have to see it to believe it....

Just look what they're claiming, compared to a Cirrus SR20:

  • Engine: 180hp (C4) vs. 200hp (SR20)
  • Max cruise speed: 160kts vs. 155kts
  • Gross weight: 2,640# vs. 3,050#
  • Useful load: 1,320# vs. 970#
  • Fuel capacity: 70 gal vs. 60 gal
  • Range: 1200nm @ 65% vs. 785nm @55%
  • Cabin width: 52" vs. 49"

Maybe it's just me, but these proposed specs are way better than any other aircraft on the market today. The empty weight is 760 lbs lighter than the Cirrus...seems pretty aggressive. Unless they have some kind of new, super-efficient wing design and ultra-light construction materials, I can't see how they're going to pull it off. I hope I'm wrong, though :)
 
Compare it with specs of CTLS and it all makes sense. About the expected numbers a CT scaled up to 4 seats. I don't have a clue why SR20 is that heavy (2133 lbs). A Piper Arrow is only 1460 or so, on the same engine as SR20. Cirrus is just oversized for comfort, perhaps.

Of course it may be that Cirrus' chute is way overbuilt, and/or Flight Design way underestimate what a bigger chute is going to weigh. CTLS has a standard chute too, but you can't just multiply its weight by 2, because deployment speeds are going to be higher.
 
zaitcev said:
I don't have a clue why SR20 is that heavy (2133 lbs). A Piper Arrow is only 1460 or so, on the same engine as SR20. Cirrus is just oversized for comfort, perhaps.
Click to expand...

Recently certified airplanes are all heavier. My mostly carbon DA40F is 1735 lbs empty with the same engine/prop as Archer II/III. I'll still outclimb and outcruise that Archer though. Way more room too.
 
Re: I'll believe it when I see it

bcool said:
I'm from Missouri, so I'll have to see it to believe it....

Just look what they're claiming, compared to a Cirrus SR20:

  • Engine: 180hp (C4) vs. 200hp (SR20)
  • Max cruise speed: 160kts vs. 155kts
  • Gross weight: 2,640# vs. 3,050#
  • Useful load: 1,320# vs. 970#
  • Fuel capacity: 70 gal vs. 60 gal
  • Range: 1200nm @ 65% vs. 785nm @55%
  • Cabin width: 52" vs. 49"

Maybe it's just me, but these proposed specs are way better than any other aircraft on the market today. The empty weight is 760 lbs lighter than the Cirrus...seems pretty aggressive. Unless they have some kind of new, super-efficient wing design and ultra-light construction materials, I can't see how they're going to pull it off. I hope I'm wrong, though :)
Click to expand...

This strategy is as old as the airplane business. Wild performance claims beyond your competitors is how you get people excited, create a buzz about your company's project and ultimately, get pre-order deposits.

Then comes reality.

Long delays, heavier, slower and way more expensive then promised. On the other hand, if the Feds really do make a radical change to part 23 certification, maybe more concept planes will become reality. They are very wise to wait and see. I suspect many of their boasts are probably predicated on the idea that the new regs are going to be lax and like that of LSA.

I personally have long since given up getting excited about new airplane designs and all their wild claims before certification. Particularly ones that haven't even left the ground yet.
 
At least now there ARE new airplane designs. When I started flying in 1994, that was not the case. Complain all you want, but Diamond, Cirrus, FD, etc. really didn't exist then. The past 20 years have been a decent recovery for GA.
 
I still think it's really ugly.
 
BigSam said:
At least now there ARE new airplane designs. When I started flying in 1994, that was not the case. Complain all you want, but Diamond, Cirrus, FD, etc. really didn't exist then. The past 20 years have been a decent recovery for GA.
Click to expand...

Diamond did, Lancair did, actually that was the timeframe when these new breed airplanes started.
 
New panel with recently announced avionics package... 1st test flights in June... INFO
Flight-Design-SNF.jpg
 
CT4ME said:
New panel with recently announced avionics package... 1st test flights in June... INFO
Flight-Design-SNF.jpg
Click to expand...

Yuck! Yeah, they put the 750 in a place that's easy to reach, but it's not nearly as easy to see and have in your scan - They could have fit it into the panel if they weren't trying so hard to make it look like a car.

There's a reason airplane panels don't look like car dashboards.

Ugh.

Nice gear, terrible layout IMO.
 
That panel is an example of a designer that is completely obsessed with symmetry.
 
Well, I'm not a high wing fan but I like this aircraft. Nice panel with analog backup. Good specs, though I don't think it'll meet the 160 kts or the 1,200 mile range. It's priced right for a new 4 place. I would prefer a Cirrus but for the high wing types I don't think you could do much better than this.
 
Sweet, I cannot wait to see this plane. I really like some of the newer designs coming to the market.
 
Well, guess it's a rough mock-up. The sub-panel mounting is sketchy, none of the switches on the left are labeled. If not for the shadows, I would say it was all 'shopped. The MFD displays were clearly 'shopped.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yuck! Yeah, they put the 750 in a place that's easy to reach, but it's not nearly as easy to see and have in your scan - They could have fit it into the panel if they weren't trying so hard to make it look like a car.

There's a reason airplane panels don't look like car dashboards.

Ugh.

Nice gear, terrible layout IMO.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Why are the standby instruments front and center (literally) when the moving map is at your feet?
 
Not a huge fan of high wings style-wise, but if they come close to those specs and hit their price point, I'd definitely consider it. Even with the weird panel layout.
 
At the estimated price,should be a good buy. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Ignition key and flap switch seem sorta similar and close.:eek: As long as the plane is probably placarded against flying without fuel I'm sure there won't be any problems.
 
FYI... According to Dan Johnson, the Flight Design C4 had it's 1st test flight April 9th, sporting a Hartzell 2-blade prop. The company is still projecting a price of $250K.
1988_1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top