Liberty XL2 anyone?

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

When I first heard about this plane I thought it would be cool idea -- a
new, two-person touring plane that will cost about $150K with good
avionics. But the more I learn about it, strictly from reading magazine
articles, the more I wonder. For example:

1. Fingertip brakes next to the throttle. I know magazine reviewers are
reluctant to criticize any plane, so when the AOPA pilot reviewer wryly
said that surgeons and concert pianists would have no problem with these
controls, I had to wonder.

2. Currently life-limited to 225 hours (that's right, 225). And we in
this newsgroup were criticizing Cirrus for the 4350 limit on the SR22. I
know they plan to increase this number as the fleet ages, but this means
no one knows what the number will ultimately be, and everyone who puts a
lot of time in a Liberty is a certification test pilot.

3. Challenging to get into, it's not clear they will be putting steps on
the production models.

4. On the test flight with AOPA pilot, the designer suggested slowing
down to pattern speed before descending, because the plane is hard to
slow down.

5. nonadjustable seats. I know the rudder pedals are adjustable, but
that doesn't help short or tall pilots with headroom or visbility. and
not everyone likes the same seatback angle.

The biggest plus is the pure FADEC engine, all you have to do is move
the lever and mixture, carb heat, etc are automatically done for you.
That's a big plus and is probably this plane's best innovation. Also
gives efficient cruise.

I know some people who feel we should support the manufacturers who "do
something new" would think it's heresy, but at what point to
"innovations" become "quirks."? Let's see, this plane is hard to
taxi, hard to slow down, hard to get into, and is life-limited to a
small number of hours (and no one knows what the final limit will be. )
I guess if you own one you adjust to all the quirks, but I can't help
but think whenever I read a review of a plane like this what kind of
capability the same price would fetch on the used market in a plane that
is easier to get into, taxi, and slow down.

Has anyone flown one of these? If so what do you think of it?

[Dude]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
> When I first heard about this plane I thought it would be cool idea -- a
> new, two-person touring plane that will cost about $150K with good
> avionics. But the more I learn about it, strictly from reading magazine
> articles, the more I wonder. For example:
>
> 1. Fingertip brakes next to the throttle. I know magazine reviewers are
> reluctant to criticize any plane, so when the AOPA pilot reviewer wryly
> said that surgeons and concert pianists would have no problem with these
> controls, I had to wonder.

I flew the plane, and this was not an issue for me. I would think this
would limit short field landing performance though.

>
> 2. Currently life-limited to 225 hours (that's right, 225). And we in
> this newsgroup were criticizing Cirrus for the 4350 limit on the SR22. I
> know they plan to increase this number as the fleet ages, but this means
> no one knows what the number will ultimately be, and everyone who puts a
> lot of time in a Liberty is a certification test pilot.
>

This is a real problem because frankly, after the way their sales people
treated me, I do not trust this company. It was not just one sales person
either, I dealt with 3 different ones. So I don't trust them to fix it fast
enough, or make it long enough. The whole group seems not to execute well.

> 3. Challenging to get into, it's not clear they will be putting steps on
> the production models.
>

This is definitely strange, and will not help you get more people out to
fly. It sets a bad impression from go. Also, if the wing is wet or even the
slightest bit dirty...


> 4. On the test flight with AOPA pilot, the designer suggested slowing
> down to pattern speed before descending, because the plane is hard to
> slow down.
>

Cruise speed and drag are a tradeoff. I find concerns about "hard to slow
down" generally over blown.

> 5. nonadjustable seats. I know the rudder pedals are adjustable, but
> that doesn't help short or tall pilots with headroom or visbility. and
> not everyone likes the same seatback angle.
>

Once again, a weight tradeoff. Also, safety. You could not certify the 152
in today's rules unless you got it grandfathered. Also, why would you not
be willing to have your seats fitted for you after spending 150k on the
plane? Unless you are too big, its not an issue. While on this subject, I
found the shoulder and headroom was much less than the cockpit width would
lead you to believe.

> The biggest plus is the pure FADEC engine, all you have to do is move
> the lever and mixture, carb heat, etc are automatically done for you.
> That's a big plus and is probably this plane's best innovation. Also
> gives efficient cruise.
>

Fadec is neat, but what happens with pilots who train in FADEC, and then
want to fly a regular engine? I hope everything goes Fadec, and we
eliminate this problem.

> I know some people who feel we should support the manufacturers who "do
> something new" would think it's heresy, but at what point to
> "innovations" become "quirks."?

Let me be the judge :)

Let's see, this plane is hard to
> taxi,

Actually it wasn't, but finger breaks are likely a quirk

hard to slow down,

This is not an innovation, its a choice, and its really subjective. I had
NO issues with this at all. However, if you don't like, don't buy it.
However, try it before you agree with this claim from the reviewer. On the
other hand, 130 knots on 125 hp IS an innovation in a stable, certified
plane with otherwise good manners.

hard to get into,

quirk

and is life-limited to a
> small number of hours (and no one knows what the final limit will be. )

quirk, and frankly, not a sign of a good group of engineers and managers.


> I guess if you own one you adjust to all the quirks, but I can't help
> but think whenever I read a review of a plane like this what kind of
> capability the same price would fetch on the used market in a plane that
> is easier to get into, taxi, and slow down.
>

Price is not the end all be all of airplane ownership. You can get a twin
for that amount, but I bet there are twin owners that would consider the
trade to the Liberty..


> Has anyone flown one of these? If so what do you think of it?
>

I compared it to the Diamond 2 seater, and expected it to be similar but
with IFR. The quirks did not bother me as much as the build quality (it was
the prototype though), company image (lousy sales people, later and later
certification), and the ergonomics (which is a completely personal issue for
everyone).

The Diamond won hands down, and the IFR was just not worth it. I ended up
waiting until I could get a bigger plane, and did not buy either of these.
The Diamond is a great rental, and perhaps the funnest certified flying
short of aerobatics.

That all said, this plane could be a good choice for someone who wants a
cheap to own IFR cruiser. I wouldn't want to fly either one near any real
weather, but at least the Liberty lets you in and out of low level
obscuration. Also, I was intrigued with the combination of metal wing and
composite fuselage. This made good economic sense, but the savings do not
seem to be materializing in the price.

[Kyle Boatright]

Presumably, you read the article about the Liberty in the newest Flying (or
was it AOPA, I forget)?

What grabbed me about that article, and a number of articles I see in other
aviation magazines (particularly Sport Aviation - the EAA Mag), is that the
aircraft reviewed are not the *finished* product. The author points out
flaw after flaw after flaw, with the comment that "the company says a fix is
in the works" or "just before press time, the company informed us that this
would be fixed in the production versions". I don't want to read reviews of
paper airplanes. If a magazine is going to publish a review, I don't care
what the prototype did or does. Tell me about the finished version. What
are the actual performance numbers? How does it really fly? How are the
ergonomics?

The sad thing is that I pay good money for aviation magazines and they never
give unfavorable reviews. I'm sure it has something to do with getting
advertising dollars, but it just ain't honest to charge me $10 or $20 a year
to read product reviews that were written while wearing rose colored
glasses.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
> 1. Fingertip brakes next to the throttle. I know magazine reviewers are
> reluctant to criticize any plane, so when the AOPA pilot reviewer wryly
> said that surgeons and concert pianists would have no problem with these
> controls, I had to wonder.

I've used those kind of brakes on a Europa, they really aren't difficult
to use but they do feel very strange for the first few flights. Once
you're used to them, it's no big deal.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[EDR]

In article >, Kyle Boatright
> wrote:

> The sad thing is that I pay good money for aviation magazines and they never
> give unfavorable reviews.

Not even AVIATION CONSUMER???

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> Presumably, you read the article about the Liberty in the newest Flying (or
> was it AOPA, I forget)?
>
> What grabbed me about that article, and a number of articles I see in other
> aviation magazines (particularly Sport Aviation - the EAA Mag), is that the
> aircraft reviewed are not the *finished* product.

I have a feeling that this is related to competition between the
magazines to review the newest planes. I agree with you, but on the
other hand if they waited for a production model, how many complaints
would AOPA Pilot get that "everyone else has flown and written about
this plane, why haven't you?"

>
> The sad thing is that I pay good money for aviation magazines and they never
> give unfavorable reviews. I'm sure it has something to do with getting
> advertising dollars, but it just ain't honest to charge me $10 or $20 a year
> to read product reviews that were written while wearing rose colored
> glasses.

I agree with that too. I also get Car and Driver, which is also
supportd by industry advertising dollars, yet manages to give honest
reviews. Of course the auto industry is a little healthier than GA, and
there are more companies and variety out there -- maybe the aviation
mags feel an obligation to be a booster.

[Aaron Coolidge]

TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:

: 4. On the test flight with AOPA pilot, the designer suggested slowing
: down to pattern speed before descending, because the plane is hard to
: slow down.

I would not worry about this. Punch the nose down a few degrees in even a
25 year old M-20J and it'll quickly be nudging redline airspeed. After a
few hours, the technique to slowing from cruise to landing speed in the
pattern is pretty easy (but it still doesn't slow down like my Cherokee!)

: 5. nonadjustable seats. I know the rudder pedals are adjustable, but
: that doesn't help short or tall pilots with headroom or visbility. and
: not everyone likes the same seatback angle.

I tried out a DA-40 which has non-adjustable seats (I'm pretty sure it
did, anyway..) The only disadvantage was that my knees hit the bottom
of the instrument panel. I could adjust the rudder pedals far enough
to use, but the knees in the panel didn't work for me. I can't fit in
a Miata, either, unless I use my right foot on the clutch and left on
the gas; I can fit into a 152, at least for short periods.

: The biggest plus is the pure FADEC engine, all you have to do is move
: the lever and mixture, carb heat, etc are automatically done for you.
: That's a big plus and is probably this plane's best innovation. Also
: gives efficient cruise.

Carb heat? I thought it had fuel injection. I think the FADEC is going
to make a lot of new owners very happy. It should help with minimizing
maintenance for lead deposits by always leaning properly, minimizing
fuel burn, maximizing takeoff performance, etc. If the plane had a CS
prop also controlled by FADEC it would probably be even closer to a
"turbine like" operation.

--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[dave]

What goes around comes around:)
My 1968 Citabria does not have adjustable seats or rudders pedals and it
has heel brakes.
Dave

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

> When I first heard about this plane I thought it would be cool idea -- a
> new, two-person touring plane that will cost about $150K with good
> avionics. But the more I learn about it, strictly from reading magazine
> articles, the more I wonder. For example:
>
> 1. Fingertip brakes next to the throttle. I know magazine reviewers are
> reluctant to criticize any plane, so when the AOPA pilot reviewer wryly
> said that surgeons and concert pianists would have no problem with these
> controls, I had to wonder.
>
> 2. Currently life-limited to 225 hours (that's right, 225). And we in
> this newsgroup were criticizing Cirrus for the 4350 limit on the SR22. I
> know they plan to increase this number as the fleet ages, but this means
> no one knows what the number will ultimately be, and everyone who puts a
> lot of time in a Liberty is a certification test pilot.
>
> 3. Challenging to get into, it's not clear they will be putting steps on
> the production models.
>
> 4. On the test flight with AOPA pilot, the designer suggested slowing
> down to pattern speed before descending, because the plane is hard to
> slow down.
>
> 5. nonadjustable seats. I know the rudder pedals are adjustable, but
> that doesn't help short or tall pilots with headroom or visbility. and
> not everyone likes the same seatback angle.
>
> The biggest plus is the pure FADEC engine, all you have to do is move
> the lever and mixture, carb heat, etc are automatically done for you.
> That's a big plus and is probably this plane's best innovation. Also
> gives efficient cruise.
>
> I know some people who feel we should support the manufacturers who "do
> something new" would think it's heresy, but at what point to
> "innovations" become "quirks."? Let's see, this plane is hard to
> taxi, hard to slow down, hard to get into, and is life-limited to a
> small number of hours (and no one knows what the final limit will be. )
> I guess if you own one you adjust to all the quirks, but I can't help
> but think whenever I read a review of a plane like this what kind of
> capability the same price would fetch on the used market in a plane that
> is easier to get into, taxi, and slow down.
>
> Has anyone flown one of these? If so what do you think of it?
>
>

[EDR]

In article >, dave
> wrote:

> What goes around comes around:)
> My 1968 Citabria does not have adjustable seats or rudders pedals and it
> has heel brakes.

Yes, but head and leg room are non-issues.

[Brian Sponcil]

This may be irrational and unfounded but I didn't much care for the fact
that the pilot is literally sitting on the gas tank. A post crash fire is
bad enough, but to have one start directly on your butt/back seems all the
less survivable.

Just my $.02


-Brian
N33431


"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
> When I first heard about this plane I thought it would be cool idea -- a
> new, two-person touring plane that will cost about $150K with good
> avionics. But the more I learn about it, strictly from reading magazine
> articles, the more I wonder. For example:

> 5. nonadjustable seats. I know the rudder pedals are adjustable, but
> that doesn't help short or tall pilots with headroom or visbility. and
> not everyone likes the same seatback angle.

[Dude]

The jury may still be out, but I bet this is counterintuitive.

Perhaps someone from the NTSB should be asked, but I think that if you
puncture a cabin stored fuel tank, you are already dead. On the other hand,
you can bend a wing in a Piper or Cessna, and end up burning.

Especially a high wing plane that brings the fuel through the A pillar. The
A pillar should be saving your life, not covering you in fuel.



"Brian Sponcil" > wrote in message
...
> This may be irrational and unfounded but I didn't much care for the fact
> that the pilot is literally sitting on the gas tank. A post crash fire is
> bad enough, but to have one start directly on your butt/back seems all the
> less survivable.
>
> Just my $.02
>
>
> -Brian
> N33431
>
>
> "TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> > When I first heard about this plane I thought it would be cool idea -- a
> > new, two-person touring plane that will cost about $150K with good
> > avionics. But the more I learn about it, strictly from reading magazine
> > articles, the more I wonder. For example:
>
> > 5. nonadjustable seats. I know the rudder pedals are adjustable, but
> > that doesn't help short or tall pilots with headroom or visbility. and
> > not everyone likes the same seatback angle.
>
>

[Brian Sponcil]

Indeed. The fuselage IS made out of carbon fiber so you wonder just how
hard you'd have to hit to break it. Nonetheless, it's not a design choice
that makes me overly comfortable. Of course neither is the piper stabilator
but that's another story....

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> The jury may still be out, but I bet this is counterintuitive.
>
> Perhaps someone from the NTSB should be asked, but I think that if you
> puncture a cabin stored fuel tank, you are already dead. On the other
hand,
> you can bend a wing in a Piper or Cessna, and end up burning.
>
> Especially a high wing plane that brings the fuel through the A pillar.
The
> A pillar should be saving your life, not covering you in fuel.

[Matt Whiting]

Brian Sponcil wrote:

> This may be irrational and unfounded but I didn't much care for the fact
> that the pilot is literally sitting on the gas tank. A post crash fire is
> bad enough, but to have one start directly on your butt/back seems all the
> less survivable.

I had the same thought when I read the article this weekend. Even if
the tank is "protected" by the tube frame and fuselage covering, I
wouldn't want to be sitting on it. There is a reason that Detroit no
longer puts the fuel tank inside the cab of pickup trucks as was once
common practice.


Matt

[Dude]

Ah, I don't know about trucks, but you might want to look where the fuel
tank is on your car. Ever since the Pinto, they have been moving them
closer to the cabin.

Yes, its safer there, and that makes it safer for the passengers.




"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Brian Sponcil wrote:
>
> > This may be irrational and unfounded but I didn't much care for the fact
> > that the pilot is literally sitting on the gas tank. A post crash fire
is
> > bad enough, but to have one start directly on your butt/back seems all
the
> > less survivable.
>
> I had the same thought when I read the article this weekend. Even if
> the tank is "protected" by the tube frame and fuselage covering, I
> wouldn't want to be sitting on it. There is a reason that Detroit no
> longer puts the fuel tank inside the cab of pickup trucks as was once
> common practice.
>
>
> Matt
>

[Matt Whiting]

Dude wrote:

> Ah, I don't know about trucks, but you might want to look where the fuel
> tank is on your car. Ever since the Pinto, they have been moving them
> closer to the cabin.

My truck has the tank under the bed and between the frame rails.


> Yes, its safer there, and that makes it safer for the passengers.

As I recall, the pinto and others had the tank behind the rear axle
where it was susceptible to a rear-end collision. Airplanes don't hit
tail first very often and don't get rear-ended all that often either.

There certainly is a trade-off between having the tanks protected better
but nearer the pax and having them separated from the pax, but
potentially more vulnerable. Personally, I prefer to have them in the
wings as far from the fuselage as practical with leak resistant fuel
cells (like race cars) and breakaway fittings where the wing is most
likely to separate from the fuselage should it hit something.


Matt

[G.R. Patterson III]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> As I recall, the pinto and others had the tank behind the rear axle
> where it was susceptible to a rear-end collision.

Every Ford auto from the Model-A through at least the 70s had the gas tank in that
location. Most other cars did too. The problem with the Pinto is that the rear axle
housing was designed in such a way that it could easily puncture the tank in a
rear-end. And Ford was aware of this. And Ford deliberately decided to do nothing
about it because it would cost a few dollars more per car to build a safe housing.
And someone leaked the memos about that.

> Airplanes don't hit
> tail first very often and don't get rear-ended all that often either.

And airplanes *really* hate having several hundred pounds of weight located around
the tail.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Steve Chalfin]

Having worked in a burn center, I also get nervous when fuel and my
skin are in close proximity. Diamond has approached the issue in a
different way than Liberty. My DA40 has metal tanks in the wings,
located between the two carbon fiber spars. The remainder of the fuel
system is external to the cabin. The fuel selector valve is connected
to the handle via long shaft, and resides, along with the boost pump,
in its own compartment.

To my knowlege, no Diamond aircraft has ever suffered a post-crash
fire.

[Paul Sengupta]

You should try flying a Cri-cri. The fuel tank is under your knees...
you bend your legs over it to get to the rudder pedals if I remember
correctly.

Paul

"Brian Sponcil" > wrote in message
...
>
> Indeed. The fuselage IS made out of carbon fiber so you wonder just how
> hard you'd have to hit to break it. Nonetheless, it's not a design choice
> that makes me overly comfortable. Of course neither is the piper
stabilator
> but that's another story....
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The jury may still be out, but I bet this is counterintuitive.
> >
> > Perhaps someone from the NTSB should be asked, but I think that if you
> > puncture a cabin stored fuel tank, you are already dead. On the other
> hand,
> > you can bend a wing in a Piper or Cessna, and end up burning.
> >
> > Especially a high wing plane that brings the fuel through the A pillar.
> The
> > A pillar should be saving your life, not covering you in fuel.
>
>

[Dude]

> As I recall, the pinto and others had the tank behind the rear axle
> where it was susceptible to a rear-end collision. Airplanes don't hit
> tail first very often and don't get rear-ended all that often either.


Ahh, but if you look at crash photos you will see that the wings and tail
often break off. It you put in really serious fuel lines with break aways
you may avoid this causing a fire, but the tank itself is still out there.

What if you put the tank behind the seat, but not under it? Is that better
to you? after all, you said you are not likely to get rear ended.

You can come up with any solution you want to feel safe, and then tell us
the aircraft you found that fits the bill. In the end, I don't think having
it in the compartment is such a bad idea. And I am quite sure that few if
any planes will meet your standards.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> You should try flying a Cri-cri. The fuel tank is under your knees...
> you bend your legs over it to get to the rudder pedals if I remember
> correctly.
>
> Paul

If you're worried about crash safety, you won't be flying a Cri-cri
anyway... Neat airplane, but from a survivability standpoint, the light
structure (an understatment) and relatively high stall speed add up in a bad
way.

KB