Liberty XL2 anyone?

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?

"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.

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.

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"

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???

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.

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)

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?

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.

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.