Does anybody here know anything about the Bushcaddy LSA? Does it meet the US LSA requirements? The company's website is pretty awful, not informative at all. Searching on Bushcaddy here didn't yield a lot either, but I'm pretty sure we've talked about 'em. I eliminated them from serious consideration at first because I don't like the "Y" shaped center stick, but recently I've seen pictures of one with conventional stick controls for both seats. One of the Bushcaddy references I did find on this site mentioned "wings falling off." Yikes! Anybody know what this is referring to? Anyway, any input would be welcomed!

Best,
O-2

They seem to have a following in Canada, but like you I am a little unsure why they have never caught on much down here. Looks and sounds good, maybe the company is just not pushing hard and happy being small, nothing wrong with that.

I have never heard anything bad about them.

We have a member here who flies one, I'm sure he can tell you all about it. From what I understand, they have a model lineup from LSA to 4 seater.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount the "Y" control. They are used in the Zenith CH series, and allow you to sit left seat and fly with your right hand, something that seems like it would be nice if you're used to flying tandem machines. Kinda weird looking, but it also keeps your crotch uncluttered and makes climbing in and out easier.

The wings falling off thing, as far as I know it hapined twice, both aircraft had the extended wing upgrade done to an older model and the builder didn't bother with all those reinforcements. That's the story according to the aviation safety letter anyway.

ccurrie wrote:The wings falling off thing, as far as I know it hapined twice, both aircraft had the extended wing upgrade done to an older model and the builder didn't bother with all those reinforcements. That's the story according to the aviation safety letter anyway.

Ccurrie:

Thanks for the insight. I'm not a structural engineer but it seems obvious that "extending" wingspan increases lift, and if that added lift is not accounted for with beefed up structure, gust loads may exceed design limits.

Best
O-2

Following the logic of increased loads for extended wings and the relative weakening of Bushcaddy components needing to be beefed up, does the same logic apply to extended wing kits for Cessna and others especially since a rise in gross weight follows the Cessna extended wing kits and further increases stress load? If the same increased structural loads do not affect the Cessna or others then can we assume the design margin for strength is less on the Bushcaddy than on those other aircraft? It seems a logical question to ask and one I am not qualified to answer.

I built a set of shock struts and a cabane "V" for one . He really liked his said it flew nice

dirtstrip wrote:Following the logic of increased loads for extended wings and the relative weakening of Bushcaddy components needing to be beefed up, does the same logic apply to extended wing kits for Cessna and others especially since a rise in gross weight follows the Cessna extended wing kits and further increases stress load? If the same increased structural loads do not affect the Cessna or others then can we assume the design margin for strength is less on the Bushcaddy than on those other aircraft? It seems a logical question to ask and one I am not qualified to answer.

It's important to understand the difference between testing and certification (and modification via STC) of certificated aircraft versus the "consensus standards" applied to S-LSA aircraft.

A modifier of a Cessna wing, for example, has to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FAA that the wing will still meet the pertinent standards of the certification category that airplane is certified under. This requires VERY rigorous engineering data and structures and loads testing.

LSA's, on the other hand, are NOT "certificated" aircraft. They are built to "consensus standards" agreed to by the industry and the FAA, but the FAA does not certify a design. It's up to the manufacturer to determine that the airplane is safe and meets the consensus standards, not the FAA. The testing done by the manufacturer is as rigorous as they feel it needs to be to meet consensus standards, but in any case, it's not as rigorous as is the testing required for certificated aircraft.

That's not to suggest that LSA aircraft are unsafe, but there have been a few in flight failures in the LSA world that probably would never have happened in a certificated aircraft. The LSA manufacturer can test the aircraft to as strict a standards in excess of the consensus standards as they like. Some of them undoubtedly do test them beyond the "minimum" requirements.

MTV

I was talking to an AME engineer @ a field near here while he was working on a Bushcaddy. He was quite "frustrated" & said he'd never seen/worked on such a poor excuse for an airplane. It flew just fine but was always having some sort of prob's. Even to an untrained eye, there were some weird things!
Maybe it was homebuilt by a clutz, I dunno, but this well respected mech. hated that thing!

dirtstrip wrote:Following the logic of increased loads for extended wings and the relative weakening of Bushcaddy components needing to be beefed up, does the same logic apply to extended wing kits for Cessna and others especially since a rise in gross weight follows the Cessna extended wing kits and further increases stress load? If the same increased structural loads do not affect the Cessna or others then can we assume the design margin for strength is less on the Bushcaddy than on those other aircraft? It seems a logical question to ask and one I am not qualified to answer.

I'm certain that is true. I once was considering buying a Cessna T210 with the Flint tip tanks, which are essentially wing extensions. There was a complicated formula (for me, anyway) for determining how much fuel could/must be carried in the tanks, depending on aircraft weight. I'm certain this was to mitigate the extra stress. I passed on the tip tank equipped airplane (long wings wouldn't fit my hangar anyway). Later, wing extensions have been implicated in a couple of Cessna 337 wing failures.

Best,
O-2

Hi,
I am building a Bushcaddy L164. This is the four place, largest model. I am not sure if you are correct on the wing failure. I believe that was a different kit from CLASS inc that has been confused with the Bushcaddy. I have heard that it had an improperly modified wing structure.
Anyways, aside from that, with regards to the A&P who disliked working on the Bushcaddy, can you recall anything in particular he found to be a problem. Trust me, the plane leaves a lot, probably too much up to the builders discretion.
It would be nice to learn from some others decisions.
Sorry for the thread drift but I appreciate the replies.
Cam