CTSW Weight & Balance

[artp]

they are examples from my POH and they are examples that are within the cg envelope defined by my POH. they support my contention that i can fly full fuel without luggage.

The example in my POH shows an empty weight of 300kg (661lbs) which has nothing to do with my plane. It also says the CG flight range is .337mm-.478mm (13.26"-18.82"). But if you study the CG envelope you find the 13.26" is only good at one 450kg (992.5lbs) and any heavy or lighter the CG moves aft.

[thorp]

not really art, there are a number of new ctsw's for sale that are not as new as yours and not necessarily as heavy as yours, not necessarily made with the same purchase/weight carbon fiber as yours and have less equipment installed. your 28lb number might be correct for your aircraft but each ctsw weighs and balances differently.

So how does that support your contention that artP is just describing an anamoly unique to his airplane?

Invoking possible variations in newer CT's means nothing with respect to either your 2005 model or any other model.

Unfortunately, the 2005 POH only gives a range of acceptable cg, but does not show how it would vary with weight as would be the case, for example in a Cessna 172, or as it does in my 2006 POH.

I dont think there is any reason to assume that you are flying outside of your POH, but there is just the possibility that your POH doesnt give you complete information. Have you checked on the accuracy of the POH?

[CharlieTango]

... Have you checked on the accuracy of the POH?

thorpe, its been a while, how are your knees holding up?

i don't have a 2005 ct and i don't understand your question.

[thorp]

... Have you checked on the accuracy of the POH?

thorpe, its been a while, how are your knees holding up?

i don't have a 2005 ct and i don't understand your question.

I just did the following search and got this information:

"Aircraft: FLIGHT DESIGN GMBH CTSW (Fixed wing single engine, Category: Land, Seats: 2, Weight: Up to 12,499 Pounds), Engine: ROTAX SEE BOMBADIER (4 Cycle)
N-Number: 102CT , Serial Number: 05-12-05, Year manufactured: 2005, Airworthiness Date: 03/24/2006
Registrant (Individual): Edward J Cesnalis, Po Box 8929, Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546"

The website is located here:

http://www.city-data.com/aircrafts/air- ... ornia.html

According to those records, the owner has a 2005 model.

Just as a double-check, here is the information from the FAA for N102CT:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... dfind.y=17

It clearly states that it is a 2005 CT.

Is your tail number not N102CT?

[CharlieTango]

thorpe,

its been a while since you posted information on my certificate, now on my aircraft registration.

both times you strongly made a point and both times you were wrong.

the registration clearly shows that my aircraft ( which is a 2006 model ) was manufactured in 2005. imagine that!

2005 models have a different binnacle, a different tail, 1 axis trim, ...

sorry to disappoint

i just read you claim that my yaw stability test was invalid. lets review, you started making ridiculous claims about the ctsw's yaw stability, claiming that the design is unstable and claiming that this was done by local testing. you described the testing as being same or similar to testing a new experimental.

when i asked how this instability was determined you couldn't give a strait answer so i took a flight and yawed left and right and allowed the ctsw to return to coordinated flight on its own. in both directions the nose returned with a less than 1 full oscillation. how is that not valid? you didn't like the speed i used? compared to your false claims with nothing to back it up i'll go with my experience, the nose returns every time.

that is the definition of positive stability.

you revealed your lack of understanding and skill when you claimed that the ctsw took so much rudder work that your knees would get sore just going around the pattern. in real life there is no reason to use your knees when flying a ctsw ( or any other plane that i have flown )

your contention that you must "stay on top of the rudder" even in light winds or your risk crashing reveals a lot, your experience of almost crashing when landing in light winds also reveals your level.

that is fine, we all start somewhere, but since you are just learning it would make more sense if you listened more and shouted less.

[Cub flyer]

Just wondering what serial number the larger vertical tail change was made.

we were using

N126CT built 10-12-05 tested 2-01-06, airworthiness issued 3-14-06 according to the

Tundra tire option.

It was very unstable in yaw.

If I tapped a pedal in level flight it would suck away from my foot and go down to the stop. The airplane would move to maximum yaw and stay there. Same as the early Kitfox, X air H and a Tripacer without the centering springs.

Rough air was a chore. When I flew from 76N to York and Woodstock to 76N I was very ready to get out.


Pants off or on made no difference with this CT.

When it was back at FD in Conn. They installed a centering spring on the rudder. It would then return but had a definite notch in the rudder when passing through center and the breakout from neutral was stiff. You needed a definite push to get the rudder to start moving then the forces were lighter with no increase in force as you increased travel.

I asked about installing the larger vertical fin before Sun-Fun 06 but was told there was no way to install it unless we purchased a new airplane.

When I was in Conn there was a yellow and black CT being repaired and a raw bond on leading edge fin cap was sitting there also. That airframe had the small tail but I'm not sure if the cap was installed.

This was on an O5 airplane. Very different animal than the 06 and later.

I have not flown a CT with the large tail or different stabilator tab to make a comparison. Only 126CT, A long wing and another 05 the dealer owned during the flight from 76N to Woodstock. The other 05 flew better with the stock tires but was not feet off. The long wing was just a demo ride around the patch.

I wish FD would make mold changes for nice control forces instead of playing with all the springs. Sounds like the new CTLS has springs on all controls. They should be a nice light nimble airplane. You can have that without being unstable. Fly an S-1C pitts, Stearman or Vagabond sometime. All have light controls and plenty of authority but are stable on all axis. All were designed 60+ years ago.

[CharlieTango]

charlie,

i have seen 05's that would go to full deflection on the rudder and i think the fix was stronger return springs.

i guess the 05 tails could create and unstable yaw condition but relative to dependenced on aerodynamic / light spring centering. the 05's that i have flown and or flown in were positively stable as long as the rudder didn't " self full deflect " and in that case you did need pressure to correct.

Serial Number: 05-12-05 i think that means dec 5 05 and i think mine was a very early 06 model

[Cub flyer]

Tom at FD told me at Sun' n fun that year that the S/N was a date code.

N126CT was S/N 05-10-12 and would have been built October 12, 2005

Yours would have been built December 12 2005. But it is an 06 because of the installed equipment.


Piper had centering springs on the Colts. they worked fine and were invisible to your feet. They used long springs on the engine mount for rudder centering.

[Cub flyer]

seems like with some experimental playing around FD could get all controls to work without centering springs. Different airfoils, aileron noses, stabilator sizes or slots, smaller rudder aerodynamic balance area,

The springs seemed like a band-aid. The original tail size was probably fine if the rudder was just redesigned.

Instead of making the fuselage longer why not change the aft shape to raise the stabilator higher?

Then they could get closer to the original weights.