Roger wrote:Throp,
I'll be happy to pay your round trip fuel costs to the CT Fly-in in Page Az Oct 15th to the 18th so we can all discuss issues in person. Please bring proof of "aggressive advertising campaign" with you!! That was a good one
Hope to see you there....
Roger H
ok, you're probably right about the skycatcher so we can leave that off the table!!
Oops, almost forgot - what's wide variation mean? And if it's what I think you mean - how did you figure that out? Just curious.
Roger,
I think that you have been far more honorable than CharlieT or some of the others (such as R Fane), because you are at least open about the fact that you are biased towards the CTSW, and havent made it look like the plane is perfectly wonderful unless you are some kind of idiot pilot.
The information about the wide variation in the CTSW comes from several sources, all of them mechanics who have worked on the plane, including even CharlieT himself, who posted that when Gary(A&P) flew his plane the first time, that he remaked on how it was one of the better ones out there.
That type of remark has been made numerous times by mechanics who have worked on the CTSW.
The plain truth is that the CTSW is not a manufactured aircraft, but one that is in fact hand built.
A trivial example of that is the engine mounting bolts. You wont find two of them that have the bolts in the same locations, with the same amount of spacers. The list of variations just goes on and on.
That doesnt mean that the CTSW is a bad plane. You could take the positive spin that it is like the Rolls-Royce, hand built.
Or, you could just enter the no-spin zone and tell it like it is: all these planes are hand built and have sufficently wide variation to make each one unique.
Thanks for the offer to attend Page, for the second time, however I will not be available during that time.