CTLS Thoughts and Venting

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

thorp
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:12 pm
Location: California

Post by thorp »

CharlieTango wrote:art,
{snip}
why not call you service center, rather than wait for them to call you. be cordial and remind them that you are waiting for a call, and per tom p you have expectations of a better service relationship?
{snip}
you are wrong about tom p, he's not all about pr, he's a man of few words. if i was in your shoes i would find an a&p from my local field and get him to do things like oil changes as well as maintenance issues that are not being conveniently handled by the service center. i have done the same, fd likes to do the warranty work when they can but they can be extremely flexible. you got tom's agreement, use it rather than wait and complain. you know how to communicate, use your skills to solve your problems, it is easy.

you said "too bad flight design isn't this responsive" remember me telling you about all the times flight design did the same thing for me? they have flown to my location to do service bullitens and other maintenance.
{snip}
The disturbing things about this post:

1) you have to sweet talk the company into providing the service that is required to maintain the airworthiness of their product
2) early on when few planes were purchased you got great treatment, so that is how you think everyone else gets treated?

There is overwhelming evidence from many credible sources that FD is no where near as repsonsive as claimed and to even suggest that the reason they are not is because the purcahser of the product doesnt sweet talk enough to get his due is ....well, its appalling.

And, that is after spending over $100K.

I mentioned this to a CT dealer and he began to wail and moan about how little he made on the sale of a CT. It was almost the same song and dance you hear from a car salesman about how you need to cut him some slack so he can feed his starving children.

Well, I decided to write to the FAA for the official records to see how much profit was actually made on the sale of the CTSW. The price paid by they dealer to Tom P was (for a typical plane) $72K and sold without avionics at $92K.

That means that the dealer marked up $20K, and the rest was an in-house avionics shop, which even if done at cost, and unlikely, would place the gross profit at $20K. If he sold only 5 planes (well below his actual sales), thats a gross profit of $100K.

The planes were literally flying out of the dealership, and now there are not only too many of them to provide the excellent service you got in the early days, but they are being hastily put together and full of problems.

I have no desire to go into all of the problems I had to fix with my CTSW, at my own expense, before I was a happy camper with my plane, but someday I may provide the long list of defects that my mechanic discovered (lucky me! I actually had a mechanic and ArtP didnt).

The only people I see whining are Roger H and FD.
User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Post by CharlieTango »

thorp wrote:...That means that the dealer marked up $20K, and the rest was an in-house avionics shop, which even if done at cost, and unlikely, would place the gross profit at $20K. If he sold only 5 planes (well below his actual sales), thats a gross profit of $100K...

i have the original invoice to the dealer for my ctsw and you are wrong thorpe, by a large amount.
thorp
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:12 pm
Location: California

Post by thorp »

CharlieTango wrote:
thorp wrote:...That means that the dealer marked up $20K, and the rest was an in-house avionics shop, which even if done at cost, and unlikely, would place the gross profit at $20K. If he sold only 5 planes (well below his actual sales), thats a gross profit of $100K...

i have the original invoice to the dealer for my ctsw and you are wrong thorpe, by a large amount.
No, I am not wrong. Give me your tail number I will find out for myself and post it to the world.
User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Post by CharlieTango »

thorp wrote:...No, I am not wrong. Give me your tail number I will find out for myself and post it to the world.
lets see, i'm looking at the invoice to the dealer for my aircraft right now while you say you are not wrong but you need to find out for yourself?

how can you know if you haven't yet found out?

you are off by about 300%
User avatar
JRamos9920
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Sarasota
Contact:

CT Ballyhoo

Post by JRamos9920 »

Man there is a lot of stank on here about CTs.. funny Remos beat them in a fly-off at a large University flight school here by a vote of 9-1.

I've learned that in this fun job in aviation that I have there is no trickery, no flakyness, nothing is cloudy except the weather on certain days, and some people that love airplanes and want to buy them can be like toddlers:

They see a plane, they like it and they want it very bad. They may even get a guy to fly them around if they're nice enough. But they just don't have any money to buy it.

And if they did have the money and no concrete knowledge of airplanes.. they may by a CT thanks to these "CT Support groups" all counseling each other out of buyer's remorse.

Get a Remos!

John
User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Re: CT Ballyhoo

Post by CharlieTango »

JRamos9920 wrote: <snip>

And if they did have the money and no concrete knowledge of airplanes.. they may by a CT thanks to these "CT Support groups" all counseling each other out of buyer's remorse.

Get a Remos!

John
John,

I don't know any CT owner's ( with the exception of Thorpe ) who have buyer's remorse. I have had to discount Thorpe's remorse due to statements that he has made regarding CTs' that are not close to reality.

How many CT owner's do you know that have remorse? Your statement above would indicate that all in the support groups have it.

My experience is that the Remos designs can't keep up with a CT and don't hold up in real world conditions.
KSCessnaDriver
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:15 pm
Location: KOJC

Re: CT Ballyhoo

Post by KSCessnaDriver »

My experience is that the Remos designs can't keep up with a CT and don't hold up in real world conditions.[/quote]

How many Remos G3/GX's have you seen end up with a collapsed nose gear? How many CT's have that same issue.

In any case, each airplane was designed for its own reasons. They both have strengths and weaknesses. No need to get in a pissing contest over who has the better airplane. Its just like Airbus vs Boeing, Cessna vs Piper, and so forth. Its a never ending argument.
KSCessnaDriver (ATP MEL, Commerical LTA-Airship/SEL, Private SES, CFI/CFII)
LSA's flown: Remos G3, Flight Design CTSW, Aeronca L-16, Jabiru J170
User avatar
JRamos9920
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Sarasota
Contact:

Post by JRamos9920 »

All this I hear in the forum about people's postings in the CT forums are being deleted because only positive postings are allowed, nothing that would dare put CT in a negative light is acceptable. This prevents constructive criticism and is evidence of some dissatisfaction with CT owners.

Also, Thorpe's statements, in your mind, may be far from reality but they are still his feelings on the plane as a pilot and purchaser of a very expensive piece of equipment. They shouldn't be minimized or downplayed. Why would he exert so much effort trying to express them?

Just because a plane isn't everything the buyer though it would be doesn't make it a bad plane. These forums that are suppressing people's free speech and ability to warm people they may not be getting what they thought is pure evidence of remorse with SOME buyers, maybe not the ones you know.

John
User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Re: CT Ballyhoo

Post by CharlieTango »

KSCessnaDriver wrote:...How many Remos G3/GX's have you seen end up with a collapsed nose gear? How many CT's have that same issue...
there is no problem with the CT nose gear. it takes more feel or training then a Remos and if you can't control it on landing the nose gear is at risk.

to be fair most incidents happened 3-4 years ago and the problem then was lack of transition training. this is no longer the case.

I'm not into a pissing contest but today's critisism isn't fair. I know dozens of CT owners and across the board they are well pleased yet we hear they all have buyer's remorse.
User avatar
JRamos9920
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:42 am
Location: Sarasota
Contact:

Re: CT Ballyhoo

Post by JRamos9920 »

CharlieTango wrote:
KSCessnaDriver wrote:they all have buyer's remorse.
Yes... because this is what I said.. they ALL have buyer's remorse right? I feel for thorpe even more now, you are putting words in to my mouth.

Not every single LSA buyer or CT buyer for the most part is going to be 100% satisfied. Since I am a competitor of CT I have no problem exploiting a case of remorse like thorpe's.

Let's hear your knowledge of a case of Remos remorse, just to be fair.

John
User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Post by CharlieTango »

JRamos9920 wrote:All this I hear in the forum about people's postings in the CT forums are being deleted because only positive postings are allowed, nothing that would dare put CT in a negative light is acceptable. This prevents constructive criticism and is evidence of some dissatisfaction with CT owners.
I have been involved with the CT forum since its inception. Postings being deleted by Roger Heller are rare and warranted. It isn't true that only positive postings are permitted. The forum is full of contructive criticism, some of which results in improvement of the design. An example would be that the new model, the CTLS is fitted with a Matco brake system that was developed by a forum member.
JRamos9920 wrote: Also, Thorpe's statements, in your mind, may be far from reality but they are still his feelings on the plane as a pilot and purchaser of a very expensive piece of equipment. They shouldn't be minimized or downplayed. Why would he exert so much effort trying to express them?
There is a big difference between "feelings" and "facts." Thorpe stated ridulous things as fact, such as his contention that the CTSW takes so much rudder work that that your knees would be given a big work out and get sore from just flying the pattern once or twice. He also stated that in a mild crosswind that you are in danger of crashing if you are not on top of the rudder. I'm not minimizing or downplaying Thorpe's feelings just pointing out that his statements are far from true.

JRamos9920 wrote: Just because a plane isn't everything the buyer though it would be doesn't make it a bad plane. These forums that are suppressing people's free speech and ability to warm people they may not be getting what they thought is pure evidence of remorse with SOME buyers, maybe not the ones you know.

John
Forums across the board need moderation. Roger requires that his CT forum be about CT's, that posts are civil and not misrepresnting the truth.

There is no suppression of free speach, Roger owns the ink and has the right to moderate and he does a good job.

>pure evidince of remorse<? that's silly
User avatar
rfane
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: CT Ballyhoo

Post by rfane »

KSCessnaDriver wrote:How many Remos G3/GX's have you seen end up with a collapsed nose gear? How many CT's have that same issue.

In any case, each airplane was designed for its own reasons. They both have strengths and weaknesses. No need to get in a pissing contest over who has the better airplane. Its just like Airbus vs Boeing, Cessna vs Piper, and so forth. Its a never ending argument.
I'm in agreement that everybody needs to buy what they prefer. If you want a Remos, buy a Remos. However I find it a biy funny that someone who says there isn't any need to get in a pissing contest starts the post by knocking one of the aircraft mentioned. If you want to go down that road, how many CT's have crashed due to disconnected ailerons? How about Remos's?

I must be one of the few CT owners around that is 100% happy with my purchase.

I've never flown a Remos, but I got to see one of the new ones up close a few days ago. I personally wasn't impressed, but that's my opinion, and I'll leave it at that.
JRamos9920 wrote:Man there is a lot of stank on here about CTs.. funny Remos beat them in a fly-off at a large University flight school here by a vote of 9-1.

I've learned that in this fun job in aviation that I have there is no trickery, no flakyness, nothing is cloudy except the weather on certain days, and some people that love airplanes and want to buy them can be like toddlers:

They see a plane, they like it and they want it very bad. They may even get a guy to fly them around if they're nice enough. But they just don't have any money to buy it.

And if they did have the money and no concrete knowledge of airplanes.. they may by a CT thanks to these "CT Support groups" all counseling each other out of buyer's remorse.

Get a Remos!

John
John,

You might want to qualify your post here by stating you are a Remos dealer, and therefore readers would know that you have a biased opinion.

Personally, I could care less what a University flight school has chosen or is using. Many use C-152's or C-172's, and I didn't go out and buy one of those. By stating what you did, all you have said to me is someone thinks the Remos will be a good trainer, or they got some great incentives. The Indian Air Force didn't choose a Remos for an around the world flight, did they? No, they chose a CT, because it fit the mission better.

As stated, I'm 100% happy with my CT. It suits my mission perfectly, and outperforms every other LSA, and most GA aircraft with 180 HP or less. The exception is a Mooney or Grumman Tiger. No buyers remorse here at all.

My CT just had it's 3rd annual done this week. No discrepancies found at all.
Last edited by rfane on Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Roger Fane
Former owner of a 2006 Flight Design CTsw
KSCessnaDriver
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:15 pm
Location: KOJC

Re: CT Ballyhoo

Post by KSCessnaDriver »

rfane wrote:
KSCessnaDriver wrote: I'm in agreement that everybody needs to buy what they prefer. If you want a Remos, buy a Remos. However I find it a biy funny that someone who says there isn't any need to get in a pissing contest starts the post by knocking one of the aircraft mentioned. If you want to go down that road, how many CT's have crashed due to disconnected ailerons? How about Remos's?
I'll agree with you, but what you prefer. I've flown both, and I'll say they fly basically the same, with the same basic speeds (give or take a few knots). Only difference I felt was how you had to land them. It took me about 2 hours to be comfortable with the Remos landing, and about 5 in the CTSW. Either way, they are both very nice aircraft.


If you want to bring up the aileron disconnect, there was one accident that I know of dealing with that. The disconnect was a preflight issue, not a design issue. Where as the nose landing gear, could be seen a structural issue, by some. Perhaps they should have built a stronger nosegear? In any case, both a good aircraft, and will both continue to out sell ever other LSA, barring some drastic new design.
KSCessnaDriver (ATP MEL, Commerical LTA-Airship/SEL, Private SES, CFI/CFII)
LSA's flown: Remos G3, Flight Design CTSW, Aeronca L-16, Jabiru J170
User avatar
rfane
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: CT Ballyhoo

Post by rfane »

KSCessnaDriver wrote:If you want to bring up the aileron disconnect, there was one accident that I know of dealing with that. The disconnect was a preflight issue, not a design issue. Where as the nose landing gear, could be seen a structural issue, by some. Perhaps they should have built a stronger nosegear? In any case, both a good aircraft, and will both continue to out sell ever other LSA, barring some drastic new design.
I'm aware of the one accident, and know full well that it was a preflight issue. I was just using this to point out your comment. I'm personally sick of the marketing by critical bashing method that everyone employs these days, including the person who resurrected this thread. For what, to say that all CT Owners have buyers remorse, and we should buy a Remos.

Yes, it would be great if the landing gear were of stronger design. Stouter gear would result in higher weight though. I think the number is higher for the CT, as there are more CT's flying in the US. We'll see if the number of incidents on Remos increases along with the number sold. I saw a Remos up close the other day, and it appeared that the entire nose gear was small. Might of just been the small wheel & tire made it appear that way.
Roger Fane
Former owner of a 2006 Flight Design CTsw
Jim Stewart
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:49 pm

Post by Jim Stewart »

John,

I might have considered a Remos when I bought my CTSW. Except that the only marketing Remos was doing back then was running an 1/8 page ad with a picture of a plane held up in the back by a jackstand and no prop that I could see.... OTOH, Flight Design flew a CTSW over the Sierra's and gave my wife and I a most excellent familiarization flight. For free.

The plane is everything that FD advertised and their support has been excellent. Oh, and my plane has 350 student landings on it and the nose gear and main gear are factory original and just fine, thank you very much.

As to ctflyer.com, Remos can only hope that they might someday have the wealth of knowledge and experience that the website gives CT owners.
Post Reply