CTLS Thoughts and Venting

[ka7eej]

I always like to see a good mix of comments. This forum is no exeption.
I own an Allegro 2000. I love it. It was somewhat hard to learn how to land like most LSA's I have flown in Ct and have seen Remos up close. All nice airplanes.
Remos is comming on strong, good for them. Flight Design Ct has the largest base of owners. (Allegro hopes to come on strong shifting its manufacturing to the USA ) ... I have learned TONS from the CTFLYERS.COM forum. Lots about rotax, and flying and landing LSA"s in general. Ct owners are a great group of people and I have made friends with many in that group. In fact Romos owners should come and join other LSA's owners in Page, Az this October 15 for 3 days of flying over the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, and Lake Powell. I beleive there are over 20 Flight Design CT + other LSA that will be there...

[JRamos9920]

Thanks for that invite I will definitely run it by my boss. My job is in LSA and if I wasn't open minded about learning information about other aircraft then I would not be able to survive.

I will admit to being inexperienced in the field of LSA, the category being relatively new and myself being even more green.

The more I learn about the other guys the bigger advantage I am at so maybe I will kick it around at CTFlyers.com. Do you have anymore information on that fly-in? Is there a webpage?

John

[CharlieTango]

http://www.ctflyer.com/viewforum.php?f=27

http://www.ctflyer.com/

[thorp]

As usual, CharlieT makes a lot of phony claims that are designed to fool the unwary or ignorant.

He has to date totatlly denied that he owns a 2005 CT, and yet the FAA aircraft registration records clearly show that it was constructed in early 2005. Intead, he tries to pass off his plane as an "early 2006 model".

Thats like saying that a Wright Flyer is an "early DC-3 model".

If you cant trust his claims about his own aircraft, then that tells you a lot about how trustworthy anything is that he has to say. You cant trust him for reliable information.

The facts are that the CTSW ( I have no opinions on the CT2K, CTLS or CTMC ) is not an easy plane to fly. Every one who teaches flying in the CTSW will tell you "it will make a better pilot out of you." That is not a ringing endorsement for a plane that is easy to fly but just another way of saying that it is HARDER to fly than just about any other GA aircraft out there!

As far as indepdenent opinions, the recent CAFE tests conducted for NASA this last year resulted in a very unfavorable opinion by the test pilot, who has no vested interest in the plane, as does CharlieT. And, the test pilot is an expert, unlike the self-promoting CharlieT.

The test pilot reported that the handling characteristics were so unusual that he was surprised that the FAA allowed such a plane to be sold on the gernal market as an S-LSA.

My personal experience with the CT bears this out. It takes some getting used to, and is not for the unwary or inattentive pilot. I would never recommend this plane for a beginner.

As for the facts, here they are as of Feb. 2008 below, the last time a report was compiled. If there is sufficient interest in this topic, I can update these results.

However, the design of the CTSW hasnt changed since then, and despite CharlieT''s claim that you can ignore these statistics due to "better training", there are very few places in the country where such training is conducted, and accidents have continued to happen in the CT.

Of the 219 CTSW’s that have been registered by the FAA in the USA, 7 have been involved in incidents (all of which where landing incidents) and 12 have been involved in accidents (all of which were landing accidents, except 1 takeoff and 1 approach).



Accident # phase pilot hours make hours pilot rating cause



DEN08LA0008 landing 8166 77 CFI, CFII bounced

SEA07FA240 approach 732 11 PPL, IFR engine failure

CHI07CA228 landing 5620 210 PPL, IFR, MEL stall

DEN07CA120 landing 4500 80 PPL, IFR, MEL improper flare

ATL07CA082 landing 8 8 student improper flare

DEN07FA068 landing 8327 8 CFI, CFII, CFMEI nose landing

DFW07CA074 landing 1380 7 PPL, IFR short of runway

LAX07CA089 landing 45 45 student improper flare

CHI06CA226 landing 114 5 PPL improper flare

NYC06CA135 takeoff 2235 63 CFI, IFR, MEL loss of control

ATL06CA066 landing 500 250 SPL fuel exhaustion

ATL05CA136 landing 196 65 PPL loss of control



Incident # phase pilot hours make hours pilot rating cause



20051218029919G landing 60 60 student loss of control

20060209001779G landing 1065 15 student porpoise

20070217002069G landing 25 25 student hard landing

20070411006049G landing 10500 270 ATP, CFI loss of control

20070528009749G landing 2000 45 PPL gear failure

20070820021159G landing 398 26 PPL porpoise

20070908021109G landing 5850 33 CPL, MEL bounce


There have also been 2 fatalities reported, but they were outside the US in Europe, one involving the pilot attempting acrobatics in the CTSW.

I think these statistics bear out the fact that the CTSW is difficult to control in slow flight, and requires extra caution when in slow flight maneuvers.

[CharlieTango]

As usual, CharlieT makes a lot of phony claims that are designed to fool the unwary or ignorant.

He has to date totatlly denied that he owns a 2005 CT, and yet the FAA aircraft registration records clearly show that it was constructed in early 2005. Intead, he tries to pass off his plane as an "early 2006 model"...

yup that's me, misrepresenting my model year cause i'm a guy you can't trust

just like cars manufacturers flight design determined model years between 2005 and 2006 based on a significant re-design. the 06 got a bigger tail, different stabilator trim, a larger binnacle and a larger panel, rudder trim and aileron trim.

my ctsw is the newer design designated by flight design as a 2006 model.

The facts are that the CTSW ( I have no opinions on the CT2K, CTLS or CTMC ) is not an easy plane to fly. Every one who teaches flying in the CTSW will tell you "it will make a better pilot out of you." That is not a ringing endorsement for a plane that is easy to fly but just another way of saying that it is HARDER to fly than just about any other GA aircraft out there!

that quote demonstrates your ignorance. the list of ga aircraft out there that is harder to fly then a ctsw is long.

'easy to fly' vs. 'quick and responsive' is a matter of preference. it tends to indicate skill level, if your skills are more developed you are likely to appreciate quick, responsive handling. if you can't keep up you will likely be frustrated and even intimidated.

[KSCessnaDriver]

that quote demonstrates your ignorance. the list of ga aircraft out there that is harder to fly then a ctsw is long.

'easy to fly' vs. 'quick and responsive' is a matter of preference. it tends to indicate skill level, if your skills are more developed you are likely to appreciate quick, responsive handling. if you can't keep up you will likely be frustrated and even intimidated.

Name some then? I want you to come back with an NTSB supported list of more difficult airplanes to fly. Come back to us with some reasons. Until then, I would consider the CTSW as one of the most difficult small airplanes, with tricycle landing gear, out there.

You seem to be quick to fire back, but you've got nothing to support your opinion.

In regards to the landing gear issue on the CTSW. I'd venture to say that there are more nose wheel collapses than we know about. I'm sure there are some out there which weren't reported to the NTSB.

[CharlieTango]

Name some then? I want you to come back with an NTSB supported list of more difficult airplanes to fly. Come back to us with some reasons. Until then, I would consider the CTSW as one of the most difficult small airplanes, with tricycle landing gear, out there.

here's the quote from thorp "...HARDER to fly than just about any other GA aircraft out there! ..." GA encompasses a lot more then "small airplanes, with tricycle landing gear" if you through out all conventional gear, and sea planes and planes that are not "small" (small is ambiguous) you are certainly eliminating the bulk of GA aircraft that are harder to fly then a ctsw.

You seem to be quick to fire back, but you've got nothing to support your opinion.

thorp likes to look up public documents and then proclaim that they prove i am a liar. first he finds my pilots certificate and then my ctsw registration and makes these stupid claims like i am misrepresenting my model year. he even misinterprets the date that he focuses on to call it an early 05 build when it was built in october. 4-10-05 i think is the serial and it means october 4. how dumb is this? my ctsw is 3 1/2 years old, what difference does the year make? he doesn't know what he's talking about and likes to prove i'm a liar so yes i guess i'm quick to fire back.

In regards to the landing gear issue on the CTSW. I'd venture to say that there are more nose wheel collapses than we know about. I'm sure there are some out there which weren't reported to the NTSB.

now you are doing what you just accused me of doing. you are stating facts without backing them up. you would venture to say, and you are sure there are? kinda weak given what you are accusing me of.

i will certainly agree that in the light sport, tricycle geared category the ctsw must be among the most challenging to fly. it is slippery, short coupled, and high performance for the category.

i'm not sure why you expect me to provide you with ntsb lists. first of all it would be misleading, many ga aircraft that are difficult to fly require a lot of training and even a co-pilot and these things would skew the ntsb numbers.

[Roger]

If the CT is so difficult to fly why is it the number one selling light sport in the world? (and don't give me that Remos crap - those figures are not sold to customer airplanes) I think the "proof is in the pudding". It's certainly different to fly then a 172. It takes different techniques - it's just like any other airplane, it has its own personality and differences.

The reputation you talk about comes from early on. I'll never forget about the two instructors who hoped in one thinking they had no problem because of their experience and bashed it into the ground.

Just as a Mooney takes different training, or a glider takes different training, a Cirrus and so on - that's the reality. It's not any more or less difficult then any other plane - it's just different.

If anyone doesn't believe this I would challenge them to attend the CT Fly-in in Page AZ this October. Last year we had a 172 pilot from Texas come up. He's now flying a CT!

[rfane]

Last year we had a 172 pilot from Texas come up. He's now flying a CT!

Actually, he owned a 182.

Guys, this is getting ridiculous. The CT isn't any worse than many other light aircraft. Yes, it is different than a Cessna, but many are. If you want the easiest airplane to fly, get a Cessna 152 or 172, but even then, the gear might collapse. Read the NTSB and FAA Preliminary Accident reports. I see all aircraft are prone to that issue. Read the FAA Preliminary data for yourselves. The latest 10 days are always available here: http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accide ... nary_data/

This thread was started by someone who flew a CT for 0.5 hours, and came to the CT board to say people should buy a different aircraft, and was angry to be told to take it somewhere else. The posts in defense of the CT are from some of us that have up to 500 hours or more in the CT. Yet, those are the ones who are being accused of lying about the merits of the aircraft. Doesn't make sense to me. The CT isn't for everybody. The 172 isn't for everybody, myself included. Yet, I can at least say I have quite a number of hours in Cessna products, minimum of 150, before I chose to buy something else.

Other LSA are just as bad, or worse. Take for example, the SportStar. The FAA shows 93 SportStar's in their registry. The NTSB has 14 accident reports, all but 1 of them were takeoff and landing related. One of those had fatalities. That's a 15% rate of all registered SportStar's, which have NTSB reports.

Another, is the Allegro. The FAA shows 55 on their registry. There are 5 NTSB accident reports. Four of those are takeoff and landing related, and their was one with fatalities. That's greater than 9% of all registered Allegro's, that have NTSB reports.

In the same regard, there are 293 CT's in the FAA registry, with 22 NTSB reports. That's 7.5%. Two of those, were due to fuel exhaustion. Another, the pilot allowed the plane to land short of the runway, and another was due to the pilot attempting to fly a normal pattern, following a loss of power.

[rfane]

4-10-05 i think is the serial and it means october 4. how dumb is this?

Ed,

Your serial # is actually 05-12-05, per the FAA Registry. Flight Design uses the Year - Month - # of aircraft built that month, as the serial #. So that means your CT was the 5th CT built in December 2005. With the 3 axis trim, larger tail, and 3 part panel, it is the 2006 and later CTSW model.

Just like cars, the year it was physically built doesn't mean much. Some of the automakers have been selling 2010 models for a few months now, and the rest are soon following.

As usual, CharlieT makes a lot of phony claims that are designed to fool the unwary or ignorant.

He has to date totatlly denied that he owns a 2005 CT, and yet the FAA aircraft registration records clearly show that it was constructed in early 2005. Intead, he tries to pass off his plane as an "early 2006 model".

Thats like saying that a Wright Flyer is an "early DC-3 model".

If you cant trust his claims about his own aircraft, then that tells you a lot about how trustworthy anything is that he has to say. You cant trust him for reliable information.

Thorp,

I believe you owe CharlieTango an apology. Don't the FAA records reflect a Airworthiness Certificate was issued in March 2006, for his aircraft? That fits the timeline for an airframe manufactured in Ukraine, sent to Germany to be fitted out and test flown, then shipped to the US. My aircraft was built in August 2006, and it's A/W Cert. was issued in December 2006.

As mentioned above, the Serial # is not the date it was built. I believe you think the Serial # is the date it was manufactured, based on our date format of MM-DD-YY. If so, that would make my 2006 CTSW a 2004, as I have Serial # 06-08-04. It was the 4th CT built in August 2006. Also, even if they did use the actual build date, if you have ever had any dealings with Europe, you would know that they use different date formats then we do in the US.

[ka7eej]

My 18 year old son has just soloed in my Allegro 2000 after 9 hours of dual. It took me over 25 to solo. Did my Allegro somehow get easer to fly, or could it be the difference in age, student learning curve, instructors(he has a different instructor than I used) ... I say that there are many factors that make a plane "HARDER TO FLY" Thorp. you sold your CT.. It was not the plane for you... Leave the rest of us alone....

[CharlieTango]

the concept; "easy to fly" is a misnomer. my ctsw has never been hard to fly for me due to my background in short coupled very light aircraft.

i'm sure roger roger fane would agree that before long the ctsw becomes so easy to fly that there is no conscious thought process involved. even with a gusty crosswind it is common for me to continue to converse with my passenger throughout the approach and landing.

for me, a ctsw is no harder to fly then my car is to drive or my bike is to ride or my skis are to turn or a tennis ball is to hit. before i learned how it was very hard to turn my skis or hit a tennis ball well or if i go back far enough it was hard to ride my first bike till i learned how.

the difference comes into play in the learning process. it is harder to learn to fly a ctsw then it is to learn to drive a car. it is not harder to fly a ctsw then it is to drive a car once you have learned how.

[rfane]

i'm sure roger fane would agree that before long the ctsw becomes so easy to fly that there is no conscious thought process involved.

When Tom Dunham (FD West CFI and A&P) delivered my CTSW to me, I already had about 30 hours in a 2005 CTSW. Two trips around the pattern was enough to satisfy him that I was safe with the aircraft. One thing he did say though, is that the CT is like a stallion, and can bite you if you get sloppy or complacent.

I have never found the CTSW hard to fly. I personally love the responsiveness of the controls, and find the plane easy to fly with only a light touch needed. It's not difficult to fly coordinated, nor uncoordinated if that's what you desire. I have put the CTSW into slips that provide descent rates of 2,500 fpm +. It was like riding an elevator (with a better view) dropping from 9,500' to 2,500', all well controlled.

When I got an opportunity to do a demo flight in a CTLS, I was a bit disappointed. The controls were extremely tight in all axises. I felt the difference was like driving a pickup without power steering (CTLS), compared to a nimble sports car (CTSW) similar to a Mazda Miata or Audi TT. It wasn't more difficult to fly, it just took more pressure on the controls.

The one thing I would say is that the CTSW can be challenging to learn to land. The sight picture is different than Cessna and Piper aircraft, and the responsiveness of the controls, especially in pitch, can cause someone to overcontrol, if they are not familiar with it. I have learned that I pretty much have to think about flaring for landing, and I'm putting enough back pressure in. Overdo it, and you can gain altitude again. If you allow that to happen, and don't control your speed, it is possible to get into trouble. However, the aircraft is very responsive to throttle inputs, which used properly will smooth out most issues, and full throttle for a go around gets you out of things immediately, even with full flaps. Manage your airspeed and pitch attitude correctly, and landings are pretty benign.

I have landed my CTSW in up to 30 Knot winds, and up to 20 Knot gusting crosswinds, and the plane is very capable of handling those situations. Pilots flying the aircraft need to make sure they are capable as well. If you want to try landing it like a 172 with full flaps in a full stall landing, you will find yourself in trouble eventually. You also do not want to find yourself accidently behind the power curve, and try dragging it in. Once you have enough experience with how the plane will fly in those situations, it is safely doable to drag it in for short fields, but you always need to be prepared to do a go around. You should be prepared to do a go around on every landing, in whatever airplane you fly, and do so before you allow the situation to get out of control. Fly the airplane, and make it do what you want it to. That is what being a pilot is. In other words, don't allow the stallion to bite you.

[rfane]

This is from the latest post on the ByDanJohnson page, regarding the Cessna SkyCatcher:

Top management persons such as Piston Aircraft VP, John Doman, and Communications VP, Bob Stangerone, have recently had a chance to fly the new Light-Sport Aircraft from Cessna. "You can fly feet on the floor even during a full power takeoff," exclaimed Bob, effectively setting to rest any doubts some may have harbored about tail volume and earlier spin trials.

The bolded portion is my edit. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly feel confident now about the tail volume and spins in the SkyCatcher. Cause Bob told us all is good!!

Maybe that's what other people mean by easy to fly, not having to use your feet. That's all well and good for some, and for a training aircraft I think it's great that someone can jump in and learn to fly it easily and less expensively. If you fly the same plane forever, no problems. However, if you never learn to use your feet, you will eventually have trouble moving into aircraft that require more use of rudder.

Where I see the real problem with this, is when a CFI learns to fly in a "easy to fly" airplane, and never learned to use their feet. Then that CFI goes on to train others, and can never pass on the knowledge, as they don't have it themselves. When I learned to fly, I purposely set out to find an instructor who would truly teach me to fly, not just teach me enough to pass a test, and then set me loose to get into trouble. I found that instructor, and I believe he did a great job for me. It wasn't as easy as it could have been, but it certainly was challenging and rewarding. That's how I see flying the CTSW. It may not be as easy to fly / land as other aircraft might be, but it offers some challenge, which is rewarding and fun.

[thorp]

If the CT is so difficult to fly why is it the number one selling light sport in the world? (and don't give me that Remos crap - those figures are not sold to customer airplanes) I think the "proof is in the pudding". It's certainly different to fly then a 172. It takes different techniques - it's just like any other airplane, it has its own personality and differences.

The reputation you talk about comes from early on. I'll never forget about the two instructors who hoped in one thinking they had no problem because of their experience and bashed it into the ground.

Just as a Mooney takes different training, or a glider takes different training, a Cirrus and so on - that's the reality. It's not any more or less difficult then any other plane - it's just different.

If anyone doesn't believe this I would challenge them to attend the CT Fly-in in Page AZ this October. Last year we had a 172 pilot from Texas come up. He's now flying a CT!

Roger,

Its was the number one seller because of the agressive advertising by Flight Design, and the appeal of having a fast machine that will haul a big load a long distance.

I doubt that FD will maintain the number 1 spot. It may be lucky at #2, until Cessna comes out with the Skycatcher.

I dont deny that the CTSW appeals to a certain group of pilots, but all of the bald faced mis-representations by CharlieT dont make up for the defects of this plane, or its shortcomings.

You cant have a perfect plane, and you always have to give up something.

The higher the performance, typically the worse the handling, and that adage is oh so true with the CT.

Anyway, I dont want to spend any more time responding to the absolutlely FALSE claims made by CharlieT about his own aircraft.

According to FAA records his plane was manufactured and shipped MONTHS before FD made any of the 2006 improvements. He cant even be honest about his own plane.

That is what is so disgusting about this whole thead. Honesty goes out the window in favor of marketing hype.

Beware of the promises any S-LSA mfg. makes. They are not doing such a great job of making these planes under the honor system now in place.

If anyone is interested in gettting out of GA into LSA, then watch out!

All S-LSA are not the same, and some of them, like the CT, have a very wide variation among them, even for the same model.

A word to the wise for anyone who might be seduced by the forked tongue talk of the marketers and salesmen.