CTLS Thoughts and Venting

pilotjohn · Post by **pilotjohn** » Fri May 09, 2008 8:21 am

So I've been reading the ctflyer forum for some time trying to get an unbiased opinion about the CT aircraft. Recently, though, I learned that any negative posts get deleted. This irked me, as I spent lots of time trying to get an informed view of the aircraft, only to now have to get opinions elsewhere.

I was told I should take my criticism and comnparisons to other aircraft to other forums, specifically to this forum. One of my posts was deleted when I questioned the new trim attach point on the CTLS, asking whether it will wear out like a cheap Chinese hinge on plastic boxes (it's not a hinge, but rather a piece of carbon fiber that flexes.) So here it goes...

This is the post about the CTLS comparing some of its features to a 172, SportStar and EuroFox.... Enjoy!

I recently flew the CTLS for a bit... Now that I had time to mull over my experience, I'm going to summarize some of my feelings and try to make comparisons to a 2006 Evektor SportStar (which I also recently flew,) a 1998 Cessna 172 SP (which I fly a lot - about 50% of my time in the air, the other 50% being in a R182) and a EuroFox. I will hopefully fly the new SportStar SL shortly, and maybe others, and if there are any new insights, I will share. I never liked the look of the original SportStar, but the new SL looks impressive.

So, it was a warm day (above ISA at 75-80 F) and a typically nasty early to mid-afternoon with lots of puffy cumulus clouds at about 7000 feet: a nice day for land-lovers, a struggle to get anywhere for the skyward bound. Here in the NY area this meant lots of turbulence and thermals to climb or ride through. All of the LSAs were pretty close to gross weight, with the 172 at about 300 lbs below gross.

The CTLS feels a little more elemental than either the 172 or the SportStar, maybe even more than the EuroFox. I don't know how to describe this, but it's a sensation that the things you feel are less damped and more in your face. Control forces seemed a bit less harmonized, and less smooth than the other two airplanes. The stick movement specifically did not feel smooth. This may be due to the autopilot coupling, as there was a distinct gear-like grinding feel. More on the autopilot later.

The CTLS and the Evektor get bumped around a lot in this type of weather. The 172 does as well, but it's really a noticeable difference. Also, somehow the SportStar and 172, seemed to feel a bit more cushioned in the turbulence. I noticed this on the Cirrus I used to fly as well, and I attribute it to metal vs. composite.

Climb performance is about equal betwen the three airplanes, with the Evektor climbing at a slightly lower airspeed. However, the 172 seems to be able to climb through the thermals better than the CTLS. Several times through the climb to 5500, the CTLS would just stop climbing even at 75 KIAS indicated (through descending air.) This same climb profile, on the same day within 30 minutes of the two flights, was not a problem for the 172. The highest sustained climb rates I saw in all three LSAs were right around 800 ft/min.

The visibility in the CTLS is really good, however, the SportStar definitely beats the CTLS, although it beats the CTLS in greenhouse effect as well. In terms of ergonomics, the seats in the CTLS are the most comfortable, with the EuroFox coming in a close second. The SportStar needs lumbar support, and it would be nice to have a high back. The seats in the 172 are between the CTLS and the Evektor. Entry into the CTLS was more awkward than the others.

The amount of rudder required in the CTLS was about the same as the 172, nothing noteworthy. In the EuroFox you needed to work the rudder nonstop with both feet in both directions (pressure applied on both pedals all the time.) The specific airplane I flew was very yaw neutral, if not yaw negative. It was, however, fairly easy to get used to. The SportStar, on the other hand, required no rudder. You just rolled into a turn and the ball stayed put; no adverse yaw either. Even in a steep turn (greater than 45 degrees) the ball was off-center only slightly and minimal rudder was required. While I think it's nice to have that stability, it may make you lazy...

Performance was about even between the 172 and CTLS. At cruise and 5500 I saw about 110+- indicated in the CTLS, and that's exactly what I see in the 172 SP up to about 7500. If there is a difference, I don't think it's more than 5 knots. I'm sure there is more of a difference when compared to the older 172s. The Evektor was a disappointment however. At 6500 feet we couldn't get it past 90 knots indicated. We'll see how the new SL does.

Fit and finish was good, but not amazing. This was the biggest disappointment. I expected a much bigger jump in quality between the SW and LS (like comparing a 2002 SR20 to a 2006 SR20-G2.) The SportStar was really well built, and top notch in finish. I would say the Evektor seemed better built than the 172. I'm curious how the new SportStar SL will fare. The EuroFox was very nicely put together as well. What you really notice are the little things, like glue flowing over, or the gaps between surfaces, or the detail given to the trim pieces. The thought and care of the build process, I thought, stood out on the SportStar and EuroFox. You expect high quality from manufacturers that have been doing this for decades, but not from newbies.

The autopilot behavior on the CTLS was a bit weird. On the climb out the stick would occassionally bump forward. This, turned out to be - or so I was told - the autopilot servo slipping, because the plane was out of trim. It exhibited this behavior on an autopilot commanded descent from cruise as well. You would think there would be an out-trim annunciation somewhere. Why buy the VS version of the autopilot if you have to disconnect anyway to trim for a climb or descent before enaging the feature. Even the cheapest STEC ALT 30 altitude hold autopilot warns you of a trim problem.

My overall impression was that it was a nice plane, a marked improvement, but that it lacked some finesse. The evolution seems very similar to how Cirrus has been evolving their airplanes. If they keep on this path, it should become a truly remarkable airplane in the next 5 years. But, of course, by then it will probably cost 250k. I will have to wait for the ASTM IFR rules before making some kind of a decision. I was told that Evektor may be announcing an IFR version of the new SportStar at Oshkosh. I'm sure FD will follow if not pre-empt.

BTW, I took some pictures, but they turned out like all the pictures that others posted, so I'll refrain from cluttering the board. Also, I tried to keep my tone positive throughout, as I know negative messages are shunned, or worst yet, beheaded. This is about as positive a tone as I can muster... I'll apologize now for those who may think anything in this message is pessimistic.

Apparently the above post was negative as well, and the banter and jab at post deletion in the last paragraph was not appreciated. So much for sarcasm - I had a better one before regarding post deletion about my Chinese comment: my posts disappear like dissidents in China... What can I say, I'm from NJ. Alas, my response.

I'm interested in the CTLS as much as you are, because I think it's a good plane that can replace my existing airplane needs. Despite some of it's faults do I think it's the best overall SLSA out there? Yes, probably. See, I came to this boad to learn the good and the bad about the airplane so that I can make an informed decision (just as I have gone to the Cirrus board to do the same when I was considering a Cirrus.)

Only recently did I find out that anything negative about the airplane may not be on the board. That was a shock. I've been reading all these posts to find out that it may not provide the complete picture I was looking for. People come to an open forum to learn. If that forum is biased, and they don't know I think they're getting a disservice. Anyway, I posted what I thought would help everyone on the board learn something about the CTLS, without being directly negative. But, maybe I'm just a glass half empty kind of guy by nature. I also don't see anything wrong with a little banter.

As I said, I think it's a good plane, I'm just not willing to put on blinders about it. I think discussing both the good and bad about an airplane helps everyone, including the manufacturer. Just because I buy something, does not mean I cannot criticize and complain about it (plenty of criticism about Cirrus on those boards.)

Now, as I said my post included thoughts about the airplane, as a first impression. I would have liked to fly the plane longer (I generally prefer to pay for the plane and instructor, so that it's more of a real flight than a sales pitch but FD wouldn't have any of that.) I would have liked to climb to smooth air, do stalls, steep turns, a bunch of landings, so I could give feedback on that, but I refrained because I didn't have information.

I thought I had enough information about the autopilot, to post about it. If there is a trim annuncation, excellent! But it was not pointed out to me by the demo pilot (the solution presented was to disconnect the autopilot, trim the plane, and then engage the autopilot again) and was not apparent in the model I flew. Even then, it pobably shouldn't be bumping the stick. If you wish, I will take my posts elsewhere. But, thank you for creating this board. I would gladly pay a subscription fee to have no censorship other than that for common decency.

MikeM · Post by **MikeM** » Fri May 09, 2008 9:03 am

Thanks for the pilot report. Currently I have done all of my flying in a FD CTSW. My local flight school has 2 FD CTLS aircraft on order and I'll be flying one of them soon.

Constructive critcism is one of the best ways to learn. How would I have learned to fly if my instructor hadn't pointed out my mistakes? Any aircraft has it's good and bad points and discussion of those points shouldn't be construed as inflating the good or over-emphasizing the bad. I, for one, appreciate any honest infromation on aircraft that I may fly.

pilotjohn · Post by **pilotjohn** » Fri May 09, 2008 10:35 am

Well my post has been beheaded from the afformentioned forum. I would like to know what FD gives their owners when they buy the planes. What flavor is it? The behavior seems very close to the behavior of Apple Mac owners. Is it a solid, or a liquid? Maybe an ointment of some type?

Ugh! Do you get some kind of discount/kickback if you evangelize certain airplanes; something I don't know about the industry? I think it's a sad sad statement that of the few public prevelant forums, on which to start an honest discussions about this new market, one becomes such a biased front.

pilotjohn · Post by **pilotjohn** » Fri May 09, 2008 10:48 am

And one last thing before my head explodes... If anything, right now, after seeing the bias and ridiculous nature of that board, I am less inclined to buy a CT simply because of the radical behavior of such a prominent group.

I know they are not affiliated with the manufacturer, but I rather not be labeled as a follower out of principle. It's kind of like trying not to buy Chinese made stuff, or trying not to buy Chavez's gas etc.

artp · Post by **artp** » Fri May 09, 2008 11:05 am

I haven’t said anything negative about the CT recently except as a response to someone who wanted to know the relative merits of a 152 vs. a CT. I responded the 152 has a greater availability of maintenance and parts. A few days later your post appeared. Now my ID is no longer valid. It seems the site administrator is purging anyone who might say something negative about the CT. He claims he started the site to get information about the CT. What he really seems to mean is he only wants positive information about the CT. If you have a problem don’t post it on his site.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Fri May 09, 2008 11:16 am

ain't worth it!

pilotjohn · Post by **pilotjohn** » Fri May 09, 2008 11:54 am

I have no idea what checking with your sources means... I posted my impression of the airplane. Some things were negative some were not. I did the same about the others. I flew the plane for a little over 30 minutes, and my impressions as they compared to others are in the post.

artp · Post by **artp** » Fri May 09, 2008 12:03 pm

Roger wrote:Totally wrong ArtP....if you have a problem with a CT PLEASE post it on my site. Most do and they get a quick answer. PLEASE, lets at least be honest.

When I posted negative information about my plane I received the same warning about the site being for positive posts only. I respected that request in that I only responded to specific questions, I stopped posting my problems with the CT. I was still suspended.

The ctflyer site is for people who already own a CT and are trying to convince themselves they didn't make a $130,000 mistake. For anyone who is looking for an honest evaluation of LSA products they should go elsewhere.

pilotjohn · Post by **pilotjohn** » Fri May 09, 2008 12:04 pm

And I must respectfully decline your invitation.

I am not, nor will I ever be a card-carrying member of your organization. I will not show up at pro-CT, anti-other rallies, I will not lobby congress to pass tax cuts for CT owners and will not silence dissidents... Other may feel free to do as they please.

jboyd19 · Post by **jboyd19** » Fri May 09, 2008 4:55 pm

Roger H states:
That's what the CT forum is about. I don't know how to explain it any better. This forum is a perfect place for your thoughts - All I ask is you to be respectful of mine. And if you don't - you get deleted.
------
Seeing on how most folks who own a CT belong to your forum and love their plane and rarely spend any time on this forum it is nice to get all the information / thoughts / opinions, likes and dislikes from any resource possible. With you only allowing thoughts that meet your criteria is a shame. You could avoid all of this and make it a private forum for people who are drinking your kool-aide or eating your cornbread.

-----
Oh, and one more thing Pilotjohn. I'd make the same offer I made to ArtP and that's to pay your airfare to the CT flyin next week BUT it's a little to late now. How about next year - that is if your head doesn't explode in the mean time!?

I have seen you toss this statement out several times...I don't understand what this offer will accomplish. I am sure all of you are nice people and will talk glowingly about the CT....If someone were to come and disagree and state something that they don't like about the CT will you kick them out and then disable their account on your forum?

artp · Post by **artp** » Fri May 09, 2008 5:37 pm

Roger wrote: I'd make the same offer I made to ArtP and that's to pay your airfare to the CT flyin next week

I never accepted your offer. What is the point of meeting with a few people who are happy with their CT when it has taken me many months to get even simple things fixed on mine? I know CharlieTango objects to the analogy but it would be like attending a meeting rabid of smokers who were lucky enough not to get lung cancer and think it proves cigarettes are healthy.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Fri May 09, 2008 7:58 pm

Gone flying

artp · Post by **artp** » Fri May 09, 2008 8:23 pm

Roger wrote:You guys just don't seem to get it right! Sure there were disgruntled customers here last year - three if my memory serves me correctly. And they were listened to and taken care of. That's one of the reasons for attending and having the fly-in. Just trying to help you folks out who are having problems and feel that your not listened to.

So if I want my plane fixed I have to travel 2000 miles. It seems to me Flight Design should be willing to fix my plane at the dealership I bought it from.

You keep saying you want to give people with problems a chance to be heard, but you also say you only want positive Flight Design posts on your site. How can you make a positive post about lingering problems that Flight Design can't fix? What is positive about waiting a month or more for parts? It is hard to be optimistic when a service appointment must be made 3-4 weeks in advance and if weather does not permit flight on that day then another must be scheduled 3-4 weeks after.

The fact that some guys in the western US don't have those problems doesn't do any good for someone living in the mid Atlantic region of the US.

Super Cub · Post by **Super Cub** » Fri May 09, 2008 9:29 pm

pilotjohn wrote: I am less inclined to buy a CT simply because of the radical behavior of such a prominent group.

It's probably not right to condemn Flight Design just because Roger is protective of his forum. Half of my flight time is in a Super Cub and when I demoed Cubcrafter's Sport Cub at Sebring, I felt that the stick was too "skinny". It's all in what your used to and that feeling fades as you get more seat time in the new plane.

Jim Stewart · Post by **Jim Stewart** » Fri May 09, 2008 9:58 pm

Well my post has been beheaded from the afformentioned forum. I would like to know what FD gives their owners when they buy the planes. What flavor is it? The behavior seems very close to the behavior of Apple Mac owners. Is it a solid, or a liquid? Maybe an ointment of some type?

LOL.

The Mac owner analogy is very good. And I own a CTSW. And I like it a lot. Have I had some problems with it? Yup. Did I get excellent support from my dealer? Yup. Is it perfect now? As much as any complex machine can be.

I'm not sure where the Mac attitude comes from. There certainly is a fierce brand loyalty amongst many of the owners and I don't think that is bad. It appears your mind is made up, but if you ever want a fairly subjective discussion of CTSW issues, you can always contact me.

Sport Pilot Talk