My First CTSW Experience

[Jim]

To those that are trying to land under 60 kts good luck. The CT does not want to land for lots of reasons. getting it near stall speed to land is both dangerous (cross wind and gusts) and unnecessary. Cross the threshold at 62kts with 15 degree flaps, even on short fields and you will save your landing gear and yourself grief.

 

How many hours and landings in a CT do you have?

[WmInce]

How many hours and landings in a CT do you have?

 

We've been waiting for that.

[FastEddieB]

I have about 6,500 hours, about 4,500 instructing, including a bunch of tailwheel and aerobatic instructing. God knows how many landings in that time - let me just say " a whole bunch"*.

 

But I try to NEVER put forth a recommendation without being able to point to a source and/or a reasoned rationale. Or even math, heaven forfend!

 

So I find it amusing to be lectured by a low time pilot that I've been doing it wrong all these years.

 

Maybe I have been - but to accept that and to change my approach will take a well laid out argument - not mere assertions.

 

When I do have something wrong (HP increase required to double speed, in a recent example), I try to give a hearty thanks, admit my mistake and learn from others. It's called growth.

 

Just sayin'.

 

 

*ZERO in a CT, but I've never hidden that fact and appropriately qualified my recommendations as generic and possibly not being pertinent to one particular type.

[Craig]

We've been waiting for that.

 

How many hours and landings in a CT do you have?

 

Ever heard of Dunning-Kruger effect??? http://en.wikipedia....g–Kruger_effect

[Ed Cesnalis]

To those that are trying to land under 60 kts good luck.

 

No luck needed. I had 3 landings today where my IAS was below 30kts on touchdown. Luck isn't at issue.

 

The CT does not want to land for lots of reasons.

 

My CT lands when I configure it to do so. It has no mind of its own.

 

getting it near stall speed to land is both dangerous (cross wind and gusts) and unnecessary.

 

Crosswind landings call for correctly positioned controls, not additional speed. I asked you before why you would use extra speed in a crosswind landing and you said that the crosswind would stop you. Well that answer is clearly wrong, I did landings today in a crosswind, over the threshold at 50kts and touching down at 28kts IAS. The crosswind was negated with crossed controls as needed, so why would I add speed?

 

This danger you warn of, what is the danger from? Clearly not from excess energy. You do understand that there are a few prerequisites? Like a position inches above the runway, directional control, drift control, landing attitude, stuff like that.

 

Cross the threshold at 62kts with 15 degree flaps, even on short fields and you will save your landing gear and yourself grief.

 

Easy partner, you can't be advising fast, minimal flap landings on short fields as a recipe to avoid grief. Can you guess why?

[Ed Cesnalis]

If you want an expert opinion, then rely on a real expert. In the case of FD, the real experts are those that designed and build the product, not the customers that fly them.

 

This is the 'Landing and Flying' forum. This thread is about landing. When it comes to landing and flying building experience means little, similar for designing. Expertise in this subject matter is possessed by pilots that fly the planes especially the instructors that are experienced in CTs. Fast Eddie's brings expertise as well.

[Jim]

This model does not take into account the reverse. Those with some experience that assess their own judgement and capability higher than what is real. The risk of over-assessing ones cognitive capability based on 'some' experience is worse than one assessing based on 'no' experience.

 

If you want an expert opinion, then rely on a real expert. In the case of FD, the real experts are those that designed and build the product, not the customers that fly them.

 

You'll pardon me if I don't believe you're an expert. I've asked you to name the school that has told you that you've been sharing and the info has not been forthcoming. I'll ask again. What's the school and teacher and what's the names of the people at FD that have given you your advice?

[WmInce]

Ever heard of Dunning-Kruger effect??? http://en.wikipedia....g–Kruger_effect

 

BINGO!

 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

[Doug G.]

I am extremely glad that we have intelligent, experienced pilots and mechanics on this forum. It does not take long to figure out who to listen to and who to ignore.

[chanik]

BINGO!

 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

And for further insight, I highly recommend Dunning's book "Hitler went to Heaven" though some might find the provocative title slightly off-putting.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Kurt,

 

That reply took almost 2 years  :unsure:

[Doug G.]

Funny how it is still relevant, isn't it?

[WmInce]

Funny how it is still relevant, isn't it?

 

Very relevant.

[Jim]

Now I've gone and done it. 

[Doug G.]

"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend..."

[deckofficer]

"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend..."

Yep, remember that song. I know this thread was back in 2013 and got a short restart almost a year ago, but I'm new to the forum and have been busy reading old threads. Being new to the CT line, and after reading all the posts in this thread, I'm thinking learning to land it properly will not be as easy as the 150 (not 152 with electric flaps) I solo'ed around 30 years ago. I think I remember my CFI teaching landings at all flap settings except 0, telling me 40 degrees for short field, 10 for cross wind. Our field is 2200' long with no obstructions on either end. When cut loose to solo, I practiced those 40 settings just off the deck for most the final carrying a lot of power to hold altitude, attempting to nail the numbers by cutting power. As a newly minted solo student I wanted to fly in and out of the 1000' strip that my UL friends were using.

 

For anyone that trained in a 150, and if you can remember that far back, what will be different for landing a slippery CT? 

[CT4ME]

I did my earliest training, and solo'd, in a 152.  Assuming the 150 and 152 are similar, I'd say the CT is WAY different.  The Cessna was very docile and the CT is a sports car.  I barely needed to use the rudders on the 152, but you'll be using them bigtime on the CT.  At first that sounds bad, but I don't feel like I really "learned to fly" until I learned in a CT.  With the docile nature of the 152, I'm not sure I would have known what to do had I really needed to use the rudder.  There is no doubt you will become very familiar with the pedals in the CT... and you'll know how to use them.

 

Both aircraft are quite light, but energy management is more critical with the CT, especially when using 30 or 40 degree flaps.  You don't want to lose your energy at 3 feet off the runway.  For that reason, a lot of folks find it easier to learn by landing with a bit of power... it might not be "textbook", but results in a better chance of greasing it.  

[deckofficer]

CT4ME,

 

Thank you for illuminating the differences between the 152 and the CT. The only difference I noticed back then was the 150 had manual flaps so you could go to any setting quick, while the 152 had electric flaps and you had to hold the toggle switch and wait. I preferred the manual for the speed and feel of flap deployment. For my above described dragging it in at full flaps and lots of throttle, trying to nail the numbers, once down and power to idle could go to zero flaps instantly. 

 

I have to basically start all over again, now in my retirement. Back when I was taking lessons the company I worked for was paying for them as a generous part of their continuing education program. After about 15 hours solo, that company closed its doors declaring bankruptcy, with no more income I had to stop my lessons. Before this happened our flying club had a fun day with flying competitions, a flour bomb drop, balloon burst, and spot landing. The competition wasn't open to students, and I understood that rational for the bomb drop and balloon burst, as a student could get into trouble doing these, but spot landing, that is something that we students practiced all the time. Well, they gave in and allowed us students to participate in the spot landing contest. That was my first and only 1st place flying trophy. I do have hundreds of hours flying hang gliders, but no awards. I sure hope I can pick up where I left off over 30 years ago, but I know a lot has changed, GPS instead of VOR, glass panels instead of steam gauges, engines that rev to 5400 rpm vs direct drive 2700 rpm engines, mixture vs no mixture and with the CT line, a slippery and efficient airframe that as you said is a sports car vs docile.  

[FlyingMonkey]

It's true a lot has changed, but mostly to make things easier, not harder.  You'll have to (re)learn how to read a sectional chart, but most of your navigation will likely be on a geo-referenced moving map.  Getting lost used to be a big concern, especially for students.  Now it's hard to imagine anyone with a good GPS signal losing track of where they are.

 

Tim is totally right about the rudder in a CT!  Add power...right rudder.  Reduce power...left rudder.  Rotate for climb out...additional right rudder.  Starting a turn...inside rudder.  Rolling out of a turn...outside rudder.  

 

It sounds like a lot of work, but it's not.  It's the same as many other light airplanes with significant adverse yaw, like a Piper J3 Cub.  You just get used to it and start doing it without thinking.  And most of the time the rudder use is just a little pressure with the ball of your foot, not really a lot of pedal needed.

 

When I fly other airplanes I often start off over-using the rudder.  Once I even had a friend say "it's just easier if you leave your feet on the floor, you don't really need rudder in this airplane."  That's not flying!  

[deckofficer]

Sounds like a purist's airplane. As to modern avionics, I'm a big fan of GPS. For sailing before GPS I had to learn celestial navigation at California Maritime Academy. I wonder if it is still required for graduation?

 

During my hang gliding days I stayed with my docile, tried and true Seagull Seahawk 200. In marginal lift the folks with the higher performance wings could always get above me, but when it came to launch and landings I enjoyed the safer and slower stall speed of my wing.

 

Time for me to step up to an aircraft that requires stick and rudder, and rewards the pilot with efficiency and speed.

 

I have a question during the take off stage, do you fly it off and increase right rudder when the gear leaves the runway or do you rotate the nose gear off with the added right rudder and keep the mains on until you reach flying speed?

 

30 years ago before all the grey.

 

[Runtoeat]

FWIW, I vary take offs between letting my CT fly off on it's own and flying it off by pulling back and lifting the front wheel.  My CTSW gives me good advance notice for amount of rudder needed, whether I let it fly off on it's own or if I  fly it off by lifting the nose.  I can always count on needing right rudder to offset torque as speed builds during the take off roll and the CT starts to become lighter on it's wheels.  As the front wheel becomes very light at the final stage of take off, the nose will want to swing to the left and this will vary, depending on cross wind speed and direction.  With light cross wind, there is a need for moderate right pedal efforts on my 2006 CTSW. With elevated cross winds coming from the left (12kts and above direct) substantial pressure is needed on the right pedal but I always seem to have adequate rudder authority.

[Ian]

It depends greatly on the runway surface - my home field is a grass strip, often a bit soft and there I try and raise the nose ASAP to avoid any mishaps from bumps (or recently mole hills!!!!).

I find on nice long hard runways I agree with Dick (previous post) and just let the CTLS fly itself off - a decent headwind component and she just leaps into the air.

Over here we have a lot of ex-wartime airfields where the useable runway length has decreased over the years so displaced thresholds are very common - however typically the taxy-ways will still be the old perimeter tracks so if the run-up to the threshold is OK it's fun to see if we can be airborne "before" the "start" of the runway!!

[deckofficer]

Ian and Dick, the members of this forum really know their CTs like you guys and I've received great input to my questions. Good advise for take off techniques for sod vs hard. Dick, on the topic of rudder authority, I've read elsewhere on this forum that during a slow landing it is sometimes deemed not so adequate, but after reading your post, if the prop is producing thrust as it would during take off, that increased airflow from the prop keeps the rudder effective. From this, for a short grass strip where I would want to land slow with a short run out, would I drag it in with full flaps using throttle to maintain both glide and rudder effectiveness? This is assuming no cross wind component. What would be the technique for the same short grass strip with a crosswind?   

[Ian]

For a short field landing (little or no crosswind) I think its a pretty standard technique, full flap (35 degrees over here) speed bang on the numbers in the book - 56Kts on the approach reducing over the hedge and hold off keeping the nose up as long as possible.

 

In a crosswind I use the wing-down approach and typically 15 flaps or none - I have run out of rudder authority occasionally and gone around for another go, but so far (touch wood) haven't had to divert.

[Runtoeat]

For questions pertaining to landing and taking off at short grass fields, there isn't anyone better to ask than someone who almost exclusively lands and takes off in this environment as it appears Ian does. I would like to ride with Ian and learn from you.  My personal observation landing in all wind conditions is that I have not had any concerns with loss of adequate rudder control during the final stage of landing. As Ian does, I also will drop the upwind wing or will sometimes do a crab in strong X-winds.  Because I typically use full flaps for landing, I would use the technique your describe, deckofficer.  For low wind conditions, I bring the CT in with full flaps attempting to keep the airspeed around 45kts thru the final stage of landing.  In X-winds, I raise the speed to 50kts.  For all landings, I use throttle to control altitude and use pitch to maintain speed for touchdown.  The drag from full flaps requires me to keep the engine speed slightly up and this probably keeps the rudder active while keeping speeds low. If things don't work out as planned, I find that my CT will provide good climb out by going full throttle with full flaps and a go round can be done.  FWIW, I do occasionally practice engine off emergency landings to keep in practice of landing without power.