Student pilot thinking about an FD

[youngwerth]

I'm still a month or so away but I'm thinking about buying a CTSW or CTLS shortly after solo. I really like the way the172s I've been training in fly but I'm not real excited about owning an airborne '71 Buick in the long run. The FD planes really seem to be what I'm looking for in a first plane. I feel like my plane handling skills are pretty good but wonder if I'd be putting myself at significantly more risk of an "incident" building time in a less forgiving aircraft. Anyone else out there build time in a FD and have an opinion? I would want to get training at least equivalent to a check-out before committing. I live in Boise, where would be the nearest place to go to get training? Thanks.

[rhanson]

YM,

 

Check with Basham, LSA repairman somewhere in Idaho,

he may have some ideas.

 

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.aspx?Mfrtxt=FLIGHT+DESIGN&Modeltxt=CT&PageNo=1

 

I see that you have a CTSW owner there in Boise.

 

RH

[FlyingMonkey]

The key to doing well in a CT is competent transition training.  The sight picture is totally different and needs to be learned -- the CT is not hard to fly really, but it is significantly different from a 172.  Some differences:

 

*  Having less weight and inertia than a 172, it will come down more steeply when the power is off.  It doesn't fall like a rock, but the standard 3° glide slope doesn't work well.  Fly tight patterns!  I usually turn base only about 1/4 mile from the end of the runway.  Also you flare a little lower than a 172, and if you misjudge the height or speed, the low inertia of the CT will cause it to run out of energy and drop in a bit.  Once you get the hang of it that it's not hard to land, but it takes longer than a 172 to master. 

 

*  The CT has a better speed range than a 172.  The newer 172s might be a bit faster in cruise, but not by much.  I usually cruise about 127 KTAS at 5300-5400rpm when traveling.  I can get 130 KTAS+ at 5500rpm and good conditions, but the fuel burn starts getting up there.  But the CT flies much better slowly than a 172; I regularly fly around very comfortably with a friend of mine in his slow Avid Flyer at 68-70kt.  My approach speeds are 52-55kt, and the airplane is well controlled down to 45kt or less.  

 

*  Handling in the CT is more "sporty" but also a bit less stable.  It turns faster and feels nimble, but the short-coupled tail and faster airfoil makes it easier to upset.  In bumpy air keeping the ball centered often means just letting it bounce around a bit, and you'll have to work the stick to keep the wings level.  It's a bit more effort to fly in those conditions, but once you are used to it there's nothing to it.  If you have an autopilot, they usually do a good job in these planes if you need a break.  The CTLS is a bit more stable in yaw because FD made the tail a couple of feet longer.

 

The sporty handing doesn't mean it's a menace in the stall,, though.  Mine stalls so gently there is really not even a break; the nose just bobs a bit and the airplane goes into about a 800fpm sink.  I can make it break harder if I honk some stick into it, but it still fall straight ahead and doesn't want to roll off on a wing.  I can't imagine an airplane with better stall characteristics for a low-time pilot.

 

*  The CT has longer legs.  With 33 gallons of fuel usable and fuel burns in the 4-6gph range depending on RPM, the books lists almost 900nm range at low rpm.  My longest leg was coming back from Oshkosh, Pontiac, Illinois to Winder, Georgia.  I flew with two people and 30 gallons of fuel, 558 miles (485nm) at 5500rpm (max continuous).  It took four hours and twenty minute, and I landed with 6 gallons of fuel left for a fuel burn of about 5.6gph.  Four hour legs are easy in this airplane if your bladder can hold out. 

 

*  Obviously, a CT can't haul what a 172 does.  But for its size and weight it's pretty impressive -- more so the older the airplane.  The oldest CTSWs tend to be the lightest, many 2005 and some 2006 models have useful load over 600lb.  Mine is a 2007 and the useful as delivered is 585lb, the same as a DA-20 that weighs 300lb more!  Some of the newest CTs have useful loads down below 500lb (but have nicer avionics and interiors), so it pays to ask to see the W&B info before buying.  

 

The above makes the CT a great traveling airplane for one or even two people.  If it's just the pilot, you can generally carry as much gear as you'd ever need.  With full fuel and just me, my CT has weight left for about 200lb of "stuff".  When I flew out to Arizona for the Page fly-in last year, I think I carried half that weight in gear.  That included spare parts, tools, and all the luggage needed for a ten day trip.  For two people you usually have to limit either fuel or baggage, but unless you and/or your passenger are portly it's not hard to carry enough for reasonable 2-3 hour legs, which is a comfortable pace.

 

Good luck with your decision!

[gbigs]

I'm still a month or so away but I'm thinking about buying a CTSW or CTLS shortly after solo. I really like the way the172s I've been training in fly but I'm not real excited about owning an airborne '71 Buick in the long run. The FD planes really seem to be what I'm looking for in a first plane. I feel like my plane handling skills are pretty good but wonder if I'd be putting myself at significantly more risk of an "incident" building time in a less forgiving aircraft. Anyone else out there build time in a FD and have an opinion? I would want to get training at least equivalent to a check-out before committing. I live in Boise, where would be the nearest place to go to get training? Thanks.

 

You will do fine in either plane.    Both the 172 and the CT are fixed gear, fixed prop, high-wing relatively slow planes.  But the CT is much lighter and has a more sensitive stick (vs yoke) and will leap off the runway and react a little more to flap changes regarding a nose-pitch movement.  So be prepared for short takeoffs and keep your approaches stable.

[BravoFoxtrot]

The '71 Buick description is pretty accurate for the 172. Not a bad first plane at all, just heavier than either FDs. One of the problems with people who have flown those or similar airplanes is the transition to a lighter plane. Seems like you see a number of accidents where someone has a bad landing who has hundreds of hours in a Cessna. I would think it might be easier for a low time pilot to make the transition with proper training than someone whose flying habits are already ingrained. Find someplace to fly with an instructor in an airplane type you are considering and get some time in it. Don't be in a hurry, you have plenty of time to decide.

[pointpergame]

This is off the wall and I know it's 2,000 miles from you, but the flying club where Anticept maintains the fleet is a great little outfit on a classy airport ( KOSU ) in a somewhat busy airspace.   I rented an apartment in Columbus and made the move from primitive ( j-3 / grass strip / no radio / class G ) in 10 flights.    Richard was a tremendous CFI.  Not mentioned yet is that the CT wants moderately good stick and rudder skills, more like a J3 than a 150/172.  It loves to slip, for instance.   Only a guess, but I would think except for that, you could make the transition from a 172 in a handful of hours.  

[Runtoeat]

I trained in and received my LSA pilot certificate in a CTSW after I retired.  Didn't have any idea how to fly or land a plane previous to this.  As others have said, find a competent CFI who knows how to train a student to fly a light aircraft and knows how to gradually and safely transition you from flying the 172 to flying a lightly wing loaded, responsive LSA.  The suggestion to travel to where there's a CFI who will train you for your transition training into LSA isn't a bad idea if you can't find a suitable CFI near you. You are wise to ask questions and discuss this with those who have done what you are seeking to do.  You will do fine.

[youngwerth]

Thanks for all of the advice, pretty much reinforces my feelings towards an FD plane. 

 

How can I find a list of FD CFIs for transition training? I don't mind traveling for a day or two of training but would prefer west coast.

 

Thanks.

[ralarcon]

Thanks for all of the advice, pretty much reinforces my feelings towards an FD plane. 

 

How can I find a list of FD CFIs for transition training? I don't mind traveling for a day or two of training but would prefer west coast.

 

Thanks.

You might want to call FD USA. Or take a week vacation in Florida. There are plenty of instructors well versed on the CT, down here. Good easy flying and relatively good weather, especially Fall, Winter and Spring.

 

Cheers

[coppercity]

Thanks for all of the advice, pretty much reinforces my feelings towards an FD plane. 

 

How can I find a list of FD CFIs for transition training? I don't mind traveling for a day or two of training but would prefer west coast.

 

Thanks.

 

We are in South Eastern Arizona.  8+ years of owning and teaching in CT's.

[frfly172]

If your thinking Lsa,and CT the key is good transition training. The CT line is not just a smaller airplane ,it flys much differently than a 172. The ct is a fun airplane when flown correctly.

[youngwerth]

Coppercity, how much time should I plan for transition training? Could I do it as a student pilot or should I wait until I have my PPL?

[207WF]

Oh, and lets not forget half the fuel burn of a 172 and using mogas!  WF

[Scott Lee]

My first 30 hours of training was in a 172 with a Garmin G1000.  I discovered I had lots of kidney stones so I went with sport pilot.  I was fortunate to have a FD dealer 90 minutes away.  First time I went up in a CT I was sold, I simply loved it.  I purchased a 2010 CTLS to finish my training and flew it solo to the Page fly-in this year.

 

All the advice given in this tread is good.  But I naturally have a few suggestions.

 

First, you can't go wrong with Eric, (Coppercity) I hired him to ferry the plane and we had a wonderful trip coming from California to Iowa.  I learned a ton from him.  If you are looking for transition training, he is terrific.

 

Flying the CT is so much more fun than a 172, but there are a few challenges that if you are aware of, will make the transition much easier and quicker.

 

The sight picture comment is right on, but let me elaborate.  The cowling makes the approach feel steeper than it really is.  Having an airport with a VASI really helps.  Most problems with landing are rounding out too high, not keeping your airspeed up, and runway alignment.  Focus on these and everything else is easy.  There is lots of discussion on this forum, just search for "landing" and you can read for hours.

 

FYI - I have my 2010 CTLS plane listed on Controller.com as I'm looking to upgrade.  But I'm not in a hurry because I love my CT, I've logged almost 3,000 nm in a year and a half of owing it.

[gbigs]

My

 

FYI - I have my 2010 CTLS plane listed on Controller.com as I'm looking to upgrade.  But I'm not in a hurry because I love my CT, I've logged almost 3,000 nm in a year and a half of owing it.

 

Upgrade to what?

[coppercity]

Coppercity, how much time should I plan for transition training? Could I do it as a student pilot or should I wait until I have my PPL?

 

It depends on where you are in your training.  If your getting close to your PPL check ride I wouldn't change things up, continue in the 172 until you finish.  On the other hand if you are presold, or just post solo a few hours in a CT won't hurt you.  Most folks we transition feel pretty good in benign conditions after 3hrs of training.  Getting comfortable with higher flap setting landings, and crosswinds takes another 2-3 hours usually.