FlyingMonkey Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 My 2007 CTSW (N509CT), just passed the 500 hour total time mark! It had 113hrs on it when I got it in 2013, so I have put 387hrs on it in 3.5 years, or an average of 110hrs/year. Not bad! In that time, the only major issue has been the exhaust system that cracked and broke in Tucson (thanks Roger for finding me a great stainless welder on zero notice!). Minor issues: 1) Terrible camber/toe-in factory settings that caused horrible tire wear. I was replacing tires 3-4 times a year! I changed to Matco wheels, and even with the wheels shimmed to max specs, I was still wearing way too fast. I talked to Matco, and they suggested custom taper shims. The problem is I needed shims in both axes, which would make the overall shim thickness too great. I found an engineer with big CNC machines, and he cut me custom shims to my specs tapered in both axes. Voila, I have had no noticeable tire wear in 60+ hours. I'm blaming a hung over Ukrainian gear installer for the original issue. 2) My oil pressure has has intermittent periods when it would read low. Always fine on the ground, but in flight it would go down slowly until it was below 30psi, sometimes as low as 10psi before I could land. Replaced sender (x3), relocated sender to firewall, ran ground direct from sender to negative battery terminal, replaced gauge. Still have the issue. I *know* it's an electrical issue, because in flight if I start turning off electrical gear the oil PSI comes right back up to normal range. My airplane is about to turn into an E-LSA; when it does I'm going to run new, larger gauge wires to the sender and the gauge is hope that it's a signalling/RF noise issue. Overall the airplane has been great, and these issues are just normal gremlins associated with airplane ownership. I love the CT's ability to fly slow, fly fast, maneuver, and never act like it's about to bite you hard if you do something a little bone-headed. It's economical to operate, runs auto fuel or 100LL, and can haul a surprising amount of people, fuel, and gear for its gross weight. It's got very long legs, longer than most light singles (though your bladder will fill before the fuel tanks empty...). Honestly, if I was a PP instead of a SP and could fly anything that I could afford, I'm not sure I'd trade my CTSW for anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 The little CT is a pretty solid product, no question. But it is not fast by comparison to higher performance certified planes. It does get great gas mileage but you will burn almost the same fuel on a 200nm trip given how much longer you need in the air to get there versus the high speed planes. The CT by design and price has a relatively limited capability for cross-country use, is stuck at low altitude, is VFR only and has a limited payload. When I first flew the Cirrus SR22T I got scared...and worried whether I could learn to fly and harness it's power and speed and keep up with the radio work (and the vastly expanded capability). After 100 hours in it I now fly that plane with confidence like I did the CT. In the CT most of my flying was around the patch...short 1 hour flights less than 50nm away. In the Cirrus the average flight is over 200nm, often 400nm (two flights over 1200nm so far in less than a year of ownership) and I never fly in a pattern anymore unless put in a downwind by ATC when the approaches are full. Likewise instrument flying is vastly more complicated than VFR flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 18, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 I stand by all my statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 Overall the airplane has been great, and these issues are just normal gremlins associated with airplane ownership. I love the CT's ability to fly slow, fly fast, maneuver, and never act like it's about to bite you hard if you do something a little bone-headed. It's economical to operate, runs auto fuel or 100LL, and can haul a surprising amount of people, fuel, and gear for its gross weight. It's got very long legs, longer than most light singles (though your bladder will fill before the fuel tanks empty...). Honestly, if I was a PP instead of a SP and could fly anything that I could afford, I'm not sure I'd trade my CTSW for anything else. Concur Andy. You are spot on with your assessment. Out of all of them . . . I'd say my favorite was the B-757. Now, that's a real airplane! My 2nd favorite . . . my CTSW. I even prefer it over the CTLS, which I have experience in also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredG Posted January 18, 2017 Report Share Posted January 18, 2017 Andy, based on your knowledge of the airplane, I think you are going to really like having an experimental registration. It is very nice to have the authority to do maintenance and modifications when you want to, without having to wait for a third party for oversight and approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 Out of all of them . . . I'd say my favorite was the B-757. Now, that's a real airplane! Slightly different class of airplane, there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 The guy that has the hangar across from me owns a chain of truck stops and his son has won a string of World of Outlaws dirt track championships. (He spends the winters racing in Australia.) They both fly their Mitsubishi twin turbo prop (noisiest prop plane I have ever heard) and a business jet (not sure what it is). I have no desire to own either of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.