Jump to content

My First CTSW Experience


FlyingMonkey

Recommended Posts

Hey all...

 

Since I started looking at LSA, I have always thought the CTSW/CTLS to be an amazing airplane, and I pretty much wanted one. Yesterday I got my first chance to get some time (1.3 hours) in one, and wanted to share my experience and ask some questions.

 

My Background: I went into the flight as a certificated Sport Pilot with 45 hours in my log book, so I'm pretty green. I think that I am a pretty good stick and rudder pilot, and have been told so by my instructors. I have not flown since 2009, because I have been building a Sonex. I sold the Sonex, and a friend and I are working toward partnering on a CT. I need a BFR, but that was not the intent of this flight, I just wanted some time in the air in a CT.

 

Conditions: Sky conditions for this flight were clear with nearly unlimited visibility, cloudless, with 3-6 knot gusty winds and mild turbulence.

 

The Aircraft: 2006 CTSW with 412hrs equipped with Dynon EFIS and EMS. Aircraft is owned by the instructor, on lease back to the flight school.

 

The Plan: We pre-briefed the flight, intending to do Dutch Rolls, power on stalls, slow flight, slow flight, and power off stalls. We were then going to a local non-towered airport for pattern and landing work, then RTB.

 

The Flight: The first thing I noticed about the CT is that the control forces are very high, especially in an LSA. I have flown an AMD Zodiac, a couple of Tecnam P-92s, and a Sport Cruiser. The CT has by far the highest forces needed on the controls. TO get full rudder deflection is almost an uncomfortable amount of effort, it reminded me of the competition clutch in my old drag racing Mustang. The airplane taxied and took off great, other than just the high effort needed on the pedals.

 

There was also a LOT of rudder required in the airplane, and it always seemed to need some rudder deflection to keep the ball centered. Part of that might have been the gusts and turbulence, but I just never could seem to get the airplane to point where I wanted it to, and I never got a sense of being fully in control of the airplane at all times. It seemed to wander where it wanted a lot of of the time, especially entering and exiting turns where the strong adverse yaw was present.

 

Power on stalls were easy, as soon as the nose broke the plane was flying again. Power off stalls had more nose drop as in most planes, but once power was added the plane was flying. Slow flight was a bit of a challenge for me, but I just need practice I think.

 

Landings were different from what I was used to. The technique I was taught in the CT was abeam the numbers pull throttle to idle, below 80kt add 15 degrees flaps, and trim full nose up. Then capture and maintain 60kt using power and stick to maintain the glideslope. At 3ft above the runway, level out to break the descent, what 3 seconds or so, and then slowly add back pressure on the stick to sink to the runway and hold the nosewheel off. The CT definitely lands "flatter" than other airplanes I have flown. I made six landings, my first one pretty rough, the rest okay with one greaser.

 

It seems really hard to get the trim wheel back to neutral in time for takeoff on a touch and go, the wheel is so small and takes so many turns, and the force to turn it is pretty high!

 

Overall, I found flying the CT to be a lot of work. Does it get easier? I want to love this airplane, but right now it just seems a very hard airplane to master. I'm going to keep at it, but I wanted to post here what my experiences were so I could get some feedback and any advice that might help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Coordination in the SW is not intuitive. The workload, when maneuvering will include continuous rudder input until you get it. Try a mentality where you initiate your turn more with rudder and coordinate with aileron, its harder to be behind with the rudder when you lead with it. Without a visible cowling there is more need to reference the ball.

 

Part of the flat landing is the sight picture. You can hold the nose off and do full stall landings but if you allow it the nose to settle just after contact it is flatter and faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only flown the 2007 CTSW. I think, but am not certain, that factory changes were made in the 2007 which makes it less twitchy than the 2006. I further understand, but cannot verify, that the CTLS models had further changes, such as being longer, that calmed them down pretty well.

 

Perhaps Eric can chime in since here has considerable experience in both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like I didn't really "learn to fly" until I flew the CTsw. I thought I knew what the rudder was used for in other planes (primarily cessna 152 and 185) but really got to know the rudder in the CTsw. I believe I am now a better pilot because of it. After your experience with the CTsw, I suggest you read this great article about the rudder. It'll make more sense now than when you studied rudders years ago.

At least with my 2006 CTsw, and other CTs I've flown, the stick forces are not bad. As I demonstrate with some passengers, the pressure of one finger is pretty much all thats needed to fly. Now, mind you, when I first learned to fly the CT, I had a death grip on the stick that would actually cause my hand to get numb! Now, just a light touch of two fingers works great.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2007 CTSW I fly takes a lot of rudder on climb and descent. It's as bad as my Cessna T210 was and worse than most little Cessnas I flew. FWIW, I think the Jabiru 250 is even worse.

The rudder forces on the CTSW stink in my opinion. Plus, the controls are not harmonized. That is, you put in a little force on the elevator, a little more force on the ailerons and a lot more force on the rudder to do what seems to be the same amount of work or get the same result.

It is tricky and I think takes constant practice to develop and maintain the feel for the different forces needed for coordinated flight in my CTSW, so that an ascending turn, for example, feels good and the ball stays in the center.

In contrast, I thought the Techam P2008 flew very well, as did the RV6.

I don't like the rudder trim system on the CTSW because in my opinion one should be trimming often and the placement of the wheel makes that awkward. I've not flown a CTLS so can't asy if that placement is better or not.

I'd be interested in hearing any tips on improving rudder sensitivity. Some very knowledgeable and experienced CT pilots have flown my airplane and not complained that it was any worse any any others.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim - early on I flew several 2007 's after wondering if mine might be a little different. It wasn't.

 

When I bought mine new in May 2007 it was after flying several other SLSA's, most notably various Tecnams and Sport Cruiser. My choice of the CT was for several reasons: most fuel capacity, most legal baggage, BRS, high wing, very wide cockpit, most popular in sales, and a company I felt would be here for the long run. IMHO I made the best choice, for me, of what was available at the time.

 

Until then, in my 42 years flying (at the time) most of my experience was in C-170, 172, 180, 182, 185, 206, 305 & 310; DHC-2 (beaver); T-34; LA4-200; and the UH-1 series of helicopters.

 

Once I got used to the lighter controls of the CT (as compared to planes like the C-182, 206, etc) and the need to pay attention to rudder, I have never had any real problems flying it. Visibility is almost like a helicopter and, kind of like a UH-1 which requires constant attention, so does the 2007 CTSW. Maybe not as much as a UH-1 but for sure more than most Cessnas, Pipers, etc. For cross country an auto pilot would make the trip much less fatiguing, IMO.

 

Mine is a good plane. I enjoy it but it's not perfect. Most airplanes aren't. A guy really needs about four planes; one to knock around in, one for backcountry, one on floats, and a jet. We can all dream! :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy,

With over 1200 hrs in various aircraft, I can tell you flying the ct series of aircraft will take some time. Don't get frustrated. If you do come here and you will surely get the best advise from people who fly way up in the mountains to the guys at or close to sea level. They have experienced it all.

 

This aircraft will make you a better pilot. Better from the standpoint that you will need to develope the old stick and rudder skills. These are skills that get rusty pretty easy when you fly aircraft that have forgiving flying forces. Once the lightbulb goes on and you really understand the aircraft you will fall in love with it.

 

These little ct's have great legs, I just recently took my daughter to NJ in our plane. Much nicer than flying in the heavy iron and dealing with the issues that come with that type of travel.

 

Good luck in your journey and welcome to the Ctflier community.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all...

 

Since I started looking at LSA, I have always thought the CTSW/CTLS to be an amazing airplane, and I pretty much wanted one. Yesterday I got my first chance to get some time (1.3 hours) in one, and wanted to share my experience and ask some questions.

 

My Background: I went into the flight as a certificated Sport Pilot with 45 hours in my log book, so I'm pretty green. I think that I am a pretty good stick and rudder pilot, and have been told so by my instructors. I have not flown since 2009, because I have been building a Sonex. I sold the Sonex, and a friend and I are working toward partnering on a CT. I need a BFR, but that was not the intent of this flight, I just wanted some time in the air in a CT.

 

Conditions: Sky conditions for this flight were clear with nearly unlimited visibility, cloudless, with 3-6 knot gusty winds and mild turbulence.

 

The Aircraft: 2006 CTSW with 412hrs equipped with Dynon EFIS and EMS. Aircraft is owned by the instructor, on lease back to the flight school.

 

The Plan: We pre-briefed the flight, intending to do Dutch Rolls, power on stalls, slow flight, slow flight, and power off stalls. We were then going to a local non-towered airport for pattern and landing work, then RTB.

 

The Flight: The first thing I noticed about the CT is that the control forces are very high, especially in an LSA. I have flown an AMD Zodiac, a couple of Tecnam P-92s, and a Sport Cruiser. The CT has by far the highest forces needed on the controls. TO get full rudder deflection is almost an uncomfortable amount of effort, it reminded me of the competition clutch in my old drag racing Mustang. The airplane taxied and took off great, other than just the high effort needed on the pedals.

 

There was also a LOT of rudder required in the airplane, and it always seemed to need some rudder deflection to keep the ball centered. Part of that might have been the gusts and turbulence, but I just never could seem to get the airplane to point where I wanted it to, and I never got a sense of being fully in control of the airplane at all times. It seemed to wander where it wanted a lot of of the time, especially entering and exiting turns where the strong adverse yaw was present.

 

Power on stalls were easy, as soon as the nose broke the plane was flying again. Power off stalls had more nose drop as in most planes, but once power was added the plane was flying. Slow flight was a bit of a challenge for me, but I just need practice I think.

 

Landings were different from what I was used to. The technique I was taught in the CT was abeam the numbers pull throttle to idle, below 80kt add 15 degrees flaps, and trim full nose up. Then capture and maintain 60kt using power and stick to maintain the glideslope. At 3ft above the runway, level out to break the descent, what 3 seconds or so, and then slowly add back pressure on the stick to sink to the runway and hold the nosewheel off. The CT definitely lands "flatter" than other airplanes I have flown. I made six landings, my first one pretty rough, the rest okay with one greaser.

 

It seems really hard to get the trim wheel back to neutral in time for takeoff on a touch and go, the wheel is so small and takes so many turns, and the force to turn it is pretty high!

 

Overall, I found flying the CT to be a lot of work. Does it get easier? I want to love this airplane, but right now it just seems a very hard airplane to master. I'm going to keep at it, but I wanted to post here what my experiences were so I could get some feedback and any advice that might help.

 

Your first experience in a CTSW is common. We owned and trained students in a 2007 CTSW for a couple years. Great little airplane, but certainly some work. I thought I was a good stick and rudder pilot with lots of time in L-19's, Luscombs, C120/140's, but the CT was humbling to say the least. As others have mentioned leading with the rudder slightly helps a ton, the other thing is don't chase the ball around, it can drive you nuts. Light smooth control inputs are a plus, and no death grip on the stick.

 

The CTLS has a much better feel in Yaw, it requires a little less rudder attention, and feels a lot more harmonized in pitch and roll. The rudder is still a little heavy, but very effective.

 

Best thing to do is just give it a few more hours, you will come to love the plane for its capability, fun factor, and even its more challenging control requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy,

I have a 2007 CTSW and love it. Yes it did take a little more time getting use to it, but it truly is a great comfortable dependable economic airplane.

I came from the Cessna and Piper families and absolutely will not go back.

These are just perfect for me.

Buy it and you will like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that made a big difference was when I switched to 6.00-6 monster retreads on Matco wheels. These are much heavier tires with most of the weight toward the outside radius so the mass moment of inertia is about 0.8 compared to ~0.2 for the little 4.00-6 tires. If you do the math, at 40kts touchdown and presuming 400kg total weight, you are taking about 10% of the energy out of the system just spinning up the two wheels, up from ~3% with the little tires. With that and being able to safely run lower pressure, 26psi, I find that I stick to the runway much better, even when I come down a little hard. Used to bounce much more easily on the italian rims with 30psi 4.00-6 tires

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too thought I knew what the rudder was for, and I did, however the link that Tim provided gave me a new perspective. When you see the rudder as a 'fixer' where the stab and ailerons have jobs like climbs and descents or turns and the rudder fixes climbs, descents, turns, take-offs and landings the rudder does take on a new purpose, one beyond moving the nose right or left.

 

Now combine this with the short wing, short coupled SW whose clean lines allow it to happily fly sideways or react promptly to rudder input. As Tim's article points out all planes need 'fixing' or rudder input but since the need is diminished by stretching the tendency becomes to just fly dirty.

 

So there you have it, the CTSW is more fun than most designs because it more or less insists that your fly clean which involves using your feet in any design. Flying clean is efficient, a demonstration of your skills and perception and just plain fun. Add that to the high level of maneuverability that the SW offers and flying becomes more pure. I seldom turn my auto pilot on and I often vary my track and altitude to conform with the terrain or better my view.

 

A 2006 CTSW has more useful load and is faster than newer SLSA too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CTLSi is faster, more nimble and far more sophisticated in regard to engine, avionics and control than the older CTSW. Some commenting on this board have not flown the CTLSi, it is too new and they have no point of reference for it. Hence the ignorance you see regarding how much more advanced the CTLSi is.

 

Mr. Bigs, I'm glad you have a new CTLSi on order. It will make a fine airplane for you. Your statement about the more sophisticated engine is true, but at a 20 pound weight penalty. Beyond that you are way off base. While you may have ordered the most advance avionics package that is available, the standard package is not much different that the dual glass that several of the CTSW's have. Dual 7" glass display with single AHARS source, comm radio, small GPS, and mode C transponder. By the way the avionics don't make the airplane fly any better. The CTSW is hands down more nimble than the CTLS/Si. The CTLS/Si was designed to be less nimble from the begining making it more like a Cadilac instead of a sports car. Having owned and flown both CTSW's and CTLS's I really doubt that you will see any more speed from the CTLSi since it has a 100 hp engine too. I have found the SW's to be every bit as fast as the CTLS, and if the CTLSi is any faster it would push it out of light sport complience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CTLSi is faster, more nimble and far more sophisticated in regard to engine, avionics and control than the older CTSW. Some commenting on this board have not flown the CTLSi, it is too new and they have no point of reference for it. Hence the ignorance you see regarding how much more advanced the CTLSi is.

 

You have claimed the LSi is 20% faster before, it is not. it develops exactly the same amount of power yet is heavier and longer. ( more wetted surface area = more drag ) It is actually a little slower and less nimble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're splitting hairs. While all the models have slight differences, they are probably more alike than different. Especially the CTLSi and the CTLS, as they pretty much share the same body. I'm a gadget-guy and love all the new "touches" and improvements. I drooled over the CTLS changes, and am nearly drowning over the CTLSi improvements.

'Only two things holding me back from ordering an "Americas CTLSi".... win the lottery, and pay for a trainer to help me lose 40lbs, so I can have the same payload!

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if I could afford a CTLS/CTLSi, I think I'd favor the CTSW. The extra 45-70lb payload is just too much to give up, for me. I'm looking forward to carrying me, a 200lb passenger, a reasonable amount of fuel (17+ gallons) and a good load of baggage. That's serious utility for an LSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy,

 

Yep, a tough call. I have always liked the newest and latest. Probably wasted a ton of money buying a lot of new cars, computers, phones, etc. Shiny and new is great, at least for some.

 

But, you are right about the weight. My empty weight is 751# whereas FD lists the new CTLS as 790/810#, I am assuming the 810 is for the LSi as they say it is about 22# more than an LS. So, that's 40-60 pounds less useful. Maybe a good reason to get some weight off! But, at 6'-2" and 195# I can only get rid of about 20#. It all helps though!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are a laugh. The 912i alone is worth the freight on the new plane. Hey, why not get yourself a 60s muscle car too. Of course if you can't afford the newest wonder from FD thats another issue. Understandable. Used Zodiaks are even cheaper. Why not get one of those - you can still get steam guages. Some even come without a radio. Now thats really a way to lose weight.

Your insecurities are really starting to show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gbigs,

 

Are you a sales person or investor in Flight Design? Certainly the CTLSi has some great features however you claims are a bit exagerated.

 

The new 912is engine is rated slightly lower in performance in comparison to the 912ULS by Rotax themselves. The peak horsepower is the same but torque is between 6-9 ft lbs below the ULS in the normal operating RPM. I have seen the power cuves from rotax and i cant see any reason they would show lower numbers if they were not accurate. I was going to post the actual power curves from rotax but i cant find them right now for some reason but I have seen them somewhere.

 

I have flown the 912is right next to the carburated on several ocasions and the the carb model outperformed the injected on climb out but they were very similar in cruise. The actual performance closely mimiced the power curve published by rotax. The difference was not big but noticeable. Im also sure the lower torque numbers would contribute to the increased efficiency. Our experiences show the the injected engine is most efficient at lower throttle settings. At high throttle settings the difference was small. We did not see the claimed 20%. I would say it was closer to 10%.

 

If I were buying a new aircraft I would definitely get the injected engine myself but based on our experience the power output is slightly lower. Keep in mind it is always possible that our carburated engine was just a strong runner but based on the published rotax info and our actual experience that is likely not the case.

 

Also you mentioned empty weight of the CTLSi being around 810. I have not seen one below 835 as delivered to the customer. This is what a I have been telling customers so if I am incorrect on this please let me know. Our Tecnam have always been about 20lbs heavier and our P2008s havew been coming in around 855-860 after avionics and ready for delivery.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gbigs, looks like I'd better call Salvation Army tomorrow and see if they'll come out and pick up my obsolete CTSW with steam gages. Damn, just when I had finally found the airplane that did everything I wanted it to do - cruise at 120kts on less than 5 gallons/hour of Mogas for over 5 hours while providing me with effortless navigation with 2 axis autopilot that takes orders from my Garmin while I listen to XM music. Funny, I never even thought about my plane being obsolete until I read your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny I don't see the 3.5 Gph.

 

Reprinted from the Rotax 912is owners manual.

 

 

 

1.9) Technical data See table

1.10) Fuel consumption See table

Description

912 iSc/iS

Bore

84 mm (3.31 in)

Stroke

61 mm (2.40 in)

Displacement

1352 cm3 (82.5 in3)

Compression ratio.

10.8:1

 

Fuel consumption in l/h (US gal/h)

912 iSc/iS

At take-off performance (5800 rpm)

26.1 l/h (6.9 gal/h)

At max. continuous performance (5500 rpm)

23.6 l/h (6.2 gal/h)

At 75 % continuous performance

16.5 l/h (4.3 gal/h)

Specific consumption at 75 % contin- uous performance

250 g/kWh (0.41 lb/hph)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...