Al Downs Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 FLIGHT DESIGN C T • $59,500 • BEST DEAL EVER! • 2004 LW 367 TTSN leather int. Auto pilot 2gps units steam gages all maintenance done 520 444 1730 • Contact Robert H. Walker, Owner - located Tucson, AZ USA • Telephone: 520-299-8646 • Posted January 14, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 An older CT2K, but you can't beat the price. At least some CTSWs are selling in the high 60s now though, so if I wanted that airplane I'd probably shoot lower than his asking price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 The FAA trained the first inspectors and examiners for light sport in a CT2K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 It's a yellow CT2K and is in the hangar across from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 15, 2014 Report Share Posted January 15, 2014 Roger do you know how it flies differently from an SW? Obviously more wing makes a difference. Is it 80hp or 100hp? Anything else you might know about it? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Wings are longer, no parachute, 100 HP, yellow in color, smaller instrument panel, lighter landing gear, 2 blade prop, smaller rudder. Priced to sell quick and too low in my book. He said he was going to ask more so I was surprised at this price. He is getting out due to health. All maint. is up to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Bowden Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 As Roger says, my CT2k has about 1 foot longer wings, no wingtips, 100hp driving 3 blade Warpdrive propeller, very lightly loaded because of keeping within 268 kgs unladen regulations. It takes off like a rocket from incredibly small fields and I can load it to the gills for long excursions knowing there's still plenty of lift available. Other than getting very proficient at slipping it down when empty in order to prevent floating, it can live with any CTsw I've flown with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Thanks Mac, sounds fun. The CTSW is already a handful in gusty winds, I can imagine the CT2K is the same but a bit more so... I bet it does climb like a scalded dog though! What is the useful load on yours? I imagine with no parachute and longer wings, you must be near 650lb/295kg, assuming the same max gross as the SW (1320lb/600kg here in the USA)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 You all are friggin lightweights... My CTLS needs to get some exercise or something, She's 790... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 I believe this plane just sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Bowden Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Andy, we are limited to 450 kgs max take off but with 2 up, fuel to go direct to France from Ireland and a couple of bags in the back it can go well over that 450 kg . . . . ahem. . . . . not that I would do that ! but it's comforting to know that the airframe is capable of a lot more than we are using over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Andy, we are limited to 450 kgs max take off but with 2 up, fuel to go direct to France from Ireland and a couple of bags in the back it can go well over that 450 kg . . . . ahem. . . . . not that I would do that ! but it's comforting to know that the airframe is capable of a lot more than we are using over here. Understood. Some folks over here say the CTSW/LS will handle 1400-1500lb with no problem, I'm sure nobody would do that here either, since we're limited to 1320lb... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 For the most part, lighter weight is the Holy Grail of aircraft design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 As Burt Rutan said "If you are thinking of putting something on an airplane, take it outside and throw it up in the air. If it comes back down, it's too heavy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 If weight's the holy grail, then everyone would be sailplaning or hang gliding instead of clunking around in fixed wing motor driven clap-traps. Its relative to the design, power, and purpose. Your stance is ironic, to say the least. You constantly brag about how great carbon fiber is over metal. Why is your CT made of that instead of metal, do you suppose? Oh yeah...WEIGHT! All other things being equal, weight is THE defining performance characteristic of aircraft. Who says lightweight means sailplanes? In the 1960s, the F4 Phantom II mounted two J79 engines. The F-104 Starfighter mounted the same engine, but only one of them, yet outperformed the Phantom in EVERY regard (except sustained turn rate, because of the F-104's stubby wings). Why? Because it had a max takeoff weight of ONE THIRD of the Phantom's (20,000lb vs 60,000lb). There is no doubt whatsoever that we could design an airplane that weighs less than your CTLSi, handles better, gets better fuel economy, and does better in rough air. EVERY airplane is a compromise, and your CTLSi has certain compromises that define its performance. Weight is the number one consideration that defines aircraft performance and the compromises needed to meet design goals. Do you really think you'd be in worse shape if your airplane was exactly the same, but weighed 100lb less? Would that turn it into a sailplane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 The newest designs and newest equipment are by definition better than the old stuff. By definition they are newer, and often in this world today newer is not better. I'm not saying this is the case this time, but better would depend on the mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Wasn't the Ford Edsel the newest car on the block once? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Wasn't the Ford Edsel the newest car on the block once? As was the Yugo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 As was the Yugo! If we're trading crap cars across the Atlantic then I will also claim the Trabant for Europe - can you top that in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Crap cars? Now you're talking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Crap cars? Now you're talking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 The worst cars ever made were ........ And you know what? They were all new once! Do you want to review your earlier post at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 If weight's the holy grail, then everyone would be sailplaning or hang gliding instead of clunking around in fixed wing motor driven clap-traps. Its relative to the design, power, and purpose. Comparing 2K to SW to LS to LSi and to other LSA is problematic for obvious reasons. Each craft has it's particular characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. The newest designs and newest equipment are by definition better than the old stuff. Sure they all fly, but the new stuff takes advantages of the limitations and mistakes of the past. I took a little ride in a Cessna 180 two days ago. It was built in 1957. Sure it's an airplane, but I won't even go into the difference in noise, climb, fuel burn, steam guages, and other elements. The owner took a ride in my CTLSi, a 50 year aviator, CFII, experience in everything from every Cessna made to air tankers. He was blown away with just about everything in the CTLSi. And how it climbs like a hawk compared to his rumbling antique bumblebee. It's like comparing a Model A Ford (which the guy also had in his hangar) to a fully equipped Lexus RX350. It's not even the same conversation. It's all about mission. No CT can do what a C-180 is meant to do and vice versa. Perhaps a CT can maybe land on the same gravel bars and haywire strips I used to take my 180 into. The difference is the 180 came out of the same landing area with half a moose and lived to do it again whereas what would be left of the CT would have to be brought out with a helicopter in pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 To add to your analogy, Cheverolet has introduced some "NEW" Corvettes that were not as good as the previous models. Like I said before new is not always better it is just new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 I had 2 C-180's and one C-182 all with some version on the O-470 but none of them burned 10 GPH. Always planned for 12.5 and felt good if I got 11.5. Again, different missions. That's why there are so many CT's running around in the Alaskan bush. Not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.