Acensor Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Some help with a decision maybe? In other threads here I mentioned I'm seriously looking at a nice 2006 1000 hour loaded SW. Another came into my radar that's tempting. Its the CT2K being discussed here in http://ctflier.com/i...s-this-morning/ The 2K is 367 hours vs. 1000 on the SW, but two years older and about $10K cheaper. What I'd like to know in general is how to compare what I'd be trading off between choosing a 2K over a SW .... flying characteristics? Reliability? Or what? That is before comparing which as more attractive extras such as Glass Panel vs. steam gauges, etc. Or to put it another way.... what's the chance if I purchased one of those two that later I'd wish I purchased the other? ;-) On the face of it I assume that in the two years between 2004 Flight Design learned a few things, and even that a 2006 Rotax 912 would have some improvements over one coming out of the factory in 2004. Think that's a fair statement? On the other hand $10K is not small change in my world, and one can put a lot of upgrades and service into a CT for $10K. I'm sure that if someone came by and handed me the title to either of these aircraft I'd likely be very happy with either... but since I'd have to fly out to Tucson to see the 2K (in contrast the SW seller is only a 2 hour CT flight from me and happy to fly it down too me for a demo) I'd have to hear something suggesting I'd be significantly happier with a 2K than an SW. To expand on my priorities (other than the obvious one of staying within budget): Super short field (the 2K should be a bit better at short field) is nice but not a dealmaker (back country super short field isn't my top priority) as the SW has pretty decent short field credentials anyway. Reasons I'm looking at CT's (which says something about what's important in comparing these two) despite loving my high visibility well behaved 2004 700 hour 80HP Skyranger ELSA are primarily that the Skyranger is slow...... (typical cruise IAS 65-70 knots). That significantly limits where we can reasonably fly on a day trip, or how far between pee stops . ;-) It has great load capacity but darn near no baggage capacity, little comfort niceties (no heat) are lacking, Instruments just above minimal (no transponder). So being able to cruise at 110 knots (or the claimed even higher speed of the 2K), having CT seats that are luxurious compared to the Skyranger , and cabin heat would make trips we have in mind move out of the "well maybe" class to the "sure, let's go" class. And of course reliability, ease/cost of maintenance, and safety are at the top of the priority list (short of the "don't fly" solution of meeting those.) A even 100 pounds more useful load capacity of one over the other wouldn't significant to me as my wife and I together weigh under 300 pounds with winter clothes on. Friendlier or better handling of one CT over the other would be important, Am I right in guessing the longer winged 2K would, on one hand have a better glide ratio, on the other be more subject to turbulence? And all things being close to equal cross wind capability is important as would be landing gear that can take my mistakes. I imagine the longer wings of the 2K take more skill on crosswind. Things like being easy to open the cowl, change a flat front tire in the field, if different between the two are of some significance. So has anyone flow both of these, or in any case dare to compare how they think I'd fare with one vs. the other? If you reply, after replying in GENERAL 2K vs. SW terms, would you scroll down and see if any of the comparative details below evoke any advice or thought you could share with me? ------------------- "2004 LW 367 TTSN leather int. Auto pilot 2gps units steam gauges all maintenance done. The owner/seller writes: "The L W C K is a much nicer flying plane than the SW. Nothing done to slow it down. This one will do. 140+ knots. This is the first demo plane from Germany. 100 HP. I was one of the original dealers for Flight Design. Beautiful plane very fast great flying. We had the first 16 planes made yellow. Yellow/color was a problem for Flight Design as the color would bleed in the mold. All the rest are all white. Tru trac 2 axis. King radio KY97 king XPNDR." It, per FAA N-number search is a CT2K manufacture year 2004, Serial number 04-11-07 Airworthiness certificate 04/28/2005 . The oddest thing to me is that the seller of the 2K says the 2K has a faster cruise than the SW . Seems odd as typically all things being equal a shorter wing version of the same aircraft climbs a bit slower but cruises faster and more fuel efficiently. In the cockpit photo the owner sent the ASI markings seem to support his claim. Can anyone confirm or contradict that claim? It's not a deal-maker but an extra 20 or even 10 knots of cruise at a given power setting is significant, particularly on that day I'm fighting a headwind. I do note on the web that the 2K shows a Vne of 167 knots vs. 145 knots for the LS and the SW. FLIGHT DESIGN CTSW (2006) • Great plane! 900+ hrs TT. Garmin 496, Dynon Avionics, Auto Pilot. This one is a one owner plane. Some notes/word from the owner, and/or his mechanic: " It’s always been hangared. Every AD and service bulletin has been complied with. The main tires were just replaced last week. A full custom canopy cover is included. It’s a good little cross country machine, easily doing 115 KTAS on 5.5 to 6.0 gph. It has an engine pre-heater, as during the first months I owned it we were in Minnesota. " This owner has had a great arrangement on maintenance. His mechanic is heavy duty Rotax certified and does free service on the plane in exchange for getting to fly it, so the owner has never skimped on maintenance. I've spoken to the mechanic and am confident it's had first class care. The SW is loaded with glass cockpit... Looks like it had the top instrument package that FD offered. The 2K is well instrumented but with other than the things that aren't steam (GPS, Radio, Autopilot) is steam. I have NOTHING against steam gauges. That's what I'm used to other than my GPS. I'm guessing that once used to a modern glass cockpit there's more useful and easier to see info there. Per what someone wrote elsewhere here CT2K's don't have BSR chutes. Oh, and finally: I notice the 2K for sale has a two blade prop and the SW has a three blade. Is that worth noting? All replies, public or PM, appreciated! Alex (This message sent with 100% recycled electrons) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 2006 CTSW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procharger Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 NUFF SAID 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 my first CT flights were on a 2K in 2004... the 2K has NO tie down attach points.. :angry:. probably smaller wheels/tires.. the SW has 'probably' stronger main gear legs the SW has more refinements into it 367 hrs in 10 years for the engine is NOT enough go for the 2006SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 the 2K has NO tie down attach points.. :angry:. As an aside, that's pretty much a non-issue. I don't have them either, and just carry "Soft-Ties" - work perfectly. Thinking about it, the tail might be an issue. My plane gets it's nose tied down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acensor Posted January 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Thanks Roger, Ed, Jacques, and Pro. I was already leaning to the SW direction. Your input helped. Dave Armando, Director of Maintenance at Flight Design threw in this additional point I'd probably never have thought of: "In my opinion, Go with a CTSW over a 2K as there are parts available for the SW whereas 2K parts would have to be specially made if they are no longer used in current models." If this purchase works out it's in no small amount due to help/educatiion from folks here . And part of my purchase decision is driven by knowing if I own a CT you have this very helpful CT support community here. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 3-axis trim with the CTSW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 yes the trim in another + for the SW Eddie , sent you a PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acensor Posted January 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 3-axis trim with the CTSW. Thanks, There's yet another difference that would've probably slipped by me if you CT experienced folks didn't tip me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acensor Posted January 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Ok... That settles the 2K. Vs. SW choice. But still curious: Can anyone confirm or contradict the CT2K seller's claim that the 2K cruises faster than the SW? And if so, his/shy thus apparent anomaly exists? The seller seemed to imply it was a design decision by FD to slow down the SW. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Bowden Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Alex, I've owned my CT2k for 5 years now and it pretty well does everything I want from LSA type flying. If I was thinking about changing I would definitely put the CTsw top of my shopping list simply because of the slight ergonomic tweeks over the earlier models e.g. 3 axis trim, quicker response flap control, under wing tie down hard points. I've flown with several CTsw and I've never been aware of any difference in speed, but saying that, we didn't compete in a drag race so I can't definitively say which one is faster. I tend to cruise at about 110 knots and pretty well leave her at that. I know I'll ruffle Rogers feathers but I tend not to run above 4800 rpm but I have blasted it at full revs to get ahead of the inevitable rain showers here in Ireland and then she can pretty well get to Vne. Remember, we run our CT at full -12 degrees reflex flaps and we don't have to abide by any speed restrictions for our class of flying. By your standards our aircraft are very light, in fact about as light as the Flight Design Supralite. With fuel costing us about $1.90 - $2.00 per litre I'm much more interested is making my flying as affordable as possible so I tend to burn about 12 litres per hour at my cruise setting. Anyway, mine is the only CT2k on the Irish register and I'm happy with that exclusivity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 If it has not been brought up yet, some or all CT2Ks don't have a BRS. That might not matter to you, but it would matter to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acensor Posted January 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Alex, I've owned my CT2k for 5 years now and it pretty well does everything I want from LSA type flying. If I was thinking about changing I would definitely put the CTsw top of my shopping list simply because .............. ............. I know I'll ruffle Rogers feathers but I tend not to run above 4800 rpm but I have blasted it at full revs to get ahead of the inevitable rain showers here in Ireland and then she can pretty well get to Vne. ..........Remember, we run our CT at full -12 degrees reflex flaps and we don't have to abide by any speed restrictions for our class of flying. .............. With fuel costing us about $1.90 - $2.00 per litre I'm much more interested is making my flying as affordable as possible.... Thanks Mac. Regarding your mention of cruising at 4800: With due respect for Roger's far greater than mine Rotax knowledge and experience, I have great difficulty buying that (assuming RPM isn't low RPM cruise ISN'T due to having set too high pitch on the prop or an oversize prop) cruising a 912 at 4800 rather than say 5000 or 5500 will do anything but use less fuel, less stress on airframe if you hit unexpected turbulence, less wear on engine and gearbox, and get you there a bit slower. Below and on the power vs. RPM and fuel consumption vs. RPM graphs Rotax publishes there's not even a hint that cruising lower RPM not recommended ... And Rotax is not known to be shy about specifically saying what we shouldn't do with our engines. In fact "Normal cruise - 4,200 to 5,500 RPM" is text I just copied right out of the CTSW POH at http://www.ocflightcenter.com/documents/CTSW%20POH%20Summary.pdf . I buy that the 912 CAN run happily all day at 5000 and even 5500 and was designed, even expected, to be often run in that range. But to trust that cruising a properly pitched and propped 912 at 4800 is undesirable I'd either have to read a comparative study of the tear down of something like 100 912's, half cruised at 4500 for 1000hrs and half at 5500, reporting specific undesirable findings on the low RPM engines. That, or five Rotax company engineers coming to my house and swearing with their hands on the Rotax heavy maintainence manual that is true. ;-) ............ Now back from my long winded digression to the question of is the 2K faster or even equal in speed to the SW (as on the face of it shorter wing should are expected to be faster): What does your 2K ASI or POH show as Vne ? The SW POH shows Vne 145 knots CAS. I believe in the photo of the panel of the 2K for sale her in Arizona on the ASI I saw it marked with Vne at about 162 knots. If your Vne is higher than the 145 knots Vne of the SW that wouldn't directly answer if the 2K cruises faster, but would suggest it might, and in any case would be surprising and intriguing to me. And would raise interesting questions as to why. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Now you did it. This thread goes sideways in 3...2...1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Didn't the Vne drop from 162 to 145 to keep within the BRS envelope? If so it would have no reflection on the relative speeds of a 2K vs a SW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Now back from my long winded digression to the question of is the 2K faster or even equal in speed to the SW (as on the face of it shorter wing should are expected to be faster): What does your 2K ASI or POH show as Vne ? The SW POH shows Vne 145 knots CAS. I believe in the photo of the panel of the 2K for sale her in Arizona on the ASI I saw it marked with Vne at about 162 knots. If your Vne is higher than the 145 knots Vne of the SW that wouldn't directly answer if the 2K cruises faster, but would suggest it might, and in any case would be surprising and intriguing to me. And would raise interesting questions as to why. I don't think this is valid. If you look in the CTSW POH, you see that the airplane has several different Vne speeds, depending on where it is used. In the US it's 145kt, but in other places it's 160kt, IIRC. This makes it hard to know what the actual airframe limit is. 160kt? Higher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 My gut agrees that cruising at 4,800 is fine if pitched correctly, in other words if you are throttled back a ways but low RPM at highest power settings will lug the engine and leave hp unavailable to the pilot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Bowden Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 I agree absolutely with Charlie Tango regarding over stressing the engine. It's like a car going uphill in too high a gear and labouring the engine. As Andy says I hope we don't get thread drift because the engine cruise rev topic has been more than adequately covered elsewhere on this forum. I was just relating how I live with my 2K and yet I would still advise Alex to go for the SW....... all things being equal. By the way, the POH and the air speed indicator shows 150 knts as the Vne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mocfly Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 I believe it was stated that -12 gives no appreciable increase in speed over -6 reflex. Is that not the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acensor Posted January 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Didn't the Vne drop from 162 to 145 to keep within the BRS envelope? If so it would have no reflection on the relative speeds of a 2K vs a SW. That makes sense and sure could explain the difference in Vne. But I'm still left puzzled by the 2K seller's claim that the 2K cruises faster. Could be BS, but he says he was a CT dealer. {OK, in interest of the legit concern of limiting the thread drift I'll drop the "OK to cruise at lower RPMs topic." It's been beat on elsewhere, and I fully vented my two cents on my soapbox... and folks either buy my take or not.} Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 I ask BRS directly that question about opening speed. It will open just fine well past our published Vne speed and carry more weight than 1320. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 I ask BRS directly that question about opening speed. It will open just fine well past our published Vne speed and carry more weight than 1320. I bet that chute on opening at over 145 knots and 1400lb weight will jerk you in your seat pretty good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 On the BRS in the Cirrus, there are "reef cutters" that cause the chute to inflate gradually, to avoid just such a scenario. Don't know about the CT, but I would assume its a common design feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 On the BRS in the Cirrus, there are "reef cutters" that cause the chute to inflate gradually, to avoid just such a scenario. Don't know about the CT, but I would assume its a common design feature. Yeah, it has the same ring design, but still, you'd think faster and heavier has to have more forces involved. Maybe the would get spread out enough for comfort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Hi Andy, It is not a jerk. That is why BRS has a slder. It controls the opening so as not to shock the system. They have the patent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.