CT or MC For New Pilot?

[Scotsman58]

Hi all. I recently passed my sport pilot checkride. Did my training and my checkride in a CTLS. Thanks to my excellent instructor (John Lampson, with Premier Flight in Hartford, CT), I have gotten reasonably comfortable in the CTLS. However, as I now contemplate acquiring my own plane, I find myself wondering if the CTLS isn't a bit advanced for me, as a low-timer, particularly in gusty or x-wind conditions.

 

I have the impression -- from the very favorable reviews in Today's Pilot and Plane & Pilot -- that the new MC would be appreciably more stable and forgiving in such conditions, albeit at the price of reduced speed (at least 10 kts slower at a given power setting, from what I can figure), useful load and range. But there doesn't seem to be one around that I could fly (unless I'm willing to travel out to Minnesota), and I can't find much talk about it (other than the reviews cited above). Does anyone on this forum have any words of wisdom about the MC? Obviously a great plane to train in -- but how about to own? Would I grow out of it too fast? My typical mission, by the way, would be short, recreational hops, mostly within a 100 nm range.

 

I also might be a fan of the metal construction, as it is a challenge to find hangar space in my corner of Connecticut for anything resembling a reasonable price.

 

Thanks,

Scotsman58 (new member)

[sandpiper]

I've never seen an MT except for pictures. It is supposedly larger inside. mFor your anticipated mission the speed penalty would't even be noticed.

 

My advice - before you plunk down that much money, get to wherever the nearest MT is located and fly it. That way you will know from personal experience, not by what you read or hear.

[CT4ME]

Congratulations!

Your reasoning for getting an MC are sound... the only argument against that is that you aren't a "new" pilot for long. I'd make sure you are comfortable having a "learners" aircraft for the duration. Don't get me wrong, the MC has a lot going for it and may be all you'll ever want.

 

Personally, I decided on an CTSW knowing that it might be a bit advanced initially, but that I could grow into it... and not have to move up to another plane in a short time. Sure, if I hit the lottery, I'll be getting an SR22. But, at my age 58, the CTSW is likely to be all I'll ever need.

Tim

[Roger Lee]

I think you guys are selling the FD MC short. It can do all our CT's can it is just a little more docile, carries a little less fuel and has a little less usable weight, but it is still a nice plane and still good for cross country too.

[CT4ME]

true... it's a very nice plane, but ultimately what is it that drives us to new planes?... sportiness, speed, distance, & load. "Cross country" generally means some distance and, assuming you wear clothes, some useful load. Using the CTsw as a comparison, my wife and I (375 lbs total) can almost get nearly full fuel and two 10-lbs bags loaded. I'm guessing with the MC, you'd be able to do baggage or full fuel, but not both. So, say you load up with two people and just a bit of luggage... how far can you go with 18 gallons of fuel, allowing for slosh and reserve?

 

I'm just saying... it was designed as a trainer, meant to do circles around the airport for an hour or two or three at a time, comfortably, predictably. No distance, no load, speed not an issue. As long as you can sign off on those limitations, an MC would be a great plane, and a big-time competitor for the SkyCatcher.

Tim

[airhound]

Great post! What does small to medium size hail do to aluminum vs composite?

[Roger Lee]

Depending on the hail size the composite will stave off small hail, but dent with a little larger hail and the golfball size may cause cracks along with big dents.

The aluminum will stave off small hail, but golfball size will cause golfball size dents.

I went to Socorro, NM once and the town had just gone through a golfball size hail storm. Just about every car that had been sitting outside which was most of the town had cars with a thousand dents on the roof and hoods. Looked kind of cool, but probably not to cool to the owners.

[airhound]

I'm thinking too too risky for the average bear to keep a 100K+ toy parked outside for greater periods of time. However, at least consider pulling the wings/pickeling the engine and storing it inside something for the winter season. I personally wouldn't own any airplane regardless of price without at least overhead cover.

 

signed: average bear..

[sandpiper]

OK, I'll bite. Where do you get 18 gallons fuel? The spec sheet shows 26.4.

[Roger Lee]

Some got spilled.

[S3flyer]

Given Scotsman58's mission of 100nm trips, don't think fuel management is going to be an issue so I'll make a guess the MC's useful load will work out fine for him.

 

Of course it's a matter of opinion but you may not even need 30+ gallons of fuel for longer cross-countries. All depends on the legs you want to fly. Some pilots like to have 6-7 hrs of fuel, fly long legs or not refuel at intermediate stops. Me? I'm fine with 3.5 hrs legs which works out well with my Sting that has 'only' 21 useful gallons. I find I'm ready to stretch my legs after 3.5 hrs in a light plane anyway. Had same opinion for my prior planes, Bellanca Super Viking and a Cherokee 180.

[coppercity]

Scotsman, I think you will be happy with either one. I have not flown an MC yet but reading the articles it sounds like a dream to fly. It might be a few knots slower but unless your going 400 or 500 miles a leg, 10 knots is only going to make a half hour or less difference in time, and if you enjoy flying as much as I do another half hour in the air is great! It really only boils down to which one you like the best, what your budget can afford, and what kind of timeline your looking at buying. I would agree with trying to find at least a covered area to put your investment in.

[CT4ME]

OK, I'll bite. Where do you get 18 gallons fuel? The spec sheet shows 26.4.

 

18 gallons would be approx of what you had left after leaving some out to compensate for bringing baggage and/or two average-sized folks... or thereabouts....

tim

[sandpiper]

Some got spilled.

 

 

Call the EPA!!!

[Runtoeat]

Scotsman58, I haven't read the article on the MC but when you say the magazine article says the MC "would be appreciably more stable and forgiving in such conditions" I am questioning what this means? I own a CTSW and trained in one to get my Sports Pilot certificate. I also have flown a lot in a CTLS. Although I would say that the CTLS is not a "conventional" landing airplane such as a Cessna 152 during x-wind landings, I consider the CTLS close to being conventional for a Light Sport aircraft and more "forgiving" than my CTSW with it's stiff aluminum gear and lighter weight during landings, especially X-wind landings. The added weight (about 100 lbs.) and the composite landing gear are two attributes that I feel add to the stability of the CTLS. The MC, I believe, also has composite landing gear which would make it similar to the CTLS in the "forgiving" category during landing.

 

You have trained in the CTLS and have obviously mastered the skills to handle this aircraft. Your ability to fly and land this aircraft will only get better the more you fly. There are very few Light Sport aircraft that provide the strength, comfort and range (especially range with adequate fuel) which the CTLS offers. You have the choice of staying near home or stretching your legs and going wherever you want to go with a passenger, some luggage and enough fuel to go over 4 hours in the CTLS. As for leaving the plane outside, I would not leave any plane outside without some sort of overhead protection from the sun and elements.

[sandpiper]

When I got my CTSW I flew several planes and researched even more. Had I not restricted myself to LSA, i would have bought something bigger, faster, IFR capable & legal, etc, etc. But, LSA was my limitation so I wanted the best capability within that category. The CTSW, in May of 2007, was that airplane. Among other things it held the most gas, had the most legal baggage capacity and was probably the fastest. Could I put 2 of me (190#), full fuel, and 110# of bags at the same time? No. But I couldn't fill all the seats, have full fuel, or max baggage in my C-182 either. The point is that the CTSW had more versitility than any other LSA - IMHO.

 

Today, I would be buying the CTLS for the same reasons, plus that FD is the LSA leader and I expect them to be around for years to come. But, Scotsman58 has to make his own decisions, do his own research, and plunk his money down for what he is the most comfortable with. Scotsman wonders if the LS is too advanced for him. My answer is no, it isn't.. Glass is where it's going and, at the rate it's going, the new LS panel will be looking old in a few years.

[Roger Lee]

To me there is no such thing as too advanced. It is all in what you are use to doing. If you flew lots of light airplanes like LSA then going into a CT or another LSA was a snap. Others that fly heavy station wagons i.e. 182's or bigger and or were high time pilots from a different category may have had a little longer on the learning curve to either feel comfortable or break older habbits. I would tell any one to buy what you like and get some instruction or transition time and go fly. What ever you get use to is what is normal. Some may get to that point a litlle sooner than others, but so what. If you can pat your head and rub your belly at the same time then you can fly a CT or any LSA..

 

 

p.s.

No apology for you guys having a hard time with the pat the belly thing.

Work on it. There is a test on this at Page, AZ this year. :unsure:

[Scotsman58]

Thanks for all the helpful responses. This forum is great.

 

One thing that everyone seems to agree on is that, whatever plane I end up with, I should hangar it. Guess I need to build that into my budget.

 

I also appreciate the reassurance that, even if I'm wondering a bit right now about the LS, I would grow into it.

 

As for my speculation that the MC might have more stable/benign handling, it's principally based on Dave Unwin's review in Today's Pilot, a UK magazine. I have read several things by Unwin, and find him very credible (with less of the tendency you sometimes encounter in American aviation magazines to hype anything related to general aviation). He landed the MC in a 22 knot crosswind in Sebring (you have to read the review to understand how that came about) and found its handling very reassuring, opining that it "outpointed" the LS and SW in all just about all aspects related to handling and stability. He seemed to believe that one of the reasons for this is the MC's pitch stability, which comes in part from a standard elevator rather than an all-flying stabilator. Of course, that's one pilot's view, and I agree with the suggestions that I shouldn't put my money down for anything I haven't flown myself. But it certainly sounds as if, at the very least, the MC should be a strong competitor to the Skycatcher and others in the training fleet, provided that FD can get enough of them out there to get any visibility.

[Magnet]

I think crosswind landings are subject to pilot skill. I picked up my CTSW in California a year ago last December and landed at Camirillo in a 31 kt crosswind (actually not me, but a very skilled German fighter pilot in the right seat). I was smart enough to handle the controls over to him before touchdown, he was amazing. So now I know it can be done but would likely not do it myself.

[johngpilot]

I have about 50 Hrs in the MC ( Serial #2 )and the handling is more like CTLS than the CTsw. One experienced CFI who flew both felt that there was no discernible difference in overall handling ( stalls,TO/Landing/)

 

For example, yesterday I flew with a CFI who had never been in an LSA and she made a very good landing in a slight crosswind. This is fairly typical in that most GA pilots who have flown and landed the MC using speeds like the CTLS -60 Knots and 15 degrees of flaps find the flair and landing much like the 172 except, your butt is closer to the ground. The plane does require a pilot to know about and use the rudder.

 

Hand flying the MC 1400 miles on a cross country is straight forward, trim is easy, seats are the same as the CTLS and with its speed and fuel, I found that 350-400 miles was the longest leg that was possible. You had to select fields that were more on the route leading to a use of more 100LL. With the CTLS tankering fuel and longer leg options with 15 knots faster speeds make it better for cross country.

 

Also the empty weight is a bit heavier due to the materials used.

[wlfpckrs]

For my purposes, and for my money, the CTsw was a great choice. And I'd do it again in a New York second.