Jump to content

Good deal on CTSW?


Cluemeister

Recommended Posts

Saw a CTSW on Barnstormers today for $59,000 asking.

 

http://www.barnstormers.com/Light-Sport,%20Flight+Design%20Classifieds.htm

 

Seemed like a really good deal to me.  What do you guys think?

 

I'm not ready to pull the trigger unfortunately! 

 

I would say pay close attention to what the actual owners of CTSW airplanes say. From what I've seen here CTSW owners have had great experiences with their airplanes and have enjoyed their sport flying.

 

For the price if it's in good condition, with good maintenance records, why not look at it with a view to trading up for a newer more advanced FD a bit further up the road, once you've accrued some time as an owner and a CTSW pilot?

 

 There are some good resources on this forum, guys like Roger Lee for example (amongst others) who would do a through and knowledgeable pre-buy inspection, including the logbooks, and I think this would be a wise move if you are new at airplane ownership and to the aircraft type. Certainly be wary of mis-information and bias. Be sure to ask those that really know.

 

Good luck in your endeavors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have about 700 hours PIC time in my 2006 CTsw.  I think it is a great plane and I think the price will be very hard to beat (provided no unpleasant surprises for that airplane).  Note that the 912 ULS crankcase was strengthened sometime during 2006 to reduce the risk of crankcase failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That price for a 2006 CTSW with full glass panel and autopilot is unheard of.  Ask about damage history.  Even with some damage history it might still be a bargain.  If you are seriously thinking a CTSW might be for you, I'd call the guy TONIGHT and start asking questions.  If it sounds on the up-and-up, offer him a refundable deposit.

 

That is Roger's neck of the woods, he might know something about that airplane.  If not, you might be able to pay him to go look at the airplane and do a pre-buy inspection.  If Roger does it, you can be sure nothing will get missed.

 

Worst case, if you fly it and hate it, you can probably flip it back around and sell it for a few grand more than what you bought it for. 

 

Also, if you buy it to train in it, make sure you get an instructor with a lot of CT experience.  The CT is not as easy to learn to land as some, but once you get the technique down, it's not hard.  And since you have no other flight experience you'll have no habits from other airplanes to unlearn.  But an instructor that knows the CT's quirks is essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only have a little time in a Remos but lots of hours in CT's.  To me the CT feels like a heavier airplane then the Remos, meaning it feels more stable especially in some turbulence.  The CT might be a little harder to land mainly due to the sight picture. The CT has such great visibility there are very few references for the pilot to use for alignment.

 

We are located in Arizona, but not familiar with the airplane.  Looks like a great deal based on price, equipment, and hours.

 

We relocate CT's all over the country so if anyone needs a ferry pilot and experienced CT instructor let us know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have owned and flown both the CTSW and the CTLS.  The CTSW has a big advantage and some smaller disadvantages v the CTLS

 

Advantages:

 

1.) Useful load.  Although not specifically mentioned in the ad, mine (as a comparative) had a 600 lb useful load.  2 grown men, a full tank of gas and you can fly for many hours.  Very capable from a utility standpoint.  The CTLS has been adding weight every year.  A fully loaded CTLSi now weighs in at about 830 pounds and has a useful load that is under 500 pounds. In 8 years from this 2007 you are looking at, the airframe has added 110 pounds! (yikes!).  A 600 pound useful load is a huge advantage.  Avionics can be upgraded if you wanted to, useful load cannot.

 

Disadvantages:

 

1.) Lack of visibility to the rear (no rear side window like the CTLS)

2.) Less interior storage (no shelf behind front seats)

3.) Landing gear.  The CTSW has springy tubular landing gear.  Landing a CTSW (or a CTLS for that matter) is a skill that is developed with practice. I'd recommend spending some time with a CFI that has CTSW experience.   The CTLS landing gear is a bit more forgiving and has better dampening if your landing is not perfect. While the CTLS or CTLSi is 14" longer I cannot honestly say I ever really noticed that difference in pitch control myself.  In either plane you become a good stick and rudder guy, both versions are of course light (in weight) and do move around a bit in changing wind conditions. 

 

Here is a tour video of my old CTSW

 

https://youtu.be/vD5mRfF1nxc

 

and a tour video of my old CTLS

 

https://youtu.be/WuomklYHC2w

 

for comparative purposes

 

A CTSW at this price point is a very good deal dependent on the history.  Useful load versus landing gear (in my opinion) is the major difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and I flew an hour south this morning to Fairmont, WV and met up with CT_MATT and his wife for breakfast at the Cracker Barrel across I-79 from the airport. I bought a peacan pie and hauled it home on my hat shelf which also makes a great pie rack. The extra room and landing gear are the major difference in the two models. The SW does have a huge area behind the bulkhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the looks of it, it seems like the utility of the hat rack would be somewhat compromised by the shoulder harnesses that occupy the same space. A pie in a box is a good use. A baseball cap or light jacket would work. But I think a cowboy hat would get crunched.

Maybe the folks that have LS's can tell us what they use their hat rack for.

As Tip says, the trade-off is a bigger baggage area behind the bulkhead instead of the hat rack in front of it. But of course, you can't get at anything behind the bulkhead in flight.

Mike Koerner 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like my SW seating position and baggage area better than the LS. 

 

It's like Chevy and Fords. You may like one, but not usually both, but they both get you to where you're going. It's all personal preference. 

I had Ford until two weeks ago now I'm a GMC guy. Who knew.  :eyebrow-1057:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on Roger's numbers, if you recalculate my above numbers for 3.4gph (1.1gph better than the 4.5gph I put in for CTSW), the CTLSi gets an endurance of 7.5hr and a range of 831nm.  So that brings you 25nm greater range at a gost of 55lb useful load.  Still not worth it, IMO.

 

My personal opinion is that the CTSW is the best airplane FD has made so far.  With the CTLS and CTLSi FD began to erode the great advantage their airplanes had over similar LSA:  very large useful load.  Now there is very little to distinguish the new FD designs from other LSA manufacturers...performance among LSA is similar, price of the FD is the same or higher, range for many LSA is similar (though honestly, anything more than three hours plus reserves is just icing).

 

I wanted a CTSW since 2007 when I first started thinking about Sport Pilot.  The combination of performance and carrying capacity was unmatched at that point.  Since that time FD has moved toward luxury appointments and away from utility.  The numbers tell the story to me, though I admit to a bias toward carrying capacity and utility in an airplane.   Others will have other opinions and priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the CTLSi gets an endurance of 7.5hr and a range of 831nm...(though honestly, anything more than three hours plus reserves is just icing).

 

 

Let me reiterate that the above still makes me quite jealous!

 

After three hours I'm getting down to about 1/8 tank (out of 17.8 usable) and my low fuel light starts flickering.

 

I think new Sky Arrows have 26.4 gals, now carried in the wings, and that would make a big difference in range, assuming a light enough load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me reiterate that the above still makes me quite jealous!

 

After three hours I'm getting down to about 1/8 tank (out of 17.8 usable) and my low fuel light starts flickering.

 

I think new Sky Arrows have 26.4 gals, now carried in the wings, and that would make a big difference in range, assuming a light enough load.

 

Don't be too jealous Eddie...I have done 4hr+ legs in my CT, it starts getting quite painful!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most LSAs can carry the extra person and some baggage but the price is usually a reduced fuel load and so shorter flight legs. For solo flights you can usually carry full fuel and so do longer legs, depending on the baggage.

 

The LSAs with lower empty weights and larger fuel tank capacity can meet theses scenarios with the best flexibility.

 

If you have a spouse/partner who enjoys flying then it helps define your personal flying 'mission' as opposed to someone who mostly flies solo.

 

This is where it's foolish to suggest one type or brand of LSA is 'better' because it usually depends on the pilot's mission and type of flying activities. 

There are LSAs from Cubs to Tecnams so it pays to examine the empty weight, avionics and other options and then run real-time actual personal numbers (your weight, passenger weight, amount of baggage, fuel capacity etc) so as to get an idea as to which models best fit your needs.

 

Then you can start searching for new, used, and those with options you might need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we first got our CTSW I could fit my girlfriend (125lbs), me (185lbs) full fuel (200lbs) and 110lbs of luggage and still not be over gross.  I saw the trend for heavier CTs as a big negative.

 

Then I gained weight  :bad_day-3329:

 

Then last year I went paleo and can fit it all again.  I only like 2 hour legs using the 34gal capacity to avoid 100LL.

 

So bottom line I would prefer this $59k CTSW to a CTLSx that costs $90k more and is less capable, but that's just me.    

 

In retrospect I can watch 2 people get out of their CT and unload their luggage and know instantly if they are over or not.  I've seen CTs arrive closer to 1500lbs than 1320.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most LSAs can carry the extra person and some baggage but the price is usually a reduced fuel load and so shorter flight legs. For solo flights you can usually carry full fuel and so do longer legs, depending on the baggage.

 

The LSAs with lower empty weights and larger fuel tank capacity can meet theses scenarios with the best flexibility.

 

If you have a spouse/partner who enjoys flying then it helps define your personal flying 'mission' as opposed to someone who mostly flies solo.

 

This is where it's foolish to suggest one type or brand of LSA is 'better' because it usually depends on the pilot's mission and type of flying activities. 

There are LSAs from Cubs to Tecnams so it pays to examine the empty weight, avionics and other options and then run real-time actual personal numbers (your weight, passenger weight, amount of baggage, fuel capacity etc) so as to get an idea as to which models best fit your needs.

 

Then you can start searching for new, used, and those with options you might need.

 

I agree totally, it's all in what you want to do!  I only speak for my opinion and priorities above, as I was careful to point out.

 

The big tanks in the CTSW are nice for when you want to avoid 100LL on a return trip or occasional long legs, but otherwise your RV-12's 20 gallons are about the right volume for normal use.  I usually fly around with both sight tubes at the top in my CT, which is around 18-22 gallons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

    

In retrospect I can watch 2 people get out of their CT and unload their luggage and know instantly if they are over or not.  I've seen CTs arrive closer to 1500lbs than 1320.

 

The CT will do "over gross" pretty well...the round-the-world CTSW pilots launched at 1675lb and made it with no problems.   :clapping_hands-1296:  

 

Not that any of us should be doing anything like that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and CT make a good points.  CTs like yours offer the chance to tanker some auto-gas to avoid topping off with 100LL Not that 100LL is the end of the world if you predominantly use auto-gas.

 

In the RV I invariably start as close to full as I can using 93 octane non-ethanol ($2.99) from local gas station. I'm always within weight and balance and it offers a max 1hour 45 leg each way out and back on that tank-full. Or…I could fly to Suffolk VA for example, where they have mo-gas on pump, and continue up to Philly area using all mo-gas. I can fill up with 100LL (and Decalin) in Philly and then refill auto gas on way back thus keeping 100LL use to a minimum.

 

There are few other fields with mo-gas on pump such as Barnwell SC, Bolivar TN (I think), and Wytheville VA up near I-81. So, when planning longer trips it can pay to develop a network of mo-gas airports to utilize.

 

So far the past 8 months I've used 100% 93 non-ethanol and got an average 4.5 gph fuel burn at 5100rpm and 118kts at 3500-4500' which I think is pretty good. Got an oil change due in early January after 50 hours since last change. Will have a look at oil tank and plugs to get an idea how it's been going.

 

It is somewhat alarming to see guys flying obviously overweight.  Just because it fits or the manual says that's the capacity, doesn't negate a weight and balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would believe Mark Gregor on this as he is a representative of Tecnam and he, and Tecnam, have considerable experience with different models using the 912 Sport engine and the 912iS sport upgrade engine.

  Mark also has a lot of experience flying LSAs with the ubiquitous 912 ULS engine so is in the position to make a much more qualified opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...