CTLS vs. Remos GX?

[twmatthias]

I was wondering if someone with time in both a CTLS and a Remos GX might compare the handling of these two aircraft for our flying club. We know about the fuel tank position and folding wing issues, but we would like to know how the handling of the GX compares with the CTLS. Is GX cockpit as roomy? Are there other important things we should be comparing?

 

Thanks in advance for your responses. They will help us to narrow our evaluation of LSA aircraft.

 

Theo

[gbigs]

I was wondering if someone with time in both a CTLS and a Remos GX might compare the handling of these two aircraft for our flying club. We know about the fuel tank position and folding wing issues, but we would like to know how the handling of the GX compares with the CTLS. Is GX cockpit as roomy? Are there other important things we should be comparing?

 

Thanks in advance for your responses. They will help us to narrow our evaluation of LSA aircraft.

 

Theo

 

They are essentially the same aircraft dependent on panel and engine (if both have a 912ULS).  The Remos will have a smaller cockpit and has wing struts versus the no strut wing of the CT. The Remos may be a slightly better trainer since part of it is metal construction.  But the FD does  (or did) make an MT, metal trainer version of the CT.

[FlyingMonkey]

What part of the GX is metal, the bolts?  The wings and fuselage are both composite.  In the G600 the wing was cloth.  I don't know of any metal Remos airplane.

[gbigs]

I was referring to the foldable wings and their metal wing struts and metal hinges, metal hinges on the flaps and ailerons.  When I saw one once I thought I remembered metal flaps and it had a metal chrome spinner.... The cockpit is only 46 inches wide versus the CT 49.  Both planes fly with the same avionics and the same Rotax 912ULS, the new models have the 912iS engine.

 

The Remos also has the same tail design with dorsal fin, the elevator is lower on the tail.  The nosewheel is near the exact same as the CT.  The windshield is idential, it even wraps up over the roof the same.  And the doors open the same and bulge out slightly like the CT.  The pod like cockpit is the same as the CT.

 

Even more fun?  Both Remos and FD are brothers in bankruptcy.

[Roger Lee]

The CT is more roomy (49.5" cockpit) and has more storage space. It flys faster and farther. It comes standard with a BRS chute. The Remos is a little more docile in its handling. I have flown both and prefer the CT. The CT if needed will handle more weight than the normal 1320 lbs.with no issues. 

[Runtoeat]

I trained in a CTSW but flew the Remos GX.about 15 hours after getting my Sport Pilot license.  I now have about 700 hours in the CTSW and about 150 hours in the CTLS.  Remos "likes" - It was a nice flying aircraft and landed with less input required on the controls compared to the CTSW and CTLS,   The Remos' steerable nose wheel took much less pedal effort during taxi. It has foldable wings which I feel is advantageous since this allows trailering and sharing a hanger with another aircraft or storage in one's garage. There was a bowden cable control for regulating airflow to the radiator.   "Dislikes" -  visibility out the front was much less than the CT due to a square instrument panel which was positioned higher up relative to the pilot.  Visibility out the side was the feature which I found most problematic.  I am about 5' 9" and I had to actually duck my head down to see out past the upper side window frame. The foldable wing and the wing's thicker cross section contributed to this.  The fuse panel was exposed and the fuses could be dislodged when moving in/out of the cabin.  The cabin was much narrower.  Entry/exit from the cabin took more flexibility due to the smaller door opening.  The fuel tank was behind the seat and it held about 23 gallons, as I recall, so the range was much less than the CT.  Constantly could hear the fuel sloshing when under way.  I believe that the Remos weighed more than the CTSW.  Airspeed was approx. 115kts. max.  More drag from wing struts?

[twmatthias]

Excellent feedback, folks!

 

Thank you so much.

 

Theo

[Runtoeat]

Theo, the folding wings are probably handy for those who need this feature but this feature comes with a large CAUTION flag.  There have been fatal accidents resulting from the failure to install the locking pins back into the wings before flight.  This is something to consider if the mission for the aircraft is to be flown by low hour pilots or pilots who are renting and perhaps in a hurry to get into the air to get their money's worth and fail to go thru a check list.  My summary - the Remos and CT look similar exterior wise but the CT has much more to offer.  The CT has more speed, excellent comfort (i.e., wide cabin (wider than a 172 cessna which means wide and tall persons fit), entry/exit (larger doors), view out the front and sides is much better and range is exceptional (33 gal compared to 24).

[frfly172]

The Remos is a fine Lsa,nice handling,very similar to the ct line. The CTs are a little roomier with more storage space,also finish isn't as nice as the CTs. Don't need the folding wings,also don't like the wing struts. Resale of the Remos seems to be going down.

[207WF]

I only flew the Remos a bit, but I agree with the above.  Its main advantage is more Cessna-like handling in the pattern.  Witness all the discussion on this forum about the more subtle approach required to reliably land a CT.  But of course, once you get over that the CT wins hands down. WF

[gbigs]

The new Remos GXiS is at Oshkosh.  The new features are the 912iS, the one-button start (which is silly), the combined Throttle/Brake, the Dynon Touch and most interesting the Garmin GTN 750.  The plane looks like it is 2020 ADS-B compliant and IFR equipped (minus the lightning protection mesh of course) but I didn't see the ILS whisker antennae on the plane and few specs are available yet..

[frfly172]

Both good aircraft,the ctls has it over in the room department. Both handle well.now that their both going with the Is engine ,it should be interesting.

[Howardnmn]

i have been flying my 2012 Remos for 4 years. Empty weight is 740lbs with dual dynons/garmin 696, magnum chute & autopilot. I've only flown CT once but my impression is the Remos is quite a bit simpler and easy easier to land. I'm 6' and have had no trouble seeing side to side. (clearing turn)   One reason the side window may be lower is that the Remos has doors that are designed to be jettisoned in case of forced landing. They also come off easily for open-door flight.  The fuel system is extremely simple. One ethanol-resistant tank in fuselage. no ladder requiredl. no switching tanks. i don't shut off single fuel valve when parked. no rainwater in fuel. The cockpit controlled flap-over-oil cooler makes for faster warm ups. I never fold the wings but like the feature for (theoretical) long term storage in garage. The build quality is absolutely superb (e.g., check out the four machined flap hinges per wing). The steel landing gear in newer models is pretty good at absorbing a bad landing.  I believe the relatively light weight, simple systems and forgiving handling make it a very safe plane. The newer wing on the GX makes for great turbulence penetration. the long empennage and large tail feathers is very good for x-winds. today i cruised at 120kts TAS at 5300rpm. i've never let cramped.  

 

just my 2 cents

[airhound]

Hi,

Your thoughts please on any or all thank you!

Topic is Remos GX vs CTLS

Compare similarly equipped aircraft on:

Resale

Ease of maintenance and parts support

Longer cross country comfort

Design and ease of coordinated flight/landing just short of practice practice practice

Real issue examples regarding less fuel as well as baggage space

BRS vs Magnum maintenance

[gbigs]

Hi,

Your thoughts please on any or all thank you!

Topic is Remos GX vs CTLS

Compare similarly equipped aircraft on:

Resale

Ease of maintenance and parts support

Longer cross country comfort

Design and ease of coordinated flight/landing just short of practice practice practice

Real issue examples regarding less fuel as well as baggage space

BRS vs Magnum maintenance

 

Check into the Remos GXiS.  That plane will be fully comparable to the CTLSi and will no doubt be a little more appealing since Remos is in business and FD is not.

[Runtoeat]

I have flown the Remos GX, as mentioned in this thread.  FWIW, my personal impression was the GX is a well engineered aircraft which flew well and landed "normally" with no surprises encountered.  I felt that the GX fell short of the CTLS in some critical areas such as range, cockpit room/comfort/safety (due to the fuel tank being located behind the seats and the tendency in a crash is for everything to want to go forward), lack of storage (no stowage in the rear fuselage) and airspeed.  Looking at the specs for the GXIS on the Remos website, it appears that the new GXiS has similar shortcomings, compared to the CTLSi.  GXiS range is published at 526 NM and fuel capacity is 22.2 gallons while the CTLSi has a fuel capacity of 32 gallons with range of about 825 miles.  Max cruise speed for the GXiS is published at 110kias (wing struts increase drag) and cabin width at 47 in. while the CTLSi has a speed of 120kias and a cabin width of 49 inches.  Even small amounts of additional width and length of the cabin greatly adds to comfort, especially on long trips with a passenger aboard. Since the fuel tank is located behind the passengers in the Remos, I dont recall the GX having equal cabin length and it had no baggage space as do all CT's.  Due to the cabin setup, the seats seemed to be too upright for me and did not allow back angle adjustment, like the CTLS provides.  Also, the GX had a high and squared instrument panel and the side windows were not as large as the CTLS, making the CTLS better for viewing out the windshield and side windows.  I'm making the assumption that the GX and GXiS cabins are similar with similar instrument panel.  One item the Remos had that I feel the CTLS needs is a bowden cable controlled adjustable shutter which allows adjustment of airflow to the radiators for hot or cold environments.  Competition is always a good thing and it is good to see that Remos is again being offered as a possible choice for those interested in SLSA ownership and that there is now a place in the U.S. where current Remos owners can obtain parts and service for their aircraft.

[rtk]

One minor correction about the Remos:  There is luggage space, but it's behind the left seat.  It's suitable for duffle bags or golf bag as it's long, but narrow.  The CTLS definitely has more usable luggage room (not to mention range and performance).  But I have to admit that I trained in the Remos GX and it's a competent, "no surprises" aircraft.  And it can be flown without the doors, if that's of any particular interest to the OP.

[Runtoeat]

rtk, thank you for the correction regarding cargo space.  There are versions of the CTLS which can be flown with the doors removed.  My friend's 2008 CTLS is one one of these.  It is fun to cruise without doors but I found out quickly that it isn't a good idea to stick one's arm out to point something out!

.

[rtk]

My friend's 2008 CTLS is one one of these.  It is fun to cruise without doors but I found out quickly that it isn't a good idea to stick one's arm out to point something out!

.no doors3_avitar_090624.jpg

 

LOL!  I'll bet!  

 

And thank you for advising about the CTs having the option to fly without doors.  Maybe I'm not so adventurous, but I'd want those doors closed and secure!  

[Tom Baker]

In regards to flying with the doors off, it is only legal if it is approved in the POH/AOI. Even though some CT's were delivered with removable doors, the CT series airplanes do not have this approval in the manual. It is approved in some of the Remos manuals.

[Runtoeat]

Tom, thanks for the comments.  There are no cautions, to my knowledge, for flying without the doors in the POH. The owner/operator of a CTLS which came from the factory with doors designed to be removed and with a POH which makes no statements cautioning against doing so during flight, might consider it permissible to fly without the doors?  Not trying to be argumentative but when the CTLS was purchased, the distributor who sold the CT pointed out that the doors were removable and comments were made how fun it was to fly this way.  At the time, flight without doors was encouraged and no mention was made that this was unsafe nor were there any comments made that this should not be done.

[Tom Baker]

Tom, thanks for the comments.  There are no cautions, to my knowledge, for flying without the doors in the POH. The owner/operator of a CTLS which came from the factory with doors designed to be removed and with a POH which makes no statements cautioning against doing so during flight, might consider it permissible to fly without the doors?

 

The manual has to specifically say you can fly with the doors off for it to be legal. I know there has been pressure in the past to approve flight with the doors removed, but nothing has happened.

At least one version of the manual I looked at for the Remos did approve flight with the doors removed.

[Runtoeat]

OK.  Thanks Tom.

[Roger Lee]

I can tell you it isn't fun to fly with the doors off. First air speed needs to be kept down under 90 and the wind factor is bad enough that hearing and talking on the radio is a PITA. You can't have anything in the cabin that can be moved or blown by wind. Even your glasses are affected.  Don't bother going there.

[FlyingMonkey]

I can tell you it isn't fun to fly with the doors off. First air speed needs to be kept down under 90 and the wind factor is bad enough that hearing and talking on the radio is a PITA. You can't have anything in the cabin that can be moved or blown by wind. Even your glasses are affected.  Don't bother going there.

 

It might be fun on an ELSA CT to get a pair of doors from a wrecked plane to experiment with.  You could replace the full side windows with sliding half windows or something.  There is probably some amount of door/window coverage and shaping for which flying would be pleasant.  Or just make some clear "patrol doors" out of tubing and lexan.  They would not do well in a crash, but what a view!