ISO CTLS 2008 - 2012

[Trip]

Private Pilot searching for a CTLS.   Cash purchase.   Message here or email PilotguyPa28@yahoo.com

Prefer private sale.

Thanks in advance!

[FlyingMonkey]

There are typically a few for sale at any given time, you should be able to find what you're looking for.  Good luck with the search!

[Roger Lee]

Just talked to Jim today. He has a 2013 CTLS with only 50 hours on it. Owner took sick and has not been able to get well enough to fly.

 

Jim Scott

Aircore Aviation

17904 59th Dr NE

Arlington, WA 98223

360-815-2512

aircoreav.com

[Tom Baker]

I'm thinking it might be time to put my CTLS on the market.

[FlyingMonkey]

10 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

I'm thinking it might be time to put my CTLS on the market.

[Tom Baker]

51 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Purely a business decision.

[WmInce]

1 hour ago, Tom Baker said:

Purely a business decision.

Maybe a good trade-in on a nice CTSW.

Purely a practical decision.

[Trip]

I've gotten some replies.  Feel free to email me.   

[Trip]

Still looking.   Had 2 sellers tell me NDH then when I got the log books there was DAMAGE!   Are people that stupid to think I'm stupid?  

[Runtoeat]

Trip, the people you mention may hope you are napping if they claim no damage yet there's damage noted in the log books.  There are also unscrupulous sellers who will hope the buyer may not be familiar with the composite structure of the Flight Design aircraft and may not be totally forthcoming about damage which is not listed in the logs.  I don't know if you are familiar with the Flight Design or if you are a mechanic who has worked on Flight Design?  If you have not been involved by flying one and/or doesn't have a friend or associate who owns one, perhaps you might consider getting a pre-buy inspection done by someone who knows the aircraft, if there might be such a person in your area.  There have been a couple of Flight Designs purchased by people I know that incurred damage done by the previous owner that was not detected until the first yearly conditional done by the new owner.  Sometimes, it is hard to detect damage on a composite aircraft.

[Trip]

Thanks Dick.  I've owned before but not a LSA.  There is a Rotax Authorized shop 50 miles from me who has seen a good many CTs so any potential purchase will to straight there after I look at the log books and agree on a price and terms.   One of these sellers had a proble getting his log books to me in order and without skipping pages.  They tried again and didn't do much better.  However, there was damage from a hard landing very obvious in the log book.  I sent them an email asking if there was any damage history (I knew there was) and there reply was a definite no.   At that point I'm not interested anymore.  You could cut the price in half and I'm still not interested.   Something will show up eventually.  

[Runtoeat]

Good plan to use the nearby Rotax repair facility.  The CTSW, with aluminum main gear struts (CTLS is composite) and all LSA with light front gear structure can be "tweaked" if allowed to "drop in" during landings.  CTSW main gear are especially vulnerable to this and it is not uncommon to see one with a wing lower than the other due to having a bent aluminum main gear leg.  It is important to closely examine the front and main gear, the firewall and the nearby lower fuselage and the fuselage where the main gear enters (both the CTSW and CTLS).   If you buy a Flight Design, I think you'll be surprised at the capabilities it offers.

[Trip]

Thanks for the tips!   I am beginning to think of how much I'm making in the stock market and do I want to withdraw to buy an airplane.  Ha!

[DocRon]

I upgraded my CTLS for a CTLSi earlier this year.  Too many offerings had been used in a flight school (with many hard landings.) I finally found a one-owner  Some people did not say or publish a NDH claim.  However, in their logbooks were some very abbreviated entries about damage.  One entry read "replaced right wing" and nothing else!

Scrutinize logbooks with everything you've got!  Very brief and abbreviated logbook entries are (in my opinion) a bad sign.

Saw a poster once with a beautiful woman on it.  The caption was "No matter how good she looks some guy is sick and tired of putting up with her crap."

No matter how good it looks, make sure the history shows what you want to see.  The logbook should tell the truth.  Good Luck.

[WmInce]

35 minutes ago, DocRon said:

No matter how good it looks, make sure the history shows what you want to see.  The logbook should tell the truth.

This is where Roger Lee's philosophy on logbook write up's really shines.

[Anticept]

3 hours ago, DocRon said:

One entry read "replaced right wing" and nothing else!

I am curious as to what you would have written though, idea wise. If it was literally replacing a damaged wing, then just about all that belongs in the maintenance logs is replacement of it, verified that lines are hooked up, torqued bolts for the pins, etc... And that the attachment points were inspected and found clean.

The actual incident itself should be documented separately. I strongly disagree with putting any sort of lengthy descriptions of the damage in the maintenance logs themselves. Separate documentation with pictures, descriptions, etc is far better than tried to read a logbook entry about it, and a lot more useful to people too.

That all said, I do agree though that entry provides almost no useful information. It's so vague. Maybe "replaced right wing" means remove and install. Took it off to work on something, and put it back on. No idea.

 

Also, with something as critical as a wing, you definitely want to record the TIS on that entry. Spar ADs are uncommon but do exist on many airplanes in the certified world. There may be a day where CTs get an SD for the spars, and you need accurate time.

[Runtoeat]

9 hours ago, Trip said:

Thanks for the tips!   I am beginning to think of how much I'm making in the stock market and do I want to withdraw to buy an airplane.  Ha!

Trip, don't forget, "what goes up must come down".  This applies to both stocks and airplanes!

[Trip]

But I’m making 20%+ so a $100k airplane will effectively have cost me $125k in a year (plus expenses of course) and $150k in 2 years, etc.  ?

[Roger Lee]

Repair work should be very detailed otherwise how do you or anyone else know what was done or not done. you getting a pig in the poke. The logbook is a legal document that describes anything that happens to an aircraft whether it be normal preventative maint. or things like breakage or accident parts repair. Separate documents are legally binding. The logbook can't be destroyed a separate piece of paper can be destroyed. Good detailed documentation puts the repairman or A&P at the top of the list, putting in a 2-3 liner for major work may be legal, but you're the bottom 10%. Just like Doc's, lawyers, police, courts, ect... there is no good excuse for poor lackluster in detail documentation other than laziness or you just do have a glue. I bet everyone here can raise their hand because someone in their life produced poor documentation on something (may not be aircraft related, but still poor documentation). Who's car do you want to buy. The guy with every piece of paper ever generated on that vehicle or the guy that can't remember when he even changed oil last.

Good detailed documentation also protects the repairman and owner in court against civil suits, FAA, insurance companies and or a criminal complaint for gross incompetence.

I'll take a plane that has detailed documentation any day over the 2-3 liners. At least I know what was done and if the book is detailed there is a better chance the work performed was more detailed over a nothing logbook label which may mean poor quality maint. I see this poor quality all the time. The average person unfortunately is lazy.

The FAA says their definition is the lowest legal requirement and considers it the bottom of the bucket and encourages better more detailed documentation.

Ask yourself this question: If you had nothing to judge an aircraft's maint. on over the last 10 years, but the logbook what type of documentation would you want. 2-3 liners or good detailed logbooks. If all you see is 2-3 liners then you know nothing that was done to that plane. Now give that owner $100K for the plane you know nothing about.

So you get to argue that you want to be at the bottom 10% of the documents or argue you want to be in the top 10%.

 

 

[bmar]

Trip,

Did you see this CTLS yet? 

[Tom Baker]

51 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

 The logbook is a legal document that describes anything that happens to an aircraft whether it be normal preventative maint. or things like breakage or accident parts repair. Separate documents are legally binding. The logbook can't be destroyed a separate piece of paper can be destroyed.

The only legal requirement is to have the last time something was performed. There is no legal requirement to hace everything from day one on a aircraft. If you change a tire you can remove the last tire change from the records. You do a condition inspection the last condition inspection can be removed from the records. A 100 hour/annual inspection on the Rotax engine can be removed from the records as soon as the next one is completed.

There is a difference between what is legally required and what most aircraft owners want. Most people are like yourself and think that all of the records must be kept from day one, and that simply isn't true.

[bmar]

I might possibly sell mine, 2011 no damage ADS-B in/out, 290 hours.  I’m looking at a 182T or cirrus for family trips. 

Havent decided when I’ll move over. I absolutely love the CTLS. I’m trying to see if it would make since to keep the CTLS for fun local flights and have a 4 seater for cross county. Dreaming

[Roger Lee]

"There is no legal requirement to hace everything from day one on a aircraft. If you change a tire you can remove the last tire change from the records. You do a condition inspection the last condition inspection can be removed from the records. A 100 hour/annual inspection on the Rotax engine can be removed from the records as soon as the next one is completed.

There is a difference between what is legally required and what most aircraft owners want. Most people are like yourself and think that all of the records must be kept from day one, and that simply isn't true."

 

You're right, but what fool would buy an aircraft with only the last entry from the past 10-40 years.

 

[Tom Baker]

2 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

You're right, but what fool would buy an aircraft with only the last entry from the past 10-40 years.

Someone who truly knows and understands airplanes. As long as all the documentation that is legally required to be documented is there, it shouldn't really matter. 10 year old entries for tire changes, oil changes, compression checks, or even inspections really are not important to the overall condition of the aircraft. Overall condition of the aircraft is what is really important, not having a pile of page long maintenance entries. regardless of what most think paperwork is not what makes an airplane fly.

[Roger Lee]

But the the last logbook entry may end up 100+ pages long because you have to show that AD's and certain required work was done. So if you delete the last entry then you have to log that it was done and you then own everybody else work. If the next guy is a 3 line slacker on his entry then you would have to go back to the begining of time of that plane to make sure every mandatory item was done and you would never know when certain preventative things were done.

So this instance would be one idiot leading the other.

 

I don't see anyone standing up here and say I want the bottom 10% for my Doc., my lawyer, my accountant,  the judge, the police officer, ect... We all expect better performance why not demand that same thing we want from other professions in our mechanics. If we are here talking about it why don't we all rise up to do better than we do now.