Jump to content
2018 Page Fly-in Cancelled! Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Ben2k9

CTLS vs CTSW

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

If the wing loading at gross is similar it stands to reason that the SW will more often be more heavily loaded due to more empty seats in the Skyhawk.

In the other direction I always flew the Skyhawk with full tanks but seldom do that with the CT, giving some of the advantage back to the Skyhawk.

I have owned both and give the edge to the Skyhawk but much prefer flying the CT even in turbulence.

Ed, I have quite a bit of Skyhawk time. I flew some buried telephone cable as a young commercial pilot. At one point I was putting in around 18 hours a week. I always took off with full fuel, and mostly was by myself. Even with wing loadings being closer the feel is different between the two airplanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, I mentioned the different certified allowable gross weights to promote the strength of the CT but perhaps this didn't come across as I intended.  Granted the floats add to "lift" of the CT when at 1430 lb. gross but there is also the configuration of the aircraft in the "Utility" category where it is certified for 1500+ lb gross.  I reviewed a law enforcement version of the CT configured with a FllIR night vision pod under the right wing which added drag and computer screens and special avionics inside.  Basically the same airframe and flight surfaces as the standard CTLS but with an allowed gross of at least 1500 lb.   Amazing weight carrying capability for an aircraft that has an empty weight around 850 lbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dick, being a dealer I have worked many shows through the years. I have seen the CTLE up close and personal too. Outwardly it looks the same as any other CTLS. I do know that it has modifications to the wing. I am not certain that they are just for hard points to mount equipment. There could be other changes that are not visible externally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

For example a Cassutt racer has a wing loading similar to a CT, but the overall package of the airplane is smaller. The smaller size compared to weight gives it more mass.

Warning: preachy comment coming - Two objects with the same weight also have the same mass if acceleration (e.g. gravity) is the same.  F=MA, where F=force="weight".   I think what you have in mind is density, which is mass per unit volume. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point of comparison that did not come up for CTLS vs CTSW:  The baggage bay in the LS is compromised by the configuration of the flap mechanisms to allow that hat shelf.  You can put a lot more in the baggage bay of an SW.   WF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several years back FD gave a 1600 + pound approval for the two Swiss CTLS planes to fly around the world. That tells us something about the planes capability but I'm sure there were caveats to go with that approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting chart.  I am not familiar with "power loading" factor.  How is this used?  Wondering about the wide fuselage of the CT compared to other LSA?  Is there a aerodynamic "lift" resulting from the wider fuselage and does this reduce the dynamic wing loading during flight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power loading along and wing loading give you a way to compare performance. For aircraft with equivalent wing loadings, the one with the lower power loading will climb better.  An aircraft with both lower power and wing loadings will takeoff and land in shorter distances than the other and climb better. 

For the type of airplanes and the flight regime we fly, I suspect the lift contribution from the fuselages is small and can be ignored.   I've never seen it considered when computing wing loading.  Both wing loading and power loading are generally computed at max values (max weight and max HP), though it obviously does vary in the real world where both weight and HP are changing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for LSA planes , power loading is pretty much always the same ( assuming all of them are using Rotax 912ULS  - which is pretty much the case 90% of time .)

Wing loading varies based on the wing surface area but , still, not that much difference - all of LSA planes need to stall at a pretty low air speed which means none of them can have heavy wing loading values. 

So the only real difference is how aerodynamically clean varius LSA are ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2018 at 4:28 PM, Tom Baker said:

The goal of the CTLS when introduced was to transform it from a twitchy feeling light airplane to something more like a 172. They went overboard on the ailerons. It has been said the comparison between a CTSW and a CTLS is like a sports car compared to a sedan. With the early CTLS the comparison is more like a sports car to a dump truck in my opinion. I only flew 2 different early CTLS's, so my sample size is pretty small.

The later CTLS aileron control system is more like the CTSW. Pitch is a little more subdued in the CTLS, but it still requires a light touch. The yaw characteristics of the CTLS is one of the things I like about it over the CTSW. With the CTSW when you need some rudder it is really easy to add to much causing excess yaw. With the CTLS it is easier to add rudder without over doing it. The yaw thing is both personal experience and observation while flight instructing.

 

Tom,

spoke to someone selling a 2008 CTLS and asked about the ailerons. He said it had a horizontal aileron. Is this the type you were referring to that you thought had poor handling characteristics?  He said his handled well, FWIW.

thx

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ben2k9 said:

Tom,

spoke to someone selling a 2008 CTLS and asked about the ailerons. He said it had a horizontal aileron. Is this the type you were referring to that you thought had poor handling characteristics?  He said his handled well, FWIW.

thx

 

They all have flaperons.  I don't think 'horizontal ailerons' is a thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Warmi said:

So for LSA planes , power loading is pretty much always the same ( assuming all of them are using Rotax 912ULS  - which is pretty much the case 90% of time .)

Wing loading varies based on the wing surface area but , still, not that much difference - all of LSA planes need to stall at a pretty low air speed which means none of them can have heavy wing loading values. 

So the only real difference is how aerodynamically clean varius LSA are ...

There is that but there is also more.  Yaw stability, trim stability, rudder authority, and the types of flaps make for some pretty interesting differences even among the ones listed in the table.  (I've flown all three.). For me ,the most interesting thing about the power loading is how it compares to other airplanes that most pilots know about.  Most people are surprised to learn the CT has the same power loading as a 200 HP Piper Arrow or a Turbo C-182.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ben2k9 said:

Tom,

spoke to someone selling a 2008 CTLS and asked about the ailerons. He said it had a horizontal aileron. Is this the type you were referring to that you thought had poor handling characteristics?  He said his handled well, FWIW.

thx

 

Looking at the outside of the airplane you wouldn't be able to tell any difference. The flap actuator and aileron mixing in the baggage is where the difference is. Also the AP servo installation is different if it has AP. I suspect any serial number that is 08-03-** or before will have the heavy ailerons, but I am not 100% positive on the cut off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

Looking at the outside of the airplane you wouldn't be able to tell any difference. The flap actuator and aileron mixing in the baggage is where the difference is. Also the AP servo installation is different if it has AP. I suspect any serial number that is 08-03-** or before will have the heavy ailerons, but I am not 100% positive on the cut off.

So a serial number that starts with 07 would definitely have the aileron system you compared with driving a dump truck?

thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

08-03-06 here (N566FD), don't have the heavy aileron system.

08-03-07 however (N26KJ), has the heavy system.

The first number is the year of manufacture, the second is the month of manufacture, the third number is unique to each aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anticept said:

08-03-06 here (N566FD), don't have the heavy aileron system.

08-03-07 however (N26KJ), has the heavy system.

The first number is the year of manufacture, the second is the month of manufacture, the third number is unique to each aircraft.

Do you concur with Tom Baker that this heavy aileron system is not as desirable for flying enjoyment?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't fly 26KJ. It's certainly stiffer.

Having flown a Mooney, which are quite stiff on the controls at speed, stiff controls were something I didn't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×