Tip Posted March 27, 2019 Report Share Posted March 27, 2019 https://flightdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/PF25106001_00.pdf https://flightdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/PF25106002_00.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted March 27, 2019 Report Share Posted March 27, 2019 Was surprised the CTSW is not included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted March 27, 2019 Report Share Posted March 27, 2019 4 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said: Was surprised the CTSW is not included. Me too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted March 27, 2019 Report Share Posted March 27, 2019 Different bulkhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted March 28, 2019 Report Share Posted March 28, 2019 They don’t make’m like they used to. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted March 28, 2019 Report Share Posted March 28, 2019 13 hours ago, WmInce said: They don’t make’m like they used to. . . Or FD is just not interested in spending engineering dollars on airframes they no longer sell, which is understandable. it sounds like the attach points were plenty strong, they just wanted more margin. I wonder if accident(s) resulting in broken or stressed attach points prompted this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted March 28, 2019 Report Share Posted March 28, 2019 1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said: Or FD is just not interested in spending engineering dollars on airframes they no longer sell, which is understandable. it sounds like the attach points were plenty strong, they just wanted more margin. I wonder if accident(s) resulting in broken or stressed attach points prompted this. Different design. The CTSW has 2 attach points for the shoulder harness per seat the CTLS only has 1. The stress on the attachment for the CTLS is greater because of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted March 30, 2019 Report Share Posted March 30, 2019 I love seeing all these warnings for Flight Design aircraft mostly leaving our brilliant CTSW’s out of the mix! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 On 3/29/2019 at 10:01 PM, Buckaroo said: I love seeing all these warnings for Flight Design aircraft mostly leaving our brilliant CTSW’s out of the mix! Don't get too smug. I had to remove my horizontal stab and send it back to the factory to fix a flutter problem, which was fixed in the CTLS by not using a full span anti-servo tab. All airplanes have their issues... All CTs are brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmi Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 Speaking of superiority if FD designs... I keep hearing that FD planes are hard to land in windy conditions , not just compared to GA planes but also to other LSAs ... having only 1 hour in the make and only during resonably nice weather I am curious if others who have experience with variety of LSA can confirm or deny it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGLyme Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 I am brand new to the CT... I transitioned from a Piper Cub and a Kappa, another Light Sport. Comparing the 3... a Cub is a Cub... widely known fun airplane, but, it is a tail dragger and one needs to learn the finer points. The Cub, unlike the 172's and Piper Cherokees of old, is a major rudder plane. The feet are moving and they are moving a lot. In cross-windy conditions the pucker factor is real. Hardest plane I have ever flown to date in my short flying career. The Kappa was "easier" than the Cub to land, but still required active rudder inputs due to its light design. The CT "was" harder to land than the Kappa at first because there is no solid frame of reference out the windshield, meaning, the visibility is so good, there is no spinner point to guide the pilot down the center of the runway. With experience, the center point becomes old hat, i.e. I don't think about it anymore. The landing gear in the CTLS model is very forgiving. After flying the CT for about 30 hours now... I am comfortable landing the plane. One interesting point, every pilot that has seen me take off in the CTLS tells me they are amazed at the excellent climb out. I believe they are comparing the CT to the C-150/152 as a frame of reference due to the size comparison. If you only have 1 hour in a CT, then make your own opinion at say... hour 10... I believe you will agree with my analysis above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 46 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said: Don't get too smug. I had to remove my horizontal stab and send it back to the factory to fix a flutter problem, which was fixed in the CTLS by not using a full span anti-servo tab. All airplanes have their issues... All CTs are brilliant. What were the signs first felt or observed of the flutter problem? Have others had this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 3 hours ago, Warmi said: Speaking of superiority if FD designs... I keep hearing that FD planes are hard to land in windy conditions , not just compared to GA planes but also to other LSAs ... having only 1 hour in the make and only during resonably nice weather I am curious if others who have experience with variety of LSA can confirm or deny it ... The airplane being harder to land lies with the pilot. Most pilots tense up in those conditions, and this tends to lead to bigger movements of the control stick. The bigger movements you make with the stick the harder the airplane is to land. With small quick and relaxed control inputs the airplane is easy to land in rough windy conditions, getting pilots to do this is the hard part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 4 hours ago, Buckaroo said: What were the signs first felt or observed of the flutter problem? Have others had this? There have been a couple, but not many. Search the forum, I don't want to rehash it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 I think the CT is harder than a lot of airplanes to land. I also think it will make you a better pilot because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 9 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said: There have been a couple, but not many. Search the forum, I don't want to rehash it here. I’ll search it thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 All light sports are 'harder to land' because of their light weight. Very light aircraft are more effected by wind shear and they have minimal kinetic energy in storage for stability. The CT is easier than it might be if it was a tailgater. For a light sport the CT is a low drag design and harder to land than many light sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 I have found, one major obstacle to overcome, in learning to land the CT, is to avoid “over controlling.” That is . . putting too much correction in. Over controlling leads to ballooning, especially if too much energy (airspeed) is carried into the landing flare. Pitch corrections should be smooth and deliberate, but not excessive. Perhaps Eric can weigh in on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 I think the CT is an easy plane to land except for full flaps. Never liked the feel of all that drag and pitch change. It does have its place tho! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmi Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 Well, I own a low wing Sting and I found it easier to land than the Remos I trained in ... but I keep hearing that CTs are harder to land then Remos aircrafts and so on but I think Tom is right - you just need some time in the make to get used to it and over time you will find it easy to handle as well - ultimately none of these planes are death traps requiring super-human skills to manage. The one thing I found easier with low wings is the fact I can sense the ground effect better - it is almost like a cushion that I can rely on and thus I am more comfortable flying my plane at a steeper angle into the runway ,and as long I have some energy in the bank, I can reliably flare .. I could do the same thing with a Remos but I had harder time judging my flare for some reason ... Anyway, there is a guy at C56 with a CTLS - gonna have to make friends with him to try to fly with him in some less forgiving conditions ... should be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, Buckaroo said: I think the CT is an easy plane to land except for full flaps. Never liked the feel of all that drag and pitch change. It does have its place tho! Nice to have it in your toolbox though, in the event you ever need it. Every once in a while, during calm wind conditions, I practice a few flaps 40° landings, just for proficiency. Actually, I think there is very little difference in landing perfomance, between flaps 40° and flaps 30° (CTSW). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQ CTLS Posted April 3, 2019 Report Share Posted April 3, 2019 Parts for the Seat Belt Reinforcement are free from Flight Design here in the USA. You have to pay for shipping ($12 for me in New Mexico). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.