A friend and I were discussing the Flight Design CT2K and CTSW LSA's
and he mentioned that he had read in Wikipedia that "The CTSW is
reported to be somewhat more challenging to fly than other LSA, owing
to the higher wing loading and low drag; the low drag increases speed
but requires additional planning in the decent."

Now, I am NOT touting Wikipedia as a source of pilot reports, but I am
wondering if anyone in the group has "first hand" experience flying
the CTSW and could comment on this assertion.

I have heard repeatedly that most of the LSA's out there do not
handle as benignly as a Cessna 150 or a Cherokee 140, but I have never
heard that a CTSW was anymore challenging than the rest of the LSA's.
It would be great is Jay, the group's favorite inn-keeper (who has
mentioned flying the CTSW) or others with actual experience could
comment.

Thanks in advance and blue skies to you all . . .

John

YEEESH . . . what I meant to type was: It would be great IF Jay, the
group's favorite inn-keeper (who has
mentioned flying the CTSW) or others with actual experience could
comment.

Sorry for the typo.

Blue skies . . .

John

John wrote:
> A friend and I were discussing the Flight Design CT2K and CTSW LSA's
> and he mentioned that he had read in Wikipedia that "The CTSW is
> reported to be somewhat more challenging to fly than other LSA, owing
> to the higher wing loading and low drag; the low drag increases speed
> but requires additional planning in the decent."
>
> Now, I am NOT touting Wikipedia as a source of pilot reports, but I am
> wondering if anyone in the group has "first hand" experience flying
> the CTSW and could comment on this assertion.
>
> I have heard repeatedly that most of the LSA's out there do not
> handle as benignly as a Cessna 150 or a Cherokee 140, but I have never
> heard that a CTSW was anymore challenging than the rest of the LSA's.
> It would be great is Jay, the group's favorite inn-keeper (who has
> mentioned flying the CTSW) or others with actual experience could
> comment.

Since nobody else is jumping in...

Keep in mind I'm a student and my experience is limited.
I have about 35 hours of training in an Evektor Sportstar,
about 2 hours in a 2005 CTSW and another hour in a 2006
CTSW. I have a new CTSW on order which will be delivered
in a couple weeks.

First of all, the 2006 CTSW is much nicer to fly than
the 2005. Flight Design made significant changes to
the rudder on the 2006, and in general it just feels
more balanced and intuitive than the 2005.

Compared with the Sportstar, the CTSW a bit of a handful.
It's much faster, probably about 20-25 knots for the
same rpm, and it has something like a 15 or 16 to 1
glide ratio and the controls are more sensitive.
I was joking with my instructor, that on the CTSW,
the throttle will either make the plane go up or fly
level, but not go down. As a result, things happen
faster and energy management on landing is more
of an issue than with the Sportstar. The CTSW can
do an extreme slip and the technique is very effective
for adjusting landing speed.

My instructor comes from an ultralight background and
is very big on rudder technique. He claims that in
general, GA pilots are rather weak in that area and
need a fair amount of transition training to light
sport.

All that said, I really like both the SportStar
and the CTSW. The SportStar is a marvelous trainer
with straightforward and predictable behavior.
The CTSW is better suited to long-distance cruising
with very responsive controls.

On Mar 8, 5:17 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> John wrote:
> > A friend and I were discussing the Flight Design CT2K and CTSW LSA's
> > and he mentioned that he had read in Wikipedia that "The CTSW is
> > reported to be somewhat more challenging to fly than other LSA, owing
> > to the higher wing loading and low drag; the low drag increases speed
> > but requires additional planning in the decent."
>
> > Now, I am NOT touting Wikipedia as a source of pilot reports, but I am
> > wondering if anyone in the group has "first hand" experience flying
> > the CTSW and could comment on this assertion.
>
> > I have heard repeatedly that most of the LSA's out there do not
> > handle as benignly as a Cessna 150 or a Cherokee 140, but I have never
> > heard that a CTSW was anymore challenging than the rest of the LSA's.
> > It would be great is Jay, the group's favorite inn-keeper (who has
> > mentioned flying the CTSW) or others with actual experience could
> > comment.
>
> Since nobody else is jumping in...
>
> Keep in mind I'm a student and my experience is limited.
> I have about 35 hours of training in anEvektorSportstar,
> about 2 hours in a 2005 CTSW and another hour in a 2006
> CTSW. I have a new CTSW on order which will be delivered
> in a couple weeks.
>
> First of all, the 2006 CTSW is much nicer to fly than
> the 2005. Flight Design made significant changes to
> the rudder on the 2006, and in general it just feels
> more balanced and intuitive than the 2005.
>
> Compared with the Sportstar, the CTSW a bit of a handful.
> It's much faster, probably about 20-25 knots for the
> same rpm, and it has something like a 15 or 16 to 1
> glide ratio and the controls are more sensitive.
> I was joking with my instructor, that on the CTSW,
> the throttle will either make the plane go up or fly
> level, but not go down. As a result, things happen
> faster and energy management on landing is more
> of an issue than with the Sportstar. The CTSW can
> do an extreme slip and the technique is very effective
> for adjusting landing speed.
>
> My instructor comes from an ultralight background and
> is very big on rudder technique. He claims that in
> general, GA pilots are rather weak in that area and
> need a fair amount of transition training to light
> sport.
>
> All that said, I really like both the SportStar
> and the CTSW. The SportStar is a marvelous trainer
> with straightforward and predictable behavior.
> The CTSW is better suited to long-distance cruising
> with very responsive controls.

Hello,

I can not comment on the original subject except that I heard the same
statement from many who flew the CTSWs.

Jim's message was very interesting!

I own a Sportstar since October last year and I find it very
responsive. I can't compare it to the CTSW since I have never flown
one, but I am one of those guys who converted from Cessnas in the GA
world. I can sure tell thet Jim's instructor is absolutely correct in
saying that GA pilots do need a fair amount of training before being
able to safely fly the Sportstar.

Jim, what do you mean by an "extreme slip"? High angles? Or the
exclusivity of this technique to lose altitude without gaining speed?
Interestingly enough, the Sportstar descends the fastest with full
flaps without slipping and somewhat faster airspeed than the approach
speed (using idle power, of course).

I sat in a CYSW last June and I found the cabin very comfortable and
large. Somewhat larger than the Sportstar, which is also a comfortable
size though. Unfortunately the local CT dealer never responded to
phone calls and voice mail messages, so I ended up giving up on that
plane. I am very happy with the Sportstar though. It's slower, but
visibility is superb (can't compare it to the CTSW because a.) I have
never flown the CTSW and b.) they are different in that the CTSW is a
high wing) due to the huge canopy.

Gabor

On Mar 8, 6:17 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> John wrote:
> > A friend and I were discussing the Flight Design CT2K and CTSW LSA's
> > and he mentioned that he had read in Wikipedia that "The CTSW is
> > reported to be somewhat more challenging to fly than other LSA, owing
> > to the higher wing loading and low drag; the low drag increases speed
> > but requires additional planning in the decent."
>
> > Now, I am NOT touting Wikipedia as a source of pilot reports, but I am
> > wondering if anyone in the group has "first hand" experience flying
> > the CTSW and could comment on this assertion.
>
> > I have heard repeatedly that most of the LSA's out there do not
> > handle as benignly as a Cessna 150 or a Cherokee 140, but I have never
> > heard that a CTSW was anymore challenging than the rest of the LSA's.
> > It would be great is Jay, the group's favorite inn-keeper (who has
> > mentioned flying the CTSW) or others with actual experience could
> > comment.
>
> Since nobody else is jumping in...
>
> Keep in mind I'm a student and my experience is limited.
> I have about 35 hours of training in an Evektor Sportstar,
> about 2 hours in a 2005 CTSW and another hour in a 2006
> CTSW. I have a new CTSW on order which will be delivered
> in a couple weeks.
>
> First of all, the 2006 CTSW is much nicer to fly than
> the 2005. Flight Design made significant changes to
> the rudder on the 2006, and in general it just feels
> more balanced and intuitive than the 2005.
>
> Compared with the Sportstar, the CTSW a bit of a handful.
> It's much faster, probably about 20-25 knots for the
> same rpm, and it has something like a 15 or 16 to 1
> glide ratio and the controls are more sensitive.
> I was joking with my instructor, that on the CTSW,
> the throttle will either make the plane go up or fly
> level, but not go down. As a result, things happen
> faster and energy management on landing is more
> of an issue than with the Sportstar. The CTSW can
> do an extreme slip and the technique is very effective
> for adjusting landing speed.
>
> My instructor comes from an ultralight background and
> is very big on rudder technique. He claims that in
> general, GA pilots are rather weak in that area and
> need a fair amount of transition training to light
> sport.
>
> All that said, I really like both the SportStar
> and the CTSW. The SportStar is a marvelous trainer
> with straightforward and predictable behavior.
> The CTSW is better suited to long-distance cruising
> with very responsive controls.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks Jim . . . and to Gabor for his comments. I must have the worst
luck into the world, because I have yet to even see one, and I have to
admit I find the airplane intriguing.

Take care . . .

John

John wrote:
> On Mar 8, 6:17 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>A friend and I were discussing the Flight Design CT2K and CTSW LSA's
>>>and he mentioned that he had read in Wikipedia that "The CTSW is
>>>reported to be somewhat more challenging to fly than other LSA, owing
>>>to the higher wing loading and low drag; the low drag increases speed
>>>but requires additional planning in the decent."
>>
>>>Now, I am NOT touting Wikipedia as a source of pilot reports, but I am
>>>wondering if anyone in the group has "first hand" experience flying
>>>the CTSW and could comment on this assertion.
>>
>>>I have heard repeatedly that most of the LSA's out there do not
>>>handle as benignly as a Cessna 150 or a Cherokee 140, but I have never
>>>heard that a CTSW was anymore challenging than the rest of the LSA's.
>>> It would be great is Jay, the group's favorite inn-keeper (who has
>>>mentioned flying the CTSW) or others with actual experience could
>>>comment.
>>
>>Since nobody else is jumping in...
>>
>>Keep in mind I'm a student and my experience is limited.
>>I have about 35 hours of training in an Evektor Sportstar,
>>about 2 hours in a 2005 CTSW and another hour in a 2006
>>CTSW. I have a new CTSW on order which will be delivered
>>in a couple weeks.
>>
>>First of all, the 2006 CTSW is much nicer to fly than
>>the 2005. Flight Design made significant changes to
>>the rudder on the 2006, and in general it just feels
>>more balanced and intuitive than the 2005.
>>
>>Compared with the Sportstar, the CTSW a bit of a handful.
>>It's much faster, probably about 20-25 knots for the
>>same rpm, and it has something like a 15 or 16 to 1
>>glide ratio and the controls are more sensitive.
>>I was joking with my instructor, that on the CTSW,
>>the throttle will either make the plane go up or fly
>>level, but not go down. As a result, things happen
>>faster and energy management on landing is more
>>of an issue than with the Sportstar. The CTSW can
>>do an extreme slip and the technique is very effective
>>for adjusting landing speed.
>>
>>My instructor comes from an ultralight background and
>>is very big on rudder technique. He claims that in
>>general, GA pilots are rather weak in that area and
>>need a fair amount of transition training to light
>>sport.
>>
>>All that said, I really like both the SportStar
>>and the CTSW. The SportStar is a marvelous trainer
>>with straightforward and predictable behavior.
>>The CTSW is better suited to long-distance cruising
>>with very responsive controls.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Thanks Jim . . . and to Gabor for his comments. I must have the worst
> luck into the world, because I have yet to even see one, and I have to
> admit I find the airplane intriguing.

If you live west of the Rockys I can probably help
get you a familiarization flight. Tom Dunham from
Flight Design West brought a plane to my airport
and gave me a free familiarization flight with me
not even having a license.

Gabor wrote:

> On Mar 8, 5:17 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>A friend and I were discussing the Flight Design CT2K and CTSW LSA's
>>>and he mentioned that he had read in Wikipedia that "The CTSW is
>>>reported to be somewhat more challenging to fly than other LSA, owing
>>>to the higher wing loading and low drag; the low drag increases speed
>>>but requires additional planning in the decent."
>>
>>>Now, I am NOT touting Wikipedia as a source of pilot reports, but I am
>>>wondering if anyone in the group has "first hand" experience flying
>>>the CTSW and could comment on this assertion.
>>
>>>I have heard repeatedly that most of the LSA's out there do not
>>>handle as benignly as a Cessna 150 or a Cherokee 140, but I have never
>>>heard that a CTSW was anymore challenging than the rest of the LSA's.
>>> It would be great is Jay, the group's favorite inn-keeper (who has
>>>mentioned flying the CTSW) or others with actual experience could
>>>comment.
>>
>>Since nobody else is jumping in...
>>
>>Keep in mind I'm a student and my experience is limited.
>>I have about 35 hours of training in anEvektorSportstar,
>>about 2 hours in a 2005 CTSW and another hour in a 2006
>>CTSW. I have a new CTSW on order which will be delivered
>>in a couple weeks.
>>
>>First of all, the 2006 CTSW is much nicer to fly than
>>the 2005. Flight Design made significant changes to
>>the rudder on the 2006, and in general it just feels
>>more balanced and intuitive than the 2005.
>>
>>Compared with the Sportstar, the CTSW a bit of a handful.
>>It's much faster, probably about 20-25 knots for the
>>same rpm, and it has something like a 15 or 16 to 1
>>glide ratio and the controls are more sensitive.
>>I was joking with my instructor, that on the CTSW,
>>the throttle will either make the plane go up or fly
>>level, but not go down. As a result, things happen
>>faster and energy management on landing is more
>>of an issue than with the Sportstar. The CTSW can
>>do an extreme slip and the technique is very effective
>>for adjusting landing speed.
>>
>>My instructor comes from an ultralight background and
>>is very big on rudder technique. He claims that in
>>general, GA pilots are rather weak in that area and
>>need a fair amount of transition training to light
>>sport.
>>
>>All that said, I really like both the SportStar
>>and the CTSW. The SportStar is a marvelous trainer
>>with straightforward and predictable behavior.
>>The CTSW is better suited to long-distance cruising
>>with very responsive controls.
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I can not comment on the original subject except that I heard the same
> statement from many who flew the CTSWs.
>
> Jim's message was very interesting!
>
> I own a Sportstar since October last year and I find it very
> responsive. I can't compare it to the CTSW since I have never flown
> one, but I am one of those guys who converted from Cessnas in the GA
> world. I can sure tell thet Jim's instructor is absolutely correct in
> saying that GA pilots do need a fair amount of training before being
> able to safely fly the Sportstar.
>
> Jim, what do you mean by an "extreme slip"? High angles? Or the
> exclusivity of this technique to lose altitude without gaining speed?
> Interestingly enough, the Sportstar descends the fastest with full
> flaps without slipping and somewhat faster airspeed than the approach
> speed (using idle power, of course).

High angles. One reviewer said "I've never flown so sideways
in an aircraft before". In the Sportstar, you can easily bleed
off 20 knots in a moderately long downwind pattern leg just
by throttling back and holding the nose up. In the CTSW, it's
not so easy since the plane is so clean so slipping in for a
landing is a necessary part of the training.

> I sat in a CYSW last June and I found the cabin very comfortable and
> large. Somewhat larger than the Sportstar, which is also a comfortable
> size though. Unfortunately the local CT dealer never responded to
> phone calls and voice mail messages, so I ended up giving up on that
> plane. I am very happy with the Sportstar though. It's slower, but
> visibility is superb (can't compare it to the CTSW because a.) I have
> never flown the CTSW and b.) they are different in that the CTSW is a
> high wing) due to the huge canopy.

The visiblilty is outstanding in both planes. It just depends
on whether you're looking up or down (:

I've had a blast training in the SportStar and one of the reasons
that I'm looking at a leaseback arrangement with my flight instructor
is so I can be a designated pilot on his SportStar and trade him
hours if feel like flying it.

Saturday our 1.5 hours of training was almost over. We were in the
pattern at KKMC on downwind, about 1/4 mile from base. The instructor
pulled the throttle to idle and said the engine died and land
the plane. I flew the rest of the pattern crisply in a 60 knot
descent and greased it in on the numbers. I certainly loved the
SportStar that day.

On Mar 12, 12:02 pm, "John" > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 6:17 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>
>
>
> > John wrote:
> > > A friend and I were discussing the Flight Design CT2K and CTSW LSA's
> > > and he mentioned that he had read in Wikipedia that "The CTSW is
> > > reported to be somewhat more challenging to fly than other LSA, owing
> > > to the higher wing loading and low drag; the low drag increases speed
> > > but requires additional planning in the decent."
>
> > > Now, I am NOT touting Wikipedia as a source of pilot reports, but I am
> > > wondering if anyone in the group has "first hand" experience flying
> > > the CTSW and could comment on this assertion.
>
> > > I have heard repeatedly that most of the LSA's out there do not
> > > handle as benignly as a Cessna 150 or a Cherokee 140, but I have never
> > > heard that a CTSW was anymore challenging than the rest of the LSA's.
> > > It would be great is Jay, the group's favorite inn-keeper (who has
> > > mentioned flying the CTSW) or others with actual experience could
> > > comment.
>
> > Since nobody else is jumping in...
>
> > Keep in mind I'm a student and my experience is limited.
> > I have about 35 hours of training in anEvektorSportstar,
> > about 2 hours in a 2005 CTSW and another hour in a 2006
> > CTSW. I have a new CTSW on order which will be delivered
> > in a couple weeks.
>
> > First of all, the 2006 CTSW is much nicer to fly than
> > the 2005. Flight Design made significant changes to
> > the rudder on the 2006, and in general it just feels
> > more balanced and intuitive than the 2005.
>
> > Compared with the Sportstar, the CTSW a bit of a handful.
> > It's much faster, probably about 20-25 knots for the
> > same rpm, and it has something like a 15 or 16 to 1
> > glide ratio and the controls are more sensitive.
> > I was joking with my instructor, that on the CTSW,
> > the throttle will either make the plane go up or fly
> > level, but not go down. As a result, things happen
> > faster and energy management on landing is more
> > of an issue than with the Sportstar. The CTSW can
> > do an extreme slip and the technique is very effective
> > for adjusting landing speed.
>
> > My instructor comes from an ultralight background and
> > is very big on rudder technique. He claims that in
> > general, GA pilots are rather weak in that area and
> > need a fair amount of transition training to light
> > sport.
>
> > All that said, I really like both the SportStar
> > and the CTSW. The SportStar is a marvelous trainer
> > with straightforward and predictable behavior.
> > The CTSW is better suited to long-distance cruising
> > with very responsive controls.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks Jim . . . and to Gabor for his comments. I must have the worst
> luck into the world, because I have yet to even see one, and I have to
> admit I find the airplane intriguing.
>
> Take care . . .
>
> John

John,

I am on Toronto, Ontario, Canada. If you are close and by saying "I
have yet to even see one" you meant the Sportstar, You are more more
than welcome to see mine.

Gabor

On Mar 12, 1:20 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Gabor wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 5:17 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>
> >>John wrote:
>
> >>>A friend and I were discussing the Flight Design CT2K and CTSW LSA's
> >>>and he mentioned that he had read in Wikipedia that "The CTSW is
> >>>reported to be somewhat more challenging to fly than other LSA, owing
> >>>to the higher wing loading and low drag; the low drag increases speed
> >>>but requires additional planning in the decent."
>
> >>>Now, I am NOT touting Wikipedia as a source of pilot reports, but I am
> >>>wondering if anyone in the group has "first hand" experience flying
> >>>the CTSW and could comment on this assertion.
>
> >>>I have heard repeatedly that most of the LSA's out there do not
> >>>handle as benignly as a Cessna 150 or a Cherokee 140, but I have never
> >>>heard that a CTSW was anymore challenging than the rest of the LSA's.
> >>> It would be great is Jay, the group's favorite inn-keeper (who has
> >>>mentioned flying the CTSW) or others with actual experience could
> >>>comment.
>
> >>Since nobody else is jumping in...
>
> >>Keep in mind I'm a student and my experience is limited.
> >>I have about 35 hours of training in anEvektorSportstar,
> >>about 2 hours in a 2005 CTSW and another hour in a 2006
> >>CTSW. I have a new CTSW on order which will be delivered
> >>in a couple weeks.
>
> >>First of all, the 2006 CTSW is much nicer to fly than
> >>the 2005. Flight Design made significant changes to
> >>the rudder on the 2006, and in general it just feels
> >>more balanced and intuitive than the 2005.
>
> >>Compared with the Sportstar, the CTSW a bit of a handful.
> >>It's much faster, probably about 20-25 knots for the
> >>same rpm, and it has something like a 15 or 16 to 1
> >>glide ratio and the controls are more sensitive.
> >>I was joking with my instructor, that on the CTSW,
> >>the throttle will either make the plane go up or fly
> >>level, but not go down. As a result, things happen
> >>faster and energy management on landing is more
> >>of an issue than with the Sportstar. The CTSW can
> >>do an extreme slip and the technique is very effective
> >>for adjusting landing speed.
>
> >>My instructor comes from an ultralight background and
> >>is very big on rudder technique. He claims that in
> >>general, GA pilots are rather weak in that area and
> >>need a fair amount of transition training to light
> >>sport.
>
> >>All that said, I really like both the SportStar
> >>and the CTSW. The SportStar is a marvelous trainer
> >>with straightforward and predictable behavior.
> >>The CTSW is better suited to long-distance cruising
> >>with very responsive controls.
>
> > Hello,
>
> > I can not comment on the original subject except that I heard the same
> > statement from many who flew the CTSWs.
>
> > Jim's message was very interesting!
>
> > I own a Sportstar since October last year and I find it very
> > responsive. I can't compare it to the CTSW since I have never flown
> > one, but I am one of those guys who converted from Cessnas in the GA
> > world. I can sure tell thet Jim's instructor is absolutely correct in
> > saying that GA pilots do need a fair amount of training before being
> > able to safely fly the Sportstar.
>
> > Jim, what do you mean by an "extreme slip"? High angles? Or the
> > exclusivity of this technique to lose altitude without gaining speed?
> > Interestingly enough, the Sportstar descends the fastest with full
> > flaps without slipping and somewhat faster airspeed than the approach
> > speed (using idle power, of course).
>
> High angles. One reviewer said "I've never flown so sideways
> in an aircraft before". In the Sportstar, you can easily bleed
> off 20 knots in a moderately long downwind pattern leg just
> by throttling back and holding the nose up. In the CTSW, it's
> not so easy since the plane is so clean so slipping in for a
> landing is a necessary part of the training.
>
> > I sat in a CYSW last June and I found the cabin very comfortable and
> > large. Somewhat larger than the Sportstar, which is also a comfortable
> > size though. Unfortunately the local CT dealer never responded to
> > phone calls and voice mail messages, so I ended up giving up on that
> > plane. I am very happy with the Sportstar though. It's slower, but
> > visibility is superb (can't compare it to the CTSW because a.) I have
> > never flown the CTSW and b.) they are different in that the CTSW is a
> > high wing) due to the huge canopy.
>
> The visiblilty is outstanding in both planes. It just depends
> on whether you're looking up or down (:
>
> I've had a blast training in the SportStar and one of the reasons
> that I'm looking at a leaseback arrangement with my flight instructor
> is so I can be a designated pilot on his SportStar and trade him
> hours if feel like flying it.
>
> Saturday our 1.5 hours of training was almost over. We were in the
> pattern at KKMC on downwind, about 1/4 mile from base. The instructor
> pulled the throttle to idle and said the engine died and land
> the plane. I flew the rest of the pattern crisply in a 60 knot
> descent and greased it in on the numbers. I certainly loved the
> SportStar that day.

Jim,

Thanks for the response. Yes, the Sportstar is certainly a very
lovable plain. And you are probably right about the visibility. :-)

Gabor

>
> I am on Toronto, Ontario, Canada. If you are close and by saying "I
> have yet to even see one" you meant the Sportstar, You are more more
> than welcome to see mine.
>
> Gabor- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I appreciate it . . . but I live in the southeast U.S.. I will just
keep my ear to the ground for an airshow near me where I might go see
the plane . . . and no . . . I have to work the week of Sun n' Fun, so
that is out. But no fears . . . I will find one.

In the mean time, I appreciate whatever people have to say about the
plane.

Thanks and take care . . .

John