Got to fly a light sport aircraft

[Jay Honeck]

At our 2-day Big Kids Toy Show fly-in last weekend, I had the pleasure of
flying a "CT" with their demo pilot.

If you're not sure what a "CT" is, see:
http://www.fly-flightstar.com/pages/ct.htm

You can also see some pix of it here: www.BigKidsToyShow.com

I'm here to tell you, this thing is an *airplane*. For some reason I had
the impression that an LSA would be fragile, slow and more like an
ultralight than a certified aircraft. I couldn't have been more wrong.

The CT looks like an egg with wings, sorta like a pregnant Cessna 150 made
out of carbon fiber. I figured it would be tight inside, with two nearly
200 pound guys -- but I had as much or more shoulder and hip room as in my
Pathfinder. The seats were semi-reclined, but adjustable fore-and-aft,
which was nice. (I hear some LSAs have fixed seats, and adjustable rudder
pedals.)

The plane has dual sticks, and I was in the right seat, so I was not only
flying right-handed, but with a stick -- neither of which I'm used to doing.
Luckily, I'm ambidextrous, and always fly video game joysticks right handed,
so I quickly got used to flying from over there.

Visibility is nothing short of spectacular. The windows come down to your
hips, and the high wing gives the impression that you are just sitting in
space. Climb performance was very impressive, with a solid 600 fpm
climbout, even with 400 pounds of people, plus fuel, on board. We were able
to sustain zoom climbs of over 1500 fpm for over a minute, so you can get up
pretty quickly once you're at cruise speed.

The controls were very well harmonized, and felt very crisp and clean. I
needed very little rudder, and the ball stayed centered. It's just a nice
flying machine.

We did slow flight and a stall or two, and the thing literally stands still
before it stalls. I think we saw 38 mph before it broke! Landing was
simple, and it's got electric flaps -- something I didn't expect in an LSA.
Again, this is a real airplane, and seems quite ruggedly designed.

And it's pretty fast, too. We trued out at 130 mph, burning something
absurdly low, like 6 gph. And it burns car gas, too!

I'll tell ya what -- when our kids are grown and gone, I can easily see us
owning a CT. It does everything I want in an airplane, and uses less than
half the gas Atlas burns. It's a great flying bird, and Mary thinks it's
cute!

Finally, the CT gave more demo flights at the show than the Columbia, the
Travel Air, and the Pitts *combined*. Everyone seemed intrigued by it, and
that demo pilot must've put 10 hours on it over the course of the Toy Show!
I think LSA planes like this one will really have a shot in the market --
once they change the minds of previously-prejudiced people like me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[J. Severyn]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ds9dg.746839$084.52858@attbi_s22...
> At our 2-day Big Kids Toy Show fly-in last weekend, I had the pleasure of
> flying a "CT" with their demo pilot.
>
> If you're not sure what a "CT" is, see:
> http://www.fly-flightstar.com/pages/ct.htm
>
snip
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Jay,
Any idea why the Cruiser model includes a "Prop Clutch" ??? I'm picturing a
system where the engine can be started and run without turning the prop,
then engaging the prop clutch to spin the prop. What are the advantages
(other than being able to warm up the engine on the ground without spinning
the prop? Of course the disadvantage would be decreased useful load. (extra
clutch weight).

But maybe I just made a completely wrong assumption on how a prop clutch is
used.

Regards,
John Severyn
@KLVK

[Jay Honeck]

> Any idea why the Cruiser model includes a "Prop Clutch" ??? I'm picturing
> a system where the engine can be started and run without turning the prop,

Nope, sorry. My ride was more of a "thanks for helping us get here" ride,
rather than a "please buy this plane" ride -- so we just went up an flew the
thing. We didn't discuss systems at all.

It sounds like a good idea, though.

Anyone here know?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[BTIZ]

I got to fly and LSA the other day too..
a J-3 Cub
BT

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Ds9dg.746839$084.52858@attbi_s22...
> At our 2-day Big Kids Toy Show fly-in last weekend, I had the pleasure of
> flying a "CT" with their demo pilot.
>
> If you're not sure what a "CT" is, see:
> http://www.fly-flightstar.com/pages/ct.htm
>
> You can also see some pix of it here: www.BigKidsToyShow.com
>
> I'm here to tell you, this thing is an *airplane*. For some reason I had
> the impression that an LSA would be fragile, slow and more like an
> ultralight than a certified aircraft. I couldn't have been more wrong.
>
> The CT looks like an egg with wings, sorta like a pregnant Cessna 150 made
> out of carbon fiber. I figured it would be tight inside, with two nearly
> 200 pound guys -- but I had as much or more shoulder and hip room as in my
> Pathfinder. The seats were semi-reclined, but adjustable fore-and-aft,
> which was nice. (I hear some LSAs have fixed seats, and adjustable rudder
> pedals.)
>
> The plane has dual sticks, and I was in the right seat, so I was not only
> flying right-handed, but with a stick -- neither of which I'm used to
> doing. Luckily, I'm ambidextrous, and always fly video game joysticks
> right handed, so I quickly got used to flying from over there.
>
> Visibility is nothing short of spectacular. The windows come down to your
> hips, and the high wing gives the impression that you are just sitting in
> space. Climb performance was very impressive, with a solid 600 fpm
> climbout, even with 400 pounds of people, plus fuel, on board. We were
> able to sustain zoom climbs of over 1500 fpm for over a minute, so you can
> get up pretty quickly once you're at cruise speed.
>
> The controls were very well harmonized, and felt very crisp and clean. I
> needed very little rudder, and the ball stayed centered. It's just a nice
> flying machine.
>
> We did slow flight and a stall or two, and the thing literally stands
> still before it stalls. I think we saw 38 mph before it broke! Landing
> was simple, and it's got electric flaps -- something I didn't expect in an
> LSA. Again, this is a real airplane, and seems quite ruggedly designed.
>
> And it's pretty fast, too. We trued out at 130 mph, burning something
> absurdly low, like 6 gph. And it burns car gas, too!
>
> I'll tell ya what -- when our kids are grown and gone, I can easily see us
> owning a CT. It does everything I want in an airplane, and uses less than
> half the gas Atlas burns. It's a great flying bird, and Mary thinks it's
> cute!
>
> Finally, the CT gave more demo flights at the show than the Columbia, the
> Travel Air, and the Pitts *combined*. Everyone seemed intrigued by it,
> and that demo pilot must've put 10 hours on it over the course of the Toy
> Show! I think LSA planes like this one will really have a shot in the
> market -- once they change the minds of previously-prejudiced people like
> me.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[ET]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Ds9dg.746839$084.52858@attbi_s22:

> At our 2-day Big Kids Toy Show fly-in last weekend, I had the pleasure
> of flying a "CT" with their demo pilot.
>
> If you're not sure what a "CT" is, see:
> http://www.fly-flightstar.com/pages/ct.htm
>
> You can also see some pix of it here: www.BigKidsToyShow.com
>
> I'm here to tell you, this thing is an *airplane*. For some reason I
> had the impression that an LSA would be fragile, slow and more like an
> ultralight than a certified aircraft. I couldn't have been more
> wrong.
>
> The CT looks like an egg with wings, sorta like a pregnant Cessna 150
> made out of carbon fiber. I figured it would be tight inside, with
> two nearly 200 pound guys -- but I had as much or more shoulder and
> hip room as in my Pathfinder. The seats were semi-reclined, but
> adjustable fore-and-aft, which was nice. (I hear some LSAs have fixed
> seats, and adjustable rudder pedals.)
>
> The plane has dual sticks, and I was in the right seat, so I was not
> only flying right-handed, but with a stick -- neither of which I'm
> used to doing. Luckily, I'm ambidextrous, and always fly video game
> joysticks right handed, so I quickly got used to flying from over
> there.
>
> Visibility is nothing short of spectacular. The windows come down to
> your hips, and the high wing gives the impression that you are just
> sitting in space. Climb performance was very impressive, with a
> solid 600 fpm climbout, even with 400 pounds of people, plus fuel, on
> board. We were able to sustain zoom climbs of over 1500 fpm for over
> a minute, so you can get up pretty quickly once you're at cruise
> speed.
>
> The controls were very well harmonized, and felt very crisp and clean.
> I needed very little rudder, and the ball stayed centered. It's just
> a nice flying machine.
>
> We did slow flight and a stall or two, and the thing literally stands
> still before it stalls. I think we saw 38 mph before it broke!
> Landing was simple, and it's got electric flaps -- something I didn't
> expect in an LSA. Again, this is a real airplane, and seems quite
> ruggedly designed.
>
> And it's pretty fast, too. We trued out at 130 mph, burning
> something absurdly low, like 6 gph. And it burns car gas, too!
>
> I'll tell ya what -- when our kids are grown and gone, I can easily
> see us owning a CT. It does everything I want in an airplane, and
> uses less than half the gas Atlas burns. It's a great flying bird,
> and Mary thinks it's cute!
>
> Finally, the CT gave more demo flights at the show than the Columbia,
> the Travel Air, and the Pitts *combined*. Everyone seemed intrigued
> by it, and that demo pilot must've put 10 hours on it over the course
> of the Toy Show! I think LSA planes like this one will really have a
> shot in the market -- once they change the minds of
> previously-prejudiced people like me.

yes these are "real" planes, without a doubt, the one that had the most
"ultralight-like" feel to the cockpit was the Allegro, but that was
really only because of the steal tube fuselage, and the resulting
framing here and there in your view, but it still flew like a real
plane.

I've flown the CT, the SportStar, the StingSport, & the Allegro. All
were "real" airplanes, as real as the Bonanza, 150, 172, RV-9, and Sonex
that I've flown.

The recent EAA flyin in Texas had a StingSport as the winner of the
"longest Distance" award from Southern California to Hondo, TX; so
that's about as "real" as it gets.

--
-- ET >:-) - Student pilot, slowly working toward ppl.

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Morgans]

>> Any idea why the Cruiser model includes a "Prop Clutch" ??? I'm
>> picturing a system where the engine can be started and run without
>> turning the prop,
>
> Nope, sorry. My ride was more of a "thanks for helping us get here" ride,
> rather than a "please buy this plane" ride -- so we just went up an flew
> the thing. We didn't discuss systems at all.
>
> It sounds like a good idea, though.
>
> Anyone here know?

I am certainly not an authority on the subject, but I'll tell what I
remember reading, or hearing about it.

It is just a slipping clutch, that allows the engine to come up through
starting RPM's, before it engages, then stays locked throughout the
operating range of RPM's. The starting RPM's produce a torsional resonance
that would shake the engine, gearbox and clutch, so badly that it could
likely destroy something in the drive train. Allowing the prop to not be
connected while the revs come up avoids the deadly resonance range, so the
drive system can run normally, when it is above the bad RPM range.

I think that in this case, it is not unlike (but still very different) than
the clutch on some automobile's cooling fan, as I recall. Once again, I may
be totally wrong on all of this.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> It is just a slipping clutch, that allows the engine to come up through
> starting RPM's, before it engages, then stays locked throughout the
> operating range of RPM's. The starting RPM's produce a torsional
> resonance that would shake the engine, gearbox and clutch, so badly that
> it could likely destroy something in the drive train. Allowing the prop
> to not be connected while the revs come up avoids the deadly resonance
> range, so the drive system can run normally, when it is above the bad RPM
> range.

After parking planes all weekend -- and staring right at the spinners at the
center of some really big Ginsu knives -- it's quite remarkable how much our
engines get tossed around during shutdown. Some of them appear to rather
violently move over 4 inches off-center while enduring the asymmetrical
loads during engine shut-down.

A clutch is one more thing to break -- but, wow, if it can eliminate that
violent twisting motion that our motor mounts and airframes must endure, it
might be a good thing?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[J. Severyn]

Could be, but it is interesting that the "sport" version does not include
the clutch. I'm still wondering how/why.
John Severyn @KLVK

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> It is just a slipping clutch, that allows the engine to come up through
> starting RPM's, before it engages, then stays locked throughout the
> operating range of RPM's. The starting RPM's produce a torsional
> resonance that would shake the engine, gearbox and clutch, so badly that
> it could likely destroy something in the drive train. Allowing the prop
> to not be connected while the revs come up avoids the deadly resonance
> range, so the drive system can run normally, when it is above the bad RPM
> range.
>
> I think that in this case, it is not unlike (but still very different)
> than the clutch on some automobile's cooling fan, as I recall. Once
> again, I may be totally wrong on all of this.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> A clutch is one more thing to break -- but, wow, if it can eliminate that
> violent twisting motion that our motor mounts and airframes must endure,
> it might be a good thing?

Indeed, it is a good thing.

The problem is that the weight begins showing up as another problem, again.

A clutch for a 300 HP engine is going to be much more that 3 times heavier,
than a clutch for a 100 HP engine, I'll bet.

That clutch is yet another example of how Rotax can make their engines so
light. Spin them fast, to get more HP per cubic inch. Use a gearbox to
make the power useable by a prop. Make that gearbox as light as you can.
In order to make the gearbox light, (it is the weak link in all of this)
protect it from harmonic resonance loads, by using a clutch. Beautiful
engineering.

Problem is, I'm not buying the whole design philosophy. But you knew that,
already. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> That clutch is yet another example of how Rotax can make their engines so
> light. Spin them fast, to get more HP per cubic inch. Use a gearbox to
> make the power useable by a prop. Make that gearbox as light as you can.
> In order to make the gearbox light, (it is the weak link in all of this)
> protect it from harmonic resonance loads, by using a clutch. Beautiful
> engineering.
>
> Problem is, I'm not buying the whole design philosophy. But you knew
> that, already. <g>

That was my first time flying behind a Rotax engine, and I was very
impressed. It was smooth, responsive, powerful, and quiet.

If I was single, I'd buy a CT in a heartbeat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Stubby]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> At our 2-day Big Kids Toy Show fly-in last weekend, I had the pleasure of
> flying a "CT" with their demo pilot.
>
> If you're not sure what a "CT" is, see:
> http://www.fly-flightstar.com/pages/ct.htm
>
> You can also see some pix of it here: www.BigKidsToyShow.com
>
> I'm here to tell you, this thing is an *airplane*. For some reason I had
> the impression that an LSA would be fragile, slow and more like an
> ultralight than a certified aircraft. I couldn't have been more wrong.
>
> The CT looks like an egg with wings, sorta like a pregnant Cessna 150 made
> out of carbon fiber. I figured it would be tight inside, with two nearly
> 200 pound guys -- but I had as much or more shoulder and hip room as in my
> Pathfinder. The seats were semi-reclined, but adjustable fore-and-aft,
> which was nice. (I hear some LSAs have fixed seats, and adjustable rudder
> pedals.)
>
> The plane has dual sticks, and I was in the right seat, so I was not only
> flying right-handed, but with a stick -- neither of which I'm used to doing.
> Luckily, I'm ambidextrous, and always fly video game joysticks right handed,
> so I quickly got used to flying from over there.
>
> Visibility is nothing short of spectacular. The windows come down to your
> hips, and the high wing gives the impression that you are just sitting in
> space. Climb performance was very impressive, with a solid 600 fpm
> climbout, even with 400 pounds of people, plus fuel, on board. We were able
> to sustain zoom climbs of over 1500 fpm for over a minute, so you can get up
> pretty quickly once you're at cruise speed.
>
> The controls were very well harmonized, and felt very crisp and clean. I
> needed very little rudder, and the ball stayed centered. It's just a nice
> flying machine.
>
> We did slow flight and a stall or two, and the thing literally stands still
> before it stalls. I think we saw 38 mph before it broke! Landing was
> simple, and it's got electric flaps -- something I didn't expect in an LSA.
> Again, this is a real airplane, and seems quite ruggedly designed.
>
> And it's pretty fast, too. We trued out at 130 mph, burning something
> absurdly low, like 6 gph. And it burns car gas, too!
>
> I'll tell ya what -- when our kids are grown and gone, I can easily see us
> owning a CT. It does everything I want in an airplane, and uses less than
> half the gas Atlas burns. It's a great flying bird, and Mary thinks it's
> cute!
>
> Finally, the CT gave more demo flights at the show than the Columbia, the
> Travel Air, and the Pitts *combined*. Everyone seemed intrigued by it, and
> that demo pilot must've put 10 hours on it over the course of the Toy Show!
> I think LSA planes like this one will really have a shot in the market --
> once they change the minds of previously-prejudiced people like me.

Can someone give a few words about the difference between an ordinary
ASEL such as a PA-28-161 or C-172 and a "light sport aircraft". I
understand there is a difference in the pilot ratings but this post
implies there's a difference in the aircraft. TIA

[Casey Wilson]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
. ..



> Can someone give a few words about the difference between an ordinary ASEL
> such as a PA-28-161 or C-172 and a "light sport aircraft". I understand
> there is a difference in the pilot ratings but this post implies there's a
> difference in the aircraft. TIA

In general:
max fo 2 persons
1320(land) or 1430(water) MGW
max airspeed 120K
max stall speed 45K
fixed prop
fixed gear
nonpressurized

[ET]

Stubby > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> At our 2-day Big Kids Toy Show fly-in last weekend, I had the
>> pleasure of flying a "CT" with their demo pilot.
>>
>> If you're not sure what a "CT" is, see:
>> http://www.fly-flightstar.com/pages/ct.htm
>>
>> You can also see some pix of it here: www.BigKidsToyShow.com
>>
>> I'm here to tell you, this thing is an *airplane*. For some reason I
>> had the impression that an LSA would be fragile, slow and more like
>> an ultralight than a certified aircraft. I couldn't have been more
>> wrong.
>>
>> The CT looks like an egg with wings, sorta like a pregnant Cessna 150
>> made out of carbon fiber. I figured it would be tight inside, with
>> two nearly 200 pound guys -- but I had as much or more shoulder and
>> hip room as in my Pathfinder. The seats were semi-reclined, but
>> adjustable fore-and-aft, which was nice. (I hear some LSAs have
>> fixed seats, and adjustable rudder pedals.)
>>
>> The plane has dual sticks, and I was in the right seat, so I was not
>> only flying right-handed, but with a stick -- neither of which I'm
>> used to doing. Luckily, I'm ambidextrous, and always fly video game
>> joysticks right handed, so I quickly got used to flying from over
>> there.
>>
>> Visibility is nothing short of spectacular. The windows come down to
>> your hips, and the high wing gives the impression that you are just
>> sitting in space. Climb performance was very impressive, with a
>> solid 600 fpm climbout, even with 400 pounds of people, plus fuel, on
>> board. We were able to sustain zoom climbs of over 1500 fpm for over
>> a minute, so you can get up pretty quickly once you're at cruise
>> speed.
>>
>> The controls were very well harmonized, and felt very crisp and
>> clean. I needed very little rudder, and the ball stayed centered.
>> It's just a nice flying machine.
>>
>> We did slow flight and a stall or two, and the thing literally stands
>> still before it stalls. I think we saw 38 mph before it broke!
>> Landing was simple, and it's got electric flaps -- something I didn't
>> expect in an LSA. Again, this is a real airplane, and seems quite
>> ruggedly designed.
>>
>> And it's pretty fast, too. We trued out at 130 mph, burning
>> something absurdly low, like 6 gph. And it burns car gas, too!
>>
>> I'll tell ya what -- when our kids are grown and gone, I can easily
>> see us owning a CT. It does everything I want in an airplane, and
>> uses less than half the gas Atlas burns. It's a great flying bird,
>> and Mary thinks it's cute!
>>
>> Finally, the CT gave more demo flights at the show than the Columbia,
>> the Travel Air, and the Pitts *combined*. Everyone seemed intrigued
>> by it, and that demo pilot must've put 10 hours on it over the course
>> of the Toy Show! I think LSA planes like this one will really have a
>> shot in the market -- once they change the minds of
>> previously-prejudiced people like me.
>
> Can someone give a few words about the difference between an ordinary
> ASEL such as a PA-28-161 or C-172 and a "light sport aircraft". I
> understand there is a difference in the pilot ratings but this post
> implies there's a difference in the aircraft. TIA
>


A "special" light sport aircraft is NOT certified under FAR 23, it is
certified under the "concensus standards" much the same way even the
aluminum it's made out of is, and your coffee maker, and just about
everything else.

an sLSA meets, by definition, the criteria required for a Sport Pilot to
fly it, but doesn't have to have the same restriction as to night
flight, altitude etc.

Also, you only have to have at LEAST a Sport Pilot rating to fly it, the
Sport Pilot lic is the lowest on the totem pole, so a Rec or PPL can fly
it no problem.

Most of them cruies at 110-115knots burning less than 5gph of premium
auto fuel.

Most of them have some what would otherwise be considered experimental
equipment like the Dynon 1000, etc.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[ET]

T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote in
:

> ET > wrote:
>
>>A "special" light sport aircraft is NOT certified under FAR 23, it is
>>certified under the "concensus standards"
>>an sLSA meets, by definition, the criteria required for a Sport Pilot
>>to fly it, but doesn't have to have the same restriction as to night
>>flight, altitude etc.
>
> Don't confuse the limits on the Sport Pilot with the limits
> on the types of aircraft he can fly. A "Light Sport
> Aircraft" does not have limitations on night flight or
> altitude capability . Those are limits on what the Sport
> Pilot can do when he flies it. The LSA aircraft itself
> *does* have limitations on speeds (stall and cruise), gross
> weight and number of seats.
>
> So, a Sport Pilot can fly an aircraft *capable of* going
> higher than 10,000' with lights for night flight, but he
> can't fly it at night or above 10K'. OTOH, he cannot fly an
> aircraft with a max gross higher than 1320 pounds or more
> than two seats, even if he takes out the seats or flies at
> an actual weight less than 1320.
>
> All of the aircraft limits (speeds, gross weight) apply
> regardless of whether the aircraft is a consensus LSA, an
> experimental LSA or a kit. The SP limits (altitude night
> flight) do not apply to the aircraft.
>

i'ya... said that....

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams