If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Handling Characteristics of the Flight Design CTSW
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Most reliable homebuilt helicopter? | tom pettit | Home Built | 35 | September 29th 05 02:24 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |