CTSW or CTLS Insight

Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)

Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
849
Location
NE Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
Terry
Ok. I'm not confident Basic Med is going to help me. There are no LSAs to rent nearby. I have a split strategy currently. Seeking partners for either (a) LSA eligible Champ (cool but a little scary due to age) or (b) more modern LSA.

The modern search has shifted towards the CTSW (or CTLS but the SW looks a bit more affordable).

What are the added costs/consideration of the Rotax ULS 100HP engine? I've read about hoses have time replacement intervals? They're also liquid and air cooled? What are the considerations here vs Lyc or Cont?

Anything to consider about the composite airframe (vs aluminum or fabric)? Impossible to repair?

The BRS. I think the CTs all have a BRS. How often do you repack and what does that cost.

Any other gotchas here?

I feel like with the Champ there is corrosion, fabric (which I know nothing about but I know is repairable) and the engine. Concern about a 70 year old airframe. No radios or electronics to worry about.

With the LSA, I just don't know. I've been dreaming and reading about Cessna, Piper and Beech products for years. I don't really know much about the new LSAs. I'd love some insight.

(And anyone looking to partner in an LSA at Lake in the Hills IL - let me know!)
 
You might get some strong responses if you posted over at CTFlier.com. But I think I can answer some of the questions you have.

The Rotax is pretty robust engine with little that goes wrong. But you do need to maintain it (50 hour oil changes on MOGAS, 25 hour on 100LL). Hose replacement is every 5 years, and it's about a $2-3K expense, but some other rubber bits (like engine mounts) get changed at the same time. The crankcase is liquid cooled, and the cylinders and cylinder heads are air cooled.

Composite airframes can be repaired, so that's not an issue. But know that composite aircraft shouldn't be tied-down outside for a long period of time. Overnight or a week is probably no issue, but months on months (or years) is a "no-no."

The BRS requires a repack every 6 years, and I believe the rocket requires replacement every 10 years. Repack is around $600 plus labor, and the rocket is about $1,000.

Probably best to go and fly a CT and see what you think. They sold well and they fly well. The CTsw is "short-coupled", so you'll be using the rudder pedals a little more, but folks like the CT really well.
 
rtk11 said:
Composite airframes can be repaired, so that's not an issue. But know that composite aircraft shouldn't be tied-down outside for a long period of time. Overnight or a week is probably no issue, but months on months (or years) is a "no-no."
Click to expand...

Care to cite a source on that? I know of multiple composite aircraft tied down outside for at least a decade.
 
I also recommend you check in at ctflier.com.

I no longer post there, but for the most part a good group of pilots and owners with lots of knowledge about the brand.

One "Achilles Heel", in my opinion, is the fuel system. Getting even flow from both tanks can be problematical - flying along in a countinual slip is apparently the only way to balance the tanks. That, combined with sight tubes as fuel level indicators that have their own issues, has led to a handful of scary moments for a handful of pilots. Including engine stoppages with fuel remaining in one tank. Can be dealt with with proper technique, but still strikes me as a design deficiency.
 
I have a composite airplane,if you must store outside,cover the composite parts. I have full covers ,from Bruce's for storing the airplane in New England in the summer.have had no degradation.
 
denverpilot said:
Care to cite a source on that? I know of multiple composite aircraft tied down outside for at least a decade.
Click to expand...

You can use your Google-Fu as well as I can. But here's one source that warns of delamination and UV damage.

http://www.meyersaircraft.com/Common/Aluminum vs Composite Construction.html

I know of no composite aircraft tied down outside for any length of time. But perhaps my sample is limited. But what do I know, as I'm just a major partner in a composite aircraft.
 
I've seen a number of flight school Diamonds tied down outside.
 
I have about 600 hours in my CTSW. My friend has about 1,000 hours in his. We're near Iowa City. We are satisfied. If you want to know about maintenance and operations and support, PM me. There, I'll also give my opinion of some online forums that relate to Flight Design and I'll share my observations about Flight Design and Rotax company support.

I'll say that Kent Johnson of Stanton Airfield south of Minneapolis is wonderful, though his health is becoming an issue. Leading Edge in Lyons, WI is very good.

My friend and I are very happy that we converted our CTSW from SLSA to ELSA.
 
denverpilot said:
Sounds like a CT problem?

There's Cirri in open shelters that don't provide shade all day at the home 'drome, too.
Click to expand...

Sorry - a bit snippy this morning. Apologies for sounding like a buffoon.

Perhaps you're right... maybe other composite aircraft are fine being tied-down outside, and the issue is just related to composite LSA. I've not had the pleasure of seeing too many composite GA aircraft at my airport. But clearly Embry Riddle (Prescott, AZ campus) ties down their Diamond DA42. (their "helipad" webcam shows the aircraft tied down on the flight line.)

Maybe it's the thinner resin and lighter layers of carbon fiber on LSA that make them more susceptible when tied-down outdoors?
 
rtk11 said:
Sorry - a bit snippy this morning. Apologies for sounding like a buffoon.

Perhaps you're right... maybe other composite aircraft are fine being tied-down outside, and the issue is just related to composite LSA. I've not had the pleasure of seeing too many composite GA aircraft at my airport. But clearly Embry Riddle (Prescott, AZ campus) ties down their Diamond DA42. (their "helipad" webcam shows the aircraft tied down on the flight line.)

Maybe it's the thinner resin and lighter layers of carbon fiber on LSA that make them more susceptible when tied-down outdoors?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know. Never seen a manufacturer say not to do it, but know at least one CFI who stopped spinning the older Diamonds that sit outside here. So no clue...

Was looking for something definitive from someone who made the things. Lots of conjecture from those who don't and your report from the guy who said it destroyed his airplane.
 
FastEddieB said:
I also recommend you check in at ctflier.com.

I no longer post there, but for the most part a good group of pilots and owners with lots of knowledge about the brand.

One "Achilles Heel", in my opinion, is the fuel system. Getting even flow from both tanks can be problematical - flying along in a countinual slip is apparently the only way to balance the tanks. That, combined with sight tubes as fuel level indicators that have their own issues, has led to a handful of scary moments for a handful of pilots. Including engine stoppages with fuel remaining in one tank. Can be dealt with with proper technique, but still strikes me as a design deficiency.
Click to expand...

I thought the fuel issue is the opposite of what you're saying, flying uncoordinated causes the imbalance.

I'm thinking of the halfwit lawyer that sued the company after he crashed a CTLS with several gallons in one tank.
 
3393RP said:
I thought the fuel issue is the opposite of what you're saying, flying uncoordinated causes the imbalance.
Click to expand...

Sure, it can. But the CT line seems very prone to uneven fuel flow even in coordinated flight. The technique to correct that is "fuel follows the ball". IOW, if your left tank is getting much lower than the right, fly along for a while in a left-wing-low slip (ball to the left) until the fuel load balances.

Such is important, because apparently if one tank is emptied, the fuel supply to the engine gets "unported", leading to engine stoppage.

I'm thinking of the halfwit lawyer that sued the company after he crashed a CTLS with several gallons in one tank.
Click to expand...

I know exactly who you mean. Quite the piece of work.

The proximate cause of that accident seemed to be poor decision making - specifically taking off with too little fuel, and likely below VFR minimum fuel requirements. I don't recall seeing the final report*, but I would not be surprised if the design of the fuel system and fuel level indicating system were mentioned as contributory factors. I say this because on the CT forum there have been several incident of pilots getting caught by surprise with one tank empty and engine stoppage. Yes, there's a technique to avoid this, but one would think they could design a fuel system where no special techniques are required to get relatively even fuel flow from both tanks.

*Found it and checking it out: https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130903X23635&key=1
Sure enough, probable cause(s):
  • The pilot's inadequate preflight fuel planning and poor decision-making, which resulted in fuel exhaustion and the subsequent loss of engine power. Contributing to the accident was the lack of documentation describing the limitations of the airplane’s fuel system.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Sure, it can. But the CT line seems very prone to uneven fuel flow even in coordinated flight. The technique to correct that is "fuel follows the ball". IOW, if your left tank is getting much lower than the right, fly along for a while in a left-wing-low slip (ball to the left) until the fuel load balances.

Such is important, because apparently if one tank is emptied, the fuel supply to the engine gets "unported", leading to engine stoppage.
Click to expand...
There seems to be a lot of anecdotal reporting on CT fuel flow, but not any objective studies that I know of. In my 600 hours in a CT, including nearly a dozen long cross-country flights, my thoughts are the issue is instrument set-up, airplane design and pilot technique.

I can' t speak to steam gauges, but my CT had the older Dynon series and the ADHRS had to be zeroed to the plane axis. It had to be set in the panel right, the panel had to be set in the cowling (mushroom) right and the mushroom had to set in the fuselage right. Lots of room for initial and subsequent error as people bang around in their airplane.

The CTSW is a fairly short-coupled design, in my opinion, and can be tricky to get and keep fully coordinated. At lower bank angles, it is a "rudder" airplane. Coordinated flight doesn't seem to have a lot of "seat of the pants" feedback, as my friend and I have determined in several recent tests.

The CTSW has easy trim adjustment in 3 axis, but pilots who's greatest experience is in the pattern or short hops get out of the habit of adjusting trim. Many of us are trained by CFIs who don't make a big deal out of trim. Those of us who have flown bigger airplanes have learned that trim, trim, trim in tiny increments is the way to get the airplane to the sweet spot, and we are likely to tweak the trim through an entire flight. Maybe CTSW pilots should practice trimming to see if that helps.

As far as an "unported" tank is concerned, I've flown an airplane that had six tanks, five of which were empty. The airplane didn't care and I suspect didn't no. The airplane only cares that it gets fuel. In the CTSW, if one tank is truly empty, one would place it slightly lower and even though unported it's a moot point as fuel in the higher tank would still flow to the engine.
 
I don't disagree with anything you say. And none of this is a reason not to consider a CT.

The fuel system can be described as quirky or idiosyncratic. But hardly a fatal flaw as long as one is aware of the shortcomings. Clearly some pilots in the past have not been.
 
Yeah, I wouldn't be afraid to purchase and fly a CTLS. Nice little airplane.
 
Hi.

As others have mentioned Flight Design is popular and more mechanics are getting trained to work on them, but it can still be difficult to find one that Actually knows the plane.

There is a difference between CTSW and CTLS and the CTLS is much easier to land, has some more easily accessible space right behind you that you can reach from your seat...

I would Not suggest to anyone to keep it outside, and you will likely start seeing some small fissures / cracks in the outside paint after a couple of years, even if you keep it in a hanger.

Uneven fuel flow is a problem, and can become an emergency if you are not paying attention to it. You have the in cockpit tubes that you can monitor and should make that as part of your checklist, and be ready to switch tanks, it can take a while and is uncomfortable, to fly uncoordinated to even the fuel in the tanks.

If you can afford get a CTLS and maybe consider a CTLSi.
 
As an outsider here who has seen the planes and been intrigued by them but never flew one...

Can you not switch to just the left or just the right tank in the event you get an imbalance? No fuel selector?
 
CTSW has no fuel selector. It's hard wired to both. I believe the CTLS does have a fuel selector, but defer to others on that question. I've toyed with the idea of putting a fuel selector in mine but haven't pursued it.
 
jnmeade said:
CTSW has no fuel selector. It's hard wired to both. I believe the CTLS does have a fuel selector, but defer to others on that question. I've toyed with the idea of putting a fuel selector in mine but haven't pursued it.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's interesting about them.
 
162 does not have a L/R selector either, only on/off. I never worried about unporting, maybe ignorance was bliss?
 
It was/is not uncommon for high wing training planes to be devoid of fuel selectors. Cessna 150's and 152's lacked them as well. Pretty sure my Citabrias also lacked one. I guess it both kept costs down and simplified the training process. Makes fuel starvation - as opposed to fuel exhaustion- virtually impossible, or at least highly unlikely.

But in all of these, uneven flow was seen to be a mechanical problem that needed to be fixed - not something to gloss over by flying in a slip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top