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

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.

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

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