chanik Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 I got this from Karsten, the german CT pilot who came to Page last year and wanted to share it. Apparently, a plurality of German CT pilots are pretty down on the CT after this flutter incident and FD's response to it. I have found FD here to be a bit slow responding but not too bad for a small organization. I find it striking since this is very different from the comments I get about most CT owner experiences in the US, I think. Karsten has had no luck getting any response from Flight Design in Germany after many inquiries and is now planning to sell his CT as he now has low faith in the design. This is translated a bit off likely with Google: "Caution to all CT-pilots: Heavy construction failure, Limitation to 225km/h Vne at the CTSW, Safety at the CTSW and Customer care from FlightDesign Hello CT-Pilots and future CT-Pilots. Some of you are affected from the limitation of the Vne to 225km/h of the CTSW for more than one year. This based to an accident of our CTSW. On the 5th of June 2010 the elevator is broken after heavy rudder flutter. The emergency landing took place without complication. On the 23th of June the plane was repaired by advice of the BFU at a FlightDesign-Shop. The checkflight after the repair was aborted after repeated rudder flutter. FlightDesign ordered a test institution for a Ground Vibration Test. The SafetyAlert was written on 14th of September (10 weeks after the repair! ). On the 22th of September we got the plane back (with the SA) and paid 50% of the envoice. In spite of twice phonecalls per week, the repair didn´t go on. So we couldn´t fly for three month (half of the season). We paid the part of the envoice although we think, that there´s an contruction failure. Pictures and a video of the accident are available link . For more informations feel free to ask. Flight Design said, “…operated outside the allowed speed range (313 km/h ground speed), in combination with maximum control surface deflection (1/3 allowed)…” That was not true. The BFU calculated true airspeed was 306km/h, and about the maximum control surface deflection, it was max 1/4….make your own opinion to the fact, FD used. Build your own mind about the care of customer and the responsibility to contruction failures with Flight Design. Hopefully you never have a failure at your CT and depend to the service of Flight Design." Remarks for US- pilots: BFU: german Federal flight-accident investigation Never we flow over 300 km/h!!!! What FD says, is absolutely farytale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Is that related to this? http://flightdesign.com/files/Safety%20Alert/SA-LTUL-CTSW-04-en.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted November 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 I think it must be. Seems like the German FD representative is quite poor at customer service. Karsten was a very friendly fellow. I think what is making him crazy is his failure to get any response from FD from his multiple queries about his CTSW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Well, I see his point. I find the FD USA people very friendly when you get in touch with them, but they are sometimes hard to run down and not good at keeping my posted on issues I've been working on with them. In a word, unsatisfactory. And that is too bad, as I think it is a leadership and training issue, not something wrong with the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 300km/hr is 162 knots. My POH says Vne is 145 knots. Do the Germans have a different Vne than us? The translated text mentioned "rudder flutter" twice. I've never heard of that. There's been flutter from the stabilator trim tab but not the rudder. I think we should ask FD for clarification of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozairangel Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 I too, here in Australia are subject to this so called " Temporary Alert" restricting VNE to 120kts ias. [ctsw] This Temporary alert was issued some 15 months ago and despite numerous efforts to get a 'fix' thru the agents here nothing has happened. I too am disappointed with flight designs reaction to this. maybe they are hoping it will just go away. It has certainly devalued the aircraft by a considerable amount.Any buyer would certainly want to know what the fix is...........Just silence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 300km/hr is 162 knots. My POH says Vne is 145 knots. Do the Germans have a different Vne than us? it's a matter of parachute installed (145kts)..... or not (162kts) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted November 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 The silence was indeed Karsten's main point over numerous email exchanges he and I have had. My own experience is I have to call about 4x before I get someone on the line or a response from FD. I think with this problem, they don't have an answer and so are just avoiding the whole thing. In which case, shame on them. If the painful answer is everone needs to spend $2K to get the LSA version of the tail then so be it, just say so. But they need to support the product. I know a number of instructors and flight schools around here. They plan to go with the skycatcher for their low end trainer, even acknowledging that it is a crappier airplane, for the sole reason that they know and expect Cessna to stand behind the thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Based on the comments so far, either I misunderstand the safety bulletin I referenced or some of you don't understand that you probably aren't affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozairangel Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Based on the comments so far, either I misunderstand the safety bulletin I referenced or some of you don't understand that you probably aren't affected. Jim, The Bulletin you quote is correct, but as I understand it it does not relate to USA models which have a horizontal stabilator from different materials. It apparently is confined to europe & Australia and maybe some other places I dont know about. I can understand how the the Germans are pissed off if they are getting the same response as I am. [ I thought this was to be an honourable organisation] Either they stand up and say the Temporary alert is now permanent and we suffer the loss in value of our aircraft and the permanent stigma of a suspect construction OR they come out with a fix. But silence is not the answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Hi guys, I´m new in this forum as the other forum ctflyer.com is down. I´m the man with the broken horizontal stabilizer. Soory for the bad translation, chanik sent. It´s very difficult to translate these very technical stuff. For those who are interested in a video To make it clear. I flew with 180km/h an made the second half of a lazy eight. The next 15sec I must reached 306km/h but I didn´t noticed that. The Vne is at 300km/h. OK it was my fault. I didn´t realized that the speed rised so fast. The main point is, that nothing should happens at 6km/h above Vne. I talked with many people and all said, the speed where things brake is 100% speed. Vne is 90% of that. Even last week I talked to someone, who knows a pilots, who had flutter in the trimm at 260km/h. He slowed down so the flutter was gone. But it happens. Feel free the ask me for more details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runtoeat Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 About a year ago, I had to reinforce the stabilator on my 2006 CTSW per SB-ASTM-CTSW-07. At this time, I also noticed there was a European SB-LTUL-CTSW-04 which is also related to the stabilator. The European SB follows: Europe_SA_stabilator_LTUL_CTSW-04.pdf If you read the European SB, it indicates that the aramide fiber stabilator may develop flutter above 225 km/h and all CTSW aircraft were limited to 225 km/h (140 mph or approx. 122 kts) until further notice. FWIW, I consider limiting a CTSW to a maximum speed of 122 kts. unacceptable and a safety issue due to the aircraft being capable of exceeding this speed very easily if airspeed is not carefully monitored. It appears from the notes in this thread, this issue remains unresolved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Based on the comments so far, either I misunderstand the safety bulletin I referenced or some of you don't understand that you probably aren't affected. JIm the bulletin is for lighter CT with aramid fabric stab. NOT for 600 kg (1320lbs) LSA with carbon fiber stab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozairangel Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 JIm the bulletin is for lighter CT with aramid fabric stab. NOT for 600 kg (1320lbs) LSA with carbon fiber stab. Jacques, This is true, However in Australia we are now Ok for 600kg auw. and FD approve that with the lighter construction [ arimid] Stab. {providing that I give them AUD $200 for the paperwork]. But I still have an Unresolvable problen with the tempory safety alert....SILENCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted November 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2011 I took the liberty of bothering Tom Peghiny to use his channel into FD to try to get some insight here. It isn't his area, of course, since the US version is built sturdier in a few areas (reinforced fot box area too, which I didn't know), but he was nice enough to look into it since having no response does generally give FD a black eye vis-a-vis support. His answer in a nustshell: Kurt: I don’t have much knowledge as to the specifics of the situation with the stabilizer of the European Ultralight version of CTsw. What I could find out is that the situation is not that simple. There was a difference between what was reported to Flight Design by the owner originally and the data that was downloaded from the Dynon D-100 which confused things. The principle of the company that Flight Design uses for ground vibration testing was very sick and has been unavailable to do GVT testing for something like 8 months. They have just begun working with another GVT company. Another question was about the confusion of the use of the word Rudder in the Google translation. An elevator is called Hoen-rudder in German. There has not been an issue with the Rudder on the CT series. Basically, they are still looking into it; it is taking forever unfortunately; and Tom will stay appraised so he can relay any updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Koerner Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 Dear Michael, It's no surprise to me that Flight Design will not respond to you. Faced with data from your Dynon, you admit to flying the aircraft beyond its operating limitations... but think it should have greater design margins!!! I don't think they owe you a new tail. I think pilots who exceed operating limitations should lose their aircraft. And I don't want my plane to have a greater design margins. I would rather carry more payload or fuel than added structural weight that I'll never use. But most profoundly, I think you should treat Flight Design with great reverence. Despite having suffered a catastrophic failure as a result of your incompetence, the plane still carried you back to the ground safely. Instead, you have attacked the integrity of Flight Design and besmirched their products, which most of us own and love. By the way, control defections are limited above maneuvering speed. No flight is allowed beyond Vne. Mike Koerner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozairangel Posted November 26, 2011 Report Share Posted November 26, 2011 WEll I havnt exceeded any criteria, but I am now subject to a safety alert which places a big question mark over the safety of the aircraft. I have been given names of people to contact at FD......NO Reply PLEASE FD ....If you read this site say something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.