My First CTSW Experience

[Ed Cesnalis]

bigs,

 

The increased hp/kw that you continue to claim just isn't there. In order to increase power you would have to do one or more of the following:

• Increase displacement
  
• Increase compression
  
• increase RPM
  
• turbo charge
  
• super charge
  

The fuel injection impacts efficiency, the bing carbs only compensate when the needle jet has control and for me that is only when I'm descending so over 2,000 hours I might burn an additional 2,000 gallons or $10,000 but it is not all wasted. The additional fuel is providing additional cooling.

 

Your additional hp that you are now claiming at 5,500 isn't there. Do you have a link to support that?

[Tom Baker]

gbigs, you are showing your lack of knowlege when it comes to these airplanes. The CTSW and the CTLS are 2 different airframes that look similar. The difference in airframes is what makes the CTSW more nimble than the CTLS.

 

Your claims of more power from the 912iS can be trace back to where you compared it to the 80hp 912. It does have more power that the 80 hp 912, but not the 100hp 912ULS. I don't think that anyone will argue that the 912iS is more eficient the the 912 ULS, but Rotaxs' own numbers shows that it doesn't have more power. From a cost standpoint the engine upgrade is hard to justify. The fuel saving over the 2000 hour TBO is not enough to offset the cost of the upgrade. For someone like me who works on their own aircraft the lack of carb balancing is offset by the new equipment required to maintain the engine. I have no doubt that the 912iS is a great engine, but most of your claims are way off base.

 

If someone like you wants to have the latest and greatest in airplane equipment that is fine, but it is not going to be the right choice for everyone. Remember we are all different and if someones choice doesn't agree with yours it doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it different.

[FlyingMonkey]

You can find CTSWs around for $60-75K, a CTLSi is twice that or more. $75K will buy me a lot of gallons of mogas.

 

And yes gbigs, I could buy a NORDO Cub or even a part 103 airplane if that's what I wanted. But I don't, I want a CT, and It's kind of amusing to watch you try to bully me into the one *you* think I should have.

[FastEddieB]

I found that you can safely ignore what gbigs has to say on this matter.

 

And nearly all other matters, at least in my opinion!

[WmInce]

. . . "The fuel injection alone uses 25% less fuel for any RPM you choose." . . .

 

Not that I doubt you, but where is that data published?

[Rogerck]

Post # 14 talks about using less tire pressure, 26psi, to make landings stick a bit more, assuming more robust Matco wheels and tundra tires. In reading the forums in the past, it seems most recommendations went the other way, higher pressure. Any opinions on this?

 

Roger Kuhn

[chanik]

I settled on 26psi as the low end of what was safe to ensure no slipping after talking with Roger Lee and Jeremy about wheels and such. The Matcos have much better grip so I have seen no slippage at all looking at the stems using 26psi. I got leak-guard tubes so almost never have to top-up the pressure either.

[Roger Lee]

Tundra tire are rated for much higher loads so you can run and get away with lower pressures. That said too low may cause you to bounce a little. I would use some where between 23-28 psi. Any higher in the tundra tire it gets real stiff of a ride and no benefit when contacting chuck holes, ruts and grooves. I have seen pressures as low as 12-15 psi in the tundra with no ill affects, but that could cause a slow turn on the wheel some day and pull a stem. I'm with Kurt, I use 26 psi.

[207WF]

Agreeing with much said above, except the first description of the pattern work. I would not trim full nose up when I cut the power in the pattern. This may be why you are finding the trim awkward. I would trim for 60 knots, power off, so that when I take my hands off the stick it stays at 60 knots. WF

[sandpiper]

Agreeing with much said above, except the first description of the pattern work. I would not trim full nose up when I cut the power in the pattern. This may be why you are finding the trim awkward. I would trim for 60 knots, power off, so that when I take my hands off the stick it stays at 60 knots. WF

 

Exactly. That is what the trim is for. If you trim for hands off, life will be much easier. One less thing to concentrate on.

[FlyingMonkey]

I'm just trimming per my instructors direction. I'll experiment if he will let me.

[FastEddieB]

A couple points:

 

1) I try to impart to my students that trim is used only to relieve control pressures, never to move the controls.. "Flying the trim" is thought to be a bad habit that inhibits control "feel".

 

2) The problem with a plane being out of trim, either intentionally or accidentally, is that when distracted a pilot will typically relax the pressure and the plane will drift in pitch (or roll or yaw - but pitch is the primary concern in most of our planes).

[Ed Cesnalis]

Eddie is right,

 

Here's a great tip for setting up for 30 degree landings.

• 80kts abeam and power to idle and 15 degrees
  
• wait a few seconds to slow to 62kts and deploy 30 degrees
  
• look at your wingtip and pitch down till the drooped tip becomes parallel to the horizon.
  
• trim away the pressure ( for me full nose down )
  

You should be 1.3 Vso

 

This works well if you have to land without an airspeed indicator.

[Ed Cesnalis]

The CT at 30 degree flaps is a mess...Cross end of runway at 62kts with 15 degree flaps at 10% speed (about 3500rpm)

Cut throttle to idle and slow to 54kts and begin to pull stick to 4 degree nose flair when ground effect felt

 

A full stall landing in a CTSW at 30 degrees is truly a beautiful thing.

 

bigs, your saying to cross the end of the runway at 62kts??? Thats almost 1.4Vso why all the extra energy? Plus your throttle isn't closed?? Sounds like poor energy management to me.

[Jim Meade]

When flying the Citation, it was typical to make fine pitch adjustments with the trim wheel, especially when trying to "nail" an airspeed on departure/climbout or approach/descent.

 

An airplane being flown with muscle power overriding the trim will set up to the "natural" attitude and airspeed if the muscle power is relaxed. It won't continually hunt, but will establish itself in a configuration "as trimmed".

[coppercity]

Students should be taught 30 and 35 flap landings at some point in their training. Most examiners I have sent students with in the CT have required the use of full flaps for the short field landing demonstration assuming the crosswinds were light. We certainly stick with 15 flaps for normal landings and thru out solo training, but as or students advance we challenge them with the higher flap settings and include takeoffs and landings on a 1100ft dirt strip at our airport.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Mr Tango. The school has this down to a science. The checkride is also done in their CTs in the exact same way. Crossing the end of the runway with 10% power at 62kts ensures making the runway AND dealing with cross wind gusts. The extra energy is minute given the power is cut as you cross at level and decending nose attitude. the plane settles nicely and the flair is managed much more precisely as the plane enters ground effect. try it. 30 degree flaps is never used by the school at all, not even for short field practice. stalling the plane is also not necessary to land well, its more a matter of getting the site view right and letting the plane almost land itself.

 

The extra energy is of no benefit and it certainly isn't minute. Energy increases with the square of velocity. 39kts x 1.3 = 50.7 62 / 50.7 = 1.2228 22.28% x 22.28% = 496% Your energy increased by a factor of 5.

 

My first solo CTSW landing was in Bishop, CA and I did the roll out on one wheel. When I touched down I saw a big yellow object depart the right side of my new CT and I thought it was the landing gear. I landed my first plane with a main gear snapped off at the strut on departure and that memory kicked in so my reaction was left stick to get up on the gear that I knew was still there. Once it settled there was no crash because only the wheel pant departed and the gear was still there. Surprises are the biggest reason that I will stick with landing with 20% as much energy as you are advocating, if it had been the gear my full stall landing would have been far less damaging and far more survivable.

 

As Eric eluded to any DPE is likely to want to see a full flap landing. Your school may have this down to a science but if they are sending students to check rides that have never landed with flaps they are doing a poor job. What is the student to tell the examiner? I have never done that?

[FastEddieB]

CT went to a lot of trouble and expense to design effective flaps. Their installation adds weight and expense and complexity.

 

You're carrying them around anyway. So, why the heck not use them?

 

BTW, my first Citabria, a 7ECA, had no flaps. They are not strictly needed, and I can land pretty darn slowly without them.

 

But if I got 'em I use 'em.

 

For those "not comfortable" with flaps on landing, my suggestion is to get comfortable with them via targeted dual.

 

I think much of this stems from the Law Of Primacy - pilots taught initially to land without flaps because "it's easier" will always find it easier and more natural to land without flaps. I learned in a Cessna 150 and full flaps (barn door 40°) was the standard landing from the get go. Now, 35 years later, full flaps remain my standard, and the method I'm most "comfortable" with.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Law of primacy is what went wrong. I was around Carson City when CTSWs where being sold in quantity back in 06/07. Immediately there were landing incidents caused by experienced pilots without experience in very light aircraft. Pilots where stalling while a few feet in the air usually when they tried their 1st 40 degree landing. Energy management without much energy to work with was a new ball game.

 

The CFIs doing the transition training learned to avoid this scenario with extra speed and less flaps. If you can land a Cessna or a Piper you won't have a lot of trouble with a 15 degree landing in a CTSW, throw in 5 or 10 extra knots and less worry about stalling. Before long these same CFIs began teaching students. At first many were asking if a CTSW was reasonable for primary training and since the experienced pilots were avoiding flaps certainly the students need to do the same, at leas at first. IMHO they screwed up with easy first and now years later landing fast is the norm with CT pilots.

[Tom Baker]

Eddie, Just because the airplane has all those flaps doesn't mean that they should be used. The Cessna 150 you mentioned had 40° flaps, but when it was re-designed into the 152 they went to 30° flap for safety reasons. After years of flying them with 40° flap and several accidents they made the change. The CTSW has 40° flaps, and when the designed the CTLS they put it in a wind tunnel and found that any flaps beyond 35° was counter productive. Now with the CTLSi I think they have pulled the flaps back to 30°. The other thing with our flap system is that we have flaperons too, and with more flap you get more droop in the ailerons. This creates a problem with crosswinds. When you apply aileron into the wind the upwind aileron is inline with the wing, and the downwind aileron is hanging way down. This creates a big difference in stall speeds between each wing and a bunch of extra drag on the wrong side of the airplane. These are some of the things that get people who have not had training in the airplane into trouble when they fly that way because that is the way they were taught.

[FastEddieB]

The CFIs doing the transition training learned to avoid this scenario with extra speed and less flaps. If you can land a Cessna or a Piper you won't have a lot of trouble with a 15 degree landing in a CTSW, throw in 5 or 10 extra knots and less worry about stalling...IMHO they screwed up with easy first and now years later landing fast is the norm with CT pilots.

 

Pretty much the same thing happened regarding at least the speed part in the Cirrus community.

 

Early on, there were fears of tail strikes. With full flaps (the only normal landing specified in the POH), it was actually very difficult to hit the tail unless a pilot ballooned up and then over-rotated right at the end.

 

On my first demo flight I remember being well on the way to a full stall landing when I felt the demo pilot (not a CFI) start fighting me a bit by pushing forward on his side stick and saying "Let it land - you don't want to hit the tail!"

 

Anyway, early on Cirrus pilots were taught to land fast and a bit flat- which is absolutely, 100% NOT required. Those fast touchdowns over time led to a LOT of bent airplanes from porpoising, overruns, swerving and botched go-arounds. Even a handful of fatalities when all that extra kinetic energy had to go somewhere. Some Cirrus instructors actually run "landing clinics" to get wayward pilots back on the reservation, so to speak.

 

The more things change...the more they stay the same!

[FastEddieB]

Eddie, Just because the airplane has all those flaps doesn't mean that they should be used. The Cessna 150 you mentioned had 40° flaps, but when it was re-designed into the 152 they went to 30° flap for safety reasons. After years of flying them with 40° flap and several accidents they made the change.

 

Tom,

 

My huge caveat is that I've never flown a CT*.

 

I'll stipulate that they may land better without quite full flaps.

 

What I react to is people intentionally landing with zero or minimal flaps, 10+ knots above stall, for reasons already stated.

 

 

*Tom,

 

Check out Copperhill, TN (1A3) on a map - it ain't all that far from you. Maybe you can go down in history as the CT pilot that showed Fast Eddie the light! I could even meet you part way on a nice day! And you might even get a ride in a Sky Arrow!

[Tom Baker]

Eddie, I use and teach 15° flaps as the normal set up for takeoff and landing. Sure I can use full flaps, but the workload goes up in my opinion. The reason I teach 15° landings is because landings are the hardest thing for a student to learn. Of all the time we spend flying only a few seconds are used up for each landing. I'm talking the time spent from the start of the round out till touchdown. With full flaps and a slower approach speed there is not much time if you didn't judge everything just right. By using 15° and a little faster approach speed it almost doubles the time the student has to learn for each landing approach. The added bonus is being able to learn to fix little mistakes, like rounding out a little to high or ballooning. Another down side for trying to teach full flap landings from the begining is with full flaps there is a bunch of adverse yaw because of the flaperons. It is a lot easier to learn to deal with this and the other issues of full flaps after you already have the basics of landing the airplane. Tom

[Roger Lee]

Hi Eddie,

 

I'm with Tom and Eric here.

I personally think full flap teachings all the time may be a little old school for many newer planes and teaching methodology. Skill sets need to develop slowly and have a progression to them and they need the ability to get out of trouble. Even high time full flap and full stall landing pilots make judgement mistakes and you have little recovery options.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Roger,

 

Old school vs new school is an interesting argument that does not address the law of primacy or the dramatic increase in kinetic energy.