My First CTSW Experience

[Doug G.]

Thanks for the input. I have gotten considerably better with my landings even in crosswinds after spending time with an instructor familiar with the CT. I learned in a Skycatcher - a very different machine - that surprised me since they are both LSA.

[Roger Lee]

Some of the problem here with our post is comparing a CT to any other aircraft and for those who have little to no time in one makes the comments and comparisons not always applicable. Any one that has ever flown before they purchased a CT will attest to that. It's a different animal, but in a good way. Pilots that fly the CT for a while tend to be a lot better stick and rudder pilots. It's more like a Farrari and not a station wagon. Most of us had some re-training of our muscle memory in the beginning and had to learn what the rudder peddles really did again.

[FlyingMonkey]

Hi Andy,

 

Sounds pretty normal and one of the common techniques I see with the CT and fairly common speeds.

 

Great, I just wanted to make sure I was learning accepted (even if some details are obviously in hot dispute!) CT technique.

[Roger Lee]

Like I said in the other post. There isn't any real right or wrong sometimes, just a matter of preference and what works for you. I must work that way because we all don't do it the same way yet here we are all flying and landing.

[Roger Lee]

For all that have been on a CT forum at least 5+ years. (Roger Heller's old CT forum) These debates come full circle every couple of years. We had these same discussions years ago and it was just as big a debate back then, but it seems to work out for the 360 CT's in the US and the other 1500 or so world wide. Same for all the other LSA every where.

 

The last few threads under Landing and Flying have been around a long time and not once has a specific single technique ever been agreed upon.

 

These will come up again in a year or two and makes for some good debate and all the names have been changed, but the words are the same.

 

There can never be a single consensus because there isn't one, but I truly hope people here get some good info and not more confused.

[Ed Cesnalis]

For all that have been on a CT forum at least 5+ years. (Roger Heller's old CT forum) These debates come full circle every couple of years. We had these same discussions years ago and it was just as big a debate back then, but it seems to work out for the 360 CT's in the US and the other 1500 or so world wide. Same for all the other LSA every where....

 

Roger,

 

The debate has evolved since 5 1/2 years ago. By the time of the first Page fly-in the debate was raging. A private meeting that included you, Roger Fane and one other, I think Joseph Friedman perhaps settled it and it then evolved to 'fly it on' vs 'full stall.'

 

The original debate came from the difficulty students were having in performing the round-out in the CTSW and the answer was the 'low approach' that virtually eliminated the round-out.

 

As you might guess I'm not buying the 'kum-ba-ya' summary where its all good, it all works, diversity is good, ... etc. I remain convinced that the majority of landings should be done at minimum speed and the stick needs to come back to accomplish it. Excess energy = excess risk.

 

Blaming gear damage on 'too high, too slow' landings is just wrong, the damage is from not arresting the sink, not pulling the stick back or if it is already back not advancing the throttle.

 

We enjoy great safety benefit from landing at 39kts.

[Roger Lee]

I wondered if you remembered that time. I almost brought it up.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. We kind have beat this horse so far into the ground we can't even see him any more. There is no single correct answer to fit all.

 

Time to move on to a new thread.

[Jim Meade]

There is obviously a best answer. It is the one that is in the AFH and the specific airplane's POH/AOI. If in conflict, the POH/AOI wins.

The AFH has evolved over many years of aviation, and is based on learning to fly in airplanes with very light wing loading, like LSA are these days. The PTS is based on the AFH.

The POH/AOI trumps the AFH when there is conflict. If the PTS can not be complied with according to the POH/AOI, that conflict must be resolved before the check ride. (I don't know of one that can't be reconciled without this resolution.)

 

[coppercity]

Straight from the CT manual

 

▲Warning:

 

Too high approach speeds with flap changes on a light and efficient aircraft like the CTLS-LSA shortly before touch-down lead very quickly to dynamic flight conditions. If in doubt: discontinue the approach and perform a go around.

 

▲Warning:

 

Do not rely on the demonstrated wind speed data in the manual for crosswind landings. Local conditions causing dangerous leeward turbulence can lead to lower limits.

 

▲Warning

The aircraft can be landed at all flap settings. The maximum flap position (30°) should be used to land on very short runways under favorable wind condition (no crosswind component, very light wind and low gusts).

 

 Approach airspeed 55 kt (102 km/h)

Flaps in final

... 15° at long airfields, gusty conditions or cross wind

.... 30° only on final for short runways and when conditions permit

 Airspeed on final 52 kt (96 km/h) with Flaps 30°

 Flare smoothly, nose not too high; Avoid ballooning

 After touchdown stick smoothly back to relieve nose wheel

 

During a landing with crosswind, the upwind wing should be dipped by applying aileron against the wind and direction kept using the rudder. As the CTLS-LSA is a high-wing aircraft, there is no risk of the wing tips touching the ground.

 

After landing, all unnecessary electrical equipment, especially the landing light, should be switched off. As this equipment requires a lot of power and since the alternator does not produce much power during taxiing due to relatively low engine rpm, the battery would discharge considerably before the engine is finally shut down.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Eric,

 

That is not from a CTSW is it?

[Dan Kent]

I think I must have mastered a full stall landing at least once, because on short final one time the tower reported my position to a plane behind me that I was "currently floating over the numbers" .

[coppercity]

Eric,

 

That is not from a CTSW is it?

 

No, it's from the latest CTLS manual.

[FastEddieB]

Two observations:

 

Straight from the CT manual

 

 

 Flare smoothly, nose not too high...

 

Whlie "too high" is kind of vague and subjective, with that recommendation, I might advise against full stall landings in that particular plane. If sending a student for a checkride in it, I would make sure the examiner was aware of that recommendation so that he would not fault my student for landing a bit before the stall.

 

As the CTLS-LSA is a high-wing aircraft, there is no risk of the wing tips touching the ground.

 

 

DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!

 

I had a student in a right crosswind landing in a Citabria suddenly neutralize ailerons immediately after touching down. My hand was right there cupping the stick, but before I could slam the ailerons back into the wind, it got under the upwind wing and the plane tipped away from the wind and the left wingtip (barely) scraped the ground. Lightly enough that we weren't sure it had and lightly enough that with a couple coats of dope it "buffed right out", but still - it CAN happen!

[Roger Lee]

Hi Eddie,

 

 

"Whlie "too high" is kind of vague and subjective, with that recommendation, I might advise against full stall landings in that particular plane."

 

Son of a gun, I can't believe you just said that. I'm shocked!

 

See they aren't all alike.

 

 

p.s.

I wasn't going to post any more, but I was so stunned.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Whlie "too high" is kind of vague and subjective, with that recommendation, I might advise against full stall landings in that particular plane.

 

Eddie,

 

Can you explain your thinking? I can raise my nose just enough to ensure contact on the mains and hold that attitude until it won't fly any more while I work the stick all the way back. Even in landing you can stall at any attitude.

 

I read, avoid too high a pitch attitude in the flare, not touch down with additional speed.

[FastEddieB]

Eddie,

 

Can you explain your thinking?

 

Sure.

 

Manufacturers generally have reasons for all of their Cautions and Warnings and the like, even when they're short of Limitations.

 

I can understand your thinking that "nose too high" can only be achieved by "over-rotating" the tail into the ground, not by smoothly increasing pitch to the stall. And I'm certainly beat in the experience department, having never landed a CT.

 

But there's a similar "Caution" for the Cirrus when landing with less than full flaps:

 

 

Caution • Landings with flaps at 50% or 0%; power should be used to achieve a normal glidepath and low descent rate. Flare should be minimized. (bolded - mine)

 

If you go for a full stall landing in a Cirrus with partial or no flaps, even with smooth technique you can arrive at a pitch attitude that drags the tail. I had exactly one student managed to drag an add-on tail skid on a partial flap landing where they flared just a bit too long. I would guess that's what CT was thinking with their caution.

 

But I might be wrong.

[Ed Cesnalis]

With my style of landing I have never come close to a tail contact and I would think that would be an issue only with reflex flaps or maybe at zero.

 

Without a reason or more than a vague warning it is hard to interpret.

 

It does say to avoid 'too high' it doesn't say to contact with extra speed. I can get the stick full back without a 'too high' attitude, CTSWs are not prone to tail strikes, so what say you now?

[Doug G.]

It all sounds familiar from the CTLS manual. I know the SW is shorter, is the wingspan also different?

[Ed Cesnalis]

CTSW wingspan is 28'

[opticsguy]

Wow, what a thread. I'll chime in.

 

I land dead-stick full idle most of the time, just so I can remember the feel of the plane as the energy bleeds off. That makes partial power landings pretty easy.

 

40 flaps are useless. 30 is fine for most short fields. I have flown the ultralight pattern at OSH twice behind a powered parachute at 35 kts with 30 flaps. It was more like going up and down in an elevator, but as long as the motor is running, the plane will fly, in any configuration.

 

When I was a new CT owner I landed at -6 flaps on a hot day with my 220 lb boss (forgot to go to 0 flaps) and with power off, I did drag the tail. It was a three-point landing, just not the three points you want.

[FastEddieB]

30 is fine for most short fields.

 

If you're good at those, do you use the same technique for longer fields as well?

[Runtoeat]

"40 flaps are useless". I use 40 flaps frequently when landing my 2006 CTSW - especially when I am close to the runway and too high and need to loose altitude fast. If the decent rate isn't enough, I throw in a forward slip and this, combined with 40 flaps, provides for a rapid decent.

[opticsguy]

I find 30 and a slip to be about the same as 40. My 40 flaps are more like 35, anyway.

 

Most times I use 15 or 0, mostly because I usually have to deal with 15 kt or more winds and a x-wind component of 10 kts.

[Ed Cesnalis]

LSA is limited to 600kg MTOW. The weight restriction isn't about capability It's about kinetic energy. The lower the kinetic energy... the less likely are injuries and fatalities.

 

Approaching and landing at minimum speeds accomplishes the same thing, enhanced safety through limited kinetic energy.

[WmInce]

LSA is limited to 600kg MTOW. The weight restriction isn't about capability It's about kinetic energy. The lower the kinetic energy... the less likely are injuries and fatalities.

 

Approaching and landing at minimum speeds accomplishes the same thing, enhanced safety through limited kinetic energy.

 

Just what are you trying to sell?