Improved full flap landings

[Ed Cesnalis]

The CTSW is basically a prototype of the current FD models in production. The flight characteristics of the shorter wing SW are substantially different and predictably less stable than the current CTLSi being made and sold.

 

liltaka,

 

An SW is less stable than an LS but and that might have something to do with your frustration. Less stable = more fun and it will require you to be a better pilot.

 

I would not agree that the flight characteristics are substantially different, nor can I agree that it has a shorter wing.

[FlyingMonkey]

The wing on the SW is the same as the LS and LSi, the only difference is the droop tips (SW) vs winglet tips (LS/LSi).

 

Also remember that any stability increase in the LS comes at a 50lb+ useful load decrease. Not a good trade off IMO.

[Ed Cesnalis]

When FD moved from the SW to the LS they determined that more stability would be a good thing. Lets not forget that the word 'sport' is part of 'light sport'.

 

In my book the stretch was not an improvement for me but an improvement for someone looking for a plane that is easy to fly.

 

When I go to the Lamborghini dealer they never sell me on how stable and easy to drive the car is.

[paul m]

Then Icon must really be wasting their time on that spin resistant wing.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Then Icon must really be wasting their time on that spin resistant wing.

 

I'm not sure that follows. In fact a spin resistant wing wouldn't be required if they opted for a general category certificate so it is an interesting decision.

 

Stability is a complex subject, there are 3 axes.

 

Even if the design mission is to achieve high levels of positive stability there will be limits, more stable is not always a good thing.

 

I see my CTSW as 'trending towards neutral stability' and I like that a lot. I think its the reason so many here call for neutral trim or even full nose up trim on approach, the nose tends to stay put and the trim is easy to counter.

 

I like to maneuver and the CT is highly maneuverable because you don't have to fight a strong tendency to return the flight condition that it is trimmed for.

[GravityKnight]

Where I trained they have an SW and an LS. At first I preferred the LS better, it did feel more stable and easier to control. But after 10 or so hours, that wore off and I switched back to the SW. It has noticeably better performance (especially since our airport is at 6200ft) and I much prefer the site picture out of the SW better... I'm not sure why there is such a difference on that, the seats are slightly different but otherwise I'm not sure why there is a difference in picture, but it just feels right when landing.

 

The LS is nicer looking, the inside is roomier, the landing gear is boasted to be stronger... but I still prefer the SW at this elevation hands down.

[Doug G.]

I don't quite buy the Lambo comparison. Yes, Lambos and CTs are small, and only hold two people, but a Lambo is one of the fastest, best handling cars in the world. Which puts it more in the world of an Edge 540 or the like. I don't think that the Light Sport committee planed on that as a definition of "Sport" any more than a "Recreational" license means you fly a recreational vehicle type plane (Airbus?).

[FlyingMonkey]

Other than stall speeds and maximum continuous power speeds, there is nothing in the LSA regs that limits the handling, stability, or aerobatic qualities of an LSA. FK lightplanes makes aerobatic SLSAs, and many Sport Pilot eligible experimentals like the Sonex are fully aerodynamic and have brilliant handling. With the larger aileron option, Sonex roll rates can be up to 120° per second...pretty "sporty".

[Doug G.]

As I understand it there is not a lot of difference between the handling characteristics from the CW to the LS, just a little less length on the CW that makes it a bit more short coupled, some say a bit "twitchy." From the CTLS to the CTLSi I don't believe there is anything that would change the handling. The only external change is to the cowling which is done to accomidate the engine. Otherwise the speed numbers are the same and I would expect the handling would be the same. The CTLSi is a minor evolution of the CT involving mainly the injected engine. The CTLSi will fly farther, but carry less weight than the CTLS (engine and fuel system weight increase) that's it as far as flight characteristics.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Doug,

 

I used the Lambo to make the point that more stable is not always better, it depends on your design mission. Certainly I was not saying that a CT occupies the same pinnacle of performance.

 

With countless LSA designs do they all need to be super stable trainers? Shouldn't some designs be actually more maneuverable than others?

 

The rule exists because Part 103 operations had become unregulated, now fat ultra-lights are light sports. The rule doesn't exist to prohibit fun in favor of all LSA being as easy to fly as possible.

[Doug G.]

Don't get me wrong Andy, I am not saying that they can't be "sporty" but I don't think that is what the sport in Light Sport means or was meant to mean. Even some Pitts biplanes fit the category, but they cannot be flown areobatically by a Sport Pilot.

It reminds me a bit of my Nissan Maxima. It is billed as a Four Door Sports Car and it is quick, but it doesn't fall into the category of a Corvette, Ferrari, Lambo, SRT Viper or any numer of cars designed for speed and quickness through the corners. (I'd take on most stock Camaros and Mustangs on a tight course though. )

[Doug G.]

CT, every vehicle, land or air, is a compromise based on its purpose. I agree that it depends on mission.

[paul m]

My only point Ed was that it seems to me FD and Icon have decided to pursue plane designs that are more stable in flight-- they think that's where the "mass" market for Light Sport is. I like the CTLS alot for that reason. It is more stable and roomier than the other ones I have flown. I think it's great that there is a different FD plane you can fly that behaves with the performance you want. It's too bad they don't offer it new for those interested in it.

[Roger Lee]

The LS changes were the result from owners complaining about light controls in the SW. Most CTSW pilots came from larger heavy handed aircraft and were not used to the SW's light quick handling so owners complained. These were station wagon drivers and not Ferrari drivers. FD listened, but went over board at first in making the controls stiffer. Then the owners complained they were too stiff and heavy. So FD went back some more towards the SW in their control setup, but not quite as light. I myself prefer the lighter controls. It is only personal preference and like all that have owned CT's over the last 7 years it becomes "Whatever you get used to". It's no big deal. Once used to light controls most don't want to go back. Work load gets reduced. I would love to take anyone that complains about controls being too light and put them in a helicopter behind the controls. My bet is they would never complain again.

[Roger Lee]

We have been flying with Taka (liltaka) and his wife Lillie the last few days here in Tucson. They are doing well in their new CTSW and aren't having any issues. They will be here until Sunday so they are flying everyday.

 

Hi Ed,

 

As a side note I think they really like landing much better with 2600-2700 rpm right to touch over a closed throttle, but they are still new so they will learn all ways and make their own decision. They are making nice smooth landings.

[opticsguy]

Early in my CT days I found that putting 10 lbs way back in the tail helped the feel and landing. I discussed this with Matthias at OSH in 2007 and I guess it was already on the drawing board.

 

That being said, I will only fly a CTSW because of the storage in back. You can fill the tail with luggage and camping equipment and still be within CG limits. Try putting a case of beer through the cargo door of a CTLS.