Did anyone here fly an Evektor before settling on a CT? And why?

[Acensor]

In other posts here mentioned I am seriously looking at buying a 900 hr 2006 CTSW.

 

All indications are CT owners are happy owners, and my research reveals many pluses... Not the least if which us my bias to high wing.

 

But Evektors have similar performance and priced comparably, and have AFAIK equally happy owners.

 

Curious what in same price range others flew and considered before settling on CT.. And what was the deal maker factor or factors... And any second thought in retrospect?

 

Alex

[Anticept]

I have people who fly an evektor north of OSU. It's a grest low wing, but you will bake in the sun.

 

Also, much like the predecessors to the CTLS, the landing gear is fragile. Upside is the plane is easy to disassemble and repair.

[S3flyer]

The Evektor Sportstar has a fuel capacity of 31 gallons. Here is a link to actual performance and specs of one: http://avsport.org/acft/specs.htm

 

I put in ~5 hrs in Sportstar when determining whether I was going to jump in the LSA waters and to get current. Nice plane, very roomy, huge cargo area, stable flier. The original models were restricted to a lower MTOW and, therefore, did not typically equip with chutes. There is an LOA to add vortex generators to increase the MTOW to 1320lbs which gives many of the planes 700+ lbs useful load. I don't know the exact dimensions but the wheel base feels narrower than other LSAs I've flown. This may contribute to a lower demonstrated crosswind. I didn't test it in greater than 10 kts of crosswind but it felt less stable than the CTSW (and Sting).

 

I maybe saw 100kts TAS in cruise. I actually think this more attributed to prop pitch than design, though. Many of these were targeted for flight schools and, I think, they prefer climb over cruise. Something to check on the plane in question.

 

Most of my 20+ years of flying has been centered in Texas which has been known to get a bit warm in the summer. I test flew a CTSW in June and didn't notice an appreciable difference to the SportStar. Don't get me wrong -- they were hot but so were Cessna 182's, Cherokee's and Bellanca's. Also, I logged my 5 hrs in the SportStar over a 2 month period from June to August over my lunch hour. YMMV. Also, many Sportstars have sunshades. I went low tech on my Sting and have a $5 stick-on shade.

 

The SportStar's cabin, like most other LSA low-wings, is somewhat forward as compared to the Pipers and Beeches. This means you can easily look straight down and even a bit down/behind. Not like a high-wing, obviously, but the view doesn't feel obstructed.

[Anticept]

S3: that's texas. You have a dry heat, so moving air makes a world of difference. Places like here in Ohio are wet heat, so keeping the sun out period is our best option

 

 

This part was from the other thread (this was a doublepost), and continuing the conversation here instead.

 

Thanks for those several Evektor points.

 

But wait....... Isn't the 2006 CTSW I'm flirting with (and for that matter every CT but the CTLS) a predecessor of the CTLS? And thus are you also saying that CTSW I'm looking at has landing gear that can't take much of a beating?

Not that I PLAN to beat on the landing gear, but in my first ~30 hours of solo I did...err....twice set a nose wheel down on the runway let's say "a tad hard." ;-)

 

 

Alex

P.S., BTW, I just looked at

http://sportpilottal...=3&t=722&page=2

where several Evektor owners has interesting detailed pro and con things to say about the Sportsstar

 

I missed the part where you said CTSW. To be honest, I think you should fly each a few hours, and do a run down on what maintenance would be required on each. The one nice thing about sportstars is that maintenance on them is far easier than a CT, and CTs are already pretty simple. Mainly, they have a bigger engine compartment, so you have more room to work behind the engine.

[sandpiper]

I bought my CTSW new in 2007. My reasons, as opposed to other planes, was fuel capacity, cockpit wider than a C-206, a baggage max. weight higher than most others, excellent visibility, and standard BRS.

 

but, my biggest reason was it was the sales leader and I felt it was a company that would still be around 10 years later.

 

Of course, you can't put the authorized 110# of baggage, full fuel and two of me in it and still be legal. You can't fill all the seats with 200 pounders like me and full fuel in a lot of GA piston planes either but the point is you have mission versatility.

[Jim]

I have 40 hours in the original Sportstar before I got my CTSW. The Sportstar was easier to land and more fun to fly. The CTSW has a much bigger cabin, higher speed and longer range. I never got good at flying a Sportstar but I am good at flying my CTSW, and it will literally do magic tricks for you if you know how to lead it. That said, I only had a couple of hours in the new Sportstar with gas tanks in the wings. I did note that the roll rate seemed more sluggish and it was less fun to fly.

 

The other issue, which is rarely discussed, is the the safety aspect of a high wing composite aircraft. An off-field emergency landing will often cause the aircraft to end up on it's back. I'd much rather open the door and get out than be pinned under a canopy as the fuel leaks out of the tanks...

[Dan Kent]

I have about 10 hours in the Sportstar. I took a discovery ride in a 172 and then started lessons in the Sportstar. I really enjoyed the lessons in it. I was told by my instructor the crosswind capability is only 10 kts, becasue the gear legs are short (the wing is quite close to the ground). It flew very well, but of course I don't have much experience to compare it to. I did several sessions of stalls and they were non events, maybe 150 feet of lost altitude. Steep turns and turns around a point seemed very straight forward.

 

The biggest issue I had was that in the earlier planes the nosewheel steering was quite "squirrelly". There was a mod that came out to reduce this. The plane I took my lessons in did not have this mod done at the time I was training. My instructor said that this particular plane took more right rudder on takeoff than he had ever experienced for such a small plane. If you look at the accident database many of the accidents/incidents were loss of control on the ground, prior to the mod for the steering.

 

I took an additional 2 hours of training in a Technam high wing, and it was much easier to taxi and take off, but I didn't like the poorer visibility.

 

These lessons were in April and May in Houston which is very humid, but not quite as hot as the summer. The Sportstar was warmer but not enough to discourage me from buying another low wing (Sting S4).

[Acensor]

I bought my CTSW new in 2007. My reasons, as opposed to other planes, was fuel capacity, cockpit wider than a C-206, a baggage max. weight higher than most others, excellent visibility, and standard BRS.

 

but, my biggest reason was it was the sales leader and I felt it was a company that would still be around 10 years later.

 

Of course, you can't put the authorized 110# of baggage, full fuel and two of me in it and still be legal. You can't fill all the seats with 200 pounders like me and full fuel in a lot of GA piston planes either but the point is you have mission versatility.

 

All reasons that tick off on my wishlist, Dan.

 

Hey, do you know if I can put me (145 pounds fully clothed and soaking wet) plus wife at 155, plus 110# baggage! plus full or near full fuel and be in balance?

 

Alex

[sandpiper]

 

 

All reasons that tick off on my wishlist, Dad.

 

Hey, do you know if I can put me (145 pounds fully clothed and soaking wet) plus wife at 155, plus 110# baggage! plus full or near full fuel and be in balance?

 

Alex

 

You can't legally do that in my plane, which has an empty weight of 750#. But, you could do it with only 25 gallons of fuel and still have a few pounds left over.

 

I can't address your question about balance because I am not near my plane and won't be for a bit.

 

It was much simpler in my C-206. Just load it until the tail hit the ground. Then load the pilot and if the nose wheel came back down to the ground you were good to go. But, for the record, I never did that but I've seen it done.

[S3flyer]

You could go with 29 gallons of fuel based on the W&B spreadsheet at http://ctflier.com/index.php?/topic/2561-flying-at-cg-limits-what-to-expect/page__st__20.

[FlyingMonkey]

All reasons that tick off on my wishlist, Dad.

 

Hey, do you know if I can put me (145 pounds fully clothed and soaking wet) plus wife at 155, plus 110# baggage! plus full or near full fuel and be in balance?

 

Alex

 

In a CTSW (not a CTLS) you might. You need a total of 615lb to fly full fuel and baggage at those passenger weights. Only the lightest CTSW is going to make that weight legally. However, if you only load 28-30 gallons instead of 34, a lot of CTSWs will do what you want. Mine would work with 29 gallons (I have a 585lb useful load). Remember you also have to account for weight of manuals, charts, iPads, headsets, etc...so in reality if you want to stay legal 24-26 gallons is probably more realistic. That is still four hours of flight time with an hour reserve, which is more than adequate for most legs your bladder would allow.

 

On another note, if your wife sees that posted her weight online, you never have to worry about flying again.

[Acensor]

In a CTSW (not a CTLS) you might. ......... That is still four hours of flight time with an hour reserve, which is more than adequate for most legs your bladder would allow.

 

On another note, if your wife sees that posted her weight online, you never have to worry about flying again.

.

 

Yeah, when folks ask me what's the nonstop range of our Skyranger ELSA I say "the fuel tank has a much better capacity than my bladder".

 

My wife loves to fly, but she'll never drop in on an aviation forum, so I'm safe. Actually she's rightly proud that she has lost over 45 pounds and kept if off for two years. ;-)

 

Alex