Acensor Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Some help with a decision maybe? In other threads here I mentioned I'm seriously looking at a nice 2006 1000 hour loaded SW. Another came into my radar that's tempting. Its the CT2K being discussed here in http://ctflier.com/i...s-this-morning/ The 2K is 367 hours vs. 1000 on the SW, but two years older and about $10K cheaper. What I'd like to know in general is how to compare what I'd be trading off between choosing a 2K over a SW .... flying characteristics? Reliability? Or what? That is before comparing which as more attractive extras such as Glass Panel vs. steam gauges, etc. Or to put it another way.... what's the chance if I purchased one of those two that later I'd wish I purchased the other? ;-) On the face of it I assume that in the two years between 2004 Flight Design learned a few things, and even that a 2006 Rotax 912 would have some improvements over one coming out of the factory in 2004. Think that's a fair statement? On the other hand $10K is not small change in my world, and one can put a lot of upgrades and service into a CT for $10K. I'm sure that if someone came by and handed me the title to either of these aircraft I'd likely be very happy with either... but since I'd have to fly out to Tucson to see the 2K (in contrast the SW seller is only a 2 hour CT flight from me and happy to fly it down too me for a demo) I'd have to hear something suggesting I'd be significantly happier with a 2K than an SW. To expand on my priorities (other than the obvious one of staying within budget): Super short field (the 2K should be a bit better at short field) is nice but not a dealmaker (back country super short field isn't my top priority) as the SW has pretty decent short field credentials anyway. Reasons I'm looking at CT's (which says something about what's important in comparing these two) despite loving my high visibility well behaved 2004 700 hour 80HP Skyranger ELSA are primarily that the Skyranger is slow...... (typical cruise IAS 65-70 knots). That significantly limits where we can reasonably fly on a day trip, or how far between pee stops . ;-) It has great load capacity but darn near no baggage capacity, little comfort niceties (no heat) are lacking, Instruments just above minimal (no transponder). So being able to cruise at 110 knots (or the claimed even higher speed of the 2K), having CT seats that are luxurious compared to the Skyranger , and cabin heat would make trips we have in mind move out of the "well maybe" class to the "sure, let's go" class. And of course reliability, ease/cost of maintenance, and safety are at the top of the priority list (short of the "don't fly" solution of meeting those.) A even 100 pounds more useful load capacity of one over the other wouldn't significant to me as my wife and I together weigh under 300 pounds with winter clothes on. Friendlier or better handling of one CT over the other would be important, Am I right in guessing the longer winged 2K would, on one hand have a better glide ratio, on the other be more subject to turbulence? And all things being close to equal cross wind capability is important as would be landing gear that can take my mistakes. I imagine the longer wings of the 2K take more skill on crosswind. Things like being easy to open the cowl, change a flat front tire in the field, if different between the two are of some significance. So has anyone flow both of these, or in any case dare to compare how they think I'd fare with one vs. the other? If you reply, after replying in GENERAL 2K vs. SW terms, would you scroll down and see if any of the comparative details below evoke any advice or thought you could share with me? ------------------- "2004 LW 367 TTSN leather int. Auto pilot 2gps units steam gauges all maintenance done. The owner/seller writes: "The L W C K is a much nicer flying plane than the SW. Nothing done to slow it down. This one will do. 140+ knots. This is the first demo plane from Germany. 100 HP. I was one of the original dealers for Flight Design. Beautiful plane very fast great flying. We had the first 16 planes made yellow. Yellow/color was a problem for Flight Design as the color would bleed in the mold. All the rest are all white. Tru trac 2 axis. King radio KY97 king XPNDR." It, per FAA N-number search is a CT2K manufacture year 2004, Serial number 04-11-07 Airworthiness certificate 04/28/2005 . The oddest thing to me is that the seller of the 2K says the 2K has a faster cruise than the SW . Seems odd as typically all things being equal a shorter wing version of the same aircraft climbs a bit slower but cruises faster and more fuel efficiently. In the cockpit photo the owner sent the ASI markings seem to support his claim. Can anyone confirm or contradict that claim? It's not a deal-maker but an extra 20 or even 10 knots of cruise at a given power setting is significant, particularly on that day I'm fighting a headwind. I do note on the web that the 2K shows a Vne of 167 knots vs. 145 knots for the LS and the SW. FLIGHT DESIGN CTSW (2006) • Great plane! 900+ hrs TT. Garmin 496, Dynon Avionics, Auto Pilot. This one is a one owner plane. Some notes/word from the owner, and/or his mechanic: " It’s always been hangared. Every AD and service bulletin has been complied with. The main tires were just replaced last week. A full custom canopy cover is included. It’s a good little cross country machine, easily doing 115 KTAS on 5.5 to 6.0 gph. It has an engine pre-heater, as during the first months I owned it we were in Minnesota. " This owner has had a great arrangement on maintenance. His mechanic is heavy duty Rotax certified and does free service on the plane in exchange for getting to fly it, so the owner has never skimped on maintenance. I've spoken to the mechanic and am confident it's had first class care. The SW is loaded with glass cockpit... Looks like it had the top instrument package that FD offered. The 2K is well instrumented but with other than the things that aren't steam (GPS, Radio, Autopilot) is steam. I have NOTHING against steam gauges. That's what I'm used to other than my GPS. I'm guessing that once used to a modern glass cockpit there's more useful and easier to see info there. Per what someone wrote elsewhere here CT2K's don't have BSR chutes. Oh, and finally: I notice the 2K for sale has a two blade prop and the SW has a three blade. Is that worth noting? All replies, public or PM, appreciated! Alex (This message sent with 100% recycled electrons) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.