Jump to content

The CTSW I rent was crashed...


GravityKnight

Recommended Posts

17 year old student pilot (first solo) did a number on the plane I rent every weekend. Thankfully she wasn't hurt, but she mangled up the CTSW. Crumpled the gear, tore up the left wing fairly bad and slight damage to the right wing. No prop damage amazingly, as the front wheel survived... I also rent a CTLS but I much, much prefer the SW over the LS so this sucks!!

 

Good news is that they got a CH750 w/ an 0-200 in a few weeks back and now it's time to get checked out on that!.. I really dig the STOL type off airport flying more than anything else so this should be really fun to fly/learn! Though it sure doesn't have the useful load of the SW...

 

Anyway, they aren't sure what happened, I do some IT work with the owners of the place and am good friends with my past instructor so I chatted with them and it sounded like she came in a little fast, got impatient with how long it was floating (that plane's idle is a bit high and it does tend to like to float, quite a bit more than the LS for example), tried to force it down, bounced off the front wheel and didn't arrest the fall with power or abort and go around and just kind of drove it into the ground crumpling the left main. Something like that anyway... she was too shaken up to explain much about what happened, and nobody had a real good view of it. The instructor was on his way down to a place where you can see the runway, but wasn't there yet, and another instructor was in the pattern and caught a glimpse of it happening...

 

Hopefully when she calms down they can get some more info about what exactly took place....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The CH750 is a slow, lumbering, turd that is nearly impossible to stall because it has a front wing spoiler that prevents the angle of attack from getting past critical - it just hangs at the top and noses over before you get a stall on a straight up try. It also has a V stick in the middle console so you will be right handing it. Its the only plane I have flown so far I dont like. What about the CTLS makes you prefer the CTSW?

Except that it's also very draggy and bleeds speed fast at high angles of attack with low power. There have been a couple of fatalities due to departure stalls following engine failure in the 700 series. The are not impossible to stall and will bite you hard in some circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CH750 is a slow, lumbering, turd that is nearly impossible to stall because it has a front wing spoiler that prevents the angle of attack from getting past critical - it just hangs at the top and noses over before you get a stall on a straight up try.  It also has a V stick in the middle console so you will be right handing it.

 

And these things are bad, why? Sometimes people like vintage feel.

 

It's a STOL craft anyways, it's build to be a wanna-be helicopter, not a fighter jet.

 

Crumpled the gear, tore up the left wing fairly bad and slight damage to the right wing.

Insurance usually totals at 20% of the agreed hull value. What is "fairly badly"? The gear alone is going to take a good chunk out of the 20%, if they can't easily repair the wings, it's done. New wings run 5 digits...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Training in a CT is doable but you have to be a bit anal about it, especially a CTSW.

 

I went from zero to PP in my CTSW.  I don't know whether to take that as a complement or an insult. :)

 

In any case, it's always sad to hear of a plane crumpled.  Glad she's safe. 

 

Years ago I saw a CTSW landing attempt that made me physically ill.  Student came in hot and high, bounced 10-12 feet, pushed the nose down, bounced off the nose gear and went around.  I was seriously impressed that the plane could take that abuse.

 

As to the rude comment about CH750, I'd love to build one after I retire.  Planes are like motorcycles, all different kinds for all different missions.  There's definitely places where I'd rather be in a CH750 than a CTSW or a CTLSi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CH750 is a slow, lumbering, turd that is nearly impossible to stall because it has a front wing spoiler that prevents the angle of attack from getting past critical - it just hangs at the top and noses over before you get a stall on a straight up try.  It also has a V stick in the middle console so you will be right handing it.  Its the only plane I have flown so far I dont like.  What about the CTLS makes you prefer the CTSW?

 

Airport is at 6200, and the LS is pretty anemic. So much so, that it seems there is more going on than just the weight difference between the two planes. They took some pitch out of the LS and it's still climbs like a turd and now only cruises at about 90 indicated. I think it's more these 2 particular planes than it an SW vs an LS issue in general.

 

 

That sucks.  The student probably should have been training in the CTLS not the CTSW?  Training in a CT is doable but you have to be a bit anal about it, especially a CTSW.

 

The CH750 has got to be fun at least for a while, hope the CTSW doesn't get totaled.

 

Someone actually mentioned that she couldn't reach the rudder pedals in the LS with the seat all the way up, but could in the SW. Thought that was interesting, I use the same seat setting for both. I sure hope it doesn't either :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago I saw a CTSW landing attempt that made me physically ill.  Student came in hot and high, bounced 10-12 feet, pushed the nose down, bounced off the nose gear and went around.  I was seriously impressed that the plane could take that abuse.

 

Ouch!!

 

 

As to the rude comment about CH750, I'd love to build one after I retire.  Planes are like motorcycles, all different kinds for all different missions.  There's definitely places where I'd rather be in a CH750 than a CTSW or a CTLSi

 

 

I agree, two different airplanes.. a lot different. The CH750 lands and takes off much shorter than the FD's ..It's pretty insane. Plus is has even better visibility which is saying something. And it's more suited to rough off airport operations which is cool. But the FD's cruise much faster, carry more fuel, have a wider cabin etc. Both appear to have their good points.

 

I think the challenge of flying a new, different plane will be awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If you think a 90kt climb is anemic the CH750 will make you laugh.  Remember, they call it a 'jeep'.  Sure its an STOL, but it flies like a vibrating, loud, tincan (its metal and rivets, not carbon fiber).  It has wing struts, not like the CT. So visibility is limited.  And the V stick in the center is tiring to manipulate because its a shared device and has short handles, and worst of all, you work it with your right hand instead of your left which will seem odd during your flights.  I dont recall the climb, but it was a LOT slower than the CT.  And landing it was a laugh.  It feels like it wants to drop straight down instead of forward and when it gets close it wants to drop on to the runway instead of flare and touchdown.

 

 

Performance wise (ft per min) I'm not saying the jeep will out perform the CT, I'm sure it won't... same HP and it's quite a bit heavier. But it does climb at a lot steeper angle, which goes hand in hand with off airport ops working over trees and hills and such. For what it was made for, I think it's pretty good.. there isn't a lot of tricycle gear, STOL sport pilot compliant options out there. Apples and Oranges really....

 

I wouldn't argue the CT is much more refined, but I think the CH has it's place in the world of different types of flying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not rude to offer an honest opinion about a rental plane. It should be viewed as just someones impression who flew one. It would be rude if I was talking about an aircraft you owned. Are we all supposed to be dishonest or needlessly obtuse about aircraft now?

Being honest is one thing. Being "snarky" is the rude part.

 

Let me put it in extremely contrasting context to illustrate what you keep doing to upset people. Say your friend is getting obese, and you are concerned for her health. Most would argue that you don't say anything to women about their size, but let's say in this case you two value each other's opinion...

 

"You're fat and it's getting disgusting" - that's what you sound like.

 

"I'm getting concerned for your health, you've been gaining weight and I really don't want to see you hurt". - tactfully put.

 

Both statements make your point, but the former just makes you a heartless douchebag. It's quicker to say, but that doesn't make it right. The latter expresses respect for the other party, and assuming you don't get slapped anyways, you are much more likely to get through without losing a friend.

 

Basically, if you don't try to respect the other party in conversation, then you will get none in return. It will then just spiral downwards to the point where everyone sees you as "that guy", and hear you as nothing but noise, which people are already doing to refer to you.

 

You've got a lot of pride. It's not a bad thing, people are attracted to that quality, but it's being overshadowed by the way you are handling your conversations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, anticept, for those honest, thoughtful, and to the point words.

I didn't like how he called it a turd either just after Gravityknight said he likes them. There's a much better way of stating dislike of an aircraft without offending people who do like to fly them. CTLSi made some valid points about the CH750 that I also would not like in an aircraft of my own, but that's just me. However, I don't go around parading and telling people "your aircraft sucks, mine's better". It isn't just a lack of respect, it's flat out DISrespectful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And like anything related to airplanes, even "turd" is entirely relative. In cruise speed a CH750 is a turd compared to a CT. But in slow flight and landing distance, a CTLSi is a TOTAL turd compared to the CH750...   :lol:

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

When BMW introduced its K1200RS model in 1997, I did not care for the shade of yellow, but otherwise liked it and ended up buying a silver and blue 1999 model.

 

Here's the 1998:

 

1282666150_115537700_1-Pictures-of--BMW-

 

And a 1999 in my color scheme:

 

bmw_k_1200_rs_1999_2.jpg

 

But I remember a review that castigated it for looking like a misshapen turd (exact words).

 

But I guess that's still better than looking like a sperm!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure its puported to be STOL.  But it is a dog performance wise.  You can get into a Carbon Cub tricycle. It has a 180 HP engine in it, it climbs like a banshee.  I am just warning you, don't expect much of a flight in the CH.

If you are talking about Cub Crafters top of the line LSA cub, it is a tail wheel not a tricycle gear, and the horse power is 180. Yes, it is a beautiful aircraft and super performer. For nearly $200K it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just don't get it, do you?

The reality is as abrasive as some people are, and as much as people try to coach and tutor them into being a better person, it's not going to happen.  You're stuck with them, for as much as their posts make the Admin cringe and consider doing the right thing and hit him with the ban bat, it will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure its puported to be STOL. But it is a dog performance wise. You can get into a Carbon Cub tricycle. It has a 180 HP engine in it, it climbs like a banshee. I am just warning you, don't expect much of a flight in the CH.

Maybe a champion STOL is what gravityknight wants? He's not talking about flying across the country in it. He is talking about pushing the landing limit, something that takes astronomical amounts of skill.

 

Also, for someone to fly a carbon cub, they need to have one available to them in order to be able to use it. Given the circumstances and what GK said he likes to do, i think the CH750 fits him just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, it's a rental plane.  He's not talking about buying one.  Also, not everybody here has unlimited resources.

 

LOL

 

By reading everyone's posts most everyone seems to be on the same page here.

 

CTLSi, I understand that you really feel strongly about the FD'S.. they are wonderful airplanes! But it doesn't mean that everything else is crappy. I wasn't trying to claim the CH to somehow be a "better" airplane than the CT. But it IS more suited to off airport landings with it's gear, larger tires, STOL capabilities etc. And for that purpose, it's a pretty decent option. By the same token, flying it cross country slowly, making lots of fuel stops would be pretty painful....

 

I want a newer model Kitfox. They are well rounded (somewhat STOL-ish, pretty decent cruise speed, pretty good at most things, not really the best at anything) And more in my price range. The CT's are great airplanes, I would own one in a heartbeat! But a little out of my reach..

 

 

.....Anyway, I was doing a little IT work for the rental guys today, and I saw the plane. It's honestly not as bad as originally described. The gear is a little bent, but not bad... and it actually broke the wheel... as in it broke the rim itself. Thought that was interesting!! Left wing tip is ground down some, and who knows at this point if the wing itself suffered structural damage? But I was expecting worse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...