I nosed over my CT - I think its totaled?

[Buckaroo]

1 hour ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Alan Sizemore is the seller, here are 2 of his photos:

 

 

That’s a beauty! Looks cherry!

[Roger Lee]

1 hour ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

I'm hoping I can set this prop to get back the performance I'm used to, no reason to think there is anything more to give here though.  Never seen a CT like this that was as fast as Woodstock.  The rudder is the same, both planes are the same model CTSW, same main gear.  Woodstock's AP is more full featured.

The sentiment works if not the facts of your message Roger.  I'm far ahead because my panel and AP were orphaned, my engine is older series my windshield had an issue, my composite needed repair and my prop still has a big nick and my night lighting was a problem. My cooling needed upgrading too. When you throw in the paid off loan I'm $50k ahead of where I was.  I did loose my synthetic vision.

More info at my finger tips will be very nice, especially in darkness.

 

Hi Ed,

The tail / rudder is bigger than your old plane. The Neuform prop will definitely give you better climb than your Warp. The main gear is thicker than yours. The 2007 and your have differences.

[Ed Cesnalis]

56 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

Hi Ed,

The tail / rudder is bigger than your old plane. The Neuform prop will definitely give you better climb than your Warp. The main gear is thicker than yours. The 2007 and your have differences.

my 06 has the full size tail.  I know you think the Warp was holding me back but there is the problem of me getting as much as 127kts True from it.  It can't be the top performer and holding me back at the same time.  I have  able to pass all other CTs that I have flown with since 2007.

I know there was a main gear leg thickening but I think I have that upgrade as well.  If I infact see better performance I would blame it on the Warp and I will let you know.

[Ed Cesnalis]

10 hours ago, Buckaroo said:

Kinda like this one?

We should be quite similar in vintage but not graphics.  I thought I didn't like the graphics you have but the green makes them nicer, so I'll have to give your bird a thumbs up

[Tom Baker]

1 hour ago, Roger Lee said:

Hi Ed,

The tail / rudder is bigger than your old plane. The Neuform prop will definitely give you better climb than your Warp. The main gear is thicker than yours. The 2007 and your have differences.

Actually looks like a Sensenich prop.

[Tom Baker]

Ed, the vintage of that airplane will have the spring on the elevator, not sure you will like that. That is my least favorite version on the CTSW pitch control system. It also looks like it has had the nose gear replaced. It has as the guys from Germany called them the "Frankenstein" bolts on the nose gear for a tow bar. The picture also shows low back seats. I like them better than the high back seats, but they all need some better padding in the bottom.

[Ed Cesnalis]

26 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

Ed, the vintage of that airplane will have the spring on the elevator, not sure you will like that.

OMG, thanks.   Is it 'correctable'?

[FlyingMonkey]

I have exactly the same graphis on my airplane.  I think it’s the best looking factory livery.

[FlyingMonkey]

You will be slower with the tundra wheels,  BTW.  But you know that.

[dabaero]

4 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

You're not going to know what to do with it. LOL   

You'll have better climb and cruise and more info at your finger tips. A bigger rudder, larger panel, stronger nose strut, stronger main gear and AP.  

Can you provide more information on why the nose strut is stronger  on a 2007 versus a 2006?

Thanks.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Just now, FlyingMonkey said:

You will be slower with the tundra wheels,  BTW.  But you know that.

I've always been both fast and had Tundra.  This is a small drag thing and is out shadowed by the ultra important prop pitch.  RPM limitation being realized at WOT is a big limitation that adjusts for the slight change in drag from wheelpants.  This is true for prop efficiency as well.  

If our prop is less efficient we flatten our pitch until we get the same result as the CT with the more efficient prop.

[Buckaroo]

Yes I’d like to know the nose gear difference as well. 

[Tom Baker]

4 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

OMG, thanks.   Is it 'correctable'?

I have never addressed the issue. I think Andy may have, but it would really be an issue for Flight Design. My biggest gripe was that you have to change the trim a bunch compared to what you were used to.

[Roger Lee]

Ed,

Your serial number on Woodstock is 05-12-05 which means it is a Dec. of 2005 aircraft build. I didn't have some of the upgrades as the later mid 2006 and later CT's had.

[Ed Cesnalis]

7 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

Ed,

Your serial number on Woodstock is 05-12-05 which means it is a Dec. of 2005 aircraft build. I didn't have some of the upgrades as the later mid 2006 and later CT's had.

Maybe true but it does have the big tail.  

[WmInce]

Just for reference, my airplane is a June ‘06 build (06-06-03) and it does not have the pitch spring.

[Ed Cesnalis]

8 minutes ago, WmInce said:

Just for reference, my airplane is a June ‘06 build (06-06-03) and it does not have the pitch spring.

Apparrently neither does new purchase but it does have the roll springs.  Fly's like a 172  

[WmInce]

3 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Apparrently neither does new purchase but it does have the roll springs.  Fly's like a 172  

Yepper.

[Tom Baker]

49 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Apparrently neither does new purchase but it does have the roll springs.  Fly's like a 172  

Maybe they switched things again. I sold and flew 07-05-09, and it had the springs. I owned 06-11-06 it did not. I also owned 06-07-04 and it did not have the springs.

[Ed Cesnalis]

19 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

 The picture also shows low back seats. I like them better than the high back seats, but they all need some better padding in the bottom.

do you think the seat bottoms have had their padding upgraded?  looks like it to me but then again I have little experience with the 'before' here

[Ed Cesnalis]

19 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

 It also looks like it has had the nose gear replaced. It has as the guys from Germany called them the "Frankenstein" bolts on the nose gear for a tow bar. 

Woodstock has now been nosed over too. Damage history can't be erased but this bird has been flown for 5 years and hundreds of hours by the current owner. There is ~$15-20k discounted and without this I couldn't afford the plane I want.  For me its a good thing.

[Tom Baker]

1 hour ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

do you think the seat bottoms have had their padding upgraded?  looks like it to me but then again I have little experience with the 'before' here

I can't tell from the picture, but your butt will know.

[Tom Baker]

1 hour ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Woodstock has now been nosed over too. Damage history can't be erased but this bird has been flown for 5 years and hundreds of hours by the current owner. There is ~$15-20k discounted and without this I couldn't afford the plane I want.  For me its a good thing.

I don't get to concerned with damage on composites, as long as the repair was properly done.

[FlyingMonkey]

BTW, regarding the "extra" pitch spring on the 2007 CTs, I had heard from others that they removed it.  I asked FD USA about it, and they said it was part of the flight control system and should be left in.  When I converted my CT to experimental I removed it.  The airplane is now less fatiguing to fly, has better control feel, and requires *much* less pitch trim adjustment in flight.  I used to need a large amount of pitch change from cruise to landing, to the tune of several turns of the trim wheel.  Now the trim wheel never needs to move more than an inch or so total in all flight modes.  Much less work.

YMMV.

[Ed Cesnalis]

2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

BTW, regarding the "extra" pitch spring on the 2007 CTs, I had heard from others that they removed it.  I asked FD USA about it, and they said it was part of the flight control system and should be left in.  When I converted my CT to experimental I removed it.  The airplane is now less fatiguing to fly, has better control feel, and requires *much* less pitch trim adjustment in flight.  I used to need a large amount of pitch change from cruise to landing, to the tune of several turns of the trim wheel.  Now the trim wheel never needs to move more than an inch or so total in all flight modes.  Much less work.

YMMV.

I was going to ask you about this.  I was thinking the spiel to FD for LOA would be seeking consistency in control feel.

Otherwise it seems like the right time to go E.