Jump to content

Things You Wish You Knew Before Buying Your CT


tevbax

Recommended Posts

What things do you wish you knew about your airplane before you purchased it? What gadgets have made you life easier? What things were a total waste of money? How did your best made plan work out/ not work out?

Getting into my first "new to me" CTSW, and figured I would solicit feedback from a seasoned group of owners. 

Thanks! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big picture wise on the airplane / engine - nothing.  My SW became the first airplane with ADS-B in & out, that is very nice to see traffic & weather, would not want to fly without that after now having the luxury - that is absolutely top of the list. 

Second would be CT's require a few unique tools to make life easy, such as the tire jack for changing a tube away from home (slips in axle, lift wing, done).  Carrying a spare tube of each size and having ability to change yourself is smart.

Next would be carb bowls, there is a knack (process, not so much skill) to inspect bowls and deal with floats that often are fuel spillage issue.  I updated to aftermarket floats being E-LSA and so far zero issues.

Then there are the minor things new owners ask, such as coolant leaks during temp swings, need to keep hose clamps tight and at proper position, this is very minor but probably 100's of little lessons and tips to learn, this forum is a wealth of info for anything. 

I bought a low end SW (steam gage, no ADS-B or autopilot, etc), and have updated to modern EFIS, autopilot, ADS-B in out, converted to E-SLA, took the repairman class and 2.5 years later have zero regrets with decision of a CT.  Love how they fly and perform, range etc.  The only wish would be if it had real stout landing gear so I could go more aggressive off field, but bush plane it is not...

Congrats on the SW - you'll love it.  Where in WI are you?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never had any regrets on a CT. Compared to a used certified aircraft it's much better to deal with when fixing or modifying,  it's basically new. Yes there  are things you may want to change but it can be done. Granted I have a tendency to go to extreme when it comes to changes but that's what I have always done, both certified or LSA. I had looked at other LSA's but the CT won out. My CT outperforms any aircraft in it's class at my airport especially in rate of climb.  During a biannual checkride the instructor is always shocked at the performance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the baggage compartments were long enough to hold golf clubs!

From this site and personal experience, it seems wiring for electronics is the week point. Thankfully, the few issues I had were fixed by simply checking for loose connections and were very easy.

I agree with ads-b needs. Mine has a tail beacon for out and I use an iPad, ForeFlight and sentry for “in”. 

Otherwise, I love the airplane! I’ve made some really, really long cross country trips and it did great. I have just as much fun punching holes in the sky locally. 
 

I have 5 cars; an SUV, a pickup, 2 electric cars and a Mazda Miata. Like a Cherokee 6, there is a time and place where the SUV or pickup are handy, but I love to drive the Miata. The CT is better than my Miata!

And for you skeptics, I don’t have the electric cars to be “green”. The state of California is stupid enough to give me enough rebates that I lease the cars for $39 a month! Pretty close to a free car, so I got 2!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBO is not mandated in the FAA accepted ASTM standards, and is not mandated by the manufacturer of the aircraft (flight design), rotax can heee and haaw all day long. S-LSA is certificated as a single whole unit, and the name of the manufacturer is the one on the airworthiness certificate.

P.S. even standard airworthiness aircraft have 12-15 year recommended overhaul limits by the manufacturers. Nobody does them. They're ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Anticept said:

TBO is not mandated in the FAA accepted ASTM standards, and is not mandated by the manufacturer of the aircraft (flight design), rotax can heee and haaw all day long. S-LSA is certificated as a single whole unit, and the name of the manufacturer is the one on the airworthiness certificate.

P.S. even standard airworthiness aircraft have 12-15 year recommended overhaul limits by the manufacturers. Nobody does them. They're ridiculous.

 Required for 135 operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that Flight Design says to follow Rotax instruction for the engine and Rotax says 15 years or 2000 hours.  I asked Tom P., Arian, and Phil L. about it and the only thing said was to follow Rotax' recommendation, which is 15 years or 2000 hours.  I know  E-LSA is different,  but, then again, I would not buy an E-LSA CT.

 

If @Flight Design USA has a different opinion, now, then I can still stop the engine order for my August annual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the MM says is "For inspection and maintenance refer to the valid original Rotax Manuals". To me this does not give Rotax full control over what happens to the engine. The FAA really needs to sort out the two conflicting legal interpretations like they promised over 5 years ago, and get this settled once and for all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GlennM said:

 I would not buy an E-LSA

Not looking to change your view, I've seen just as many S-LSA birds I would not buy based on poor upkept and mechanics that should not be turning wrenches.  Keep in mind someone with a three week training class can be cut loose working on your S-LSA machine.  It's not the class of airworthiness that matters in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FAA determines the maintenance rules in the US, not Rotax.  They are going to have a hard time requiring Rotax policy when calander tbo doesn't apply to Lycoming or Teledyn. Of all engines I have worked on the Rotax is least likely to have time deterioration due to many attributes and can easily be evaluated "on condition" which is done from the first inspection anyway. 

ELSA does not indicate less quality or safety. It's the job of an experienced mechanic to determine the condition of the plane and maybe checking the credentials of the person working on plane is prudent. Some of the worst condition aircraft I have ever seen are certified and maintained by A&P's. I see them every day ( literally).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2022 at 11:43 AM, Madhatter said:

 Required for 135 operations.

Referring to 91 ops.

But correct, for 135 is required since it's a service bulletin, but it's astoundingly easy to get an extension to it from the FSDOs, and there's guidance out there for the inspectors to follow for extending engine TBO time.

On 4/9/2022 at 5:50 PM, GlennM said:

It is my understanding that Flight Design says to follow Rotax instruction for the engine and Rotax says 15 years or 2000 hours.  I asked Tom P., Arian, and Phil L. about it and the only thing said was to follow Rotax' recommendation, which is 15 years or 2000 hours.  I know  E-LSA is different,  but, then again, I would not buy an E-LSA CT.

 

If @Flight Design USA has a different opinion, now, then I can still stop the engine order for my August annual.

They will never give you opinions that would provide a hint of recommendation against rotax's own recommendations. It's a legal mess if you get hurt.

 

 

Anyways all: it's very important to realize that your airworthiness certificate says maintenance procedures when it refers to inspections and maintenance. A time limit is NOT a maintenance procedure, a maintenance procedure is a process to inspect or repair an aircraft. Time limits have to be established by safety directive, or in an FAA approved airworthiness limitations section (there aren't any for S-LSA).

When it says an operator must operate the aircraft in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, maintenance is NOT a function of operation. So that does not give authority either.

The only people who can enforce a *rotax* time limit is Flight Design. Responsibility rests with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Towner,

I don’t know what model CT you have (it would help if posters added their aircraft year and model to their signature line) and I’ve never played golf, but I’m positive I can get a couple of full golf bags in my baggage area. In fact, I have put much longer and heavier stuff back there.

Things that are long and narrow, like snow skis, can go in through the side baggage door. The back of my baggage compartment has a Velcroed-in divider to keep cargo out of the tail. I open up a corner of this divider so the skis can extend partly into the tail. There are tie-down eyes on the floor of my baggage compartment. I use these and a nylon line to prevent items from moving around in flight and specifically to keep long items from sliding back into the tail.

(This last point is critically important. Years ago, flying in around in a borrowed 172, I came upon a burning aircraft wreck. I landed in the farm field next to it and jumped out to help. I was first on the scene, but they were way beyond help. The NTSB report said they were on their way back from Mammoth. They had put their skis in the back of the plane, and then apparently did some aerobatic maneuvers, just for fun. The skis slid all the way back in tail. The ensuing spin was not recoverable.)

For fatter long items, that are too wide to go in from the side, I insert them from the front. To do this I take the passenger seat out, remove the clipped in fabric cover behind the seat, and slide them in from the from the cockpit. I have gotten absolutely huge items in this way, again allowing them to extend past the divider into the tail, and always tying them down securely.

Of course, you need to check weight & balance. My baggage compartment can hold 110 lbs. at that load I’m within cg and max gross at any fuel level. Since some of these long items have extended aft of the baggage compartment, I also check to ensure that the center of gravity of the added item (with the heaviest end forward) is not aft of the middle of the baggage compartment. If it is, then you need to measure the distance from the installed cg of the item to the aircraft’s datum and calculate the weight and balance with this added moment.

 

Glenn,

I’m 700 hours and 6 years beyond the maximum TBO extension Rotax will allow for my engine serial number. It runs great: compressions great, powerful as ever, fuel efficient as ever.

If you’re not renting the plane out, and the engine is running fine, it would be a crying shame to replace it.

 

Tevbak,

With respect to your question about what I wish I knew; when I first got the plane I established a “maintenance savings account” at my bank adding $20 per flight hour for future maintenance expenses like annuals, repairs and engine overhaul. That was stupid. No way my maintenance has cost that much. I closed that account a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, 

I appreciate the input, but golf clubs can be pretty heavy. I’m sure I can get them in by removing the seat, but I would have to remove the rear Velcro divider if I wanted to put the seat back in for a second person in the plane. CG would not be a problem, but one of my concerns is regarding the structure behind the Velcro sheet at the tail.Is the baggage compartment made stronger to hold the weight of baggage? Is the area past the Velcro divider of the same strength? The farther behind CG I go, the more pressure will be placed on the structural surface by heavy items during turbulence and maneuvering (don’t worry, no aerobatics!). I would not be concerned about loading lighter items this way, but a full golf bag concerns me. Taking out both seats to load a bag on each side isn’t a big deal and would only take a few minutes.

The baggage compartment, overall is pretty good. Probably one of the best weight capacities of any light sport. Has plenty of room for stuff that isn’t long (I packed for over a week of travel when I went to Oshkosh, including a tent, sleeping bag, chair, clothes and anything else you can think of). CG doesn’t seem to be a problem in my plane.  Baggage Doors could be bigger and cabin access would be nice, but so would a cup holder in the cabin, so I’m just being picky! 

For any of us that have flown a variety of airplanes, I think we all realize that there is no “perfect “ airplane. They all have some type of compromise.

As always, I appreciate the input. I learn something new from this site everyday!

And for tevbax, you’ll love the plane. As long as 2 seats fit your needs, it’s a hard plane to beat! It flies fast enough, can land and take off in short distances, flies really slow, has a good load, is cheap and is a BLAST to fly!

Jeff

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been driving me nuts!

Again, I looked through my Flight Design Maintenance and Inspections manual.

Section 3 says the Rotax 912 maintenance manual has a period maintenence schedule.

Section 5 says for inspections and maintenance refer to the original Rotax maintenance manual supplied with the aircraft.

In the original Rotax manual, page 2, it has the time limits for engine operation.  Page 3 says these can be extended, as mine were,  by Service Bulletin.  On the next page, is the time limit for rubber parts (and coolant)!

How can we accept the rubber lifetime of 5 years following the same wording logic in the Flight Design manual and the Rotax maintenance manual, yet choose not to follow the time limit for the engine, just two pages earlier?

I am worried that we are coming up with all of these reasons for not following the engine time limit, while following the rubber time limit, because we are used to ignoring the calendar time limit for certified aircraft and because it is damn expensive to get a new engine when the existing one is perfectly good.

Sorry for bringing this up again, but what I have heard makes this a big deal if you are getting in to LSA for the first time.

20220410_184513.jpg

20220410_184505.jpg

20220410_184326.jpg

20220410_184454.jpg

20220410_184314.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rubber time limit isn't required by reg either. We just really stress its importance because we do have field experience of rubber deterioration and it really should be a safety directive.

Maintenance ultimately is rooted in the ASTM. There is no TBO requirement in the ASTM, and that got veto'd by the FAA when they tried to put in TBO requirements a few years ago.

In essence, this is how it goes: The ASTM is the airworthiness standard for S-LSA. The FAA reviews the ASTM with each revision, and approves or vetos sections of it. You can go to the FAA website and see which sections were approved for each year. If a section is not approved, it cannot be enforced, period.

It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to design, manufacture, and manage the airworthiness of the fleet they construct in accordance with ASTM standards. The manufacturers MUST follow the ASTM standard, any safety directives or operating requirements must be rooted in a standard and have reasonable evidence that it is a safety concern.

If a safety directive were to be released that would try to enforce TBO times, I would go right over to the FSDO, file a complaint, and get an approval to be exempt from said safety directive.

That said, on the flip side: There is no law that says manufacturers can't put extra requirements in their manuals. It's just that the fact is, there is no legal requirement to follow those extras.

At the same time, what it does do, is give the manufacturer some legal protection in tort law. If i choose not to follow the 5 year rubber change, then have an accident when I lose my oil from a broken oil line, the manufacturer can point at the manual and say "we said replace it at 5 years!".

S-LSA isn't the only aircraft category that does this. Cirrus LOVES to try to force their Cirrus Certified Instructors, Cirrus Approved Service Centers, Cirrus Approved Maintenance Courses, and the other slew of things they try to push on Cirrus pilots and mechanics. They won't even do business with you in some cases without these. Their manuals are all full of language like this and it has NO legal teeth.

Now, that said, there is a service bulletin for some of the Rotax instructions as listed below, but as a service bulletin, compliance is not mandatory by regulation.

See this: https://flightdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/PZ01006002_13.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Safety directive levels are established by ASTM, and the document even mentions F2483.

I used to think the same until a freshly schooled LSR-M told me this, and I went and double checked Advisory circular 65-32a:

z. Safety Directive ASTM Designation F2483. A directive issued by a manufacturer of a  special LSA intended to correct an existing unsafe condition. Compliance with safety directives  is addressed in 14 CFR part 91, § 91.327 and the recording is required in § 91.417. Safety  directives are addressed in applicable consensus standards which include provisions for  maintaining the continued airworthiness of an aircraft and correcting safety-of-flight issues. Safety directives are considered mandatory on SLSA.

(1) Safety Alert. For notifications that require immediate action, see ASTM F2295.

(2) Service Bulletin (SB). For notifications that do not require immediate action but do  recommend future action, see ASTM F2295.

(3) Notification. For notifications that do not necessarily recommend future action but  
are primarily for promulgation of continued airworthiness information, see ASTM F2295.

EDIT: I really need to see a copy of that ASTM section. I suspect the AC is in error with the use of "recommended". But, if it isn't, then Flight Design is and they probably wanted this to be a safety alert.

Say what we will about the FAA, but at least when something is required to be fixed, there's no question that an AD is intent on correcting, and it's relatively rare to see an AD that isn't clear on applicability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone for taking the time to provide some feedback. I have about 120hrs of time in a rental CTLS, which is what made me look for a FD product. 

Aircraft currently has a GTX327 - no ADS-B out. I was looking at installing the uAvionix tailbeacon to satisfy the requirements - eventually upgrading the D120/ D100 to the 10" skyview and swapping the transponder for a 335/345. This was the easiest/ least intrusive option. The GDL-82 would be a lot more work - at least this is what my A&P stated. 

Engine is in the all too familiar on condition TBO range. Compressions are great, borescoped with no wear, no metal found on the drain plugs and starting an oil analysis program to monitor for deterioration. Hoses have been recently done, and BRS is going out for a refresh. Gearbox has been regularly checked per Rotax. 

I THINK FD has been doing an MRA for a RAM mount attachment to the "mushroom", correct? I really do not want to suction cup my ipad mini to the window - the idea of that glass getting warm and deforming from my suction cup doesnt sit right with me. 

I'm definitely going to pick up some extra tubes (one for main, one for nose) and put together a small, lightweight tool kit. 

My purchase is not yet complete (offer was accepted), but the plane has a fresh annual with immaculate log books. Engine service was done by a Rotax shop. Next couple weeks bring a pre-buy and a few discovery flights to shake it out. Now, if Wisconsin every gets its stuff together and gives us some nice flying weather on a regular basis.....

My only concern really on the entire aircraft is a "surface crack" about 2 inches up from the pitot tube. If you would take a string, tie it to the pitot, and run it parallel to the fuselage, about 2-3 inches back from the leading edge, this is where the crack would be. Its about 2 inches wide. I am told this would be from hitting the pitot tube on something. The crack is not deep or open, but appears to have just cracked the surface "paint". The pitot is no loose or able to move freely. Ideas? 

Have a great Monday everyone, and thanks again for all the feedback. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MRAs for such minor things like panel alterations are very easy to get as long as the required instruments are unimpeded.

Also, I really shoud pitch in my feedback in this thread instead of just being a legal sourpuss.

 

N566FD was the first airplane I flew when I got serious about training. It also was the only time I flew it during training... It needed to be relocated for maintenance and a serious issue was found. Got my cert before it was back in service.

When it came back a few months later, I got checked out in it. Up to that point, I had flown a 172R, a PA-28-151 Cherokee Warrior with a stroke kit (making it effectively a -161), a PA-38-112 Piper Tomahawk, and an M-Squared Breeze down in florida where I got a log entry but it really wasn't training, more of a tour.

The reality is, I found the 172 and warrior so docile that it wasn't really flying to me. The Tomahawk and CTLS on the other hand needed more involvement to fly properly.

But hands down, the CTLS's performance, combined with its challenge, really struck a chord, and I bought it a couple years later.

Since then, this little airplane has had one hell of an attitude at times. We always joked at the club I was in that you can't let 2 CTs get close to each other or they will conspire. Combined with the fact that I was training and completed my A&P, it didn't take long to be frustrated with the poor choices of the electrical system quality and rotax choice of electronics.

On the other hand, maybe I got stockholm'ed, but at times it was also a joy to work on. That moment when an annoying little issue is finally solved... It was a rush of endorphins. I have since worked out the electrical bugs, many caused by low quality connectors that were replaced and bypassing a steel bolt being used as a ground (corrosion). After that though, it's just been absolutely wonderful.

On the upside, when this airplane works, there's really nothing like it. I have over a dozen aircraft in my logs, and the reality is, I prefer aircraft with low inertia and low wing loading. It could be an old champ with half the horsepower, and I still love them. But the performance of a CT is definitely a bonus.

The controls on CTs are very light, and are oversized, so it takes little movement in cruise.

On landing with full flaps, it takes a lot of movement though, and the mushing partial stall at those speeds and extremely gentle buffeting means it is possible to drop in on the runway suddenly without realizing how close to the edge you were. Cirrus aircraft do the same. But, as long as you are aware that it's a thing, you can also use it to your advantage for short fields and get it to drop right when you want to, and it will firmly plant itself on that spot without slamming.

I am pretty sure these aircraft could take some mildly rough terrain in unimproved areas too. At full flaps, that nosehear can be held off the ground a lot easier than others down to a very low airspeed (20-25 knots). Due to it being a nosegear, one misjudge and you can topple over. Still, it days something when an aircraft has the landing characteristics and power to operate out of soft fields easily.

I did my commercial checkride in my CTLS, and about to do both the CFI and CFII checkrides. Let me tell you, that commercial checkride was the hardest one I did. Commercial checkrides are about demonstrating precision as well as combining many basic maneuvers together, and your rudder game HAS TO BE ON POINT. We all know how CTs love their rudders, so think about that wombo combo. But I still flat out enjoyed rising to that level of skill that I seriously doubt could be replicated in a 172.

Finally, if you have arthritis or back issues, it's a lot easier to get into a CT than it is to climb up on a low wing and drop in, and even more so to get up and back out.

CTs are an aircraft of choice when you want an airplane that can perform, and push your skill limits, all while having a relatively affordable package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually should have a 210 in here too, but I never did ask the guy for the log entry (he's a CFI). But here's my logged model list.

image.png.26f643fd57e9f4b450c1a0a3c5064a84.png

That said, a couple models in this list, mainly the Navajo and the TBM 850, were so short that I can't fairly evaluate those aircraft.

EDIT: It combined the CTLS and CTSW together under FDCT. Also have flown an SW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am just 13 months into CTSW ownership myself. Honestly, looking back it was good solid decision.

I have flown 7 different LSA's and given the choice, I would take this one again and again. It's an XC beast for an LSA, which is primarily what I do with it. 

Not really any "wish I would have known" moments for me, The only thing I wish is that the plane would have came with a fuel tank selector valve. 

The big positives for me are: The Rotax 912 (it's just a damn good engine IMO), Speed (I see 115-120kts on calm days all the time), cockpit space, baggage space and ease of getting in and out of the plane. The ability to trim every control surface is nice too. Tundra tire kit is awesome, I've done some dry lake and dirt strip landings on them. Definitely makes the plane more versatile for the remote trips I do sometimes. 

Negatives? The no fuel selector, sometimes having to fly uncoordinated a tad to get the fuel transferred from tank to tank, how it performs in high XWinds (but almost any LSA sees this) Parachute handle location (I'd prefer it in front of me), no electronic trim. But all of that is really nothing in the big picture of what you get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...