RV12 to a CT Super Sport?

[jclisham]

Hello everyone,

First post here and a great forum.  I recently sold my RV12 in April and honestly, I deeply regret it!   It was/is a great airplane.  With that said, I'm now seriously considering getting into a CT Series aircraft.  If I can swing it, I'm considering the CT Super Sport.  I searched the forums and read every thread where RV12 is mentioned but hadn't seen too much from a flying comparison standpoint.  

I was curious if anyone has time in both an RV12 and CT series who can compare flying qualities and landing behavior? I could grease just about every landing in that thing.  

Despite other flaws, the RV12 is a sweet, sweet flier and it must be the easiest aircraft I've ever landed.  In reading it seems the CTSW/Super Sport's may be a bit more 'squirrely' landing than the RV12.  Is this the case?   But maybe the CT Super Sport having the same gear and tailplane as a CTLS is more docile in landing?   I'm not too interested in the CTLS as I like the extra useful load (and price) of a CTSW/SS but it seems it's a bit easier in the landing dept?

 I'm not too concerned as there are just too many 'pros' to ignore for the CT vs the RV (BRS, Fuel Capacity and in wings, High wing (shade!), Baggage space/capacity, roomy, etc.).

Anyway, thanks for any responses and I look forward to learning from everyone!

[Tom Baker]

I've not flown an RV12, but the CT is not hard to land once you learn how to land it. The landings during transition can be difficult. The sight picture is different, and most people transitioning to the CT will want to land crooked. The CT also requires a light hand to fly well, and the less you can move the control stick around during landings the better off you will be. Side to side movement especially can make things get ugly fast. Oh, the Super Sport has a different landing gear from both the CTLS and CTSW. I have done an inspection on one, but I did not fly it. From a mechanical stand point it has many improvements.

[jclisham]

Thanks Tom!  The RV12 is a finger tip plane too so that should be somewhat natural transition wise.  

[Towner]

I agree with Tom, it’s not hard to land after you figure it out. I bought mine 2 years ago (CTSW). I hadn’t flown in over 5 years when I bought it. When I bought it, I got my Bfr and check out for the plane in about 5 hours. The instructor signed me off and I started on my way home from Iowa to California. Probably could have used a few more landings before the trip, but I didn’t know that at the time.

Once home, I did A LOT of landings trying to get better. They weren’t bad or unsafe, just not as smooth as I wanted. Then something clicked and the landings started working the way I had hoped. Now, I purposely look for challenging landings with strong crosswinds or shorter fields just for fun.

From reading posts here, it seems each airplane handles a little different, from models, to year, to little things like changes in control springs, yet I think they are all pretty similar. I’m sure you can find someone with a CT in your area that would love to take you up in their plane.

Good luck with your purchase! I have no regrets!

[jclisham]

Thanks Towner!  I'm not too concerned about ability to land it.   I'm more interested in if anyone can compare/contrast to an RV12

[Towner]

That I can’t help with, but you already have the RV 12 experience. Just find one one of the CT guys to take you up and you get to make the comparison! Your judgement is better than ours. Since we all own CTs on this site, we may be partial to them!

[jclisham]

Solid point!!!   

[jclisham]

Update: Contacted Tom at Flight Design USA.  Unfortunately, they're not able to build new CT Supers due to factory shutdown as result of Ukraine/Russia war.  Net, no orders being accepted with no eta.  No one's fault (well Russia's I guess).  So now I'll need to be patient or be on look out for a good used one.

[airhound]

SW, LS,12 experience. 12 wing design enables easier greasers, no doubt. CT can too if flown on and you don’t come in like a meteor….Even carrying a smidge of power to arrest sinking can produce a greaser…it’s forgiving and fun to practice. Dual with Tom enabled me to focus my practice more effectively. 

[jclisham]

Thank you Airhound!  Pretty much as I expected.  I guess the bigger concern is that now that I've finally zero'd in on what I want to seriously test next, they stopped making 'em for a bit.  ugh.  I'm totally up for a used CT Super if I can find one too though.  So there is some hope.

[Eddie Cesnalis]

I have always favored full stall landings in my CTSW.  Aft stick to the stop and landing balanced on the mains  with the nose wheel settling after bleeding speed describes what I mean.  These can be greasers as well.

I only land with 40 degrees in calm winds otherwise most landings with 30 degrees.  Big winds I use 15 degrees.

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

I too admire the CT Supers, don't know how many are in US but if I had to guess it's probably close to 4.   They are very rare compared to LS's and SW's.

[Roger Lee]

I have a Super Sport at my field

[jclisham]

44 minutes ago, GrassStripFlyBoy said:

I too admire the CT Supers, don't know how many are in US but if I had to guess it's probably close to 4.   They are very rare compared to LS's and SW's.

Welp - if you or anyone (Roger) hear anyone looking to sell, let me know.  They're certainly rare it seems, but they seem just right.  All the sensible improvements of the CTLSi into a lighter package.  Given these are VFR machines, I'm pretty content with just 1 Dynon HDX and an iPad. That's more than enough.  It's what I had in my RV12. I'll take the useful load in return!

[Anticept]

Being that you're in ohio, I can take you for a flight.

[jclisham]

7 hours ago, Anticept said:

Being that you're in ohio, I can take you for a flight.

That’s awesome! I’ll send a pm. 

[FlyingMonkey]

15 hours ago, Eddie Cesnalis said:

I have always favored full stall landings in my CTSW.  Aft stick to the stop and landing balanced on the mains  with the nose wheel settling after bleeding speed describes what I mean.  These can be greasers as well.

I only land with 40 degrees in calm winds otherwise most landings with 30 degrees.  Big winds I use 15 degrees.

Totally agree with this.  When I first started out almost all my landings were at 15° flaps, but later I figured out that 30° is really the sweet spot for the CT if the winds aren't bad.  The landing is so slow (I like 48-50kt on short final) that there's not much to go wrong.  At 40° it's harder to land for almost no speed difference.  It can help a little bit over high obstacles, but a slip is more effective and you can fine tune your approach better that way.

IMO the CT benefits a LOT from slower landings.  While I like power off for the most part here's nothing wrong with the "fly it on" approach, but you are faster and if you are too fast you will eat up a lot of runway and you'll have to wait for the airplane to bleed off speed and settle or you'll balloon.  You have to get the excess energy out, either by approaching slow or floating at the bottom.  The squirrelly handling (at least in my CTSW) on the ground does not favor fast landings.  I'd but most of the landing accidents where airplanes go off the runway happen because of excess speed after touchdown.  It almost happened to me once and I scared the shit out of a runway sign. 

But I'm with Ed... 30° most of the time, 15° if the winds are rough, and save 40° if your airplane has it for stuffing into a short field during an emergency, but practice with it occasionally.

[ct9000]

For what it's worth I had my SW for about 1200 hrs. and used 40 flap all the time. I miss it I should not have sold it a great and very capable aircraft. Yes it takes a little to get the picture right but not that hard. Have had a ride in a RV12 but not as pilot. I would describe the RV as a bit more gentlemen like, a bit slower but not much, both are good fun.

[sandpiper]

I have given 2-3 RV-12 Flight Reviews to a friend at my airport. The RV-12 controls, especially laterally, are generally lighter and more "harmonious" than my 2007 CTSW. The CTSW is, however, very light in pitch. Easy to over control. Best to "weld" your arm to your leg to avoid this.

Once you get a few hours in the CTSW most people have no problem. It does require attention to  keep the ball centered.

As for speed, some planes of same make/model are faster/slower than others. My friends RV-12 could out climb and out run my CTSW at similar weights. This was with my prop properly pitched to give 5600 RPM flat out. This was side by side when we used to fly formation going places together. 

Tony, who was active on this forum at one time, has a 2006 CTSW. He took off behind me one time at Orland, CA and passed me pretty quickly. His plane is probably faster than my friends RV-12.

Check with your insurance agent before you purchase your next ride. CTSW's have more take off/landing accidents than other LSA's according to my agent.

 

[jclisham]

Thanks John!  Exactly the insight I was seeking.  Great point on insurance the RV12's insurance was 'noise' in the grand scheme of costs b/c they're so docile in air and landing is such a non event. 

 

Thanks!
John

[ct9000]

Both are very docile in stalls etc. The CTSW is not difficult to land if handled correctly, but the most common problem pilots new to the CT series have is coming in too fast and the sight picture is a bit different because of the wide cabin with the short nose. In my opinion the SW is more capable in difficult conditions once you get the hang of it. 

[jclisham]

Oh - don't get me wrong, I have zero concerns about my ability to handle/fly etc.  But insurance companies don't really care  If the CT is $1000 more a year for insurance that would be a bummer.  

[Towner]

When I bought my CTSW, I had about 1300 hrs total time and the only CT time was the 5 hours for my bfr and check out in the plane. Insurance was about $1400 and the plane was insured for $60k. Second year I had about 150 hours in the CT, moved insurance up to $65k value and insurance remained about $1400 per year.

I imagine the costs for the condition inspection will be about the same. If the RV doesn’t have a chute, you’ll deal with that additional cost every 6 and 12 years with the CT.

[sandpiper]

31 minutes ago, Towner said:

When I bought my CTSW, I had about 1300 hrs total time and the only CT time was the 5 hours for my bfr and check out in the plane. Insurance was about $1400 and the plane was insured for $60k. Second year I had about 150 hours in the CT, moved insurance up to $65k value and insurance remained about $1400 per year.

I imagine the costs for the condition inspection will be about the same. If the RV doesn’t have a chute, you’ll deal with that additional cost every 6 and 12 years with the CT.

The parachute is expensive to maintain. Also takes away about 33 pounds of useful load and, except for flying to/from the shop for removal and reinstalling, the plane is grounded. This can take about 30 days and BRS seems to be taking longer turnaround and increasing price. 
 

I’m still happy to have it.

[Warmi]

BRS , as far as parachutes go, is a good deal.

On my Sting GRS parachute is optional - I can placard it and fly forever without servicing it but then what is the point of having it ?

The downside is that GRS repack with a new rocket was about $7k ( I did it last year )  , not much choice here in US except their North Little Rock dealer and they have to send it back to EU  - at least BRS can be serviced locally in the US and is significantly cheaper.