Thread: New CTLS in Wichita, KS

Hello,

I just purchased a new CTLS from Airtime Aviation. I've been reading on this forum and it's time to introduce myself.

I'm a former business owner, my wife and I sold our business earlier this year. I had owned a Cessna T206H (big airplane) and it's just an expensive airplane. I was no longer flying for business; I had put 800+ hours on that plane in 3 1/2 years of ownership but it just didn't make sense anymore. Wasn't flying anymore business trips; and it ate $115/hour just in gasoline.

Anyway, I wanted to fly Light Sport, just for fun, with much lower costs, and no medical. I researched several different LSAs and came to the conclusion that the new CTLS was the way to go. Tom & Tom in Tulsa were great; they gave me a very nice demo ride and sold me on the airplane.

I've been trained in mountain flying and am hoping to fly up to Idaho later this summer to go into some backcountry airstrips. I need a little more confidence in my skills; I've now got about 5 hours in the CT and I'm not yet able to land on the numbers every time. I find that the horizon/dash is just 'all different' than what I was used to in the big T206H, which I could land in a small spot without a great deal of difficulty. I'll surely report on that, should I do it.

I'm also hoping to fly to Oshkosh and see the show. If I do, I hope to meet some of you there. My N# is N26KJ.

I picked the airplane up a couple of days ago. It's a joy to fly; I'm calling it a 'magic carpet ride'.

BTW, I've already had a couple of 'clunker' landings in the CTLS and I can attest to the fact that the composite gear absorbs most all the energy on the first bounce. I've never flown the CTSW so I don't know how to compare it.

It also appears to be very speedy, it appeared to beat book speed pretty nicely.

That's all for now. I'm looking forward to meeting some of you at Oshkosh.

Kind Regards

James Wiebe

James,

Don't feel bad about the spot landings. Before this CT I owned a variety of aircraft, mostly Cessnas, over the years including a U206F I had for 18 years. I could put all of these Cessnas where I wanted them every time almost without exception. Not so the CT.

I now have 90 hours in my CT and 235 landings and I'm getting pretty good at it. But, my point to you is that I find this plane takes more skill (or at least a different skill) and attention to detail to fly right than my Cessnas ever did. Probably doesn't help that I am a perfectionist when it comes to my piloting skills, or lack thereof, and I tend to critique myself a little hard.

I don't mean to say the CT is hard to fly. It's just that when you bring a 40 year Cessna skill set to the CT, you are going to have to make a few adjustments.

Practice, practice, practice. Take some of the things mentioned on this forum and try them. See what works for you. Recognize that what works for you when the weather is nice may not be what is required when the winds get tricky. Go back for a little dual from a good CT instructor after about 10 hours.

The plane likes to float, especially when lighter, so you will need a different aiming point as opposed to the 206. Until you get this right, stay away from the numbers so you don't land short and spray gravel on your plane - or worse. I find that flaps 15 and 55K gives me the best consistent landings. Flaps 30 and 40 at 50 knots work great too but you still float whereas the 206 did not. Recognize that at flaps 30 or 40 that this float will seem more pronounced and will end with a sudden drop. This is no big deal when you recognize that this will happen so be close to the ground and react quickly with back pressure which, for me, results in a nice smooth touchdown on the mains. Sometimes a little power helps. And, you can always go around.

It will all come to you pretty soon and you will have fun getting there.

the kinetic energy at play on approach in a ct is dictated by speed and mass. compared to your 206's the mass or weight is between 1,000lbs and 1,320lbs ( 30% ) and the speed is ~55kts resulting in far less energy to work with especially if you approach with your throttle closed.

i compensate with a steeper glide slope, the downside being a more dramatic round out. when i have vasi lights i wait until i have 4 white lights and then close the throttle.

i get a better result when i shift focus more towards pitch attitude and less towards maintaining airspeed. i don't trust my airspeed indicator and i see the ct as a pitch attitude airplane. as you get close to the ground where updrafts are less lii kely this thinking makes more sense.

i float a lot and use a lot of runway when winds are gusty and variable, the ct isn't working with a lot of energy on approach and if you get a gust on your tail you are at risk so always have your hand on the throttle and be ready to use it.

cessna sight pictures are dramatically different than the sight picture in a ct. when you consider that there is no cowling visible judgment requires different references, reference the far end of the runway especially to control your pitch attitude, as well reference the runway edge to help judge distance from the ground.

the ct doesn't have to float but the speed needs to be slow enough.

the best tip is to control your sink rate when about to contact with the throttle if needed.

more power and less flaps makes it easier and the headwind that requires the power will negate the float. i mostly experience a lot of float when i have a lot of wind.

if the fence, or snow pack allows i round out prior to the numbers and contact on them rather consistently. feel and practice.

the ct has a great power to weight ratio so the reaction to the throttle is a strong point, the weak point being the lack or weight in gusty winds. i have a lot of confidence in the ct's ability to go around in a bad situation but i have limited confidence in the ct's ability to deal with big gusts prior to touch down without using the throttle.

my 2 cents

Charlie tango is right. I too like a steeper approach easily done with flaps 30. Touch of power until the flare. Start the flare a little sooner so as to arrive at the touch down point in a nose up attitude and you probably won't float much. Delay the flare and it will float.

Shortly you may hear from Roger Lee who does it differently. In the end, it is what works for you.

thanks john,

you put your finger on the float/sink question, time the flare.

by coming closer to a full stall landing, meaning with a higher angle of attack instead of just letting the energy just gradually bleed off you can induce sink.

IMHO roger lees' flatter, more power, less flaps approach is a means to get consistent results including soft contacts even for someone new to ct's or even new to flying. the downsides are dependence on the engine to make the field and if you rely on this technique alone it limits skill development and limits short field with obstacles on approach capability.

i use roger's method for extremely short fields without obstacles or to make touchdowns on target easy or to deal with gusty winds where precise control is beyond my abilities.

in mammoth lakes on challenging days i have burned up over 5,000' of runway but when mains and earth collide it is soft.

in the end we all learn all techniques when flying ct's. we all experience obstacles, gusty variable winds, short fields etc at some point in time. an airframe as slippery as a ct that will fly under 40kts and weighs so little will demand a bit more of you from time to time. that's the beauty of the ctsw, it makes you a better pilot. the ctls will likely do the same.

Roger Who?
I'm not going to say a word.
Yeah right!

I believe you use what works for the situation and for the pilot. I believe you should know how to land in any configuration.
That said we all have favorites. For new pilots or transitioning pilots you need to make the landings easier for a while so they get used to the plane and what it does in different circumstances. Then they can play and try all the other setups. There is less corrections and adjustments in some landing configurations. To me the more times out of a hundred that I can set down smoothly the better for my plane over the long haul. We have all had our CT beginnings and have learned what works best, but none of us were good at the beginning.
I am now landing a lot with zero flaps and 3K rpm. I set up in final with a 60 knot speed at 3K rpm. I don't touch the throttle until the wheels touch. The approach is slightly flatter than with flaps, but who cares. The round out is less, the site picture shallower, the stick is less sensitive and I have better control surface response from all surfaces. The landings are always good. You are much less likely to bounce, plop or balloon this way.
This method is even better over a hot runway and crosswinds. Less float with zero flaps on hot days.
I like the other setting for landings too, but seem to like this one best. This one is especially good in crosswinds. If you are afraid that you won't make the runway in a flatter approach then don't shoot for the numbers and land farther down the runway. Most of us are using 4K'-6k' runways or longer. If I need to get into a small strip I will use 40 flaps at 50 knots and hit the numbers.
I took the UK's challenge and can land with my 2800rpm 40 flaps at 45-50 knots in a 1000' and set it down at the beginning of the runway. ( I have Matco brakes with stopping power, too)

The bottom line is we all need to learn all landing configurations, but what yields the smoothest landings the most number of times? I guess that is for you to decide.

I also transitioned from a Cessna, 172/182, and it seemed to me that none of the clues I used in the Cessna seemed to apply when coming in at 55Kt, throttle closed, 30deg flags and steep approach. I experimented a bit to find something similar to my Cessna experiance and found that by coming in at 60-65kts, 15 deg. flaps, holding 3K rpm until across the threshold, then closing the throttle, and slowly pulling the nose to level at about 5 feet, waiting for it to sink, and then pulling the stick back as far as I can. As long as I dont have a tail wind, the float is almost non-existent, save for the several seconds while I bleed off airspeed at level, waiting for that sinking feeling. However, this doesnt seem to work well if its windy. I wrote to Rahul Monga, who flew the CT around the world, asking for his advice, since he has seen as much in the CT as anybody in the world perhaps, and this is what he had to say:

"After a lot of experimenting, I have come to the following procedure:

Be at-least 500 feet on top of finals, established on approach. Keep
15 deg flaps and speed around 55 knots. In case of strong winds, the
speed should be 55-60 knots. This is a powered approach, with the RPM
around 2300-2400.

Your rate of descent at this time should be 4-500 feet per minute.

Now this is important- maintain speed with the stick and the rate of
descent with the throttle. What I mean is, if you find the speed is
washing off, lower the nose and if the speed is increasing, raise the
nose. Similarly, if you find that the ROD is increasing, give a touch
of power and vice versa.

The elevator should be trimmed.

As you come close to ground, initiate a round off in two phases.
First a gentle one at around 10 feet, and start closing throttle and
one at around 5 feet and raise the nose well above the horizon. Be
very careful of ballooning, as the CT is very sensitive.

There would be changes in yaw; just give the appropriate rudder
input. You must land on the main wheels - a three pointer would
result in a hard bounce or break the nose in oscillations.

In case of strong crosswinds, execute a crab approach, with the nose
into the wind. At about 20-30 feet, align the nose to the centreline
and fly with one wing low.

In case of nil or very light winds, you can execute a 30 degree flap
approach. The speed should be 50 knots. The only difference is that
your attitude during the round off will be much higher, and so will
be the tendency to balloon!"

The more flaps the easier it is to porpoise or balloon. Zero flaps gets rid of that. That's why I think new pilots to the CT will benefit at the beginning with zero flaps. Fewer corrections and issues at the bottom. When you take out as many variables as possible in the beginning then learning/landing starts off easier then you add different approaches.
You high time CT pilots can't get people to land like you because the new people don't have that feel or the many hours or practice it took you to get there. You tell them how you land now, but that wasn't the case for most of us in the beginning.
It's hard for high time CT pilots to relate well to newer CT pilots because it took us a long time to hone our skills, but we want to tell the newer people how we do it now. They aren't at that level yet. That's my problem with some CFI's. Teaching students the way they like to land with a thousand hours of time. That's not the way many people need to learn.

Remember the old saying "Patients Grasshopper, Patients".
Learn to crawl, then walk then run.

you are probably right to a great extent roger,

i never went through the early phase, probably my kr2 combined with other very light aircraft provided the background i needed to use full stall landings with 30-40 and throttle closed right from day one.

coming from a mountain field with tough winds this argument has been around here long before light sport and isn't about to go away any time soon.

I think the difference in landing techniques may be pilot preference, but may also be different model year of the airplanes and there different characteristics. I have time in both an 06 and 07 SW, and they both require a little different landing technique. I also have 5-6 hrs in a LS, but it has always been in 20 MPH winds. It seems to have a different site picture and pitch attitude than the SW, so our landing techniques in the SW mat not apply to the LS. Tom