Thread: New web site...

Looks to be a new www.flightdesignusa.com in the works. Don't understand why the old one didn't stay until the new one is done but.....

Maybe they'll add a forum and I can retire!!

Roger H

Originally Posted by administrator

Looks to be a new www.flightdesignusa.com in the works. Don't understand why the old one didn't stay until the new one is done but.....

Maybe they'll add a forum and I can retire!!

Roger H

I think the under construction was a major error. I had emailed the dealer saying I decided on a CTsw and was discussing options. I tried to go to the site for some information but it wasn't there. My dealer also carried an Evektor which I initially decided was not as good as the CTsw. With nothing else to do I went to the Evektor site and then checked the NTSB accident database. Now I am thinking the Evektor might be a better plane.

Originally Posted by ArtP

I think the under construction was a major error. I had emailed the dealer saying I decided on a CTsw and was discussing options. I tried to go to the site for some information but it wasn't there. My dealer also carried an Evektor which I initially decided was not as good as the CTsw. With nothing else to do I went to the Evektor site and then checked the NTSB accident database. Now I am thinking the Evektor might be a better plane.

Well, the Evektor is a different airplane. Obvious differences of low wing vs high, metal construction vs composite. The Evektor is not as well balanced on the control forces (pitch and roll forces are way different - pitch is light, roll not as much), but it needs less rudder.

The Evektor is also more expensive and has less useful load. The aluminum construction may wind up being a plus over the long haul, e.g., headset jacks. Still, I liked flying it.

The extra leg and shoulder room in the Ct was a big thing for me. If I'm going to fly long cross countries then I want some room. Plus the Evektor doesn't have in-flight movies. Don't laugh it's true.

Originally Posted by Roger Lee

Plus the Evektor doesn't have in-flight movies. Don't laugh it's true.

Would you care to explain?

Art,

THe CTSW has 150 regestered in the US where the Evektor has 46. Flight Design got a big head start and even if a CT wasn't trickier to land it still should have at least 3 x as many NTSB reports as the Evektor.

The CT does require a higher level of proficiency, if you can achieve it you will never give it a 2nd thought. If it is too hard for you to learn it might not be the design for you.

My view is that it is a non issue because I am not willing to settle for a lower level of proficiency. Fly both designs to get a better understanding of the diferences.

Originally Posted by CharlieTango

Art,

THe CTSW has 150 regestered in the US where the Evektor has 46. Flight Design got a big head start and even if a CT wasn't trickier to land it still should have at least 3 x as many NTSB reports as the Evektor.

The CT has 9, the Evektor has 0.

One pilot ran out of fuel while landing, the rest were all landing or takeoff related accidents.

A significant number of the pilots were experienced and in some cases instructors. While I don't consider myself particularly inept, I don't consider myself as competent as a flight instructor and I doubt I will ever be.

Art,

Fuel starvation is totally a pilot error issue.

Certified Flight Instructors sometimes have similar profiles to private pilots who have a hard time transitioning to a CTSW.

The common characteristics seem to be pilots that have a lot of time in typical general aviation aircraft like a Piper Cherokee or a Cessna Skyhawk. The pilot may have weak rudder skills and no experience in an aircraft with such a wide range of flap/flaperon settings that lead to a wide range of pitch attitudes on approach and perhaps more importantly a range of "climb" attitudes suitable for touchdown.

When you combine 30 or 40 degrees of flaps plus the resulting droop in the flaperons that you have to begin to limit the nose up or climb attitude used at touch down. This is important in a CT, combine that with the high level of responsiveness and the slow speeds that it might fly at and you have a bit of a different animal.

The same is true in general aviation. Not all pilots find a Mooney easy to land but many find the challenge worth while because they like the performance.

Bottom line Art, Does the CT have 8 landing / take off incidents because the design is defective or because the design is advanced and has more capability and therefore requires more skill?

I think it is difficult for Flight Design to characterize their design as difficult and as a result there have been cases where the transition training didn't go far enough. It is hard to fault the CFIs because they don't sign anyone off until the pilot can demonstrate that he can repeatedly do good landings. Unfortunately the training has to continue and a lot of attention to remaining in a positive energy state has to be paid especially until the new pilot has developed a good feel for the CT.

Good Luck

Ed

I see they put the old site back up.

A very interesting and personal subject for me. I have 30 hours of training in the SportStar and 2 in the CT. I take delivery of my CT in about a week.

The Sportstar is a very nice airplane. The Flight Design West people say it's an excellent trainer for the CT. I've always felt safe in the Sportstar. The controls do take a non-intuitive amount of top rudder to keep the turns coordinated, but other than that, it's a very sweet little airplane.

On the other hand, I want to do long-distance VFR cruising and the CT's fuel, speed and load capacity make it a no-brainer choice over the Sportstar. Minor things I like about the CT over the Sportstar are the cabin size, baggage areas, brakes and throttle position. The Sportstar has had some chronic brake issues and it's a fairly well known weakness in the plane. The CT landing accidents are certainly disconcerting, but keep in mind that they should be resolvable with training and pilot judgement. OTOH, without the chute, the SportStar could give you a very bad day if the engine fails over a mountain.