Flight Design USA Archives - Page 6 of 10

Flight Design USA

Website: http://www.flightdesignusa.com/

Phone: (860) 963-7272

South Woodstock, CT 06267 - USA

LSA Euro-Factory Tour: Flight Design, Ukraine

By Dan Johnson || June 26, 2007 Leave a Comment

Looking very different than the all-metal factories recently SPLOGged, Flight Design's primary production facility in southeastern Ukraine works 98% with carbon fiber.

The Czech Republic featured in the last few SPLOGs may not be well known to Americans, but Ukraine seems yet another world away. Indeed, our jetliner flew almost two hours further east to Odessa and then we took a three-hour car ride to Kherson, home to the primary production facility for German-owned Flight Design. *** The experience of touring their facility was dramatically different than CZAW or Evektor as Flight Designs works almost exclusively with carbon fiber. Now in its second decade of production CT is America's best-selling LSA and its factory has grown accordingly. More than 500 Ukrainian employees -- engineers, designers, managers, technicians, and factory employees -- toil in a sprawling facility not far from the Black Sea. Senior management is German but the entire facility is run by local talent. Interestingly, staff meetings are held in English. Though still Soviet-like in its drab surroundings, the factory pulses with modern activity; on the day I visited, another five CTs left on trucks for Germany where they are final checked, test flown, and prepared for shipment all over the world.

The Czech Republic featured in the last few SPLOGs may not be well known to Americans, but Ukraine seems yet another world away. Indeed, our jetliner flew almost two hours further east to Odessa and then we took a three-hour car ride to Kherson, home to the primary production facility for German-owned Flight Design. *** The experience of touring their facility was dramatically different than CZAW or Evektor as Flight Designs works almost exclusively with carbon fiber. Now in its second decade of production CT is America’s best-selling LSA and its factory has grown accordingly. More than 500 Ukrainian employees — engineers, designers, managers, technicians, and factory employees — toil in a sprawling facility not far from the Black Sea. Senior management is German but the entire facility is run by local talent. Interestingly, staff meetings are held in English.

CT 2006…Second Generation Light-Sport Aircraft

By Dan Johnson || May 4, 2007 Leave a Comment

To improve the aircraft's handling qualities, Flight Design increased the size of the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer-compare the diff erence in these photos. It also added a full-span anti-servo tab to the full-fl ying stabilator.

The instrument panel on the 2006 CT was also modifi ed, changing it to a three-section panel, with two panels angled toward the center panel. A satin-aluminum fi nish gives the panel a distinctive appearance and reduces glare. The generous size of the panel area accommodates a wide range of instruments, depending upon the aircraft's mission.

The seats in the 2006 CT are also more refi ned and extend higher up the back to provide more support and a headrest. They're available in black or brown leather. The seats can be adjusted fore and aft as well as up and down to accommodate diff erent sized pilots. The 49-inch wide cockpit provides plenty of room for two occupants.

The Flight Design CT currently leads the LSA parade with more than 85 aircraft delivered to customers since the aircraft earned S-LSA approval in April of 2005. Flight Design of Germany markets the aircraft, which is built in the Ukraine. Flight Design USA of South Woodstock, Connecticut, imports the aircraft into this country.

The pull handle for the BRS ballistic chute is located on the aft bulkhead between the seat backs. Below the handle is the rudder trim wheel and forward of that, on the console between the seats, is the aileron trim wheel.

Baggage compartments, on either side of the aircraft, can accommodate up to 100 pounds of baggage, as long as it's within the aircraft's total weight and balance requirements. The BRS ballistic chute is housed in this area, too.

In the 15 months since the first two special light-sport aircraft (S-LSA) were introduced at the Sun 'n Fun Fly-In in Lakeland, Florida, a wave of S-LSA have taken to the sky. The number delivered to customers is approaching 500 aircraft -- and climbing as quickly as factories can produce and deliver them. The years ahead should see a sharply increasing number of LSA flying in America. The good news for pilots is we won't just have more LSA, we'll have better ones as designers modify and improve aircraft based on customer input and service history. That's one of the benefi ts of consensus standards versus type certification-manufacturers can cram more features into the airplanes and factories may refine production techniques without undergoing costly recertification. The best news is we don't have to wait. "New and improved" LSA are here now. The 2006 CT Because of its distinctive profile, the Flight Design CT is one of the most recognized S-LSA flying. Some of the design's success comes from an effort by its German producer to make the CT a better package, as witnessed by its introduction of a refined 2006 model. Flight Design Germany has been aided in this effort by its U.S. importer, Flight Design USA, and the experienced network of dealers that Flight Design USA has created. And the European-born CT has evolved to meet the expectations of American pilots. Just prior to Sun 'n Fun 2006, I flew both the 2005 and 2006 model CTs, courtesy of the folks at Sebring Aviation, the Flight Design USA distributor for the southeastern United States. Back-to-back flights in the two models offered a clear comparison and updated my previous experiences flying the CT. Close observers should quickly note: Two changes to the tail surfaces. Most noticeable is an enlarged area on the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer. Next, the full-flying stabilator has an anti-servo tab that runs full span. A new instrument panel configuration is standard. A wider, flat-gray panel is now divided into three segments with satin-finish aluminum faces, with two slightly angled panels flanking a center panel. The 2006 model's seats rise higher and offer some head support. The pilot can now trim the aircraft in all three axes using trim wheels, a feature common only on more expensive general aviation (GA) aircraft. The wings of the two models are exactly the same, employing the same flaperons. After reacquainting myself with the characteristics of the 2005 model in flight, I went aloft in the 2006 model with its larger vertical tail and full span anti-servo tab. The aircraft offered by Sebring Aviation had a decked-out panel to make most pilots envious. Regardless of its aerodynamic improvements, the larger vertical tail on the 2006 model visually fills out the aircraft's profile, making the tail volume conform better to the fuselage. The reshaped tail blends nicely with the ventral (below-the-fuselage) fin. Shape, like color, is decidedly personal, but I believe most aviators will find the curves of the 2006 CT to be appealing. I enjoyed flying both '05 and '06 models even more than I expected. The soaring enthusiast in me loved the original long-winged CT's superb glide, but I found it more work coordinating rudder and ailerons in the older model than in either shorterwinged '05 and '06 models. Surprisingly the shorter wing configuration still gives the CT plenty of loft on approach to landing, a reported 14-to-1 glide. The 2006 CT has become a refi ned flying machine. Lots of Elbow Room The cockpits of many European-designed airplanes are too tight for larger Americans. Everybody likes to have a little extra room, especially on longer flights. In the CT's 49-inch-wide cockpit, John and I, both of average build, had plenty of room. I had less at my feet because the nose of the aircraft tapers, but I didn't feel cramped. The CT's seats adjust fully aft, which allowed me to extend my legs fully. The seats in the 2006 CT are also softer and more comfortable than earlier models, and it felt like they offered more lumbar support. The seats also extend up higher, supporting your head, something the seats on the earlier models did not do. Fore and aft adjustment plus height adjustments are available, but you must make these adjustments on the ground where you can visually ascertain that the locking pins are properly seated in the adjustment rail holes. Cockpit Refinements LSA are not ultralights. Ultralights want to be simple and inexpensive, and fewer instruments are employed to stay light. But buyers of LSA are often GA pilots accustomed to fully equipped panels. Recognizing this customer demand, the 2006 CT boasts enlarged space for avionics. The 2005 CT had analog gauges while the 2006 model I flew was all digital. Though a digital cockpit may offer more information, many pilots feel they pick up on data quicker from analog gauges. Yet digital instruments, like the CT airframe, keep getting better, and analog pilots will adapt. Other cockpit refinements include a smaller flap switch in the '06, and this turned out to be good. I tended to over-control the larger lever, flipping it inadvertently back and forth between two settings, which confused the system. A light-emitting diode (LED) readout clearly shows the flaps setting. I am highly supportive of the BRS emergency parachute system that's standard equipment on the CT (as a former BRS employee, I should be), but I have never been a big fan of the parachute handle's location on the aft bulkhead of this aircraft. While that assures a direct routing for the activating housing, it requires the pilot or passenger to reach backward and make a substantial pull of a handle at an awkward angle. A better position might be to have the handle mounted on the instrument panel, but that would require a long activating housing. Pilots will definitely want to rehearse the parachute handle pull motion and instruct passengers about the operation. In addition to its challenging placement, the parachute handle also somewhat interferes with the aileron and rudder trim wheels, which are located nearby. Pilots will acquire a natural feel for them eventually, but they'll need to confirm what they're engaging the first few times they fly the 2006 CT. To open the cockpit door from the inside, push the doorknob toward the outside slightly and then release the three pins that secure the door, which are hidden by the interior door finish. (Flight Design also offers a right-side photo door for those interested in pursuing such a hobby.) The Mecaplex sliding window vents let in the most air when you close the sliding mechanism and use the small, angular flip-out vent. For flying in cool months, CT comes with standard cabin heat, or you can order a higher output system for cold climates. As you prepare to start the CT, you'll run into another good safety idea. Engineers positioned the fuel shut-off lever so you cannot insert the starter key with the fuel selector in the off position. You raise the fuel shut-off for flight (logically) and then put your key in and start the engine. As in most GA aircraft, you use the key switch to check magnetos. Don't Expect a Long Ground Roll As usual, the 100-hp Rotax 912S snapped to a start when I turned the key. After assuring our seat belts were latched and the doors were properly closed, John and I taxied for takeoff. Rudder steering in both '05 and '06 models is solid. On Sebring Airport's long, wide, and unobstructed runways, we had no need to max out take-off performance. Yet even with gentle controls, the CT left the ground with enthusiasm. I doubt our first roll was 500 feet, and we weren't even trying to take off quickly. Off the runway, I noted climb at more than 1,500 fpm, a rate that settled around 1,100, though John and I were not flying at full gross weight. Most of this evaluation flight was done at low altitude- about 1,200 feet MSL. Before we took the CT to its top speed, we experimented with slow flight. Pulling the power liberally, we waited for 63 knots before deploying the flaps. The LED flap indicator blinks your setting until the flaps are deployed to the position selected. Once your chosen setting is reached, the number glows steadily. The CT is smart; John told me that if you select 40 degrees of flaps while flying too fast for safe deployment, a sensor reads the amperage load on the flap motor and stops the flap deployment if the load is too high. As we practiced a few touch-andgoes, I made approaches in the 2005 CT using 40 degrees of flaps while doing a slip that put one rudder pedal on the floor. The plane exhibited excellent handling throughout this exercise. My last landing was done with only 15 degrees of flaps, and the 2005 CT simply did not want to drop out of the sky. It demonstrated a slow, unpowered descent that would buy any pilot time should the engine quit. The landing gear on the 2005 model offered smooth and stable ground operations, and both model years exhibited superb taxiing characteristics, almost like driving an automobile. On the 2006 model, however, I observed a roughness in the ride as soon as we landed, possibly resulting from some gear leg harmonic. The roughness disappeared as we slowed, suggesting it was not simply an out-of-balance tire. (John had checked that possibility.) Even though I'm experienced with hand brakes, I found it a bit cumbersome attempting to work the hand brake and the throttle simultaneously with my right hand on the brake and my left hand on the throttle. Later I developed a technique of using my right forearm to assure holding the throttle at idle, which is where you'd place it before activating the brakes. Sweet, Light Handling As we said earlier, one of the most visible changes to the 2006 CT is its enlarged vertical stabilizer, but how does it help handling? During his evaluation of the new tail on the 2006 model, Flight Design President Tom Peghiny disturbed the controls and watched the airplane's recovery to straight and level flight. My method to gain a feel for the larger vertical stabilizer was to note the speed and accuracy of recovery from slips. The CT comes out of the deepest slip authoritatively. The CT uses a stabilator-a fullmoving elevator and horizontal stabilizer surface. Compared to the earlier CTs I'd flown, I detected less hunting of the nose and a more dampened response to pitch changes-attributes that should make cross-country flying easier on pilot and passenger. A longer anti-servo tab makes this surface much more effective. (Note that an anti-servo tab works the opposite of a trim tab, making the free-moving stabilator not as light in pitch response. A trim tab relieves control pressures whereas an anti-servo tab increases control forces on aircraft with light pitch response.) When the anti-servo tab was extended, it increased elevator forces to bring them in better harmony with the ailerons. I especially noticed this when exiting a deep slip. I had more feel from the 2006 CT's joystick than I did on the 2005 model. Commensurately, in the 2006 CT the slip is not quite as deep as in the 2005 model, proving the larger vertical stabilizer is at work. Compared to the longwinged version with a smaller tail and smaller anti-servo tab, the 2006 CT has significantly improved control feel and harmony. Keeping the ball centered is now much easier than it was in the older versions. Carbon Fiber Performer Since its introduction in the mid- 1990s, the CT has looked the part of a performance machine. Like Jim Griswold's distinctly egg-shaped Questair Venture, performance comes with this fuselage configuration. John and I flew the 2006 CT to 5500 rpm where we averaged 119 knots indicated air speed (IAS) on an upwind and downwind run. This translated to 125 knots true airspeed (TAS) on the day we flew together. The fastest speed was achieved with the flaps reflexed (curved upward) to the 6-degree setting. This sailplane control helps broaden the CT's speed range. John stated that not using the reflex would lower cruise by 2 to 3 knots. When I wasn't trying to evaluate the CT's upper-end performance, I tended to fly it in the low 5000 or high 4000 rpm range. I felt comfortable at this setting. The CT was quieter and smoother. When you raise the rpm to 5500 you experience greater noise and vibration. On the other end of the speed scale, the CT can go quite slowly. Keep backing off on power and the CT won't start sinking. Finally, after you dial in flaperons you can watch the speed come down. Using aileron trim, I got the 2006 model into slow flight-very slow, about 28 knots indicated on the digital readout until it fell to zero. The CT wanted to roll to the left, so I moved the aileron control to the right, which cured the problem. Of course, airspeed readings at high angles of attack are suspect; we didn't necessarily fly at 28 knots, but we were "crawling" above the earth's surface. At these foot-dragging speeds, the CT handled cooperatively. Not quite as light in pressures, the 2006 model gave good response and didn't feel sloppy. When stalls in the 2006 CT were done mildly, the airplane demonstrated almost no nose or wing drop. When done more aggressively, both trials caused this CT to drop a little to the right. I used aileron to bring the wing back, a reasonable maneuver as long as the movement is modest. (Intentional spins and aerobatics are not approved; markings in more than one location reinforce this message.) Voting for CT A year and a quarter after the first SLSA were approved, the CT has taken a convincing lead in deliveries, with more than 85 aircraft delivered. This is an active marketplace, and other manufacturers are also selling large numbers of airplanes. But Flight Design had a head start, starting earlier than others in gearing up production for U.S. consumption. Flight Design of Germany projects it will produce and sell more than 200 CTs in 2007. So far in 2006, Sebring Aviation has delivered eight CTs and has orders for 10 more. John sees no problem in selling his dealership's allocation of 25 airplanes for 2006. Other Flight Design USA distributors say the same thing: "Give us the airplanes; we can sell them all." Just three years ago, I wrote about the CT of that period and called it a higher-end choice for about $70,000. Today, the CT sells for $92,900. The $22,900 increase is in small part covered by a longer list of standard items (see below), but the majority of that price inflation is the reduced dollar value compared to a highervalued euro. Flight Design of Germany, Flight Design USA, and its Keep backing off on power and the CT won't start sinking. Finally, after you dial in flaperons you can watch the speed come down. Using aileron trim, I got the 2006 model into slow flight-very slow, about 28 knots indicated on the digital readout until it fell to zero. The CT wanted to roll to the left, so I moved the aileron control to the right, which cured the problem. Of course, airspeed readings at high angles of attack are suspect; we didn't necessarily fly at 28 knots, but we were "crawling" above the earth's surface. At these foot-dragging speeds, the CT handled cooperatively. Not quite as light in pressures, the 2006 model gave good response and didn't feel sloppy. When stalls in the 2006 CT were done mildly, the airplane demonstrated almost no nose or wing drop. When done more aggressively, both trials caused this CT to drop a little to the right. I used aileron to bring the wing back, a reasonable maneuver as long as the movement is modest. (Intentional spins and aerobatics are not approved; markings in more than one location reinforce this message.) Voting for CT A year and a quarter after the first SLSA were approved, the CT has taken a convincing lead in deliveries, with more than 85 aircraft delivered. This is an active marketplace, and other manufacturers are also selling large numbers of airplanes. But Flight Design had a head start, starting earlier than others in gearing up production for U.S. consumption. Flight Design of Germany projects it will produce and sell more than 200 CTs in 2007. So far in 2006, Sebring Aviation has delivered eight CTs and has orders for 10 more. John sees no problem in selling his dealership's allocation of 25 airplanes for 2006. Other Flight Design USA distributors say the same thing: "Give us the airplanes; we can sell them all." Just three years ago, I wrote about the CT of that period and called it a higher-end choice for about $70,000. Today, the CT sells for $92,900. The $22,900 increase is in small part covered by a longer list of standard items (see below), but the majority of that price inflation is the reduced dollar value compared to a highervalued euro. Flight Design of Germany, Flight Design USA, and its distributors and dealers are not making more money at these higher prices. Even at $92,900, the CT represents a good value among the more refined S-LSA. For that figure you get pattern and color choices, the Rotax 912S 100-hp engine, a three-axis trim system with discrete wheel controls for each, a full instrument package (including airspeed, altimeter, vertical speed, tachometer, hour meter, and slip indicator), the Rotax FlyDat digital engine instrument with numerous functions (or you can select American-made UMA analog engine gauges if you prefer), strobe and position lights, stainless steel exhaust with cabin heat, a Mecaplex sliding window vent, quarter-turn fasteners on the engine cowl, and the BRS emergency parachute system. To assure you know how to operate your new 2006 CT, Flight Design provides each buyer with three hours of flight orientation (included in the price). Overseas shipping to the East Coast is also included in the price, though delivery charges may apply if you take delivery, for example, at Flight Design West based in Reno, Nevada. Those seeking more instrumentation and appointments can choose from options like black or brown leather seating, mode A/C transponder, a choice of Garmin 296 or 396 panel-mounted GPS, one- or two-axis autopilot, King radio packages, David Clark headsets, a PS intercom, or the Dynon 100-120 electronic flight instrument and engine monitoring glass display. Flight Design USA also offers many other optional items to help you customize your CT. With Flight Design Germany working hard to increase manufacturing capacity, and the company's American reps standing ready to sell and service the aircraft, getting a CT shouldn't involve too long a wait. Find your way to the head of the parade and you'll see why CT occupies the lead position. It might be your new LSA.

Published in EAA Sport Pilot & Light Sport Aircraft Magazine

Seating	2, side-by-side
Empty weight	680 pounds
Gross weight	1,320 pounds
Wingspan	28 feet
Wing area	107 square feet
Wing loading	12.3 pounds/square foot
Useful Load	640 pounds
Length	20.3 feet
Payload (with full fuel)	436 pounds
Cabin Interior	49 inches wide
Height	7.9 feet
Fuel Capacity	34 gallons
Baggage area	aft compartment, 100 pounds. ¹
Airworthiness	Certified SLSA
Notes:	¹ Before loading 100 pounds of baggage, the aircraft's weight and balance should be carefully calculated.
Standard engine	Rotax 912S
Power	100 hp
Power loading	13.2 pounds/hp
Max Speed	138 mph
Cruise speed	129 mph
Stall Speed (Flaps)	45 mph
Never exceed speed	167 mph
Rate of climb at gross	960 fpm
Takeoff distance at gross	295 feet
Landing distance at gross	465 feet
Range (powered)	8.3 hours - 1,080 miles (no reserve)
Fuel Consumption	4 gph
Notes:	Propeller: Two-blade Neuform

In the 15 months since the first two special light-sport aircraft (S-LSA) were introduced at the Sun ‘n Fun Fly-In in Lakeland, Florida, a wave of S-LSA have taken to the sky. The number delivered to customers is approaching 500 aircraft — and climbing as quickly as factories can produce and deliver them. The years ahead should see a sharply increasing number of LSA flying in America. The good news for pilots is we won’t just have more LSA, we’ll have better ones as designers modify and improve aircraft based on customer input and service history. That’s one of the benefi ts of consensus standards versus type certification-manufacturers can cram more features into the airplanes and factories may refine production techniques without undergoing costly recertification. The best news is we don’t have to wait. “New and improved” LSA are here now. The 2006 CT Because of its distinctive profile, the Flight Design CT is one of the most recognized S-LSA flying.

Special LSA Certificate Given by FAA

By Dan Johnson || February 6, 2007 Leave a Comment

Tom Peghiny poses in front of a Flight Designs CT on the day FAA awarded a Special Light-Sport Aircraft certificate.

Sun 'n Fun 2005 started off with a bang when Flightstar Sportplanes' Tom Peghiny heard the Flight Design CT he imports was one of the first Special Light-Sport Aircraft to be given its airworthiness certificate. (S-LSAs are fully built and can be used for training or rental.) CT regional dealer Tom Gutmann of Airtime Aviation, Inc., was the recipient of a process Peghiny graciously called "the effort of many people." Watch for full coverage of this benchmark achievement in aviation magazines.

Sun ‘n Fun 2005 started off with a bang when Flightstar Sportplanes’ Tom Peghiny heard the Flight Design CT he imports was one of the first Special Light-Sport Aircraft to be given its airworthiness certificate. (S-LSAs are fully built and can be used for training or rental.) CT regional dealer Tom Gutmann of Airtime Aviation, Inc., was the recipient of a process Peghiny graciously called “the effort of many people.” Watch for full coverage of this benchmark achievement in aviation magazines.

Flight Design CT2K

By Dan Johnson || October 23, 2006 1 Comment

The CT2K serves a different market in Europe, where amenities like leather seats are popular on aircraft that cost $50,000 or more. The CT2K's cockpit measures a generous 49 inches wide and offers small floor storage compartments under your calves that can be accessed in flight. Note the position of the BRS ballistic chute handle on the aft bulkhead.

Above and below - The CT2K's exterior is nothing if not smooth and shapely. The gullwing doors are large and open wide helping entry and exit for all pilots, and they secure on the bottom of the wing. Closed, they add to the sleekness of the design. Door locks are standard on the CT Cruiser.

Even with its main spar running overhead through the cockpit, the CT2K offers skylights that illuminate the cabin and provide extra visibility in turns or when checking for traffic. Note the compass mounted on the leading edge spar.

The CT2K features an uncluttered instrument panel that leaves room for a few more gauges if you like. The FlyDat panel, which comes on the CT Cruiser, is roughly similar to United States-manufactured electronic instrumentation packages. Small map pockets are available on either side of the panel.

Cargo compartments that can hold up to 55 pounds each are available on both sides of the aircraft. On the passenger side, the cargo door also allows access to the ballistic chute installation.

Flying several hundred miles in a CT2K is a different experience than flying in many ultralights. Tom Guttmann, who brought this CT Cruiser to EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2002, flew in from Tulsa, Oklahoma, and said the airplane cruised comfortably at an average speed of 120 mph.

Because the light-sport aircraft category is not yet finalized, Tom's been flying this CT2K on a reciprocal agreement between FAA and the aeronautic authority of the Ukraine, where the aircraft is manufactured. Accordingly, he's able to fly it with the faster two-blade Neuform propeller as he's not restricted to the top speed limitations for the proposed light-sport aircraft category.

A Bold Yet Efficient Euro-Designed Light-Sport Aircraft Flightstar imports the CT2K in anticipation of the light-sport aircraft rule. As FAA’s proposed light-sport aircraft rule looms ever closer, one of the first aircraft that will likely fit the field and be recognized by American pilots is Germany’s CT. For the U.S. market, and with a nod to the new millennium, producer Flight Designs has renamed the model as the CT2K. “CT” stands for Composite Twoseater. It is certainly not alone in being “white, glass, and built overseas,” a theme that emerged at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2002. But the design was a leader in the move from tube-and-rag ultralights to the modern microlights of Europe. And it distinguishes itself in a number of ways that we’ll explore in this review. My experiences flying the CT on two occasions were both with Europeanbased check pilots. The most recent opportunity was with Allistair Wilson, formerly a major with the Royal Irish Regiment in Northern Ireland. Allistair has since relocated to the United States where he is working with former CT importer, Rollison Light Sport Aircraft. I first flew the CT not long after its release while attending an air show in southern France, accompanied by French importer, Pascal Chanéau. Between my first and second flights in the aircraft, Flight Designs altered the CT to better address customer comments. These two CTs weren’t identical. Reviewing CT2K Features As with virtually all the light-sport aircraft (LSA) candidates, the preferred powerplant is one of the two Rotax models, either the 80-hp 912, or the 100-hp 912S. This may be the perfect engine for aircraft like the CT2K, but it comes with a price tag and complexity not familiar to many American ultralight enthusiasts. Most experts acknowledge that the 912 is a complicated engine with many parts, far more so than any two-stroke engine used to power ultralight aircraft. However, you shouldn’t have to replace those parts very often. For example, Allistair maintains that if you change the oil and the spark plugs faithfully at 200-hour intervals, the 912 will run “pretty much forever.” That longevity, in combination with its better fuel economy and lower noise output, goes a long way in balancing the sharply higher cost of the 912 series. To Yankee pilots, CT2K’s cantilevered, all-fiberglass (and carbon fiber) structure also seems foreign compared to the more common aluminum tubing structures that have dominated U.S. ultralight aircraft. The CT’s glass and carbon materials are widely used on American homebuilt kits like the Lancair, Pulsar, and Velocity aircraft. Apparently, composites also will be common on LSA, based on what we’ve seen in recent years. As shown in last month’s story about European aircraft, literally dozens of aircraft as beautiful as the CT2K are being built in European factories. Many of these LSA candidates have already passed some level of certification and are being built ready-to-fly. This may give designs like this a leg-up once the LSA rule is passed into law. Certainly, the CT2K is well positioned within this new market segment. But there are large differences in price—$50,000 and more for European LSA compared to $15-$25,000 (or even less!) for American-built ultralight kits. Some pilots will be willing to pay for fully assembled, deluxe LSA; others will want the economy offered by more reasonably priced kits. Fortunately, FAA’s new rule allows for both—though even current kits may likely rise in cost somewhat to accommodate the mandatory effort required to meet consensus standards. (Note: The requirement for ultralight trainers to be replaced by “certificated” LSA takes effect only after a three-year transition period beginning at the passage of the new rule. EAA and others have asked the FAA to extend that period to ease the economic hit on instructors.) When LSA becomes a reality, Flightstar Sportplanes, CT2K’s new importer, will be ready to serve American interests in that aircraft, while continuing to build and sell their line of Flightstar ultralights and light aircraft. Flightstar is no newcomer to importing. Though best known for their line of ultralights like the Flightstar II SL and SC, the company once imported the Icarus- Comco C-42, which they renamed the Cyclone. (In an interesting role reversal, Rollison now imports the C-42 and no longer represents the CT.) Flightstar’s sibling company, H-Power, is the importer of the Japanese HKS four-stroke engine that continues to find favor among light aviation enthusiasts. Flying the CT2K My general flight experiences with the older and newer CT models gave duplicate impressions of a solid and sturdy aircraft. Even when a strong thermal threw me against the shoulder strap during one flight, nothing appeared to flex or strain. Such anecdotal information is far from scientific, but with over 200 CTs flying worldwide, the model enjoys a good safety record. Starting the aircraft is general aviation (GA)-like; you engage a starter motor and the 912 fires; no yanking a rope. And again, as with GA planes, you start watching gauges. When flying with the Rotax 912, Allistair prefers to wait for takeoff until the oil temperature is up to 120 degrees, at which time the oil pressure will drop, a normal action, he reports. France’s Pascal did likewise, waiting for a 50°C water temp before takeoff. Since this equates to 122°F, it appears they’re both reading the same engine manual. CT2K’s cockpit has comfortable, supportive seats with four-point shoulder and seatbelts. It also has an array of knobs and switches. As I looked over the flight control system I observed that flaps have positions of reflex as well as positions of flaps down. Reflex, rare though not unheard of on American designs, allows improved performance at cruise speeds by curving the trailing edge upward rather than downward. Allistair pointed out that flap settings from -12 to +40 degrees are available. Few American ultralights or light planes have this range. In a center console, the CT2K has other levers (from aircraft’s right to left): hand brake lever with parking brake lock, throttle, starter lever, and trim lever. Aft of the CT2K’s rear cabin bulkhead, Flight Design mounts the ballistic parachute handle often supplied on this aircraft. In fact, the CT design is distinguished in BRS parachute history for the documented use of a BRS parachute as Save 100. This high-speed (nearly 300 km/h or 180-plus mph!) deployment occurred when a test pilot did his job of pushing the limits of the aircraft. He ultimately shed the wings—talk about beyond-the-envelope testing! Up front on the instrument panel, my flight test model CT featured a nice array of instrumentation, including an air speed indicator (ASI), altimeter, vertical speed indicator (VSI), slip indicator, Fly- Dat electronic engine panel, and intercom unit (the latter two optional). A compass was mounted above, on the spar carry-through in the cabin. Fuel quantity could be seen through curved clear tubing at the wing root. With the engine properly warmed up we started to taxi. CT2K’s brakes are hydraulic and work quite effectively, making the aircraft precise to taxi. Visibility was broad in all directions except upward; independent brakes made it easier to twirl around 360 degrees prior to takeoff. Creature Comfort The CT2K is a fully enclosed design, which may please many buyers, and it boasts easy entry. The doors swing up gullwing-style, where they clasp on a secure fitting fastened to the bottom of the wing. The door sill is level and sturdy enough to use as a support during entry and exit. You simply turn around, sit down, and swing in your legs. CT2K’s doors are held open with the same steel latch mechanism that holds the doors closed in flight. You reach out to the back corner of the door to release the latch after entry, though I wasn’t able to do so while strapped in place. Once those big, convex doors are closed, CT2K’s wide cabin becomes obvious, offering 49 inches of lateral room. Three to four inches separated a lean Pascal and me in France though less room remained between a bulkier Allistair and me. The CT2K allows 55 pounds of baggage on each side behind the pilot and passenger. Dual exterior doors access the area so you can’t use the space for inflight items. Fortunately, an interior floor compartment on each side offers a small but handy area for stuff you may want while aviating. Flight Design claims you can carry 660 pounds inside the airplane, a rather amazing payload for an aircraft grossing at 1,232 pounds (the limit described in FAA’s LSA proposal). I didn’t get to examine weight and balance documents to prove that claim, but there’s no doubt that the CT2K is a very spacious aircraft. The CT2K offers leather-clad seats that are adjustable in-flight both fore and aft. You pull a wire to allow repositioning within a several-inch range. The seat back also adjusts via a webbing strap, but you’ll want to perform this adjustment on the ground. While test flying the aircraft during a hot and humid EAA AirVenture, the CT2K was a little warm because it doesn’t have any swivel ventilation ports like many American kits. Europe tends not to be as warm as the United States, so improved ventilation will no doubt come with the importer’s input. Fairly small skylights are installed between the nicely finished spar carry through. Despite their smaller size, dictated by the cantilever-wing construction, the skylights aided visibility in steeply banked turns. In shallow turns though, they did little to assist lateral vision. The CT2K has high ground clearance, which is valued by many pilots but, like four-wheel drive vehicles, this quality is rarely used outside of those operating in the bush. This is a sophisticated aircraft that you are unlikely to land among desert rocks very often. Damage to the fiberglass and carbon aircraft will not be something you’ll repair as easily as a bent landing gear tube on a Quicksilver. Pascal recommended an 80 km/h (50 mph) approach speed to landing, which puts the speedy CT2K right in the range with many ultralights. The phrase “Fifty is Nifty” for landing speeds works just as well for CT2K as it does for many mainstream U.S. ultralights. Of course, flaps are essential to maintain such low speeds. Sweet Handling Unless you prefer your aircraft to have “handling with feedback” (another way of saying, “not so light handling”), you’ll like CT2K. It exhibits very light and responsive handling. Dutch roll coordination exercises went well almost immediately, though always keeping the ball centered will take some experience (a similar comment applies to the Kitfox and other kit-built designs). Flight Designs’ engineers have clearly done their homework and fiddled with the linkage as the CT2K possesses well-balanced controls. I found precision turns to heading were easily achieved. On the downside adverse yaw is significant, as it is on many of the more responsive ultralights. During my first flight in southern France, Pascal and I got the earlier CT down to 60 km/h indicated (37 mph) in slow flight, at which time the controls became sluggish but still workable. This is admirably slow, but many Yankee ultralights are willing to fly more controllably at such slow speeds. In addition, the earlier CT proved very light in pitch, enough that it took familiarization to not overcontrol. Rollison had first represented CT2K, as it was sold in England by his trike supplier, Pegasus Aviation. After work by aerodynamicist Billy Brooks of Pegasus, the CT2K has lost this pitch sensitivity. In fact, I believe handling of the CT2K is somewhat tamer than the earlier model I flew. Most pilots will prefer it, I believe. Indeed, on initiation of turns in the French registered CT, I had to use a little high side rudder pedal movement to coordinate the turn entry. Once in the turn itself, it coordinated nicely. The newer, British-refined CT2K model seemed to show better in-turn behavior. The CT2K has passed muster with certifying organizations. Both German and English certifications have been won— and meeting the British BCAR-S rules is quite challenging, perhaps even more so than the program many expect under the LSA consensus. In my trials, CT2K showed normal stall response, had proper longitudinal response, and its response to throttle changes were positive. The evaluation CT2K was fitted with a parachute, which I appreciate, though the activating handle is rather awkwardly located. You must twist tightly around in your seat in order to reach the handle, and most occupants will only be able to reach the handle with one hand. Other changes were made between my first and second CT flights. In the French aircraft, flaps were manual and had five detent positions (-4°, -8°, +15°, +20°, and +26°). Contrarily, CT2K now features electric flaps with an indicator light showing -12°, +15°, +30°, and +40°. Because they are electric, no detents keep you from setting an infinite adjustment to your liking. In France, I saw a top speed of about 230 km/h (144 mph) on an engine that did not rev up as high as it should, according to Pascal. It had more speed potential, he said, but the prop choice is critical. Former importer Rob Rollison wasn’t sure the speedy CT2K could be made to stay within the proposed LSA rule. Yet installing a three-blade Ivo prop seemed to do the job. With that prop, it hits the wall at around 130 mph. The two-blade Neuform prop that is popular in Europe allows about 140 mph, according to tests in England after a static source was fitted. One of FAA’s challenges under the LSA regulations will be to keep owners from refitting their planes with faster props. Most owners will not want to invalidate their aircraft’s certification. But the CT2K slips through the air easily at 120 mph, with lower power settings, lower noise, and reduced fuel usage. Wheel fairings are standard equipment, which help keep CT2K clean and efficient. On approach to landing with the engine at idle thrust, I was very impressed with the glide angle. To CT or Not to CT I love American ultralights, simple and fun. I’d also rather pay for the much lower-cost machines we’ve been enjoying for two decades. But, the proposed sport pilot/light-sport rules will offer new flying options for those who might want something just beyond ultralights. The CT2K is priced at two to three times the average Yankee ultralight kit, but it’s aimed at a different market, or at least a buyer ready to “move up” from simpler and slower flying machines. If that describes your pleasure, you can buy and fly the CT2K for $55- $65,000, depending on how you equip it—a full option list can help you unload excess cash. Simple or fully loaded, CT2K will put a large smile on new owners. The CT Cruiser, as flown, comes with droop tips, the FlyDat digital instrument, gear leg fairings, cabin heat, parking brake, door locks, strobe and position lights, and a 912S, 100-hp engine. Our test model had a ballistic parachute, leather seats, and the Ivo prop, which helps keep the CT2K within the 132- mph speed limit proposed for LSA. To have all this, plan to spend close to $63,000 delivered ready to fly. One of many benefits proponents of the LSA rules speculate about is financing (others are insurance, airport access, greater utility, among other positives). Using my handy financial calculator, I can envision a monthly installment payment of $982, assuming an 8 percent finance cost spread over seven years. For those not in the $60K-plus price range, the standard model CT Sport is no slouch, and most ultralight enthusiasts would love its equipment list. You can lower your investment by over $10,000 for the standard CT still equipped with a parachute and using the 80-hp 912 engine. That’s still more than twice the average cost of an American ultralight of the late nineties or early ’noughties,” but these comparisons are apples and oranges. If $55-$63,000 is too much for you, then you will still have many choices of kitbuilt aircraft including Flightstar’s original aircraft—whose line presently runs under $20,000. It’s probably best to look at this new aircraft this way: The CT2K is a well-equipped aircraft that will offer you comfortable cross-country travel for far less than a certificated GA aircraft or many homebuilts. For those with the cash or those willing to sign finance papers, the CT2K looks like a winner to me. It flies sweetly and swiftly and has features to compare with many modern automobiles. For all it offers, the price tag really isn’t out of line. You’d be well advised to fly one when you can and make your own judgment. I predict a lot of smiles after such an experience.

Published in Experimenter Magazine

Seating	2, side-by-side
Empty weight	580 pounds
Gross weight	1,232 pounds
Wingspan	30.5 feet
Wing area	116 square feet
Wing loading	10.6 pounds per square foot
Length	20.5 feet
Height	7 feet
Fuel Capacity	34 gallons
Kit type	Fully assembled
Build time	None, or assembly from shipping only
Standard engine	Rotax 912
Power	80 hp at 5,500 rpm
Power loading	15.4 pounds per hp
Cruise speed	132 mph
Economy Cruise	4.5 gph
Never exceed speed	192 mph
Rate of climb at gross	1,000 fpm
Takeoff distance at gross	300 feet
Landing distance at gross	450 feet
Notes:	*Wing loading with the 912S (100 hp) engine is 12.3 pounds/square foot.
Standard Features	80-hp Rotax 912, quickly removed wings, 4-point belts, 3-color paint scheme, 2 baggage compartments, ASI, altimeter, tach, oil gauges, CHT, and numerous amenities and appointments suiting a $60,000 aircraft.
Options	100-hp Rotax 912S, leather seats, additional instruments and avionics, BRS emergency parachute system, skis, Full Lotus floats, special paint and graphics.
Construction	Fiberglass airframe reinforced with carbon fiber. Manufactured in Eastern Europe for a German-owned company; distributed by U.S.-owned Rollison Airplane Company.

Design

Cosmetic appearance, structural integrity, achievement of design goals, effectiveness of aerodynamics, ergonomics.

Pros - Sleek, cantilevered design not seen in ultralight circles (more similar to U.S. homebuilts). Excellent combination of features and attributes: roomy, speedy, well appointed for American market. Built around 80-hp Rotax 912 engine.

Cons - Fiberglass and carbon repairs are said to be not difficult, but experience is needed with these materials. At present, the test CT is the only one operating in America.

Systems

Subsystems available to pilot such as: Flaps; Fuel sources; Electric start; In-air restart; Brakes; Engine controls; Navigations; Radio; (items covered may be optional).

Pros - Test CT was loaded with extras. Flaps have usual down positions but also up or reflex positions which can be used to enhance cruise performance. Electric start standard with Rotax 912s. Fuel capacity is large. Hydraulic brakes are via lever; work well.

Cons - The CT isn't missing any systems you probably want, but all more complex aircraft require more familiarity to handle competently. Engine accessible only after cowl removal. Brakes don't assist ground steering.

Cockpit/Cabin

Instrumentation; Ergonomics of controls; Creature comforts; (items covered may be optional).

Pros - Huge roomy cabin 49 inches wide. Interior compartments accessible in flight. Wide doors for easy entry/exit. Comfortable, supportive seats with 4-point belts. Seats adjust both bottom and back rest. Panel easily reached.

Cons - I struggled to unlatch the gull-wing door for closing when securely belted. Seemed somewhat noisier than another European 912-powered CT I flew in France. No other negatives to this wonderful cabin.

Ground Handling

Taxi visibility; Steering; Turn radius; Shock absorption; Stance/Stability; Braking.

Pros - Very straightforward handling for anyone used to conventional tri-gear operation. Brakes were quite effective. Visibility was very broad (except upward). Large ground clearance. Quite precise to taxi.

Cons - Rather stiff suspension (mostly noticed on turf runway). No aft window or visibility.

Takeoff/Landing

Qualities; Efficiency; Ease; Comparative values.

Pros - Responsive controls allow normal crosswind operation. Glide seemed quite strong, an asset in an engine-loss situation. Flaps help control glide path and slips are reasonably effective. Large ground clearance will help if you must land off-field.

Cons - In France my landing was good. At shorter airstrips you'll need practice to handle the the CT's long glide; you must plan approaches well. Takeoff roll is long (compared to ultralights), thanks to smaller wing and higher weight.

Control

Quality and quantity for: Coordination; Authority; Pressures; Response; and Coupling.

Pros - Very light and responsive handling. Dutch roll coordination exercises went well almost immediately (though always keeping the ball centered will take some experience). Well balanced controls. Precision turns to heading were easy.

Cons - Pitch is light enough that some pilots may not feel comfortable. Coordination will take some time to optimize. Adverse yaw is significant.

Performance

Climb; Glide; Sink; Cruise/stall/max speeds; Endurance; Range; Maneuverability.

Pros - Very speedy design. Even with an incorrect prop, I saw speeds of more than 140 mph (though for U.S. market, the CT will be propped down). U.S. model with IvoProp propeller didn't exceed 132 mph, per GPS runs. Slows down under 40 mph.

Cons - Climb not as strong as expected, perhaps optimized for European high-cruise speed desires.

Stability

Stall recovery and characteristics; Dampening; Spiral stability; Adverse yaw qualities.

Pros - Fitting both German and English certification systems, the CT has normal stall response, longitudinal response, and throttle response - a benefit of such programs. Four-point seat belts are standard.

Cons - Slippery airplane that may be more than some pilots want. Fitted with a parachute, though with the activating handle awkwardly located in case of emergency (see article).

Overall

Addresses the questions: "Will a buyer get what he/she expects to buy, and did the designer/builder achieve the chosen goal?"

Pros - The CT has German certification, and thanks to Pegasus, approval under the tough English system. Though $60,000 is a lot of money, the CT is a well equipped model for far less than a certified general aviation aircraft or many homebuilts.

Cons - CT kits are currently unavailable (European sales allow fully built models). Company and plane are not well known in the U.S., which could affect resale ability.

Composite Two-seater (CT)

By Dan Johnson || October 23, 2006 2 Comments

FLAPS & MORE - Note that when the CT's flaps deploy, both ailerons also droop slightly to amplify the effect. Thanks to plenty of square area, the flaps remain effective down to stall speed.

GORGEOUS SEATS - Very few light airplanes use leather seats, but I found them enjoyable. Four-point seat belts are standard and a ballistic parachute is an option. Note the pull handle between the two seat backs.

BAGGAGE COMPARTMENTS - Check-out pilot Jonathan Carter shows the baggage door opening. With a compartment on each side the CT can carry up to 110 pounds (though each flight should prepare a weight-and- balance calculation).

EMPENNAGE - Since the first CT I flew, the underside ventral fin was added to further improve directional stability at higher speeds. Using this tail, the CT exhibits light, enjoyable handling.

EASY ENTRY - Ultralight Flying! editor in chief Scott Wilcox agreed to demonstrate the CT entry. You merely sit down in the seat and swing in each leg. Scott properly shows a protective hold on the joystick during the procedure.

CONSOLE CONTROLS - Nicely organized in the center of the two occupants are, from right to left, hand brake to both main wheels, throttle with friction lock, choke lever (without a handle to lessen miscontrol) and trim. Note the fuel cutoff, the handle of which covers the key switch so you cannot take off with the fuel lever in the shut-off position.

CANTILEVER & CARTER - Jonathan Carter smiles with satisfaction in his flying of the CT for importer Flightstar Sportplanes. Note the full cantilevered wings for this design.

LARGE PANEL - Though this CT hasn't used all the space, plenty of room is available for radios or additional instruments. Using the EIS, the CT saved panel space yielding this uncluttered appearance.

SMOOTH & FIXED - Even with its legs hanging out, the CT offers a sleek shape for the wind to pass. The clean fiberglass work is done in the Ukraine from a German design.

UPPER CABIN - The CT cockpit is roomy and airy. As this view indicates, it is also nicely finished throughout in an easily cleaned interior that doesn't add weight with interior panels or carpeting.

In the fall of '01, I wrote in Ultralight Flying!, "The CT is the tip of an iceberg, in my opinion." When I flew that first CT in the USA, few Yankees had seen the aircraft. I felt the German design represented the beginning of a flow of European aircraft coming to America. What a difference a couple of years make! Thanks to adept and steady promotion, Americans may best identify the coming breed of proposed Light-Sport Aircraft by pointing to the Flight Design CT2K. While this means no disrespect to trikes, tube-and-rag ultralights, or powered parachutes, the CT's unusual, smoothly-contoured shape is now well known to many Americans. Though the brand is fabricated in the Ukraine and assembled in Germany, it crosses the Atlantic as a prototypical candidate for FAA's proposed Light-Sport Aircraft category. Rollison Light Sport Aircraft imported the first U.S.-based CT I flew. The design is now brought in by Flightstar Sportplanes and HPower HKS engine honcho Tom Peghiny. Flightstars and CTs display well together at airshows, enough so that brand-new FAA Administrator Marion Blakey chose to fly with Peghiny in the CT at AirVenture '03. When FAA drops the go flag and launches Light-Sport Aircraft into the skies above America, one of the first to gain approval and attract customers will surely be the CT, short for "Composite Two-seater." This is my third time to fly the CT, including one time before it was the British-certification-inspired CT2K. I flew in the spring of '03 with Jonathan Carter, a highly qualified pilot who often helps Flightstar Sportplanes at airshows. Why Flightstar Imports the CT Many Ultralight Flying! readers know Tom Peghiny is the president of Flightstar Sportplanes. His Flightstars have sold around 1,000 units and the business continues steadily. So, why complicate matters with an imported aircraft like the CT? Tom tells the story. "I had been approached by Matthias Betch, [Managing Director] of Flight Design, back in '98 to represent the CT in the U.S. At that time FAA and EAA had been promoting how easy it was to certify an aircraft under Primary Category. As it turned out, Primary Category wasn't really right for certifying aircraft for our sport. We thought we could use the German BFU [ultralight regulation] certificate under Primary Aircraft but this turned out to be an incorrect assumption. "Later, AirCam developer and Rotax guru Phil Lockwood encouraged me to check out the plane then represented by Rob Rollison. Rob and I are good friends and I felt if he were interested there was a good reason. Lockwood is experienced in aircraft design and he liked the packaging of the plane and thought it was the most modern type he'd seen. "The fact that a reputable company, England's premier trike maker Pegasus Aviation, was their distributor in the UK and had certified it to the British BCAR Chapter S airworthiness standard meant a lot as well. The British require periodic inspections of the production facility and their flight test standard in particular is very stringent. "Also, the plane complies with the European noise standards, which is important to me personally. If our sport is to grow more popular and operate near cities and towns we have to make our planes in the U.S. quieter than they are now. "I went to Ukraine to the fabrication factory in June '03 to do a preliminary quality control inspection. I followed the Pegasus inspection paperwork and also used the latest draft of the ASTM quality control standard to evaluate the Ukraine plant. "The factory itself is rustic but the engineering staff at Flight Design Ukraine is young and motivated. The system they use, in my opinion, is valid when comparing it to the requirements. They have a very large staff including 8 engineers. The whole plane is defined in CATIA software, which is the same used by Boeing and Airbus." Peghiny encourages interested pilots to go to the company Website (www.flyflightstar.com) where you can download assembly and parts manual PDF files for the CT. The carbon fiber and Kevlar construction yields a lighter and very strong airframe, which allows a larger useful load, reports the factory. Keeping weight down allows 34 gallons of fuel to be carried for a longer range. Locating the fuel tanks in the wings improves crashworthiness by keeping fuel away from the plane's occupants. It also leaves the rear fuselage open for baggage and proper installation of the optional ballistic parachute system. Delightful and Quiet This latest CT2K was very quiet to those on the ground. This is an effect of European regulations that demand low noise. Those regs specify no more than 55 db at 150 meters (492 feet). This is the noise level of ordinary conversation, and heard from 500 feet away, the CT will not disturb any but the most sensitive neighbors. Its exterior is sleek, and the plane is surprisingly roomy inside. All but the largest Americans should fit well and for average-size persons, the CT is positively cavernous compared to many other light aircraft or ultralights. As you sit in the pilot's seat, you are surrounded by well-designed features that have changed to the better since my first CT flight in '98. In front of you is a large panel that can hold virtually every goody you might want. In the aircraft I evaluated, this panel was clean and neat with only an ASI, altimeter, turn coordination ball, flap indicator, and electronic info system. You don't need any more but those who want more navigation gear, radios, or info systems have room for it. Of course, you still must keep the CT within the proposed 1,232-pound limit of Light-Sport Aircraft. Fortunately, you have plenty of room. The CT carries more than it weighs. Flaps in most ultralights and light aircraft are typically moved mechanically. A lever or handle deploys and retracts. Some have detent positions to help you know what you've deployed; others mark the flap itself and you check visually. The CT2K has an electric system with a clearly visible panel lighting system that shows you their position. The lights come on gradually and you must look to see progress. Some complain this method distracts you during landing and that a system that allows you to merely feel your way to a notch or two is better. Though I never once needed to use trim, it operates through the servo tab for the stabilator that extends on both sides of the rudder. Most aircraft use a trim surface only on one side. A slide-latch feature allows the hand brake lever to secure the brakes. Simply pulling back on the brake lever releases the parking brake. One rather unusual but very clever feature is a fuel valve with a long handle. When you shut off fuel, the handle sits over the electric start ignition switch in such a way that you cannot take off with the fuel valve in the "off" position. The CT2K doors do not open in flight. While Carter told me that he had discussed with Peghiny the result of an in-flight opening, the situation is unlikely as the doors have a solid mechanism to keep them shut after entry. A sliding latch secures the door and, since it sits at your elbow, operators will want to observe its position after bumping it. The CT is actually a four-door airplane. In addition to the two cockpit doors, the design has a very useful baggage area aft of the cabin. The baggage area doors use a pull knob inside the aircraft, which releases a latch. You then lift up on the door to pull a couple of pins out of their detent positions on the lower lip, which subsequently allows the doors to open widely. They are secured with lanyards to prevent dropping as they are no longer attached to the aircraft by hinges or other means. A plastic shield was fitted inside to prevent baggage area contents from conflicting with the control linkages also in this area. What continues to surprise me is that you can put 55 pounds of luggage in each side for a total of 110 pounds of baggage. Of course, you must assure doing so won't put your center of gravity out of envelope, but Flight Design says the CT can fly with just about anything you put inside. With a red, wide-blade prop, flight into some lighting conditions produced a red haze out front. It wasn't a problem but I noticed it. Though the red prop looks sharp on the ground, I think I'd prefer black or gray. I don't want any obstruction in visibility. Fire Up and Fly The CT is nicely equipped. The creativity of airplane designers never fails to impress me. I love the way this aircraft is laid out and how it functions for the pilot. But each pilot is different. My friend and fellow aircraft reviewer, Dave Higdon, didn't care for the way the brakes worked. He's a general aviation pilot and usually focuses on those aircraft so he prefers toe brakes even if they come at the expense of a few extra pounds of hardware. Conversely, I found the hand brake quite useful although you must remove a hand from other activities in order to exert braking. In some situations you might run out of hands, I suppose, though braking is usually not so urgent. You also use one hand on the throttle and the same hand for the brake on the CT and I don't see how you'd ever use both at once. In practice, the hand brake was quite effective in slowing/stopping power. My approaches with Carter observing were done at 60 mph but 50 would be better after you become more familiar with the design. Once so experienced, the slippery machine could be landed even slower, I believe. Such experience would allow you to execute short-field landings. Until then, you'll want to land on longer runways. If I reacted as though I were flying an ultralight, I tended to turn from base to final too soon, leaving me too high in an aircraft that doesn't want to descend. Using typical ultralight technique in this aircraft won't get you down on a short runway. You must plan ahead better when flying the CT2K, which boasts an engine-off glide of 16:1. Putting the flaps down to 30° helps round out your flare. At 40° of flaps I noted significantly more drag so that even with the nose angled sharply down, we still did not tend to accelerate past 50 mph without further pitch control. Therefore, proper use of the flaps will help for short- or soft-field operations. Visibility was very good forward, up and laterally, but as I made a right- hand pattern, flying from the left seat, I had to ask for Carter's help to look back at the runway. In left-hand patterns - assuming you're flying from the left seat - aft visibility to the runway is much better. The CT slipped quite well, but on exiting the slip, the CT tended to accelerate. Carter said he has noticed this on Cessnas as well. Probably this is simply a normal return to flight, but it may be enhanced by a smooth fuselage shape that actually produces some aerodynamic effect when deeply slipped. The flaps move extremely slowly. You must plan ahead for their use due to a perceptible delay in their deployment. Ultralight pilots must keep in mind that the CT isn't an ultralight by American standards and thereby should not be flown like one. All my landings were good, though both Carter and I wondered if my full-stall-landing technique brought the tail too close to the ground. The CT has added some substantial structure under the tail feathers but it has no skid. (The first CT I flew in '98 did not have the vertical area seen on the CT2K.) Zipping About in a CT2K I found it a little tricky to keep the ball centered when doing Dutch rolls or other faster control exercises. However, the CT is better behaved than older Kitfoxes, which slap the ball from side to side on the slightest provocation. Carter actually suspected the ball was sticking a bit. Perhaps so. A Cessna 172 Hawk XP I often fly for BRS had a similar problem where the ball mysteriously froze up inside its curved glass tube. In my Dutch rolls at medium speeds, I had to use rudder pedals heavily to keep the ball in the center. Deflection didn't have to be full, but it was close. The joystick works very nicely. It is comfortable to reach. Roll rates are quite brisk and stick pressures are quite light while still offering some feedback. Carter indicated that the CT2K has some spring dampening to keep controls from being too fast. I can understand this change as the very first CT I flew in '98 had handling that was almost too light and quick for comfort. Steep turns were quite easy to do, even with low power. Practicing these 45°-banked circles again showed me how clean this aircraft is. It slips through the air so easily. Although you have to work rather significantly to get the CT down, the 16:1 glide becomes a safety feature should you have an engine-out landing. Cleanliness of the CT helps it reduce altitude loss with the throttle retarded or the engine at idle. While doing the photo shoot for the cover of Ultralight Flying! we were running 60 mph with the engine only revving in the high 3,000- to low 4,000-rpm range. The day had some thermal lift, but I was still amazed at how the CT does not want to come down from the sky. After tuning by the Flight Design engineers the CT2K will fly precisely at the 132-mph speed limit proposed by FAA for Light-Sport Aircraft. A propeller well matched to the standard 81-hp Rotax 912 engine is the secret (the CT flown for this evaluation was equipped with a 100-hp Rotax 912S). With a different prop, the '98 CT I flew raced along closer to 150 mph. This suggests that some owners might reprop the CT for higher cruise speeds, but of course, doing so would invalidate the certification of the design. Importer Peghiny says, "The cantilevered wing with a sailplane airfoil and camber-changing flaps give the [CT] a wide speed range while using less power. That the plane is quite fast people know, but what impresses me more is its slow speed handling and short-field performance." I discovered the same feeling. The CT flew as nicely low over the fields as slower ultralights. Back at altitude my trials of slow flight got the CT down close to 30 mph, though the ASI is surely not accurate at that speed. Although we were hanging at the edge of stall, the CT still offered good control qualities. These slow speed impressions illustrate that you can approach for landing at 50 mph - in moderate wind conditions - which will help set down the slippery airplane on a shorter runway. In every stall performed, I found a distinct break. It isn't threatening, but the CT always tended to fall toward the left wing. I wasn't disturbed by this though a brand-new pilot might be. Then again, this isn't an airplane for a beginner. The combination of the flat glide and the light composite structure might not make flight training the best role for the CT as repairs could be expensive. Pilots need to understand, the CT is a high-performance aircraft, says Peghiny. It is used for flight training in Europe, but it requires a different technique due to its glide ratio. Peghiny says of his demonstrator CT2K, "Our plane is equipped just right for cross-country flying. We have a Garmin GPS-Com, a Garmin Mode C transponder, an electric Artificial Horizon, and turn and bank. We also chose a BRS parachute for ours as [the plane is] certified with it in Germany, and I'm used to having them on my planes." Peghiny and Flightstar have long supported the parachutes-for-airplanes concept and this notion has broad appeal. When Peghiny gave his young son Jeff an aerobatic ride in a Citabria as a present in the fall of '03, he was cool with getting upside-down until he went to put the parachute on. "Why am I wearing the chute and not the plane? What a dumb idea, dad," Jeff commented. You and a CT2K? As we begin to greet Light-Sport Aircraft to the ultralight and light airplane community, it is clear that the CT2K may be one of your higher-end choices. With the value of the euro - Europe's new continent-wide currency - and its recent rise against the dollar, the CT's price has risen to around $70,500 for the deluxe CT-Cruiser model. A CT-Sport model, still very well equipped, sells for $64,500 (check with the importer for the last price quote; it changes regularly). With either model though, that's a lot of money. [NOTE: In mid-2006, the rising euro to dollar relationship has priced CT at $92,900...though such a dollar price increase is also affecting other LSA imported from Europe.] Is it worth it? Peghiny explains, "The reasons we chose to become the North American distributor for Flight Design's fixed-wing products are simple. The CT is the most advanced product in this marketplace. Aerodynamically, structurally, and even in ergonomic design, the CT is really unique." Despite the purchase price, the CT is a decent value. The price tag is far lower than any general aviation 2-seater certified under FAR Part 23, tens of thousands less. And it operates at similar (or even greater) speeds while consuming far less fuel. Peghiny recounts an experience of flying the CT2K from Flightstar's home base in Connecticut to Florida. "The 100-hp Rotax 912S is very frugal with fuel. I flew the plane to Sun 'n Fun '03 and back by myself and was really impressed with the comfort and the performance. On the way down I flew from Ellington, Connecticut, to central North Carolina before stopping for fuel, and then went all the rest of the way to Lakeland, Florida on the next leg." Indeed, the CT has a range of 1,000 statute miles non-stop. The CT2K may be the "poster boy" Light-Sport Aircraft and it can deliver some real flying fun. Since it can fly slowly quite well and still zip along at 132 mph, the range of utility is wider than many other ultralight or light aircraft. Is it for you? Well, maybe you, like FAA boss Marion Blakey, ought to get a demonstration flight and see for yourself. As any new rule may arrives, so may quite a number of CT2Ks and you may not want to be left behind.

Published in Light Sport and Ultralight Flying

Seating	2, side-by-side
Empty weight	580 pounds
Gross weight	1,232 pounds
Wingspan	30.5 feet
Wing area	116 square feet
Wing loading	10.6 pounds per square foot
Length	20.5 feet
Height	7 feet
Fuel Capacity	34 gallons
Kit type	Fully assembled
Build time	None, or assembly from shipping only
Standard engine	Rotax 912
Power	80 hp at 5,500 rpm
Power loading	15.4 pounds per hp
Cruise speed	132 mph
Economy Cruise	4.5 gph
Never exceed speed	192 mph
Rate of climb at gross	1,000 fpm
Takeoff distance at gross	300 feet
Landing distance at gross	450 feet
Notes:	*Wing loading with the 912S (100 hp) engine is 12.3 pounds/square foot.
Standard Features	80-hp Rotax 912, quickly removed wings, 4-point belts, 3-color paint scheme, 2 baggage compartments, ASI, altimeter, tach, oil gauges, CHT, and numerous amenities and appointments suiting a $60,000 aircraft.
Options	100-hp Rotax 912S, leather seats, additional instruments and avionics, BRS emergency parachute system, skis, Full Lotus floats, special paint and graphics.
Construction	Fiberglass airframe reinforced with carbon fiber. Manufactured in Eastern Europe for a German-owned company; distributed by U.S.-owned Rollison Airplane Company.