[rv6ejguy]

Finally got to fly the popular Rotax 912S powered CT today (possible competitor to the RV12).

Impressions: Visibility incredible. Steerable nose wheel with hand brake acting on both mains- you get used to it. Does not turn as tight as an RV. Still prefer toe brakes as it frees up a hand and your toes have something to do.

The Rotax starts up easily. Fairly smooth. Idle is quite high so you need to use the brakes a lot.

Acceleration is good and it does not take much runway. Climb is quite good- around 800fpm with two aboard and half fuel at 4000MSL. Noise level is quite low.

With the reflex flap setup, cruise is around 105-110 knots TAS. The manually variable prop is simple and works well. Cool.

Now for the bad news. The control harmony is poor. Rudder is light, elevators a bit heavier, ailerons feel like they are mired in cold molasses- very heavy- 5 to 6 times heavier than my 6A. I know the RV12 won't feel like this.

Stall is a total non-event. The airplane basically just descends at 650fpm and you still have good aileron control.

Like the Dynon flight display (ok starting to like glass more as I use some of them) The AVMAP GPS was ok.

The angle of approach with full flap is alarming- seems like you are falling out of the sky so we landed with 0 flap. Seems to yaw a lot in ground effect for no good reason. Fortunately the rudder is light and effective. Tends to fall out of the sky a few feet above the ground. hard to make a smooth touchdown without plenty of practice. An RV is WAY easier to land and far more predictable.

Bottom line- gets up quick, climbs well and cruise is good for 100hp. Great platform for sightseeing or photo work. Handling wise- it ain't no RV. If you can land this, you can land anything. Van's doesn't have to worry about people flocking to the CT for its handling qualities anyway. It would be a bear in crosswinds.

I still enjoyed flying it. Different, quirky but very interesting.

 

[mike newall]

Ross,

Now son, I want you to sit down, breath into the brown paper bag and wait awhile.....................

Now, that's better, your'e thinking clearer, the buzzin in your ears has gone, you can't smell plastic any more and you are feelin better.

So, you escaped, just, now I want you to promise the Forum not to stray again, we are strong, we are RV

CT - my lord, whatever next, dang, you'll be flyin a C@ssna !

 

[rv6ejguy]

I think you are right, two plastic airplane flights in the last 48 hours- like snifffin' glue. Not good for you.

Head clearer now.

RVs rule! Well at least handling wise. The Cirrus was pretty fast.

I like sampling the wares and both flights were free. No harm done. I hope.

I did fly my first 172 a few months back. Impressions: overall gross. I frankly don't get their popularity with competitors like Grummans around.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Finally got to fly the popular Rotax 912S powered CT today (possible competitor to the RV12).

Impressions: Visibility incredible. Steerable nose wheel ... The Rotax starts up easily. Fairly smooth. ... Acceleration is good and it does not take much runway. ... With the reflex flap setup, cruise is around 105-110 knots TAS. ...Stall is a total non-event.

Now for the bad news. The control harmony is poor. Rudder is light, elevators a bit heavier, ailerons feel like they are mired in cold molasses- very heavy- 5 to 6 times heavier than my 6A. I know the RV12 won't feel like this.

The angle of approach with full flap is alarming- seems like you are falling out of the sky so we landed with 0 flap. Seems to yaw a lot in ground effect for no good reason. Fortunately the rudder is light and effective. Tends to fall out of the sky a few feet above the ground. hard to make a smooth touchdown without plenty of practice. ...

If you can land this, you can land anything. ... It would be a bear in crosswinds.

This is in agreement with my assessment of the CT after 60 hours in the airplane.

The biggest negative issues you've highlighted - heavy roll stick forces and challenging landing characteristics - are real. The heavy roll forces are mostly due to the springs in the control system. I'd be interested in seeing how it flies with softer springs, but it might have less stability. The -6 is MUCH lighter in roll.

As for landing, yes, it is challenging due to the light weight. As you suggest, crosswinds aren't a ton of fun. Getting a greaser landing is hard. The CT will keep you honest in your landings - nobody will confuse it with an Ercoupe. Full flaps are not necessary and result in extreme nose low angles, so we rarely use more than 15 and 0 is fine. I've never tried a 40 deg flap landing. 30 is fine once you get used to it and the airplane will land quickly and firmly without a touch of power. So, flaps 15 or 0 and about 2300-2500 RPM works well.

I still enjoyed flying it. Different, quirky but very interesting.

Pretty much how I feel.

 

[SteinAir]

Luckily, I get to take up customers CT's quite frequently when we put new panels in them (they have to be "test flown" of course) There's only one characteristic about the CT's that really bothers me when flying it.

While the rudder is sensetive, since they put the new tail on it for the '06 and later models, it's yaw stability is just flat and neutral. Any of the "light/twitchy" feelings that others talk about don't bother me as I'm used to the RV's, but the thing that always gets people without much time in the CT is that if you push the rudder to one side or the other, the plane is just happier than heck to fly along like that all day. It'll fly in a skid without any problem at all, and without you trying to do it. Most planes have a tendency to return the ball to the center, but almost 100% of the many CT's I've flown as of late are happy to fly along crooked if you leave the rudder there.

Other than that, it's a delightfull little plane. I surprised myself this winter when I got one stuck in the snow at our grass strip in Jan. It was in the teens outside with a brisk wind blowing down the runway. Once I got the thing unstuck and pointed into the wind, the takeoff roll caught me off guard....I later went back and measured the tracks in the snow.......I was off in less than 100'!

Anyway, overall I like the CT's. They have their own nuances but I haven't found them overly difficult to land. My checkout in the CT consisted of my first flight alone and I've found it pretty easy since. It's definately not a C-150, but there are other much more challenging planes out there!

BTW....that last 6 degrees of flap reflex that they don't allow here in the US (they are speed limited to -6 degrees whereas the Europeans use -12) is a real kick in the pants. It's amazing that these little birds with the Rotax on them will fly at the speeds they do!

Cheers,
Stein.

 

[David-aviator]

I think you are right, two plastic airplane flights in the last 48 hours- like snifffin' glue. Not good for you.

Head clearer now.

RVs rule! Well at least handling wise. The Cirrus was pretty fast.

I like sampling the wares and both flights were free. No harm done. I hope.

I did fly my first 172 a few months back. Impressions: overall gross. I frankly don't get their popularity with competitors like Grummans around.

You did not mention the price - $101,840 for the Dynon equipped unit without a radio but with a BRS.

Is the BRS handle between the seats clearly labeled, or could you mistake it for a manual flap lever?

 

[opticsguy]

I've found the CT to be easier to land in a crosswind than a 172, The 2006 model with the large rudder can fly incredible slips. High x-winds should be at 0 flaps only, IMO.

Ailerons need much more force to move than they need to...agreed. I wish that could be fixed.

The cabin is much less claustraphobic (sp) than a -7, and very comfortable for tall people. After flying rt. seat to OSH in an -7A last year with my knees bumping into everything (even with the right stick removed). the CT was a welcome change.

 

[rv6ejguy]

Yeah the cabin is roomy and has lots of little storage places. We have the -12 degree flap reflex and no chute on this one.

The gear doesn't have much give so unless you grease it on- THUD!

The ailerons act as though they just have the wrong bellcrank ratios in the linkage. If they fixed this, it would rate a lot higher in my book. I really thought the demo pilot was still holding on to the stick when I took control.

The CT just feels disconnected in the flare as far as pitch goes and like the fin is masked by the wing. The rudder is always there and effective though. I can't think of another tricycle gear airplane that I've flown that was this hard to master for landing- Stein, give us your list!

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

While the rudder is sensetive, since they put the new tail on it for the '06 and later models, it's yaw stability is just flat and neutral. ... in the CT is that if you push the rudder to one side or the other, the plane is just happier than heck to fly along like that all day. It'll fly in a skid without any problem at all, and without you trying to do it. Most planes have a tendency to return the ball to the center, but almost 100% of the many CT's I've flown as of late are happy to fly along crooked if you leave the rudder there.

Yes, and this is actually one of the problems of the CT, and it affects the fuel system. It is a gravity feed from the two wing tanks to the engine pump via a single fuel valve. This means that if you fly in a slip, you will feed from one tank over the other. This can lead to large fuel imbalance.

The solution? Watch the ball and fly with it centered!