Admin

You're really getting around Paul - hope you're not going to be warn out by the time my CT arrives for some dual flying. Yes, many more of those great photos - even create an album of your trips (click the album button on the menu across the top of the page).

 

Incidentally, I believe my CT is leaving the Ukraine next week. It will be trucked to Germany where it will have a final test flight before being boxed up in a container for the trip here

 

 

Great trip Paul, now it is your turn to make me drool! :star: We will make that formation flight (with regulated seperation offcourse :ah_oh: ) when my CT arrives - please post some pictures, did you take any of those 8/8's?

 

 

The CTSW is the original creation of scholars from the University of Frankfurt who designed the CT2K-version of the aeroplane as part of their aeronautical design study thesis. It first flew in 1985. It appears that the design languished for over ten years or so until spotted by German entrepreneur and aviation enthusiast, Matthias Betsch. In 1997, Betsch went into production and according to the company’s pamphlets, over 300 variants have been delivered to date.

 

The ‘SW’ version was introduced in 1999 and Flight Design claim some truly impressive numbers – the most notable being the aeroplane’s amazing range on a tankful of gas – indeed, one example has been flown between Germany and Greenland in a much celebrated flight last year. Germany has some pretty tight specification limits for this class of aircraft and the country is an expensive location in which to build. Betsch has managed to bring the cost down by shipping components to a Ukrainian factory, where the CT is built some 200kms northeast of Odessa and then shipped back to Germany ready for final assembly. Despite early reports of poor finishing, the aircraft I flew appeared to have most of these problems ironed out and Elmo’s demonstrator has obviously been completed to a high standard.

 

The airframe is vacuum moulded and is mostly carbon fibre rather than resin – indeed, Flight Design claim some notable safety features including a certification standard that allows the CT to be flown at up to 600kgs at gross weight. Moreover, the fuel tanks have been positioned in each wing and contain 130 litres giving a range of 1 100 nautical miles at a cruise speed of 130 knots. The cantilever wings make use of large flaps that spread across two thirds of the CT’s trailing edge. They are five position flaps, electrically driven, with a ‘minus-12-degrees’ facility for the cruise configuration.

 

The ‘moulded’ construction method has further provided another great benefit – a large baggage bay that almost takes up the entire rear fuselage area immediately behind the seats. Although it is not accessible in flight, the bay can be accessed by either of two hatches on each side of the fuselage and hey-ho … it’s big enough to hold a tent and a pair of camping chairs – and even a lightweight coolerbag plus soft luggage. Indeed the CT has an almost Tardis-like quality – looking deceptively small, the cabin is vast with plenty of headroom, legroom and shoulderoom that would almost put a Cessna 182 to shame.

 

An all-flying elevator provides pitch control with a cutout in the rudder to accommodate the flying surfaces’ upwards travel.

 

A fin extension has been added to the bottom of the fuselage boom for extra directional stability and to protect the tail in the event of a tailstrike. Whilst the interior may appear somewhat rudimentary at first glance, there are some clever additions – most notable are the small hinged panels beneath your legs.

 

These cover further stowage space and can easily take some cooldrinks, maps and other paraphernalia that occupants might require during a lengthy cross country trip. The seats seemed comfortable enough and all the controls fall easily to hand.

 

The most dominating structure is without doubt the sizeable instrument ‘binnacle’, which has a righthand side that is canted towards the pilot. Whilst the panel itself will most likely be completed to individual pilot’s tastes, there’s enough room for a full set of primary flight instruments. Whilst Flight Design provide a series of analogue gauges as standard, our demonstrator was fitted with an MGL Avionics Stratomaster electronic box giving a digital readout of all temperatures, pressures and other engine information including rpm. A centre pedestal contains the electrical switch panel and circuit breakers and a fuel shutoff lever that has to be in the open position before the engine can be started. The magneto switch is key activated just like your common or garden Cessna single.

 

At the pedestal’s base, four levers control trim, choke, throttle and brake. They fall easily to hand, though there might be risk of confusion despite Flight Design’s colour coded layout. The nearest to the pilot is the glider-type trim lever and next to that is the choke – only used when the Rotax engine is started from cold. Next is the throttle and beyond that the single brake lever. There are no toe brakes – a rarity in this type of ultralight – however, the CT’s system works well even though, to operate it, you are obliged to remove your hand from something else that is important. On the landing rollout or indeed during taxiing, I find it slightly disconcerting to take my hand away from the throttle. Behind the levers there is a parking brake and a welcome tray that will easily hold some pens or a packet of smokes – even an airfield guide.

 

Starting the 100hp Rotax is typically painless and the engine burst into life at the flick of the key. There is a fair amount of residual thrust from the brightly finished Neuform composite propeller so the efficient parking brake system is rather a neccessity. The CT gets underway by itself without really needing a burst of power. Immediately apparent is the lovely soft ride. Quite how Flight Design have achieved this is difficult to say.

 

However, the tubular undercarriage legs are attached to each other via a mid-fuselage inverted ‘U-shaped’ bracket rather than being merely fixed

 

to the external airframe with a supporting bracket.

 

I would imaging the setup would be ideal for rough strips. The nosewheel is often a weak link in this otherwise sturdy class of aeroplane and I was unable to take a close look at the firewall structure. However, steering was relatively light with good directional control through the rudder pedals.

 

With the pre-takeoff checks complete and carrying first stage flaps of 15-degrees, the CT accelerated briskly along Grand Central’s runway 17. The CT has relatively short wings – a mere span of 8.5 metres, so I wasn’t expecting any short field surprises. Moreover, the two of us, Elmo and I, weighed some 200kgs and we had about 80 litres of fuel aboard. It took about a quarter of FAGC’s runway to rotate on a pretty hot afternoon – a great deal more impressive than a Cessna 150 or even a 172. We climbed out at about 750-800 feet per minute at 70 mph. I also glanced over to the engine temperature readout as some of these Rotax installations weren’t optimised for the high ambient temperatures we get in South Africa. I was pleased to see that the temps and pressures were well within the normal operating range.

 

Once up to our cruise height of about 6 500 feet, the airspeed leapt as soon as we activated the ‘negative’ flap setting. There was almost no need to input trim as the aeroplane’s configuration and speed was adjusted but this is also typical of these types of aircraft. Control harmonisation is good with the rudder being somewhat heavier than the elevator and ailerons. Indeed there is little rudder feel so those not used to the CT will probably, like me, make continual reference to the turn and slip indicator to keep the ball centralised. Roll input was met by an instant response and the CT is immense fun to fly.

 

At our density altitude, the airspeed indicator quickly rose to 130 mph at 5 100rpm. I would suspect that the advertised 130 knots is not too far wrong, especially as I had noted the CT was difficult to catch up with in the Cessna 182 we had earlier used to carry out the air-to-air photography session. I tried a few steep turns and the aircraft felt solid and responsive, although an eye on the slip indicator was needed to keep the ball in the middle. Visibility over the nose isn’t too bad although the aircraft seems to fly nose-up – an optical illusion caused by the lowish seating position and large instrument housing. Upwards visibility is good for a high wing design. However, the big doors, almost entirely covered by perspex give the impression of great visibility – enhanced by the strutless wings. The roof contains perspex panels between the spar covering and help when making turns.

 

I put the aircraft through a couple of stalls – one without flap and one carrying a little power with full flap. The first configuration resulted in a very gentle roll off to the right at the break and the next a somewhat sharper roll off to the left. Both stalls were easy to recover from using power and relaxing back pressure on the stick. Overall, the CTSW handled very nicely indeed and it struck me that the aircraft would spring no nasty surprises in all phases of flight. Although the aircraft has been extensively spin tested, we didn’t explore that area of the flight envelope.

 

We returned to Grand Central’s circuit and giving the slippery little aeroplane plenty of room to slow down, I reduced speed to 70mph in order to deploy the flaps. 70mph is somewhat low for an aircraft with this level of performance, so entry into the circuit requires a little forward planning. Whilst its speed is easily sufficient for it to mix with far bigger aeroplanes, once settled into the approach at 60mph, the maximum flap speed means that during the final approach phases, there isn’t much speed to play with in a crowded circuit. Nevertheless, the aircraft is stable on final approach. Pilots might like to carry a smidgen of power into the flare as with full flap, there is a lot of stick travel to get the nose up to keep the nosewheel away from wheelbarrowing.

 

There’s plenty of elevator authority though and quite a sharp movement between the over-the-fence attitude and the landing attitude. In practice, this would be OK for getting in and out of shorter strips but for longer general aviation runways, only second stage flaps would be necessary to make the final touchdown less of a sudden manipulation of the stick.

 

The brakes are extremely powerful and wonderfully progressive. I suspect it would be possible to lock the wheels on touchdown. The only downside to this might be a tendency to easily lock the wheels whilst braking on a gravel or sand strip and thus flat spot the tyres. On a downhill slope whilst taxiing, I would be wary of cooking the tyres although, the discs seemed to be well ventilated.

 

I must admit to being impressed with the CT. I liked the roominess of the design and easy and safe flying qualities. My only real criticism is the high level of noise in the un-upholstered cabin – even with headsets, I suspect it would be tiresome on a long distance flight – consequently, most owners should shop for a pair of top-quality noise cancelling headsets if they plan to travel big distances.

 

The above courtesy of http://www.saflyermag.co.za/John%20tests/CTSW.html

 

 

Great photo Paul! - keep them coming

 

 

I'd like to see how some of the plastic fantastics handle some of the same conditions the Gazelle can.

Micgrace :)

- Can I brag and say I have the best of both worlds - a Gazelle and a CTsw (although the CT is sold and should leave the nest this weekend but I have ordered another one).I still get a shiver down my spine remembering when I was doing my crosswind training in the Gazelle. Walking out to the aircraft I glanced over at the windsock and saw the chains that dangle half way up the pole poking out horizontally, I make mention of this to my instructor, "Streuth" he says, "I thought the wind was stronger then that, I am surprised the chains are still attached to the pole and the welds are still holding". My head sank down low, I began to take smaller steps as my legs were shaking by this sight bouncing around in my head.

 

Off we went, my instructor had assured me that it was only about 18kts at 90deg of the strip but what I didn't know was it was FLAMIN MORE FIERCE ABOVE THOSE DARN TREES. As we were taxing my instructor forced me to hold the stick against the wind, I looked at him with all facial wrinkles bulging up on top of each other from fear. Down the strip we went, I struggled to keep her straight and a smile was beginning to emerge from this new found confidence when suddenly at about 50ft agl WHAMEEE - the old faithfull Gazelle turned sideways and all about the place. It felt like I was in the Gazelle rotary wing and the blades had stopped and the fuselage had kept going, it was all over the place - dangerously close to stall for the whistle was blowing its head off, my instructor said in an ever calming voice "nose down" but I don't think he was prepared for my reply "NOSE DOWN.....WHAT THE.....ARE YOU KIDDING.....WE'RE ONLY 50ft.....SH************T". I then felt a hard but ever so slight pressure forward on the stick, my instructor had just pushed the stick forward a little, we gained speed and continued to climb - I never realised what it felt like have your bottom jaw quivering at 10 beats to every heart beat which was already going like a runaway train.

 

Around the circuit we went, struggling against the wind and making the circuit as short as possible. On short final I felt lucky for a change, Shepparton airstrip is pretty wide and at the angle we were it was likely we were going to land across the strip so apart from doing the evening 3 step on the pedals I was ready to jump on the brakes and show how much of a STOL the Gazelle really could be. At the last minute I kinked her around and thanked God for the almighty tuff undercarriage that is the foundation of what the Gazelle is built on.

 

We taxied back, jumped out to see the CFI running over to tell us that as we were taking off the wind jumped up to 25+kts. looking back at it know I am thankful I was in a Gazelle as I doubt very much that my CT or any other plastic fantastic could have handled it as good as the old faithful gazelle.

 

Incidentally, I was just joking about the chains on the windsock pole but a point to ponder - while your on short final, your eyes are busy lining up the

 

centre line, the piano keys, watching your airspeed etc - how many of us make a natural glance automatically at the sock before it is to late???

 

 

There has been much debate over this issue for many years.

 

The general consensus is to bring it in as slow as possible, tail low, then at the last possible moment pull back so as to drag the tail into the water and slow you down hoping like hell that the aircraft doesn't flip over when it hits the water. Either way it won't be pretty. In a high wing you are under water if you land upright and you are probably under water if you flip over. Either way, have your life jackets handy and unlatch your doors prior to impact. There has been talk previously on dropping a wing in and spinning (yawing) the aircraft around, but I'm not a subscriber to this line of thinking.

 

Either way I don't like your chances of survival in deep water. A Gazelle and Jabiru's for example are extremely hard for some people to get in and out of on the ground, let alone under water and upside down.

 

I recently saw a pilot at an airfield in his imported Czech republic manufactured machine. He was so fat (140+ kgs I estimate) that he radioed the club and asked for someone to come and refuel him whilst he waited in the aircraft (against regulations I might add). One could argue that he wasn't ambulatory so it's ok... but it would be hard to argue that the pilot in command wasn't ambulatory.

 

As for flying over the ocean, you'd need to make sure that you're able to glide to land during your traning exercises. I personally would favour landing in shallow water near the edge if the sand isn't appropriate or I would prefer a beach landing and subsequent rollover. One advantage in shallow water is that fire may not consume the aircraft, but the salt will, yet on the sand you may get more damage, but you have more chance of recovering the aircraft... catch 22 I'm afraid.

 

I have personally landed a Gazelle with no engine on several occasions; not a big drama. They are capable of a nice side-slip when required coupled with a nice and slow approach, I could pretty much land on a particular spot every time... not in the water though!

 

 

 

 

Hi Biggles,

 

Before I start, a wise CFI once told me...

 

"Buying an aircraft is like a Bacon and Egg sandwich. The chook's involved, but the pig's committed"

 

- Remember this... you are the pig!

 

There's no doubt the Gazelle is a good aircraft to buy and fly, however you really need to take a close look at what you'll be doing with it and how much you'll be using it.

 

Many Gazelle's out there are now getting a little long in the tooth, so to speak. This would mainly be because of their age and the fact that many of them if not the majority were or have been used in RAA and GA flying schools for training purposes and as such a lot of hours have gone on them in a short space of time.

 

They are definitely an exceptionally easy aircraft to learn to fly in and a great private aircraft, however there are a few issues worth considering. There is a 4,000 wing life. It's not a throw-away limit as such, but one that requires considerable expense to rebuild / recondition. The aileron hangars have long been a problem if the aircraft is not looked after or is not kept nicely tucked away and from moisture. These timber hangars can rot away and break off, which has previously caused a fataility in QLD. Enignes are an issue too; not necessarily because of a large number of hours, but because of age, corrosion and condition.

 

Prices range from $25,000 to around $45,000 for a good one, but prices in the 50's for an excellent one are not uncommon.

 

Cheapest I've seen was 2 months ago a GA model with all the gear was up for sale with only 500 hours total time on the clock. It sold for $25k inc GST! however it needed a lot of work. Even though it had been GA maintainted, it was in very, very, very poor condition. After 2 months of work including repainting and new plastics and an engine rebuilt at a cost of around $5k it's probably now worth up to and around $50k.

 

Something important to consider is that for a GA Gazelle to remain in the charter category it much have an engine that is less than 10 years old (or rebuilt within 10 years); therefore considering Gazelle's were mostly manufactured in 1995-96, there will be quite a few out there on the GA register that the owners will need to move, quickly!

 

If you are maintaining it yourself it will be very affordable to operate. A Gazelle is not a complicated aircraft to own. You can't maintain it yourself if it's to be used in a flying school. Contrary to what Steven says I don't believe for a minute that aircraft are very expensive to maintain when privately owned.

 

Putting your aircraft into a flying school is definitely a catch-22 situation. On one hand it earns you money, but on the other it will cost you dearly in insurance, maintenance (LAME or Level 2) and general replacement items, prop damage / chips, brakes, wear and tear, overhaul time, etc, etc, etc, interest if you borrowed the money, etc, etc. Rotax 912's have a TBO (overthaul time) of 1,500 hours.

 

If you were to buy a Gazelle outright, keep it for a while, use it privately for say up to 200 hours a year and look after it, carefully maintain it and you'll be on a good thing. Same goes with a Jabiru. Privately owned and operated is a great way to fly cheaply. An oil and filter change at 25 hours and you're back in the air. 1,000 hours for a top-end overhaul and 1,500 for a bottom end.

 

Remember what the wise CFI once told me...

 

My money would be best spent on a fibreglass or carbon aircraft with reasonable speed. Whether you realise it or not, most people want speed and if you don't want it now, you'll want it later. Many people start with a slower aircraft and then upgrade to a faster one. My advice is that if you can afford to "bypass" the first step and get yourself into the faster aircraft first; go ahead and do it. You'll save youself a lot of hassle later.

 

 

Very strange Michael, I know of several Gazelles that only run Avgas (Wangaratta, Tyabb etc) and I do know that like all Rotax's that if running Avgas you need to change the oil every 25hrs though

 

 

Gazelle Performance Figures

 

 

 

John

 

That's a good point and having a Gazelle myself I might look into that. I heard a rumour that the Eurofox may be going through the stages of getting certified for use here and the importer may be Mick Poole from Horsham Aviation but this may or may not be correct.

 

 

WOW, fantastic and congratulations - I can see this is going to be a long thread as hopefully you will let us all help you through the build

 

process by keeping us informed on how you are going, each step of the way - keep the pictures coming ;)

 

 

Michael

 

I don't know if this guy is the best but I use Glen Turner who does the RAA insurance - his Ph No is 08 8363-5252.

 

Please

 

note that I am simply saying that he is who I use and not that he is

 

the best as I am sure there are many others out there

 

 

Fantastic photos Gregg (keep them coming) and in a disposable camera as well. I had the joy of going up in a trike for the first time the other day and whilst it is not a drifter it made me realise the joys of what flying something like a Drifter or a Thruster would be like, with wind in your hair, bugs in your teeth and getting as close as possibleto flying like a bird.

 

 

Ouch! - but more importantly how does your sidekick go, I remember a Jerry Lewis movie where he had a pet rabbit that fell asleep whilst sun baking and ended up with a bright red belly

 

 

Yep, they tried a "normal" gauge as well - twice, just to rule out the electronics

 

 

My CT has been grounded for the last couple of weeks because we started

 

to get erratic high oil pressure, yes with a brand new aircraft, once

 

the oil temp got up past 60deg the oil pressure, whilst it should stay

 

around 3.2, was jumping up to 6.2 and moving anywhere inbetween the two

 

about 3 times a second.

 

Rotax replaced the oil, oil filter,

 

oil pressure release valve, oil pump and oil pressure sender switch all

 

to no avail. Today they rang me and said that they will do one more

 

test but they already know what that will say so a complete brand new

 

engine will be dropped into her tomorrow.

 

It is comforting to know that they will look after you - well at least me in this instance

 

 

Mick, please let me know when you start to build it as it would be good

 

to have your story and pictures here in the aircraft section of the

 

website.

 

If anyone else is or knows of someone building a kit

 

also please let me know so we can include as many stories as possible

 

on the site.

 

 

Sorry for my ignorance Chris but for my knowledge can you explain to me what a "swage" is?

 

 

(posted on behalf of a guest)

 

Take care if you are fitting a Brolga Prop to your Gazelle... A Gazelle

 

is not legal if fitted with anything other than the original "all-size"

 

branded propellor. These propellors are now produced by Tony Kerr of

 

Gympie Aircraft Maintenance who bought the business several years ago.

 

Vibrations at different RPM ranges are not standard on the Brolga and

 

912 combination and can he inherited from the airframe as a Brolga on a

 

912 may not vibrate the same on a different aircraft.

 

If the aircraft is being operated on-line you should immediately remove

 

the propellor as you will not be covered by the $1m RA-Aus insurance

 

policy, nor any other policy that you may have taken out on your

 

aircraft or passengers. You may as well not be registered!

 

Sorry to be so blunt, however I have known of someone who got hauled

 

over the coals when his aircraft was involved in an accident with glass

 

non-standard prop!

 

 

(Posted on behalf of a guest)

 

It might help if you let us know how many hours the 912 has done..........

 

Gearboxes in a 912 only go around 1,000 before needing work if they are not cared for fully.

 

By cared for, I mean, by not being run continually at low RPM. Eg. Like

 

when a Rotax 503 "chatters" at low RPM because there is little wind

 

resistance on the blades to take up the slack in the gearbox; same with

 

the 912.

 

As an example, a Skyfox requires higher RPM to taxi because of the

 

tailwheel, whereas a Gazelle with 912 requires less because it "coasts"

 

well and as a result is usually run at very low RPM to slow the

 

aircraft down. This is detrimental to the 912's gearbox, but that being

 

said the 912 gearbox components are not particularly expensive. An

 

overhaul for parts only could range from $250 - $1000.

 

That being said I flew in a Gazelle last weekend that at 4,800rpm had

 

an airframe vibration and it was fitted with a 2 blade carbon warp

 

drive (illegal on a Gazelle)...

 

it's been there for the last 5 years with that parcicular propellor,

 

didn't vibrate with the timber prop and the gearbox has been overhauled

 

byt Bert Floods.

 

As for the output shaft being bent, anything is possible, especially on

 

a second hand engine that you don't know the full history of.

 

 

G'day Martin, welcome to the forums - I bet the waiting is killing you knowing it's coming but not in your hands yet. Please make sure you keep us informed on how it's going and some pictures would be great!

 

 

Clem Brown wrote "...I know of a UL held together with masking tape, I swear! " That's just not true - I always use gaffer tape!".

 

Carl

 

- good one Carl!

Is there an opportunity here to maybe help our RAA organisation with

 

constructive suggestions on what may be able to be done. For example is

 

there perhaps an opportunity to have a dedicated publicity, promotions

 

and communications person that not only promotes our organisation but

 

is also the communication channel (for general communication outside the scope of board members)

 

between the office and the members. The board members are not paid and

 

do it out of their own goodness yet are very much over worked when

 

considering they have their own lives to lead as well. Perhaps this PPC

 

person could be a paid employee in the office to also help eliminate

 

the work load at the office but then that would increase our membership

 

fees or perhaps they could be like the board members as a volunteer -

 

just a thought!

 

Is there any other suggestions that we as members could do to help our organisation to not only become better but more acceptable to the greater membership

 

 

Geoff, my understanding is that as long as they are escorted by an ASIC holder then that is ok

 

 

I also agree that GA is declining rapidly (but we all know that that is a fact)

 

and that ultralights WILL keep increasing for a couple of years yet -

 

as long as we engage in active promotion to those out there that still

 

think an ultralight is ONLY a chute with a seat that scares a lot of

 

people. We all know that the label ultralight these days is extremely

 

broad and I believe the general public are not aware of the great

 

variety of aircraft that exists today.

 

The point is: Everyone wants to fly, they just don't know it yet!