CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

jjfjr
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:25 pm

CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby jjfjr » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:25 pm

Hi;

I was wondering if anyone can tell me about the differences between the 2006 CTSW and the 2007 model.

Thanks;
jjfjr

roger lee
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:47 am
Location: Tucson, Az. Ryan Airfield (KRYN)

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby roger lee » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:49 pm

Be happy to. call me at 520-574-1080. From mid 2006 to through 2007 not much. There are bigger differences from the 2004 through early 2006.
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
LSRM-A, Rotax Instructor & Rotax IRC
(520) 574-1080 (Home) Try Home First.
(520) 349-7056 (Cell)

3Dreaming
Posts: 2345
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby 3Dreaming » Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:25 pm

As Roger said there is not much. The one change that stands out in my mind is that they added a spring to the pitch control system. I had a CTSW that was built in November 2006 that didn't have the spring, and had a customer with a May 2007 that had the spring. Those with the spring require a bunch more trim movement that those without. Personally I like the one without the spring better. There are also some differences throughout 2006, mostly in the placement and style of gap seals on the stabilator.

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1962
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby MrMorden » Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:23 pm

3Dreaming wrote:As Roger said there is not much. The one change that stands out in my mind is that they added a spring to the pitch control system. I had a CTSW that was built in November 2006 that didn't have the spring, and had a customer with a May 2007 that had the spring. Those with the spring require a bunch more trim movement that those without. Personally I like the one without the spring better. There are also some differences throughout 2006, mostly in the placement and style of gap seals on the stabilator.


I removed the pitch spring on my ELSA 2007 CTSW. I agree, it’s much better without. Lighter pitch forces and less trim required.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby drseti » Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:04 pm

On any Rotax powered LSA of that era, pay close attention to the crankcase s/n (not the same as the engine s/n). Anything before 06.0010 is the old style crankcase, which cannot be upgraded to above 1500 hrs / 12 years TBO. Those early cases are prone to catastrophic fretting at the joining of the case halves. And, based upon that 12 year limit, they cannot be overhauled when run out; have to be replaced.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
fly@AvSport.org
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US

User avatar
Jim Hardin
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:33 pm

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby Jim Hardin » Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:28 pm

If it is an older crankcase, what might be a reasonable 'bargaining chip' amount to make an offer with?

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby drseti » Mon Dec 25, 2017 7:10 pm

A new 912ULS is almost $19k. The labor to install it is probably another $2k or so. So, how much would you be willing to shell out if this engine seizes?

When I do a prebuy on an aircraft of that vintage, the first thing I check is the crankcase s/n. If I find its one of the old-style ones, I tell my customers that's probably a red flag.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
fly@AvSport.org
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US

Wm.Ince
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:27 pm
Location: Clearwater, FL

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby Wm.Ince » Mon Dec 25, 2017 7:29 pm

drseti wrote:When I do a prebuy on an aircraft of that vintage, the first thing I check is the crankcase s/n. If I find its one of the old-style ones, I tell my customers that's probably a red flag.

Paul,
Except for a few isolated cases, what is your empirical data, to back up such a stern, "red flag" assessment?
Bill Ince
CTSW
Retired Heavy Equipment Operator

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby drseti » Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:06 pm

Anecdotal, not empirical, but:

Three years or so ago, two of my graduates bought a 2005 SportStar with a relatively low-time engine. It had the old-style crankcase. Within about a year, the engine seized. Post-mortem showed crankcase fretting at the case-half seam, resulting in main bearing failure. They had to spend over $20k on a new engine, as the old one was not rebuildable (and not eligible for a core exchange due to the mandatory crankcase calendar-based TBO).

BTW, that plane is now on the market with 50 hours on a brand new engine, for $69k.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
fly@AvSport.org
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US

3Dreaming
Posts: 2345
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby 3Dreaming » Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:37 pm

While there is an issue with the old crankcases, one of the contributing factors to the failures was over propping the engine. Many of the early Rotax powered LSA's had props or prop settings that lugged the engines causing excess stresses which led to the fretting. At least that is my uunderstanding of what was going on.

Wm.Ince
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:27 pm
Location: Clearwater, FL

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby Wm.Ince » Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:09 pm

drseti wrote:Anecdotal, not empirical, but:
Three years or so ago, two of my graduates bought a 2005 SportStar with a relatively low-time engine. It had the old-style crankcase. Within about a year, the engine seized. Post-mortem showed crankcase fretting at the case-half seam, resulting in main bearing failure. . . . . .

Was that a chronic failure? If not, and it was considered an isolated incident, aren't you kind of painting ("red flagging") with a very wide brush?
My point being, if it was an isolated case, why raise the"red flag" for an entire fleet of engines?
In this particular situation, I have a problem with attaching the term "red flag" to all those engines.
Bill Ince
CTSW
Retired Heavy Equipment Operator

TimTaylor
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby TimTaylor » Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:19 pm

drseti wrote:On any Rotax powered LSA of that era, pay close attention to the crankcase s/n (not the same as the engine s/n). Anything before 06.0010 is the old style crankcase, which cannot be upgraded to above 1500 hrs / 12 years TBO. Those early cases are prone to catastrophic fretting at the joining of the case halves. And, based upon that 12 year limit, they cannot be overhauled when run out; have to be replaced.

This information is exactly what I would want someone to tell me if I paid for a pre-buy inspection.
Commercial Pilot Airplane Single & Multiengine Land; Instrument Airplane; Sport Endorsement Airplane Single Engine Sea; Flight Instructor Airplane Single And Multiengine; Ground Instructor Advanced Instrument

roger lee
Posts: 747
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:47 am
Location: Tucson, Az. Ryan Airfield (KRYN)

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby roger lee » Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:42 am

Crankcase fretting usually did happen in the late 2005 to late 2006 engines. It wasn't that many. If an engine has been around for a number of years and it hasn't happened yet the odds are it won't happen. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 2006 engine. I know a couple well over the 2500 hr. mark.
The mid 2006 and earlier engine were the 1500 hr. engines and anything past that is the 2000 hr. engine. many of the earlier engine have been just fine over the years. I have a couple of friends with 3K - 4K hrs. on them and have done nothing, but the normal maint.
Any engine, even new engines like the 912iS can have issues. The iS engine is having gearbox issues. If you have an engine with a number of trouble free hours on it then it will most likely stay that way unless you do things to it you aren't supposed to.

My saying is:
The worst thing to happen to a Rotax is its owner.

Do the right maint. when you're supposed to and you should be good to go. This isn't a Lycoming or a Cont. so don't treat it like one and don't let a mechanic work on it that has no idea about how a Rotax works, doesn't know where to find manuals or SB's and doesn't use the Rotax checklist from the Line Maint. manual when they do the inspection. Make them make a good detailed logbook entry and stay away from the ones that think a 3 line annual logbook label is good.
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
LSRM-A, Rotax Instructor & Rotax IRC
(520) 574-1080 (Home) Try Home First.
(520) 349-7056 (Cell)

3Dreaming
Posts: 2345
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby 3Dreaming » Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:10 am

roger lee wrote: The mid 2006 and earlier engine were the 1500 hr. engines and anything past that is the 2000 hr. engine.


I think you meant they can be converted to a 2000 hour engines. Wasn't it more like 2010 or 2011 that 2000 hour TBO became standard with new engines?

Wm.Ince
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:27 pm
Location: Clearwater, FL

Re: CTSW: 2006 vs. 2007

Postby Wm.Ince » Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:01 am

roger lee wrote:Crankcase fretting usually did happen in the late 2005 to late 2006 engines. It wasn't that many. If an engine has been around for a number of years and it hasn't happened yet the odds are it won't happen. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 2006 engine. I know a couple well over the 2500 hr. mark.
The mid 2006 and earlier engine were the 1500 hr. engines and anything past that is the 2000 hr. engine. many of the earlier engine have been just fine over the years. I have a couple of friends with 3K - 4K hrs. on them and have done nothing, but the normal maint.
Any engine, even new engines like the 912iS can have issues. The iS engine is having gearbox issues. If you have an engine with a number of trouble free hours on it then it will most likely stay that way unless you do things to it you aren't supposed to.

My saying is:
The worst thing to happen to a Rotax is its owner.

Do the right maint. when you're supposed to and you should be good to go. This isn't a Lycoming or a Cont. so don't treat it like one and don't let a mechanic work on it that has no idea about how a Rotax works, doesn't know where to find manuals or SB's and doesn't use the Rotax checklist from the Line Maint. manual when they do the inspection. Make them make a good detailed logbook entry and stay away from the ones that think a 3 line annual logbook label is good.

That is a very contrasting position, as compared to Paul's "red flag" advisory.
IMO, a "red flag" advisory, from a pre-buy surveyer, is synonymous to a "do not buy" alert. Is that a fair assessment for all those engines with a 1500 hour TBO? If it is, then the FAA should have stepped in, long ago, with specific corrective action. If not, then it seems the "red flag" advisory is a bit harsh and perhaps an overreaction, based upon infrequent events, associated with identifiable causes.
Bill Ince
CTSW
Retired Heavy Equipment Operator


Return to “Light Sport Aircraft”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests