Thanks for the kind words, but truthfully I don't like having posted what I have. I would prefer that the forum administrator would stop the personal attacks against Ed, the posting of his personal information, and the unjustified rants. All from a person who has done his best to stay anonymous, and to ignore information that shows his information to be false.
For example, take a look at the Serial # of Thorp's aircraft from the above records : 06-11-18. Thorp has accused Ed of lying, and stated you can't believe anything he has said, because Thorp believes Ed's aircraft was made earlier than Ed has said. I provided Thorp with the method that Flight Design uses to give an aircraft a serial #, but Thorp hasn't even responded to it in any way. The only way I can think he came up with that flawed opinion, is that he takes the serial # as the date of manufacture. So using his own flawed opinion, his own aircraft was built on June 11, of either 1918, or 2018. Since either of those is out of the question, don't you think he would rethink his arguement? Flight Design gave his aircraft the serial # 06-11-18, because it was built in the year 2006, in the month of November, and was the 18th CT to begin production that month.
Thorp, ignored any comment on my posts, and then went on to post this rant against Ed and the CTSW. I considered just letting this blow over, but what would that really solve? Ed is a good person. I've met Ed a few times now, we've shared quite a bit of info on our aircraft, have had a couple of meals and beers together, and have flown along side of each other. I've also seen up close the area that he flies out of, and am quite aware of the conditions where he flys out of. He isn't BSing in his posts, and doesn't deserve for anybody to think he is. The CTSW also doesn't deserve the negative spin this guy gives it. I think his own data shows that the landing incidents have decreased in the last couple of years, as additional transition training has been more of a priority. Ed and Roger Heller have argued that, but the guy ignores it, and continues his rants. The CTSW isn't difficult to land, it's just different, which needs to respected and is being taught more thoroughly.
Thus I felt compelled to reply to this load of crap, and provide Thorp with a reality check. I wish Thorp would have shown some common sense himself, or the administrator would have just killed his worthless post. Maybe it's best this way, but I'm not pleased with doing it.
You are completely wrong. According to FAA records, Ed Cesnalis (aka CharlieTango) owns a 2005 Ct.
Read that again: 2005.
The serial numbers are Year-Month-Day, in European fashion.
Here is the link to the FAA records:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... rtxt=102CT
Hopefully, this will put to rest any of the BS you and Ed have been posting here and other places in an attempt to make yourselves and your planes look better than they are.
Just look at how you tried to make the "minor damage" to the plane into "major damage". That should be proof enough for anyone of your actual intentions.
As far as the accident, I was the one who suggested the go-around, and the check-out pilot (on the day the plane was being delivered to me) decided we could handle it, and gave instructions on what to do with the very strong cross-wind on landing. Unfortunately, there was a total loss of audio just prior to the incident, and all efforts by the check-out pilot to rescue the plane failed and resulted in the incident. For the record, the check-out pilot reached over and took my hand off the throttle prior to the incident, and at that point I relinquished control to him, before we touched down. The FAA surmised that the root cause was the lack of the positive exchange of controls, but my opinion, as one who was there, was that the cause was over confidence on the part of the check-out pilot. It was not so easy to land in the high-winds as he had claimed just prior to landing.
As far as the damage, I had an independent expert check out the airframe completely, before I accpeted delivery of the plane, as I had not as yet accepted delivery when the incident occured.
The engine was also fully examined at Lockwood, including magna-flux.
There was no way I would have accpeted a plane that had not been in "good as new" condition, and I was still eager to take my bird home.
There were no lies spoken by me at any time, however Ed Cesnalis and you are now on record as having lied about his plane, N102CT.
If you cant tell the truth about your own plane, then what can you tell truthfully?
In my opinion, both of you are untrustworth indviduals who have gone out of your way to trash anyone who disagrees with you.
By the way, FAA records are public infomation. The only person on this forum who has tried to conceal this fact is Ed.