CT2K

[sailor]

Does anyone have experience flying the CT2K?
Is it as good as it is reputed to be?
Any problems with it?
Is it good value?

[chevvron]

Cloudbase Aviation at Redhill have operated one for several years;
Contact Philip James [email protected]

[KeyPilot]

The CT2K is a not a nice aeroplane. I have flown one a few times and whilst I was able to handle it OK it is a bit twitchy, and does tend to float really badly on landing. The build quality is mediocre and, imho, it looks rather "squat". And you can't have proper instruments due to weight - it has a TERRIBLE "Brauniger" electronic all-in-one device (think "plastic cockpit" rather than glass and that just about sums it up!).

Better microlights are the Eurostar or C42, or the new top-of-the-range, the Dynamic. My friend has bought one of the latter and it is really amazing - it flies forgivingly at 45 or 120 knots, and is incredibly well made.

Hope this helps.

KP

[tangovictor]

I flew one, and liked it, however I didn't like the climb to re fuel, and like the other poster brought a Dynamic instead
if you do decide on the CT, try and get a whiteish finish to the cabin, the std finish is a light blue, does it no favours at all
Oh, the CT is miles better than a C42, in my opinion

[Mark1234]

Ok, don't own a CT, but have flown / flown in one owned by a mate.

It is quite twitchy (but then it's very light) - I haven't flown any other microlights. For one used to 172's, the performance was incredible. Full flap approaches are very steep, and it didn't float appreciably. Build quality was (IMHO) rather good, and being glass it's rather more fair than the average tin. I personally really liked it and would have one.

I'm now flying (hiring) a sportstar (slightly grown up, heavier version of the eurostar). It's also very nice, but courtesy of a bit more MTOW (LSA, not microlight), gets a few extras like the electric boost pump which are omitted from the eurostar on weight grounds.


HTH.