Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/21/2017 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Five years after laying down lots of money it looks as if our two planes for AUS have finally been shipped. GRYPHON (CTLS jubilee) and I (CTLS turbo) have some bill of loading info. to suggest that our planes will be in Melbourne AUS in the third week of October. Just after I get back from Page. This has been a long saga with countless stories lies and promises from Germany. Our agent has paid many thousands of euros extra for each, we have paid the freight and insurance twice, I sold my beloved CTSW a couple of years ago on the promise of delivery, the stress feels like it never ends. And now on the water are our two new bundles of joy, is this a dream ? no it is real !!! finally. Will post again when we know more. PS others may of may not be all that interested but it makes me feel pretty good to be actually able to post this.
  2. 2 points
    Far from a CT, but has been my "spare time" project over the last year. This Skymaster had not flown for about 20 years but Sunday it did again!
  3. 2 points
    ct9000, good point. I've used a straight board across the fuselage so it contacts each wing and put a level on this. I found that my floor is level so I just measure distance from floor to wingtips now. Tom, yes, no need to drain the tanks. Roger. I'm not thinking about making things perfect, just about the big picture. If Buckaroo is ending up with 3 gallons in one tank and 17 gallons in the other, he's got a "gross" problem and a situation that makes for very uncomfortable flying. For this, if it were me, I would want to understand how things could be this far off. Speaking for myself, I must understand inaccuracies and variables in order that I'll be able to get to know my plane. You have to remember that you have been at this for a long time and for most of the problems we discuss here, you already been to the rodeo and it's old hat for you. For those of us that are new at this, we need to work thru these issues and understand them to be comfortable when we fly. I do agree with you regarding pilot orientation, etc. For a while, I was finding that my fuel tanks had 3 or 4 gallons difference after some fairly long flights even though I was flying coordinated according to my ball . I guess it's my nature to want to understand why. First I checked fuel flow thru both tanks. When I found this OK, I next looked into my ball calibration. It was apparent that the ball was quite a bit off. But, as you point out, this system is only good until the next time someone pushes or pulls on the mushroom. Now, I have my ADS-B with a sensitive AHRS system. My electronic ball is calibrated to my CT and is unaffected by mushroom movement. My fuel usage is now pretty even between tanks. You'll note I didn't say it is perfect but I'm still working on it!
  4. 1 point
    After purchasing 4 new FD AC, the first being an SW, the 2 nd being the 2nd registered CTLS in the USA, and then two more new CTLS,s after that, I have jumped ship for a new Tecnam P2008. Flight Design and the Gutmans have been great. There were two main reasons for the change to Tecnam. Turbo charged 914 and a baggage compartment that easily holds normal carry on suitcases and larger. We frequently pickup buyers in Chicago and fly them out to our facility in Iowa, to our 1200' grass strip and the luggage is always an issue. This is a 1.2 hour flight versus a 4.5 hr drive. The extra power and speed will be welcome as well. It was a tough call after more than 2500 hours of flying FD. I will stay active on this forum as long as I'm flying, and thank all of you for the help solving the minor problems we have had with our 4 FD AC.
  5. 1 point
    Let's talk about grounds. But first, a story to put into context why understanding what grounds are, and how they affect aircraft systems, to understand why this is so important. I have a 08 CTLS in my shop that I've been fighting with for a while now. Dynon D-120 EMS has an issue where both EGTs, both CHTs, and the oil temp fluctuate rapidly. However, it would never happen on the ground for me to test for. If I can't test for it, I can't fix it unless you just want me to throw parts at the problem, and even then it's not a guarantee. Still though, I did the typical thing, checked grounds. I put an amp on the wire to ground on the EMS connector and checked for voltage drop to the battery. Hmmmmm, got a little over a tenth of a volt. I disconnected grounds, and noticed something. Something that didn't click before. The grounding block inside the aircraft mushroom is freaking anodized aluminium. What. I mean really. Anodized aluminum must be sanded at the contact points to get a good connection. Removed the bolt that goes through the firewall, and nope. Not sanded. Really??? So, I take every ring terminal, bolt, and grounding connection from the EMS to the battery and clean them up with a wire brush on a Dremel. I then apply a little DC-4 to prevent oxidation in the future (including to the sanded aluminium block). Clamp everything down, and now the resistance has gone down to about a third of an ohm, and it translated into about 10 millivolts. A lot better! Still would prefer less, but that's acceptable enough. Reassemble, start up aircraft.... everything seems fine. Released to service. It comes right back with the problem again after about 20 minutes in flight. Alright you know what? Let's go fly so I can see what exactly the issue is. So I grab my little USB data logger, plug it into the cigarette lighter to monitor the power bus, and off we go Sure enough about 20-30 minutes, the whole panel starts going crazy. Both EGTs, both CHTs, and Oil Temp all fluctuating wildly. Come back, fully expecting it to be a regulator issue. Download the data from the logger, and it's relatively stable. What. I've never seen anything like this. What I figure is something is overheating inside the EMS unit. I need to determine though. I make a diagnostic harness. 111 solder joints, 37 crimps, and 148 shrink tubes. Basically it's a male to female connector with a third female connector pigtailed off it, so that I can insert pins with my meter and get live readouts. I do a ground run and start probing the readouts, everything looks good... wait no it doesn't. The panel starts going crazy. I hook into various pins and can't make heads or tails, everything is going wild. I call up Dynon, and tell them all I did, and they say "Alright... that's everything we would have suggested, send it in." Before I do though, I have another EMS unit I could hook up real quick just to see what happens. After a few minutes, it too goes wild. Welp, not the EMS. Oh. GREAT. What in the hell could be so wrong that it causes all kinds of problems across multiple pins? I even checked voltage drop to battery through my diagnostic harness, it's swinging from as little as a few millivolts to as high as a decivolt. Quick check of resistance on the harness... 0 ohms. So there's something real screwy going on. So I cut loose every piece of tape on the installed harness from firewall to EMS, and start checking for shorts or something to explain what is going on. Nothing. Nothing at all. Alright. I'm not going to go tearing apart every single harness in this aircraft yet. Let's see if there's some weird ground oddity. So I pull all the connections from that grounding block and hit the master. The EMS still turns on. I take a closer look at that grounding pin. HUH? There's a wire splice a little ways back. Where's this going? I follow the little 22 gauge. It goes to that grounding block. Mental note: replace that with 14 guage later. 22 is not large enough for a trouble free ground. The other wire is... a 14 gauge? Where's this going? Through the firewall. So I find the wire on the other side.... it's going through the fire sleeve. OH GOD DON'T TELL ME. It was bolted to the engine intake on the right side. WHO DOES THIS S***? So what's wrong with this? Lets talk about grounding. Grounding doesn't just provide a return path for power. It also serves as the electronic reference of 0 volts. This is CRITICAL. So critical, that the National Electric Code dedicates a HUGE ARTICLE in the code just to grounding. It's probably the LARGEST article in the whole codebook. It's CRITICAL. (mind you, their grounding is a little different because they dedicate a wire to just grounding, while we combine our ground/return into one for weight concerns) Everything electrical is primarily driven by the difference in electrical potential. There's a few oddballs like inductors and radio, but let's not go there. So when you have a 12 volt system, if ground is not effectively 0 volts, then you don't actually have a 12 volt system as far as your systems are concerned. When you do grounding, it's incredibly critical that you bond systems in a way that: Provides the least resistance to ground while under load. Just tossing your voltmeter on it isn't enough. Resistance drops more voltage as more amperage flows, which causes your power differential to go down. Those milli-amps your multi-meter are pumping won't detect a dirty ground, you need to put a heavy load on it and do a voltage drop check. That's also why grounds should be HUGE; much larger than what is typically called for for normal current carrying. The grounds should be branching, with no loops. Loops can pick up stray electromagnetic fields, converting them to voltage and current that go round and round the loop, and screw with the potentials and voltage drop. This is called a ground loop, and creates a lot of interference. Do NOT provide alternate grounding paths without sizing the wire to the maximum potential current they could experience. THIS IS A FIRE HAZARD. It's also easy to do without realizing what you are doing. If you follow rule 2, you won't have this problem. Do not provide ground paths that could back feed to systems and generate interference. This little extra wire violated rules 2, 3, and 4. Basically, by attaching a wire to the ground block inside the aircraft, and a junction to the engine block, an alternate ground path has been provided, that in extremely unlikely circumstances, can provide a new path to the battery and burn up the 22 gauge wire. In addition: if any grounds get dirty, it would cause a huge amount of interference on the EMS. Remember: electricity follows all paths, but favors the one of least resistance. As the ground gets dirty, more and more power will be shunted through that alternate ground. This will raise the potential on that ground via voltage drop. Now we know the alternators on our aircraft are not a smooth output. They fluctuate badly, by design (most are designed this way). That means every single on-off pulse is a voltage spike to EMS ground. I cleaned this up, and no more fluctuating gauges yet, as well as a hazard eliminated. Now, I know that there are those that advocate adding an extra wire from the engine to the battery. I've said before that I don't like it, but because the sizing is supposed to be large enough to handle the current it may experience, and both effectively terminate at pretty much the same point, I find it acceptable. My personal preference is that I would rather people increase the wire size of the original engine ground and terminate it on a terminal block as close to the battery as reasonable, and branch out from there. That's how it should be. If you stick to branching grounds without creating loops, rules 3 and 4 are not needed.
  6. 1 point
    Not a partnership, but another idea. Our club has 3 CTLS' and is located @ KRAC. I dont know how much of a drive that is for you.... but if you were looking to fly the CT, its a great place to be. Check out http://www.racinesportflyers.com. Plane availability is usually never an issue, and we have some great CFI's. I'm almost to check ride, and having a great time.
  7. 1 point
    God Bless Mexican Coke with good old fashioned sugarcane! Can't get ethanol free gas in CA, or 93 octane but I can get Mexican Coke at Target!
  8. 1 point
    Ed, the wing strut doesn't seem to be a problem, given the fact that a P2008 912 equipped has identical speeds as a CTLS. The wing itself is not as thick as the FD wing and I believe this is where they get back what they gave up in drag using the struts. It's actually more of a laminar flow wing. I noticed right away it didn't lift off at quite as low a speed as my CTLS and the stall speed is a few knots higher than FD.
  9. 1 point
    That's not quite true Roger...... the 914 is not turbo normalized, it boosts to 42" for 5 minutes and runs continuous at 35" MP. The one I flew for my demos was 132 TAS at 3000 MSL and the same AC with a 912 is 12 to 14 knots slower In same conditions. I have seen screen shots from one at 17,500 ft TAS 143, but it had a constant speed prop, so yes, it would be optimal to have that in flight adjustable prop in a 914 equipped AC.
  10. 1 point
    For anyone that thinks the CT is not a capable airplane, just read the "Alaska 2014" postings on this website.
  11. 1 point
    I sent an email to Kyle Cobble of the FAA (the AD lists him as the contact for more information). He called me this morning. According to Kyle, the NavWorx ADS600-EXP (latest part number, 200-5012) is fine to use in an LSA. It has a new GPS chipset and the manufacturer has submitted the required statement (that the GPS meets all the ADS-B requirements). So, if I can figure out how to install it, I will be legal to the latest ADS-B 2020 requirements.
  12. 1 point
    In California I'm not sure it matters all that much Ed, all gasoline is refined in just a handful of places (at least for summer blend). The question is really who is dumping in what additives. I often wonder about gas v 100LL and is it really worth all the hassle to go get my gas trailer filled and then pump it in my tanks (wondering about quality) or just do more frequent oil changes and use 100LL. I'm currently using 91 mo gas that I buy up at the closest station (think its a Citgo). Knock on wood, no water and no issues.
  13. 1 point
    At the same trip: Threesixty over Siena/Italy:
  14. 1 point
    I was in the area at August, 25th. Unfortunately not in a CT but in a Bristell. This time my sweetpea enjoyed the trip. Mostly she doesn't like to pass the mountains and closes her eyes, when the rocks/clouds/birds/flies come closer Ausflug-Toskana 2017.kmz
  15. 1 point
    Love to fly in the area Gica passed over and remembering some of the climbing and skiing many of those mountains years back. Nowadays a few more horsepowers for my CTLS would be great when it gets hot. However I have to tell Gica that according to the route he did not pass over Grossglockner (Austria`s highest mountain) . The glaciercapped mountain he saw and crossed from LOIJ was Grossvenediger ,12054ft, he should have made a left turn over Pass Thurn heading for one of two GA crossings of the Alps there . Anyway, it`s a great country to fly in good weather and it gets phantastically rocky towards Cortina d`Ampezzo.
  16. 1 point
    KMMH Mammoth Yosemite new photo - original didn't survive
  17. 1 point
    I wouldn't say it is a total waste. For someone like Ed who is flying at higher altitudes all the time the extra power of the turbo would be nice, compared to normally aspirated. Aslo for someone who is doing a lot of cross country flights at higher altitudes it would be helpful as well.
  18. 1 point
    Morley-Stanwood HS class of 63. Motto "Find a way or make it."
  19. 1 point
    Some of us are still waiting for Eric's report on the UAvionics "Echo UAT."
  20. 1 point
    Columbus was right the earth is not flat and contrary to this threads inactivity Duane and I did not drive off the edge. It may take two posts to summarize the trip but here goes. When you are a senior citizen who is not retired and take six weeks off for Adventure travel you get really behind in your work. We got so involved in the trip and it's planning, and execution that something had to give. I recommend a trip like this to everyone but when you're halfway through your 70's it tends to be quite a physical and mental work load. Can hardly wait for the next leg of this flying adventure in the Americas. The Aircraft, which is a 172 k model preformed flawlessly. With 60 gallons of fuel on board and a new Garman, IFR, panel we could go anywhere they would sell us Fuel, and did. One of the nicest features on the aircraft upgrade was placing a 797 Garmin on each yoke. That with the JPI 450 and the GTN 650 garmin made for good situation awareness. Final accounting on the trip is not complete however it looks like about 80 hours of flying, and more than 8000 nautical miles. It appears we use about 600 gallons of fuel. The landing fee billing are still coming in from the airports across the country, about C$17 per landing. Aviation fuel is not readily available above the Arctic Circle. But neither are there airports. Where we could find Fuel the higher prices were about $3.45 per liter. Pulling up to the pump and adding $500 of fuel is not for the faint of heart . Most times we arrived at the airport without a ride or a room We did spend four nights in the tents at the EAA air show. Best Oshkosh fly in I have ever attended in all these years . We remove the backseat and put in a couple of bins, bungee strapped to the floor. This was for the tent,sleeping bags. and MRE, survival gear etc. etc. etc. where are well-equipped and never needed more than we had On board. We landed at 35 different airports of which 30 we had never seen before we were lined up on the final. One of the big issues on this trip was understanding the perimeters of the airports, how long, at what MSL and what traffic pattern, as well as the frequencies. The only flight plans that were filed we're the requirement to do so for international border crossings. This is not to say that we did not vigorously plan our next landing spot. We did not always land where we thought we would, sometimes a little weather, more often unbelievable scenery. More to follow what I get a chance, cook is calling and I always respond. Farmer
  21. 1 point
    Bingo! Another, simplistic, nugget of CT wisdom. Well said Ed.
  22. 1 point
    When I learned to fly I preferred slips to the left. I think the reason why is because I preferred pushing the stick rather than pulling it.
  23. 1 point
    Andy, yes, the effect of L vs R slip is not large. But I repeated the slip both ways several time for several minutes. The effect was small but repeatable. All testing was done under same conditions in same direction of flight. I tested with AP engaged and separately used rudder pedal pressure and rudder trim adjustment to hold the ball in the desired location. I thought about the pitot tube, but the slip angle was so minimal with one ball out that it is hard to imagine an asymmetric effect on the pitot. Still, could be. Tom, I think that is possible (I mentioned it in my post above).
  24. 1 point
    Andy, did you gather data with a slip to both sides? I slipped while in cruse yesterday (-6 flaps, 5200 rpm). With the ball one full diameter to the right (i.e., left edge of ball just clear of the vertical post), I had no demonstrable change in IAS. But, with the ball one full diameter to the left, I had, repeatedly, 1-2 kts loss of IAS (I think I am remembering my left versus right correctly). The point is that with one slip direction, I had no change in IAS - just as you report. With slip in the other direction, I did have a change in airspeed. This was completely surprising to me. I expected the slip effect on airspeed to be similar regardless of left versus right slip. I still don't understand why the effects was asymmetrical, my first approach will be to consider the rotating propeller slipstream. 2006 CTsw, Tundra gear without wheel fairings.
  25. 1 point
    I said wings level and straight. If you are not turning, and the wings are level you will be pretty close to ball centered.
  26. 1 point
    If the wings are level and the ball is calibrated (reading correctly) and it is out of center to the left it will feed the left tank. The same yaw forces (centripetal?) that allow you to fly by the seat of your pants move the ball and now have the fuel transferring from the leading wing to the trailing wing (via uneven usage not actual transfer). The reason people fly with the ball off center is because they know their ball is wrong and they are trying to prevent unwanted transferring.
  27. 1 point
    Tom, Trimming your rudder on AP (holding a heading) so wings are level works. 1) your eye checking level wings makes sure you are not slipping and your AP holding the course makes sure you are not skidding.
  28. 1 point
    I usually don't balance any fuel until the lowest tube is at the halfway mark. There's not any real reason to worry about it before then.
  29. 1 point
    Buckaroo, I'm not sure how much fuel you are starting with, but you can't even start the balance process until you can see air in the sight tube on one side. I know it may not be an option for you with your landscape or airplane equipment, but here in the flat lands with my airplane I can figure out where things need to be to keep fuel balanced by flying on autopilot and trimming the rudder so the wings are level with the horizon. If I do this my fuel stays balanced, and the ball is 1/2 a ball out like Roger says.
  30. 1 point
    Everyone in this thread talks about transferring fuel either intentionally or not by slipping. Fuel will follow the ball either way, from a slip or a skid. A slip has a visual clue (bank) where a skid is likely a failure to hold heading with wings level and therefore can be the real culprit. In the hangar with a level the the only force at play is gravity but in the air you can transfer from the low wing to the high wing that's why we look at a ball and not our bank.
  31. 1 point
    If your flight isn't long enough fuel transfer will be slight at best. If you're just flipping around doing T&G's then it won't happen either. It needs to be in a cruise situation and the flight needs to be arouind 1 hr. or more.
  32. 1 point
    Flew today with the doors off for the first time. Getting the doors off was a bit of hassle because the pins didn't want to come out, but not too bad. I greased them for next time. The airplane flew pretty much the same, it did take some extra power to reach the same speeds, but not a huge amount. I flew up to 85kt, but really any speeds more than about 70kt was uncomfortable due to the wind. I kept at 0° or 15° the whole time. I wish I'd has some goggles over my glasses, the wind blasted around the lenses and into my eyes occasionally. The only handling quirk was that in turns the airplane seemed to turn easier, and the nose had a tendency to drop more in the turns. I'm assuming that is just an artifact of the different drag profile the airplane has with nothing to keep air flowing from side to side. Overall, I probably won't do this often, but I can see it as fun thing to do couple times a year on super hot days when flying low around the patch.
  33. 1 point
    All recommendations are taken and really appreciated! Thanks to all! Today im going to borrow my Buddy's long level and confirm that she's good to go. Fuel drain followed by the two gallon per side timed test. Question? Since I don't have the pinch off tool yet to check flow in the suspect right tank how do I know it's not going in say two gallons and not running over to the left side port and draining out? Will the right side port in level condition drain the two gallons solely? Also approximately how long would two gallons take? I suspect 5 per hour so do the math for two but I've heard 10 per our.
  34. 1 point
    Your flaps may be hitting the stop and triggering the max deflection light. I wouldn't think it's a problem unless the flap motor is fighting against the stop.
  35. 1 point
    Andy, cool video. You're one of the fortunate ones who has a CT that came with removable doors. FD stopped doing this. My friend Phil is another lucky one. The foot in the door opening is Phil's, He was right at home since he's an old helicopter pilot. I made the mistake of pointing to a landmark while doing this. The slipstream almost pulled my arm out of socket! I also give the hula gal a 10.
  36. 1 point
    The fuel comes down the door post and goes to a "Y" fitting. The passage from wing to wing is through thid "Y". The third leg of the "Y" goes through the firewall, and then to the valve.
  37. 1 point
    Roger and I will never agree on this issue. Zero flaps is less drag on takeoff and I believe you will get higher faster and be able to glide farther for your altitude in the event of an engine failure. Try a glide from 500ft and 60 kts at flaps 15- see how far you go. Then try the same glide at 500ft, flaps zero and 90 kts. Flaps zero will win every time. I know there are lots of other factors and I will not cover them all but the bottom line is more drag at flaps 15 than zero for takeoff.
  38. 1 point
    I almost posted something similar. Upon re-reading, I see that Mike said we'll get the "lowest rate of descent" at lower speed and 15° flaps. This is probably true, you'd get the most time aloft at those settings. My testing mirrors yours, my best glide *range* occurs at -6° flaps and about 78kt. Once I'm near my intended landing zone and am confident I have it made, I add more flaps in and start slowing down.
  39. 1 point
    I would like to address this from the standpoint of aerodynamic generalities instead of a specific aircraft's perceived performance. For every airspeed and wing loading there is an optimum wing camber - a camber that gives the minimum drag. As the airspeed decreases or the wing loading increases, the optimum camber increases. Flaps provide an effective means of adjusting a wing's camber, especially on our aircraft where the ailerons are interconnected with the flaps (like a sailplane) affecting the camber across the full span. Though there are some losses in any non-zero flap position, primarily due to wing root and tip effects (the LS has an added fence for at the root to reduce this loss in the negative flap position) these effects are relatively minor. Our planes were designed with the intent that you use the first positive flap setting (15 degrees) at low speed, no flaps (0 degrees) at modest speed, and negative flaps (-6 degrees) at high speed. If you use too much or too little flaps for your airspeed and weight your L/D will decrease (drag will go up more than lift). Flap positions beyond 15 degrees are primarily to increase drag at low speed for steeper landing approaches. It is desirable to get off the ground at low speed so you should use 15 degrees of flaps. If you want to climb steeply, such as to clear an obstacle, you will also need to fly slow (Vx for the best angle of climb) and again use 15 degree flaps. Low speed and 15 degrees of flaps should also provide the lowest rate of descent (the longest time to figure out what's wrong) in an engine out condition. For the fastest rate of climb (Vy) you want the flaps at zero to minimize the minor losses associated with non-zero flap positions, so you should use zero flaps and moderate speed. This will also give the best glide angle (longest glide distance) in an engine out condition. High altitudes will increase the true airspeeds but indicated airspeeds should remain the same. For what it's worth, this is consistent with my perceptions of the performance of my CT2k. Mike Koerner
  40. 1 point
    You guys are getting way, way too personal.
  41. 1 point
    Definitely not made for older pilots.
  42. 1 point
  43. 1 point
    Update: USAIG decided that the cost to repair it was reasonable. I have been working on it in my shop for the past month. Determining the correct parts to order has been a bit of a challenge to say the least. While the prop was shattered, the prop flange run-out was 0 degrees. I pulled the gear box and sent it off to Lockwood for a rebuild. The run-out on the crankshaft was also 0 degrees. Then I used the Rotax tool for testing crankshaft twist. Again, 0 degrees. Yeah! Didn't have to have the engine rebuilt. Saved $14K. I think the insurance company would have totaled it if it needed an engine rebuild. While the landing gear was wiped off, there was no damage to the main gear sockets so we just need to replace the main gear. The nose gear folded under the aircraft, but there was no firewall damage. So, I removed the small motor mount from the main motor mount and was able to swing the engine out and to the passenger side enough to remove the main motor mount and replace it without removing ALL of the plumbing. During the process, I found a badly chafed SCAT tube from the air filter to the intake plenum. So I'm replacing it with SCEET (double walled). The steering rods were bent. To replace them, I used a scope camera to line up the rod end joints while a helper inserted the steering rods and screwed them in. It is VERY hard to get your hand all of the way in there and I have the scrapes on my arm to prove it. The Vividea Ablescope is amazing. It's a tiny thing, transmits via wi-fi, and has a 180 degree bend feature that I have used extensively. You can insert it into a spark plug socket and check out the valves. I had 2 iPad mini's; one for me and one for my helper. After trying to screw it in by myself for a couple of hours, with the camera and a helper I was done in 10 minutes. Highly recommended. Both wingtips were heavily damaged (shattered), but there was only minor aileron damage. No wing root damage which was amazing. Looks like the wings "slapped" the ground alternately. A composite instructor is coming over from Germany to replace one wingtip and repair the other as well as fix some of the dings and dents. He'll be here for a couple of weeks. Really nice guy over Skype and email. When he's done, I'll be certified to do composite work in CTs. I built a Cozy IV from plans in the past, but am looking forward to learning from him techniques specific to Flight Design. Overall, I have been VERY impressed with this aircraft. So impressed that I decided to buy one and use it for flight training. So we now have a 2009 immaculate CTLS in our hangar for training and a 2008 CTLS under repair. So far, we already have 5 Private Pilot students and one Sport Pilot. Tomorrow I'm cutting a radio ad. We live in the Verde Valley of Arizona (Cottonwood, Sedona, Camp Verde), and there hasn't been a flight training facility here in about 15 years. Turns out that there's LOTS of interest in flight training. Some people want to come out and do intensive training for a couple of weeks while their spouse hangs out at one of the many Sedona spas. Nice! We do the 5-hour CT transition training as well. Also, Rainbow Aviation is holding an LSRI 2-day class at our facility in October. Contact Rainbow Aviation if you want to sign up. Sid Lloyd Kestrel Aviation Services LSRM - Aircraft/Weight shift iRMT - Service/Maintenance www.kestrelaviationservices.com
  44. 1 point
    There is an error there. Given an identical wind condition: Best rate of climb is Vy. Best angle of climb (steeper) is Vx.
  45. 1 point
    You are right on ED with both your pictures and your climb information.
  46. 1 point
    Adam, that was a great post, I think all your comments are spot on.
  47. 1 point
    OK - I will bite... I have owned an flown a CTSW, CTLS and CTLSi. I have flown the SportCruiser and the RV-12. Each of these planes has its pros and cons. Since I have bought 3 CT's, I guess that makes me a CT guy. CTSW - Excellent Useful Load - What an amazing feat to have 600 pounds of useful load. I never really noticed all that much difference between the handling characteristics of the CTSW versus CTLS. That extra 14" of boom length may help but I just can't say that was a big deal to me. In any CT, you become a good stick and rudder pilot. CTLS - Useful load declining. The reason I like the CTLS over the CTSW is mainly the improved landing gear. The weak link in my opinion on the CTSW is the springy and relatively light landing gear. Its not a deal killer, useful load should guide the decision but if you really don't need that 600 pounds of useful load, I'd probably go CTLS just to have landing gear that is a little more robust and forgiving. CTLSi - Useful load all but gone. The CTLSi I own weighs in around 850. Nice airplane, lots of toys to play with but they all weigh a lot. Since my mission is short hops, fair weather burger chasing I get by with the lower useful load. If I were to be a long distance hauler with 2 adult males or a heavier female, I would want the useful load of a CTLS or CTSW. In my opinion - which one is all about useful load. Another thought - I think no matter what you buy I'd go for Tundra Gear (larger rear tires). They add just a little more flexibility to landings. As for flying a CT (any of them) the biggest thing to master is learning how to land one. I don't care how many hours you have in fighter jets, SR22's, Mooney's or Cessna's - learning to land a CT is where you should focus some quality time with a competent CFI (many right here, Eric in AZ since you mentioned AZ). You need to spend quality time doing some dual transition training focused mostly on landings. You should then do a couple hundred landings solo and continue to log landings by the dozens every chance you get. There are more arguments here on this forum about landing technique than any other topic. If the CT has any finicky attitudes - they all center on landing! Why not SportCruiser? RV12? If you land off airport given the very light weight landing gear on any of these you'll most likely flip over. Can't open a bubble canopy when its upside down. In an RV12 you'll be drenched in gasoline and roast like a fine tom turkey. In a sportcruiser you'll just be trapped since the fuel is on the wings, maybe you don't roast as much or as quickly. That CT has a very strong occupant cell. Flip upside down in one and you'll just undo the door latch and climb out. On speed, I typically only see about 105 but I'm usually not at as high an altitude on my short burger hops. The CT likes to fly fast. It takes an act of congress and a dive to get a Sportcruiser over 100. 120? Not too many LSA's can do that... If Ed is getting 127 - he is doing great! In a CT, you need to SLOW IT DOWN in the pattern (it likes to keep going 100+!)
  48. 1 point
    You can actually cruise at 120kts but you might have to climb to 7,500' and fly wide open throttle and have a prop pitch that lets you do that plus gives you the resulting speed. I find my winter speeds might be higher than 120 and summer a little lower. Top speed for me is prolly 127 and minimum is prolly 115. My CTSW is nothing like a 172 let alone a 152 but that is performance wise, light aircraft wise its worse than a 172. A CT is useable in much the same way a tail dragger is, there are more times that you should not go that would have been reasonable in the Cirrus, this is true. The skills of an ultra-light pilot do come in handy for landing as well as 'seeing' the air mass moving through the terrain and taking advantage of lift and minimizing sink, ... etc. For my money the best deal by far is a low time 2006-7 CTSW. Mine weighs 719lbs and is worth $50k. The Arizona CT pilots you will meet likely deal with winds by landing at higher speeds, you can't argue with them but there is another way Getting a ride in a CT in Arizona shouldn't be harder than bumming a smoke.
  49. 1 point
    Here's a photo of Mammoth Yosemite Airport.
  50. 1 point
    Dick Harrison, known around here as RUNTOEAT, was kind enough to post his CTSW checklist. I tweaked it just slightly to CTLS #'s and then to my own taste. Drove down to Kinko's and now have a brand-spanking-new 2 page laminated checklist that I'm grateful to Dick for. In the event that someone with a CTLS may find it useful as a template for their plane I'll try and post it. Naturally it comes with no guarantees of accuracy - you mileage may vary, yada, yada... Hope someone finds it useful.
×