Leaderboard

Good weather recently, so I did a 25 hour loop. Pics presented without comment or context.

Finally, almost 2 years wait is over. It was delivered to me last week. Now I need to get 5 hours transition training. BR

Just brought home my new to me CTSW! Looking forward to new adventures

Merry Christmas, I hope everyone has a good holiday.

I di check the two CTLS that are in the shop, and they do have carbon fiber sub fins. So an internal antenna on a CTLS sub fin probably won't work.

The torque adapter works better than a crows foot because it fully captures the nut, and you can't get to the bottom fuel pump nut with a crows foot. I have used a wrench and a scale for the bottom nut before I purchased the torque adapters. Regarding removal of the propeller. The popped heads on the M6 bolts I think came from Arian. It is something I have always done. While the propeller maintenance manual doesn't say that the bolts will be damaged it does say to loosen them before loosening the six M8 bolts. I try to follow the maintenance manual to the best of my ability, especially since it is required by regulation. I don't find any reference to lubricating the plunger in the Rotax manual or the SB on fuel pump replacement, but it is something I picked up in my Rotax training along the way. The lubrication I use is an engine assembly lube. It will fully dissolve in the oil.

Warming the engine and burping are probably not necessary. Unless you are planning to removed the crankshaft gear, locking the crankshaft is also probably not necessary. Make a chute like in the picture to keep oil away from the radiator and oil cooler, and have a drip pan or bucket for the oil. Before installing use some grease to hold the rollers on the bearing in place for installing the gearbox. I have some white grease mixed with STP that I use for engine assembly that I use. Also put a dab of grease on the plunger for the fuel pump as it goes back on. New lock washers 945-832 for the fuel pump would be a good idea, and as I mentioned above a new isolating flange 950-228 should be used. Six new DIN 985 M8 locknuts for the propeller.

When the propeller goes back on tighten the nuts on the six M8 screws in a crosswise pattern to 27nm or 19.91 (20) ft/lb. Then tighten the three M6 screws to 10nm or 88.5 in/lb. My preferred way of torqueing the prop nuts is with a torque adapter turned 90° to the torque wrench. These also work well for torqueing the nuts on the fuel pump. I have used a universal impact socket for the nuts before, but the adapter works better. Neuform Propeller.pdf

I'll see if I can post the Neuform manual tomorrow. When removing the propeller loosen the three smaller bolts first, then just tighten them until the touch. Then loosen the six that hold the propeller on. If you don't do this it is possible to pop the heads off the small bolts. Also slide something in between the engine and the radiator to direct oil away from the engine, because there will be oil that pours out of the gearbox.

Like Roger said it is not hard, but I think his 30-40 minutes is a little light. You will need to remove the propeller and fuel pump. You should probably replace the fuel pump isolating flange. You will need a puller. It is $554.65 from Rotax, but one can be fabricated using some angle iron, bolts, and a slide hammer. One thing I do when applying sealant is to cut some 1.5" wide strips of paper and roll them up and insert into the bolt holes. This will help keep the holes clean when applying the sealant. Also, make sure the sealing surfaces are really clean.

You guys haven't seen bad ethics until you see what's been going on in the last 20 years with used certified aircraft. When I make the comment to a used aircraft salesman that I know about how atrocious some of his planes are, even bordering on criminal, he tells me. "There is a sucker born every minute but I will make a lot of money on it". Most of you guys have no clue on how bad things have gotten. A lot of these 50 to 60 year old planes are so worn out and corroded, restoration is almost impossible. The FAA no longer makes rounds at local airports and even if they did , most wouldn't know what to look at, I know these guys, I could write a book on stupid things they've done. Be glad you have fairly new planes.

General Aviation is the only significant category of aviation that does not use Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) as the basis for maintenance. Read this article to see why airlines, the military and other major aviation entities use it. https://resources.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2011-03_the-waddington-effect.pdf Here is an AvWeb article discussing Maintenance Induced Failure (MIF). https://www.avweb.com/ownership/the-savvy-aviator-53-the-dark-side-of-maintenance/ This 2021 article talks about the downside of maintenance. It reveals the fact that MIF was found to be an issue in WWII. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2021/march/pilot/savvy-maintenance-ri It is tempting to conclude that GA would be better off to use maintenance procedures more inline with airlines and the military . It seems generally accepted that maintenance is best done using the right material and good procedures by skilled mechanics and overseen by knowledgeable owners. In my opinion, we should worry more about people knowing now to check their hoses than about when to replace them. Replacing them at an appropriate time will follow if we inspect them carefully and on a timely basis.

Maybe we should rename this forum to FD fliers and welcome these beauties in. We are all in the same family.

First off let me say everyone makes mistakes whether it is offering advise or doing work. I know I have made mistakes. In my opinion the advice being offered in this VLOG is a mistake. In my observations of doing maintenance on CT's the past 15 years I would say that it is likely that going past 5 years will not be a safety issue, but it is hard to tell when it will be an issue. Unless you can verify the material choices made by the installer, and are comfortable with the quality of work I would say the 5 year replacement is a good thing. I have found issues with oil hoses from both substitution of non Rotax hose and safety related installation errors. The installation errors were from the factory and well respected LSA mechanics. The installation error is poor positioning of the Band-it clamp for the fire sleeve causing a constriction of the oil hose. I have posted pictures before. I have seen problems with fuel hoses. Mostly from the wrong sizes being used causing leaks, but also some poor quality hoses. I had one customer have a forced landing due to a bad fuel hose replaced during a hose change the year before I started working on the airplane. It came apart on the inside and a little peice of rubber blocked off the fuel inlet on the 2-4 carburetor. When you shut down one side of the engine it is not good. I had one batch of hose that I bought that I sent back to the supplier because I didn't like the quality, and it did meet the required DIN specification. The hose would collapse and kink when bent around a reasonable radius. I have not seen as many problems with coolant hoses, but I did have one airplane that the hoses were absolutely rotten at 5 years, but they did not appear to be Rotax supplied hose. There was a time that the replacement Rotax 90° hose would leak it you didn't also switch to the new Rotax spring clamps. The old spring clamps didn't apply enough tension to seal up, because the wall thickness of the hose was thinner. A failed carburetor socket can cause a forced landing or leave you stranded. I personally know of two failures. I have removed some pretty rotten looking diaphragms from carburetors, that can also lead to bad things happening. A leaking float needle because it got hard from age can ruin an engine if not caught. I am a little up in the air regarding fuel pumps. A lot of times it is just poor quality workmanship and poor choices with material substitutions. Often times the mechanic doesn't know better because they didn't do the research, or they receive some poor advice.

Good grief. No, I do not change hoses every annual. I was trying to comment on the fear mongering warning me that I am going to crash and burn because I might be skeptical about the Rotax 5-year requirement. After all, if the goal is to be safe, why not be really, really, safe. After all, can we be really, perfectly, totally, absolutely certain that no hose will ever need to be replaced before five years? At some point, the argument about the frequency of hose changes amounts to religion (or, possibly, self-interest if one is in the business of hose replacement) and not to actual risk assessment. If risk assessment was the issue, I would expect Hobbs time to be the better indicator of hose life and not calendar time, anyhow. BTW, except for coolant hoses, all hoses on my E-LSA airplane are custom stainless braid/teflon with a lifespan that exceeds my natural life expectancy. I will switch lower coolant hoses to silicone at the next 5 year change. It may be hard to find silicone hoses for the top of the engine due to the bends required.

Took a short flight this afternoon going east from Hendersonville NC and saw this. Apparently contrail shadows. I don’t know what that dark streak to the ground is. You just never know what you’re going to see up there.

Even cheaper than Andy's suction cup shade, I keep one of those old fashion paper charts in the cockpit and drape it over the forward spar tube when needed.

Yes. Little doctor lake. The plane is very good on floats when it’s light. I have the eprop coming and I’m excited to try it. The main issue now is on floats it has a hard time climbing over 8000ft and it’s always nice to get a little higher than the tallest mountains in your route. But on lower elevations it’s ok. our backyard is the Nahanni park.

Turns out that FD soldered the motor wires to the spade terminals ( you can’t see that because it’s covered with a rubber boot) and one broke off. I installed spade connectors on both terminals and it’s all good now. Thanks for the helpful advice.

Price of tires, oil, filters, you name it - it's all 30% + from a few years ago. Thank Brandon.

440 NM. Total fuel burn was 17 gallons.

ELSA is the only way to go and it should not devalue the aircraft depending on who does the work. I probably have the most modified SW in the world and all of the modifications were done in accordance with accepted practices and technology for aircraft. Some things take a lot of research and effort and not everything is successful to do, but it can make a much better aircraft. Someone came in my hangar not long ago and commented that I just can't leave things alone. I guess not for the last 50 years.

It will take a lot of padding with a 6" ladder. I use one that is almost 6 foot tall.

I just had the bowls off within the last week for my annual, they were super clean. I can check them again, but I don’t think that’s it.

Water bottles are useable for more than one thing! Just don't forget it's not lemonade!

PS I believe the thread well size of the sensors are 10mm x 1.5mm pitch. You still have to take a depth reading and make sure the thread engagement area isn't too long either, as said there are many variations available, but if you find one it will be all of 25 dollars instead of 200.

I understand the sentiment, but I'm experimental and I wouldn't remove the BRS. I consider it an excellent piece of safety equipment, and a real selling point of the CT series. Yes it's expensive, but it's also something that can turn several low probability but unsurvivable events into very survivable events. The service intervals are obviously very conservative because BRS wants to make sure this thing works, *every time*. Even if you don't want to pay for the BRS service, I'd leave it installed and it will most likely work as designed, even if it's been 15 years. Everybody has their own risk analysis and YMMV, but I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it (e.g. "die").

Just got back from Freeport Grand Bahama. Flew KMLB, KPBI, MYGF, and back after 2 day visit. No need to take on fuel. Still had 11 gallons left. The 912Is is just so efficient. Fun trip, but the paperwork and DHS procedures can be intimidating. N838Q if you’re interested in looking at the flight path. Highly recommend. It’s a whole different world over there, but you have to fly 80 miles over open ocean, and wear a life jacket. Eat the conch salad and enjoy.

Won't be long it'll be $10,000.

You guys.need to get a room

Sometimes these decisions are made by someone sitting at a desk who has never seen a wrench, I used to work with some of them.

It isn't hard.

Roger, You have not answered my question of how you document non-standard hoses in your logbook entries.

My comments were addressed to the probability - I'd almost be willing to call it a fact - that most GA A&Ps have considerable experience in evaluating hoses based on condition. I didn't specify what type of hoses. I stand by my assertion that we can learn a lot about hose inspections from an experience GA A&P.

It is nice to have the teflon hoses so i don't have to take firesleeve off to inspect the hoses. Since hoses are on nearly all airplanes that I know of, and the vast majority of GA certificated airplanes have hoses changed by A&P based on condition, not time, it should be easy to ask any experienced A&P how to inspect hoses. My experience is I say "you don't have to sign anything - I'll sign it off" and A&Ps are generally quite happy to help and even teach. I don't recall learning how to inspect hoses when I got my EAB plane certified, nor when I took the 16 hour class from Rainbow, but I did learn how when I took the 120 hour class from Rainbow. My point is there is expertise available and I agree with those who say we should attain and practice it. Tom's earlier discussion was a helpful reminder of key points in hose inspection. Sure, time is a factor. One of several.

When the government decided to ban incandescent bulbs I bought a supply. I suppose now it's criminal, I guess we'll be back to using candles soon as we will eventually not have enough electricity also.

Im considering buying a new propeller for my 2006 Ctsw which is on amphibious floats. I’m considering eprop options in either a fixed pitch or inflight adjustable. Also there are other companies making inflight adjustable im researching. Does anyone have experience with these options? I read the reports here about the kasper props but it’s dated. Budget is always a concern but the reversible seaplane prop is pretty appealing. I began thinking about this as my loaded Ctsw on floats struggles on short lakes. thanks. Murray

FredG, You are right. I was wrong. Please accept my apologies. Archimedes said the weight of a floating object is equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. But weight is a force. It’s not just the mass of the fluid displaced (volume times density), it’s the mass times the acceleration due to gravity. The mass of fuel displaced doesn’t change under increased g loads, but its weight does. And as you said, that increase in fuel weight will be proportional to the increase in float weight. So, under increased G loads, the floats will not sink further in the fuel bowl. I’m going to go back now and add a correction of some kind to my previous statement, not to hide my error, but to warn future readers it is incorrect.

I've already posted a long report on the things I've done over the years, madhatter, with these fuel systems short of installing a fuel pump (due to regulation). The correlation is what I said it is: you pitch higher on a climb, because the prop is more efficient. The fuel pump, being all the way in the front of the engine, means it's raised higher by the pitch, and the fuel already has to travel a long distance through snaking and undulating hoses before it reaches the pump. If you're already on the edge with issues, that can be just enough to present the issues. Back when these aircraft were designed, the original pierburg pumps had a different internal design and never presented these fuel pressure warnings. The pumps we have now don't tolerate air very well, and doubly so since the inlet is *above* the outlet on them, and valves that don't fully close. That's why Rotax has that service bulletin about tolerating low fuel pressure warnings for limited times. Add in long runups, high vapor pressure fuels, and just the right combination of other factors and you can start seeing the issues where some flight designs, filled with gas from certain states with different fuel standards, it might show these issues where others have none. Drop the nose just a little bit and many of these issues go away. Been there, done that, tested it, on more than one of these birds. If it wasn't vapor lock, you would very likely see issues in LEVEL flight at full power and I've never seen that. Only on high pitch scenarios at high power settings. Add in 2 gallons of avgas for every 10 gallons of mogas, and suddenly it's a non issue. Did that too on FIVE birds including my own when I flew down to South Carolina with Ohio winter blend in the tanks. A boost pump's the answer at this point, full stop. I'm sorry that I'm coming off a little terse, but I'm really sick and tired of people arguing this with me assuming that I haven't torn these fuel systems ALL the way down, and constantly trying to say it has to be something else, it has to be something else! Short of using larger fuel hoses, I've torn down my fuel system and snaked a freaking borescope through the hoses trying to find issues and found NONE, replaced my fuel pump, installed springs in the system where it's prone to kinking, ensured the fuel inlets and filters are all clean... what HAVEN'T I done at this point. I mean for real, if using avgas is what makes the issue stop I really don't know what else to say to the non-believers about vapor pressure. And madhatter, you should know more than anyone, just because you don't experience the issue doesn't mean that it isn't affecting others.

I think you are missing the point. This maneuver is to hang it on the prop already in deep stall with no aileron control effectiveness only rudder at this point. IAS at 20 kts with vg's, 25 kts without vg's. When the lift collapses it is abrupt. Anyway this was not enough of a reason to have vg's on the wings.

Yes in Europe it's now the AVX1000 and with old engine AVX500 but we also can use the Sport Plus 4. Why ? Good question.

I am curious if they solved the stall in flare on the F2, I'm told they did but we'll see.

Wow! Nice Job!!

Need a little Roundup for some weeds.

More food for thought. This post subject will have a hundred post and has been posted here and on other sites many times in the past. There will not be a consensus until enough cases have been adjudicated. I see two things here. First legal language. FD can't change the law, but could change its language and the way they issue bulletins. Many court cases are decided by legal language regardless of your personal opinion. An SD is not the same in the USA as an SB (so far). They are not interchangeable in court (so far). There hasn't been enough court cases to render a REAL TIME conclusion. SB's in Europe and other countries are like our SD's and mandatory and this is where and why Rotax used the terminology SB and mandatory. In the USA the SD is mandatory for LSA and AD's are usually aimed at certified. I brought this to Rotax's attention 12 years ago after I had a chat with the FAA and it's legal department. Rotax did not want to change it. That said I'm a firm believer that all the SB's should be followed. There was a good reason for their issuance and it usually meant something happened that didn't end well. I will say Rotax tries to stay out in front of issues when they find out things and that's why they want CSIR sent in on all engine issues. If they don't know something then they can't help. At least they aren't like auto Mfg's where it takes an act of God to get them to fix things at times. If you really did have to go to court and tried to divide SD vs mandatory SB you may have an issue since this really hasn't been tested to any real degree. As an example: FD says you must comply with the Rotax's TBO time limit. But FD and Rotax don't make the FAA laws and rules and FD can't require things above the FAA or give away the farm. Case in point on the TBO. I sent FD two FAA legal interpretations that says you don't have to comply and can go on condition. I don't have the exact language in front of me, but it basically says "you are allowed to use a program acceptable by the regulatory agency". The program is on condition just like most other aircraft that qualifies and the regulatory agency is the FAA. Both these letters are posted on this site.

Here are my trip numbers if you’re interested. 0A7 to MLB ( Melbourne Fl.) 3:38 hrs MLB to MYGF ( Freeport Grand Bahama) 1:33 hrs MYGF to PBI ( Palm Beach International to clear in) 46 min ( parked next to Trump plane!) PBI to MLB 56 min MLB to FHB ( Fernandina Beach weather diversion) 1:35 FHB to 0A7 2:47 Total flight time 11hours 15 min. Total fuel burn 53 gallons 4.8 GPH average fuel burn. Never added oil.

No. They are not interchangeable. I'd just go on condition and save all that money. I have friends with 3K - 4K hours on their engine.

I normally use some white Teflon paste on fittings like that. If it is located on the firewall, it doesn't need to be high temp.

I use Turtle Ice spray wax on both the painted surface and on the windows. It’s actually really good on plexi…it cleans great with less scrubbing than the 210 polish I also use sometimes. It’s a polymer based product and not real wax so it doesn’t yellow. The nice thing is you can throw one spray bottle in the baggage bay and clean the whole airplane with it when traveling.

Linkage Plug_Contured v6.stl See if this works.