Jump to content

JLang

Members
  • Posts

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by JLang

  1. I'm surprised that this is a debatable topic, but like others I am very open to other opinions. Why not pull the chute over water? Among other numerous positives, I considered the presence of BRS a significant advantage when deciding to get my CTSW, since on occasion I overfly Lake Michigan. I admit that in my conclusion to pull the chute vs not over water I didn't get much deeper than my belief that it's better to end up right-side-up. I can imagine scenarios with strong surface winds where the speed over water is less when gliding into the wind than if drifting under chute, but this would certainly not be the majority. It is true that in water you don't get nearly the energy dissipation from gear collapsing as over land, but with a chute you also don't get the sudden stop-and-flip when ditching, or risk of getting hit by the elevator if bailing out during flare. For Darrell and others who have concluded that it's better to try to land over water, what factored into that decision?
  2. Is there a rule of thumb for rate of octane loss over time? I don't have access to 91+ mogas, so always use 93 octane w/ 10% ethanol from the local gas station.
  3. When I purchased my used 07 CTSW, since I was new to the type, the first thing I did when I got it in my hangar was spend time inspecting the plane to get familiar with it. In the process I discovered that the rocket was completely unattached to the chute; the chute straps were hanging loose right next to -- but not attached to -- the rocket buckle. A chute repack was noted and signed off in the logbook, and the plane had gone through TWO condition inspections since then.
  4. I hesitate to jump into this debate, especially since it seems like you guys are not talking apples-to-apples regarding the measurable, but in the interest of confirming my understanding, I believe the following to be true, for a given altitude: For best possible top speed (short duration), pitch for WOT at 5800rpm (conforming to official Rotax rpm guidelines). For best possible cruise speed (long duration), pitch for WOT at 5500rpm. For best possible rate of climb, pitch for WOT at 5500 rpm at Vy. For best possible efficiency (miles per gallon or similar), pitch for WOT at 5200rpm (torque peak). FWIW, my CT is set up for ~5650rpm at WOT at ~4500' (have never changed it), and I am happy with the performance balance at the low-to-medium altitudes I fly; pretty much book or slightly better numbers. Incidentally, my Dynon is optimistic by about 8kts at cruise.
  5. I don't want to sound like I am trying to convince you of something you don't want, but if you plan to do much cross country flying, I have found PPL to be quite beneficial for the relatively small amount of extra time and money. I chose my CTSW over legacy aircraft for the same reasons you list, but also find myself fairly frequently flying at night, and also surprisingly often over 10k', usually to clear clouds or when over water. Also, during the winter here in Michigan with lousy weather, flying at night after work is often the only chance I have to shake of the rust; I might wait a month for good weekend daytime weather. My CFI was also unfamiliar with the CTSW. I arranged it so he accompanied me to pick it up, and before we left, we BOTH took several hrs of dual with a local CFI who was familiar with the plane.
  6. Since I see nothing in your post that is even slightly inflammatory, I have to think (hope?) that somebody clicked the wrong button... There are others who can provide better guidance than I can, but if you are 113kts/5.1gph and 5000rpm, that seems over-pitched. There are some good posts about this. FWIW, with my '07 CTSW w/ Tundra tires, my "normal" cruise is at 4500', 5200rpm, 110kts, about 4.8gph. WOT is about 5600RPM in level flight. Being early in the learning phase of your CT, if you haven't already done so, I would also encourage you to read some of the posts about fuel management/trimming/transferring fuel from side to side, especially if you plan to do long cross country flights. Good luck and enjoy the process!
  7. So we are hopefully done with significant snow after this week here in the midwest, which means putting the main wheel pants back on. Or not. With them on I, too, usually get a noticeable vibration/flutter at cruise. Checking tire pressure is a pain. I figure it's only a matter of time before I neglect to warn a passenger and they use the fairing as a step. Sure, there is a speed benefit: maaaybe a knot. Admittedly, the plane simply looks better with them on, and this may rule the day, but for now I'm going to leave them off. Am I missing something?
  8. I am interested in how the Green Creative 57978 subjectively compares to the Soraa 00957. Does 15 deg vs. 25 deg help that much? I tried the Soraa but changed back to the stock halogen after only one night flight. Much less light than stock. No warning light is nice, but being able to see the runway is nicer...
  9. Sounds like you are making my point for me. If, as you correctly state, nothing here is Flight Design or Rotax approved, and this is a discussion forum, and you always double check relevant information against other sources, then why do you have a problem with a poster who provides valuable information but chooses to remain anonymous? Edit: ignore me, I'm an idiot. I replied to DougG, when I thought the response was from FredG. The similar "G"s confused my lame brain...
  10. I guess I don't get it, either. If you physically took your plane to a mechanic and he/she refused to provide a name and credentials, then I would agree with the hospital analogy. But this is an open internet forum -- nothing here is official, even if it comes from someone who does provide their name and certifications. As a newbie I have found the advice here invaluable, from many sources. When I did my first oil change, I printed out a post from Roger for reference. Roger provides his credentials, but I used the information because it was well-reasoned, made sense, and I from past forum use have a positive opinion of Roger's expertise. But could I use that information in any legal capacity; i.e. logbook entry or justification of method used? Of course not. Like most here I have also gotten plenty of good advice from "non-credentialed" posters. FredG, a few months ago you gave me some advice about flap use, which I found helpful. I used the advice despite the fact that you are anonymous and provide no credentials because it was logical and made sense and I had a good opinion of your previous posts. I can think of several scenarios where a poster might wish to remain anonymous, for reasons unrelated to the usefulness of the information. I would hate for that person to stop posting in response.
  11. The point I was trying to make is that the use of one does not preclude the proper use of the other. They both do different things well. Safety-wise, it's no choice; the sight tubes are required, both legally and practically. But as optional equipment, if the Dynon is present, set it up correctly and use it -- it can provide helpful info. In my training my CFI often emphasized the importance of the instrument scan, even with VFR flight, and corroborating information from each instrument. I see this as a good example (assuming the Dynon is present), especially in turbulent conditions, or with more than 20 gal.
  12. I gotta defend my fellow Michigander here. I think CTMI’s main point has been misrepresented, which is that the Dynon can be a useful tool *in addition to* other tools. Like any instrument or tool, the operator must understand its limitations, and also understand its failure modes. In the few months I’ve had my license, I’ve had several 4+ hr flights with no fuel stop. And since I’m 135 soaking wet, I tend to start with 30gal or more whenever I plan to be up more than 2 hrs. I figure, why not have the extra range if I end up needing it? As noted, the sight tubes don’t help above ~20 gal, so I find the Dynon useful to help confirm my flight planning assumptions about fuel usage. If after 45 min the Dynon shows 23 gal left, and my flight planning was 28 left at that point, then something is up. Perhaps it’s the Dynon itself, but I’m not going to wait for the sight tubes to show before I assume my fuel usage plan was inadequate and plan accordingly (including, in this case, trying to figure out why). Andy, I am sure you know this, since your posts convey nothing but the epitome of a conscientious pilot, but for the sake of wet-behind-the-ears folks (like me), I would not extrapolate too much confidence in your 0.2 gal accurate sight tube test. That’s a sample size of one. A characteristic of any gauge is not only accuracy, but also repeatability and reliability, under all conditions. The sight tubes are a great tool and wonderfully simple, but even with calibrated marks I think we should assume at least a few gallons uncertainty. Perhaps Tom or Roger can comment, but my suspicion is that the bend of the tubes might change slightly as they age – more of a kink at the end after time? – especially if they are cut a bit short.
  13. I gotta say, my favorite part of the preflight is pulling the plane out of the hangar (holding the base of the prop) and turning it 90deg by lightly pushing down on the tail and walking her around. In my short time flying I've given flights to several passengers and each one bursts out giggling when seeing the routine. The joys of a featherweight plane...
×
×
  • Create New...