gbigs Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 I agree. This is a pretty lopsided discussion. I'm for waiting for the substantiating documentation i a couple of days. This way we can all get educated if there is something we have been missing. Kevin or 100Hamburger surely must have something they read stating this wasn't a good idea. If I remember tomorrow I'll give Kevin a call. Roger, it would be best if you chatted with Kevin and verified what I heard him say... I think both Roger and Kevin are experts. Since I am relaying what Kevin told me and Roger disagrees with it, it's likely best for Roger and Kevin to work it out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 I am not an expert, I am just an owner like others here that takes seriously what the experts say...Thanks...A surprising admission! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Googling confirmed this much. The myth, that after using full syn you shouldn't change to a blend or dino, does exist, there is such a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 I was away from the Internet at a motorcycle rally, but a few points... 1) The only caveat I recall is to avoid switching from long time non-detergent oill to a detergent oil. To do so properly required an engine flush. Never heard of any other prohibitions moving between oil types or brands. 2) Restating my obviously oversimplified maxim: "Oil is Oil". Very few documented cases of engines actually damaged by lubrication failure due to improper oil. There's a wide range of adequate oils. Choose one and be satisfied. 3) Speaking of adequate, why the concern over having the "best" of everything? It's hard to objectively define a "best" oil, a "best" plexiglas cleaner, or a "best" Light Sport. To each his own. Find something that works for you from a wide range of adequate and safe alternatives and be happy! 4) Anyone running full synthetic and refusing to ever run 100LL is seriously hobbling their range of operations. There is nothing "wrong" with running 100LL in a ROTAX. To get carried on this away might even lead one to never fly outside of a two state area, missing out on all sorts of travel opportunities, adventures and experiences. Just some miscellaneous ramblings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 The limiting factors are wind/weather, not fuel. The CT is too small, too slow, and flys too low, and restricted to VFR to fly on anything other than a near perfect day. The four major motivations for getting the Lancair... Keeping the engine and airframe in top condition is money in the bank. When it comes time to sell I will have an engine unclogged by lead... a gem to offer the potential buyer. And a fuel trailer to boot (no messy, back crippling, spill prone gas cans needed to avoid the engine killing lead). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 The limiting factors are wind/weather, not fuel.That is simply wrong. Over on the SportPilotTalk site there's a thread titled "Just Highlander & Rans 7 from Florida to Alaska...and Back." http://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog/wesca/1/tpod.html They felt empowered by the prospect of long cross country flight in Light Sports, not limited. And Karen and I had a blast flying from N GA to Page and back, at about 95 knots with 16 gals of fuel for each leg. Eye of the beholder, and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 The "one size fits all" again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted June 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 The CT is too small, too slow, and flys too low, and restricted to VFR to fly on anything other than a near perfect day. The four major motivations for getting the Lancair... Oh boy. I am not a very experienced pilot (but I did just break 200hrs...yay!), yet even I have flown my CT into significant conditions. I have flown in rain, low ceilings, and significant winds (landed 17G22 as my max so far). I avoid those kinds of conditions when I can, but sometimes things don't work out as expected, you get caught with your pants down and just have to deal with it. As far as speed...how much do you need? A CT is faster than a 160hp Cessna 172 or Cherokee 140/160, and those airplanes go anywhere and do anything. A fully-fueled CT also has better range than a 172 or Cherokee. Again...how much speed and range do you need? If you have to haul a lot of gear, a CT is not ideal; but if it's just you and another person doing normal personal travel, the CT is fine. As in most cases, the limiting factor here is not the airplane, or the weather, or avionics, or metal vs. composites...it's the capabilities of the pilot. And unfortunately, that's one of the aviation problems you *can't* solve by just throwing money at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 MrMorden (Posted Today, 06:12 AM): 'you get caught with your pants down and just have to deal with it.' __________________ Before going much further let's all agree the willingness to take a small aircraft into possible or known turbulence is SUBJECTIVE. As you noted Morden, 'get caught with your pants down' is a PRIMARY reason not to push the aircraft. The CT (and LSA in general) are light, small aircraft with a limited ceiling and relatively low performance profile. The chances of running into wind and weather on a long trip are much higher than a short hop locally. Experience quickly teaches that if you are averse to the 'bumps' in the CT the number of days and the time of the day to fly are limited at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cat Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 "The CT is too small, too slow, and flys too low, and restricted to VFR to fly on anything other than a near perfect day. " Ironically, not so long ago you dissed any airplane that wasn't like yours. You pretty much condemned them for being…"too small, too slow, etc". The CTLSi was the bees-knees…it was the fastest, most fuel efficient, most technologically advanced LSA in the market fully cable, you opined, of flying long cross-country flights across the USA. My, how times have changed. If it wasn't made of all composite it was a heavy 'metal beast', no matter that the 'metal beast's' empty weight was lower than your CTLSi. Whatever the other owner had, your's was/is better, faster, more capable, more technologically advanced etc. Until someone pointed out the obvious that other makes and models were equally capable and often superior in their own way. I looked closely at the CTLSi myself. You told us how you awaited the next big thing from FD because FD are the world's best and can't make them fast enough to meet demand…until some here complained about the long delays. One guy actually gave up and got a refund so he could buy something else. Even you got tired of the long wait for a bigger FD airplane and have seemingly abandoned FD. You seem to tolerate them now as simply the maker of your 'back-up, fun plane, suitable only for the local patch' something you ridiculed others and their airplanes for. Now you distance yourself in favor of the next big thing. If someone had a carb, yours was better because it's injected. Yours has a BRS so anyone who doesn't is a lesser being. If we use Aeroshell Sport Plus oil instead of racing oil , we're foolish, even well qualified Light Sport mechanics. My airplane was one of those you've ridiculed as being a local VFR breakfast-run only airplane because it's too heavy, all metal, and incapable of flying cross-country…yet amazingly I was able to fly it comfortably literally across the USA from west to east in a few days of enjoyable comfort. A feat that you implied it was incapable of and yet you've not done it yourself. You're now regaling us with the outstanding virtues of the Lancair an airplane that isn't built yet, that you're not qualified to fly, or even qualified to fly in it's operating environment. Incredibly you debate endlessly about racing oil and say nothing about IFR training, high altitude training, high altitude weather, winds, turbulence, icing or human factors at higher altitude. You can spout the brochure and the equipment and opine what it's like to fly a higher performance airplane to pilots with considerable experience, qualifications and airman certificates, although with no actual experience of it yourself. How do you account for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 My, how times have changed. Was I a little prescient? http://ctflier.com/index.php?/topic/2360-the-wait-is-almost-over/?p=25629 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.