Cluemeister Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Can you guys tell me what your real life CTLSi weighs in at with all your bells and whistles? I know the website says 810. Is that realistic? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Can you guys tell me what your real life CTLSi weighs in at with all your bells and whistles? I know the website says 810. Is that realistic? Thanks! My empty gross weight is 833 and I am fully equipped...sport upgrade, ADS-B, full glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluemeister Posted February 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 Thanks Hamburger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 23, 2016 Report Share Posted February 23, 2016 You probably won't find a CT more equipped than Burgers'...it's a good example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howardnmn Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 add 30 gallons and that leaves about 300 lbs for people / baggage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 add 30 gallons and that leaves about 300 lbs for people / baggage Don't need full tanks. The plane gets 4gph at full cruise... 20 gallons get you 600 nm more than most butts can handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howardnmn Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 ok. 360 lbs pax + baggage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cat Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Don't need full tanks. The plane gets 4gph at full cruise... 20 gallons get you 800 nm more than most butts can handle. If you depart with 20 gallons useable (not sure what is unusable in CTLSi) then assume a VFR reserve minimum of 30 minutes or 2 gallons given that 'the plane gets 4gph at full cruise' (sic). That leaves 18 gallons or 4.5 hours at cruise. Assuming 120kts then 4.5 hours provides 540 nm. Personally, I use an hour reserve or 4 gallons for reserve. Also some LSAs have limits on minimum fuel for take-off and go-around so this should be considered. If you split the difference and use 3 gallons reserve (45 mins) that leaves 17 gallons for cruise or 4.2 hours at cruise. At 120kts that's 504 nm Either way, WELL short of the 800nm suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howardnmn Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 wait... 4gph w/ 20gal = 5hrs no reserve. 800nm / 5 hrs = 160 kts. wicked fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 For most of my "around the local area" flying, I usually have 20-24 gallons of fuel. That provides a long flight time at moderate throttle settings, and is good for ~150nm each way cross countries with breathing room. I usually only have full tanks if I am going somewhere far away, or if I just want to gas up and make several flights without having to worry about fueling for a while. Another thing to keep in mind...most pilots' flights are solo, probably 80-90% in my case. Even a weight limited CT like Burger's makes an *excellent* solo machine. 34 gallons of gas, a 200lb pilot, and 100lb of baggage/tools/stuff...PERFECT for a long solo cross country. When I went to Page my CTSW had my ~190lb butt, full fuel, two large travel bags (a Maxpedition Fliegerduffel and a Maxpedition Vulture backpack), plenty of tools and supplies, tie-downs and stakes, canopy cover, survival gear, and miscellaneous odds and ends...everything I could think of that I might need for 2800nm of flying and traveling. I bet I was still 75-100lb under gross. Bill Ince and I flew 4+ hour legs that way and never landed with less than 10-12 gallons of fuel. Top Cat's RV-12 would do just as well, with the exception of shorter legs due to a smaller fuel tank. But the RV-12 seats are more comfortable, which means a lot on those long trips! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cat Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Don't need full tanks. The plane gets 4gph at full cruise... 20 gallons get you 600 nm more than most butts can handle. Aaah...I see you edited your original 800nm down to 600nm. Its closer but not as close as 504-540nm. What reserve fuel are you using to arrive at exactly 600nm or is that just a WAG? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Aaah...I see you edited your original 800nm down to 600nm. Its closer but not as close as 504-540nm. What reserve fuel are you using to arrive at exactly 600nm or is that just a WAG? Just curious. Sure, it's called a typo... I do KRNO to KVGT on 10 gallons....it's 300nm. I weigh 180, the wife 90. We fly it with 20 all the time. But there is never a need to cut it close...even with no fuel stops down the middle of Nevada fuel is available at both ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cat Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 Sure, it's called a typo... I do KRNO to KVGT on 10 gallons....it's 300nm. I weigh 180, the wife 90. We fly it with 20 all the time. But there is never a need to cut it close...even with no fuel stops down the middle of Nevada fuel is available at both ends. okay got it, you just WAG it for winds and reserves. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 okay got it, you just WAG it for winds and reserves. Thanks. "During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes" in my plane that's 2 gallons of gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 My loaded 2006 CTSW had a useful load of ~600 pounds. My loaded 2012 CTLS had a useful load of ~500 pounds. My loaded 2016 CTLSi will have a useful load of ~480. The trend is disturbing! I wish the FAA would raise the LSA limit by 100 pounds. My wife and I can't lose enough weight to keep up with the declining useful load! In all seriousness, given the FAA allows for a CT with floats to add 110 pounds (MTOW 1430) we all know the plane can handle the extra weight. With a higher allowed weight a manufacturer could beef up the landing gear a little and allow for slightly larger beer bellies inside! Translated, I think the light sport category could benefit from a little extra weight allowance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 The reason your load limits keep going down is because of the American attitude of "I want more". American's drive the overall market. This has driven FD and other MFG's to add more electronics and change fuselage designs costing tens of thousands more than the original $100K LSA. Complaints like I can't fly this because the stick and pedals are too sensitive or I keep busting the gear legs because I can't land it. Of course better training would have fixed it instead of throwing money at it. Price has also cost FD and other MFG overall sales. More blue collar workers can afford $100 versus $170K and the price may still climb. That proved out in 2006, 07 and 08. The first of those two years FD sold over 100 planes each year. That's more than 2/3 of the US fleet in 2 years versus the 10 years it has been selling LSA. All these things has driven weight and the price of LSA's through the roof and yet American's that tend to drive the market still want more. This was proven out by the gigantic influx of LOA request to change earlier models and add more gear. LOA influx was and still is a large time consumer for LSA MFG's and that cost hundreds of hours of time because it has to be compared to ASTM standards and some of those standards say the components must be tested on aircraft. So that's why MFG's started charging for LOA's. People were costing them to much out of pocket expenses. Then add on all the complaints about dealing with the above flight issues and you now have your "Unintended consequences". Always be careful what you wish for because you may get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluemeister Posted February 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Roger, I agree with part of what you're saying that Americans want more more more. But here's my dilemma. I was very interested in the CTSW to start, but when I started asking about that as a trainer, I heard that its a little twitchy. When i asked Tom at the Sebring show about starting in a CTSW, he said that he would not recommend the CTSW as a trainer, that we would want to start with the CTLS. The CTLSi may be loaded compared to its older siblings, and that drags down useful weight, but it's not like the CTLSi looks like a Cirrus inside. It's still fairly spartan with the painted composite interior. The problem is Americans are getting fatter. And I don't see that problem going away ever. Now I certainly can see where this could go. The FAA adds 100 lbs, and the manufacturers gobble that up with more interior features. And the complaining starts all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Always be careful what you wish for because you may get it. I want a pony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Now I certainly can see where this could go. The FAA adds 100 lbs, and the manufacturers gobble that up with more interior features. And the complaining starts all over again. The real problem is the artificial nature of the LSA weight limit. I wish they'd just set the stall speed limit and call it good. But nobody asks me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluemeister Posted February 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Nobody asked you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluemeister Posted February 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 And if you got a pony, would it be legal to fly with the pony on the right side with the doors off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 The reason your load limits keep going down is because of the American attitude of "I want more". American's drive the overall market. This has driven FD and other MFG's to add more electronics and change fuselage designs costing tens of thousands more than the original $100K LSA. Complaints like I can't fly this because the stick and pedals are too sensitive or I keep busting the gear legs because I can't land it. Of course better training would have fixed it instead of throwing money at it. Price has also cost FD and other MFG overall sales. More blue collar workers can afford $100 versus $170K and the price may still climb. That proved out in 2006, 07 and 08. The first of those two years FD sold over 100 planes each year. That's more than 2/3 of the US fleet in 2 years versus the 10 years it has been selling LSA. All these things has driven weight and the price of LSA's through the roof and yet American's that tend to drive the market still want more. This was proven out by the gigantic influx of LOA request to change earlier models and add more gear. LOA influx was and still is a large time consumer for LSA MFG's and that cost hundreds of hours of time because it has to be compared to ASTM standards and some of those standards say the components must be tested on aircraft. So that's why MFG's started charging for LOA's. People were costing them to much out of pocket expenses. Then add on all the complaints about dealing with the above flight issues and you now have your "Unintended consequences". Always be careful what you wish for because you may get it. So your contention is the entire idea of SLSA is lame because it only defines a bare-bones, steam gauge plane with very little capability or safety. FD didn't weight down the plane by itself, Rotax provided a better engine and added weight in the 912iS. The glass panel is a superior panel in any plane. The BRS chute costs weight but few would want to leave it on the ground. The real answer is to increase the gross limit of SLSA to 2000 lbs. And allow makers to bring a wider array of gear and safety to the platform. Let's face it, Americans are BIG. And if people still want a $100k new flying device they can always just get a weight-shift-kite which will always meet current SLSA standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 And if you got a pony, would it be legal to fly with the pony on the right side with the doors off? Some things you just have to do in spite of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 "I heard that it's a little twitchy" Nope, That's all on the pilot. Poor skill set or poor CFI skills not paying attention or the aren't able to correct pilot issues and you may have twitchy. What to fly twitchy fly a light helicopter. Compared to that the CTSW is solid. Poor pilot skills and poor fine motor coordination causes twitch, it isn't the plane. I came from helicopters and I thought the CT was a piece of cake to fly. "The problem is Americans are getting fatter. And I don't see that problem going away ever." How true and unfortunately I'm one of them. "And the complaining starts all over again" Yep and then they make more changes that is counter productive. So it looks like we should quit complaining and train better and quit wanting more. It's got my vote. It would be nice if they bumped LSA limits in the US to 1500 lbs, but that's going to take some doing. "FD didn't weight down the plane by itself, Rotax provided a better engine and added weight in the 912iS. The glass panel is a superior panel in any plane. The BRS chute costs weight but few would want to leave it on the ground." This was still all driven by I want more attitude You posted the result not the cause.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluemeister Posted February 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 "The problem is Americans are getting fatter. And I don't see that problem going away ever." How true and unfortunately I'm one of them. I'm in the same club. Keep vowing to fit back into the smaller jeans in my closet, but Cracker Barrel keeps getting in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.