Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. CTLS vs CTSW

    Dick, being a dealer I have worked many shows through the years. I have seen the CTLE up close and personal too. Outwardly it looks the same as any other CTLS. I do know that it has modifications to the wing. I am not certain that they are just for hard points to mount equipment. There could be other changes that are not visible externally.
  3. CTSW fuel cap O-ring binding

    Thank you both for the suggestions. I was wondering why after having the plane for seven years this O-ring rolling has just begun. I thought the old rings just stretched but the new ones from Lockwood are doing the same. I have tried the engine oil from the dip stick but it does not last. I will try so white lithium grease.
  4. Today
  5. CTLS vs CTSW

    Tom, I mentioned the different certified allowable gross weights to promote the strength of the CT but perhaps this didn't come across as I intended. Granted the floats add to "lift" of the CT when at 1430 lb. gross but there is also the configuration of the aircraft in the "Utility" category where it is certified for 1500+ lb gross. I reviewed a law enforcement version of the CT configured with a FllIR night vision pod under the right wing which added drag and computer screens and special avionics inside. Basically the same airframe and flight surfaces as the standard CTLS but with an allowed gross of at least 1500 lb. Amazing weight carrying capability for an aircraft that has an empty weight around 850 lbs.
  6. CTSW fuel cap O-ring binding

    I have used white lithium grease, it works longer than oil and is fuel soluble so won't cause any issues. I have to reapply about 4 times a year.
  7. Garmin 496 to 696

    Not really. I have a spare 696 and three other planes have them in so I want them all to be the same
  8. CTSW fuel cap O-ring binding

    The O-ring doesn't get into the threads, but rather the mating surface above the threads. Just a dab of engine oil off the dipstick will help for a while.. You will need to reapply when it gets sticky again.
  9. CTLS vs CTSW

    Ed, I have quite a bit of Skyhawk time. I flew some buried telephone cable as a young commercial pilot. At one point I was putting in around 18 hours a week. I always took off with full fuel, and mostly was by myself. Even with wing loadings being closer the feel is different between the two airplanes.
  10. I noticed the O ring binding in the threads as I unscrew the fuel cap. I purchased a new set of O rings from Lockwood Aviation and the same thing is happening. Is there a lubricant than I can use that’s safe with the fuel to prevent the O-ring from rolling on the threads as I open the tank.
  11. CTLS vs CTSW

    If the wing loading at gross is similar it stands to reason that the SW will more often be more heavily loaded due to more empty seats in the Skyhawk. In the other direction I always flew the Skyhawk with full tanks but seldom do that with the CT, giving some of the advantage back to the Skyhawk. I have owned both and give the edge to the Skyhawk but much prefer flying the CT even in turbulence.
  12. CTLS vs CTSW

    Andy, there is almost 2 pounds per square foot difference between a Cessna 172 and a CTSW on wing loading. The Cessna has about a 12% higher wing loading than the CT. While that may not seem like much it is pretty significant. This is based on wing area compared to gross weight. ( I used the numbers for the 172 that popped up on Wikipedia). Mass has to do with the overall size of the airplane compared to weight, not just wing loading. For example a Cassutt racer has a wing loading similar to a CT, but the overall package of the airplane is smaller. The smaller size compared to weight gives it more mass. I'm not trying to compare the CT to every model of aircraft. I was simply disagreeing with your assertion that metal airplanes are heavier, and provided an example to make my point. Personally based on my experience I don't necessarily find metal airplanes to be heavier as group. I don't give as much credence to the aircraft construction material of choice being the determining factor in aircraft weight as you. The airplane I mentioned earlier is not a one off exception, there are other metal airplanes that are as light or lighter than a CT. There are also several fabric airplanes that are heavier, not just an occasional exception to the rule. Carbon Cub, Legend Cub, and American Champion Champ to name a few. Even if you factor in the weight difference of the engines they are still heavier.
  13. 11th Annual CT/LSA Fly-in, Page AZ Oct 17-21

    October and the Annual Page CT and Light Sport Fly-in is coming up fast. Make those reservations for either the Bryce Canyon pre-event, the Page main event, or both! And again, please send a PM to both me and Tim with your information.
  14. Garmin 496 to 696

    I am interested in this same swap as well. This is part of my ADSB upgrade plan along with the GDL-82 and GDL-39. Is this your plan Al?
  15. Loose Throttle Control

    See if this will help: Home CT General Discussion Random Thoughts Throttle Friction Block
  16. CTLS vs CTSW

    I get that. But a 172 and a CTSW are similar enough in wing loading that I think my comments apply. What do you mean by "mass" instead of weight? I know the scientific difference, but in this context they are roughly the same. We are not talking a U2 vs an F-104 here. And mass/weight determine wing loading, right? Airplanes with similar wing loadings where one has almost double the weight of the other have predictable relative responses to turbulence, so... GENERALLY, the weight hierarchy is fiberglass > metal > carbon fiber > fabric. There are exceptions of course, but that's *usually* a true statement. I'm sure there's some super fancy fabric airplane somewhere that is much heavier than its metal equivalents, but that will be the exception and not the rule. We're not going to be able to have much in the way of a productive discussion of CTs vs other airplanes if we have to take into account every model and design, and every pedantic performance nuance, lest we get pounced on by the perfectionists among us...
  17. CTLS vs CTSW

    Re: Crosswind. In my two SWs, I've landed a few times with direct crosswinds 19G25, 25G34, 15G20, 17G28. Also 28G38 down the runway. I would not seek out these conditions for fun, but it's good to know the CT can handle it. I don't think there should be much difference between the CTSW and the CTLS,
  18. CTLS vs CTSW

    I fly a CTLSi and a C-172 all the time. I compare them as a sports car vs grandma's station wagon. Both handle turbulence well but the Cessna may not feel as "rough" as the CT. The CT is clearly more fun to fly, goes faster, uses far less fuel, has better visibility, has longer legs, easier to hangar, way better panel, and the cute factor is way up there. The CT does not carry 4 people.
  19. Power loss in flight

  20. Power loss in flight

    CTSW or CTLS?
  21. CTLS vs CTSW

    Tom's right, its wing loading not weight. With the same useful load the CT could be better than the Skyhawk. The CTs shortwings help it miss out on some bumps as well.
  22. CTLS vs CTSW

    Dick, I would not recommend using the gross weight of an airplane with floats as justification that the same airplane without floats can be flown at the same weight. The reason for the increased weight of an airplane with floats is because in flight the floats are producing lift. It is the fact that the floats are helping support their own weight in flight that the gross weigh can be increased. The aircraft's wing structure is not put under any more stress than if flown at gross weight with wheels.
  23. CTLS vs CTSW

    Andy, a couple things. It is mass and wing loading that will determine how an airplane handles turbulence, not just weight. Metal does not necessarily make an airplane heavier. There is a ICP Savannah SLSA, (which is a mostly metal airplane), based near here that has an almost 700 pound useful load.
  24. Power loss in flight

    That was my understanding. I did visually check to make sure the choke was off, and I might have pushed it too, but don't recall.
  25. Power loss in flight

    The choke has no effect over about 3500-4000 and especially at the higher rpms. Try it. Fly up at your cruise rpm and apply the choke. Nothing will happen.
  26. Power loss in flight

    I'm in NC now, not in indiana.
  27. Power loss in flight

    I'm pretty sure it was off, but I can still check it when I go back to the hangar. I would not have touched it after landing.
  1. Load more activity