Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 06/03/2022 in all areas

  1. CTs are "humility generators"... 😜
    2 likes
  2. Just to be clear I am talking about new registrations, not renewals. Renewals don't take long at all.
    1 like
  3. “Insulating the exhaust pipes (e.g. with exhaust wraps or ceramic coatings) leads to a significant increase in the component temperatures of all exhaust-relevant components. The significant addi- tional thermal load generated inevitably reduces proven durability of exhaust components. Exhaust wrap may also hold moisture, promoting corrosion. The use of any insulation material is not approved by ROTAX® and may result in exhaust compo- nent fatigue and damage.” Ill stay stock.
    1 like
  4. I don't understand how FD can be silent on this issue for so long considering the safety considerations. I consider the rules null and void when it comes to obvious safety issues. Even the FAA came to this conclusion on older aircraft that had no shoulder harnesses and allowed manufacture and installation as a minor change.
    1 like
  5. Search "rivet nut composite material" and you'll see several ideas.
    1 like
  6. I'd be really curious to see what POH they are handing out for the new CTSS.
    1 like
  7. You might also want to check out this on the subject of header wrap. sl-912-025.pdf
    1 like
  8. If I wanted just a 172 manual that was built in the last 20 years... I have to buy a 1 year subscription to the entire 100 series library. After that year is up, I lose access. If I want to be able to work on a wide variety of aircraft, I either have to purchase a ton of subscriptions, or just drop this big bill each year. Oh right, because this is software as a service..... of course they are going to license per user too. So if you ever wonder why some shops charge such an insane amount, well, they have to pay the racketeering fee for maintenance publications. And some of them have picked up on the idea of only giving publications to their approved maintenance facilities. Years ago, I swear there was a regulation that entitles an owner to the maintenance publication for their aircraft at the time of delivery. Maybe I misread. But if anyone knows what I'm talking about I would love to see it again. This is an absolute racket, especially considering a lot of manufacturers haven't updated many of their manuals in decades.
    1 like
  9. Let's look at the current situation. Currently, a 16 year old can get a Class 3 medical, then fill out the BasicMed paperwork. That pilot can then fly until he dies without ever talking to an AME again. If he lives to be 100, he can fly for 84 years unimpeded by the medical process other than the same self-certification that Sport Pilots undergo. Incidentally, ALL pilots must self-certify they are fit to fly before every flight, that is part of the pre-flight process. Given the above, what purpose is served by the Class 3 medical? I'd submit the answer is "none". There are very few 16 year olds that can't pass a Class 3 medical exam, and most medical issues that the FAA considers grounding appear in a pilot's 30s or later. But under the current regime we're not testing this pilot when he's likely to have issues, only when he's *least* likely to have a problem. The current rule is basically "if you can pass a medical at any one point in your life, you can fly forevermore with no medical oversight other than your own." IMO, A small airplane is no more dangerous than a average large pickup truck or SUV. Sure you could have a heart attack and fly into a school and kill a bunch of kids, but you could have the same problem in a 4500lb pickup and hit a school bus. Also, I don't know of a single incident where a sport pilot or somebody flying under BasicMed without a medical had a proven medical event that killed anybody, much less anybody not in the aircraft. It's just not something that happens with any frequency. Given this, I'd say that having a system as it is where "you can fly without a medical forever if you pass one once" is broken. My suggestion would be to treat flying a lot like we do driving. You don't need a medical to drive for personal use in normal-sized vehicles, but you do if you want to drive for hire or drive vehicles above a certain weight. There's no reason not to adopt something similar -- If you are flying an aircraft for personal use, no medical required if the airplane is below the gross weight of airplanes that are generally used for commercial-only operations (not sure what that might be...10,000lb?). If you want to fly for hire in any airplane, or fly airplanes above that weight, you need to have a commercial ticket and maintain a medical to exercise those privileges. I recognize that airplanes are not automobiles, and there are medical factors like altitude that have aeromedical safety implications. But the FAA could take some of the money it now uses to enforce and approve class 3 medicals, and use than money in education. I would not have any issue with pilots that self certify having to attend bi-annual medical training (say a 4 or 8 hour class) to make sure they are reminded of medical concerns to pilots and how to *properly* self certify before flight. This is my opinion on the matter, I don't expect everybody to agree. I do think I have laid out the problems with the current scheme though.
    1 like
  10. Then every pilot should wear a heart monitor, just in case. Don’t forget their O2 sensor. Gotta have a carbon monoxide detector. Pretty sure we should use a EPAS on the pilot to check alcohol levels before every flight. Better do a quick blood check for drugs. All of these are issues that causes accidents in airplanes. When does it stop. How far do you go. I lost my son in a motorcycle accident when he was 18. Not his fault, as he was not speeding and an lady simply turned left in front of him. He was doing less than 35 mph, had a helmet on, and had a fair amount of experience on motorcycles. Motorcycles, like airplanes, have a higher risk than many other activities, lower than others. A very high percentage of motorcycle accidents are caused by driver’s of cars. Should we ban cars where motorcycles are allowed?. I was a cop for 26 years. During my time at the Sheriffs Department (16 years) I was also a deputy coroner. That means we had to respond to most deaths outside of a medical facility, do a quick investigation, and relocate the body to the appropriate place. I’ve seen a lot. Life is inherently dangerous. Guns, cars, swimming pools, fires, stairs…everything is dangerous. While we shouldn’t randomly jump in front of cars, we shouldn’t lock ourselves in a closet for safety either. We should ask the same from others.
    1 like
  11. I agree, if it goes to cord, replace it. That's also covered in the documentation that I linked. But don't throw it out just because you see cracking in the rubber, take a moment to investigate. I keep the tire guides handy because they have great pictures to use. Here's some pictures from said tire guides, which points out they are acceptable, yet I have had people insist that the tire needs replacing: Both of these are perfectly fine, unless the cracks go to cord, or it starts crossing under tread (cracks that go under tread make it possible for a large part of rubber separation during a high stress event). Please don't misunderstand, I don't intend to convey that people should ignore when cord is showing; just that it's insane how much tires are built up that they COULD run on cord for a limited time... meanwhile a dry rotted look on the outside of a tire is so far within acceptable limits, assuming no other irregularity in the tire, that it's a non issue, you can continue to use it. Goodyear notice on cord exposure: Here's the Michelin one: Finally: here's a good photo on how an aircraft tire is built. There's a reason that quite a bit of rubber damage is acceptable. (pictured is an airline tire which has more buildup than a GA tire, but the concept is the same, there's several layers). Meanwhile, your car tire looks like this:
    1 like
  12. Thanks Duane, we’ll see what happens and same offer to you kind sir.
    1 like
  13. Do you smell fuel in the oil? If yes then Arian's guess sounds plausible. If not...maybe keep looking.
    1 like
  14. If it were a lighter engine I'd say "maybe", but I think the first time you tried to get off a short field on a hot day, you'd hate that 20% less horsepower. You can always get better fuel economy, just throttle back. at 4000rpm you probably burn 3.5gph. You can always use less horsepower than the engine can make, but you can never use more... From this document: https://rotax-docs.secure.force.com/DocumentsSearch/sfc/servlet.shepherd/version/download/0685c00000CxbZNAAZ?asPdf=false It looks to me like the 912ULS makes the same power at 4600-4700rpm as the 912UL makes at 5500rpm (about 73hp). If you fly your 912ULS around never exceeding 4700rpm, including takeoffs, I think you'll talk yourself out of this pretty quickly.
    1 like
  15. Thanks for the feedback guys. I'd probably just stick to the 912ULS, I know the engine well and I can fix a lot of problems in the field. As for the other engines: 915: No way that a CT would stay light sport with that engine, plus weight, plus $36k...too rich for my wallet. 914: Turbo is nice, but I'm mostly a flatlander and spend most of my time under 5000ft MSL. I also worry about a turbo being an expensive point of failure.
    1 like
  16. I'll stick to the carb engines. Too big a pain on the 912iS engines. Harder to find anyone to work on them, you need a $1400 dongle, a laptop computer. That's just to do an annual and heaven forbid someone has to trouble shoot a lane light issue.
    1 like
  17. Availability and history. When the CT series came to the USA they already had a bunch of airframes flying in Europe and a good history. The factory was able to pump out a lot of airframes quickly, so when the LSA rules were first introduced the Fight Design company was able to quickly capitalize on it. Plus of all the S-LSA out there, the CT series has the best combination of speed, range, handling, price, and utility IMO. I see conflicting information on the Topaz's specs depending on where I look. It looks like with a 100hp Rotax engine the airplane has about 550lb useful load, 26 gallons of fuel, and cruise speed around 110kt. Is that roughly correct? Have you considered converting the airplane to E-LSA? Airframes with low production numbers are particularly suited to conversion, and I think low numbers and potential lack of support were the main reasons the FAA allowed E-LSA conversions in the first place. My CT was converted a few years ago and it has really made things easier from a maintenance standpoint.
    1 like
×
×
  • Create New...