Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/22/2018 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    I bought my 07 CTSW almost 3 years ago not knowing anything about LSA airplanes. Turns out to be the best num nuts purchase I’ve ever made! This forum has made the difference between a bad experience and an awesome one! Thanks everyone!
  2. 4 points
    My best photo from yesterday's shoot is one of 'my' airport - Mammoth Yosemite Airport at sunrise KMMH
  3. 3 points
    I just got my new GoPro Hero 7, so I went out on a flight with some friends on a tour of the local grass strips. My buddies are in a Blue/White Avid Flyer and a Yellow Legend Cub, if you see them in the videos. You'll notice I use a lot of slips to manage descent rate (sorry that puts my noggin in the way sometimes), and on grass I always use 30° flaps unless the wind is just howling. BTW my airplane has the small roller skate wheels/tires, and I did all these landings with the wheel pants installed. You guys with Tundra wheels have no excuses to not be landing on grass, and you are missing out on a lot of fun if you don't. My CT can land at 90% of the places the Legend Cub can, it's a pretty good short field airplane for what it is. First up is Aerie (1GA9). My friend with the Legend Cub owns this strip, and it's kind of our "base of operations" when our group gets together to fly. The runway is 2000ft and very smooth and well mowed. My landing is to the North over the trees. The South approach is a little easier, though not as much fun. 😎 Landing sequence starts about 1:45 into the video: Next up is Taylor Field (GA16). Owned by Larry Taylor, an 80 year old super-nice guy who still flies the same J3 Cub he's owned since 1974. The runway is 2100x50ft with the preferred landing uphhill. There is a pronounced hump in the runway right around where you would touchdown, so ideally you try to get down fast and land on the up slope of the hump. In this landing I was a little long and landed just past the crest on the down slope, which is also fine. What you *don't* want is to touch down on the crest of the hill, as you'll be back in the air on the backside with no energy and you'll put your gear in danger if you don't add power immediately. Grass was in need of a mow yesterday, but not out of control. Landing sequence starts at about 55 seconds in: Third on the hit parade is Southern Oaks (GE35). this is the shortest field in the series, at 1400x60 feet. But the landing is uphill and the approach is clear for a long way out, so it's actually a very easy place to land if your speed control is good. When we landed there yesterday the owner had just fertilized, so you could smell chicken shit a mile out from the runway... 🦆 Landing sequence starts at 1:55 in the video: Last is Sleepy Hollow (GA18). This is a neat spot owned by the son of a very successful real estate developer who flies his Aviat Husky from there. It's 2600ft and has runways that are parallel grass (60ft wide) and concrete (22ft wide), and an easy place to land in either direction. In the video my buddy lands ahead of me in the grass and I land in the pavement. I almost forgot to turn on the camera, so the landing sequence starts right as the video starts: Those are the four grass strips I most commonly land at. There are a bunch of others we go to occasionally, I will get some videos of them as we hit them going forward. I also have takeoff videos from all these spots except for Sleepy Hollow; if anybody wants to see those I can put them on YouTube.
  4. 3 points
    We had a "good day" window here in Connecticut between snow storms. I felt confident enough to take my 20 yo son up to the famous Sky Acres airport restaurant in NY State (44N) as my first pasenger . Sky Acres is a 70 ish mile trip from home. My in-shape son and his out of shape Dad filled the tanks up to 1,250 GW... the most weight I had experienced in the CT before without a CFI. We still climbed out at an honest 800 fpm and I wasn't trying. It was a bit breezy, mostly just a glancing cross wind down the runway so I decided to land at zero flaps. Final was too fast because I came in too high but managed to get it on the ground in time for the first turn off. Had a great breakfast and quickly got back in the plane for the flight back as the clouds on the horizon looked a tad on the dark side... Getting licensed again and buying the plane were fun... but there is nothing in this world more awesome than taking a family member up flying to "get breakfast". A milestone I have been dreaming about for years... I admire the young pilot/Dads and Moms who are taking their young children on flying adventures... nothing beats it. Fly safely everyone, Andrew
  5. 3 points
    This trip was just way too awesome, i had to share some photos. Kites and kiteboard all ready to go.
  6. 3 points
    Just a quick flight to this beautiful volcano. Lovin the CT to fly up here.
  7. 3 points
    I am planning to attend with my wife. We will be flying our Sting S4 and it will be the first time for us. October is kind of long way off but that’s the current plan.
  8. 3 points
  9. 3 points
    Yep, Buckaroo that’s mine! They buffed out the white and there is NO difference in the areas that had the old decals. So happy with the results and Flight Design USA’s Tom and Arian.
  10. 3 points
    Installed my e-prop and completed 4 test flights at different wot rpm's on ctsw. The manufacturer of this prop recommends 5500 rpm wot as the overall best rpm for all flight parameters for the 912. The blades have a much smaller chord than any I have ever seen. I tried 5650, 5600, and 5500 with all variables the same, ( oat, baro, altitude, clean blades, 1/2 fuel, etc ). My original prop was a 3 blade Neuform and was flown just prior to the e-prop for comparison. 5650 and 5600 numbers were ok but the 5500 numbers were much better. Climb rpm now is 5300 at 1300-1400 ft/min, as opposed to 5000 rpm and 1100-1200 ft/min (less load on engine in climb). Cruise at 5400 is 115-116kts, at 5200 I get what I used to with the Neuform at 5400. Takeoff distance is much shorter( less than 6 kts wind today). A major difference for me is much less vibration, I used to get vibration when transitioning from cruise to reduced power settings in a descent until stabilized (I have heard others complain about this). Now I get no vibration. The prop also stops much easier due to being much lighter in weight. In evaluating this prop I tried not to split hairs, even with turbulence today. To me I had obvious performance increases but I am sure others will have to do their own evaluations, pilots and planes are all different.
  11. 2 points
    When I calibrate tanks I use a line clamp on one of the fuel lines where it comes out of the door post to block the transfer of fuel.
  12. 2 points
    he only got pale. Reach over and shut the engine off and watch them cry.
  13. 2 points
    50 knots at 30 & 40 for me to. At this speed I can land in 1K ft. and less all day long. If you try to shave every last knot off one day you may be posting picks here of your smashed gear. There isn't enough to be gained by trying to shave a few knots off.
  14. 2 points
    Lots of people make fun of the egg or refer to a flying sperm .. but CT planes do have a character... but this one just doesn’t look look that great ...
  15. 2 points
    No wonder the CTSW is lighter! 😜
  16. 2 points
    Oh, did I mention how this panel pays for itself. I now get 5 knots greater TAS and 20% less fuel burn with this panel 😄
  17. 2 points
    I was very fortunate. One of my worst days somehow turned into one of my best??? The mission to replace my beloved but somewhat beat to death CTSW is going well. Expecting to be back in the air in 3-4 weeks.
  18. 2 points
    I went with a GTX 345 for in and out. Replaced my 396 with an Aera 660 for the display. I would have liked a larger display but the 660 fits in the same panel space as the 396.
  19. 2 points
  20. 2 points
    That would be nice but I have already found the perfect plane for me. Its a CTSW with no loan payment. A very important feature.
  21. 2 points
    The shut down screech is normal and usually will go away in time. Make sure you're using the correct oil. The wrong oils can cause this. My CT had it for a while then went away.
  22. 2 points
    Another milestone... attended a California Power Systems Rotax seminar lead by Roger Lee and Bryan Toepfer this past weekend in Tucson. Learned a ton about the Rotax 912. The box with the wires and tubes under the cowling is no longer a mystery, or something to be feared. As I and a few other guys at the seminar felt, the seminar boosted our confidence in the Rotax engine and its amazing technology. Roger and Bryan have lengthy field experience and their knowledge-base overlay onto the Rotax factory best practices made all the difference. My classmates were great guys and passionate about flying and their planes. There were a couple of CT owners there too... Strongly recommend that any one who flies behind a Rotax, attend this seminar.
  23. 2 points
    Jeremy has moved to Byron, CA When I did my panel like this Dynon's units were still primative.
  24. 2 points
    If you have an intercom from PS Engineering, and it is PM 3000 then it is stereo , if it is PM 1000 then it is mono.
  25. 2 points
    it does, another CTSW. I still prefer low wings and want more speed but the CTSW checks more boxes than anything else.
  26. 2 points
    I am a new owner of a -SW, and I think I got a great deal. I also got to fly a CTLS It has some quirks but I think most airplanes do. Not all my answers will be totally accurate since I'm a newbie at this, but this was my experience: 1. I had a local mechanic do a pre-buy. He was not a CT expert but he had experience working with the Rotax 912, and had worked on a few other light sport aircraft. The plane also had detailed write ups from Rex Johnson, and some expensive maintenance items completed: a Rotax Rubber Change, and a Parachute Repack in the last year. The airplane was also regularly flown, and run primarily on ethanol-free auto gas. I looked at 2-3 other aircraft. The others were terrible in comparison. Shoddy logs or damage history, the price wasn't right, or they were experimental (Not a dealbreaker, but it brought up concerns). 2. Can't answer #2 but there are a few places you can travel to to get CTLS training. There is one in Arizona (Copper City Aviation), I took some training at a flight school in Colorado Springs as well. If you plan to spend that much it's worth flying somewhere to get it. There may be many more options in NorCal but I don't know of them. The time to start getting transition training is now. That way when you purchase your plane you can fly it home, without being tempted to make bad decisions. 3. These may not be common gotchas but they were mine: I seem to have a lot of electrical gremlins. They are easy to fix, and not safety-of-flight issues, but for example the engine reading oil pressure PSI when it's on the ground and the engine is cold. Or random (Once in a blue moon) CHT alarms seconds after starting that self-clear, or alternator noise in the headsets- things like that. A lot of these are grounding issues or loose connections. From my light research they seem to be common, and easily fixed. Bigger gotchas are- does the plane look level on a flat surface (might indicate bent gear if it's aluminum). Check the logs. Does the engine have the 2000hr TBO extension? Is there any composite damage or signs of delamination? Any flat spots on the tires? What's the history? Was it hangared? Lastly: When you go look at the plane, get the cowling off. Do the hoses look cracked? Are there areas where they look squeezed? Any wires loose? Does anything look off? Random gotcha- more of a post-buy thing, but if you bounce a go-around, even gently, the landing gear has a tendency to vibrate a bit. It doesn't mean it's damaged or that you're a bad pilot, but it's a light aircraft and much different than a C172 or Diamond, and the first time it will raise your heart rate a bit. You really need to slow down on final. It will also kick your a** in turbulence. The plane will handle it fine, but you may not. In exchange for the sacrifice calm days are incredible, these planes are so maneuverable and fun to fly. 4. I have the D100 and it is a great system. In the center console I have a Garmin 796, which has XM weather and all the goodies. I also have the Trutrak linked up to it which is a great luxury. It seems like there are a wide variation of GPS systems installed, and some owners have upgraded them. I would strongly insist you find a plane with an AP. One downside to the Garmin is that they charge like $100-200 a year to keep the database up to date, while I've heard Dynon is free. 5. My -SW has like a 600LB useful load. The LS's with the Skyview have a bit less. Not saying you shouldn't do your W&B by the book, and you definitely should avoid egregiously loading the plane, but it will still climb at 500 FPM with two large adults, full fuel, and baggage. These planes are in a whole other class than standard aircraft, and with only me and half fuel I'm regularly seeing 800-1000FPM at 4000ft. elevation. It smokes the old 172s and Cherokees I used to fly. Good luck! Andreas
  27. 2 points
  28. 2 points
    I think you had fuel starvation, not carb ice. * Rotax engines are very resistant to carb ice. I have flow my CT for five years, and have not seen carb ice, not even once. This include flights all across the USA in all kinds of conditions with temps from 0°F to 100°F+ and all kinds of humidity conditions. Carb ice is possible, but very rare. The most common ice conditions for us are around 60°F OAT and 90% humidity or higher. What were the conditions during the flight in question? * You have confirmed that there was an empty fuel tank, which puts you at risk for starvation. * Your statement "I got the confirmation that one empty tank will not cause gas starvation" is not really correct. An empty tank will not cause starvation in itself, but if one tank is empty and the other partially full (the condition on the flight in question) AND you fly uncoordinated (very common in a CT), it ABSOLUTELY can result in starvation. Ask Buckaroo, he had an off-airport landing in a field very soon after getting his CTSW, due precisely to this. As Roger said, this has been beat to death numerous times in this forum. I have said numerous times that the safest course of action is to never run a tank empty in the CT. Balance the fuel tanks in flight with rudder trim to keep them roughly even, or at least with both showing fuel in the sight tubes, and you will *never* have this kind of starvation issue. If you do that, no matter what flight attitude you are in there will always be fuel at one or the other fuel pickup. The CT fuel system is "quirky" but a piece of cake to manage. Never check just one sight tube, always check both. Balance them out if you don't see fuel in one. If you come away from this experience saying "well it's just carb ice..." and don't takes steps to better manage your CT's fuel, I'd bet that we'll be reading a thread on here about another similar incident down the road. Look back in the forum history, you'll find numerous similar incidents, all fuel related. In fact I'm sure they have happened, but I'm struggling to recall any engine out resulting in an off-airport landing or crash in a CT that didn't involve fuel mismanagement in a CT. Thus endeth the sermon, ignore it at thy peril.
  29. 2 points
    Actually, they are dirt cheap with respect to the amount of development hours invested divided by the number sold... in fact, the project is in reality a labor of love. R&D is hugely expensive. My hat's off to you Skunk for creating/making them. I am waiting to see what they look like installed. I will buy a pair too if they are what I think they are.
  30. 2 points
    I have found, one major obstacle to overcome, in learning to land the CT, is to avoid “over controlling.” That is . . putting too much correction in. Over controlling leads to ballooning, especially if too much energy (airspeed) is carried into the landing flare. Pitch corrections should be smooth and deliberate, but not excessive. Perhaps Eric can weigh in on this.
  31. 2 points
    25 of the 35 aircraft that came to Page Fly-In in 2011
  32. 2 points
    My CTSW only had 1 set of keys when I received it recently. Kraus & Naimer were not very helpful with key blanks. Online, the blanks run $10-20 each. I just wanted to let you all know that the Harley Davidson X94 key blank can be used to copy your Kraus & Naimer key. It cost me $8 for the whole thing at the local locksmith and I tried it on the aircraft and it works. Totally worth it.
  33. 2 points
    What many are missing here is prop pitch and WOT rpm. prop pitch plays a tremendous part here. If you're only pitched to get 5300-5400 rpm WOT then one that is pitched at 5600-5650 will walk away. Trimming properly is another consideration. Cross controlling even a little slows things down. It may be small enough you don't even notice. Flap settings can be different from plane to plane. Instruments don't always tell the truth. I wouldn't worry about a few knots of speed and just enjoy the flying experience.
  34. 2 points
    Hello All, my name is Matt. I thought I would introduce myself, I am the new owner of 915CT, Its a 2007 CTSW. I have been lurking on here for about 6 months and thought It was time to be part of the community. The plane is a blast to fly, it is my first owned plane, I am a PPL and was seriously considering a certified plane to purchase, but the avionics and speed of the CTSW just does not compare price wise. I had many concerns about the rotax at first, but talking to many people have put those issues to rest. I am a Mechanical Engineer by trade and I put together many spreadsheets, ect and all the pros and cons of the CT vs (name a comparable certified AC here). The CT always came up on top. Except for in the near future, I would like to start working on my instrument rating. My plan is to put a SL30 into it and possibly use the CT for training (obviously not actual IMC). And then rent an IFR plane when the situation calls for it. I come from mostly flying Diamonds, The CTSW is very similar to fly, and I feel that landing was a very similar situation. I am currently based in Southern Illinois, I have been acquainted with Tom Baker, He is based not far from me, and I really am thankful of his advice and support. This plane will be used, There are many plans in the future to take it on many trips, Some of which include, Mackinaw Island, Dolphin Island, Kitty Hawk, Denver, South Dakota. and all these we are planning for the spring. Any advice of these locations would be great!
  35. 2 points
    It was a sign shop that did the work. They do mostly cars and vans. Came out absolutely perfect. I had them do the N-numbers black with a silver shadow to match the scheme. Really like how that turned out.
  36. 2 points
    Cleaned up and zoomin for the stars (is how I roll )
  37. 2 points
  38. 2 points
    Ladies and Gentlemen, May I catch the chance of this message to wish all of you height, interesting perspectives, and nice flights for this new year and the many years to come. May 2019 offer you everything nice you deserve. My wishes go to you fellow pilots, as well as your families and all those who are Dear to you. Happy New Year.
  39. 2 points
    In April 1978, I solo'd for the first time @ 17 years old. Took 36 years off from flying, and Today I solo'd again. It was surreal. Without the instructor the plane climbs like a rocket. I can only imagine what a CTSW climb feels like... same engine and lots lighter. So, this is the end of this string, I am officially transitioned and here is what I learned about the CT during my short journey thus far... this summary is for the new folks who are thinking of buying and/or taking lessons in a CT. Compared to a C-152, a P-Cherokee 140, or, a C-172... here are my thoughts about the CT: 1. Conclusion first... love the plane, wouldn't trade it for any of the above models. 2. Visibility is superb. The "sightline" (center of runway, etc.) is something to get used to but once discovered, it is a no-brainer. Don't think about it anymore. 3. It really does take a new pilot like me, and possibly a veteran... about 10 hours of transition training to master the landing. The flying and takeoffs are easy, add power and she goes ! Without an instructor and @ 15 degs of flaps... she REALLY goes. Back to the landings... the Dealer spent countless to's and landings with me... setup and speed/vertical speed control during the pattern phase are critical for consistently good landing performance. The above old standbys are easier to land in my opinion. Like anything, once the learning curve is crossed, and the aha moment is reached, I realized that the rudder isn't merely attached to make the plane look cool...; ) The CT is flown with the rudder, period. With all that said, I have to admit, I had some pretty crappy landings and the plane "fixed" the (my stupidity) problem. Full disclosure, I have the "tundra" tires which help absorb mistakes better. 4. Comfort... way more comfortable than the aforementioned trainers... I can see spending hours on a long cross country and being comfortable. Akin to a premium car with the "sporty" setting... but with a fascinating view, and, an autopilot. I am looking forward to taking trips. 5. Noise. I was told years ago that the CT's were loud inside. Possibly due to the carbon fiber construction...?? I have noise cancelling headsets, there is no noise once the headsets are in place. The plane is a joy to fly in with the Bose headsets. 6. The 3 screen Dynon setup is amazing. I love the engine information, the pressures, the temps, makes me feel tons safer. The auto pilot is a great feature. I like seeing where the planes are, at least the Transponder equipped ones. Again, I feel safer. 7. One fear that I had was getting bounced around in the CT. Haven't experienced that yet in 10 hours of flying this plane, plus 2 hours in other CT's... meaning, no more so than the old standbys. I was expecting the worst... the CT flies in spirited wind conditions... well, like the old standbys. That's it... glad to be part of this esteemed community. Andrew
  40. 2 points
  41. 2 points
    Sorry to hear that, my thoughts go out to the family and friends.
  42. 2 points
    Just hit numbers around 55 and you be good whatever it takes to get there.
  43. 2 points
    What's amazing in these photos is the way they bring out differences in color. I don't remember seeing the pattern in the rock shown in the last photo when I was there. The second to the last photo would be very helpful in route selection. The last photo… not so much. You need a closer view. The last photo is the back side of Humphreys. I first saw this, and attempted to scale it, during a week-long, solo backpacking loop. I quickly recognized that it was a technical climb and gave up. It's heartening to realize, 50 years later, that I wasn't completely stupid. That was late summer. I came back on Thanksgiving with a huge group of family and friends (14?). It was foolhardy. The average competence level was exceedingly low. We didn't make it far. I came back again a couple months later to attempt a winter ascent with a proper climbing party. We sleep in the middle of a frozen lake just off to the right (south) of this photo. (I have not done that again. The ice creaks and groins all night, keeping you awake.) Our summit attempt the next morning, up the middle of the face in the last photo, did not go well. There were a lot of pitches. We were going too slow. Then our lead climber dropped a glove. There was no way to recover it, and no way to continue without it. (Ever since then he has tied his gloves to a cord running up his sleeves and over his shoulders.) I came back again the next summer and successfully soloed the peak via the southwest ridge (on the left in the second to last photo). Most of the route was class 3 scrambling. Only the summit block was class 4 or low 5. The summit block is the highest knob on the right side of the peak in that second to last photo (It’s on the left in the photo of the back side). It looks like a tiny step in the photo, but it’s actually a bit tricky getting up. I developed a solo rope system, on the spot, which worked well for me on a number of subsequent climbs, including class 5.7 peaks. I made two subsequent attempts on southwest ridge with my climbing friends, the last of which was also successful. Mike Koerner
  44. 2 points
  45. 2 points
    Glad you had a smooth trip home Mike and hope to see you next year at Page. Page is over for another year and for those that were able to make it, we had a great time and managed to add new destinations and experience a whole new look to the Southwest. I flew with Mike the last day on a quick tour of the Dam and Horseshoe Bend. You will not find more beautiful scenery on a 10 minute flight anywhere.
  46. 2 points
    Yes. The 861-188 is the newest version of floats for the 912's and 914 engine.
  47. 2 points
    Hey all... Went up this morning and did some landing practice at my favorite grass strip, Aerie (1GA9). The runway is about 1950ft long. The more challenging landing direction is from the Southeast, with ~60ft trees pretty close the approach end. Between the trees and the runway is a soft vegetable garden, so if you land short you will quickly be upside down. The trick is to get close to the trees and then get down quickly but not in the garden. It's a fun place to practice grass landings, approaches with obstacles, and relatively short field operations all at once. The good thing is that the runway is plenty long for a CT so you're not in big trouble if you don't get it right, and there is a very good go around from this end. In the video you can hear my buddy commenting; we were both flying and making commentary on each other's landings. https://youtu.be/y5PHKyAPH84 EDIT: I have posted this video before, but here's the landing from the other end of the runway for another view. This direction has a road right before the end of the runway, and you have to pretty much fly through the front yard of the neighbor across the street (he actually likes watching the airplanes go by)... https://youtu.be/d49dR1wECvA?t=65 The technique I use at both ends is the same: minimum airspeed (48-52kt), 30° flaps, add power as needed to maintain altitude, and slip if needed to get down faster.
  48. 2 points
    Hi Rodney, "The really nice part of the larger tube is that you can now idle your engine down to about 1350 or 1400 with no shake rattle, n roll." The gearbox and other engine components wear at low rpms comes from the 11: 1 compression and that can't be changed. No different than running any high compression engine below a specific rpm. This is why the 912UL at 9:1 has no issues at lower rpms. Get the rpm too low and the thing wears internally and many see this when and engine feels like it's running rough. The build of the engine vs today's newer engines will have more issues. They use a little older technology to keep the engine small and light. There are reasons engine companies set minimum idle rpms which may not be obvious to the users. Unless you were part of the design, build and test phase and with more than 5 million run hours I think it would be hard to second guess all their reasons and design specs. Just because you can't hear it or see it with one test doesn't mean something isn't going on.
  49. 2 points
    We are getting close to the deadline. What is the solution for the CTLS? UAvionix on the wingtip won't work and now I have found out that the taillight unit won't work either. Apparently the carbon fibre blocks the wing tip version and makes it unreliable. I tried to install the tail version and the mounting holes are different. The taillight on the CTLS uses angled mounting holes and are further apart than the UAvionix unit. The unit needs to be mounted with the fin on it vertical and using the mounting holes would have it a about a 41 degree angle. They have no plans on revising the mounting bracket to make it work. I have one I was going to test for them but now I need to start looking at something else.
  50. 2 points
×
×
  • Create New...