Jump to content

Acensor

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Acensor

  • Rank
    Master Crew Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Southern Oregon
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,760 profile views
  1. Yeah, ideally a CT or any aircraft that isn't metal skinned (and even the latter) should not be tied down in the sun on the ramp instead of being hangared. But it's nice to have that option without in addition to heat, wind, and rain, having to worry about UV degradation. Even if nominally "always hangared" at 2000 hours it gets 2000 hours of UV ... some at altitude where there's more UV... and s then there's the weeks of tied down on visitor ramps during cross country trips. So curious about opinions and experiences of UV protection products (ranging from things like 303 Aerospace UV Protectant for ten bucks that wipes on but has to be periodically reapplied, to spray on clear coats like UV-Resistant Clear Coating - | Krylon, to on the high end a ceramic coating like System X Ceramic https://www.element119.com/aircraft.html which would probably cost about $250 to cover a CT and claims to be permanent and have the blessings of some major aircraft makers.) I was particularly intrigued by that System X Ceramic. Even sounds easy to apply. Thoughts? Experiences? Facts?
  2. CT_MATT wrote , in part-- "For those looking for reasonably priced brake parts for your Marc Ingegno... For pads, Gold Fren 905 is a direct replacement and most likely the OEM. They come in sets of 2 pads per package. I havent needed to look into it but, I am fairly certain that they also make the disc. http://www.goldfrenu...og-aircraft.pdf I found this site to order them from but, you can also order directly from goldfrenusa. From 1Motoshop, if you refer a friend then you get a 20% discount on your next purchase and they may also get a discount on their first purchase. Feel free to PM me for a referral......." I don't have a CT, but our Tecnam has Marc Igengno brakes, and I just discovered they're priced as if they are hand carved out of gold. $250 for a set from Tecnam USA parts. So was very interested when I stumbled across your post. Wondered a couple of things.... maybe someone could answer: # Matt..... how did you determine these less costly pads were cross referenced as equivalent to the Marc Igengno? Did the vendor claim that? # by coincidence do the Ingengno brakes on your CTs use he same pads as the brakes on the Tecnam? Ours is Ingengno part number 010203209 . At least I think that's a Ignegno part number. Could be a Tecnam part number. # Has anyone, including CT_MATT, actually purchased , or better yet used, these alternate pads on your CT? And can confirm that they are at least superficially equivalent (that is, "fit")?
  3. Hi Anticept, Thanks for the detailed education on the multiple alternators in the 912. More odd and complex than I knew, and reassuring to know how unlikely a total failure of the ignition system is with that redundancy. You also wrote --- "...The Ducati "voltage regulators" used by Rotax aren't really traditional regulators. They effectively just try to prevent too much current from flowing. As Chanik said here on the forum in an older post, they don't do a very good job (I think he said they use current switching methods), and that's the source of the tremendous electrical noise present in rotax installations." Re that a couple of comments: 1) We did have a lot of electrical noise on the 912 on our Skyranger that cost us a lot of headaches and cash trying to get acceptable radio performance. Our avionics guy put about $250 worth of noise filter on the alternator output. And half a dozen other tedious and expensive avionics-guy-type tricks to improve matters. All helped, but not enough. In our case we finally trashed the old MicroAir transceiver .... seems it either was terminally defective or the design simply couldn't cope with the level of electrical noise out of a 912. Replaced it with a MGL V6 which we're very happy with. 2) Our panel has a switch that turns off the main alternator. The previous owner/builder placarded it "On when engine on, Off when Engine Off." Don't know what he had in mind by having that switch there, but it make for a good preflight (or for that matter in-flight) test of the alternator. You can clearly see that if you start the engine with it off the battery is getting no alternator input as the voltmeter sits at about 12 volts, then climbs to about 14 volts when switch is activated. If I flipped it on and the voltmeter stayed at 12 volts I'd know I was likely about to takeoff with a non-op charging system. It's also useful in that if the charging system went screwy and started spewing even more than normal radio static one ccould temporarily turn it off to make and receive some radio communications. My question is.... Is this on-off switch for the charging system a oddity of our 912 installation or has anyone seen anything like that on other 912 installations? Alex
  4. 100hamburger wrote, in part -- "...The older planes also use generators, the CTLSi has dual alternators...." I didn't know about dual alternators in the CTLSi .... are they in the new Rotax engine or outboard of the engine? A possible minor correction: As far as I know all of the older 912 Rotax engines and even the new ones (except maybe the fuel injected one which I'm not familiar with) have always had single internal _alternators_ for the charging system.. not "generators." Technically they are all "generators" as they all generate electrical power. There are DC-generators and AC-generators. By common usage "AC-generator" got reduced to "alternator" leaving the word "generator" to mean (at least when talking cars and aircraft and other internal combustion vehicles) a DC-generator. (But, FWIW, if you walk into a large generating station of a regional power utility all their generators are AC generators and there they don't call them "alternators.") In fact I don't believe any vehicle since maybe 1970 or earlier has used a generator at all. Generators are DC output and were used in cars and many aircraft engine installations prior to about 1966. Even many of those older aircraft were later refitted with alternators. DC-generators were abandoned in favor of alternators (short of "AC-generators") mostly because an AC current is easier to regulate and give appropriate charge level regardless of engine RPM. ------------- Finally FWIW: A significant _potential_ DISadvantage of fuel injection is that electrical injectors take somewhat significant electrical power. In a carb engine, even if the alternator fails there's usually in the battery enough power to run avionics and the trivial power to the plugs for many hours. (With traditional mags you can literally fly for months with a dead battery AND dead alternator.) But if there are electrical fuel injectors drawing power once the alternator quits you may have only 20 minutes .... 90 if you're lucky. So, come to think of it, that reality is kind of consistent with, and would explain why, they're putting put duel alternators in with the fuel injected version. That way there are three sources of electrical power (one battery, two alternators) and the bet being places is all three won't fail at the same time. Alex
  5. Hi Dick, Just FYI, I'm Alex (aka "acensor" here) Think you got my post on switch-off-one-mag mixed up with something Anticept posted. Expect none of us will have to deal with stuck WOT in flight. Haven't heard if one. But like I said, discovering our throttle cable frayed down to four strands says it's at least more probable than, say, congress working with efective bipartisan collaboration . Alex
  6. Yeah, we are off the original subject.. But might as we finish up here on the prop? (Wonder if , as in the Mitsubishi electric car forum I'm in, the moderator can mover posts to a different thread?) Dick, you have IMO a relevant point about what happens if the cable brakes. Recently in our ELSA we caught throttle cable frayed to a kind off scary extent on the cockpit end. In that scenario indeed better to have the engine hauling at 5500 - 5650 . Your shutting off and on may not work. Will a 912 even start with carbs at WOT? Twice of when we had throttle inadvertently slightly open ...like maybe near what would be 3000 RPM.. while trying to start it simply wouldn't start. Nearly ran down battery before spotting problem. Added "throttle on idle to our startup checklist. Other way to limit over reving with broken throttle cable would be to turn off one mag. Should drop 100 to 200 RPM. Wonder what the fuel injected Rotax does on broken throttle cable?
  7. Hi Roger, Standing joke in my house is on one of our first dates I took my wife-to-be out to eat as Sizzler -- which on my budget at the time was "fine high end dining." So by that I could take her out to dinner several hundred time for 2.5K. Hey, a bit of hair splitting: Brian Carpenter's rule is the 912 should run at 5800RPM in level flight WOT as litmus test of prop not being pitched too high. And that's where mine is pitched. I like your 5500RPM rule better as that would let me put just a tad higher pitch on the prop than I have an squeek out a few knots more of cruise speed without getting into stupid territory. Any ideas why you and Brian differ by 300RPM. Alex
  8. Roger, You're making me feel sorry I didn't stir up the cash and buy it. :-( Main downsides are that it's at 1100 hours and it's TBO is 1500 not upgradable. So for many buyers it means they're looking at an expensive overhaul or complete engine replacement not far down the line. There's only a 2.5K difference between what you call the low price and what he's asking. Seller has just purchased another aircraft (needed something with with more than two seats and other reasons). Just want to pay off what he owes the bank. Alex
  9. It was almost a week ago that I looked at the logs, but if I remember right I did see a prop inspection and a separate prop log book. Alex
  10. Well, I got to examine and fly the CTSW this weekend. Liked it very much. Much impressive about it. Handling is, believe it or not, not quite as nice as my Skyranger (to be fair I have hundreds of hours in the Skyranger and only 30 minutes in the CTSW.) Clearly a great cross country aircraft. Main reason I didn't buy it was my potential co-owner, who is 6 foot 7inches, was just a bit too cramped in it for a long trip and backed out.... and buying it and maintaining it on my own is just too far to stretch, particularly considering I already have an aircraft Iove to fly. As a courtesy to the owner I have posted it under for sale with some photos. Here's the very short version: ---------------- 2006 Flight Design CTSW N906LW 1065 TTAE Autopilot w/alt hold, Ballistic parachute Garmin 496, Dynon Avionics , engine electric pre-heater, more. Always Hangered Asking $69,900 ----------------------- For more details and owner contact look in the for sale section. Thanks for all the advice and help here.... but for now it looks like I'm not going to be a CT owner. Alex
  11. I'm posting this here on behalf of the seller. It's a CT I looked at an flew. Main reason I didn't buy it was my potential co-owner, who is 6 foot 7inches, was just a bit too cramped in it for a long trip and backed out.... and I can't afford to buy it on my own. I examined and flew it and had extensive conversations with the mechanic and IMO it's a 9 out of 10. Only downside is it's just over 1000 hours. That's a bit of an issue IMO because unless the new owner flies it only for personal use (never for fee or rental), or converts to experimental, in only ~445 hours it'll be due for overhaul. It is not eligabible to upgrade to 2000 hour official TBO. One owner and logs and conversations with owner and mechanic suggest it's been top notch maintained. 2006 Flight Design CTSW N906LW 1065 TTAE Autopilot w/alt hold, Ballistic parachute Garmin 496, Dynon Avionics , engine electric pre-heater, more. Custom full canopy cover included in sale. Always Hangered Asking $69,900 Last annual was completed June 24th 2013 Hobbs: 999.1 Rubber replacement was completed. July 13, 2011 Hobbs: 780.1 All Flight Design and Rotax bulletins complied with. Very well maintained. Virtually always run on non-alcohol mogas. Contact Mark Carino emcarino@me.com 206-465-2998 hangered at airstrip community east of Seattle Call or email for more pics or info. Alex P.S., Whoops. I noticed ONE of the pics I posted was not of the CT for sale... got mixed in. The offending one is the one looking through the cockpit from the outside with two guys visible off the nose.
  12. I need to correct my post: Almost certainly the 2006 CTSW I flew did not have electric three way trim. It was three way trim. Based on replies here and thinking back, not electric. I imagined thinking back, wrongly, it was electric, because (a) I was thinking electric because I was experiencing and enjoying the, unique to my experience out of a bare bones ELSA, electric flaps and (b ) it took so little pressure to turn the trim wheel.
  13. Guess that depends where you draw the line fir "new." I flew a 2006 SW yesterday and it had three way electric trim. Owner said he's almost never use anything but pitch trim.
  14. I agree pulling the chute while plane is still flyable is in the "why would you do that" bag generally.In addition to the exception scenario you mention (really really nasty terrain within gild distance) there's the one where pilot is incapacitated... Like the pilot who got a stroke passed out and came too long enough to deploy, the several who found themselves totally disoriented in IMC that the didn't intend to find themselves in (their places were still very much flyable.) and deployed. arguably if the didn't deploy in their still fly able planes they'd be Controlled-flight-into-terrain statistics today. I was exploring the stall-to-ground idea for where terrain looks to rough and/or too small for a "conventional" emergency off runway longing approach. Alex The situation I was exploring with
  15. Hi Tim, "Exploring" "stall-it-in" is a good description for what I'm doing. That and sort of practicing it. It's just ONE option maybe worth to have PRE considered and rehearsed to the extent practical...and be able to pull out of my pocket quickly. I brought it up because I have never seen it explored in formal emergency procedures. And it seems like it may have a place somewhere between the scenario where BSR deploying is clearly the least bad idea and where a standard off airport landing on that nice flat unobstructed 2000 foot field well within glide distance is clearly the least bad option. Just as I'd like to find out before I NEED to know how high I'd need to be to be sure I could make a safe return-to-runway turn , I like knowing I COULD do a flat mush pancake crash landing into a piece of ground to short or too cluttered for attempting a standard off runway emergency approach. {Hummm. Is there really such a thing as a "standard" emergency? ;-) } In my present ELSA with MY typical two lightly loaded seats, as I said, I've practiced that power-on-idle flat-controlled-level-mushing-down stall enough times to be pretty confident I could hit the ground level at 500 feet per minute (6mph) moving forward at ~25 mph with still having directional control. Even milder if solo. Andy has tried something very similar with passenger in board in his CT and of corse came up with different forward and vertical speed numbers, and hi own sense of how controllable and predictable a flat mush stall is. Your milage may vary. Alex
×
×
  • Create New...