Jump to content

andyb

Members
  • Content count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About andyb

  • Rank
    Master Crew Member
  • Birthday 05/12/1950

Profile Information

  • Location
    KSUS
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,928 profile views
  1. In an earlier post, I brought up some questions regarding what to do in the event of an Alternator A or Alternator B failure. In reading the responses to my post (thank you), and doing some further research, it's clear to me that in the event of a failure of either Alternator A or B, that reducing draw on the battery is critical. Among other reasons, this is because if the second alternator should fail, the continued running of the engine is dependent on battery power, and if either Alternator A or B fails, the battery isn't being charged any longer; drawing down the battery would directly impact how long the engine would run if both alternators fail. This begs the question of how to reduce draw on the battery. I don't believe this is as simple as it might seem, as it's advantageous to run the Dynon(s) and 796 on their internal batteries, and I haven't found a way to do that if power is still being supplied to them from the plane's battery. Here's the checklist I developed: EFIS breaker...off (this only disconnects power to Dynon #1; #2 will continue to run of the plane's battery) Dynon#1...allow to run on it's own battery ("continue" button) Transponder breaker...off Nav/com breaker...off GPS breaker...off (this disconnects power to the 796) 796...allow to run on it's own battery ("continue" button) Dynon #2...turn off by holding leftmost button Lights...switches off In this configuration, Dynon #1 will go to reversionary mode, and (at least in my plane) it will have the PFD, EMS, and Map pages. There would be minimal battery draw, as the 796 and Dynon #1 would be running on their internal batteries. Should it be necessary, the com, lights, or transponder could be temporarily turned back on if they were needed, and flaps would be available. Thoughts? Andy
  2. As I believe everyone knows, the CTLSi has a different electrical system than the planes with carbureted engines. One of the tradeoffs with the "i" version of the plane is that if there were a total electrical failure, the engine stops running. For this reason, I want to be especially diligent in understanding what happens in various failure modes. Therefore, a few questions: Alt A normally services the engine ignition, and Alt B runs everything else, including charging the battery. When Alt A fails, Alt B automatically services the engine and it stops running the other things, such as avionics, lights, flaps, etc. Under this scenario, those need to be run off the battery, if they're to be run. The question I have is if Alt A fails and Alt B is servicing the ignition, is the battery still being charged by Alt B? The reason I ask this is if there's a failure of both Alt A and Alt B, upon activating an emergency switch, the engine's ignition will run off the battery; if Alt A failed, I'd be concerned about maintaining sufficient battery charge to run the ignition should Alt B also fail. If the battery weren't being charged in this circumstance, I'd be aggressively shedding load on the battery. How do you manually activate/deactivate Alt A and Alt B? In the plane I previously flew, there were designated breakers for each alternator. Based on the wiring diagram in the POH, and my experience, it appears that Alt A is turned on when the ignition switch is turned on, and Alt B is activated when the "Gen" breaker on the pedestal is pushed in and the engine is initially taken to a minimum RPM. I believe that the "Gen" breaker only impacts Alt B. Is all this correct? What's the best emergency procedure for shedding battery load? For sure if both alternators fail and the engine is running only on the battery, shedding load would be critical. Further, depending on the answer to #1 above, it would also be important with an Alt A failure. One way to do it would be to turn off the battery switch, in which case everything but the engine function would be shut down (other than devices' internal backup batteries), and I believe would have the maximum battery duration for the engine. Alternatively, the battery switch could be left on, and the avionics master could be turned off, along with turning off unnecessary lights. I would tend to favor the second scenario, as it would make flaps and lights readily available if needed, and if there were a fast need for avionics (i.e. getting landing clearance at a controlled airport) it could be done pretty quickly. Thoughts? If Alt B fails, does Alt A take over charging the battery? My belief, looking at the wiring diagram, is that the answer is no. If this is the case, if there were an Alt B failure it would also be important to shed load. Any input on all this would be very much appreciated! Andy
  3. IAW4, I have >2,500 hours, most of which is with an instrument rating. I think some of your assumptions are misplaced. There's no such thing as knowingly flying for 10 seconds into IMC. Once you get into it, even with lots of weather knowledge you have no idea how long you'll be in IMC. I had countless instances in which I thought it would only be 10 seconds, and it was in fact much longer. I love the Dynon's. In some respects, they're much more advanced than the Avidyne equipment I flew for a long time, and certainly they're more advanced than what I had before that. However, there are some key things that a plane certified for IMC needs. Pitot heat, and lightning protection are two, just to name a few. The CT can be flown with ATC providing instrument services, but it's still the pilot's responsibility to maintain cloud clearance. Fly in IMC without an instrument rating, or in a plane that's not certified for IMC is deadly dangerous. Please, think carefully about this. Respectfully, Andy
  4. Andy, I am in town and was out to SUS yesterday helping a friend with his new 182 learn his plane.

     

    Would love to have breakfast.  I'm in Lake St Louis, where are you?  We could find somewhere in the middle.

  5. andyb

    2018 CTLsi GT - 3 screen Dynon

    Duane, Yes, I think you make good points. My previous plane had XM in the panel, and I had ADSB weather on Foreflight. I made a practice of using both together when the weather was a question. I do the same thing in the CT. Interestingly, on Saturday I took my plane from KSUS to KOLY to drop the plane off with Tom Baker for annual, hoses, and parachute repack. Big WX system to the southeast of my route. In that case, it was much easier to follow on ADSB than XM. I find both services to be helpful, more so than only one. Seeing that you're so close to me, when you're in town maybe I can buy you breakfast! Andy
  6. andyb

    2018 CTLsi GT - 3 screen Dynon

    Unless I'm not informed of all the options, I believe that foregoing the Garmin as the middle display (796 in my case), relegates us to ADSB weather, whereas having two Dynons and a Garmin allows ADSB and XM weather. My experience, using both in a number of planes, is that the XM is better. Cost differential is an issue though. Andy
  7. As an update, I decided not to get into a controversial back-and-forth on the Cirrus web site, so I've just let it go. As a point of information, the Tecnam with BRS and Garmin now comes in at 900-905 pounds. It sounds like a terrific plane, but with me (200 pounds) and a passenger (180 pounds), I could legally carry about 5 gallons of fuel, so with VFR reserves could legally fly about 30 minutes, theoretically. I realize than on the Tecnam, and the CT for that matter, the planes apparently have the capacity to perform adequately at over 1320 pounds. Andy
  8. I've been a CTLSi owner for almost 3 years, having moved from 15 years of flying a Cirrus SR20 and SR22. I've maintained my membership in the Cirrus owners' group, which has a very active forum and is an overall excellent organization. Recently someone asked me to update my experience in moving from the Cirrus to the CTLSi, and I wrote a fairly lengthy review, which has been overall positive for me. A person responded, who apparently owned a CTLS for two years, then moved to the Tencam 2008, and ultimately to a Cirrus. He was extremely negative on the CTLS, both in the absolute, as well as in comparison to the Tencam. While people's bias in favor of the airplanes they own (or owned) isn't unusual in my observation, this one was seemed pretty unobjective and over the top. While I don't generally get into these debates, I feel a compulsion to address some of the things that were mentioned, as many that I'm aware of aren't factual or are misleading. However, there were some things that were brought up that I just don't have an experience about, whether the comments were legitimate comments, or whether they were incorrect. I'd be interested in any input on this from this group. Here are some of the things that were said: -Due to the CT's wing being composite and "very stiff," it makes the CT much more susceptible to turbulence than the aluminum winged Tencam. -The Tencam is overall more stable in cruise flight than the CT. -The Dynon autopilot is much less robust than what's on the Tencam, and that the Tencam's actuators are twice the size of the Dynon and that the pins are prone to shearing. -The Tencam is better in crosswind landings, and that there have been many instances of the CT's flipping on landing. -The Tencam is "built way better" than the CT. -The Garmin 3x is superior to the Dynon. -One question I have, although it wasn't brought up, is about the payload with constant fuel (i.e.25 gallons) on the CT versus Tencam, when the Tencam is equipped with the BRS. There were other criticisms as well, although on those I feel like I'm in a pretty good position to address them. But, I would appreciate it if any of you have information on this, as I'd like to write a hopefully measured, objective response. Thanks much, Andy
  9. Hi Kent, I'm a former longtime Cirrus owner (SR20 then SR22), so helpfully I can give you some perspective. On the parachute, mine is coming up. It's every six years, and cost is about $1,500-$2,000 as I understand it. That doesn't include rocket, which is every second 6-year cycle, and rocket about doubles cost. I've had my annuals done by Tom Baker in Olney Il, which I believe will be the closest CT service center to you. They've run about $1,100 plus or minus, and I've typically had some ancillary things done which is included in that price. I've found Tom to be very reasonably priced, and importantly I've been very satisfied with his work. Further he's a CFI, so he can test fly the plane which is a big help. Instruction too. He's been an extremely good resource to me, at least at the quality of the best Cirrus service centers. Overall, my annual cost of ownership in the CT has been about 1/5 to 1/10th of the Cirrus. Totally different world. Part of that is that I fly considerably fewer hours, as the plane is much more restricted weather-wise, being VMC only and much less tolerant of winds and turbulence than the Cirrus. I've been very happy as a CT owner. It's an incredible plane, with technology that's better than my Avidyne equipped Cirrus. Dynon has been wonderful to work with. Plane is fun to fly. I really wanted a plane that would be fun to fly for $100 hamburger trips, and it's been excellent for that. Other CT owners use it more for trips than I do, but being VFR only, and the low payload (mine as a newer CTLSi has a lower payload than most CT's), I don't use it much for travel. Happy to answer any other questions, especially re Cirrus to CT comparisons. Andy
  10. andyb

    Continued Use of Battery Charger?

    Thanks much for the clarification and info, Tom
  11. Yesterday I went out to fly, after a protracted cold-weather period in St. Louis, and a few weeks without flying due to the holidays. A day before the flight I connected the Tanis heater. When I went to start, the OAT was about 9 degrees F. It was very labored (i.e. the prop turned slowly); the first time tried it I thought we wouldn't be able to get the engine started. We waited a few minutes, tried again, and it limped its way to starting. Ran fine after that. Inasmuch as I had preheated the engine, I assume the problem to be that the battery was compromised due to the cold. I'm a bit surprised by this, as I would have thought that the heat from the Tanis heater would have helped the battery. Two questions: Is my assessment of the origin of the problem correct? Would this be remedied by my keeping the battery charger running when I'm not flying, during cold weather? Any problems with doing that? Thanks much for any input. Andy
  12. andyb

    Adding coolant - CTLSi

    I purchased the regular Prestone Dexcool. Can I just mix it with equal parts water? Andy
  13. andyb

    CTLS landing for beginners

    When I transitioned to the CT, I found this happened all the time. More specifically, I would land at the center then move to the left. I've found that this is born of using the incorrect sight picture. In my plane, if it looks like I'm aimed down the center I'll veer to the left, and if it looks like I'm aligned about 10 degrees to the right, then I stay on the centerline. Eric Swisher's manual outlines this very clearly...it was very helpful to me. Not sure if this is the situation you're facing. If so, hope it helps. Andy
  14. andyb

    Adding coolant - CTLSi

    I've had some minor coolant leakage (a couple of tablespoons) that seems to be coincident with the cold weather and the Tannis heater being turned on prior to flying. As I understand it, this isn't an issue. However, the pink fluid level is only about 1/4 inch above the minimum line, so I ordered some of the fluid (Prestone) that's recommend in the Rotax fluids guide. Is it a problem if I add this fluid on top of the fluid that's already there? My plane is serviced by a CT/Rotax service center, so I'm confident that the fluid that's already there would be right. Thanks, Andy
  15. andyb

    CTLS landing for beginners

    Last year, when I was dropping my plane off with Tom for an annual, I did some dual time with Tom, focusing on landings. With about 2,100 hours on the Cirrus, and about 100 on the CTLS, the instruction was very helpful. A couple of observations, relevant to this thread... It was very windy (12 kts crosswind, with gusts), and Tom had me do 15 degrees flaps. I had always used 0 degrees in these conditions. While the conditions made the landings very challenging, I didn't note any increase in difficulty associated with 15 degrees. I had always previously reduced the throttle to 2,800 RPM and introduced 15 degrees of flaps when abeam. So to me, it begged the question of how it could still maintain 60 kts or so with idle power, when I had the same result with 2,800 RPM. Tom demonstrated this to me, and it in fact worked very well when he did it, even in challenging conditions. Of course, this necessitated a considerably tighter pattern than I was flying, which probably is a good thing. My conclusion was that I wanted to be proficient in doing the approach both with idle power as Tom taught (good for smaller, uncontrolled airports) as well with 2,800 RPM, as my home field is a busy Class D and typically they require a bigger pattern. I'm a pretty experienced pilot, with instrument and commercial ratings. Notwithstanding this, spending time with an instructor with strong experience in the CT was hugely helpful. The CTLSi and Cirrus are very different in how they fly, and there's considerable learning and un-learning involved in making the transition. Andy
×