Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About ct9000

  • Rank
    Senior Crew Member
  • Birthday 03/14/1954

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    email greg.merritt@outlook.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    darraweit guim vic.aus
  • Interests
    Martial arts, finance, grandkids, and of course flying
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,700 profile views
  1. I think that the fuel return line from the pressure regulator only goes to the left tank.
  2. I use a RAM Goosneck mount bolted to the pax seat bolt on the floor with a small bracket from the center panel lower right screw to steady it. This places the I pad out of the direct sun does not tend to overheat and is easier to read. The bracket holds either a full size or a mini. I prefer the mini because the full size hits my wifes knee some times.
  3. Roger thanks for your input on this one. I have another aircraft type that uses the metal tube bent forward like you describe but it has once been blocked by a mud wasp and caused me some stress. I like the look of the SW vents and they seem to be immune from contamination from water or wasps etc. When I had an SW I never had fuel slosh out at all and in fact I quite liked the caps. I may have to contact FD on this one.
  4. Can anyone suggest where to get the vertical fuel cap vents normally found on SW fuel caps ?
  5. Tom I find it helpful during maintenance when testing / timing fuel flows from each tank, other than that not much.
  6. No I only get about 1200 fpm at max weight but still the same at 8000'. At lighter weight I see about 1500 fpm. Also I will not see 140 TAS cruise until about the 8500-9500 levels. One other point is if I am light I will only use reduced power for t/o and climb because the nose is too high and I cannot see so normal for me is about 1000-1200 fpm at 70kt. using 32"MP.
  7. The speeds I quoted above are TAS from the Dynon and my system is calibrated and tested by a certified shop. I normally don't push it but 130's is not hard at 8500 / 9500 using 5200 at 32"mp. If I go to max continuous 5500 at 36" I expect to see close enough to 140. Actual results will vary of course depending in the density altitude at the time and remember the fuel burn at 5500 is a bit high, as most have worked out coming back 300 revs and loosing 7 or 8 kt. is a real sweet spot for lower fuel burn quieter smoother etc.
  8. My experience with the 914. The rev limit of 5800 for five min. and 5500 continuous is the same as 912. the other limit is boost at about 40" for t/o and about 36" cruise. Yes it works best with a c/s prop but not allowed in the US. The turbo is there all the time you want to use it but is no more powerful in cruise at sea level but as you climb the better it gets. For example, my SW 912 at about 8000' could only get about 21" or 60% power at full throttle but the turbo will still give sea level power up to 15000' which is equivalent to having a 160hp engine at 8000' and more like 200hp at the levels that Ed used to fly at out of Mamouth. This thing is only a 80 hp 912 with forced induction so with the lower compression of the 80hp it is very smooth but will use slightly more fuel than a higher compression engine at lower levels at lower power settings. Turbo cool down is not an issue because you don't descend at high boost unless you want to rip the wings off so cool down on approach is sufficient. At low levels I usually cruise at low power using 4800 rpm at 29" which gives me about 105kt. for just drilling holes in the sky for local flights. If I am going some ware I will use 5200 at 32" which gives me 118kt. at low levels and more if I climb a bit. I am very hesitant to post this because some one will accuse me of bragging also I will not say the max speeds at 8500' and 9500' but suffice to say it is quick.
  9. Thanks for the response Andy. There are not a lot of 914's compared to 912's, probably because they are not exactly cheap. Having said that 914 has a reputation as being as bullet proof as a 912. I have only done a couple of hundred hours so far on mine, would I make the same decision to spend the extra money again? Hell yeah !!!.
  10. I grant you the point. It is not legal because of 1/ the illegal modification not factory sanctioned. 2/ CS prop against rules. I should have been more specific in my reply.
  11. My CTLS is factory stock standard with 914 and c/s prop so it is legal.
  12. Temperamental, never heard of that. Could you please elaborate?.914 has a reputation for being as smooth as you can get. My 914 is pretty good with the only downside being a slightly higher fuel burn at lower levels offset by the fact that you are not low for very long.
  13. And of course to state the obvious, if your aircraft is sitting waiting for you to get in the mood to fly you will fly more hours. Then the justification is that the more you fly the less it costs per hour to fly.
  14. Just to clarify a point. The lighter the load the slower the turb speed. If you really want to stress your structure fly with minimum fuel and fill up the cockpit to legal max weight then fly a bit faster, you could die but be legal. Ok I am dramatizing a little bit because the speeds are for +4 -2g and most of us slow down when it is bumpy but the fact remains you can enter rough air faster with full fuel than with light fuel load.
  • Create New...