Jump to content

iaw4

Members
  • Content Count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About iaw4

  • Rank
    Master Crew Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    90049
  • Interests
    N86FT
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. hi roger----I believe you that oil does not evaporate. If it does not show under the airplane, it's likely mostly still in the engine. :-). will a functioning dynon d120 (oil pressure or temperature) give me good hints/advice when I need to pour more oil into the engine?
  2. has anyone done this? I wonder how long it should take an avionics shopt to replace this.
  3. found the answer on vans airforce: No, because the GTR 200 is several inches shorter, doesn't plug into the same rack, and supports quite different wiring including stereo headsets and stereo music.Yes, because it has a similar height, and especially if your SL40 is just being used as a COM radio, it would be quite easy to remove the SL40 and rack and move the wiring functions onto new pins on the GTR 200 connector. You would probably want to install stereo headphone jacks and wire those up instead of the mono jacks you were probably using with the SL40. They both use essentially the same serial interface, so even retaining the ability to remote tune the radio from an external system would still work if you just connect the wires to the right pins.We are happy to get into as much detail as you like. Thank you for your interest.
  4. I have an SL40 installed. It may just be seated incorrectly, or it may need repair. alas, avionics shops labor is expensive, so I am wondering whether I may as well replace it with a newer GTR 200. this makes sense only if this is a slide-in replacement, rather than a rewire. has anyone done this?
  5. I know. I was just dreaming. the Vans RV-12iS is about $100,000 and $150,000 assembled/built. I wonder at what wholesale price dealers are receiving CTLSi's. of course, they take quite a bit of risk and have to invest into showrooms, etc. I am going to guess that a large aspect of the reasonable prices of cessna and pipers 50 years ago was that they could be mass-produced on assembly lines. it had to be two for some competition. it couldn't have been 100 to fragment the market into so many small vendors that none had great economies of scale. I hope to be able to buy a used F2 in about 10 years. The more new ones get sold, the better it is. /iaw
  6. will the F2 still be LSA in the US? seems like a bigger airplane. I wonder what the price per unit would be if 20 of us were to go buy F2s or F4s in one batch order... lack of volume is what keeps prices so high. /iaw
  7. so, I have had a few more days practicing. (unfortunately, Southern Cal has seen lots of rain and wind over the last three weeks.) here are my experiences and impressions so far. they are personal---your's may be very different. I am posting them here to help some future startup pilots. I am also ok being corrected if I am making judgment mistakes. for a pilot used to a "standard" airplane, the CTSW is a difficult airplane to land. I can see why the the ground accident rate was pretty high for PPs. A sports-licensed pilot trained in a CTSW will beat a PPL pilot any day in terms of CTSW safe and competent flying. I have personally seen pilots with 5,000+ hours struggle. it is not that the CTSW is intrinsically more difficult to fly than other airplanes. But it is different. Very different. One's piloting skills do not transfer as easily to a CTSW than to another 1,500 lbs airplane. the biggest differences from a Vans or Piper or Cessna are the need to become a good rudder pilot (stick alone is not enough most of the time); the perspective from the cockpit is quite different (don't look towards the spinner, but straight); and the airplane is very light and clean and does not want to slow down easily. (the kind of slips that may work are a bit scary, in that they require a slow-flight nose-up attitude, obviously uncoordinated. a little wind gust, and it may drop left or right, dependent on where it comes from. probably quite safe, but I would rather not err and find out the hard way.) the "easy" way to land the CTSW is to use 15 degrees flaps. At 30 degrees flaps, the ailerons lose their "normal" characteristics and feel really mushy. Almost like a different airplane. Unpleasant. Unfun. (Not impossible, but just no longer crisp.) I now want to fly the pattern no faster than about 60 knots. Abeam the numbers, I don't throttle back to 3000rpm. Instead, I begin a throttle-off approach and set 15 degrees flaps. Really. Most of the time, with just a little rear wind (on downwind), it takes a long time to start losing altitude. I don't even fly a particularly close-in pattern now. Even on a normal pattern distance, the power-off approach feels almost always just right. On occasion, If I am getting a little slow and low on final near the runway, I add a little bit of power. The Rotax engine is incredibly quick---nearly instant---in spinning up. On final, I want to be at an airspeed of no more than 55 knots. I would like 50 knots, but the airplane does not easily slow down to it even with a power-off approach. At 50 knots, I am not in slow flight and the (throttle-off) airplane handles just like it always handles...nice and crisp. With 50 knots speed over the threshold, I probably would get to 45 knots landing speed, which is just beautiful. I have yet to determine how quickly the airplane bleeds off speed, at 15 degrees flaps and 50 knots (down to 45 knots), near the ground and in slow or near-slow flight. I am still cautious. However, I suspect that a CTSW would bleed energy so slowly on descent to final and the nose would point so high into the sky that I could not miss noticing when I get down to a slow 45 knots (10% above stall speed). Right now, half of my attention has to be focused on the numeric display of the airspeed on the Dynon (which is way too busy in those moments for my taste). It will become a lot easier if I knew that I did not need to watch the numeric airspeed as carefully. [Anyone have a good guess? How many seconds should it take to bleed speed from 50 to 45 knots, power-off, 15 degrees flaps, descending at a constant rate of 200-300 fpm on final?] Single-pilot behavior is even more extreme than dual-pilot behavior. The airplane becomes even lighter. Very noticeable...not like a 1,500 lbs airplane. Power off, power off, power off. The rest the same. regards, /iaw PS: If they did not exist in real life, I would guess "motorized kite" would be good joke to make about a CTSW. It is 100hp bolted on a sailplane without speed brakes.
  8. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/slip-skid-stall/ (however, the slip-skid difference seems to matter in turns, not on final when my direction is straight ahead and I want to lose altitude and speed in a hurry.) I find the Dynon a bit too busy for taking a quick glance to get the airspeed and vertical speed. This would make it safer/easier. I wish I had a HUD with those two pieces of information---or be able to see it much more quickly---or have audible speed or AoA alerts. This is why I am trying to build in more safety margin against a worst-case scenario than I should. I don't believe the CTSW lends itself to stabilized approaches the same way that heavier airplanes do. but I want to fly (smaller) corrections to the basis, not (bigger) corrections from start to end. This is why I started this thread. And everyone's point of view is highly appreciated. For one, I have learned that there are many approaches to landing.
  9. I think FD left out the AoA from the Dynon---there was no audible warning on practice stalls. has anyone installed one? (can it be set to raise hell audibly at a certain angle?) if I did have one, I would be more aggressive alone. right now, I am not even a chicken when alone. there is a small possibility of entering a stall/spin, but it's ok. a slow-speed forward slip is a little too close to comfort for me, at least for quite a while. I could forward slip aggressively gaining speed, and then go back to slow flight. but this is not even the main reason. I used to slip my Vans RV-9A quite regularly, and it was very effective. however, when I tried it with an instructor on the right, the CTSW did not bleed off as nicely as the RV-9A. I am guessing that this is partly due to the thin tail boom and the relatively round passenger compartment profile. yes, slipping is a tool and it works, but it did not seem to be a very sharp tool...at least the few times I tried it. /iaw
  10. Its the transition point to slow flight. I am interested in it because the aircraft responds less naturally and quickly to variations in throttle in slow flight. The handling characteristics change. Yes, i have always flown well in slow flight, and the ct is easy to fly in it, too. Still, the most pleasant, natural, and easy flying for me is at this bottom. It just is most intuitive. there are long discussions on the web about vmd and the bottom, especially as far as jets are concerned. But I donโ€™t really care about this.
  11. can someone please confirm for me what the bottom of the power curves are for 15 and 30 flaps?
  12. Ed---in 12 years, I will probably ignore all the numbers and just land instinctively, too. actually, probably in a few months. but, right now, I want to develop the instinct for this particular airplane. and most importantly, develop the peripheral vision to judge altitude over the runway. and wrestling with being too high and fast at the same time makes this a lot harder. I don't like sideslips as the standard goto for landings. I like them fine for getting down in a hurry when needed, but I do not want to have to plan for them. I have plane control surfaces for a reason. ๐Ÿ˜‰I would rather get the drag from 30 flaps if sustained and planned for. I always thought a little faster and less flaps are less susceptible to gusts, especially side gusts. ok. new plan---2,400 rpm w/ 15 flaps abeam the numbers, target airspeed of 55 knots, 30 flaps on base, and 1 nm finals at 500 feet altitude outset, 400 fpm descent, correcting with power.
  13. If you fly 0.5 mile finals, at what agl and speed are you on turn to final? a basic pattern profile is a good thing to start out with, even if landings are all different and the ct is too light for a standardized stabilized final. I am not enthused about 30 flaps, given the added susceptibility to small wind gusts. But maybe it is a good idea...
  14. thanks, tom. this makes good sense to me. I had looked at the POH, and it had 44 knots on -6, 42 knots on 0, and 39 knots on 40. like an idiot, I stared at this and thought "why none at 15 flaps?" the obvious answer was of course to look at the numbers until it would dawn on the reader that they are all indistinguishable between 39 and 42. hello real world. is 1.3*Vs (55 knots) about the bottom of the power curve with 15 flaps then? yes, many factors, and nothing is precise. I can pretty much fly my own pattern. my airstrip is a long 4,000 feet but thin, and with high palm trees on very short final. yesterday, I was flying about 1 nm finals. I had been targeting 500 feet on turn to final, and flying with about 2800 rpm at 60 knots 15 flap. this ended up reasonably ok (little but not much long) with a 200 lbs passenger, but it ended up too high without one. so, I think my next solo flight attempts will be experimenting with (stabilized) 2,400 rpm w/ 15 flaps, target airspeed of 55 knots, and 1.2 nm finals at 500 feet altitude outset, 400 fpm descent, correcting with power. will try out when the weather improves ๐Ÿ™‚
×
×
  • Create New...