Jump to content

Value of a 2010 CTLS?


Scott Lee

Recommended Posts

Except a CT with floats gets another 110 pounds of capacity according to the rules.  Hmm, so if you are a sea plane carrying around big heavy floats all the time, with much higher resistance pushing the plane on the water to get to rotation speed, much higher wind resistance and uses the same Rotax 100 hp engine without a problem, does the 1320 limit make sense?

 

 

Actually the floats add about 220 to the empty weight, so you lose about 100 pounds of useful load. The other thing you are not taking into consideration is that the floats also add lift to help support their weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Scott,

 

1) It would be best not to even think about full fuel most of the time. Plan on half fuel, with the ability to carry more if solo and going a long distance.

 

2) Your question about 1,320 lbs making sense when 100 hp can haul more weight "without a problem" seems to assume that gross weight limits are normally set by performance capability. They are just as likely to be set by structural limits, or the effect of more weight on stall speed.

 

Remember, at 1,321 lbs and up virtually all the performance charts for a particular plane go out the window, leaving the pilot to guess at all sorts of performance parameters, or to become a test pilot. Neither is a good idea to my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Remember, at 1,321 lbs and up virtually all the performance charts for a particular plane go out the window, leaving the pilot to guess at all sorts of performance parameters, or to become a test pilot. Neither is a good idea to my mind. 

We beat this topic up all the time since the 1320 lb limit is a regulatory limit that may be less than the design and/or certified limit in another category.  BTW -- the ASTM standard is actually 600kg which means the planes were tested at almost 1223 lbs  :giggle-3307:

 

In the case of Tecnam, they certify their P2008 to 630 kg in European CS-VLA class and 1320lbs for the US LSA class.  POH do exist for both: http://www.c3p.pf/files/AFM_P2008.pdfand http://www.redcliffeaeroclub.com.au/files/aircraft/P2008_POH.pdf

 

For instance, the stall speed at 630 kg is approximately 5kts higher.   Interesting that the CS-VLA manual has much better performance charts.

 

My point is that one does not necessarily become a test pilot if flying above the LSA weight for a particular aircraft.  You are busting US regulations, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was saying, two, 200 lb people (not 2200 pounds)

 

My point was that with a 430 pound useful load in a P2008 you'll never be able to take those two 200 pounders, and have anything left (legally) for fuel and baggage.  For me that was the straw that broke the camels back and put me into my 3rd CT.  I weigh in at 200, I have many friends who are also tipping the scale around the same weight.  I'm pushing my limit on a CTLSi as it is.  Losing 50 more to a P2008 was a bridge too far for me...  But the P2008 sure does look pretty inside!

 

My 2006 CTSW had a 600 pound useful load

My 2012 CTLS had a 500 pound useful load

My 2016 CTLSi will have a 480 pound useful load

 

CT's (fully loaded) have gotten 120 pounds fatter over the last decade.  I do wish the FAA would add that extra float allowance to all LSA's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott,

 

1) It would be best not to even think about full fuel most of the time. Plan on half fuel, with the ability to carry more if solo and going a long distance.

 

2) Your question about 1,320 lbs making sense when 100 hp can haul more weight "without a problem" seems to assume that gross weight limits are normally set by performance capability. They are just as likely to be set by structural limits, or the effect of more weight on stall speed.

1) Agreed - I will load full fuel if I am alone and doing a cross country.  If I have a passenger I shoot for 20 gallons.  (My legs are 2.5-3 hours and 20 gallons gives at least an hour reserve)

2) Also agree.  I think the weight limit is based upon a bunch of factors, including the ones you mention.  But I'd love to see a transcript of the meeting of the committee that made the decision! 

 

 

 

CT's (fully loaded) have gotten 120 pounds fatter over the last decade.  I do wish the FAA would add that extra float allowance to all LSA's. 

 

Yup, that is exactly my point in mentioning the floats.

 

When I was looking to buy, I did a lot of research and chose a CTLS based upon a bunch of factors.  One of the most important to me was that they were the market leader and the dealership is only 90 minutes by car from my home.  This forum strongly factored into my decision because I was looking for owner experiences (problems!) with the plane and didn't see anything bad.  I liked that it is an active community with a lot of good information.  As a first time owner, having a place to ask questions was HUGE!  It is amazing how many google searches for CT/Flight Design information point to this forum.  This is not true of Tecnam.  Recently some Tecnam owners started a new forum but it is a lightweight compared to ctflier and will take time to get better.  I started my LSA training in a 2009 CTLS and loved it from the start.  My 2010 is quite a bit nicer than then a 2009 and after buying my CT my instructor repeatedly said he wishes they had my plane instead. I bought my plane to take instruction and having the parachute was a big deal to my and my wife.  It's economical to operate at about $60 an hour all-in.

 

It's a long story to say you bought a great aircraft, but you know that since it is your third!  I haven't made a final decision on trading, I'm still looking at a Tecnam P2008 but I'm very happy with the plane I own!  I just upgraded to the 796 and ADSB in and will add ADSB out if I keep the plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a data point, I try to keep my Sky Arrow parked with no more than 1/2 tanks, in my case only 9 gals.

 

That lets me take along a passenger up to about 220 lbs with no baggage, possibly for an hour or so. Lighter passenger or solo I just throw in some extra fuel to stay within limits and go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FAA Part 23 rewrite is the priority.  Congress is behind 3rd class med and ATC privitizing.  The FAA won't try to rewrite the rules for SLSA because they don't care if a pilot flying on a DL has a passenger along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the biggest compromise in having a weight-challenged and therefore a range challenge LSA is I would have to change from 100% car-gas to 30%-40% avgas because I would be buying gas at my destinations for the return flight.

 

I have recently lost weight and have my numbers perfect for the 1320 max.

 

Me = 175

GF = 120

Empty = 719

Fuel = 200

Luggage = 100

--------------------

Total = 1,314

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have a fair understanding of aerodynamics you would know trying to compare a airplane with and without floats at the same weight is not a fair.

 

The increase in gross weight allowed for float equipped aircraft is because the floats are mostly supporting that weight, not the airplane structure.

 

If you want to increase the weight you also need to increase the lift to support the extra weight.

 

If you increase the weight to 1430 without adding floats or extra lift you will likely have a higher clean stall speed, adding one more thing to take the airplane out of the LSA category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have a fair understanding of aerodynamics you would know trying to compare a airplane with and without floats at the same weight is not a fair.

 

The increase in gross weight allowed for float equipped aircraft is because the floats are mostly supporting that weight, not the airplane structure.

 

If you want to increase the weight you also need to increase the lift to support the extra weight.

 

If you increase the weight to 1430 without adding floats or extra lift you will likely have a higher clean stall speed, adding one more thing to take the airplane out of the LSA category.

My point is that the Rotax is strong enough to overcome the water resistance and get a heavier plane in the air. I agree and understand that increasing the weight increases the stall speed. If I'm alone I shoot for 54 knots over the numbers. If I am heavy I aim for 61 knots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that the Rotax is strong enough to overcome the water resistance and get a heavier plane in the air. I agree and understand that increasing the weight increases the stall speed. If I'm alone I shoot for 54 knots over the numbers. If I am heavy I aim for 61 knots.

 

You could also consider going experimental and putting the 914 turbo into your CT....that would be a unique aircraft for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could also consider going experimental and putting the 914 turbo into your CT....that would be a unique aircraft for sure.

Cecil,

 

Is it your impression that as an Experimental an LSA can exceed 1,320 lbs?

 

If not, how would a heavier turbo help him with his gross weight concerns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed always looking for a flaw in logic. laughing.

 

Scott said he was looking at the Technam mainly for the 914 turbo.  He already owns the CT and knows how to fly it.  If he goes ELSA and then swaps out the engine he can do that cheaper and with a lot less hassle and still get a plane with more useful than the Technam.  Then if he wants to get a little money back, he can sell the engine.

 

Side note.  You can carpet the CT anyway you want also...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott said he was looking at the Technam mainly for the 914 turbo.  He already owns the CT and knows how to fly it.  If he goes ELSA and then swaps out the engine he can do that cheaper and with a lot less hassle and still get a plane with more useful than the Technam.  Then if he wants to get a little money back, he can sell the engine.

 

Side note.  You can carpet the CT anyway you want also...

 

I assume you are joking. I'm already regretting investing about $2,500 to put in the GDL39-3D and 796 as I'm sure I won't get it back.

 

Just to repeat my reasons for considering a change from my first post:

 

"To answer the obvious question of "why",  it's a bunch of little things.  Having luggage behind the seats and accessible in flight.  Wall to wall carpet with a nicer interior finish.  No openings in the cabin for access to sight tubes and bolts.  Better adjust-ability and positioning of the seats.  Having a 914 turbo which is has more power on take off, quicker climb to altitude but quieter and smoother in cruise." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you are joking. I'm already regretting investing about $2,500 to put in the GDL39-3D and 796 as I'm sure I won't get it back.

 

Just to repeat my reasons for considering a change from my first post:

 

"To answer the obvious question of "why",  it's a bunch of little things.  Having luggage behind the seats and accessible in flight.  Wall to wall carpet with a nicer interior finish.  No openings in the cabin for access to sight tubes and bolts.  Better adjust-ability and positioning of the seats.  Having a 914 turbo which is has more power on take off, quicker climb to altitude but quieter and smoother in cruise." 

 

Joking?  Consider what your plan is....sell a plane then buy another one.  You will LOSE money on the first plane (much more than a couple of upgraded parts) and you will pay a premium for the new one.    You already know the existing plane and are assuming will love to own and fly the new one and not want to change it.

 

You say you want to do this to get carpet and no openings for tubes and bolts and the 914?    The cosmetic things like the carpet, openings and luggage concerns are inconsequential (you do know the luggage area is accessible from behind the seat right), right? 

 

The engine is the biggest delta.   You can save money by just upgrading your current plane with the new engine..and still have the better useful and larger cabin.  And you can still use the upgrades you added. 

 

But hey, it's your money  and your quest.  We are all just thinking out loud with no risk or dog in the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the biggest compromise in having a weight-challenged and therefore a range challenge LSA is I would have to change from 100% car-gas to 30%-40% avgas because I would be buying gas at my destinations for the return flight.

 

I have recently lost weight and have my numbers perfect for the 1320 max.

 

Me = 175

GF = 120

Empty = 719

Fuel = 200

Luggage = 100

--------------------

Total = 1,314

 

 

If you ever get a new girlfriend she's going to have to come in at 126 or under. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joking?  Consider what your plan is....sell a plane then buy another one.  You will LOSE money on the first plane (much more than a couple of upgraded parts) and you will pay a premium for the new one.    You already know the existing plane and are assuming will love to own and fly the new one and not want to change it.

 

You say you want to do this to get carpet and no openings for tubes and bolts and the 914?    The cosmetic things like the carpet, openings and luggage concerns are inconsequential (you do know the luggage area is accessible from behind the seat right), right? 

 

The engine is the biggest delta.   You can save money by just upgrading your current plane with the new engine..and still have the better useful and larger cabin.  And you can still use the upgrades you added. 

 

But hey, it's your money  and your quest.  We are all just thinking out loud with no risk or dog in the race.

 

You cannot put a more powerful engine in an ELSA. What more obvious speed increasing change could you make?  Why not 180hp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that the Rotax is strong enough to overcome the water resistance and get a heavier plane in the air. I agree and understand that increasing the weight increases the stall speed. If I'm alone I shoot for 54 knots over the numbers. If I am heavy I aim for 61 knots.

 

You and some of the others are missing the point. You are correct in that the engine has extra drag to overcome, but it is the lift produced that gets the airplane into the air. The floats provide extra lift to support the weight increase, not the airplane. The extra lift produced by the floats is more than enough to support the extra 110 pounds of gross weight increase. If it was just extra weight that the airplane is carrying you would expect the stall speed to be higher with floats install, but the stall speed is actually lower. The reason for this is the extra lift being produced by the floats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot put a more powerful engine in an ELSA.

Well, you actually can.

 

One would just have to limit it in such a way as to still meet Light Sport limitations, most specifically the speed restriction.

 

It would however be a major alteration that would require a testing phase as outlined in one's Operating Limitations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot put a more powerful engine in an ELSA. What more obvious speed increasing change could you make?  Why not 180hp?

 

The Tecnam 2008 is an SLSA with the 914 in it.  How did they get away with it?   Is Scott saying he is not buying an SLSA now? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between changing a cup-holder and the engine or the wings.

 

An ELSA design went through a process to qualify for the ASTM standard. That design including its speed limiting portion has to remain when transitioning from SLSA to ELSA.  

 

Eddie, guess it all depends on who can qualify for compliance to the ASTM mandated speed limitation.  I say its the designer and you say the builder can use his own design with his own speed limiting strategy.  I'm dubious but lazy, feel fry to prove me wrong. 

 

Edit: After thinking about it, any ELSA design was a proved as ELSA prior to the building or converting process. 

 

A path to a 914 powered CTSW may exist but if it existed the already converted one would likely be public and not under cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...