FlyingMonkey Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 Yes. absolutely. The CT is an incredible flyer for the money. It's range is the same as the Cirrus but on a fraction of the fuel, and about 100kts slower, but certainly an adequate plane to fly up and down a state or between two of them in a day. The CT and the Sling are incredible planes when you get down to it....they are just smaller and a little slower. That 100kt makes a difference, I'd certainly rather have your Cirrus if I needed to cross half the country in an afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted November 21, 2016 Report Share Posted November 21, 2016 That 100kt makes a difference, I'd certainly rather have your Cirrus if I needed to cross half the country in an afternoon. Well as you know you pay for what you get. The Cirrus 100LL fuel is a LOT more than the Mogas we used in the CT and you need a LOT more of it 14gph LOP...but is comfy on long trips and has TKS deicing and pitot heater whcih adds some extra safety. And of course it costs 7 times as much as a new CT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GravityKnight Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 For what it's worth OP.... I had time in a CTSW, and 2 CTLS's before buying my rans... (I'm at 6600ft ground elevation and flew regularly in the mountains of CO) the SW always performed noticeably better.... it's a little lighter, but that really didn't seem to explain it... one of the LS's had the prop pitched finer than either of the other planes, and still wouldn't perform up high as well. Could be a number of other things.. so don't take this as gospel... But the SW was always capable up high... I'm 6'4" and 240 and I took it in and out of leadville with a passenger who was ~170 and 2/3s fuel....the LS's were both dogs....just my experiences with a couple FD's. Whatever you buy, testing it as much as possible before buying something would be best.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 It's all about prop pitch. and setup at a particular altitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GravityKnight Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 It's all about prop pitch. and setup at a particular altitude. that what I couldn't make sense off.. the SW had coarser prop pitch vs. the others.. it was pretty over pitched.... not the way I prefer/good for it.. but ran pretty well..... and from what I understand now, 1 of the LS's got in behind a jet or c130 in the run up area and flipped over... sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 This isn't about empty dry weight of an SW to an LS either. It depends what weight is put in it afterwards. An LS may weigh more on delivery, but depending on how much a pilot and or passenger weight plus how much fuel or baggage you have the SW may weigh much more. I see people touting empty weight. Planes aren't flown empty so that makes no difference in a discussion like this. It FINAL gross weight at take off that's the player and then it becomes prop pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 This isn't about empty dry weight of an SW to an LS either. It depends what weight is put in it afterwards. An LS may weigh more on delivery, but depending on how much a pilot and or passenger weight plus how much fuel or baggage you have the SW may weigh much more. I see people touting empty weight. Planes aren't flown empty so that makes no difference in a discussion like this. It FINAL gross weight at take off that's the player and then it becomes prop pitch. If you put the same load on the airplane the one with the lighter empty weight will always be lighter. Lighter means it has more excess power, meaning better performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 For what it's worth OP.... I had time in a CTSW, and 2 CTLS's before buying my rans... (I'm at 6600ft ground elevation and flew regularly in the mountains of CO) the SW always performed noticeably better.... it's a little lighter, but that really didn't seem to explain it... one of the LS's had the prop pitched finer than either of the other planes, and still wouldn't perform up high as well. Could be a number of other things.. so don't take this as gospel... But the SW was always capable up high... I'm 6'4" and 240 and I took it in and out of leadville with a passenger who was ~170 and 2/3s fuel....the LS's were both dogs....just my experiences with a couple FD's. Whatever you buy, testing it as much as possible before buying something would be best.... Haven't heard from you in a while Todd...how's the big bore kit working out now that you have some hours on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GravityKnight Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 This isn't about empty dry weight of an SW to an LS either. It depends what weight is put in it afterwards. An LS may weigh more on delivery, but depending on how much a pilot and or passenger weight plus how much fuel or baggage you have the SW may weigh much more. I see people touting empty weight. Planes aren't flown empty so that makes no difference in a discussion like this. It FINAL gross weight at take off that's the player and then it becomes prop pitch. fwiw, all 3 planes had the same config (instruments, tire size etc.), same basic weight/fuel onboard during a lot of the flights, and the sw would consistently outperform the others.. chalk it up to whatever you like - I never could find a real/solid reason to explain it..and I hear what your saying- my bird has gotten pretty chunky since I started adding goodies to it! I liked the look of the LS better, the inside cargo area, rear windows and the main gear etc.. But I always chose the SW as the extra performance was pretty helpful up here. Very well could just be those particular airplanes though!! Haven't heard from you in a while Todd...how's the big bore kit working out now that you have some hours on it? Loving it Andy! Had it at 1500ft at a breakfast run in Lucas, KS at the annual RANS fly in in. Thing was an absolute monster on take off and climb. Still uses just a touch of oil.. Leak down tests were real high/tight when I did the annual. So far so good! 150+ hours on those cylinders and pistons! Built a huge nose fork and went even larger on tires (could get 100knots out of it by adding some pitch, as is about 105-110mph cruise dragging those balloons around)... going after a whirlwind 75" prop next (saving my pennies) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredycompean Posted December 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 So It´s great to hear that CTSW performs good at altitude. Does anyone know if there is an adjustment to be made on the leaning/richening of the needle inside the carburetor? Fredy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted December 3, 2016 Report Share Posted December 3, 2016 The carb needle has 4 slots. The 912 is in #3 now. You could lean 2 slots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.