...or mount iPad to in center console?

[BravoFoxtrot]

There would seem to be new listings coming out every week or so. I would recommend you continue to educate yourself on these aircraft, decide exactly what you are looking for, and when the right plane at the right price comes along, jump on it.

Don't know if you have seen this ad, but a year newer, a little newer avionics, ADS-B in/out, similar hours and maintenance, but I don't see an AP. 

https://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php?mode=search

Not endorsing or trying to talk you out of the other CT, just giving an example. Ultimately this is your decision to make.

[FlyingMonkey]

11 hours ago, BravoFoxtrot said:

Buying an airplane and then investing in electronics to update the panel is usually not a good deal. Decide what it is you really want and include that in the purchase price calculation. You may be better off finding an aircraft that already has that equipment installed. Another thing to consider is if you are going to be flying in an area where ADS-B is needed, to either purchase an aircraft with that already installed, or plan on installing it soon after purchasing the plane.

Also, unless you have many hours in many different types of airplanes, you might not know exactly what you want until you fly it for a while.  I got a great deal on my CTSW, but I was hesitant to buy it because it only has the small, minimal engine gauges, instead of the D-120 EMS.  I *thought* I wouldn't like that, but found that it's just fine.  I manage the engine primarily by oil temperature, and keep an eye on the other three gauges for anything out of the ordinarily.  I have flown that way for over 500 hours without issue.  All of the fancy EMS info would be nice, but it's not required and I never spend any time obsessing over fuel pressure being 1psi low, cylinder head temps being 50° different, or whatever.  The Rotax is a simple engine to operate, and what I have does that adequately.  But it took some time to figure that out.

Adding the iFly is the only panel change that I've made, and that was after suffering through the 496's button interface for a good while.  It was basically not helpful for anything except XM weather and "Direct To" use of the autopilot. 

I'd recommend when buying an airplane that you just fly it "as is" for a while, to figure out what you don't like (or can't live with) and want to change.  There is also always the possibility you'll buy an airplane, and really not like it and choose to sell it relatively quickly.  In that case you don't want to be into the airplane for several thousand more dollars that you can't recoup. 

[FlyingMonkey]

10 hours ago, iaw4 said:

 

the nice part about this particular ctls is that it has the parachute, rocket, and rubbers just done.  I would likely have to take care of some of these with other purchases, too.

I would need ADS-B in and out.  many used FD CTs do not have it installed yet (and I am only considering used).  so, I count on needing ADS-B installed.  it seems relatively straightforward now.

I am guessing that the ADS-B will be about $1,500 to $2,000.

at this point, I think the only unusual upgrade will be the 696.  (I thought it would be relatively easy to go 740b instead, but it doesn't seem to be.)

I am guessing that the 696 will be between $600 to $1,000 on ebay, the install with everything done and the hardware will be, what, another $1,000, for under $2k?!  not yet sure.  if it had been $500-$1,000 more to go 740b, I would have preferred the 740b.  alas, this was not to be.

Tom Baker would probably do the job, former(?) CTLS owner.  waiting for final quotes.

 

Am I better off waiting until something more suitable comes along?  Any advice on this or other CTs would be highly appreciated.

 

I think you mean Aera 660, and not 696...right?  They are totally different animals, and the 696 is at least as big as the iFly 740b.

[iaw4]

 

now I do...some CTs had the 696.  I did know about the 660 vs 696, but forgot it as I was exploring the 740b, which was almost a dream device (though it could have been a little wider ;-).)

I was an early Dynon adapter, at the time in a Vans RV-9.  I quite liked them.  this was on the East Coast a decade ago.  yes, they are not needed for the instruments, but I really do not want to fly steam gauges in 2018.   IMC has never come on to me so quick that I did not have time to turn on the AP.  and I have enough IFR hours to be able to handfly it, too, if need be.  I learned that the best way for me to fly IFR was to just set the autopilot, and be in effect just the double-check all the time.  with distractions, flying IFR alone by hand is too hazardous.

I am a firm believer in good avionics.

now that I am in the LA area, with its complex airspace and mountains, I need good synthetic vision, preferably something that beeps at me when I am on a collision course with anything (from other airplanes to obstructions to illegal airspace).

yes, I am still looking and continuing to look.  the CTSW that I was looking at is priced ok and a good fit, except for its lack of the 740b.  it is not the last airplane for sale, however.

 

[iaw4]

 

...and this solved itself, because some other buyer just swooped in and "stole" the airplane from under me

[FlyingMonkey]

Don’t fret.  There is always another great CT deal just around the corner.  Be patient, the Universe will provide you with the perfect airplane at the right time.  I almost bought several before landing on N509CT.

[WmInce]

55 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Don’t fret.  There is always another great CT deal just around the corner.  Be patient, the Universe will provide you with the perfect airplane at the right time.  I almost bought several before landing on N509CT.

Andy is absolutely right.

Same thing happened to me and he gave me the same advice.

He was right . . . . and I ended up with a great little airplane.

Just be patient. In the meantime, I suggest you keep learning about the CT and light sport flying.

This forum is a great place to get informed and be ready for the next buying opportunity.

[sandpiper]

On 9/12/2018 at 6:40 AM, FlyingMonkey said:

Also, unless you have many hours in many different types of airplanes, you might not know exactly what you want until you fly it for a while.  I got a great deal on my CTSW, but I was hesitant to buy it because it only has the small, minimal engine gauges, instead of the D-120 EMS.  I *thought* I wouldn't like that, but found that it's just fine.  I manage the engine primarily by oil temperature, and keep an eye on the other three gauges for anything out of the ordinarily.  I have flown that way for over 500 hours without issue.  All of the fancy EMS info would be nice, but it's not required and I never spend any time obsessing over fuel pressure being 1psi low, cylinder head temps being 50° different, or whatever.  The Rotax is a simple engine to operate, and what I have does that adequately.  But it took some time to figure that out.

Adding the iFly is the only panel change that I've made, and that was after suffering through the 496's button interface for a good while.  It was basically not helpful for anything except XM weather and "Direct To" use of the autopilot. 

I'd recommend when buying an airplane that you just fly it "as is" for a while, to figure out what you don't like (or can't live with) and want to change.  There is also always the possibility you'll buy an airplane, and really not like it and choose to sell it relatively quickly.  In that case you don't want to be into the airplane for several thousand more dollars that you can't recoup. 

Same as mine, Andy. Just a D-100, no D-120.

Just think, we don't have to put up with and worry about those pesky, meaningless, low fuel pressure alarms.

[FlyingMonkey]

24 minutes ago, sandpiper said:

Same as mine, Andy. Just a D-100, no D-120.

Just think, we don't have to put up with and worry about those pesky, meaningless, low fuel pressure alarms.

Haha, true.  The only additional instrument that I've considered is a fuel flow gauge, so I could tell *exactly* how much fuel I'm burning and flight plan my fuel a bit more accurate.  Though so far my eyeballs and rough math have done pretty well.  And it's easy enough if you're off in your guesstimates to set down and buy some fuel.

[Farmer]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Haha, true.  The only additional instrument that I've considered is a fuel flow gauge, so I could tell *exactly* how much fuel I'm burning and flight plan my fuel a bit more accurate.  Though so far my eyeballs and rough math have done pretty well.  And it's easy enough if you're off in your guesstimates to set down and buy some fuel.

 I put a JPI 450  in the Cessna 172 last year. That along with the long range auxiliary tank  gave us about eight hours of fuel.  That was for the trip towards the north pole last year where 100LL is hard to find.   It is a reliable instrument, the cost with installation was reasonable, and it did all the calculations instantly at all times.  Allowed us to focus on everything else and take the fuel issues off our minds.

I’m sure I’ll see you in Tucson as I plan to be there about October 12  making preparations for the page flyin.

Farmer

[FlyingMonkey]

4 hours ago, JohnnyBlackCT said:

It's even less of an issue if you always depart with full fuel.  There is no question how much fuel was in the tanks when you departed and you probably will never fly long enough to get low on fuel.  I disagree with those of you who insist on flying with less than full fuel when weight is not an issue.  If I ever own a CT, it will always be at full fuel on departure.

Well, okay.  I have departed 1200ft grass strips with 75ft trees at the end.  More fuel is not always an asset.  Fuel fuel all the time in an airplane that carries 34 gallons and burns 4.5 per hour is leaving performance on the table.  But to each his/her own.

[FlyingMonkey]

4 hours ago, Farmer said:

 I put a JPI 450  in the Cessna 172 last year. That along with the long range auxiliary tank  gave us about eight hours of fuel.  That was for the trip towards the north pole last year where 100LL is hard to find.   It is a reliable instrument, the cost with installation was reasonable, and it did all the calculations instantly at all times.  Allowed us to focus on everything else and take the fuel issues off our minds.

I’m sure I’ll see you in Tucson as I plan to be there about October 12  making preparations for the page flyin.

Farmer

Awesome, can’t wait to see you Larry.  Duane is coming too I hope/suppose?  I envy your flying adventures, you guys are living the dream!

[Tom Baker]

18 hours ago, JohnnyBlackCT said:

It's even less of an issue if you always depart with full fuel.  There is no question how much fuel was in the tanks when you departed and you probably will never fly long enough to get low on fuel.  I disagree with those of you who insist on flying with less than full fuel when weight is not an issue.  If I ever own a CT, it will always be at full fuel on departure.

As an A&P mechanic and flight instructor I would not recommend departing with full fuel on every flight. Departing with full fuel from only a flight point of view is not a bad thing, but there are more thing to consider than just the flight. Your typical stated mission is a 1.5 to 2 hour lunch flight. If you start with full fuel you might be down to 30 gallons when you get to your destination. If you happen to park with one wing a little low you could have fuel running out of the vent onto the ground. I had this happen at Oshkosh after a 3 hour flight started with full fuel. When you return home and push it back in the hangar you will still have around 25 gallons on board. A flat tire will still dump about 10 gallons of fuel out on the floor. In 10 plus years of ownership I have walked into the hangar a few times to find a flat tire.

My recommendation based on familiarity with the design is to only add enough fuel to return with between 10 and 15 gallons. That is enough for 2-3 hours of flying time, which is more than some airplane that start out with full fuel. If you have a longer trip you can return with less, but I always try and keep my fuel balanced between both tanks.

[iaw4]

 

I was taught in my flight school that one is supposed to keep tanks full in order to avoid condensation inside the fuel tanks?!

 

[Tom Baker]

Condensation is not really a problem with the composite tank. 

To be honest in 35+ years I have never drained any water out of a fuel tank, unless the airplane has sat in the rain or has just been washed.

I do think it is a good idea to keep bladder tanks full to keep the bladder material from drying out.