Jump to content

Smart offering...


AGLyme

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I'm super glad they are doing this, I just wish they used the larger mushroom.

I think that option is called the CTLSi.;) Larger equals more weight and less useful load, followed by the desire to fill up that larger space. that is how we got from the CTSW's with 600 pound useful loads, to the CTLSi with around 480. Personally I think this is a nice bled of technology and simplicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

In the panel pic you can just see the top of the fuel valve slot at the bottom.  So i'd say no -- just the simple CTSW on/off valve.

The CTLSi still has the fuel shut off on the panel like that, but also has the selector valve. In fact it actually is connected to 2 valves behind the panel, both supply and return line. I also suspect it has a header tank, since it has the low fuel light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WmInce said:

E-LSA . . . right out of the chute . . . problem solved!😀

I told you E-LSA was pretty cool.  Glad you finally listened!   😎

I'm sure FD would sell you the knobs as an option if you don't mind a "porky" CT.  

I have to say, an updated and lightweight CTSW hits all my check boxes.  If I were shopping for a new LSA I'd be calling FD tomorrow.  Now they just need a tailwheel version...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the injected engine option... to my knowledge after scads of research, every Rotax "i" has a header tank.   Header tank does take up baggage space (it is in the baggage compartment)... I like the injected option because there is no carb icing dangers, and,  the Header Tank serves as an extra safety precaution.  There is a "low fuel" (in the Header Tank) light, located near the Lane A and B lights...  when the Header tank reserve dips below 1.8 gallons, the warning light goes off... If there is anything funky in the wing'd fuel system filters (or the wings are out of gas), the header tank is a zone of last resort and ostensibly the Pilot has 1.8 gallons of time to land.  I believe the header tank is a must installation due to to vapor lock dangers on hot days.  There is a tube from the header tank that snakes through to the left wing.  I can see the end of the tube near the gas capped opening.  That aluminum tube opening must be kept "clear". Lastly, the L,R, Both gas selector is located between the seats, behind the people, not in the dash FYI.

I like this offering for people who want full fuel, want to spend less on gas (but the "i" Rotax is more $$$ expensive up front) + 2 American Weight Pilots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AGLyme said:

Regarding the injected engine option... to my knowledge after scads of research, every Rotax "i" has a header tank.   Header tank does take up baggage space (it is in the baggage compartment)... I like the injected option because there is no carb icing dangers, and,  the Header Tank serves as an extra safety precaution.  There is a "low fuel" (in the Header Tank) light, located near the Lane A and B lights...  when the Header tank reserve dips below 1.8 gallons, the warning light goes off... If there is anything funky in the wing'd fuel system filters (or the wings are out of gas), the header tank is a zone of last resort and ostensibly the Pilot has 1.8 gallons of time to land.  I believe the header tank is a must installation due to to vapor lock dangers on hot days.  There is a tube from the header tank that snakes through to the left wing.  I can see the end of the tube near the gas capped opening.  That aluminum tube opening must be kept "clear". Lastly, the L,R, Both gas selector is located between the seats, behind the people, not in the dash FYI.

I like this offering for people who want full fuel, want to spend less on gas (but the "i" Rotax is more $$$ expensive up front) + 2 American Weight Pilots.

I agree with all your points, but it's not all sunshine for the FI engine.  It's heavier by about 22lb, and requires electricity to keep running the injectors or it quits.  That means a more complex electrical system, usually with dual batteries, dual alternators, etc.  It's also not really maintainable by the average joe, so for an ELSA owner like me that is a downside.  Carb icing is generally a non-issue with the 912 series; I have seen it in my airplane one time in 500 hours, and it cleared immediately with carb heat.  If you pull warm cowl air into the engine like a lot of designs do (like the RV-12) with the filters right on the carbs you don't even need carb heat, though there might be a very slight power penalty.

I'm not saying the ULS is preferable, just that there are plusses and minuses to both.  I think they are both great engines.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I agree with all your points, but it's not all sunshine for the FI engine.  It's heavier by about 22lb, and requires electricity to keep running the injectors or it quits.  That means a more complex electrical system, usually with dual batteries, dual alternators, etc.  It's also not really maintainable by the average joe, so for an ELSA owner like me that is a downside.  Carb icing is generally a non-issue with the 912 series; I have seen it in my airplane one time in 500 hours, and it cleared immediately with carb heat.  If you pull warm cowl air into the engine like a lot of designs do (like the RV-12) with the filters right on the carbs you don't even need carb heat, though there might be a very slight power penalty.

I'm not saying the ULS is preferable, just that there are plusses and minuses to both.  I think they are both great engines.  

from a mountain pilots perspective the 914 is preferable. from average joe's perspective something more like a big bore might be best?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

from a mountain pilots perspective the 914 is preferable. from average joe's perspective something more like a big bore might be best?

Big bore is cool, I don’t know what longevity looks like.  Honestly, as an average joe lowlander, I’m content with 100hp in a standard atmosphere at sea level.  It’s been working for me for five years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...