Darrenr Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 I am new to flight design and took a test flight in each and loved both. Looking to buy and want to confirm some rumors. I am told the useful load on the SW is higher than the LS by around 75 lbs assuming it has glass 100/120 setup? Also heard the SW is a little faster 5-10 kts indicated in cruise? Can anyone shed any light? Also anything else I should know about one vs the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 The SWs are lighter on average but they all weigh different. Mine is 719lbs empty, most are heavier. You might find more variation and customization of the panels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrenr Posted March 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Thx what cruise speed do u get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 You are right the SW's have a little more useful load. Apples to apples is about 50 pounds. I have flown both, and the SW might be a bit faster, but I wouldn't put any money on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrenr Posted March 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Thx anyone suggest going rate for a 3-500 hr 2007 with glass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Thx what cruise speed do u get 120-125kts true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Thx anyone suggest going rate for a 3-500 hr 2007 with glass If you are patient I would think in the $75-$80 thousand range, and you might find for a little less if they are in a hurry to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrenr Posted March 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Thx much appreciated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 CTLS "lite" (or is it now called the "club"?) has better useful load... tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 I have owned both the CTSW and the CTLS... Useful load difference on a 2006 SW versus a 2012 LS is 94 pounds (both fully loaded). Speed was pretty much the same give or take a few kts. CTLS landing gear dramatic improvement over the SW. For my tastes, landing gear alone worth the price of the upgrade. If you need more useful load the SW is hard to beat. If 500 is enough for you (versus 600) I'd go LS. On either version I'd go tundra versus standard, also worth the price of admission. Thats my 2 cents! http://youtu.be/4PIgWDgwj1M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 The SW is lighter, but it is NOT faster. The 912i engine is more efficient on gas and has more power than the older engines. The SW is lighter mainly because many of them have less capable avionics, even steam guages etc. And lack autopilots and other goodies. You get what you WEIGHT for. Both the 912 ULS and 912i are rated for 100hp @ 5,800 RPM and 93hp @ 5,500 RPM WOT standard day. That clearly makes the lighter SW faster than the FI SL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 "Both the 912 ULS and 912i are rated for 100hp @ 5,800 RPM and 93hp @ 5,500 RPM WOT standard day. That clearly makes the lighter SW faster than the FI SL!" = better power to weight ratio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 It does make a difference, the physics will not be denied, better power/weight=faster. My cruise at 75% power is 120kt+ If you are 5 kts less than the permissible speed and I am 5+ knots faster that is a difference in speed. Weight is not irrelevant, in light sport aviation it is quite relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 Don't get too caught up in too much hipe and make sure all things are equal or you'll come up short. 15%-18% is what seems to be the real field fuel economy. Not all CT's are equal. If the CTLSi's prop isn't pitched properly many other older CT's will out run it. 100 hp is 100 hp. The extra weight FD added with the injected engine was 20+ lbs. I weigh 3 of your wife and I can see 1100 FPM in climb in my 2006 CTSW. My prop is 3" longer than the Neuform, but you may see the Sensenich back very soon on the injected models, too. I can tell you that without a doubt ED's 2005 CTSW will out run a new CTLSi at 10K-12K altitude. FD doesn't prop for that, ED did. WOT at altitude is everything on a ground adjustable prop. I think I may have flown more SW's and LS's than most in the country with the exception of maybe or 2. Hec I think I'm listed on at least 20 insurance policies. I am fortunate that I get to prove and dis-prove all kinds of rumors weekly and I research and try more things than any other CT mechanic or shop. ED, Do you remember our first year at Page, AZ Fly-In. You and Erin were flying with Lynn and I across the Grand Canyon at 11.5'K. We both had different prop settings and yours was set for that high altitude and mine was set for around 5'K. You walked away from me like I was standing still. Not even in the same ballpark. So all things must be equal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 ...ED,Do you remember our first year at Page, AZ Fly-In. You and Erin were flying with Lynn and I across the Grand Canyon at 11.5'K. We both had different prop settings and yours was set for that high altitude and mine was set for around 5'K. You walked away from me like I was standing still. Not even in the same ballpark... I remember, mine is a 2006, not 2005. Mostly I remember coming back from Monument Valley at sunset and the sun in my eyes was bothering so I apologized to the group for speeding up and leaving them behind. I was about the 1st CT with a flat prop and Page is the kind of place where it makes a big difference. As far as I can see the biggest advantage in the FI is economy and I wonder if I could keep cool enough without my higher fuel burn? Excess fuel = cooling. That is a truism from Rotax's 2 stroke engines that seems to apply to the 912. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josjonkers Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 Both the 912 ULS and 912i are rated for 100hp @ 5,800 RPM and 93hp @ 5,500 RPM WOT standard day. That clearly makes the lighter SW faster than the FI SL! Don't get caught up in details here. What are we talking about in terms of speed difference? 5 kts? 3 kts? 1 kts? Rest my case. Key point is the SW is a little lighter and can therefor carry more load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 Don't get caught up in details here. What are we talking about in terms of speed difference? 5 kts? 3 kts? 1 kts? Rest my case. Key point is the SW is a little lighter and can therefor carry more load. The now stinky, other side of this argument began, in another thread, by stating that his CTLSi is 20% faster due to the fuel injection. I did point out that a CT won't do 147kts without altitude and a 914. The LSi being 5,3 or 1 kt slower is a big change from 25kts faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 This all boils down to "everything must be equal" and it rarely is. To compare you must have a base line. Anything else is just skewed and poor data. The SW may even be faster just on load alone. If you have two people in the CTLS or CTLSi and an SW or another CTLS only has the pilot it will be faster every time. Even a 100 lb. difference will make a difference. I have raced along side enough to see this on a regular basis. It would be easy to get a 100 lb. spread between some SW's and the CTLSi and that will absolutely make a difference in top speeds. Weight is every thing in our birds. Prop pitch is second. Now we're getting into an area where I have done a lot of research and have 6-7 CT's at my field 24/7 and we fly side by side all the time and I have done extensive research with different props and settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlennM Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 I have heard that the SW is a little more responsive in the controls than an LS. I have never flown an LS, so I don't know. Can anyone comment that has flown both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercity Posted March 28, 2013 Report Share Posted March 28, 2013 I have heard that the SW is a little more responsive in the controls than an LS. I have never flown an LS, so I don't know. Can anyone comment that has flown both? Having flown both, the SW is a bit sportier on the controls especially pitch. The pitch in the flare is touchy compared to the LS. Both are a blast to fly. Think of the LS as a Cadillac vs the SW a little sports car! The main gear on the LS is a great improvement over the SW. The rear window and hat shelf make the cabin feel roomy. Cruise speed wise they are within a couple knots of each other, mainly based on the prop pitch being set right. The SW tends to be lighter so you get a little more useful load. Bottom line, you will be happy with any CT, there are some advantages to the LS and the new Si. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.