Jump to content

Long Legs

Mike Koerner

By Mike Koerner
in Trip Reports

Recommended Posts

Mike Koerner

Mike Koerner

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Al,

I have not flown either the SW or LS and can’t offer any comparison.

Also I’m not a flight instructor or even particularly competent pilot, but I don’t think the 2k lacks rudder authority. I’m able to hold a runway heading with a the wing down into a crosswind and land on one wheel. The trick is what happens after that. I think it’s important to get the flaps up quick (I wish they were manual) so you can get the weight off the wing and onto the wheels. The second thing is to keep flying the airplane. Until the weight is fully on the wheels it wants to tiddlywink off to the side (right main, Ieft main, right main, left main). You can’t let it do that. You have to kick the nose toward the wind to stay on the runway.

I know that’s not what you were asking, but maybe it’ll be of benefit to someone.

 

Andy,

I have a heater and it helps a lot. Jacques was nice enough to give me a vent cover for it so it doesn’t just burn one ankle anymore.

I’ve taped up all the easy cockpit access holes. I guess I’ll have to tape some of the hard ones too… or wear gloves and a ski cap.

The 2k wing is only a couple of feet longer. I don’t think it’s enough to matter much.

Wind, especially crosswinds, are the bane of any aircraft with a light wing loading. There is no way around that. The neat thing about the CT is that if you don’t like the conditions where you’re going, you probably have enough range to go back, or at least go somewhere else; as long as you start off with the wings reasonably full (I always do) and aren’t trying to set some silly record.

Sometime back I was flying north with my daughter. I had done a proper job of pre-flight planning and knew the weather would be fine at Yakama in the afternoon. It wasn’t. I got on the radio to Flight Watch and with great exasperation told them the I was in a light sport, that the runway wasn’t aligned right and it was too damn windy for me to land. I emphatically asked where can I go where there was less wind and runways aligned with it.

He asked my remaining range. I said, “About 300 miles.”

He said “Well, Moses Lake is only 40 miles away. The winds there are calm and they have huge runways going every which way.”

At least until I get ADS-B weather I’m going to use Flight Watch. That’s what we pay these people for; to get us out of trouble.

You shouldn’t have to make a landing in a CT you’re not comfortable with and confident in the outcome.

 

Tip,

My CT2k has the 100 hp Rotax. It really isn’t all that different from the SW’s. Externally you’re not going to notice a difference. The top of the instrument panel is more rounded and its layout is a bit different. My particular ship was built before the LSA rule, but grandfathered in with LSA certificate.

 

Mike Koerner

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim Meade

Jim Meade

Posted
Posted

JIm you are right,,  two per wing  and a 5th one in the middle  (for the aux tank I guess)

 

in the book,,,they don't explain about the fuel reserve..?

I've gone over every page in the book individually, and one can glean that there are 80 gallons in the wings, 79 usable, and 31 in the seat aux tank.

 

I did not see any discussion of the plumbing, or even a mention of anything like switching tanks. I'd like to know more about it.

 

On a side note, I was quite disappointed at what I consider to be a $70 coffee table book. For $70, I'd hoped for a book with considerable technical detail. I would never have purchased this book if I'd known how shallow it was on flying info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gbigs

gbigs

Posted
Posted

Sport upgrade = more power and higher fuel flow.  Today 7.5 hour flight gave 4.3 at 5300rpm

 

That's not much better than pre sport upgrade.  The upgrade was supposed to improve gph by 20%.  Who did your upgrade?  Are you seeing faster climb rates? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyingMonkey

FlyingMonkey

Posted
Posted

Sport upgrade = more power and higher fuel flow.  Today 7.5 hour flight gave 4.3 at 5300rpm

 

Yeah, you can't make power without fuel.  There might be a "sweet spot" where the fuel flow to power produced is better by a decent amount, but for most of the power curve I'd expect slightly higher fuel flows, or maybe the same as pre-sport if they aggressively tune.  There is a limit to how far you can take that kind of tuning and still maintain reliability and longevity of the engine though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Duane Jefts

Duane Jefts

Posted
Posted

That's not much better than pre sport upgrade.  The upgrade was supposed to improve gph by 20%.  Who did your upgrade?  Are you seeing faster climb rates? 

Climbs a little better.  WOT went from 5600 to 5680.  Most pronounced change was the fuel bump went from 5270 to 5500.  Before at 5270 the fuel flow would jump at the 92% power level and be the same as the carb version.  Now the fuel flow stays low until 5500, then jumps up.  Makes it easier to cruise faster with more economy.   Roger did a great job with upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gbigs

gbigs

Posted
Posted

Climbs a little better.  WOT went from 5600 to 5680.  Most pronounced change was the fuel bump went from 5270 to 5500.  Before at 5270 the fuel flow would jump at the 92% power level and be the same as the carb version.  Now the fuel flow stays low until 5500, then jumps up.  Makes it easier to cruise faster with more economy.   Roger did a great job with upgrade.

 

Something is off between our two planes.  In level flight at 5300 rpm I easily get 4.5 gph or so.  I can get in the high 3s at 5k rpm.  I never yellow line the tach letting the engine rev to 5500 rpm so I don't know the fuel burn there.  At 2400 ft DA I climb at or near 800fpm Va at MTOW.  I burn 91E10 mogas exclusively. 

 

I am having California Power Systems do the upgrade.  I am told no CTLSi is marketable without the upgrade (otherwise I wouldn't bother) since all new CTLSi are shipping with the upgrade from the factory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WmInce

WmInce

Posted
Posted

. . . "In level flight with no headwind at 5300 rpm I easily get 4.5 gph or so.  I can get in the high 3s at 5k rpm.  I never yellow line the tach letting the engine rev to 5500 rpm so I don't know the fuel burn there.  At 2400 ft DA I climb at or near 800fpm Va at MTOW.  I burn 91E10 mogas exclusively." . . .

 

It is almost unbelievable that you still don't get this.

"Headwind" has nothing to do with fuel flow.

Aircraft in flight don't know, nor care, that they are flying into a headwind or tailwind.

Were you not taught that in PP ground school?  If not, I suggest you revisit this subject area with a current CFI.

A thorough understanding of winds and fuel consumption are extremely important.  I would think, you especially, would have a great appreciation of both by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Baker

Tom Baker

Posted
Posted

Something is off between our two planes.  In level flight with no headwind at 5300 rpm I easily get 4.5 gph or so.  I can get in the high 3s at 5k rpm.  I never yellow line the tach letting the engine rev to 5500 rpm so I don't know the fuel burn there.  At 2400 ft DA I climb at or near 800fpm Va at MTOW.  I burn 91E10 mogas exclusively. 

 

 

 

What is your fuel burn at 5300 rpm with a headwind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim Meade

Jim Meade

Posted
Posted

A totally side-comment, I can't watch a 1 hour video. I'd much rather it was in print, since I can read swiftly and can skip as I go. I always feel kidnapped when I have to watch a video. (As you may guess, I never go to movies.) Video more than about 2 minutes better be the most exciting think in my life that day for me to watch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...