Climbing out question?

[Buckaroo]

Sitten here watching the snow!

 

Question: I'm here at a field elevation of 4000 feet. If I want to climb up to 12,500 to cross the continental divide say at max gross do you all pour the coal with the Rotax with full power or is there a easier on the engine rpm for long climbs.

 

Let's pose this same question say from Vegas on the hottest summer day to 12,500 feet as well?

[FlyingMonkey]

Sitten here watching the snow!

 

Question: I'm here at a field elevation of 4000 feet. If I want to climb up to 12,500 to cross the continental divide say at max gross do you all pour the coal with the Rotax with full power or is there a easier on the engine rpm for long climbs.

 

Let's pose this same question say from Vegas on the hottest summer day to 12,500 feet as well?

 

I go by temp.  There is no harm in climbing at WOT as long as your temps stay in an acceptable range.  Here in Georgia, if I need altitude quickly I will climb at WOT and maximum rate (usually about 75-80kt at -6° flaps) until the oil temp gets to about 240°F, then shallow it out as needed to keep the temp in that range.  Of course, if not in a hurry to get to your altitude, a cruise climb of 90-100kt at WOT works well and will keep the engine temps from climbing as fast.

[Buckaroo]

Do you find that your main concern and focus concerning temps is oil temp or can other temps (egt and cht) be rising as well? Another words does egt and cht temps fluctuate along with oil temps in hot weather climbs or do they stay fairly stable in the green?

[Roger Lee]

This depends on each plane. Some run a little cooler than others and it depends on how long you get to climb. I could usually climb full throttle to altitude. That said I was never in a hurry to get there if there was no reason to rush. Seeing up to 245F isn't an issue. The temp gauge will go yellow at 230F ish. 

EGT's & CHT's tend to be more stable. EGT's tend to be a tad cooler at WOT because that's where it gets the most fuel and it isn't dependent on the air moving over anything to keep it in check. It is determined by fuel flow.

 

If your plane tends to run a little hot there are a couple of mods that can be done to help keep higher temps at bay.

[Buckaroo]

As part of the question is not only temps but rpm concerns with regard to Rotax's max rpm time limits. Say you want to climb at 90 knots can you run full power to 12,500 or are there limits to max rpm runs requiring reductions to 5500?

[Tom Baker]

5500 is max continuous power. You only have above that for 5 minutes. If your propeller is pitched correctly you will not see any RPM close to that 5500 number in a climb, otherwise you could easily over rev during level cruise.

[Buckaroo]

Thanks Tom! That answers that question. I thought she might rpm above the 5500 in a climb and started wondering how things were handled above 5 minutes climbing out on a hot day.

 

It's seems by your reply she will never go beyond that in a climb.

 

Thanks again!

[FlyingMonkey]

Oil temp tends to be the limiting factor.  I don't have EGT in my airplane, only CHT (coolant temp) and oil temp.  My CHTs are never a problem, it's always oil temp that becomes an issue.  And even here in Georgia summers I never really have much of an issue, I just sometimes have to shallow out the climb after a few minutes.

 

RPM will not be an issue in climb.  You are loading up the engine, and in a climb you will probably be 5000-5200rpm even at WOT.  If you exceed 5500rpm in a climb your prop is set WAY wrong.  

[gbigs]

Sitten here watching the snow!

 

Question: I'm here at a field elevation of 4000 feet. If I want to climb up to 12,500 to cross the continental divide say at max gross do you all pour the coal with the Rotax with full power or is there a easier on the engine rpm for long climbs.

 

Let's pose this same question say from Vegas on the hottest summer day to 12,500 feet as well?

 

The book says the Rotax wants to run between 5300rpm and 5500rpm in cruise.  The prop pitch will matter (set for climb or cruise at your field altitude).  Roger can give you advise on that... 

 

The plane has a service ceiling of 12,100...at which you can only expect a climb rate of 100fpm at MTOM.  Max altitude is 13,780...   But if you are flying as a sport pilot those numbers wont matter as it will be illegal for you to go there.

 

You wont like flying the plane in Vegas on a 'hottest summer day' - the turbulence alone will scare you and the engine will run hot.

[Buckaroo]

Great information guys! It all makes sense!

[Buckaroo]

Once at pattern altitude, I lower the nose and climb at an airspeed faster than best rate of climb. In addition to gaining altitude, I want to get to where I'm going. A faster climb airspeed also promotes engine cooling and forward visibility. When flying the Remos, I sometimes have to level off, reduce power, and allow the engine to cool. Never have that problem with the SkyCatcher and Continental engine.

I googled the Skycatcher aircraft. Seems like a nice unit.

 

Ok I'll play it's snowing and I'm bored! What's the better aircraft CTSW or Skycatcher?

[Tom Baker]

I googled the Skycatcher aircraft. Seems like a nice unit.

 

Ok I'll play it's snowing and I'm bord! What's the better aircraft CTSW or Skycatcher?

 

Oh boy, you did it now.

[Buckaroo]

There's a dead erie silence!????

[FlyingMonkey]

Ok I'll play it's snowing and I'm bored! What's the better aircraft CTSW or Skycatcher?

 

The one you have access to fly!

[Buckaroo]

????????????

[gbigs]

I googled the Skycatcher aircraft. Seems like a nice unit.

 

Ok I'll play it's snowing and I'm bored! What's the better aircraft CTSW or Skycatcher?

 

The Cessna 162 Skycatcher was a miniature Cessna 172 mostly aluminum plane.  The plane was being made in PRC and that upset some buyers and it failed in the SLSA marketplace.    Some 192 were sold and 80 were parted out.

 

No question the CT is the better plane IMHO.   The Skycatcher had a stokel and a small cockpit and small windows.  It ran a Continental O-200 engine and not a Rotax so no Mogas.  It cruised at around 118 ktas and had about a 450nm range.  The CT has one of the widest cockpits in SLSA and large windows.  The CT has a 900nm range and a cruise of 120ktas.

 

 

Cessna/Textron is shredding it's remaining inventory of C162 Skycatchers.    http://www.aero-news...3f-d3db30dcd4c9

 So it is not clear that Skycatcher owners can still get parts.

[Buckaroo]

????????

[Doug G.]

Having put about 50 hours in on a Skycatcher when I was training, I would disagree on a couple of points - at least as compared to my CTLS. I don't see the O-200 as an advantage in any way. It burns oil an it doesn't burn mogas, and the plugs are ten times as expensive and Cessna won't allow (as far as they can dictate it) anyone to work on the plane as an Light Sport Repairman. I have not heard if anyone is - it certainly would void any warrantee (If any still exist.)

I also didn't like not having a separate baggage area or the plywood floorboards. When they were new the price was about the same as a CTLS, but the equipment at that price was not.
For me personally, it didn't fit the mission, although I did enjoy flying it and the stoke certainly is not a disadvantage.
​I really don't understand Cessna parting out the remaining planes.

[Buckaroo]

What is the "stoke"?

[Buckaroo]

Great idea! Thanks!

[gbigs]

What is the "stoke"?

 

stoke....its a stick/yoke.....  its an L-Shaped control (one handed yoke) up on the panel. 

[Doug G.]

The stoke is actually pretty cool and works well in that plane. I like the plane, it just didn't fit what I was looking for at the time. I would still be flying it if I were renting. (It has to have a lot of hours on it by now. I see it flying a lot. Both for training and as a rental. It is quite a bit cheaper to rent than the 172s.)