Buckaroo Posted December 16, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2019 26 minutes ago, robjahnke said: Very Nice airplane . I have been enamored with the KitFox ever since it came out. But now I have the CTSW and thanks to all of the info on this forum, I think I am going to enjoy it. Thanks for all of your help with the CTSW. I have just converted my 2006 CTSW to Experimental and I'm working on a design for a header tank. The BRS weighs about 32 lb. The volume of the canister is about 4.5 gal which would weigh 27lb full of fuel. The tank would probably weigh 2 or 3 pounds, and maybe a couple lb max for an AUX fuel pump. So for essentially the same weight (and therefore the same CG) I could have about an hour of flight time in reserve AFTER the wings were dry. That means I could use all of the fuel in the wings, and even if both tanks read empty for whatever reason, I would still have 1hr to land and fuss with extracting every last drop out to the wings if I wanted to. Putting a fuel level gauge in the header tank would allow very accurate measurement of that last 4.5 gal. To me, the header tank would be WAY more valuable as a safety feature than the BRS which is VERY unlikely to be used. Rob My Aerotrek has the header tank but it’s only a gallon. The engine feeds from the header tank and with shorter and thicker tanks the header tank is saturated with fuel continually. There’s a idiot light and alarm when you only have the 1 gallon remaining. The POI reads “land immediately”. On the Aerotrek fitting more than a gallon in that space would be difficult in my opinion. Enjoy your Ctsw! They are beautifully built! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EB3 Posted December 16, 2019 Report Share Posted December 16, 2019 Beautiful paint scheme, Buckaroo! I've owned an Aerotrek since 2013, when I bought a new A240 in mustard yellow. It's actually more fun to fly recreationally than my 2017 CTLSi due to its light, responsive, and quick handling. It also makes for a competent XC cruiser. I intended to have the A240 sold by now (I don't need 2 planes ), but I've been hesitant because every time I fly it, it's just such a wonderful airplane. The only reason I got the CTLSi was due to its increased XC capability and the BRS (my wife's preference). However, for a fun flyer, the Aerotrek is hard to top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmi Posted December 16, 2019 Report Share Posted December 16, 2019 You can get the parachute for Aerotrek as well so that’s not a problem - the plane is indeed lovely - it does however have gross weight even lower than the standard 1320 ( don’t remember what but something like 100 lbs or so less) so that really hurts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted December 16, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2019 2 hours ago, EB3 said: Beautiful paint scheme, Buckaroo! I've owned an Aerotrek since 2013, when I bought a new A240 in mustard yellow. It's actually more fun to fly recreationally than my 2017 CTLSi due to its light, responsive, and quick handling. It also makes for a competent XC cruiser. I intended to have the A240 sold by now (I don't need 2 planes ), but I've been hesitant because every time I fly it, it's just such a wonderful airplane. The only reason I got the CTLSi was due to its increased XC capability and the BRS (my wife's preference). However, for a fun flyer, the Aerotrek is hard to top. Wow this is pretty cool talking with a fellow enthusiast that owns both the Ctlsi and Aerotrek A240! My Aerotrek fits me well except for the throttle position. I have to bring my right knee back and to the right of the throttle. Rob said they have a throttle relocate kit for us tall guys. Iwas in the market for the Ctlsi when this bird came along priced right. Now I have to figure out how to get that lower cowl off so I can do the first oil change. Do you know a fella named Jimmy Cash? I bought mine from him with 32 hours. He also owned a yellow A 220. He’s out of Kalispell Montana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted December 16, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, Warmi said: You can get the parachute for Aerotrek as well so that’s not a problem - the plane is indeed lovely - it does however have gross weight even lower than the standard 1320 ( don’t remember what but something like 100 lbs or so less) so that really hurts The only thing parachutes do for me is cost me money! Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Jefts Posted December 16, 2019 Report Share Posted December 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, Buckaroo said: The only thing parachutes do for me is cost me money! Lol Until you need one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted December 16, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2019 21 minutes ago, Duane Jefts said: Until you need one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGLyme Posted December 16, 2019 Report Share Posted December 16, 2019 Buck, There are 2 principal reasons for parachutes. The second reason is how I justified buying a plane re my House boss. brilliant marketing, worth every penny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EB3 Posted December 16, 2019 Report Share Posted December 16, 2019 48 minutes ago, AGLyme said: Buck, There are 2 principal reasons for parachutes. The second reason is how I justified buying a plane re my House boss. brilliant marketing, worth every penny Yup - AG hit this one outta the park! As for Warmi's comment, I'm aware of being able to add a BRS to the Aerotrek, but didn't want to go that route. I also wanted the longer legs and slightly more speed offered by the CTLSi. Buckaroo, I don't know Jimmy Cash. There are a couple of A220s located in the Lubbock area (about 120 miles north of me), but I don't know either one of those owners. I keep hoping to run across another Aerotrek "in the wild" so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted December 17, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2019 2 hours ago, EB3 said: Yup - AG hit this one outta the park! As for Warmi's comment, I'm aware of being able to add a BRS to the Aerotrek, but didn't want to go that route. I also wanted the longer legs and slightly more speed offered by the CTLSi. Buckaroo, I don't know Jimmy Cash. There are a couple of A220s located in the Lubbock area (about 120 miles north of me), but I don't know either one of those owners. I keep hoping to run across another Aerotrek "in the wild" so to speak. I’ve got a really agree with you guys as when I bought my Flight Design CTSW the deal breaker that made it happen between two other makes was the wife found out there was a parachute on board. She enthusiastically said let’s go with the Flight Design CTSW. The rest is history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondwind Posted January 22, 2020 Report Share Posted January 22, 2020 On 5/17/2017 at 1:35 PM, CT4ME said: There seems to be 2 scenarios: Selectable fuel valve (left/right/both/off) or a simpler ON/OFF. With the selectable valve, the routine is generally a time interval thing, where you change the valve every X minutes. Many aviation timers have been invented to facilitate these reminders. The other scenario, like the CT, requires the pilot to be familiar with the potential for uneven tank use and to monitor and compensate for it. The problem with the selectable fuel valve is that history has proven that it's easy to forget, or turn the valve the wrong way, or to a bad position, and you end up with a problem. A large number of incidents are directly attributed to fuel valve screw-ups. Both methods have their proponents. The new CTs, and perhaps other aircraft, have a header tank that collects from both wings. It's not there solely for the feed problem, but it helps mitigate the issue. But, then, it creates another problem of having another tank somewhere in the plane, that you have to worry about. I'm pretty certain that the following does not apply to the CT aircraft, but you may find it interesting. I owned a Cessna Cardinal RG for few years. Lovely airplane. It had an on-off fuel system. Shortly after buying the plane I noticed that fuel did not flow evenly from both left and right tanks. It was very disconcerting, when one tank gauge would drop close to or below the Empty mark while the other tank gauge would show very little fuel use. One day I ran into another C177RG owner who suggested that the problem might be the way the tank vent lines were secured at the wing tips might be the problem. The aluminum strap allowed the vent lines to move fore and aft by as much as a half inch from flush with the trailing edge of the wing tip to extending beyond the trailing edge, which was, apparently enough to affect the internal air pressure in the tanks. Working with my A&P we changed the bare aluminum straps to rubber lined ones that held the tips of the vent lines identically positioned port and starboard. Uneven fuel burn never went away completely but it was significantly better from then on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.