Jump to content

SW or LS


Junglejett

Recommended Posts

Having owned and flown both, I feel the LS is worth the premium, especially when you get into the second generation LS. As I have stated before I am not a fan of the early LS. Some hilights, IMO the LS flies nicer, it is more stable on the ground, the quarter windows add visibility, the seats are more comfortable, easy in flight accessible storage. There is probably more, but these were off the top of my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a past SW owner and current LS owner, the thing I miss about the SW is the 40 deg. flaps and the SW is a bit more agile. Another way of saying is the SW is more sporty and the LS is more docile. Just my 2 cents worth. Both are very good but just a bit different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If cost is a major consideration, the differences are fairly minor, and are also relative to each pilot.  The seat reclining difference is a bigger impact depending on your height.  I'm 5'6" and that means the seat is more forward in my SW, which means I have it reclined and still not slammed against rear bulkhead.  I flew a LS for a bit in transition training, it was an early model with the heavy stick forces, did not care for that.  A newer LS, with fuel injection, and the most modern of panels are sweet airplanes, I'd sure like one - but they're going for darn near 2X of an SW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can always upgrade seats and avionics as I have. Also I am not completely sold on fuel injection on the 912. A lot more complexity for minimal gain and much more involved to troubleshoot, probably well beyond the capabilities of most mechanics. Carbs are simple and easy to maintain. The different baggage space would be nice however. Just my opinion. And yes I like having those 40 degrees flaps when needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Madhatter said:

You can always upgrade seats and avionics as I have. Also I am not completely sold on fuel injection on the 912. A lot more complexity for minimal gain and much more involved to troubleshoot, probably well beyond the capabilities of most mechanics. Carbs are simple and easy to maintain. The different baggage space would be nice however. Just my opinion. And yes I like having those 40 degrees flaps when needed.

Would love to see what you have done. Mind posting photos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an SW fan. I prefer the seat setup over the LS. I like the seats in the SW because they sit up straighter vs leaning back in the LS and you don't have to reach for the stick.  I don't care for the shelves in the back because they impede the luggage area. I don't care for the oil and coolant thermostats always being in the way of maint.

 

BUTTTTTTTTTT,

it really just comes down to Chevy's and Ford's. You may like one over the other, but they both get you there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had both the ULS and iS engine in a CTLS and I do like the decrease in fuel burn with the fuel injected engine.  I know there's a weight and complexity penalty but I sure do like it.

I sat in both a SW and LS when I was looking for my first plane and liked the LS seating and baggage better.

I never used the 30 degree flaps in my CTLS or i.

Just another perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an SW, but everyone says the landing gear is tougher and better on the LS. I haven’t had any problems with mine though. I really like my plane, but those hat shelves would be nice! The sportiness makes it a blast to fly, but it still flys great in a long straight line cross country. The D100/120 set up is great and the most modern panel I’ve flown behind. Not sure why, but I’d love to have the newer sky view panel. Doesn’t really help a vfr  mission, but it’s cool!

SW built before mid 2006 have the thinner Rotax crankcase and a 1500 TBO. After mid 2006 they are all 2000 tbo. The engine serial numbers for the 1500 tbo are posted somewhere on this site.

I haven’t flown an LS, but my SW is more fun to fly than any airplane I’ve owned. It’s a blast and cheap (haven’t done a hose change or chute yet, so not that cheap). Not a bad cross country airplane either having flown it from California to Oshkosh and back!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weight savings would be nice but I've found that with my wife and I and all the bags she wants the plane has plenty of gas to fly farther than we want to sit for any particular length of time.  I plan on 3 hour or less legs.

The skyview is nice, but now I want the skyview touch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
3 hours ago, Jorge E Trevino said:

Empty Weight difference between CTLS and CTLSi is 40 lbs (770 vs 810), are those 40 lbs the result of just weight difference between engines (912 vs 912 fuel injection)? Or is there something else?
thanks,

JET

It is not just the engine, but also changes to the airframe to accomidate the engine. Also electric pitch trim, and some have interior refinements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An LS was out of my price range, but if I were you, I’d try flying both. Plenty of guys on this blog that are more than willing to help out. There are a lot of similarities, but they are still different. It’s a long term investment so get the plane that appeals to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have and really enjoy an SW.  The LS is probably an overall a slightly better, more stable airplane, but there is no free lunch.  If you want those features you will pay in weight.  The CTLSi goes even farther in that direction.  Yes it burns less fuel, but I'm not sure the burn is low enough to offset the extra weight.

It comes down to what you are looking for.  If you need maximum carrying capacity, I think the CTSW is the better choice.  If you want features and conveniences (and usually more modern avionics), then the LS or LSi might suit you better.  If you are like most of us and fly 90%+ of the time solo, weight doesn't matter much and you can choose purely based on your budget and what looks best to you.

One thing to consider is another tradeoff between the LSi and the carbed models.  You get a smoother, more fuel efficient engine with the LSi, but the tradeoff is you lose a bit of field maintainability.  If your fuel system takes a dump on a trip with a carb you can drop the bowl and troubleshoot, with injection you probably have to get a Rotax tech to come out to wherever you are stuck and work on it.  The injected system might be more reliable to offset that somewhat, but I don't have that data and can't say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago, I did the math with injected vs carbed. With the injected model, at load limit, a long cross country will go further despite the weight increase vs a carbed CTLS at load limit. It's around a hundred miles or so, depending on how hard you run it. So it has the advantage there.

Also, the fuel savings add up to quite an amount over the 2000 hours. Looking at 5,000+ saved.

The carbs add a good bit of maintenance cost, but so does all the constant log checking with the injected engine. Though in this case, the iS still wins out.

There were other extra maintenance items that aren't a thing anymore on the iS, or at least I don't think they are anymore. There was a torque rod(?) that had to be replaced every 600 hours for example and it wasn't cheap. It's been a while since I looked that one up.

Then of course, you have the price premiums on the engine, and aircraft that have the engine.

Reality is, if it's long term, the iS wins out. Short term, the carb engine wins out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anticept said:

Reality is, if it's long term, the iS wins out. Short term, the carb engine wins out.

That math changes a lot if you do your own maintenance.  There is a lot of iS fuel system maintenance that's impractical for an owner to do without some serious Rotax schooling, and you need a $1200+ dongle to even find out what's wrong.  E-LSA for the win!

Not dissing the iS, it's a wonderful engine.  You can approach "which is best" from many angles.  The fuel savings is offset by the additional cost of the iS engine...so you can save $6k now or make back $5k over a couple of decades...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Anticept said:

If you can do your own maintenance, you probably don't need a bunch of armchair internet keyboard warriors telling you which one to choose then :P

Well, different opinions are always good!  :)

I was wrong BTW, the price delta between the ULS and iS engine has come down a lot, it's only about $3k now.  So over 2000 hours the iS would still save you a couple of grand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

That math changes a lot if you do your own maintenance.  There is a lot of iS fuel system maintenance that's impractical for an owner to do without some serious Rotax schooling, and you need a $1200+ dongle to even find out what's wrong.  E-LSA for the win!

What fuel system maintenance? There is more fuel system maintenance with the carbureted engines. For the iS you replace the fuel filter at condition inspections, and replace hoses in the fuel pump pack at the rubber replacement. While the iS is a more complicated engine with all the electronics, it is far easier to do a normal condition inspection. The rubber replacement is also easier. The only downside is needing the dongle for downloads, unless you have an unusual problem.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ken said:

I looked at both and decided on the SW. The luggage area was important to me and the SW had more space than the LS I looked at by far. 

The LS has the same amount of space, it is just divided between the cabin and designated luggage area. Unless you are carrying extremely bulky luggage it really doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

What fuel system maintenance? There is more fuel system maintenance with the carbureted engines. For the iS you replace the fuel filter at condition inspections, and replace hoses in the fuel pump pack at the rubber replacement. While the iS is a more complicated engine with all the electronics, it is far easier to do a normal condition inspection. The rubber replacement is also easier. The only downside is needing the dongle for downloads, unless you have an unusual problem.  

I don't mean routine maint, but maint if something breaks or fails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...