Remarkable cross country machine

[Bill3558]

440 NM. Total fuel burn was 17 gallons. 

[Towner]

Nice!

[Ken]

They certainly are! I have made the flight from Richmond, VA to Melbourne  4 times in the last year or so. I stop at Barnwell (KBNL)on the way down and back as they have mogas 93. I land at x59 as there is no landing fee and parking tie down is $5.45 a night. My daughter has an Airbnb in Satellite Beach. Will be back there in late June early July.

I flew to 8NC8 today near Raleigh they are having a vintage aircraft fly in today and tomorrow. Really nice folks. 

Ken 

N296CT

  

[EricB]

I turned 13 in Hendersonville - made homemade icecream.  What do you find is a realistic cruise speed?  I see 115 kts listed but I usually run around 103.  Please share RPM/ MP settings to achieve   What year is your CTLS?

[Towner]

1 hour ago, EricB said:

I turned 13 in Hendersonville - made homemade icecream.  What do you find is a realistic cruise speed?  I see 115 kts listed but I usually run around 103.  Please share RPM/ MP settings to achieve   What year is your CTLS?

My SW doesn’t seem as fast as others, but I usually shoot for 4.9-5.0 gallons per hour which is about 5100-5200 rpm. This gives me about 107 knots depending on altitude. At 5500 rpm, I get about 117 knots. These are true airspeeds. I know some of the guys can beat me by 10 knots!

[Bill3558]

With E-Prop I’m seeing 115 knots at 5000 rpm.  120 knots plus at 5300.
Thats with Tundra gear. 
 

[FlyingMonkey]

On 5/12/2023 at 8:05 PM, Bill3558 said:

With E-Prop I’m seeing 115 knots at 5000 rpm.  120 knots plus at 5300.
Thats with Tundra gear. 
 

Sounds about right...I'm seeing 125kt+ in level flight indicated with the small wheels at 5300-5400rpm.

[FlyingMonkey]

On 5/10/2023 at 4:58 PM, Towner said:

My SW doesn’t seem as fast as others, but I usually shoot for 4.9-5.0 gallons per hour which is about 5100-5200 rpm. This gives me about 107 knots depending on altitude. At 5500 rpm, I get about 117 knots. These are true airspeeds. I know some of the guys can beat me by 10 knots!

I think if you have a Neuform prop and tundra gear that is pretty normal performance.  You didn't mention your altitude, you should get your best TAS around 7000-8000ft MSL, that's where the power vs. drag curve is most advantageous for normally aspirated engines.

If you want to try to get more check your rigging, if your control surfaces are not properly rigged it will slow you down.  Also check to see if you have the updated nose wheel pant -- I know they redesigned that at some point because the old pant had a tendency to weathervane and create drag and sometimes unexpected yaw. If you have to hold a little right rudder in that you can't trim out, you might have the older wheel pant design. 

[Towner]

43 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I think if you have a Neuform prop and tundra gear that is pretty normal performance.  You didn't mention your altitude, you should get your best TAS around 7000-8000ft MSL, that's where the power vs. drag curve is most advantageous for normally aspirated engines.

If you want to try to get more check your rigging, if your control surfaces are not properly rigged it will slow you down.  Also check to see if you have the updated nose wheel pant -- I know they redesigned that at some point because the old pant had a tendency to weathervane and create drag and sometimes unexpected yaw. If you have to hold a little right rudder in that you can't trim out, you might have the older wheel pant design. 

I believe I checked my airspeed for 5500 rpm at 6500 ft. Not sure what the actual density altitude was, but around here, probably over 6500 feet most of the year. I don’t remember what altitude I checked the speed at the lower rpm, but probably similar. My airspeed indicator is very optimistic, so I used gps and a 4 direction average.

I don’t have tundra gear, but I do believe I have the old nose wheel pant. How do I tell for sure? I think there is supposed to be an obvious visual difference, but not sure what that is. I think the newer one has a fin at the back, but that may just be for the LS.

I keep saying I’m gonna check the rigging, just haven’t done it!

While I would love to pick up another 10-15 knots , the plane is giving me about what I expected when I bought it. Speed is Kinda like the e-prop; would really like to have, just can’t justify spending money on it (my wife won’t let me). If there is stuff like rigging that can be done, I will eventually get to it, but I’m not expecting a big increase in speed.

[FlyingMonkey]

I think only the tundra gear had issues with the front pant.  The very early SWs with small wheels had very tiny pants that got more teardrop shaped in 2006 (IIRC), but neither design had any issues on the small wheels as far as I know.  I suppose the later teardrop is lower drag, but probably not enough to lose sleep over.

[kinoons]

The CT is a remarkable cross country machine; unfortunately I don’t have a cross country bladder. 

[Anticept]

Water bottles are useable for more than one thing! Just don't forget it's not lemonade!

[207WF]

Went last month in my 2007 CTSW with a new e-prop,

from Los Angeles to Ashville NC and back. 

34.2 hours, 168 gallons, average groundspeed 113.8 knots.

What fun!

WF

[Bill3558]

On 6/6/2023 at 3:48 PM, 207WF said:

Went last month in my 2007 CTSW with a new e-prop,

from Los Angeles to Ashville NC and back. 

34.2 hours, 168 gallons, average groundspeed 113.8 knots.

What fun!

WF

Wow, that’s quite a trip!  

[FlyingMonkey]

On 5/15/2023 at 2:34 PM, Towner said:

While I would love to pick up another 10-15 knots , the plane is giving me about what I expected when I bought it. Speed is Kinda like the e-prop; would really like to have, just can’t justify spending money on it (my wife won’t let me). If there is stuff like rigging that can be done, I will eventually get to it, but I’m not expecting a big increase in speed.

If you haven't checked and re-pitched the prop if needed, that is the number one reason that CTs are slow, IMO.  FD pitched the prop super coarse from the factory and it's very inefficient.  When I first got my CTSW, the WOT level airspeed was around 108kt and max rpm was about 5300. Climb was also weak.  I flattened it out to get 5600rpm at WOT at 3000ft MSL (where I usually cruise), and I picked up no bullshit 10kt+ and about 250fpm in climb.  It was an amazing change, and it puts less stress on the engine.

[Towner]

6 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

If you haven't checked and re-pitched the prop if needed, that is the number one reason that CTs are slow, IMO.  FD pitched the prop super coarse from the factory and it's very inefficient.  When I first got my CTSW, the WOT level airspeed was around 108kt and max rpm was about 5300. Climb was also weak.  I flattened it out to get 5600rpm at WOT at 3000ft MSL (where I usually cruise), and I picked up no bullshit 10kt+ and about 250fpm in climb.  It was an amazing change, and it puts less stress on the engine.

The prop had already been pitched to 5500 when I bought it. I had a little more adjustment done at annual, so I’m in the ballpark of everyone’s recommendations.

[airhound]

On 6/6/2023 at 2:48 PM, 207WF said:

Went last month in my 2007 CTSW with a new e-prop,

from Los Angeles to Ashville NC and back. 

34.2 hours, 168 gallons, average groundspeed 113.8 knots.

What fun!

WF

207WF

Congratulations!
Any lessons learned for us wanna be local yocal fliers?

Routing across the country, stops, operator maintenance and spare parts/tools….Did you mostly use AV GAS or CAR GAS?

 

[Towner]

1 hour ago, airhound said:

207WF

Congratulations!
Any lessons learned for us wanna be local yocal fliers?

Routing across the country, stops, operator maintenance and spare parts/tools….Did you mostly use AV GAS or CAR GAS?

 

I know you weren’t asking me, but when I flew from California to Oshkosh and back 2 years ago, the airplane performed flawlessly. Each direction was about 16 hours, which I did in two 8 hour days. Each leg was about 4 hours.

Flying to Oshkosh, I went north, passing on the north side of the Rockies. My first overnight stop was in Rawlins, Wyoming. Coming back, I went the southern route, down into northern Texas, Arizona etc. Some high altitude stuff both ways, but the plane did fine.

I always keep a minimal set of tools in the plane, but have never needed them on a trip.

I normally use car gas, but pretty much all avgas this trip after leaving California.

[airhound]

Hey Towner, 

Thank you! Another vote of confidence for the CT. Did you have any weather/winds to consider?

[MarkJ]

This past July and August I flew my CTSW from California to Oshkosh, then along the east coast down to Georgia and then back home.  I was gone for 25 days and flew a total of 65 hours.  I limited myself to 4 hours on flying days.  The CT was very comfortable and performed flawlessly.  I carried tools and some spare parts and some inner tubes but didn’t need to use anything more than a little oil.  It is a great airplane.  I’m doing it again next year but next time take more non-flying days to do some sightseeing from the ground.

[Towner]

21 hours ago, airhound said:

Hey Towner, 

Thank you! Another vote of confidence for the CT. Did you have any weather/winds to consider?

For such a long flight, I generally had great weather. Even the headwinds flying home were very light. The only weather problem was in Oshkosh itself. Big storm coming in and everyone scrambled to leave at the same time. When leaving the field, I had to go south for the storms, then southwest for a bit. Was pretty good weather the direction I left, the storm just prevented a north or directly west route for an hour or two. Then it was clear skies all the way home.

I also flew it from Iowa to California when I bought it. Stormy weather in Iowa when I was trying to get checked out in the plane, but when it was time to leave, the weather cleared nicely. Good weather the rest of the way until almost home. The Central Valley of California becomes a huge fog blanket in winter. Pretty much zero zero at home. Found a little airport about 40 miles away that had a hole in the fog for some reason. That’s where the airplane sat the next 2 weeks!

Just FYI, had 4 hours of fuel when I landed, so I wasn’t gonna get myself in a jam over fuel. The fog can force you to fly over an hour to get into the clear areas. 50 mile visibility above the fog layer, just a few thousand agl!

[Towner]

Mark, I’m jealous! That sounds like an awesome trip! I really think these things are great travelers and I trust it as much as any of my old part 23 airplanes. And this one has an autopilot!

[airhound]

Mark J and Towner,

Thanks for putting our CT on the map. I really enjoy reading the differences in trip planning and execution. And how folks deal with the unexpected.

Congratulations on your recent long range trips!