CTLSi

[David Pavlich]

What are you going to fly if you could get a PP? A Cessna 172? You will be spending double the money, flying at the same speeds, and having half the fun if you fly in a modern, sleek, low fuel burning, CTLS.

The ability to fly 400 miles at 120kts burning less than 10 gallons of auto gas at around $35 cost and getting there in less than 2.5 hrs can only be achieved in a CTLS or an LSA like it.

Get your SP and get going.

Well, one thought was a Diamond DA20. Fairly economical, cruise is around 135 kts at 75% and 5.5 gph and 600 lbs of useful load. From my research, the only S-LSA that can truly run at 120 kts steady is the Arion Lightning and that's with the Jabiru engine. How many places can you take this bird to and have an A&P that's worked on them? Another somewhat negative forthe Lightning is the same with the Skycatcher and that's a fairly substantial empty weight. Not a whole lot of fudge factor if you want to take a passenger cross country with bags. Solo, the Lightning would be terrific.

I'm doing the horse before the cart thing, but that's just me. I do this with anything I intend to endeavor. Don't take my thoughts the wrong way. If I can finally get my Sport certificate, there will be a smile the mortician won't get off when I assume room temperature, whenever that is.

One thing about S-LSAs, there's a lot of really nice choices out there. The only concern I can see is that there are so many, I question how all of them can survive. Tecnam is a big company that's been around a LONG time and will certainly be around. Flight Design is also doing quite well. Anyway, if the day comes, it's going to a great time for me.

David

[MrMorden]

What are you going to fly if you could get a PP? A Cessna 172? You will be spending double the money, flying at the same speeds, and having half the fun if you fly in a modern, sleek, low fuel burning, CTLS.

The ability to fly 400 miles at 120kts burning less than 10 gallons of auto gas at around $35 cost and getting there in less than 2.5 hrs can only be achieved in a CTLS or an LSA like it.

Get your SP and get going.

Well, one thought was a Diamond DA20. Fairly economical, cruise is around 135 kts at 75% and 5.5 gph and 600 lbs of useful load. From my research, the only S-LSA that can truly run at 120 kts steady is the Arion Lightning and that's with the Jabiru engine. How many places can you take this bird to and have an A&P that's worked on them? Another somewhat negative forthe Lightning is the same with the Skycatcher and that's a fairly substantial empty weight. Not a whole lot of fudge factor if you want to take a passenger cross country with bags. Solo, the Lightning would be terrific.

I'm doing the horse before the cart thing, but that's just me. I do this with anything I intend to endeavor. Don't take my thoughts the wrong way. If I can finally get my Sport certificate, there will be a smile the mortician won't get off when I assume room temperature, whenever that is.

One thing about S-LSAs, there's a lot of really nice choices out there. The only concern I can see is that there are so many, I question how all of them can survive. Tecnam is a big company that's been around a LONG time and will certainly be around. Flight Design is also doing quite well. Anyway, if the day comes, it's going to a great time for me.

David

A CTSW properly configured (prop pitch, etc) can cruise 120kt and has a 600lb-ish (mine is 585lb) useful load. A CTLS can do it as well, but is a bit porkier and will probably only give you 500-550lb useful.

DA20 is a great airplane.

[CTLSi]

......

[CharlieTango]

... the CTLSi is improved over the older, clunkier CTSW.

What is your definition of clunkier? Quicker, more maneuverable?

Your CTLS is a stretched CTSW and it is the clunkier version.

[drseti]

I've never flown the 912iS, though I have taken the Rotax maintenance course on it. I think the 25% fuel reduction is optimistic. Phil Lockwood (clearly the most experienced Rotax guy I know) did a very well calibrated test last year. He mounted a 912 ULS on one side, and a 912iS on the other side, of one of his twin engine AirCams. Each was fed from a separate fuel tank, he then had the plane flown from Sebring to Oshkosh and back. Same airframe, same route, same power settings, same speed. The result was 20% difference in fuel burn. That's a real-world number.

As I said in an earlier post, it is not productive to exaggerate performance claims, for any aircraft, engine, propeller, or accessory. Let's deal with real numbers, not wishes.

[CTLSi]

......

[drseti]

I have taken two cross country trips of over 500 mi and have verified the 3.5gph burn rate.

I don't doubt that, but you have to compare your fuel burn to a 912uls mounted on exactly the same airframe, turning exactly the same prop, running at exactly the same power setting, before you can infer 25% lower fuel consumption. Comparing your 3.5 GPH to a 912 ULS running at WOT on a different airframe is not a convincing argument for the advantages of the engine.

[MrMorden]

Huh? I never said clunkier. I said porkier, as in heavier. Which it is, empirically, usually by 60-100lb. This was not a slam on the CTLS (I never even mentioned the CTLSi), it's a statement of fact.

No CT configured for US rules is going 150 knots, that's just a lie. Vne is 145 knots, for God's sake. I like all the CTs in all configurations, but inflating numbers to unrealistic and frankly silly levels serves nobody.

[CTLSi]

......

[CharlieTango]

...The facts do not support that opinion. Yes the CTLSi has a higher empty weight, but that does not affect the aircraft ability to achieve the 120kt cruise at the 3.5gph burn rate. Nor does it prevent the plane from climbing at 1100 fpm, or keep it from reaching the top speed of 147kts. The design margins do not make the two planes perform substantially different except for the higher efficiency in fuel burn rates - and that comes from the computerized fuel injection versus the carb'd engine in the older CTSW.

Once again you are just making stuff up. By your own posts yous used 24 gallons to go 580nm on your two cross countries. The performance isn't in the ballpark that your claim just like 147kts is not achievable in your CT.

[drseti]

OK, now that everybody's had his say, let's get back to the topic of this thread, which was the EAA/AOPA medical proposal. If you folks want to continue discussing the CLSi, I would suggest somebody start a CLSi thread under Light Sport Aircraft, and I'll move the relevant posts there. Otherwise, I consider this topic closed.

[Jim Stewart]

I have taken two cross country trips of over 500 mi and have verified the 3.5gph burn rate.

I don't doubt that, but you have to compare your fuel burn to a 912uls mounted on exactly the same airframe, turning exactly the same prop, running at exactly the same power setting, before you can infer 25% lower fuel consumption. Comparing your 3.5 GPH to a 912 ULS running at WOT on a different airframe is not a convincing argument for the advantages of the engine.

Well, I do doubt it. I suspect he hasn't even soloed yet. Just my opinion.

[3Dreaming]

I own a CTLSi with 40 hours on it. I have taken two cross country trips of over 500 mi and have verified the 3.5gph burn rate. Both trips were using 91 E10 mogas.

The 'clunker' (sic 'porkier') reference came from MrMorden, who as we know, along with Charlie Tango both own CTSWs and have no experience with the CTLSi or the 912i engine yet seem content to offer their conclusion that the CTLSi is somehow 'clunkier' and 'slower' than the older FD model aircraft.

The facts do not support that opinion. Yes the CTLSi has a higher empty weight, but that does not affect the aircraft ability to achieve the 120kt cruise at the 3.5gph burn rate. Nor does it prevent the plane from climbing at 1100 fpm, or keep it from reaching the top speed of 147kts. The design margins do not make the two planes perform substantially different except for the higher efficiency in fuel burn rates - and that comes from the computerized fuel injection versus the carb'd engine in the older CTSW.

I have owned 2 CTSW's, a CTLS, and have flown a CTLSi. I can say with out reservation that other than lower fuel burn rate, the CTLSi did not perform any better than the other airplanes. In fact the CTLSi that I flew was a little slower in climb and cruise than my CTLS, but I think it had to do with the prop pitch setting. I think the performance of the CTSW's was as good as the CTLS, but the LS is a little easier to fly.
I will say that the new equipment on the CTLSi was nice.

[MrMorden]

Paul, looks like we'll need that separate CT topic created.

As for the medical proposal, does anybody think it's really going to happen? FAA has been silent on it for two years, they usually respond to such things (when they plan to respond at all) in 6-9 months. It seems to me they are just going to let it die from neglect.

The FAA has shown a grudging tolerance for GA, and a complete disregard for anything to grow the industry. Even the Sport Pilot and LSA rules were an attempt at increasing regulation (on fat ultralights); that they had any positive effects on innovation and number of pilots flying is really just an unintended consequence.

Regulators regulate, deregulation is a direct attack on their livelihood.

[drseti]

Paul, looks like we'll need that separate CT topic created. .

Done.