hello from chicago illinois

Pilot? Student pilot? Future pilot? Interested in learning to fly? If you're reading this forum, you've got flying in your blood! SportPilotTalk is a great place to ask questions about this exciting new segment of (more) affordable aviation!

Moderator: drseti

illinoisflyboy
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:01 am

hello from chicago illinois

Post by illinoisflyboy »

hello everyone. I am looking to purchase a light sport aircraft very soon and am looking at the Cessna skycatcher or the Flight Design CTLSi with the fuel injected rotax engine. kinda leaning towards the Cessna because of it being a much better known brand and a more known continental engine. just wondering what others thoughts are on the two aircraft.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by drseti »

Welcome aboard, Chicago! I will admit that I've never flown either the SkyCatcher or the CTLSi. That said, I'd consider that the Continental O200 is essentially a 1930s design, while the injected Rotax is very 21st century. (It's also quite a bit lighter, which would have to improve your useful load).

In any case, you should fly both before you decide, and talk to owners to get some real-world experience. One of the recurring themes on this forum is that the choice of aircraft is dictated largely by the mission. So, be sure to define yours before you go shopping.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
FlyingForFun
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by FlyingForFun »

Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
illinoisflyboy
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:01 am

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by illinoisflyboy »

that is the main thing I am not happy about with the skycatcher is the useful load. other than that I think it is an awesome plane. the CTLSi is a very nice plane, but not too sure about the rotax engines...at least the skycatcher has a true aircraft engine.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by drseti »

illinoisflyboy wrote:at least the skycatcher has a true aircraft engine.
Don't underestimate the Rotax 912 series engines. Designed specifically for aviation, 20 years in production, 40,000 sold, and TBO now up to 2000 hours -- I'd have to call that a true aircraft engine. (Of course, if you prefer 80 year old technology, the Continental is certainly an option.)

There are quite a few other threads on this forum about the pros and cons of various engines. Happy browsing! :wink:
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
illinoisflyboy
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:01 am

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by illinoisflyboy »

the big thing that concerns me other than parts and service for the rotax is the liquid cooling.... its not like a car if it blows a hose where you can pull over and wait for a towing truck or fix it yourself. course many things can happen to the continental engine too.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by drseti »

The Rotax 912 series engines actually have triple cooling. Finned cylinders (just like a Lycoming and Continental) are air cooled; the engine oil passes through an oil radiator (also like some Continentals and Lycomings) for internal engine cooling; and in addition the heads are liquid cooled, to help dissipate some of the combustion chamber heat (which improves valve life). This is one of the reasons that the Rotax tends not to require a top overhaul at mid-TBO, as Lycomings and Continentals often do.

As for a failed cooling hose: yes, it can happen, but is not catastrophic. You will be trained in the proper procedure should this occur -- which is to reduce throttle to 4000 RPM (slow-flight setting), and proceed to a nearby airport and land. At reduced power, the engine will continue to function with total loss of coolant (it essentially becomes an air-cooled engine). And even this remote possibility is greatly reduced by the Rotax mandatory replacement of all rubber hoses every five years.

There are other significant quirks to the Rotax engine, all of which are pluses, rather than minuses, once you understand them. For example, it's a geared engine. Remember that internal combustion engines produce optimum torque at high RPM, while props produce optimum thrust at low RPM. In a direct-drive engine, with the prop bolted right onto the crankshaft flange, either the engine is turning more slowly, or the prop more rapidly, than optimum (or more likely both). So efficiency is sacrificed for simplicity. The gearbox allows the engine to produce maximum torque (at 5000 RPM) while the prop is turning at 2000 for best thrust.

The downside of this is the weight and placement of the gearbox -- an extra 6 pounds right on the nose, where it pulls the CG of the aircraft too far forward. Rotax mitigates this problem by eliminating the heavy cast-iron oil pan that Lyco and Continental use below the crankcase. In its place is a dry sump system, with a very lightweight stainless steel oil tank, typically mounted back on the firewall (further shifting CG back where it belongs). And, the rubber hoses that carry oil to and from the oil tank are very light (and also get replaced every five years, regardless of their apparent condition).

Add to this dual electronic ignition, and either two self-compensating carburetors (912) or electronic fuel injection (912i), and you can see why this modern engine is becoming so popular.

FWIW, in the 30 years and 3000 hours I owned a Lycoming powered aircraft, I had two total inflight engine failures, two overhauls, and one failed cylinder. In the four years and about 800 hours I've been flying a Rotax, I've had no inflight issues. As for maintenance -- well, I'm an engineer, so considered myself trainable. I took all the Rotax training (four separate courses) to become a factory-authorized heavy maintenance mechanic. I found the courses well taught, and believe any A&P who wants to make the effort can easily learn the engine's characteristics and requirements.

Yes, there are mechanics out there whose attitude is "an engine is an engine, I'm an A&P, I'm licensed to work on engines, so I don't need to take any more training." Believe me, you don't want those folks working on your Rotax!
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
illinoisflyboy
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:01 am

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by illinoisflyboy »

the injected rotax 912 that was in the flight design CTLSi seemed like a very nice engine, good to hear that they are that reliable. probably will have to fly both again and maybe a couple more times as both the skycatcher and the CTLSi are very nice airplanes.
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by Jack Tyler »

IL Flyboy:

Again, welcome aboard! This forum has expanded over the years, both in structure and participation, and if you use the 'Search' function, you'll find your time is well rewarded. I would encourage you to search newer before older threads, tho'. Much has changed - including our understanding of the SP license and certainly the LSA industry, let alone the 130+ approved LSA models and kits - since this forum was established. Newer threads are probably, in general, better threads.

Paul's a big fan of the Rotax, as are many others. Its success is somewhat serendipitous as their current LSA engines evolved from an earlier time when very light planes needed very light propulsion over in Europe. This is quite the contrary to the origins of the LyCon engines, which evolved alongside of - and had much in common with - far simpler, heavier and slower aircraft in the USA. As they say, 'Timing is everything...' and its probably fair to say that LSA aircraft today both need & 'deserve' the Rotax engine, and vice versa.

However, what Paul alludes to in his closing but doesn't specifically caution is that a Rotax liability is that properly trained & certified (and also current) Rotax mechanics are not available everywhere, or even in the vast majority of airports in the U.S. If I were shopping for a Rotax-powered LSA (be it S-LSA, E-LSA or E-AB) I would first want to make sure I had nearby access to a Rotax certified mechanic. Just as I would be reluctant to buy a new VW TDI (diesel) car if I thought the local marine diesel mechanic was going to work on it. So be sure to check that out in your area and for where you would likely base your LSA.

To (re)state the obvious, definitely fly those a/c that fit your mission and in which you have an interest before choosing one. I just spent 5 hours in a Rotax-powered LSA this past weekend - in the middle of two days of flying my Lycoming-powered Grumman - and I found the higher rpm more tiring to live with (not that this alone would steer me away from considering a Rotax in an LSA). Be as satisfied as you can be before making your choice.

There is an amazing selection of relatively well-engineered S-LSA a/c available now, and you have multiple choices for any of the mission(s) you plan to fly. Don't get too locked into one or two designs too early. Some Q's you might ask yourself are: Do I want to have a 'social' experience with my a/c, in which case what type clubs are available in my region? What is the supply chain like for parts? (Our one local Skycatcher was down for 2 months recently after a door wasn't properly secured and it needed replacement. It had to be built and then come - literally - on a slow boat from China). As mentioned before, who will maintain it and are they qualified to work on the fuselage (if it is composite) as well as engine? Will I want to fly it off grass strips (where some of the best flying is done, from air parks to recreational areas) and how will this a/c accommodate unpaved runways? And on the list goes...

Happy hunting!
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
illinoisflyboy
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:01 am

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by illinoisflyboy »

I am supposed to go fly them again today, looking to be a perfect day for flying too. clear skies and very comfortable temperatures in the Chicago area. hopefully one will stand out over the other since I like both of them but don't need 2 airplanes.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by drseti »

illinoisflyboy wrote: I like both of them but don't need 2 airplanes.
Of course you do - you just don't realize it yet! :wink:
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by drseti »

Jack Tyler wrote: a Rotax liability is that properly trained & certified (and also current) Rotax mechanics are not available everywhere
Unfortunately, Jack is entirely correct. The availability of trained Rotax mechanics is spotty at best, so check around in the areas where you're most likely to be flying. The issue is that just about every A&P school has trained students on Lyco and Continental engines for the past 80 years, and most are resistant to change. Those who fly new engines like Jabiru (and old ones like Jacobs and Franklin) have the same issue here as do Rotax owners. In addition to such web resources as rotax-owner.com, you can check in with local EAA chapters to determine other folks' experience.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
illinoisflyboy
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:01 am

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by illinoisflyboy »

getting ready to go to the airport and go for the second test flight in both airplanes. hopefully something stands out between the 2 to help make the decision
Nomore767
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by Nomore767 »

illinoisflyboy wrote:hello everyone. I am looking to purchase a light sport aircraft very soon and am looking at the Cessna skycatcher or the Flight Design CTLSi with the fuel injected rotax engine. kinda leaning towards the Cessna because of it being a much better known brand and a more known continental engine. just wondering what others thoughts are on the two aircraft.
Great question!

Allow me to give you some of my experiences. I have flown the Cessna Skycatcher, the CTLS and the Remos GX, and (although you didn't mention it, the Cub Crafters Sport Cub. The Cub and Cessna use the 0-200 Continental (the C162 is the D model (lighter) and the Cub is the A model. The other two used the carburretted Rotax 912ULS.

Personally, I prefer the Continental engine, so far. Here's why. I have the most experience with them. The Cub and Skycatcher were both simple to preflight and started and ran beautifully. Every shop I've spoken to have no issues with them, they love them. The Rotax, they usually refer to a Rotax shop, which is some distance away. To be fair, it's a growing process and many LSAs use the engine or a variation.
Preflighting the Remos required me to open a small door (too small in my opinion) to check the liquid cooling level and the oil. Usually I had to go through the 'burping process' of turning the prop enough times to draw oil into the reservoir for a proper check. My point here, is for ME, and MY mission, the least things I have to do mean the least then can go 'wrong' or need someone else involved.
Same procedure for the CTLS. On the other hand the oil is a special type and the Rotax doesn't use much, although my school changed it every 25 hours.
The Skycatcher has an easy to use dipstick which, unless replaced correctly, won't allow the acces door to close. Good for new pilots.

The Cub was fabric covered and the Skycatcher metal, mostly. The Remos being almost exclusively composite, didn't like hangar rash and if you crack a component, the fix is expensive. The school hated the time and expense of support from Germany. Again, the Cessna and Cub are easier to fix with issues like that, in my opinion.

Starting is easy for the Continental, but the Roatax is great with it's choke. In fact it's like a car almost. On the other hand the twin Rotax carbs, in my experience weren't great. It was a problem in the plane I flew, the Remos, so It's not fair to judge others. In my case when throttling back, there was considerable vibration and noise. The CFI said "Yeah we need to keep synching them". Hmm.
One day, the engine idle wasn't quite right. As I throttled back to clear the runway the engine just quit. I restarted and taxied a bit and it quit again. NEVER had that in any other type. Just saying.
Told CFI and plane was down for 2 weeks! It also had a crack in the composite and required an expensive fix. It wasn't huge, just wear and tear but the down time and the cost were sup rising. to me anyway.

In fairness, I haven't much Rotax experience and so the high rpms and the noise from the reduction gearing throttling back was a bit disconcerting.
I've got a serious interest in the RV12. It's better at completing the mission in my view (see other thread here on the ICON) than the Skycatcher, although MY mission is probably mostly solo with an occaisional bag. So I can do it with the C162 but the RV12 allows me to take my wife AND full fuel AND bags. I don't have to play with the weight and balnce so much. Is this important in YOUR mission?

The Continental takes 100LL, although there are rumblings about it's supply. Right now it's everywhere and they're working on a replacement. The Rotax loves 91+ Octane Premium auto gas. I've heard both sides about ethanol or not. I've heard both sides about using additives to remove the lead if you use 100LL or mix with auto gas. Again, for ME..it's another thing to deal with that I don't with the Cub and Skycatcher. They use 100LL and it's available everywhere, for now. Auto gas isn't at most airfields so...if I want to keep using only auto gas, do I have to go off airport in the airport car to get gas? Do I bring my own gas containers (probably a bad idea) or use a possibly dirty one at the FBO? Hassle.
My schools used 100LL on their Rotax CTLS and Remos and took the hit on lead in the systems. Plugs are much cheaper than the
Continental ones, but who wants to keep changing plugs?
Rotax engines need their 'rubber changed' every 500 hours or so...I think that may mean the cooling hoses for the liquid cooling. Not sure, and I'm sure someone will tell me. Either way, you sure don't do it on the Continental.

The Cub is a delight to fly, as is the Legend. Of course the deal with tail-wheel is the landing and take-off. It's all about the tail-wheel endorsement. I've looked at it, and I have the endorsement and owned a tail-wheel, and for ME unless I was based at a grass strip, it's not worth the hassle of keeping current in a tail-wheel. My school isn't flying the Cub much lately as opposed to other types and I note that a large number of Legends and CC Sport Cubs are for sale with low time, some with prop strikes. I rest my case.

The CTLS was, for ME, just okay. Too much info on the Dynon and the CFI spent most of the time explaining which buttons to push etc and was weaker in actually flying it. I flew for an airline so I've pushed enough buttons in a glass cockpit to last a lifetime but thats not to say I don't like glass. For me I found the first few LSA hours interesting in that the Remos and CTLS were' more 'slippery' than the other GA planes I've flown. Once aware of the sensitivity to low inertia and to fly on speed (and not float) and carefully on approach then I got the knack of it. The Remos I liked better than the CTLS and it had a great useful load, except...the space to store it is poor. Conversely the Skycatcher has a large space and low useful load. Many could be tempted to chuck it in and forget weight and balance, which isn't good.
So far the Skycatcher is the easiest to fly LSA, best landing, best handling and most like other GA aircraft.
Having been looking at LSAs, and I still am, I flew the Champ, CC Cub, Remos, CTLS and then the Skycatcher. I found the Skycatcher to be great. The best one yet, for ME. I was checked out by a great CFI in an hour and we did everything. It was so easy for ME that he asked had I flown it before? Actually, I had an hour of just t/o and legs (due to low ceilings) and that was very easy, in my view.
The Cessna 'stoke' is easy to use (no you can't twist the grip) once you realise it's like the top part of a stick but it comes out of the panel...left/right, in/out and variations in between.
The Cessna Garmin panel is the best I've seen. I'd like them next to each but that's not huge. I like the redundancy. You should get the dual G300s (PFD/MFD) though. I would have like nose wheel steering but differential braking steering comes quickly. The Remos had nose wheel steering and it was great. The high wing is much cooler than the RV12 and less bright, plus the view is great. Better than the Remos because in the Cessna the wing is higher so the underside isn't right at your eye-line like in the Remos. Is this a high wing/low wing thing? Not for me. I started in Cherokees and instructed on Beech, Piper and Cessna. Liked them all in their own ways.
The door issue has a great fix in the Cessna although the pitot tube can poke you in the eye. The fuel is easy to see in wing root tubes which are very accurate. The Cessna was great to fuel as it has tabs set at 3/4, 1/2, 1/4 so you can fuel it specifically to the level you want. Important for that weight and balance issue. Fuel burn is higher than Rotax but not by that much..when I land is auto gas available? If not then we go through the mixing 100LL and do I need an additive routine> Plus, if there's an ssue can the local mechanic fix it or am I stuck?
The cabin's sparse but...mechanics have said it's easier for them to fix and inspect things...as in $$$ saved.
There are probably some other points but I'll remember them later I'm sure.

As far as buying a Cessna...I hesitate. I like the Cessna brand name, the ease of maintenance on plane and engine. I hesitate because Cessna is dithering and quiet on what they're doing with it. They have about 225-250 units but the ones sold I believe are under 200. The others are out there but they've not sold but a few units. Sales tailed off in late 2012 into 2013 and Cessna are quiet about their plans.There are quite a few for sale and not moving. People are waiting to see what Cessna are going to do, and so am I. You can get one used at a good price, less than the Remos, CTLS models but is that good if you're buying amdel only produced in small numbers?

In my view, if Cessna came out publically behind the plane in a big way (they're very quiet at Air venture) and made some improvements to useful load, perhaps engine and use of more composite where it's less likely to be damaged the plane would be a genuine successor to the 150/152. Not sure if it is yet, and neither is Cessna. That they aren't saying much is telling. Do I want to buy one of 180-90 planes with no others being built?

My views, my opinions. I stand corrected on my comments about Rotax, written by me based on my limited experience.
Right now, I'd buy a Skycatcher...still just warily mulling it over.

Cheers, Howard.
Last edited by Nomore767 on Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Re: hello from chicago illinois

Post by CharlieTango »

CTs and Skycatchers are very dissimilar to me and therefore comparisons can be quite misleading.

The features that sold me on my CTSW in 2006 are features that distinguish it from a Skycatcher.

Long range tanks
Wide roomy cockpit
110lbs of baggage
Sporty handling
Top speed for SLSA
Good short field platform
Room and payload for even very large passenger

I use syn oil and do oil changes at 100 hours. The long range tanks simplify obtaining mogas, I have a tank in my hangar that almost always handles my needs round trip.
Post Reply