----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Good points - I never think too much about that difference, as I have lots of tailwheel time, and insurance isn't much of an issue then. However, a tailwheel is always going to be more to insure, all other things being equal. Jerry E. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:44 AM To: Jerry Eichenberger Cc: DONALD BOWEN; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: [COUPERS-TECH] LSA Insurance cost and availability for a tricycle versus a taildragger may also be an issue which makes the Ercoupe more desirable than other classics. Eliacim Cortes N87071 Quoting Jerry Eichenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any > advice in this forum.]---- > > > These CT airplanes are weird looking little buggers. Aren't they the ones > that look like a flying egg? > > I probably wouldn't be interested, since they are the highest price of all > of the new LSAs, and are totally composite. > > Give me metal and rivets, or tube and fabric - something a mechanic at the > average FBO can fix when it gets dinged. > > Anyway, interesting about how they bounce around so in turbulence. I flew > the Tecnam a year ago in October, on a relatively warm day in the Atlanta > area - no unusual issues with the low level convective turbulence that I > remember. > > On a side note, it's interesting how Coupe prices have shot up in relation > to Cubs and Champs. The tailwheel classics have held pretty steady, while > Coupes have climbed. > > Coupes are more civilized for the average pilot who wants tricycle gear, > electrics, etc. You still "get what you pay for". > > Jerry E. > > -----Original Message----- > From: DONALD BOWEN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 9:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [COUPERS-FLYIN] Re: [COUPERS-TECH] LSA > > > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any > advice in this forum.]---- > > > Interesting input on the CTSW, Hartmut. Actually, I flew the 2005 version; > the 2006 won't be available here in USA until April. I believe these > airplanes are built in the Ukraine, then assembled, tested, and > disassembled/boxed in Germany. I note that ROTAX has manufactured over > 200,000 engines, and the 100hp 912S gets excellent reviews. There are well > over 400 CTSWs flying, since introduced in 1997. Yes, the airplane is light > @ 698lbs including the ballistic parachute, and carries 34 gals of fuel, > etc, up to the max gw of 1320 lb. Most of the (newer) LSA candidates are > about the same weight. Those that are not, e.g., the THORPEDO, carry less > fuel and have lesser range and performance. For sure, I'm not an expert, and > I'm not "selling" these birds, so let's keep the discussion going. > > Hartmut wrote: > >>>>3. Visibility is wonderful - to the front. There is no rear visibility > >>>>at all. And is a high wing plane with it's downsides on visibility. I > >>>>don't want to start another high wing versus low wing discussion, but > >>>>the fact is that you can not check what's behind you. > > I couldn't see above me or behind me in my MAULE, nor can I see below me or > directly behind me in my ALON. There is a window above/behind the pilot and > co-pilot seats in the CTSW, which allows some overhead visability, and > turning one's head and looking out of the side windows, aft of the MLG gives > a partial view to the rear. One thing for sure, the CTSW speed at max > continuous rpm is 139 mph, so none of our 'Coupes will be overrunning a > CTSW. > > > Don Bowen > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "Hartmut Beil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "DONALD BOWEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [COUPERS-TECH] LSA > Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:59:40 +0100 > > Don. > Good article about the new LSA planes. > > One comment to the CTSW. I believe that is a German creation, targeted at > the Ultralight market here and adjusted to LSA specifications. > I had the opportunity to check out such plane here in Germany. It was owned > by a flight instructor and he honestly spoke about the advantages and > disadvantages of the plane. > Advantages are: > 1. It is a lightweight, but very sturdy fiberglass/carbon construction that > is giving a safety advantage in cases of flipping over etc. > 2. The Rotax engine is good in gas usage and cheaply to maintain. > 3. Seating and visibility are really wonderful > > Disadvantages are: > 1. It is lightweight, that makes the plane very sensitive to the smallest > turbulence. That Instructor came with a friend of mine for a visit to my > airport. They might have had a 2 hour flight, maybe less that was mostly > flown at around 1000-2000 feet. Yes Germany is mostly flat. My friend had a > "soft" stomach after that flight. When it came to fly back, my friend was > visibly nervous and started sweating when he climbed in into that cockpit. I > am sure that this experience did not make another pilot out of him and I > never received a final report on how the flight back was. It must have been > horror for him. Since he was flying on a summer afternoon. The instructor > and owner admitted that this plane is letting you feel every bump in the > air. He also named this fact as the biggest disadvantage of that plane. > 2. The 4-stroke geared Rotax engines are disliked by many who own them. > There are many things on that engine that are mediocre to my standards and > that are just plane bad in everyone's opinion. One fellow pilot on my > airport that owns a Zodiac with a Rotax told me that due to the weird > configuration of the engine-prop gear, his controllable pitch prop was > simply torn into pieces. In idle, the gear has some slack that allows the > prop to go back and forth and not every prop is built to withstand that. > The engine oil return is done by using the engine blowby pressure. That > pressure pushes the oil back into it's container - can't call that a sump > really- and then the oil pump takes from there. This approach works or does > not I have been told. The fact that it might not work some time and the > engine runs out of oil pressure while sitting in oil sounds like a joke to > me. The engine is water cooled. That alone creates a problem of additional > parts that might break ( one burst hose and you are due ). Then the > regulation of the water temperature has it's problems I was told. And there > had been at least 5 more items he explained that were not in favor of a > Rotax. > 3. Visibility is wonderful - to the front. There is no rear visibility at > all. And is a high wing plane with it's downsides on visibility. I don't > want to start another high wing versus low wing discussion, but the fact is > that you can not check what's behind you. > > > That's it folks. > > Have a wonderful X-mas. > > Hartmut, Berlin - Germany > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "DONALD BOWEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 1:26 AM > Subject: [COUPERS-TECH] LSA > > > >----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any > >advice in this forum.]---- > > > > > >I'm a bit out of touch since I haven't received any TECH or FLYIN inputs > >in the past several weeks. > >Today. I cancdelled my subscriptions to both and immediately renewed - > >problem solved. > >I note a lot of inputs on SLSA aircraft. I, too, am interested, but not for > >right now - my ALON is performing excellently, as it should, considering > >the moneyI have invested in it I do not presently have any health problems > >that would preclue passing a FAA physical. > >I attended the recent AOPA EXPO at Tampa several weeks back. I visited the > >LSA display area and looked at the 16 or more candidates. Most were > >unexciting and very expensive. Entry and egress for senior citizens is > >demanding to say the least. However, one candidate caught my eye; the > >Flight Design CTSW 2006. I climbed into it and looked around the cockpit, > >as I did for half a dozen other models. I followed up several weeks later > >by visiting LOCKWOOD AVIATION , the local (Florida) dealer at Sebring, FL. > >They also are the ROTEX overhaul facility for this area. I did have the > >opportunity to fly the CTSW. I really liked it! I'm not sure what my > >bladder would do with the 1000 nm range (!) w/ auto fuel consumption @ 4.8 > >gph. But, I sure liked the outstanding visability, and the standard > >configuration inculsion ot the rocket-launcched ballistic parachute system. > >Think about it! > >I'm 6'3" @ 210 lbs, and there is plenty of room in the coclkpit for two > >of the same size. > >Yes, the CTSW is expensive, particularly if you choose all the "bells and > >whistles" such as th 3 blade prop ,the digital cockpit displays, etc. but > >it is only marginally more costly than most of the old/tired design > >competitors. > >Try their website (good video and pics): www.flightdesignusa.com > > > > Don Bowen > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >=========================================================================== > === > >To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm > >Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers-tech/ > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================ > == > To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm > Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/ > > > > > ============================================================================ == > To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm > Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/ > > > > ============================================================================== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/
