Give me your ideas-which A/C...

[CharlieTango]

...max weight, high altitude, warm weather and big mountains - hmmm...

speaking for a ctsw with less then 400 hours, consider the ctsw is at the top end performance wise for a SLSA.

-- max weight - clearly the 1320mgw is an artificial limitation, mountain performance is good at max gross, the ride is smother and landings are easier as well

--high altitude - pitching to achieve 5,500 rpm at your max cruising altitude assures a good blend of speed climb and economy. the ctsw is a climber and mountain ops are a pleasure

--warm weather - i see good performance when da is 11,000' on the runway, no problem

--big mountains - the ctsw climbs steeply and has a service ceiling above 14,000' i once flew an old pilot from yerrington to minden, nv and i just flew direct. the old guy later told me he had never seen anyone do that, the mountains are too close.

if you are realistic about your expectations a ctsw can provide a nice blend of economy, comfort and usability.

advantages light stick pressures keep the work easier to do without getting tired.

[Cub flyer]

Last time I was in Montana it was late summer and I flew a 145 hp 1964 Cessna 172 from a farm grass strip south of Ringling to White Sulfur Not too hot but there was a big difference from flying the same airplane in PA.

One thing to consider beyond posted stall speed numbers for each design is if you are slow flying a lot some airplanes with higher stall speed are actually better. They handle better just before the stall and can be easily flown right on the limit.

Others stall slower but have wing drop/ abrupt break/ annoying buffet and need to fly faster than the airplane with the higher stall speed.

Only flying each one will tell you what works best.

I could land and take off a stock Piper colt with short wings and no flaps much shorter than another local with a early Cessna 150 and all the STOL mods combined. Same weight. The colt can mush into ground effect and not stall out. 150 would break and drop a wing if accidentally stalled. colt stall speed is listed at 56 mph at gross. Actually it is a controlled mush.

I've been thinking and for instruction, charter, and survey work or hauling ride passengers, I really like having the front or back of the airplane to myself. You can look out both sides, move around and nobody is in the way. but for long periods I like the extra room of tandem seating. In the 206 I'm throwing junk into the copilot seat all the time. Peeling oranges with one hand, pretzels, raisins, cookies, terrible rice cakes, Ipod, maps, facility directory, GPS manual, flashlights, hat, gloves, coat, etc.
I keep the survival pack on the seat right next to me. It would stink to be shivering looking at a burned up or sunk airframe and no survival gear

I knew a guy who had a fishing vest with all his survival gear inside pockets. Wore it while flying. Something to think about

Kind of move right in for the duration of the flight. Everything has a place so you can find it when needed without looking.

If you have someone next to you it's best to remove the control stick or yoke. Most airplanes it is possible. The 185's in Alaska had folding rudder pedals. That was nice to get everything out of the way. especially if climbers with boots were going in the copilot seat. People yank cameras up for the quick shot and the straps foul the yoke.


What's your insurance company think of all this? will they support an LSA. Didn't one other state buy CT's for law enforcement?

Highlander might be another option. They advertise a high useful load and have a large baggage.

[Cub flyer]

were you planning on a two person crew? Pilot and observer.

If solo then the weight would not be as much of an issue but I wouldn't recommend it. Too easy to get fixated on what is going on below and not fly the airplane.

[jbesper]

CharlieT - I've had the CTSW info and it's on my list of contenders. I've spoken briefly with the regional sales rep. I've been impressed by everything I've read and seen so far and would say that it is one of my top two LSA's. For everything I love about the LSA's, I've developed two concerns;

1.) Power. Charlie, I have to admit I've been rather surprised by the performance you routinely pull from your CTSW and the flights that you make sound easy. I wouldn't expect the small Rotax to have that much moxy, so either you're a damn good pilot, or I'm clueless as to the actual capabilities of that motor. Or both. Bottom line; I need to know that the airplane we choose will safely move two people around in mountainous terrain on any given day, hot or cold. Many of the other airplanes using the same motor don't have as stellar reviews in this regard, which makes me question anything with a small Rotax in it. Granted, we need to operate the airplane within the parameters it was designed to be used in, common sense/responsibilty must be paramount. But I don't want to have a sick feeling in my gut everytime I see them head off towards the hills.

2.) Insurability. Redlands P.D. (CA) did a two day study which Flight Design participated in. They were obviously impressed as they moved to buy a CTSW. They found companies willing to insure them generally speaking, but they wanted to use a pool of volunteer pilots and the insurers would only put 4-5 pilots on the roster max. Redlands dumped the LSA and bought a 172 which their volunteers fly for them. I have already had a hiccup with our insurers. I was initially told that LSA's were "Experimental" and "dangerous" and it was suggested I look for something more traditional. I don't think the insurance issue is insurmountable, but it's a moot point if the airplane I want to insure won't do the job.

As far as gyroplanes go, I haven't looked too closely at them. I need an enclosed cockpit, and to be honest, it's going to be hard enough to sell them on an idea which they already recognize (an airplane of some sort). I'm afraid the non-conventional designs would be too much of a shock to the senses to really process.

We will always be running 2 person crews, so weight is always going to be a factor. And considering this would be a long-term investment, I need to make sure whatever make/model we buy will have service, parts, etc. readily available for the long run. That's hard to predict or guarantee with any company, let alone some of the small start-ups that have surfaced in the last few years.

Cub- You were just north of me (Bozeman) on your last adventure. Anyway, I would need a high wing, and would prefer tandem seating for visibility but have seen some door/window arrangements on side-by-sides that would work just fine too (anybody seen the Seabird Seeker, pretty neat!) Starting to sound alot like a Cub come to think of it. Well I'll probably have to start paying people to read these rambling posts, but thanks again to everyone.

[CharlieTango]

...1.) Power. Charlie, I have to admit I've been rather surprised by the performance you routinely pull from your CTSW and the flights that you make sound easy. I wouldn't expect the small Rotax to have that much moxy, so either you're a damn good pilot, or I'm clueless as to the actual capabilities of that motor. Or both...

i do have a bit of experience opertating in the mountains but the ctsw is capable. i used to fly a 180hp 172 and the ctsw outperforms it by a big margin. the performance is close to an old 182.

here are a few high altitude photos shot from my ctsw

flir equiped!


palasades glacier











118kts gs @ 10,000'

[jbesper]

Wow, CT - Exceptional photos. I saw some of your others on the mountain flying post. It's hard not to be impressed with a 700lb airplane with more juice than a Skyhawk. Just curious, what kind of FLIR is that and what do you use it for?

[CharlieTango]

the flir is handheld infra red scanner/camera

i am a building insulation contractor and use it to analyze heat loss from existing structures.

from the air, it can show "hot roofs" or attics that need insulation. the photos can be persuasive.