For those who haven't seen this, Cessna has provided lots more detail on
its LSA entry:

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/

Fancy brochure:

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/lsa_mini_bro_web.pdf

Order form with pricing (for first 1000):

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/sc_order_pckt_final_0721.pdf

I was sort of hoping for a more useful, useful load. With full fuel and no
accessories, you have capacity left for two mythical 170 pound pilots plus 6
pounds left over for headsets and sectionals. Or is the 6 pounds for the engine
oil?

Other than that, I like it so far.

Vaughn

On Jul 22, 2:42 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> For those who haven't seen this, Cessna has provided lots more detail on
> its LSA entry:
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/
>
> Fancy brochure:
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/lsa_mini_bro_web.pdf
>
> Order form with pricing (for first 1000):
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/sc_order_pckt_final_0721.pdf

http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/stories/Image_Gallery_Photos/skycatcher_interior.jpg

whoa. Mechanical flaps?

"buttman" > wrote in message
ps.com...

>
> whoa. Mechanical flaps?
>

Cool! I hate electric flaps.

buttman wrote:

>
> whoa. Mechanical flaps?
>

What's wrong with that?

On Jul 22, 4:26 pm, RomeoMike > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
>
> > whoa. Mechanical flaps?
>
> What's wrong with that?

nothing is wrong with it. Mechanical flaps are way better than
electric flaps. I just didn't think it could be possible with a high
wing design. At least not with the handle being where it's at.

>> whoa. Mechanical flaps?
>>
>
> What's wrong with that?

Pay no attention. It's just buttman.

You know, the CFI that pulls the throttle on his students - 10 feet off the
ground?
--
Jim in NC

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:49:37 -0000, buttman > wrote:

>On Jul 22, 4:26 pm, RomeoMike > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>
>> > whoa. Mechanical flaps?
>>
>> What's wrong with that?
>
>nothing is wrong with it. Mechanical flaps are way better than
>electric flaps. I just didn't think it could be possible with a high
>wing design. At least not with the handle being where it's at.

Nothing ground-breaking, not even for Cessna. 150s had mechanical flaps until
the late '60s.

Ron Wanttaja

On Jul 22, 4:42 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> For those who haven't seen this, Cessna has provided lots more detail on
> its LSA entry:
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/
>
> Fancy brochure:
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/lsa_mini_bro_web.pdf
>
> Order form with pricing (for first 1000):
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/sc_order_pckt_final_0721.pdf

I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
Cessna 162 and left it at that.

The Tecnam Bravo is very comparable to the 162. It is all aluminum,
but it weighs 100 pounds less (which under LSA rules means it has 100
pounds more useful load) and it doesn't need wing struts. It also has
a base price of $95,000 rather than the $111,000 Cessna is going to
ask. The Flight Design CT weighs a full 170 pounds less, also does
away with the wing strut, has a wider cabin, and costs about the same
as the Tecnam. There are a number of other LSAs out there which
compare favorably to the Cessna and cost quite a bit less. I think if
a small, relatively unknown company had brought an airplane like the
162 to the market, there would have been a resounding thud. But
Cessna is to airplanes what IBM used to be to computers, and maybe
they can get away with charging a premium to get the name Cessna on
the side of the plane.

I think this situation is similar to the time when IBM introduced
their first personal computer. It legitimized the concept of the
personal computer. In the long run, though, IBM withdrew from the
manufacture of personal computers because they just could not compete
with the likes of Dell. Time will tell whether or not a large company
like Cessna can compete with the many smaller companies that have
entered the LSA market.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:49:37 -0000, buttman > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 22, 4:26 pm, RomeoMike > wrote:
>>> buttman wrote:
>>>
>>>> whoa. Mechanical flaps?
>>> What's wrong with that?
>> nothing is wrong with it. Mechanical flaps are way better than
>> electric flaps. I just didn't think it could be possible with a high
>> wing design. At least not with the handle being where it's at.
>
> Nothing ground-breaking, not even for Cessna. 150s had mechanical flaps until
> the late '60s.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

That Johnson Bar was fun. You had to lift up on it slightly as you
pressed in the end button to release the pressure on the catch. If your
hand was a bit slippery from that last hamburger you ate at the airport
coffee shop, the bar could slip right out of your grip and slam the
flaps up in about a nano-second. Great system really, but you had to be
careful especially with go-arounds initiated from the flare :-)
Dudley Henriques

Buttman,

> whoa. Mechanical flaps?
>

Handbrake ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Phil,

> I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
> Cessna 162 and left it at that.
>

You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> I was sort of hoping for a more useful, useful load. With full
> fuel and no accessories, you have capacity left for two mythical 170
> pound pilots plus 6 pounds left over for headsets and sectionals. Or
> is the 6 pounds for the engine oil?
>
> Other than that, I like it so far.
>
> Vaughn

Yeah, it's about 100#s heavier empty than a lot of the competition.

On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Phil,
>
> > I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
> > Cessna 162 and left it at that.
>
> You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
just made out of scrap wood.

On Jul 23, 7:31 am, Phil > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>
> > Phil,
>
> > > I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
> > > Cessna 162 and left it at that.
>
> > You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.
>
> > --
> > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
> No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
> sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
> just made out of scrap wood.

And if it gets (or more importantly keeps...) that eight year old
dreaming of flight and ultimately leads to him/her getting his/her
certificate, what's the problem?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
(Former builder of planes out of scrap wood)

"Phil" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>
> I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher??

If they'd have named it "Skywalker" George Lucas would have probably bought
them all.

-c

C Gattman wrote:
> "Phil" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>
>> I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher??
>
> If they'd have named it "Skywalker" George Lucas would have probably
> bought them all.
>
> -c

Or just owned them all after the Trademark lawsuit.

On Jul 22, 8:37 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:49:37 -0000, buttman > wrote:
> >On Jul 22, 4:26 pm, RomeoMike > wrote:
> >> buttman wrote:
>
> >> > whoa. Mechanical flaps?
>
> >> What's wrong with that?
>
> >nothing is wrong with it. Mechanical flaps are way better than
> >electric flaps. I just didn't think it could be possible with a high
> >wing design. At least not with the handle being where it's at.
>
> Nothing ground-breaking, not even for Cessna. 150s had mechanical flaps until
> the late '60s.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

As did the 172, 180, 182, 185, and many other high-wing
airplanes like Aeronca/Bellanca/American Champion, Piper, Stinson,
Auster, and on and on. No more difficult than aileron controls. Lots
of homebuilts, too. Where has Buttman been all this time?

Dan

On Jul 23, 12:24 pm, Jay Beckman > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:31 am, Phil > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Phil,
>
> > > > I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
> > > > Cessna 162 and left it at that.
>
> > > You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.
>
> > > --
> > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
> > No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
> > sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
> > just made out of scrap wood.
>
> And if it gets (or more importantly keeps...) that eight year old
> dreaming of flight and ultimately leads to him/her getting his/her
> certificate, what's the problem?
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ
> (Former builder of planes out of scrap wood)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think it's a fine name for a scrap or balsa wood airplane for
children. Not so great for a full-size aluminum one aimed at adults.
Frankly, I am disappointed in general with the 162. I am a fan of the
light sport segment. I am currently a student working on getting my
sport pilot license. I would have liked to see Cessna come out with
an airplane that at least equaled what the other manufacturers have
developed, if not bettered them. As an American, I want to see
American manufacturers develop superior products. This airplane looks
to be inferior to most other LSA's in useful load and range. It
doesn't include a chute except as an option. It doesn't have safety
features such as a safety cage around the passenger compartment, which
the Tecnam does have. And to top it all off, it's more expensive than
the competition.

On the plus side, I think it looks great. Although I think it would
look better without those wing struts. Low-wing planes have been
flying without struts for years. Why is it that high-wing planes
still use them? They cause drag and they spoil the view.

I also like the way they have set up the sticks, coming from beneath
the panel rather than up from the floor. That would definitely make
it easier to get in and out of the cockpit.

: I think it's a fine name for a scrap or balsa wood airplane for
: children. Not so great for a full-size aluminum one aimed at adults.
: Frankly, I am disappointed in general with the 162. I am a fan of the
: light sport segment. I am currently a student working on getting my
: sport pilot license. I would have liked to see Cessna come out with
: an airplane that at least equaled what the other manufacturers have
: developed, if not bettered them. As an American, I want to see
: American manufacturers develop superior products. This airplane looks
: to be inferior to most other LSA's in useful load and range. It
: doesn't include a chute except as an option. It doesn't have safety
: features such as a safety cage around the passenger compartment, which
: the Tecnam does have. And to top it all off, it's more expensive than
: the competition.

I think it's unfortunate that it uses the O-200 engine. Don't get me wrong... I like old-school
stuff and it's a great fit to a Cessna 140/150. For a brand-new aircraft though, it'd be nice to see
some newer technology for the engine. If not liquid-cooling (Rotax) or diesel, at *least* adequate
cooling fins to keep exhaust ports from cracking. Why not a Lycoming O-235 like in the 152?

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Phil" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 22, 4:42 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> For those who haven't seen this, Cessna has provided lots more detail on
>> its LSA entry:
>>
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/
>>
>> Fancy brochure:
>>
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/lsa_mini_bro_web.pdf
>>
>> Order form with pricing (for first 1000):
>>
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/sc_order_pckt_final_0721.pdf
>
> I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
> Cessna 162 and left it at that.
>

I guess it's better than "Ground Finder".

Al G

Al G wrote:
> "Phil" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On Jul 22, 4:42 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> For those who haven't seen this, Cessna has provided lots more
>>> detail on its LSA entry:
>>>
>>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/
>>>
>>> Fancy brochure:
>>>
>>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/lsa_mini_bro_web.pdf
>>>
>>> Order form with pricing (for first 1000):
>>>
>>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/sc_order_pckt_final_0721.pdf
>>
>> I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
>> Cessna 162 and left it at that.
>>
>
> I guess it's better than "Ground Finder".
>
> Al G

THe thing is 100 lbs over the empty weight it should be. Maybe "SkyPiggy"
would have been a good name.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:46:01 +0000 (UTC),
wrote in
>:

>I think it's unfortunate that it uses the O-200 engine.

IIRC, the Cont O-200 has a TBO of 1,800 hours. Have you checked the
TBO on the Rotax?

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:46:01 +0000 (UTC),
> wrote in
> >:
>
>> I think it's unfortunate that it uses the O-200 engine.
>
> IIRC, the Cont O-200 has a TBO of 1,800 hours. Have you checked the
> TBO on the Rotax?

912ULS - 1500 hours

wrote:

> I think it's unfortunate that it uses the O-200 engine. Don't get me wrong... I like old-school
> stuff and it's a great fit to a Cessna 140/150. For a brand-new aircraft though, it'd be nice to see
> some newer technology for the engine. If not liquid-cooling (Rotax) or diesel, at *least* adequate
> cooling fins to keep exhaust ports from cracking. Why not a Lycoming O-235 like in the 152?
>
> -Cory
>

Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model
engine, the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be
surprised if Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the
cylinder design. As a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft
powerplant, I personally think they made a good choice.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

"Phil" > wrote

> On the plus side, I think it looks great. Although I think it would
> look better without those wing struts. Low-wing planes have been
> flying without struts for years. Why is it that high-wing planes
> still use them? They cause drag and they spoil the view.

Because you can make the wing structure and mounting lighter.

I gotta wonder though; why is the dang thing so heavy? It is probably at least
75 pounds heavier than others of the class.

It is going to make full tanks with two people impossible to do and still be
legal, (and no luggage) unless they are really lightweights.

I will go out on a limb and say that Cessna had better put it on a diet, or it
will not sell as well as they would like.
--
Jim in NC

"Scott Skylane" > wrote

> Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model engine,
> the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be surprised if
> Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the cylinder design. As
> a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft powerplant, I personally think they
> made a good choice.

I agree, most completely!

The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the Rotax
powered LSA's.

Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
installation of a 200 vs. a 912?
--
Jim in NC

: Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model
: engine, the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be
: surprised if Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the
: cylinder design. As a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft
: powerplant, I personally think they made a good choice.

I'm not "knocking" it so much as I lament a brand new aircraft not using new technology. TBO doesn't take into account
cylinder overhauls, which are routinely required on old-school air-cooled aircraft engines. I'm been plagued with sticking
valves on my O-360 since I got my Cherokee and taking a step *backwards* from that (WRT cooling, compression ratio, etc) seems
silly.

If the "D" models has the improvements you suggest, then it's a good compromise. If not, it's a rather disappointing
choice. Perhaps with 110 HP it'd go faster than allowed in a LSA?

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

On 2007-07-23 07:31:11 -0700, Phil > said:

> On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>> Phil,
>>
>>> I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
>>> Cessna 162 and left it at that.
>>
>> You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
> No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
> sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
> just made out of scrap wood.

I don't think it is as bad as 'Stationair.' Sounds like something slow
and ugly, which it is, but they didn't need to call it that . :-)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-07-22 14:42:09 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:

> For those who haven't seen this, Cessna has provided lots more detail on
> its LSA entry:
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/
>
> Fancy brochure:
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/lsa_mini_bro_web.pdf
>
> Order form with pricing (for first 1000):
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/sc_order_pckt_final_0721.pdf

I like the cute little Garmin panels. The thing has all the wiring
harness you need to convert it to IFR, by the way. Mike Pickett got to
sit in it at the dealers meeting and said he liked how comfortable it
was and the layout of the controls. He liked the stick, too, which is
an angle under the dash instead of attached to the floor, so it doesn't
get in the way of your dress.

Everybody made fun of the cupholders, though. FOUR cupholders in a two
place plane. Count 'em.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

wrote:
> : Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model
> : engine, the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be
> : surprised if Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the
> : cylinder design. As a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft
> : powerplant, I personally think they made a good choice.
>
> I'm not "knocking" it so much as I lament a brand new aircraft not using new technology. TBO doesn't take into account
> cylinder overhauls, which are routinely required on old-school air-cooled aircraft engines. I'm been plagued with sticking
> valves on my O-360 since I got my Cherokee and taking a step *backwards* from that (WRT cooling, compression ratio, etc) seems
> silly.

Newer technology isn't always better. Airplane engines have evolved
very well to meet the requirements of the airplanes they are in. Sure,
some improvements seem pretty obvious such as fuel injection, electronic
engine management, etc., but I'm not sure what I'd change to the basic
engine architecture. For an airplane, an air-cooled engine with
separate cylinders makes a lot of sense. A water cooled mono-block
design would add a lot of weight and make field overhauls much more
difficult. And water cooling adds several more failure modes (water
pump failure, hose failure, thermostat failure, radiator failure, etc.).
I'd say that with respect to my automobiles over the last 30 years
that I've had more problems with the cooling system than with any other
part of the engine.


Matt

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-07-22 14:42:09 -0700, Jim Logajan > said:
>
>> For those who haven't seen this, Cessna has provided lots more detail on
>> its LSA entry:
>>
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/
>>
>> Fancy brochure:
>>
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/lsa_mini_bro_web.pdf
>>
>> Order form with pricing (for first 1000):
>>
>> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/sc_order_pckt_final_0721.pdf
>
> I like the cute little Garmin panels. The thing has all the wiring
> harness you need to convert it to IFR, by the way. Mike Pickett got to
> sit in it at the dealers meeting and said he liked how comfortable it
> was and the layout of the controls. He liked the stick, too, which is an
> angle under the dash instead of attached to the floor, so it doesn't get
> in the way of your dress.
>
> Everybody made fun of the cupholders, though. FOUR cupholders in a two
> place plane. Count 'em.

Makes a lot of sense to me. You need two bottles for the input fluids
and two more for the output fluids. 2 + 2 = 4 so I'd say Cessna was
just planning ahead! :-)

Matt

"C J Campbell" > wrote

> Everybody made fun of the cupholders, though. FOUR cupholders in a two
> place plane. Count 'em.

That must be for a tobacco spit bottle and a drink. <g>

For me, that would be for a Coke and a water.
--
Jim in NC

On Jul 22, 4:42 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> For those who haven't seen this, Cessna has provided lots more detail on
> its LSA entry:
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/
>
> Fancy brochure:
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/lsa_mini_bro_web.pdf
>
> Order form with pricing (for first 1000):
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/sc_order_pckt_final_0721.pdf

Thanks for posting this...just in general however (to you and anyone
else)...

I guess I dont understand the LSA market all that well. 109K...

I guess that they and other "new" LSA people have done the marketing
study...but somewhere I do not see how the economics of the entire LSA
near/over 100K thing work.

60K on the open market will buy one a very very good four place with
lots of money (40K) left over to 1) work it up to your hearts content,
2) fix any squeaks and 3) fly the thing.

I cant see how the insurance is going to be all that much cheaper for
a Skycatcher then a Skyhawk even for a very low time pilot...the EFIS
screens are great and probably in the long run have a better MTBF
but......anyone who thinks that they are going to do serious IFR
instruction in this plane with the "size" of most of today's pilots is
kind of kidding themselves...and then why the LSA for that?

If one is really looking for a real LSA and moves into something like
an Ercoupe or a well classic LSA...yeah one is buying "old" but thats
about 20-30K and then there is 70K or so to fix it up and you are at
the functional equivelent to the Skycatcher.

I see the very light jet market, it replaces King Airs even high end
piston twins...I dont see the LSA NEW Market.

Have I missed something here?

Robert

>
> I see the very light jet market, it replaces King Airs even high end
> piston twins...I dont see the LSA NEW Market.
>
> Have I missed something here?
>
> Robert


The VLJ competes with a King Air but can never replace it. Even the oldest
KA 90 from 1965 will carry 9 passengers and all their bags.

karl

I saw the plane today and sat in it. Looks good so far, but the
"plane" on display was missing a few things (like an engine). Also,
the glass panel displays were mockups. As for first impressions, it is
roomy and wide. I like the strut-aided swing-up doors, although I
found getting in and out rather difficult (had to duck my head down
and manually pull each leg back to clear the door frame. It appears
that the seats are fixed (fore/aft) and the pedal position is
adjustable. There is a cam arrangement underneath the seats that
allows raising or lowering them somewhat. The rudder pedals are on a
"platform" a few inches above the level of the footwells - which seems
a bit unnatural. The "yoke" is something between a control wheel and
joystick - emanates from the panel, but can be either rotated on the
shaft or moved left/right (as well as moved in or out). Didn't get a
chance to question Cessna's sales staff about how it works.

Cessna's electronic tally board showed some 170 orders at about 10:00
AM and 367 when I looked in again about 5:00 PM. Looks as though it is
going to be popular.


David Johnson

On Jul 23, 11:07 am, wrote:
> On Jul 22, 8:37 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:49:37 -0000, buttman > wrote:
> > >On Jul 22, 4:26 pm, RomeoMike > wrote:
> > >> buttman wrote:
>
> > >> > whoa. Mechanical flaps?
>
> > >> What's wrong with that?
>
> > >nothing is wrong with it. Mechanical flaps are way better than
> > >electric flaps. I just didn't think it could be possible with a high
> > >wing design. At least not with the handle being where it's at.
>
> > Nothing ground-breaking, not even for Cessna. 150s had mechanical flaps until
> > the late '60s.
>
> > Ron Wanttaja
>
> As did the 172, 180, 182, 185, and many other high-wing
> airplanes like Aeronca/Bellanca/American Champion, Piper, Stinson,
> Auster, and on and on. No more difficult than aileron controls. Lots
> of homebuilts, too. Where has Buttman been all this time?
>
> Dan

Well I've never flown any of those planes. All the high wings I've
ever flown have always had electrical flaps, and the only mechanical
flapped plane I've flown was a low wing. I didn't think it was
possible to have a cable or a shaft go through the floor, up the sides
of the door, then across the roof.

I do know of one high wing mechanical flap airplane, but it had a hand
crank coming down from the roof. I think it was the Aeronca, but I
could be wrong.

In rec.aviation.owning Matt Whiting > wrote:
: Newer technology isn't always better. Airplane engines have evolved
: very well to meet the requirements of the airplanes they are in. Sure,
: some improvements seem pretty obvious such as fuel injection, electronic
: engine management, etc., but I'm not sure what I'd change to the basic
: engine architecture. For an airplane, an air-cooled engine with
: separate cylinders makes a lot of sense. A water cooled mono-block
: design would add a lot of weight and make field overhauls much more
: difficult. And water cooling adds several more failure modes (water
: pump failure, hose failure, thermostat failure, radiator failure, etc.).
: I'd say that with respect to my automobiles over the last 30 years
: that I've had more problems with the cooling system than with any other
: part of the engine.


As I like to explain to people, traditional aircraft engines are *very* reliable in the
short-term, but very unreliable in the long term. In other words, the chances of the engine failing for
a 3-hour cross country flight is very low. The chances of the engine needing maintenance in 50-100 hours
is pretty high. The chances of it needing *expensive* maintenance in 500-1000 hours is VERY high.
Consider all the care and feeding necessary to keep them going:

- Magneto maintenance.
- Spark plug cleaning, gapping, replacing.
- Oil changes more often because of blow-by from loose-tolerances required for air-cooling, lead
contamination from requiring leaded fuel, quicker breakdown due to higher operating temperatures, etc
- Significant amount of top-end wear due to high operating CHT's.
- Sticking valves due to high top-end temperatures.

Air-cooled engines have a much higher octane requirement than would be necessary for geared,
liquid-cooled engine. What liquid-cooled engines would require 96 or 100 octane for an 8.5:1 CR? With
96 or 100, a liquid-cooled engine could easily run 10:1 or more and get 10-20% more power for the same
fuel burn.

I applaud the Rotax design, although I agree that it's a bit too high-strung for using in
high-volume certified aircraft. What's needed is a larger version utilizing the same technology that
isn't run quite so hard.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

On Jul 23, 3:23 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:46:01 +0000 (UTC),
> wrote in
> >:
>
> >I think it's unfortunate that it uses the O-200 engine.
>
> IIRC, the Cont O-200 has a TBO of 1,800 hours. Have you checked the
> TBO on the Rotax?

TBO on the Rotax is 1,500 hours.

On Jul 23, 7:13 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Scott Skylane" > wrote
>
> > Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model engine,
> > the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be surprised if
> > Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the cylinder design. As
> > a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft powerplant, I personally think they
> > made a good choice.
>
> I agree, most completely!
>
> The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the Rotax
> powered LSA's.
>
> Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
> installation of a 200 vs. a 912?
> --
> Jim in NC

I don't know what the firewall-forward weights would be, but the basic
dry weight of the Rotax is 132 lbs versus 170 lbs for the Continental.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:28:00 +0000 (UTC),
wrote in
>:

>I applaud the Rotax design, although I agree that it's a bit
>too high-strung for using in high-volume certified aircraft.

Thank you for your informative analysis of the differences between air
and liquid cooled aircraft engines, but I'm having a little difficulty
inferring your meaning in your sentence quoted above.

In your opinion, what causes you to characterize the Rotax 912 liquid
engine as being "too high-strung?" Is it a lack of design robustness;
is the Rotax engine more fragile than the Cont. O-200? Does it
require more frequent maintenance?

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:28:00 +0000 (UTC),
> wrote in
> >:
>
>> I applaud the Rotax design, although I agree that it's a bit
>> too high-strung for using in high-volume certified aircraft.
>
> Thank you for your informative analysis of the differences between air
> and liquid cooled aircraft engines, but I'm having a little difficulty
> inferring your meaning in your sentence quoted above.
>
> In your opinion, what causes you to characterize the Rotax 912 liquid
> engine as being "too high-strung?" Is it a lack of design robustness;
> is the Rotax engine more fragile than the Cont. O-200? Does it
> require more frequent maintenance?

It runs at ~5800 rpm which is about 3000 rpm faster than the O-200.

In rec.aviation.owning Larry Dighera > wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:28:00 +0000 (UTC),
: wrote in
: >:

: >I applaud the Rotax design, although I agree that it's a bit
: >too high-strung for using in high-volume certified aircraft.

: Thank you for your informative analysis of the differences between air
: and liquid cooled aircraft engines, but I'm having a little difficulty
: inferring your meaning in your sentence quoted above.

: In your opinion, what causes you to characterize the Rotax 912 liquid
: engine as being "too high-strung?" Is it a lack of design robustness;
: is the Rotax engine more fragile than the Cont. O-200? Does it
: require more frequent maintenance?

It's a *very* small displacement to generate the kind of power that it is... 1.35 liters, 5800
RPM, 10.5:1 CR to me is "high-strung."
http://www.kodiakbs.com/engines/912ULS.htm

I'm thinking something of a bit larger displacement, a little less RPM, with a bigger discrepency
between max power and continuous power... in other words, a bit more derated. I realize that this would
come with a weight penalty which is a bigger deal for the max-gross limited LSA. That should allow for a
longer TBO.

-Cory



--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> I see the very light jet market, it replaces King Airs even high end
>> piston twins...I dont see the LSA NEW Market.
>>
>> Have I missed something here?
>>
>> Robert
>
>
> The VLJ competes with a King Air but can never replace it. Even the oldest
> KA 90 from 1965 will carry 9 passengers and all their bags.
>
> karl
>
And be able to stop and taxi on an icy runway/taxiway. I could land
and taxi into
places where I couldn't walk away from the airplane.

Al G

wrote:
> : Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model
> : engine, the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be
> : surprised if Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the
> : cylinder design. As a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft
> : powerplant, I personally think they made a good choice.
>
> I'm not "knocking" it so much as I lament a brand new aircraft not using new technology. TBO doesn't take into account
> cylinder overhauls, which are routinely required on old-school air-cooled aircraft engines. I'm been plagued with sticking
> valves on my O-360 since I got my Cherokee and taking a step *backwards* from that (WRT cooling, compression ratio, etc) seems
> silly.
>
> If the "D" models has the improvements you suggest, then it's a good compromise. If not, it's a rather disappointing
> choice. Perhaps with 110 HP it'd go faster than allowed in a LSA?

Another issue is the reduction gear that
comes with a 912. If you value the lower
vibration levels and more optimum prop
and engine rpms, it's a benefit you don't
get with the Continental.

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-07-23 07:31:11 -0700, Phil > said:
>
>> On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
>> wrote:
>>> Phil,
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
>>>> Cessna 162 and left it at that.
>>>
>>> You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>> No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
>> sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
>> just made out of scrap wood.
>
> I don't think it is as bad as 'Stationair.' Sounds like something slow
> and ugly, which it is, but they didn't need to call it that . :-)

You could argue that any technical field that
uses terms like flapperon, gascolator, stabilator
and elevon shouldn't have an issue with a marginal
aircraft name (:

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:28:00 +0000 (UTC),
>> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> I applaud the Rotax design, although I agree that it's a bit
>>> too high-strung for using in high-volume certified aircraft.
>> Thank you for your informative analysis of the differences between air
>> and liquid cooled aircraft engines, but I'm having a little difficulty
>> inferring your meaning in your sentence quoted above.
>>
>> In your opinion, what causes you to characterize the Rotax 912 liquid
>> engine as being "too high-strung?" Is it a lack of design robustness;
>> is the Rotax engine more fragile than the Cont. O-200? Does it
>> require more frequent maintenance?
>
> It runs at ~5800 rpm which is about 3000 rpm faster than the O-200.

It can run at 5800 rpm, but it depends on your
prop pitch. My CTSW never exceeds 5100-5200 on
full throttle climbout and cruises just wonderfully
at 90-95 knots and 4200 rpm or so.

I bought the plane because it can cruise for
6 hours at 120 knots, but it's so smooth and
quiet between 90-100 knots that that's where
I do most of my flying.

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Scott Skylane" > wrote
>
>> Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model
>> engine, the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would
>> be surprised if Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to
>> the cylinder design. As a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft
>> powerplant, I personally think they made a good choice.
>
> I agree, most completely!
>
> The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the
> Rotax powered LSA's.
>
> Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
> installation of a 200 vs. a 912?

And can anyone tell us what the maintenance
schedule for the O-200 is?

For the 912, I inspect every 25 hours and do
a plug and oil change every 50 hours. Plugs
are $3 each x 8, oil filter is about $17 and
oil is $10/quart x 3.

Dealer inspection at 100 hour intervals mostly
for the gearbox.

Jim Stewart wrote:
> wrote:

>> If the "D" models has the improvements you suggest, then it's a good
>> compromise. If not, it's a rather disappointing choice. Perhaps
>> with 110 HP it'd go faster than allowed in a LSA?
>
> Another issue is the reduction gear that
> comes with a 912. If you value the lower
> vibration levels and more optimum prop
> and engine rpms, it's a benefit you don't
> get with the Continental.

But the reduction gear adds another point of failure to the system. Yet
another trade off.

And that's what it boils down to, trade offs.

I'm building a 601xl. There are people using old technology engines (O-200 &
O-235), New Tech engines (Rotax & Jabiru) and car engines (Subaru and
Corvair). There are positives and negatives to each engine.

I'd be willing to bet that Cessna looked at the service system they already
had in place and the decision was simple. much like if I had been working on
Lycoming or Cont. engines for the last 50 years I would have decided on an
O-200 or O-235 for my 601XL.

Many of the ex-ULs, now Light-Sport Aircraft have a handle over head to
operate the flaps
Seems fairly common. The new Cessna looks great but that heavy engine is
stealing useful payload.


Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/




"buttman" wrote :
>
> Well I've never flown any of those planes. All the high wings I've
> ever flown have always had electrical flaps, and the only mechanical
> flapped plane I've flown was a low wing. I didn't think it was
> possible to have a cable or a shaft go through the floor, up the sides
> of the door, then across the roof.
>
> I do know of one high wing mechanical flap airplane, but it had a hand
> crank coming down from the roof. I think it was the Aeronca, but I
> could be wrong.
>

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>> It runs at ~5800 rpm which is about 3000 rpm faster than the O-200.
>
> It can run at 5800 rpm, but it depends on your
> prop pitch. My CTSW never exceeds 5100-5200 on
> full throttle climbout and cruises just wonderfully
> at 90-95 knots and 4200 rpm or so.

The prop pitch can be twicked on an O-200 as well.

Gilan wrote:
> Many of the ex-ULs, now Light-Sport Aircraft have a handle over head
> to operate the flaps
> Seems fairly common. The new Cessna looks great but that heavy
> engine is stealing useful payload.
>
>

It ism't just the engine that is heavy. That plane is at least 100 lbs over
weight and that ain't all engine. The all glass panel should have produced
some weight savings. But it looks like they spent that to.

"Phil" > wrote

> I don't know what the firewall-forward weights would be, but the basic
> dry weight of the Rotax is 132 lbs versus 170 lbs for the Continental.

I would think the Rotax would have to give back at least 15 or 20 pounds, for
the cooling system and coolant.
--
Jim in NC

Phil wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:13 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Scott Skylane" > wrote
>>
>>> Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model engine,
>>> the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be surprised if
>>> Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the cylinder design. As
>>> a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft powerplant, I personally think they
>>> made a good choice.
>> I agree, most completely!
>>
>> The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the Rotax
>> powered LSA's.
>>
>> Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
>> installation of a 200 vs. a 912?
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> I don't know what the firewall-forward weights would be, but the basic
> dry weight of the Rotax is 132 lbs versus 170 lbs for the Continental.
>

It is pretty disingenuous to compare the dry weight of a liquid cooled
engine against an air cooled engine. What is the operational weight of
the Rotax?

Matt

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning Matt Whiting > wrote:
> : Newer technology isn't always better. Airplane engines have evolved
> : very well to meet the requirements of the airplanes they are in. Sure,
> : some improvements seem pretty obvious such as fuel injection, electronic
> : engine management, etc., but I'm not sure what I'd change to the basic
> : engine architecture. For an airplane, an air-cooled engine with
> : separate cylinders makes a lot of sense. A water cooled mono-block
> : design would add a lot of weight and make field overhauls much more
> : difficult. And water cooling adds several more failure modes (water
> : pump failure, hose failure, thermostat failure, radiator failure, etc.).
> : I'd say that with respect to my automobiles over the last 30 years
> : that I've had more problems with the cooling system than with any other
> : part of the engine.
>
>
> As I like to explain to people, traditional aircraft engines are *very* reliable in the
> short-term, but very unreliable in the long term. In other words, the chances of the engine failing for
> a 3-hour cross country flight is very low. The chances of the engine needing maintenance in 50-100 hours
> is pretty high. The chances of it needing *expensive* maintenance in 500-1000 hours is VERY high.
> Consider all the care and feeding necessary to keep them going:
>
> - Magneto maintenance.
> - Spark plug cleaning, gapping, replacing.
> - Oil changes more often because of blow-by from loose-tolerances required for air-cooling, lead
> contamination from requiring leaded fuel, quicker breakdown due to higher operating temperatures, etc
> - Significant amount of top-end wear due to high operating CHT's.
> - Sticking valves due to high top-end temperatures.
>
> Air-cooled engines have a much higher octane requirement than would be necessary for geared,
> liquid-cooled engine. What liquid-cooled engines would require 96 or 100 octane for an 8.5:1 CR? With
> 96 or 100, a liquid-cooled engine could easily run 10:1 or more and get 10-20% more power for the same
> fuel burn.

There is no reason that the Conti can't get rid of the mags. And the
high octane requirement is as much a function of the lack of
electronically controlled ignition as it is to the cooling mechanism.

Matt

Jim Stewart wrote:
> wrote:
>> : Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D"
>> model : engine, the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet.
>> I would be : surprised if Continental doesn't incorporate some
>> improvements to the : cylinder design. As a rugged, easy-to-maintain
>> light aircraft : powerplant, I personally think they made a good choice.
>>
>> I'm not "knocking" it so much as I lament a brand new aircraft not
>> using new technology. TBO doesn't take into account cylinder
>> overhauls, which are routinely required on old-school air-cooled
>> aircraft engines. I'm been plagued with sticking valves on my O-360
>> since I got my Cherokee and taking a step *backwards* from that (WRT
>> cooling, compression ratio, etc) seems silly.
>>
>> If the "D" models has the improvements you suggest, then it's a
>> good compromise. If not, it's a rather disappointing choice. Perhaps
>> with 110 HP it'd go faster than allowed in a LSA?
>
> Another issue is the reduction gear that
> comes with a 912. If you value the lower
> vibration levels and more optimum prop
> and engine rpms, it's a benefit you don't
> get with the Continental.

Is the prop RPM in cruise really any lower than a Conti? Most reduction
units are simply to get the prop RPM low enough to decent efficiency and
seldom get much lower than a direct drive airplane engine.

Matt

"Jim Stewart" > wrote

> It can run at 5800 rpm, but it depends on your
> prop pitch. My CTSW never exceeds 5100-5200 on
> full throttle climbout and cruises just wonderfully
> at 90-95 knots and 4200 rpm or so.

It just sounds wrong to me, to hear an engine running a sustained 5800 RPM. I
do want to go 120 knots though, so if that means it has to run 5800 RPM, it is a
big turn-off for me.

You know how sometimes people have a hang-up, for no good reason, but there is a
reason?

That is me and Rotax.

We had a SeaDoo that had a rotax (I forgot now) I think around 600 cc engine.
It was a piece of crap, from start to end. You fix one thing, and there was
another problem. Lots of money flushed down into that hole in the water.

Ended up getting a new short block. Ran it for about a year, with some
improvement in reliability, but not much. I got it running fairly good and sold
it. I told the new buyers about its questionable reliability (so I could sleep
nights), but they still wanted it. It was a deal.

Now, I KNOW that the 912 is a completely different beast than that 586 (or
whatever) 2 stroke, but I can never imagine getting into a plane with an engine
that is made by the same company. Not logical, but just the same, my mind is
over ruling my brain! <or something like that>
--
Jim in NC

On 2007-07-24 10:50:48 -0700, Jim Stewart > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2007-07-23 07:31:11 -0700, Phil > said:
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Phil,
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck with
>>>>> Cessna 162 and left it at that.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>>
>>> No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
>>> sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
>>> just made out of scrap wood.
>>
>> I don't think it is as bad as 'Stationair.' Sounds like something slow
>> and ugly, which it is, but they didn't need to call it that . :-)
>
> You could argue that any technical field that
> uses terms like flapperon, gascolator, stabilator
> and elevon shouldn't have an issue with a marginal
> aircraft name (:

Hey. The C-130 had grasshopper arms and 19 lb. steel balls.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Phil wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 7:13 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>>> "Scott Skylane" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model
>>>> engine,
>>>> the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be
>>>> surprised if
>>>> Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the cylinder
>>>> design. As
>>>> a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft powerplant, I personally
>>>> think they
>>>> made a good choice.
>>> I agree, most completely!
>>>
>>> The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the
>>> Rotax
>>> powered LSA's.
>>>
>>> Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
>>> installation of a 200 vs. a 912?
>>> --
>>> Jim in NC
>>
>> I don't know what the firewall-forward weights would be, but the basic
>> dry weight of the Rotax is 132 lbs versus 170 lbs for the Continental.
>>
>
> It is pretty disingenuous to compare the dry weight of a liquid cooled
> engine against an air cooled engine. What is the operational weight of
> the Rotax?

And the O-200 model "D" should have "at least a 25 pound weight reduction"
over previous models.

"Ken Finney" > wrote

> And the O-200 model "D" should have "at least a 25 pound weight reduction"
> over previous models.

Really?

What do you think they are planning to do, to lighten it up that much? (or any)
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Jim Stewart" > wrote
>
>> It can run at 5800 rpm, but it depends on your
>> prop pitch. My CTSW never exceeds 5100-5200 on
>> full throttle climbout and cruises just wonderfully
>> at 90-95 knots and 4200 rpm or so.
>
> It just sounds wrong to me, to hear an engine running a sustained 5800
> RPM. I do want to go 120 knots though, so if that means it has to run
> 5800 RPM, it is a big turn-off for me.

Just to clarify, the 912 is rated for 5800 rpm for
5 minutes, 5500 continuous.

> You know how sometimes people have a hang-up, for no good reason, but
> there is a reason?
>
> That is me and Rotax.
>
> We had a SeaDoo that had a rotax (I forgot now) I think around 600 cc
> engine. It was a piece of crap, from start to end. You fix one thing,
> and there was another problem. Lots of money flushed down into that
> hole in the water.
>
> Ended up getting a new short block. Ran it for about a year, with some
> improvement in reliability, but not much. I got it running fairly good
> and sold it. I told the new buyers about its questionable reliability
> (so I could sleep nights), but they still wanted it. It was a deal.

All I can add is that 2 strokes are 2 strokes
and 4 strokes are 4 strokes. I'd never be
comfortable being pulled through the air with
a 2 stroke unless I had a chute and a place to
make an emergency landing.

> Now, I KNOW that the 912 is a completely different beast than that 586
> (or whatever) 2 stroke, but I can never imagine getting into a plane
> with an engine that is made by the same company. Not logical, but just
> the same, my mind is over ruling my brain! <or something like that>

Well, your attitude is justified. I like the
912. Behaves like a big electric motor for me.

Update: 416 orders as of the end of the day on Tuesday the 24th.

I talked to the sales folks today, and learned that the yoke is in
fact a Stick, and works as one would expect - it just happens to be
mounted under the panel instead of on the floor. The twist movement
evident in the demonstrator will probably be gone in the real thing.
BTW the flight controls are not connected in the demonstrator and are
fixed in position (the stick moves but does nothing).

I tried it on for size again and found it comfortable (plenty of
headroom and elbow room), but no easier to get into or out of.

According to the salesman, if I ordered one today I would probably
take delivery in 2010. That's a long wait.

David Johnson

"Matt Whiting" wrote >
> Is the prop RPM in cruise really any lower than a Conti? Most reduction
> units are simply to get the prop RPM low enough to decent efficiency and
> seldom get much lower than a direct drive airplane engine.
>

The reduction gear ratio on the 912S is 1:2.43. This means a prop RPM of
2386 rpm at max power and around 2000-2100 rpm in cruise. Very sweet and
efficient.

"buttman" wrote
>
> Well I've never flown any of those planes. All the high wings I've
> ever flown have always had electrical flaps, and the only mechanical
> flapped plane I've flown was a low wing. I didn't think it was
> possible to have a cable or a shaft go through the floor, up the sides
> of the door, then across the roof.
>
Well, high wing airplanes do have ailerons, and somehow the designers manage
that control linkage. Flaps control linkages are in principle no different,
in fact they may be easier to implement.

"Morgans" wrote
>
> It just sounds wrong to me, to hear an engine running a sustained 5800
> RPM. I do want to go 120 knots though, so if that means it has to run
> 5800 RPM, it is a big turn-off for me.
>
Well, if you want to compare apples to apples, remember the Conti has to run
at 2750 rpm in that situation.

Dave,

> Update: 416 orders as of the end of the day on Tuesday the 24th.
>

Millions of flies...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Snowbird wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote >
>> Is the prop RPM in cruise really any lower than a Conti? Most reduction
>> units are simply to get the prop RPM low enough to decent efficiency and
>> seldom get much lower than a direct drive airplane engine.
>>
>
> The reduction gear ratio on the 912S is 1:2.43. This means a prop RPM of
> 2386 rpm at max power and around 2000-2100 rpm in cruise. Very sweet and
> efficient.
>
>

I don't have the efficiency curves handy. That sounds pretty slow for a
small diameter prop.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Makes a lot of sense to me. You need two bottles for the input fluids and two
> more for the output fluids. 2 + 2 = 4 so I'd say Cessna was just planning
> ahead! :-)

Is anyone else having a problem of posts repeating themselves a few days after
the original post?

I suspect that it is on my end, but I don't even know where to start looking.

This post came on the 22nd, and it reappeared again today. I am getting this
type of thing 20 or 30 times per day.

I just switched computers, while mine is on loan.

Anyone have any ideas? Using OE on a XP machine. Charter Cable is my service
provider.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> Makes a lot of sense to me. You need two bottles for the input fluids
>> and two more for the output fluids. 2 + 2 = 4 so I'd say Cessna was just
>> planning ahead! :-)
>
> Is anyone else having a problem of posts repeating themselves a few days
> after the original post?
>
> I suspect that it is on my end, but I don't even know where to start
> looking.
>
> This post came on the 22nd, and it reappeared again today. I am getting
> this type of thing 20 or 30 times per day.
>
> I just switched computers, while mine is on loan.
>
> Anyone have any ideas? Using OE on a XP machine. Charter Cable is my
> service provider.
> --
> Jim in NC
I'm getting it too. nntp.charter.net

Al G

In rec.aviation.piloting Al G > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>
>> Is anyone else having a problem of posts repeating themselves a few
>> days after the original post?
>
> I'm getting it too. nntp.charter.net

Charter appears to have outsourced its news service to Highwinds Media.
Cox (another cable TV company and my ISP) used to run its own news
servers, but also outsourced to Highwinds a while back. You could tell
when that happened because the news service started to suck. I (and
other Cox customers) have been seeing the same thing over the past few
days: missing posts, and old posts showing up again.

Highwinds appears to optimize for the porn and warez downloaders at
the expense of making text groups work correctly. You can complain to
Charter, but if they're anything like Cox, nobody on the first-level
support desk has even heard of Usenet.

The solution is probably a third-party news service that isn't a
tentacle of or reseller of Highwinds. I haven't (yet) been annoyed
enough to make the switch.

Matt Roberds

> wrote in message
...
> The solution is probably a third-party news service that isn't a
> tentacle of or reseller of Highwinds. I haven't (yet) been annoyed
> enough to make the switch.

Worldnet (att.net) still has an excellent news server. I keep waiting for
it to suck or (worse) disappear, but not yet.

Vaughn

On Jul 24, 5:48 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 7:13 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> >> "Scott Skylane" > wrote
>
> >>> Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model engine,
> >>> the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be surprised if
> >>> Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the cylinder design. As
> >>> a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft powerplant, I personally think they
> >>> made a good choice.
> >> I agree, most completely!
>
> >> The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the Rotax
> >> powered LSA's.
>
> >> Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
> >> installation of a 200 vs. a 912?
> >> --
> >> Jim in NC
>
> > I don't know what the firewall-forward weights would be, but the basic
> > dry weight of the Rotax is 132 lbs versus 170 lbs for the Continental.
>
> It is pretty disingenuous to compare the dry weight of a liquid cooled
> engine against an air cooled engine. What is the operational weight of
> the Rotax?
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The engine manufacturers don't report operational weights. They list
dry weights in their specifications. But I did discover that the
Rotax 912 uses 4.4 quarts of coolant. I would guess that is around 10
pounds worth of coolant. Plus you would need to add the weight of a
radiator and hoses, so let's say that is another 10 pounds.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote
>> And the O-200 model "D" should have "at least a 25 pound weight
>> reduction" over previous models.
>
> Really?
>
> What do you think they are planning to do, to lighten it up that much? (or
> any)
>

I'd expect some tighter tolerance machinings and castings, electronic
ignition versus magnetos, and higher-tech starter and alternator.

Supposedly Cessna took orders for 400 Skythings by the close of
business at Oshkosh. I wonder if that equals all other LSAs to date?

Speaking of bloat and high prices, Cub Crafters is offering a Cub
Sport (whatever) at about $120,000. And Legend Aircraft is offering a
Cub with AUTOPILOT.

Yes, it's a wonderful thing how LSA has brought flying back to its
essentials.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

I love the manual flaps on my 1964 Cessna 172E. Much better than the
electric.

Al
1964 Skyhawk
KSFF

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>
> Nothing ground-breaking, not even for Cessna. 150s had mechanical flaps until
> the late '60s.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "Ken Finney" > wrote
>>> And the O-200 model "D" should have "at least a 25 pound weight reduction" over previous models.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> What do you think they are planning to do, to lighten it up that much? (or any)
>>
>
> I'd expect some tighter tolerance machinings and castings, electronic ignition versus magnetos, and higher-tech
> starter and alternator.
>
>

Yes, it has no mags, and is FADEC.

Is the New SkyCatcher engine set up for 100LL only or will buyers
have the option of an auto gas version???

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/







Jim Logajan > wrote:
> For those who haven't seen this, Cessna has provided lots more detail on
> its LSA entry:
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/
>
> Fancy brochure:
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/lsa_mini_bro_web.pdf
>
> Order form with pricing (for first 1000):
>
> http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/images/sc_order_pckt_final_0721.pdf

"Blueskies" > wrote

> Yes, it has no mags, and is FADEC.

I still don't see those changes adding up to 25 pounds.

I will be surprised if we see it 10 pounds lighter.
--
Jim in NC

Phil wrote:
> On Jul 24, 5:48 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Phil wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 7:13 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>>>> "Scott Skylane" > wrote
>>>>> Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model engine,
>>>>> the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be surprised if
>>>>> Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the cylinder design. As
>>>>> a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft powerplant, I personally think they
>>>>> made a good choice.
>>>> I agree, most completely!
>>>> The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the Rotax
>>>> powered LSA's.
>>>> Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
>>>> installation of a 200 vs. a 912?
>>>> --
>>>> Jim in NC
>>> I don't know what the firewall-forward weights would be, but the basic
>>> dry weight of the Rotax is 132 lbs versus 170 lbs for the Continental.
>> It is pretty disingenuous to compare the dry weight of a liquid cooled
>> engine against an air cooled engine. What is the operational weight of
>> the Rotax?
>>
>> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The engine manufacturers don't report operational weights. They list
> dry weights in their specifications. But I did discover that the
> Rotax 912 uses 4.4 quarts of coolant. I would guess that is around 10
> pounds worth of coolant. Plus you would need to add the weight of a
> radiator and hoses, so let's say that is another 10 pounds.

I would list dry weight also if I was selling a liquid cooled engine! I
suspect that your estimate is pretty close. This changes the weight
comparison quite dramatically. The Rotax may well still be lighter, but
152 compared to 170 isn't nearly as dramatic as 132 compared to 170.
I'll bet that when both are operationally ready the weight difference is
minor.

Matt

Before I left today, they were at over 500 of them "sold".

Blueskies wrote:
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message ...
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>>> "Ken Finney" > wrote
>>>> And the O-200 model "D" should have "at least a 25 pound weight reduction" over previous models.
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> What do you think they are planning to do, to lighten it up that much? (or any)
>>>
>> I'd expect some tighter tolerance machinings and castings, electronic ignition versus magnetos, and higher-tech
>> starter and alternator.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, it has no mags, and is FADEC.
>
>

On Jul 27, 2:12 pm, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
> Supposedly Cessna took orders for 400 Skythings by the close of
> business at Oshkosh. I wonder if that equals all other LSAs to date?
>
> Speaking of bloat and high prices, Cub Crafters is offering a Cub
> Sport (whatever) at about $120,000. And Legend Aircraft is offering a
> Cub with AUTOPILOT.
>
> Yes, it's a wonderful thing how LSA has brought flying back to its
> essentials.
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> forthcoming from HarperCollinswww.flyingtigersbook.com

That is truly amazing (400-500 sold)...I am still trying to figure out
what one does with it...I guess it is a ying yang thing...IF I could
get away with no radios flying the light stuff I would...

Robert

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

> Yeah, it's about 100#s heavier empty than a lot of the competition.

It is 100 lbs lighter than a Legend Cub, carries 8 more gallons of fuel
and flies 10 kts faster.

"Phil" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 23, 3:23 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:46:01 +0000 (UTC),
>> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >I think it's unfortunate that it uses the O-200 engine.
>>
>> IIRC, the Cont O-200 has a TBO of 1,800 hours. Have you checked the
>> TBO on the Rotax?
>
> TBO on the Rotax is 1,500 hours.

And then you throw it away and buy a new one because no one will work on it
and you couldn't get parts if you could find someone to do the overhaul.

"Phil" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 23, 12:24 pm, Jay Beckman > wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 7:31 am, Phil > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Phil,
>>
>> > > > I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck
>> > > > with
>> > > > Cessna 162 and left it at that.
>>
>> > > You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
>> > No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
>> > sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
>> > just made out of scrap wood.
>>
>> And if it gets (or more importantly keeps...) that eight year old
>> dreaming of flight and ultimately leads to him/her getting his/her
>> certificate, what's the problem?
>>
>> Jay Beckman
>> PP-ASEL
>> Chandler, AZ
>> (Former builder of planes out of scrap wood)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I think it's a fine name for a scrap or balsa wood airplane for
> children. Not so great for a full-size aluminum one aimed at adults.
> Frankly, I am disappointed in general with the 162. I am a fan of the
> light sport segment. I am currently a student working on getting my
> sport pilot license. I would have liked to see Cessna come out with
> an airplane that at least equaled what the other manufacturers have
> developed, if not bettered them. As an American, I want to see
> American manufacturers develop superior products. This airplane looks
> to be inferior to most other LSA's in useful load and range. It
> doesn't include a chute except as an option. It doesn't have safety
> features such as a safety cage around the passenger compartment, which
> the Tecnam does have. And to top it all off, it's more expensive than
> the competition.
>
> On the plus side, I think it looks great. Although I think it would
> look better without those wing struts. Low-wing planes have been
> flying without struts for years. Why is it that high-wing planes
> still use them? They cause drag and they spoil the view.
>
> I also like the way they have set up the sticks, coming from beneath
> the panel rather than up from the floor. That would definitely make
> it easier to get in and out of the cockpit.

You conveniently forgot to mention that it has a real engine that can be
fixed by any maintenance facility.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Skylane" > wrote
>
>> Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model
>> engine, the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be
>> surprised if Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the
>> cylinder design. As a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft
>> powerplant, I personally think they made a good choice.
>
> I agree, most completely!
>
> The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the Rotax
> powered LSA's.
>
> Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
> installation of a 200 vs. a 912?
> --
> Jim in NC

I would give up 100 pounds of useful to fly behind the O-200 vs the rotax.

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ken Finney" > wrote
>>> And the O-200 model "D" should have "at least a 25 pound weight
>>> reduction" over previous models.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> What do you think they are planning to do, to lighten it up that much?
>> (or any)
>>
>
> I'd expect some tighter tolerance machinings and castings, electronic
> ignition versus magnetos, and higher-tech starter and alternator.


Continental had one on display at OSH. It had numerous changes that saved
weight. Starter and alternator are probably worth 15 pounds alone. Oil
tank was lightweight also.

John T wrote:
> Before I left today, they were at over 500 of them "sold".

Somebody up-thread made the comment that the 400 number was probably more
than all the LSA sales combined. The August Aviation Consumer has an article
on the LSA market and quote 1000 have been sold and delivered. "as of this
writing" which one would assume was a month or so ago." And they were
talking about the real airplane part of the LSA rules not weight-shift,
powered parachute...

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, it's about 100#s heavier empty than a lot of the competition.
>
> It is 100 lbs lighter than a Legend Cub, carries 8 more gallons of
> fuel and flies 10 kts faster.

Let's see, 50 year old design compared to a modern composite design. Yes,
that a fair comparison.

It seems that Legend put their Cub on SlimFast recently though it is still a
little chubby.

http://www.legend.aero/news.asp?id=44
Following an extensive review of the design of the Legend Cub, the company
has determined new empty weights for its three base models as follows. The
open cowl model, or J-3 style, with a Continental O-200 engine weighs in at
830 lbs. A closed cowl version, or PA-11 style, with the same engine weighs
in at 845 lbs. The lightest weight unit features a Jabiru 3300A engine and
is available in a closed cowl. This model weighs in at 800 lbs.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

> Somebody up-thread made the comment that the 400 number was probably more
> than all the LSA sales combined. The August Aviation Consumer has an article
> on the LSA market and quote 1000 have been sold and delivered. "as of this
> writing" which one would assume was a month or so ago." And they were
> talking about the real airplane part of the LSA rules not weight-shift,
> powered parachute...

On my last pass by the Cessna tent, the number of $5000 deposits on the
toteboard was 550. Did anyone catch the number at show closing?

john smith wrote:
>
> On my last pass by the Cessna tent, the number of $5000 deposits on
> the toteboard was 550. Did anyone catch the number at show closing?

550 that is great. Anybody how many planes the recreational pilot license
program added to the US fleet?

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> Anybody how many planes the recreational pilot license program added to the US
> fleet?

The recreational license has been around for several years now and has had
no discernable effect. The jury is still out on the Sport Pilot license.

In rec.aviation.owning Vaughn Simon > wrote:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...

> > Anybody how many planes the recreational pilot license program added to the US
> > fleet?

> The recreational license has been around for several years now and has had
> no discernable effect. The jury is still out on the Sport Pilot license.

That's because the Recreational license has no value other than
slightly reduced training costs.

The Sport Pilot license has training costs reduced further, cheaper
airplanes, both in purchase and operational costs, and no medical.

The initial batch flying Sport Pilot will be the blue hair set that
is still basically healthy, but can't, or is afraid they won't, pass
a medical, or could with waivers but don't want the hassle.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:34:58 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>> Anybody how many planes the recreational pilot license program added to the US
>> fleet?
>
> The recreational license has been around for several years now and has had
>no discernable effect. The jury is still out on the Sport Pilot license.

The last time I checked, I think there were 183 people in the US
flying on recreational pilot privileges, and it declined each year.

(Many student pilots at schools got a recreational certificate en
route to their private certificate. Those weren't counted.)

I'm not sure that there will ever be an accurate count on sport
pilots. Presumably we, like George W Bush, will be shown on the FAA
data base as "no current medical".

(I became a sport pilot last December, when my medical expired and it
had become too much of a hassle to renew it.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
from HarperCollins on August 21 www.flyingtigersbook.com

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:24:59 GMT, wrote:

>The initial batch flying Sport Pilot will be the blue hair set that
>is still basically healthy, but can't, or is afraid they won't, pass
>a medical, or could with waivers but don't want the hassle.

That's me!

Except that my hair isn't blue, it's pink for the scalp showing
through.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
from HarperCollins on August 21 www.flyingtigersbook.com

> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> from HarperCollins on August 21 www.flyingtigersbook.com

Dan, just want to say thank you for the story on your website about
Bluie West.
I will have to go back and read the other information you have posted.
Thanks again.

Cubdriver wrote:
> I'm not sure that there will ever be an accurate count on sport
> pilots. Presumably we, like George W Bush, will be shown on the FAA
> data base as "no current medical".
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>

Good point Dan, AOPA and EAA need to do something to get the folks that
transition from higher certificates to LSA counted because if we don't get
counted we don't count. At least as far as congress is concerned.

Cubdriver wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:24:59 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>>The initial batch flying Sport Pilot will be the blue hair set that
>>is still basically healthy, but can't, or is afraid they won't, pass
>>a medical, or could with waivers but don't want the hassle.
>
>
> That's me!
>
> Except that my hair isn't blue, it's pink for the scalp showing
> through.
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> from HarperCollins on August 21 www.flyingtigersbook.com
I met a young gentleman who became a sport pilot when he passed his
checkride the first day of OSH. I'm guessing he was in his early
twenties. He's also been in a wheelchair for 12 years. I can see a lot
of those who didn't want to deal with the hassle of a medical, or knew
they couldn't get one, but always wanted to fly.

Margy

On Jul 29, 11:32 am, "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> "Phil" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 12:24 pm, Jay Beckman > wrote:
> >> On Jul 23, 7:31 am, Phil > wrote:
>
> >> > On Jul 23, 4:00 am, Thomas Borchert >
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > > Phil,
>
> >> > > > I'm sorry, but SkyCatcher?? I think they should have just stuck
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > Cessna 162 and left it at that.
>
> >> > > You seem to forget that the other Cessnas all have silly names, too.
>
> >> > > --
> >> > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
> >> > No, I knew that. But in silliness, this one goes to eleven. It
> >> > sounds like a name an eight year old would pick for the airplane he
> >> > just made out of scrap wood.
>
> >> And if it gets (or more importantly keeps...) that eight year old
> >> dreaming of flight and ultimately leads to him/her getting his/her
> >> certificate, what's the problem?
>
> >> Jay Beckman
> >> PP-ASEL
> >> Chandler, AZ
> >> (Former builder of planes out of scrap wood)- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I think it's a fine name for a scrap or balsa wood airplane for
> > children. Not so great for a full-size aluminum one aimed at adults.
> > Frankly, I am disappointed in general with the 162. I am a fan of the
> > light sport segment. I am currently a student working on getting my
> > sport pilot license. I would have liked to see Cessna come out with
> > an airplane that at least equaled what the other manufacturers have
> > developed, if not bettered them. As an American, I want to see
> > American manufacturers develop superior products. This airplane looks
> > to be inferior to most other LSA's in useful load and range. It
> > doesn't include a chute except as an option. It doesn't have safety
> > features such as a safety cage around the passenger compartment, which
> > the Tecnam does have. And to top it all off, it's more expensive than
> > the competition.
>
> > On the plus side, I think it looks great. Although I think it would
> > look better without those wing struts. Low-wing planes have been
> > flying without struts for years. Why is it that high-wing planes
> > still use them? They cause drag and they spoil the view.
>
> > I also like the way they have set up the sticks, coming from beneath
> > the panel rather than up from the floor. That would definitely make
> > it easier to get in and out of the cockpit.
>
> You conveniently forgot to mention that it has a real engine that can be
> fixed by any maintenance facility.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well you can always buy one of the other LSAs for 10-15 thousand less,
and figure your first 10-15 thousand dollars worth of repairs are
free. For that kind of savings, you could just about ship the
airplane across the country for repairs.

Phil wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:13 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Scott Skylane" > wrote
>>
>>> Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D" model engine,
>>> the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be surprised if
>>> Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the cylinder design. As
>>> a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft powerplant, I personally think they
>>> made a good choice.
>> I agree, most completely!
>>
>> The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the Rotax
>> powered LSA's.
>>
>> Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
>> installation of a 200 vs. a 912?
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> I don't know what the firewall-forward weights would be, but the basic
> dry weight of the Rotax is 132 lbs versus 170 lbs for the Continental.
>
To All: I think from the sake of costs, that a Legend J-3 would be a
better deal. Ironically, it uses the same engine.

John Boyle wrote:

> To All: I think from the sake of costs, that a Legend J-3 would be a
> better deal. Ironically, it uses the same engine.

Well, not exactly. As I previously stated, the 162 uses the new
O-200"D" motor, which Continental says will be a lighter, more advanced
version of the classic O-200 mill. We still don't know what the details
are, as the type spec hasn't been issued yet.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

"John Boyle" > wrote in message
m...
>>
> To All: I think from the sake of costs, that a Legend J-3 would be a better
> deal. Ironically, it uses the same engine.

I think you will find that the Legend J-3 has even less useful load than the
new Cezzna.

Even if their useful loads were the same, they are such different aircraft as to
not even be comparable to each other. I am not saying that one is better than
the other, just that they are totally different aircraft. Which one is "best"
would depend on your needs.

Vaughn

"John Boyle" > wrote

> To All: I think from the sake of costs, that a Legend J-3 would be a
> better deal. Ironically, it uses the same engine.

If a J-3 is what you want, sure.

Comparing the two is about like comparing an apple to an orange. You can
eat them both, and they are both round and grow on trees, but that is where
the similarities end.
--
Jim in NC

John Boyle wrote:
> Phil wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 7:13 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>>> "Scott Skylane" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Don't knock the O-200 quite so fast. The 162 is getting the "D"
>>>> model engine,
>>>> the Type Spec of which hasn't even been issued, yet. I would be
>>>> surprised if
>>>> Continental doesn't incorporate some improvements to the cylinder
>>>> design. As
>>>> a rugged, easy-to-maintain light aircraft powerplant, I personally
>>>> think they
>>>> made a good choice.
>>> I agree, most completely!
>>>
>>> The fact that it has the O-200 would make me buy it, rather than the
>>> Rotax
>>> powered LSA's.
>>>
>>> Anyone know what a weight comparison would be for a firewall forward
>>> installation of a 200 vs. a 912?
>>> --
>>> Jim in NC
>>
>> I don't know what the firewall-forward weights would be, but the basic
>> dry weight of the Rotax is 132 lbs versus 170 lbs for the Continental.
>>
> To All: I think from the sake of costs, that a Legend J-3 would be a
> better deal. Ironically, it uses the same engine.

The best figures I've seen quoted for the o-200 give about 23 litres per
hour. Compared to my Rotax 912 at 13 litres per hour this is THIRSTY.
Even with the lower cost of avgas in the US, the difference must be
enormous.
For reference, 10 extra litres per hour means $15.30 extra per hour here
in Australia.
Gregg

gregg wrote:


>
> The best figures I've seen quoted for the o-200 give about 23 litres per
> hour. Compared to my Rotax 912 at 13 litres per hour this is THIRSTY.
> Even with the lower cost of avgas in the US, the difference must be
> enormous.
> For reference, 10 extra litres per hour means $15.30 extra per hour here
> in Australia.
> Gregg

Gregg,

I've no experience with the Rotax, but A LOT with the O-200. 20 litres
per hour is a very realistic number at a high cruise setting. I suspect
the 13 per our figure you're referencing is at a somewhat conservative
power level. Also, don't forget that the average O-200 will go about
1000 hours longer before overhaul than the 912. I understand that the
overhaul cost of a Rotax is somewhat less than the Continental, but I
wonder if that makes up for the reduced interval?

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:03:50 -0800, Scott Skylane
> wrote in >:

>Also, don't forget that the average O-200 will go about
>1000 hours longer before overhaul than the 912.


Someone posted recently that the Rotax 912 TBO is 1,500 hours, and if
I recall correctly, the Continental O-200 TBO is 1,800 hours.

Larry Dighera wrote:


> Someone posted recently that the Rotax 912 TBO is 1,500 hours, and if
> I recall correctly, the Continental O-200 TBO is 1,800 hours.
>

Larry,

I know about the published figures, but I also know that a well kept
O-200 will easily go 2500 hours before needing an overhaul. Again, I
have no Rotax experience, but I've not heard any stories of long-lived
912's. It would be nice to hear from Rotax fleet owners what real
experience they've had.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Scott Skylane wrote:
> gregg wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The best figures I've seen quoted for the o-200 give about 23 litres
>> per hour. Compared to my Rotax 912 at 13 litres per hour this is THIRSTY.
>> Even with the lower cost of avgas in the US, the difference must be
>> enormous.
>> For reference, 10 extra litres per hour means $15.30 extra per hour
>> here in Australia.
>> Gregg
>
> Gregg,
>
> I've no experience with the Rotax, but A LOT with the O-200. 20 litres
> per hour is a very realistic number at a high cruise setting. I suspect
> the 13 per our figure you're referencing is at a somewhat conservative
> power level. Also, don't forget that the average O-200 will go about
> 1000 hours longer before overhaul than the 912.

My 912 is rated 1500 hours between overhaul
and the best info I can find for the O-200
is 1800 hours. Am I missing something?

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Scott Skylane wrote:
>> gregg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The best figures I've seen quoted for the o-200 give about 23 litres
>>> per hour. Compared to my Rotax 912 at 13 litres per hour this is
>>> THIRSTY.
>>> Even with the lower cost of avgas in the US, the difference must be
>>> enormous.
>>> For reference, 10 extra litres per hour means $15.30 extra per hour
>>> here in Australia.
>>> Gregg
>>
>> Gregg,
>>
>> I've no experience with the Rotax, but A LOT with the O-200. 20
>> litres per hour is a very realistic number at a high cruise setting.
>> I suspect the 13 per our figure you're referencing is at a somewhat
>> conservative power level. Also, don't forget that the average O-200
>> will go about 1000 hours longer before overhaul than the 912.
>
> My 912 is rated 1500 hours between overhaul
> and the best info I can find for the O-200
> is 1800 hours. Am I missing something?
>
>
To All: Somebody better check on the weight figures for the Legend, the
company has said they lightend the load and that makes quite a
difference. However, the Legend still costs about $100,000! There is a
kit version for somewhat less, about $30,000 less, approximately. I have
not heard of a Kit version for the Cessna! Problem is the cost of
learning and upkeep is beyond my means.