Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"

"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.