If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
I do apologize if someone has asked this already, (I just started
reading this post), but can anyone tell me why Cessna decided to have a single center control grip instead of a yoke? It is dead center and goes straight ahead instead of the typical stick between the legs. Also I see alot of people comparing prices to LSA's from over sea's. What are the delivery cost from the Ukrane? Lou |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
"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 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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 |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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 |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 107 | September 23rd 07 01:18 AM |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |
More on Cessna's new "Cirrus Killer" | [email protected] | Piloting | 49 | November 13th 05 02:29 PM |