Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"

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.