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.