Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"

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