Rec.Aviation OSH report

Dan,

Two flying prototypes...vaporware?


Proof of concept, not prototypes.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Dan,


Two flying prototypes...vaporware?



Proof of concept, not prototypes.

No, they are prototypes. The concept of light jets was proven decades
ago so Honda isn't proving any concept with their Jet. Likewise,
composite light planes are a proven concept as well so neither is Cessna
proving any concept. I'll bet if they move to production the production
versions will look a lot like these prototypes, thus confirming that
they are prototypes.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Dan,


Two flying prototypes...vaporware?



Proof of concept, not prototypes.

No, they are prototypes. The concept of light jets was proven decades ago
so Honda isn't proving any concept with their Jet. Likewise, composite
light planes are a proven concept as well so neither is Cessna proving any
concept. I'll bet if they move to production the production versions will
look a lot like these prototypes, thus confirming that they are
prototypes.

Matt

I am guessing that for tax purposes, calling it a "proof of concept" is
better than calling it a "prototype".

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:44:10 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote:

I am guessing that for tax purposes, calling it a "proof of concept" is
better than calling it a "prototype".

Don't know why it would make a difference, tax-wise.

My guess is that it's a combination of factors. "Prototype" implies it is the
first aircraft of a series of aircraft, and Cessna may not yet have Board of
Directors' approval to start production.

Also, if major changes have to be made (such as a switch to another engine), the
"spin control" is easier with a "Proof of Concept." Big changes between the
"Prototype" and the production aircraft implies some faulty decisions during the
design process, but if you call it a "Proof of Concept" you can just claim,
"Well, we were just trying different ideas, pushing the envelope, that sort of
thing." Then you build a "prototype" that closely matches the production model.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote

Don't know why it would make a difference, tax-wise.

My guess is that it's a combination of factors. "Prototype" implies it is
the
first aircraft of a series of aircraft, and Cessna may not yet have Board
of
Directors' approval to start production.

Also, if major changes have to be made (such as a switch to another
engine), the
"spin control" is easier with a "Proof of Concept." Big changes between
the
"Prototype" and the production aircraft implies some faulty decisions
during the
design process, but if you call it a "Proof of Concept" you can just
claim,
"Well, we were just trying different ideas, pushing the envelope, that
sort of
thing." Then you build a "prototype" that closely matches the production
model.

I can't figure out why they chose the Rotax. Wouldn't an O-200 work well in
that plane?

I'll bet the FBO's would be more comfortable with a regular 'ole engine in
it, that they know and understand how to work on.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...


I can't figure out why they chose the Rotax. Wouldn't an O-200 work well
in
that plane?

WEight
Performance
1970s technology (aot 1930s)
Auto gas
Less expensive initial and parts
Reliability




I'll bet the FBO's would be more comfortable with a regular 'ole engine in
it, that they know and understand how to work on.

These are destined to be the "regular 'ole engines" in the years to come.

Jim

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:49:32 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:


"Morgans" wrote in message
...


I can't figure out why they chose the Rotax. Wouldn't an O-200 work well
in
that plane?

WEight
Performance
1970s technology (aot 1930s)
Auto gas
Less expensive initial and parts
Reliability

I'll bet the FBO's would be more comfortable with a regular 'ole engine in
it, that they know and understand how to work on.

These are destined to be the "regular 'ole engines" in the years to come.

'An when you get to Weir's age, being "regular" is the most important thing
there is! :-)

But the Rotax is not every tolerant of 100LL fuel. The lead gets dissolved into
the oil and sludges things up...these engines don't have the sloppy tolerances
of the Lycosaurs.

From http://www.rtx-av-engines.ca/PDF/techinfofuel.pdf:

"The problems with the leaded fuels are the pollution and the heavy deposits
of lead left on the spark plugs, piston rings, oil passages, and cylinder heads.
Fuels with lead can be used if the operator is willing to increase maintenance
on these parts. In many cases the engine will require a top overhaul well before
the TBO due to the lead contamination. Additives that help purge the lead, TCP
for example, are beneficial, but, are not yet recommended by Rotax due to the
volatile nature of such an additive. The Rotax liquid cooled head is also a
problem with a lead enhanced fuel. In simple terms it runs too cold. The head
never gets hot enough to allow the lead to “purge” itself of the deposits and
they build up over time."

Most of the reports regarding Diamond's switch from the Rotax 912 to the
Continental IO-240 emphasize the increased power, but AVweb says some smaller
operators were having problems with the engine. Due to the use of 100LL?

Filling up your friendly personal LSA with car gas isn't a problem...but an FBO
considering operating a fleet as trainers may well be scared off due to the
increased maintenance and the decrease in overhaul interval.

Yes, they *should* just set up a autofuel tanking system...but we've got a
chicken and the egg situation, there.

It *does* make you wonder about all those LSA companies, selling planes that
require fuel that isn't sold at 99% of American airports....

My bet? Cessna switches to a Lycosaur, if the plane goes into production.


Ron Wanttaja

------snip---------

I can't figure out why they chose the Rotax. Wouldn't an O-200 work well
in
that plane?

I'll bet the FBO's would be more comfortable with a regular 'ole engine in
it, that they know and understand how to work on.
--
Jim in NC

I agree, and this is the primary source of my extreme irritation with the
current weight limit. If you add 25Kg to the engine, then you have to make
the airframe or usefull load that much less, with the result that
manufacturers are driven to accept finicky little engines with levels of
residual thrust that would be barely acceptable in a jet.

Peter

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:44:10 GMT, "Ken Finney"

wrote:

I am guessing that for tax purposes, calling it a "proof of concept" is
better than calling it a "prototype".

Don't know why it would make a difference, tax-wise.

My guess is that it's a combination of factors. "Prototype" implies it is
the
first aircraft of a series of aircraft, and Cessna may not yet have Board
of
Directors' approval to start production.

Also, if major changes have to be made (such as a switch to another
engine), the
"spin control" is easier with a "Proof of Concept." Big changes between
the
"Prototype" and the production aircraft implies some faulty decisions
during the
design process, but if you call it a "Proof of Concept" you can just
claim,
"Well, we were just trying different ideas, pushing the envelope, that
sort of
thing." Then you build a "prototype" that closely matches the production
model.

Ron Wanttaja

I live for tax law, but I've never owned a manufacturing company. ;^)

I'm guessing that a "proof of concept" is research and development, and
therefore deductable in the year it occurs, whereas the tooling etcetera for
a prototype would have to be amortized over time.

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:44:10 GMT, "Ken Finney"

wrote:

I am guessing that for tax purposes, calling it a "proof of concept" is
better than calling it a "prototype".

Don't know why it would make a difference, tax-wise.

My guess is that it's a combination of factors. "Prototype" implies it is
the
first aircraft of a series of aircraft, and Cessna may not yet have Board
of
Directors' approval to start production.

Also, if major changes have to be made (such as a switch to another
engine), the
"spin control" is easier with a "Proof of Concept." Big changes between
the
"Prototype" and the production aircraft implies some faulty decisions
during the
design process, but if you call it a "Proof of Concept" you can just
claim,
"Well, we were just trying different ideas, pushing the envelope, that
sort of
thing." Then you build a "prototype" that closely matches the production
model.

Ron Wanttaja

I believe that you have smacked the nail squarely on the head!

Peter