Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:28:00 +0000 (UTC),
wrote in
:

I applaud the Rotax design, although I agree that it's a bit
too high-strung for using in high-volume certified aircraft.

Thank you for your informative analysis of the differences between air
and liquid cooled aircraft engines, but I'm having a little difficulty
inferring your meaning in your sentence quoted above.

In your opinion, what causes you to characterize the Rotax 912 liquid
engine as being "too high-strung?" Is it a lack of design robustness;
is the Rotax engine more fragile than the Cont. O-200? Does it
require more frequent maintenance?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:28:00 +0000 (UTC),
wrote in
:

I applaud the Rotax design, although I agree that it's a bit
too high-strung for using in high-volume certified aircraft.

Thank you for your informative analysis of the differences between air
and liquid cooled aircraft engines, but I'm having a little difficulty
inferring your meaning in your sentence quoted above.

In your opinion, what causes you to characterize the Rotax 912 liquid
engine as being "too high-strung?" Is it a lack of design robustness;
is the Rotax engine more fragile than the Cont. O-200? Does it
require more frequent maintenance?

It runs at ~5800 rpm which is about 3000 rpm faster than the O-200.

In rec.aviation.owning Larry Dighera wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:28:00 +0000 (UTC),
: wrote in
: :

: I applaud the Rotax design, although I agree that it's a bit
: too high-strung for using in high-volume certified aircraft.

: Thank you for your informative analysis of the differences between air
: and liquid cooled aircraft engines, but I'm having a little difficulty
: inferring your meaning in your sentence quoted above.

: In your opinion, what causes you to characterize the Rotax 912 liquid
: engine as being "too high-strung?" Is it a lack of design robustness;
: is the Rotax engine more fragile than the Cont. O-200? Does it
: require more frequent maintenance?

It's a *very* small displacement to generate the kind of power that it is... 1.35 liters, 5800
RPM, 10.5:1 CR to me is "high-strung."
http://www.kodiakbs.com/engines/912ULS.htm

I'm thinking something of a bit larger displacement, a little less RPM, with a bigger discrepency
between max power and continuous power... in other words, a bit more derated. I realize that this would
come with a weight penalty which is a bigger deal for the max-gross limited LSA. That should allow for a
longer TBO.

-Cory



--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"karl gruber" wrote in message
...

I see the very light jet market, it replaces King Airs even high end
piston twins...I dont see the LSA NEW Market.

Have I missed something here?

Robert


The VLJ competes with a King Air but can never replace it. Even the oldest
KA 90 from 1965 will carry 9 passengers and all their bags.

karl

And be able to stop and taxi on an icy runway/taxiway. I could land
and taxi into
places where I couldn't walk away from the airplane.

Al G

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.

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 (:

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:28:00 +0000 (UTC),
wrote in
:

I applaud the Rotax design, although I agree that it's a bit
too high-strung for using in high-volume certified aircraft.
Thank you for your informative analysis of the differences between air
and liquid cooled aircraft engines, but I'm having a little difficulty
inferring your meaning in your sentence quoted above.

In your opinion, what causes you to characterize the Rotax 912 liquid
engine as being "too high-strung?" Is it a lack of design robustness;
is the Rotax engine more fragile than the Cont. O-200? Does it
require more frequent maintenance?

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.

I bought the plane because it can cruise for
6 hours at 120 knots, but it's so smooth and
quiet between 90-100 knots that that's where
I do most of my flying.

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?

And can anyone tell us what the maintenance
schedule for the O-200 is?

For the 912, I inspect every 25 hours and do
a plug and oil change every 50 hours. Plugs
are $3 each x 8, oil filter is about $17 and
oil is $10/quart x 3.

Dealer inspection at 100 hour intervals mostly
for the gearbox.

Jim Stewart wrote:
wrote:

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.

But the reduction gear adds another point of failure to the system. Yet
another trade off.

And that's what it boils down to, trade offs.

I'm building a 601xl. There are people using old technology engines (O-200 &
O-235), New Tech engines (Rotax & Jabiru) and car engines (Subaru and
Corvair). There are positives and negatives to each engine.

I'd be willing to bet that Cessna looked at the service system they already
had in place and the decision was simple. much like if I had been working on
Lycoming or Cont. engines for the last 50 years I would have decided on an
O-200 or O-235 for my 601XL.

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.