If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
"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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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 (: |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher"
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cessna's new LSA: "Skycatcher" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 107 | September 23rd 07 01:18 AM |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |
More on Cessna's new "Cirrus Killer" | [email protected] | Piloting | 49 | November 13th 05 02:29 PM |