Sport Pilot Talk

jake · Joined: 25 Oct 2009 Posts: 80 Location: minnesota

Sounds like there is alot of interest in the new Lycoming LSA
engine.
Does anyone know which manurfacturers will use the lycoming?

Electronic ignition and fuel injection would be nice.

Jake

zdc · Guest

jake wrote: Sounds like there is alot of interest in the new Lycoming LSA
engine.
Does anyone know which manurfacturers will use the lycoming?

Electronic ignition and fuel injection would be nice.

Jake

Aren't Cessna and Lycoming both owned by Textron? I find it odd that Cessna chose the Conti for the Skycatcher and not one of their own engines.

Bill · Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Lycoming 233

zdc wrote: jake wrote: Sounds like there is alot of interest in the new Lycoming LSA
engine.
Does anyone know which manurfacturers will use the lycoming?

Electronic ignition and fuel injection would be nice.

Jake

Aren't Cessna and Lycoming both owned by Textron? I find it odd that Cessna chose the Conti for the Skycatcher and not one of their own engines. I wonder if there's any correlation in the fact that they didn't even choose their own country in which to build it. :?

drseti · Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:20 pm Post subject: Re: Lycoming 233

zdc wrote:
Aren't Cessna and Lycoming both owned by Textron?

Indeed they are. As is McCauley (which is why so many Cessnas use that prop).

Quote: I find it odd that Cessna chose the Conti for the Skycatcher and not one of their own engines.

That's because, when the Skycrasher project was started, Lycoming had no LSA engine. Now they do. I have it on good authority that there will soon be an IO233-powered version of the Skycatcher. Once that's out, I look for the Continental powered option to disappear.

Jack Tyler

There are multiple threads here - with more Q's than A's in them - on the Lycoming 233. This link includes some fairly fresh videos on the apparently final O-233 engine being currently flight tested by Renegade Light Sport in their latest Falcon model:

http://renegadelightsport.com/falcon/

The first video (right side of page) is one of those torturous ad-hoc interviews by Head LSA flack Dan Johnson with Chris Bailey, the head cheerleader, part financier and all around Falcon promoter. The interview's content becomes worthwhile when Bailey describes some of the mods to Lycoming's O-235 engine as it was morphed into the 233 as being tested by Renegade. Over 40#'s of weight saving is (eventually) claimed. If you hang around for the 'in cockpit' side of the video, you'll hear a reference to a 70+# baggage capacity, as well. There was also a claim the a/c is +6/-3 G, one of those (in the LSA world, many) claims that is - my guess - far more likely to be 'proven' by engineering drawings than by dynamic or even static load testing. Caveat emptor when it comes to such bold statements...

The second, lower video was filmed right after the first flight of the Falcon with the O-233, along with some additional discussion about the a/c's mods and initial flight characteristics. This was obviously shot at an earlier time than the above video.

For those interested in the flight envelope of the Falcon, there's a James Lawrence blog on DJ's website - scroll down a few blogs after going to http://www.bydanjohnson.com/index.cfm - that has some tantalizing speed info for those of us who would love to fly an LSA faster than 120 kts, and without abusing the engine. (But let's remember: More available power doesn't mean a higher Vne).

For those motivated to 'Buy American' and/or those not eager to embrace the Rotax engine and its supply chain, it's hard to do better than buying an LSA from Missouri, financed by the owner of a small family business who's been flying for 50+ years and powered by a relatively modern American engine. And it even 'sounds' like an airplane, too... <g>

zaitcev · Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:31 pm Post subject:

Isn't 115hp a little much for an S-LSA though? I can see it being useful in draggy airframes like Savannah, but not in slick ones like CT. How are they going to make it stay within the mandatory speed envelope while maintaining the stall speed? And extra hp is extra fuel burn. Also, it's still heavier than Rotax even with all the weight reductions by removing extra magnetos and the like. I think it would be a great little engine for small certificated airplanes if any ever to happen (after returning the magnetos back, of course), or perhaps a little twin. S-LSA, I am not so sure.

Jack Tyler · Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:29 am Post subject:

"I can see it being useful in draggy airframes like Savannah, but not in slick ones like CT. How are they going to make it stay within the mandatory speed envelope while maintaining the stall speed? And extra hp is extra fuel burn."

Valid Q's to be sure. But let's not forget...
-- Fuel burn is a function of power used, not power available. An example: The Lycoming O-320 150 hp-powered RV-9A I flew last week was burning 9 gph at 142+/- kts IAS, but burned 5.5 gph when throttled back to 55% power and 125 kts IAS. That's about the same fuel burn reported by LSA owners who fly their Rotax 912 100 hp-powered a/c at 75% power who are trying to reach speeds near 120 kts.
-- A manufacturer can limit speed and meet the LSA standard simply by placing a lower max rpm on the a/c. Sonex does this with some of their E-AB built a/c models, I believe. Some commercial E-AB builders buy kits to build and re-sell and one builder I met at Sebring was hawking their RV-9A a/c to SP-licensed pilots as LSA a/c simply by limiting max rpm of the 0-320 a/c. This latter outfit's approach was flaky to say the least, given that the pilot and fuel fuel might have busted the 1320# max weight limit...but the local FSDO had been all over that builder's operation and was still allowing it.
-- Some PPL pilots would very much like the low airframe time, the non-certificated freedom and the new panel technology of an LSA but prefer to fly faster than 120 kts. That doesn't mean the a/c is intended to be flown faster nor that e.g. it's maneuvering and never-exceed speeds change...but that might be less important to the person wanting an extra 10 kts.
-- Let's not forget our friends out West, some of whom especially in the summer months have to fly with quite high density altitudes. In such conditions, it could be quite helpful to have additional power available on take-off at max gross in such conditions, especially if you know the engine is rated to run continuously at 2700 rpm altho' the a/c is limited to 2400 rpm by the manufacturer.

And then there's the Rotax 914, a currently manufactured power plant rated at 115 hp and offered as an option on some LSA a/c...