162's Coming

3Dreaming · Post by **3Dreaming** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:31 pm

LightSportFlyer wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
LightSportFlyer wrote: According to Rotax's own website when you add the listed options onto it's base weight the total for the 912S comes out to 165.8 lbs. I'd be more than happy to leave out 2 gallons of fuel to make up the difference and gain the huge service network the O-200 has vs the Rotax's comparatively small number of qualified mechanics available. LSAs with Rotaxes have been out for 7 years now and getting service is still a problem in many areas.

http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/p ... _S_ULS.pdf
LightSportFlyer, good to hear from you again. I know you don't like foreign made engines, but please try to be accurate in your compairisons. If you had looked at the list of items you were adding you would have seen that not all of them are needed. I mean who would put a propeller governor on an engine for a light sport airplane that can not use a variable pitch prop. The weight I posted came from the FAA TCDS for the O-200D, but from Continental's site the dry weight installed is 199 pounds. http://www.genuinecontinental.aero/o-200.html Lets make a fair comparison for the Rotax. From the web site you posted The engine base weight is 124.8. For the installation I am familiar with you have the oil radiator 1.2, Radiator 2.2, slipper clutch 3.7, Airguide hood 1.8, mounting frame 4.4, and 3/4 gallon of coolant to be fair 6.0. I don't think continental includes airbox or exhaust, but I will add them in anyway 11.6 for both. That gives a difference of 43.3 pounds, but take out the exahust and airbox and the difference is 54.9 pounds. If you want to add in the external generator you can add in 6.6 pounds, but you are still looking at about a fifty pound advantage in weight for the Rotax.
Also with the recent FAA ruling any A&P can work on the Rotax engine without training from Rotax. All they have to do is meet the CFR requirements of having training in the task being performed just like for the continental and Lycoming.
I know your opinions are bought and paid for by Rotax so I will trust my own figures. As to weight differences once again being able to get a traditional engine serviced at any airport is far more valuble to me than however many lbs heavier the Conti is.

LightSportFlyer, you seem to be the one agenda. You say that I am bought and paid for by Rotax. Can you give me your definition of bought and paid for so I can figure out if I am, because I make more off of Continental and Lycoming airplanes than I do Rotax powered ones. Your trusted figures include a Hydraulic propeller governor, a vacuum pump, an external power generator, 2 different kinds of induction systems, and an engine instrument system.

And as for (as you put it), "any A & P can work on the Rotax without training from Rotax" - that is more foolish than having someone work on my complex Cadillac engine without training from the manufacturer. I also want him to have alot of experience working on the engine, which is even harder to find in a Rotax mechanic.

I was trying to point out that any A&P could now learn to work on Rotax engines with the same type of training they received to work on Continental and Lycoming engines. They don't have to pay for Rotax training. Do you hold the same standard for the mechanics that work on your Continental and Lycoming engines, because there are very few that have had factory training to work on them.

Cessna seems to be rapidly ramping up production of the 162 and releasing more of them than many other builders. The O-200 will soon become the most popular LSA engine out there. That's all the proof I need as to which engine is best for me, to each his own.

Ramping up is the only way they could go. I hope Cessna does well with there 162. When one gets located close I will try and go for a ride in one. I have no doubt that the O-200 is a good engine,but I doubt that it will become the most popular LSA engine.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:39 pm

3Dreaming wrote:I have no doubt that the O-200 is a good engine,but I doubt that it will become the most popular LSA engine.

The O-200 is an excellent engine. So is the Rotax 912S. So will the IO-233 be, when they get the bugs out of it and get it into full production. Rather than quibbling about which is the best, or will be the most popular, we should be encouraging all comers, and promoting Light Sport aviation. The more players, the better off we all will be. Remember, folks, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Sarge707 · Post by **Sarge707** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:16 pm

Very informative discussion. I know from 14 Rotax engines in various toys that they DO tend to produce more Power to Weight than the competition BUT require More maintenance.

I just wish 4B8 my Cessna Training center would get a 162 because I just can,t afford the Long trip to a Privates license JUST to go up on the "Pick of the Week," Day in my retirement!!!!

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:09 pm

Sarge707 wrote:they DO tend to produce more Power to Weight than the competition BUT require More maintenance.

True fact. Everything in life is a tradeoff.

Retired Military

And I thank you for serving.

hopefully Sport Pilot before I,m 65.

Better hurry up, sarge!

3Dreaming · Post by **3Dreaming** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:10 pm

drseti wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:I have no doubt that the O-200 is a good engine,but I doubt that it will become the most popular LSA engine.
The O-200 is an excellent engine. So is the Rotax 912S. So will the IO-233 be, when they get the bugs out of it and get it into full production. Rather than quibbling about which is the best, or will be the most popular, we should be encouraging all comers, and promoting Light Sport aviation. The more players, the better off we all will be. Remember, folks, a rising tide lifts all boats.

I think you took me wrong. I have no problem with any of the engines and I'm not trying to promote one over the other regaurdless of what LightSportFlyer thinks. When there is a 40-50 pound weight penalty in favor of the Rotax and we have a 1320 pound weight limit it will be hard for Continental and Lycoming to overcome.

LightSportFlyer · Post by **LightSportFlyer** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:16 pm

3Dreaming wrote:Ramping up is the only way they could go. I hope Cessna does well with there 162. When one gets located close I will try and go for a ride in one. I have no doubt that the O-200 is a good engine,but I doubt that it will become the most popular LSA engine.[/color]

Sorry I've got far better things to do with my time than read all that biased self serving nonsense of yours. Based on previous discussions with you here IMO your credibility is good for two things and one of them is nothing.

Cessna has over 1,000 orders on the books for the 162 with the O-200 ( or maybe Lycoming IO-233 ) Add in other LSA builders who have been installing that engine for years like American Legend, Cubcrafters, AMD etc and it WILL be the leader. Guess you were out the day they taught math in school.

LightSportFlyer · Post by **LightSportFlyer** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:19 pm

drseti wrote:
LightSportFlyer wrote: open your eyes and give your bias a rest for once.
My bias, such as it is, comes from frequent discussions with Rick, an engineer at Lycoming who has far more knowledge about this engine than you or I. He tells me that they are still trying to reduce weight, and are not up to quantity production yet. I will see him Monday night at the Williamsport Regional Association of Pilots meeting, and will post an update here.

Better yet have Rick himself post ( along with contact info at Lycoming to prove he is who you say he is ).

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:07 pm

LightSportFlyer wrote:Sorry I've got far better things to do with my time than read all that biased self serving nonsense

C'mon , guys and gals, we're all here for the same reason, because we love LSA flying. Let's keep a positive attitude, and not snipe at each other! There's absolutely nothing wrong with having differing opinions -- but please, keep things civil.

Cub flyer · Post by **Cub flyer** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:59 pm

Sounds good to me.

I'm hoping a Cessna rep stops here with one so I can try it out. Or a 162 shows up local that I can rent for an hour. That's the only way to find out.
We can speculate all we want but in the end nobody really knows till they fly one.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:06 pm

Cub flyer wrote:I'm hoping a Cessna rep stops here with one so I can try it out.

If one shows up at Sentimental Journey, you'll have to get in line behind me to fly it! I sat in the mockup at Sun'n'fun three years ago, and liked the concept -- but only flying the real deal will answer my questions.

Now that Piper is out of the LSA business, I'm counting on Cessna to give the category legitimacy. This doesn't necessarily mean I want to own one, but I certainly welcome them into the fleet.

3Dreaming · Post by **3Dreaming** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:13 pm

LightSportFlyer wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:Ramping up is the only way they could go. I hope Cessna does well with there 162. When one gets located close I will try and go for a ride in one. I have no doubt that the O-200 is a good engine,but I doubt that it will become the most popular LSA engine.[/color]
Sorry I've got far better things to do with my time than read all that biased self serving nonsense of yours. Based on previous discussions with you here IMO your credibility is good for two things and one of them is nothing.

Cessna has over 1,000 orders on the books for the 162 with the O-200 ( or maybe Lycoming IO-233 ) Add in other LSA builders who have been installing that engine for years like American Legend, Cubcrafters, AMD etc and it WILL be the leader. Guess you were out the day they taught math in school.

I'm old enough to know better than to play with TROLLS, but it is so much fun. That is until someone gets mean. LightSportFlyer, I have never said one bad thing about you in this thread or any other thread. I have not said one bad thing about Lycoming, Continental, or Cessna. You calling me biased and self serving is unfounded, but funny considering the source. And sir your opinion of my credibility would be offensive if I valued your opinion.

In a few years you maybe able to come on here and say I told you so, but we will have to wait and see. I was in school when they taught math. I'm smart enough to know you can't put a sunroof in a converable just because it is on the option list. I also know it is much easier to count something that has already been built compared to something that is not built yet. Do you have a guess for which engine manufacture has sold the most aircraft engines the last several years. Here is another question in 2007 which aircraft manufacture sold the most flying single engine airplanes world wide?

Cub flyer · Post by **Cub flyer** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:21 pm

I think Piper will be back. They must have learned a thing or two. I'm kind of excited that they are back to pushing things a little with their designs. Not as much as Pug Piper but it appears they are getting more aggressive.

I'll challenge you in the spot landing contest to see who gets the demo ride first. Bomb drop would not be fair to a low winger.

Would a new Cessna show up at a Piper show?

I'll bring the baby Beech to see everyone try to figure out what year Tomahawk had an elevator and bonded wings.

Last time I brought the tri gear PA-11 and all the Cub guys got visibly green with envy. Or sickness I'm not sure what it was. They made me park wayyy down at the far end of the field. Everyone just pointed and stayed three airplanes away. Maybe because it's red instead of yellow?

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:33 pm

Cub flyer wrote:I think Piper will be back.

I sure hope so, Charlie.

I'll challenge you in the spot landing contest to see who gets the demo ride first.

Challenge accepted!

Bomb drop would not be fair to a low winger.

Especially since my canopy can't be opened in flight.

Would a new Cessna show up at a Piper show?

Sentimental Journey has always emphasized that all brands are welcome. Cub Haven is a place, not an exclusion.

They made me park wayyy down at the far end of the field.

Not as far down as they parked me! I was stuck next to the C54 (actually, in pretty nice company).

All you folks who don't know what we're talking about should come to KLHV for the Sentimental Journey fly-in, 22-25 June 2011.

BTW, Charlie, I'm doing an FAA Wings seminar on LSA maintenance , next Saturday morning at 10 AM. Hope you can come.

KSCessnaDriver · Post by **KSCessnaDriver** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:42 pm

LightSportFlyer wrote:Cessna has over 1,000 orders on the books for the 162 with the O-200 ( or maybe Lycoming IO-233 ) Add in other LSA builders who have been installing that engine for years like American Legend, Cubcrafters, AMD etc and it WILL be the leader. Guess you were out the day they taught math in school.

I don't like playing with TROLLS either, but I've got to point this out. Cessna has over 1,000 orders on the books, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that probably 1/3 of them are speculative in nature, from before the economy took a dive a few years ago.

Honestly, I'd be shocked if they deliver more than 500 of those over 1000 ordered within the US.

Cub flyer · Post by **Cub flyer** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:47 pm

We'll see how the schedule goes. I spoke for a while at a FAAST team seminar on LSA handling and flying qualities for instructors. It was interesting. Hopefully you have heat in your hangar!